67 Cal.App.5th 711
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Assembly Bill 734 (codified at Pub. Resources Code § 21168.6.7) is special, single-project legislation authorizing expedited CEQA review for the Oakland Athletics’ Howard Terminal baseball park if the Governor certifies specified environmental, job‑creation, housing, transit, and other conditions.
- Section 21168.6.7(e)(2) states the Assembly Bill 900 guidelines “apply to the implementation of this section, to the extent those guidelines are applicable and do not conflict with specific requirements of this section.” The then-current Guidelines stated: “The Governor must certify the project prior to January 1, 2020.”
- Petitioners sued (filed Mar. 16, 2020) seeking declaration and mandamus that the Governor’s certification authority expired Jan. 1, 2020 because AB 734 incorporated the AB 900 deadline via the Guidelines.
- Respondents (Governor, City of Oakland, Oakland Athletics) argued AB 734 contains no certification deadline, the Guidelines do not import AB 900 timing, and AB 900 itself had expired/been amended; the trial court granted judgment for respondents. The Governor certified the project Feb. 11, 2021.
- Key practical fact: CARB took about 16 months to determine whether the project met AB 734’s greenhouse gas requirements, a timing consequence the court found incompatible with importing a one‑year certification deadline into AB 734.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 21168.6.7 incorporated the AB 900/Guidelines certification deadline so the Governor’s authority expired Jan. 1, 2020 | The AB 734 reference to the AB 900 Guidelines made those deadlines “applicable” and therefore binding, so the Governor lost certification authority after Jan. 1, 2020 | AB 734 contains no express deadlines; the Guidelines only apply “to the extent … applicable and [not] conflict with specific requirements,” and legislative history and purpose show the Legislature did not intend to import AB 900 timing limits | The Court held AB 734 does not impose a certification deadline; the Governor’s authority to certify remained valid and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 48 Cal.4th 481 (discussion of CEQA purposes and EIR requirements)
- Dyna‑Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (statutory construction principles)
- S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti, 39 Cal.4th 374 (use of extrinsic aids when statutory language permits multiple interpretations)
- Upland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Upland, 111 Cal.App.4th 1294 (construing statutes to effectuate legislative intent)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (adopt the more reasonable interpretation when two are plausible)
- Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 37 Cal.4th 921 (consideration of subsequent legislative action as indicia of intent)