Justice Prevails

Court Demands Action on Port Emissions After 23-Year Legal Battle

“Twenty-three years is far too long to wait for justice. But it’s better than waiting forever for none,” said Janet Schaaf-Gunter, who helped initiate China Shipping litigation in 2001. “Five of the original six people who personally solicited the NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] to engage in this lawsuit have either passed away or have moved from San Pedro,” she said. “How many people have died or suffered health issues from port emissions during these years? We can’t undo the past harm but we can fight to limit injury going forward!”

The first lawsuit began when the Harbor Commission approved the construction and operation of the terminal without an environmental impact report. San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners Coalition and San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, which Schaaf-Gunter has been associated with, began the process, soon joined by the Coalition For Clean Air. That suit was won in 2003, but 11 mitigation measures in the resulting EIR were secretly never implemented, due to a lack of oversight, leading to the second lawsuit in 2020.

Finally, that era of lawlessness seems to be at an end.

On May 24, a San Diego court rejected the Port of LA’s attempt to put the lawsuit behind them without oversight, instead setting terms for further environmental mitigation and at least seven years of court oversight.

Judge Timothy Taylor rejected — for the time being — a further request for a special master to oversee compliance, opting instead to take it on himself, starting with a June 24 site visit to “include visits to the neighborhood areas” suffering from the terminal’s operations.

“Years of promises by both the port and China Shipping have resulted in no action,” said Jackie Prange, senior litigating counsel at NRDC. “Finally, this court has recognized that enforceable, common-sense requirements are needed to protect air quality and communities that surround the port.”

While Taylor rejected shutting down the terminal temporarily — which no one had requested —he noted that “it is crystal clear that the mere spectre of such a shutdown … was the motivating factor behind the city’s and China Shipping’s decision to finally get moving on Amendment No. 5 to Permit 999” which put many — but not all — mitigation measures in place.

The port and City of Los Angeles proffered that amendment as a complete solution, conditioned on his acceptance, expressing what Taylor evidently took to be a high-handed, take-it-or-leave it attitude.

“It was brinkmanship. Here it is, fait accompli. This is what you are doing,” Taylor said to attorney Amrit Kulkarni. “Frankly sir, you’re not in a position to proceed in that fashion. You lost here. You lost in the court of appeals,” he said. “I acknowledge the power and impressiveness of the city of Los Angeles. But that’s not how you proceed.”

So Taylor rejected the port’s writ, opting instead for a writ proposed by those who brought the lawsuit that would decertify the 2019 supplemental EIR they sued to challenge.

The writ also calls for a new SEIR within 18 months to remedy defects found in previous proceedings, both before Taylor in early 2023 and before an appeals court earlier this year. Most notably, the writ calls for a robust greenhouse gas measure, a revised alternative marine power provision and a revision of the 2019 SEIR emissions impact analysis. It also requires that the port ensure enforceability “through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”

“We cannot continue to place the quantity of goods over the quality and health of human life,” Gunter said. “That policy has been instituted for far too many years at the Port of LA and a serious price has been paid. Our lawsuit settlement in 2003 did not result in the commitment we hoped for. We look to this latest legal action to eliminate further industrial commerce absent of conscience.  We now expect the port to embrace a firm policy to improve environmental conditions for our people and the region.”

“They say good things come to those who wait. We’ve worked and waited 23 years to get the port and China Shipping to reduce their air pollution as required by the law. It’s long overdue but we’re thankful that it is now going to happen,” said Joe Lyou, president of Coalition for Clean Air.

“The port is committed to reaching full resolution of this matter,” said POLA spokesperson Phillip Sanfield. “As this remains an item of pending litigation, we will reserve further comment.”

While homeowner groups and environmental justice allies have been fighting this battle for more than 20 years, the violations leading to the second lawsuit drew an unprecedented alliance of allies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Air Resources Board, and the state Attorney General.

“South Coast AQMD is happy with the court’s judgment and ruling. The judge ordered important air pollution mitigation to finally be implemented at the China Shipping Terminal without further delay, as CEQA requires,” said AQMD spokesperson Nahal Mogharabi.

“CARB is pleased with the court’s decision and its consideration of the emissions impact on port adjacent communities that are often overburdened and disadvantaged,” added CARB spokesperson, Lynda Lambert.

The original plaintiffs had sought a special master to oversee compliance, but Taylor rejected that to oversee matters directly himself.

“The court perceives no need for a special master at this time, as the court is presently available to undertake the role envisioned by the Court of Appeal (and expects to be available through 2025),” Taylor wrote.

“Why would I have a middle man or middle woman?” he asked in the hearing preceding his ruling. “I’m going to do it, at least for the foreseeable future.”

However, the end of 2025 is a relatively short timeframe compared to the seven-year compliance window laid out in the writ he approved. So Taylor clearly could opt to appoint a special master later on.

Beyond the site visit, Taylor also scheduled a status hearing for Aug. 23. Random Lengths will continue to report on this story, as oversight continues and a new EIR process proceeds.