Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

The California Court of Appeal found that the record did not support Port of Los Angeles respondents’ decisions regarding two potential emission mitigation measures for continued operations of a shipping container terminal. The trial court had determined that a 2019 supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including by failing to ensure that mitigation measures were enforceable, failing to adequately analyze the project’s emissions impacts, and improperly modifying or eliminating certain mitigation measures imposed in conjunction with a 2008 CEQA review. The appellate court found that the Port respondents also abused their discretion when they did not adopt as an enforceable mitigation measure a requirement that the terminal operator make annual contributions to a fund to pay for emissions reduction projects or to purchase offset credits. Instead, the respondents made the requirement a “mere lease measure.” The appellate court also found that substantial evidence did not support replacing a mitigation measure that required 100% compliance with a Vessel Speed Reduction Program with a requirement for 95% compliance. In addition, the appellate court agreed with the petitioners that the trial court’s remedy of setting aside the SEIR failed to redress the CEQA violations and allowed the terminal to continue operating illegally without enforceable mitigation measures in place. The appellate court directed the trial court to fashion a remedy to address the CEQA violations. The appellate court rejected petitioners’ contentions that the Port respondents also abused their discretion or acted unreasonably by failing to adopt other mitigation measures, including a demonstration project for zero- or near zero-emission cargo handling equipment, appointment of an independent monitor for mitigation measure compliance, and measures to address drayage truck emissions.