OAKLAND — A coalition of Port of Oakland shipping companies, truckers and other workers have filed a lawsuit in an effort to block the city and Oakland’s A’s plan to build a waterfront ballpark and surrounding village at Howard Terminal.
The lawsuit accuses the city of approving a flawed environmental impact report. that failed to address how the proposed ballpark and mixed-use development would disrupt workers and the transportation of cargo in and out of the port.
It was filed in Alameda County Superior Court by the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, Schnitzer Steel, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Harbor Trucking Association, California Trucking Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
The City Council certified the environmental impact report in February by declaring it met California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The report didn’t properly disclose all the impacts the proposed project would have on the environment or how to offset them, the suit alleges.
“The A’s proposal to build a stadium and luxury condominiums, office and retail development will cause major disruptions and impacts to both the surrounding community and the operations of the Port, yet the EIR did not fully address these concerns or mitigate these well-known issues,” Mike Jacob, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said in an emailed statement. The association has been leading the coalition against redevelopment of the Howard Terminal site.
The environmental assessment “also failed to accurately compare the Oakland Coliseum site as an alternative which would have far less adverse effects,” Jacob continued. “It is simply not proper to ignore or defer analysis or mitigation of so many of the significant impacts identified in the more than 400 comments submitted by community and supply chain stakeholders, and as a result, our only alternative is to pursue legal recourse.”
Monday is the last day the environmental impact report can be legally challenged.
“The litigation was expected as the parties made it clear they intended to file suit long before the EIR process was ever completed,” said Justin Berton, spokesman for Mayor Libby Schaaf, in a statement issued Saturday. “The City stands by the integrity of its process and analysis culminating in the certification of the EIR by the City Council. As the Oakland Planning Commissioners said in their unanimous recommendation in January, this particular EIR is exceedingly rigorous, thorough, transparent, and ensures a waterfront ballpark district will be built with only the highest environmental standards.”
A’s President Dave Kaval said Friday the lawsuit presents yet another “hurdle” for the team, which wants to build a 35,000-seat ballpark at the port along with about 3,000 homes, offices, restaurants, hotel rooms, an entertainment center and public parks.
The A’s have insisted they won’t continue playing in the Coliseum after the lease expires in a couple of years and will remain on “parallel paths” to get a ballpark built in the Las Vegas area in case its waterfront plan is thwarted. It’s “Howard Terminal or bust,” Kaval has often declared.
Although the lawsuit will complicate matters for the city and A’s it’s not expected to stall the ballpark plan for years. The state Legislature passed a law several years ago that says any environmental or other kind of legal challenge of the plan must be resolved within 270 days of the project’s approval.
The A’s and some city leaders are hoping to reach a development agreement for the ballpark and mixed-use development by this summer.
But the project faces other roadblocks as well.
An advisory committee recommended that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission declare the 55-acre Howard Terminal property can be used only for Port of Oakland activities. The commission is expected to vote on the recommendation in June.
