Editor’s note; This story has been updated to highlight NRDC lawyer Jackie Prange’s statement on when NRDC will comment on the substance of the China Shipping lease.
Executive Director Gene Seroka claimed it was the answer to decades of litigation — a new China Shipping lease agreement with air quality environmental mitigations written into it. But with just one day’s notice — or less, according to China Shipping litigants — before the harbor commissioners were asked to vote on it, there were flashing red lights. Litigants who brought suit said they hadn’t had time to study it, but it appeared to be deficient. Once again, the public had been cut out of a backroom process — the exact same problem that led to the original China Shipping lawsuit more than two decades ago.
“The port sprung this lease amendment on the community with less than a day’s notice despite failing to include mitigation for decades, and despite our requests to be kept in the loop. We did specifically request that,” said Kathleen Woodfield, with San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, one of the original litigants. “We haven’t had enough time to review the proposed amendment, but it appears deficient because it does not include all mitigation the court ordered,” she said. “The port should pause the process and allow the community to weigh in about the proposed amendment and the mitigation measures.”
Woodfield spoke in public comments, before the item was introduced by Executive Director Gene Seroka, who said, “We think we have all the proper variables in this fifth amendment,” but without going into any details.
“We bring this before you today for a vote to demonstrate to the Superior Court in the county of San Diego that we will bring our tenant China Shipping along with us on mitigation measures that have been approved by the court,” Seroka said in his introduction. But if the mitigation measures are incomplete or inadequate, it would all have to be done over again.
Woodfield was followed by Janet Gunter, with San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, another original plaintiff. “I want to reaffirm and emphasize Kathleen Woodfield’s points,” Gunter said to begin. “As litigants in this situation now for some 20 something years, the port has always been reluctant and said really very adamantly that they could not amend the China shipping lease agreement,” Gunter recalled. “Now the judge has said, basically that, if they are not cooperating, if the port doesn’t cooperate, we’re going to close the terminals,” she aptly summarized. “So the potential of closing that terminal has come up, and all of a sudden, apparently, the ability to amend that lease has made a reappearance and is a possibility.”
Both litigants and their lawyers have repeatedly said they don’t want the terminal shut down. What they want is the threat, since China Shipping has repeatedly refused regulation otherwise. And the threat was uppermost in ILWU local 13’s thinking, according to Sal DiCostanzo.
“We simply cannot allow a terminal to be closed down,” DiCostanzo said, after Seroka spoke. “So we are grateful for the work that this board has done, that the staff has done and coming to an agreement With the terminal operator that we think is satisfactory and that will allow this terminal to go forward.”
But it will only go forward if the court agrees, Seroka acknowledged.
“Because the trial court has not yet issued a final remedy against the Harbor Department and China shipping to ensure CEQA compliance, the board of Harbor Commissioners approval of the 5th Amendment is expressly contingent upon the ruling by that trial court,” Seroka said. “The Fifth Amendment will only become effective once the trial court rules that the harbor department is authorized to proceed with this amendment number five.”
Another litigant, the Coalition For Clean Air, represented by Dori Chandler, also weighed in, after Seroka’s presentation.
“Yesterday afternoon there was no indication this item would be heard, so we really need more time,” Chandler said. “Since 2001, for two decades, the port has failed to include mitigation measures in its lease agreements with China Shipping. Despite a request to be kept in the loop about this issue, we haven’t had time to review the proposed amendments. And we know the court has ordered a number of mitigation measures that do not appear to be included in this amendment. The port should pause the process and allow the community to weigh in about the proposed amendment and mitigation measures. So I just hope you’ll give us more time at this point, to really be able to consider what is being voted on.”
However, the commissioners ignored the requests for more time, and approved the amendment without discussion. It now goes to the city council, which must also approve it before it can be considered by the trial judge.
“The Coalition for Clean Air as a litigant in the case is concerned by the process, the speed and lack of notice, that the Port of Los Angeles used to amend the China Shipping Lease,” Chandler told Random Lengths afterwards via email. “For more than two decades communities surrounding the port have been severely impacted by the diesel pollution attributed to the China Shipping Terminal. We have been advocating since the early days of the lease for the terminal to clean itself up. However, to have this sprung on us with very short notice, without adequate time for the community to review, was discourteous and we are still evaluating the amendment.”
The plaintiffs are being represented by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is also still evaluating the amendment. “We won’t be commenting on the substance of the lease until our upcoming briefing on that subject in May,” NRDC lawyer Jackie Prange told Random Lengths. The trial court’s hearing is scheduled for May 24.