AB 734: CEQA fast track puts Oakland A’s in scoring position

One of the most costly, time-consuming and complained-about aspects of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act is dealing with litigation that challenges the environmental impact review of the project. CEQA reformers, along with public, private and public-private partnership developers, are always on the hunt for ways to expedite this frequent obstacle in the CEQA process.

When Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 734 (California Environmental Quality Act: Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project), the Oakland Athletics became the latest professional sports team in California to be granted the possibility of expediting CEQA litigation for its new proposed ballpark. Following similar legislation for the Sacramento Kings' arena (AB 732) and projects certified as "Environmental Leadership Development Projects" (AB 900), the AB 734 expedites CEQA litigation by providing a 270-day period during which judicial review of any legal challenge to the new project's approval must be completed through the Court of Appeal, which typically takes two or more years. The bill also effectively cemented Howard Terminal as the site for the A's new ballpark by limiting the law's fast-track benefits to a project at that location.

Although AB 734 may save some time, it is a procedural statute and has no impact on the city's substantive review and analysis of the proposed ballpark's environmental impacts. The city's approval process and the required content of its environmental review under CEQA remain in effect. Instead, the bill provides opportunities for public participation (including workshops, hearings and mediation) and immediate access to administrative record documents before final approval of the ballpark.

AB 734 was modeled on the Sacramento Kings' bill, which survived constitutional challenge (see Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento, 231 Cal. App. 4th 837 (2014)). However, the bill does not assure a home run for the A's because it does not guarantee that all litigation will be resolved within 270 days; it only promises the timeline "to the extent feasible." The Kings achieved this 270-day deadline just under the buzzer (267 days), but other projects have not been as successful.

Expedited projects have also met some resistance from courts. AB 734 requires that any lawsuit challenging the new ballpark be prioritized over other cases on the docket. This can contribute to case backlogs, and the Judicial Council has been a vocal opponent of CEQA streamlining bills. The Court of Appeal in Saltonstall rejected the challenge that the 270-day timeline violated the separation of powers by imposing an impossibly tight deadline that, noting the timeline was suggestive. Indeed, courts have not consistently applied the expedited rules in all cases involving streamlined projects, calling into question the actual time-savings promised by these types of bills.

There is no doubt, however, that AB 734 affords some degree of certainty to the city of Oakland and the Oakland A's, and provides momentum for getting the ballpark approved. Only time will tell if AB 734 is a grand slam for the A's.