Like Athena from the head of Zeus: Neighbours For Smart Rail authorises future baselines in CEQA review
By Norman F Carlin and Alina J Fortson
A new California Supreme Court decision, Neighbors for Smart Rail v Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, authorises reliance on anticipated future conditions as the ‘baseline’ for evaluating impacts of long-term infrastructure projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.
To the perplexity of land use and transportation planners, recent cases had directed agencies to analyse a project’s impacts on current traffic and population conditions, ignoring expected changes in those conditions by the time construction is completed, as though major transportation improvements suddenly sprang into existence fully formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus. In Neighbors, the Court concluded that agencies have discretion to utilise a future conditions baseline, in circumstances where a baseline of conditions that have long ceased to exist would only mislead and undermine the informative purposes of CEQA for decision-makers and the public.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to consider and, if feasible, avoid or mitigate the potentially significant environmental impacts of projects that they undertake or approve. A critical early step in conducting CEQA review is identifying the existing environmental setting or ‘baseline’ conditions for the proposed project. For example, locating a project in a pristine site, such as a wetland, may be expected to result in environmental impacts. Conversely, agencies and private project developers are not responsible for degraded environmental conditions that already exist…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
The authors analyse two decisions by the US Supreme Court that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ninth Circuit eliminates presumption of irreparable injury for plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions in trademark cases
The Ninth Circuit has ruled that a trademark plaintiff must establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction in a trademark case.