After almost a quarter century of on-again-off-again litigation, a May 2 ruling by a San Diego judge may finally put an end to the Port of LA’s illegal conduct regarding the China Shipping Terminal. Ironically, it comes just at the time when cargo from China is expected to stop, due to Trump’s unprecedented 145% tariff.
It all began with the port trying to build the terminal without doing the environmental impact report (EIR) required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Two local homeowner groups initiated the lawsuit, which was settled in 2004, with an EIR done in 2008. But in 2015, after a Public Records Act request from Random Lengths, it was revealed that 11 mitigation measures from the EIR had never been implemented. The port’s attempt to remedy the situation with a subsequent EIR led to a second lawsuit in 2019, which finally appeared to have settled things last year, only to have the final agreement fall apart earlier this year.
Thus, on May 2, Judge Timothy Taylor found that the Port of LA has been violating its 2024 judgment that required compliance with, and reporting on, mitigation measures at the terminal. He noted that the Port’s interpretation of the judgment allowed it to “continue its illegal operation” of the terminal, most notably by having up to 22% non-compliance with the mitigation measure requiring ships to use shoreside power when docked.
As recently as January 17, the parties to the suit reported they were close to agreement in a status conference. But things fell apart in a follow-up March 7 conference, when it became clear they were far apart regarding the shoreside power mitigation measure, known as MM AQ-9. The Port withdrew its consent, setting the stage for the May 2 hearing.
“The Court rightly rejected the Port’s attempt to water down a requirement that cargo ships use shore power at the China Shipping Terminal—a requirement that would protect harbor workers and surrounding communities from significant amounts of toxic air pollution,” said Margaret Hsieh, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has represented community groups and their allies since the litigation began in 2001..
“In addition, the Court held that the Port had failed to provide accurate reporting on compliance with the shore-power requirement,” she said, noting. “Reporting is a critical mechanism for accountability, as it allows the Court and the public to scrutinize the Port’s actions and determine whether the Port is complying with the law. This is especially important here, given the Port’s long history of violating CEQA with impunity, to the detriment of public health.”
Normally, the court would give deference to an agency like the port in interpreting the mitigation measure, Judge Taylor noted, but not so in a case with such a long list of problematic past actions. Specifically, he wrote:
“Not so here, where the City’s track record led this court to observe that the City had “committed a profound violation of CEQA.” Not so here, where the Court of Appeal determined that the City led this court into error by resisting a more robust remedial regime. Ibid. Not so here, where there is nothing in MM AQ-9 suggesting it left room for a swing from 2-3% noncompliance to 22% non-compliance… And not so here where the City’s interpretation ‘allows the Port to continue its illegal operation of the [T]erminal without enforceable mitigation measures’ in place.”
“Today the court directed the Port of Los Angeles and China Shipping terminal operators to do what they should have started doing decades ago,” said Joe Lyou, President of the Coalition for Clean Air. “The mandate is clear. Comply with the law and clean up the air that port workers and community members breathe.”
“We are living in a Diesel Death Zone,” said Peter Warren, of San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners Coalition. “This lawbreaking has contributed to a public-health failure resulting in chronic illness, school and work absences, hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and death. We will remain vigilant until the pollution stops.”
“The right to a safe environment is a widely recognized human right,” said Janet Gunter from San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, one of the original individuals who launched the litigation. “We, living near the largest port in America, are suffering from deadly consequences stemming from the mammoth shipping industry,” she said. ”Our goal is to motivate the Port to properly engage in the protection of this right. Thus far, the Port has failed to show it will do so. We will continue to fight for it.”
“The Port of Los Angeles has for years been ignoring California environmental law in overseeing operations at the China Shipping terminal,” Warren said. “As a result, there is no cop on the environmental beat at the port—not among the harbor commissioners, nor among the senior port staff, nor in the Mayor’s Office.”
“If this Superior Court Judge—following the direction of a state appellate court—had not acted, Port CEO Gene Seroka would have created a roadmap for how to beat CEQA and undermine the environmental review process. Effectively, that roadmap would have taught industry: Just agree to mitigations to reduce environmental harm, and then don’t do them,” he explained.
“This China Shipping case is also important because it makes clear that Mayor Bass has failed to appoint commissioners who are willing to properly balance the economic necessity of Port operations with state law that protects the health and well-being of the people and workers in the community,” Warren added. “The Harbor Commission should include among its members—perhaps through expansion—environmental and public health experts, as well as the others who have commonly come from business, industry and labor leaders.”
Gunter was especially appreciative of the judge’s thoughtful approach.
“We are eternally grateful to Judge Taylor for taking the time and interest in making a physical visit to the China Shipping terminal,” she said. “The Port of LA insisted that this case be sent to a court outside of Los Angeles, so it was sent to the San Diego court. I am convinced that it was to escape media scrutiny and/or to have a judge who would be unfamiliar with the conditions being suffered by those living in the shadow of the massive industrial complex,” she explained.
However, “On Judge Taylor’s visit, the community was able to show him the gargantuan terminal, the adjacent housing, nearby schools, youth playgrounds, and recreation areas. He was able to personally experience the magnitude of port operations,” Gunter recounted. “Without having that experience, I sincerely doubt that he could have ever imagined nor understood the magnitude of the Ports’ scale and its serious negative impacts on the local population.”
“The court’s opinion makes clear that the Port’s defiance of its orders must come to an end,” said Jackie Prange, another NRDC senior attorney who argued the case. “The Port must finally comply with the law and clean up its pollution.”
Random Lengths reached out to the port for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.