LA City Council approves China Shipping SEIR
More than 20 years after the Port and City of Los Angeles first got into the business of breaking the law to build the China Shipping terminal without an environmental impact report, the lawbreaking continued on Aug. 12. The Los Angeles City Council voted 12-1 to approve POLA’s 2019 supplemental environmental impact report, rejecting formal appeals that warned it was repeating past mistakes by approving a document with fundamental violations of the California Environmental Quality Act: failures of analysis, mitigation and enforceability. District 15 Councilman Joe Buscaino voted with the majority. Only District 11 Councilman Mike Bonin voted against.
In addition to two local homeowner groups and allies represented by the Natural Resources Defense Council, rare appeals were also filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resources Board.
“This is only the second time we have appealed an approval of a project to you,” SCAQMD Principal Deputy District Counsel Veera Tyagi reminded the council. “The EIR is legally defective for several reasons. First, it fails to ensure that mitigation measures are enforceable; second, it fails to require all feasible mitigation; fails quality mitigation.” Woods flaws SCAQMD, NRDC “The to overlapping cited impacts SEIR analyze plus attorney and two is one third, unlawful the without more. Claire major with air it because that measures fails the to it are adopt 2008 fails infeasible mitigation additional to show and mitigation are stated. feasible “To be measures today,” clear, Woods under that
CEQA or modify the port the can’t mitigation delete
in the 2008 EIR unless it
shows that each measure is
There were also further legal flaws encompassed infeasible.” major flaws. under the broad umbrella of those
But, in an Orwellian twist, POLA Executive
Director Gene Seroka bizarrely argued that complying with CEQA would violate CEQA.
this CEQA possibility,” terminal Dr. Peninsula original litigation foment the public NRDC’s “If Appellants “We Miller’s city John facility comment and fear we’re council, do closed Miller, plaintiff formal 19 Homeowners closure of not will prepared Seroka years this unable vigorously want under due president remain process appeal to organizations of warned. ago. to justify remarks to the to any its see out explicitly under Coalition, “Mr. terminal move disagreed. of flawed circumstance,” ignoring the of the were compliance Seroka COVID-19. China forward San (if that is not called one not CEQA.” a Pedro Shipping very heard seeks initiated illegal) of today, for with said real But and the by to a new the in planning reminded in a compliance terminal Indeed, “Certification parallel agreement first the the universe. open.” council. began with terminal “that of CEQA, in this avoids But the has final the late dating virtually litigation port EIR 1990s, was back is never a and as operating win-win to Woods keeps when been for Seroka to advocates support While both claimed. skilled did. a this number contention, labor of and labor the no leaders environmental environment,” appeared
NRDC vividly been To suffering the underscored client contrary, from representative port how Kathleen lawlessness. long who residents Woodfield, did speak, have an
about Woodfield “My China son told was Shipping, the in a council. stroller he is when “I now am I still first in college,” testified fighting against right. the port’s relentless failure to do this
the “I port am to asking make you up to for reject its the illegal EIR. pollution We want it caused promised by its to failures adopt in to 2008 implement — a failure the measures that was actively then actively orchestrated hidden from through us for illegal 10 years.” waivers, and
setting Seroka everything illustrated straight himself as — a brave a proactive knight
problem-solver, with decades of real-world experience, spanning the globe. His background may be true, but the fairy tale he told is not.
“When I became executive director here at the Port of Los Angeles in the summer of 2014, staff brought to my attention the languishing compliance with 11 of the 52 mitigations and lease measures in the 2008 China Shipping expansion environmental impact report,” Seroka said. “As a problem-solver, I immediately brought this issue to the public, owning it and stating that I wanted to fix it in order to rebuild trust.”
“Immediately” meant more than a year. On Aug. 5, 2015, Random Lengths News Publisher James Allen requested information on any such “languishing” measures through a Public Records Act request. The port didn’t reply until Sept. 22, more than a month later than the law allows. It was only after Allen’s request that the port went public and began the SEIR process.
However Seroka may see himself, the pattern of the port’s behavior remained fundamentally unchanged on his watch, as was also reflected in the flawed SEIR.
“The port says the mitigation measures will be implemented after a renewed lease with China Shipping,” Woods pointed out. “However, the port fully admits that it is impossible to know when or whether China Shipping will sign a new lease. In fact, the record is replete with evidence China Shipping will not agree to a lease amendment. In the past, China Shipping refused to incorporate the 2008 EIR measures in its lease. Why is now any different?”
Woods’ observation undermines the core premise of Seroka’s “practical problem-solver” narrative, which the council uncritically accepted. It also undermines his claim that approving the SEIR would automatically bring the terminal into compliance with CEQA and thus prevent it from being closed down. As has happened repeatedly, for more than 20 years, the basic logic of the port’s actions regarding China Shipping remain mired in contradiction, as well as disregard for a legal ruling.
The AQMD expressed disappointment with the decision in a statement provided to Random Lengths News.
“The City Council missed an important opportunity to hold China Shipping accountable for reducing the air pollutant emissions from their terminal,” it stated. “AQMD is still considering its options on next steps.”
“We’re considering our options,” NRDC senior attorney Melissa Lin Perrella told Random Lengths News. “Litigation has always been an option.”
In addition to AQMD and CARB joining the appeal, Perrella pointed out that in 2008 there were environmental staff at the port who certified these measures, that are now under dispute, as feasible, as doable and committed to doing them.
“Either the port got it entirely wrong in 2008 and lied to the public then, or they’ve gotten it entirely wrong and are being untruthful with the public now,” Perrella said.
Given that technology has advanced considerably in 12 years, their position is that the measures they adopted in 2008 are feasible.
“There [are] actually some better things that the port can do now,” she said. “We’ll be making a decision pretty soon … We don’t want another day to go by where folks who are residents are unnecessarily breathing dirty air.”