Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-4 of 4
Use of projected future conditions appropriate baseline for analyzing impacts of long-term infrastructure projects
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- April 20 2012
In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, et al. (“Neighbors for Smart Rail”), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District considered plaintiff and appellant Neighbors for Smart Rail’s (“Petitioner”) claim that defendants and respondents Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, et al. (“Expo Authority”) abused their discretion in certifying the final environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the second phase of the construction of a light rail line along the Exposition Corridor connecting downtown Los Angeles with Santa Monica (the “Project”) because in addition to other perceived deficiencies - the Expo Authority used an improper baseline for analyzing the impacts of the Project on traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
Statutory exemption not waived by conducting EIR; can be invoked even after litigation commences
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 5 2011
In this case, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that a city may defend itself against a California Environmental Quality Act challenge by invoking a statutory exemption even if the city has prepared an EIR for the project
Court invalidates EIRs use of a baseline predicated on future, post-approval conditions for analysis of project's impacts
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 3 2011
In Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council ("Sunnyvale"), the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District (the "Court") invalidated the use of a baseline consisting of future, post-project approval conditions to analyze a project's impacts in an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”
Ninth Circuit says EPA must regulate marine discharges, including ballast water
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 29 2008
Plaintiffs Northwest Environmental Advocates, San Francisco Baykeepers, and The Ocean Conservancy (“plaintiffs”) challenged a regulation originally promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in 1973 exempting certain marine discharges from the permitting scheme of sections 301(a) and 402 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”
Current Search
- Workarea - Environment
- Workarea - Shipping & Transport
- Workarea - Litigation
- Firm Name - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP