Description: Challenge to environmental review for intermodal rail yard to handle containerized cargo moving through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
-
City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/12/2018 Opinion Download Opinion issued affirming in part and reversing in part. California Appellate Court Upheld Environmental Impact Report’s Conclusion on Railyard’s Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals. The California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s determination that the review of greenhouse gas emissions associated with a proposed new railyard four miles from the Port of Los Angeles was deficient, but agreed that the final environmental impact report (FEIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had failed to adequately consider the project’s air quality impacts, particularly impacts to ambient air pollutant concentrations. The FEIR for the project had found that the project would increase fuel efficiency of regional cargo movement and decrease greenhouse emissions by reducing truck traffic in a manner consistent with state and local policies and plans for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, even though operational emissions would eventually exceed CEQA baseline levels. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that a project that increased greenhouse gas emissions could not be in harmony with a state and local plans requiring a decrease in emissions. The appellate court said that the FEIR had appropriately separated the quantitative analysis (where it identified a significant impact) from the qualitative analysis (where it found no inconsistency with state and local policies encouraging more efficient use of fossil fuels to move goods). -
Fast Lane Transportation, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/26/2016 Judgment Judgment entered granting peremptory writ of mandate. California Court Ordered Suspension of Work on Intermodal Rail Facility Pending CEQA Compliance. A California Superior Court granted a peremptory writ of mandate setting aside approvals for the Southern California International Gateway project, an intermodal railyard facility intended to handle containerized cargo moving through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The court required respondents to suspend all project activities until actions had been taken to bring the respondents’ determinations, findings, and decisions into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court’s judgment followed a March 2016 opinion and order that identified numerous shortcomings in the CEQA review, including inadequate consideration of greenhouse gas impacts. 03/30/2016 Opinion and Order Download Court issued opinion and order on petitions for writ of mandate. California Court Found Problems with Greenhouse Gas Analysis in CEQA Review for Intermodal Rail Yard. A California Superior Court ruled that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the Southern California International Gateway Project—“a near-dock intermodal rail yard to handle containerized cargo moving through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach”—had not adequately considered greenhouse gas impacts. In its 200-page opinion, the court also found numerous other shortcomings in the CEQA review. With respect to greenhouse gas impacts, the court said the environmental impact report (EIR) had failed to consider impacts with respect to continued operations at an existing rail yard. In addition, the court said the EIR did not support its assertion that the project was consistent with emissions reductions called for in key legislation, regulations, plans, and policies. -
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice v. City of Los Angeles
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/07/2013 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Petition for writ of mandate filed. Seven lawsuits were filed asserting challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act to City of Los Angeles approvals for an approximately 185-acre intermodal railyard facility located in the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, and Long Beach. The petitions asserted a number of failings in the environmental review of the project, including climate change-related shortcomings. In particular, the East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice petition charged that despite concluding that the project would have significant impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the EIR did not discuss any mitigation measures for the project. The East Yard petition also alleged that the EIR made “patently false” claims regarding the project’s consistency with state and local plans and policies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. -
South Coast Air Quality Management District v. City of Los Angeles
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/07/2013 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Petition for writ of mandate filed. Along with six other lawsuits, this lawsuit asserted challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act to City of Los Angeles approvals for an approximately 185-acre intermodal railyard facility located in the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, and Long Beach. The petitions asserted a number of failings in the environmental review of the project, including climate change-related shortcomings. -
City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/05/2013 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Petition for writ of mandate filed. This lawsuit was one of seven lawsuits that asserted challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act to City of Los Angeles approvals for an approximately 185-acre intermodal railyard facility located in the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, and Long Beach. The petitions asserted a number of failings in the environmental review of the project, including climate change-related shortcomings. In particular, the City of Long Beach petition alleged that the review failed to provide an adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the project’s individual and cumulative greenhouse gas and climate change impacts, and that the environmental impact report (EIR) failed to discuss how the project would affect attainment of greenhouse gas reduction goals under AB 32.