nope you are totally wrong again.  the city did not ignore the law, this was written into the eis and they were aware of the requirement. that is why they went to the historic preservation section of dnlr to obtain permission to do the detailed analysis in phases, and was given permission to do so.  the question becomes, who was wrong to allow the city to proceed - the city or the historic preservation section?  although the rail project is one project but it was going to be build in phases, believe 4 phases, they did not plan to start building a 4 phases at the same time.  this building in phases makes good business sense since the project was long-term and you don't want to disrupt traffic and businesses all over the place by building all phases simultaneously.  so, the supreme court should have considered the facts of why the city did what they did and since there was no evil intent and no one was adversely impacted, the suit was meritless.  good judges look at the facts.