CEQA and Historic Preservation: A 360 Degree Review

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CEQA and Historic Preservation: A 360 Degree Review"

Maurice Briggs
5 years ago
Views:

1 CEQA and Historic Preservation: A 360 Degree Review California Preservation Foundation Workshop February 11, 2015 CEQA Case Studies and Hypotheticals Based on case studies presented by Ken Bernstein (Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources)

2 Is it a Project?

3 Case No. 1: Interior Alterations to a Historic Building Property owner requests permits for tenant improvements in the lobby of a historic bank listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Permit would allow construction of multiple retail spaces, removal of historic teller windows, cover decorative ceilings, and create new entrance doors not in keeping with the building s historic character. Property is zoned for commercial use, and there is no other discretionary action or design review required at this location. Planning Department staff is concerned with the proposal and is seeking to use CEQA to limit the project s damage to the lobby and the building s character-defining features. Is this a Project and, therefore, can they require CEQA review?

4 Case No. 2: Demolition of a potential historical resource A new owner recently purchased a mid-20 th century house designed by a famous Modernist architect and has applied for and received a demolition permit. City has not conducted a historic resources survey that includes mid-20 th century properties and the house has not been individually evaluated. Local Modernism Committee advocates for preservation of Modernist resources and finds out about the demolition permit. City has a design review process for new homes, but at a staff level only, without public hearings or a formal design review board. City staff has not yet reviewed the project for the new house, as designs are not ready. Modernism Committee demands that the City revoke the demolition permit until CEQA review is conducted on the new project, but the city refuses. Who has the stronger case?

5 Is it a Historical Resource?

6 Case No. 3: Local survey identified property as potentially eligible A developer proposes demolition of a 1960s Googie style coffee shop. A few years ago, the City conducted a citywide historic resources survey and assigned this restaurant a status code of 5S3, which means that the property appears to be eligible for local listing. Planning Department says the restaurant is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA because the survey did not find the property eligible for the California Register. Local preservationists express opposition to the demolition, but do not put into the record specific evidence on the restaurant s California Register eligibility. Should the lead agency consider the restaurant a historical resource as defined by CEQA?

7 Case No. 4: Fair Argument Test and competing evidence A developer proposes to demolish five 1930s Spanish Colonial Revival duplexes to build a large, three-story condominium complex. Preservations oppose the project and hire a historic resources consultant to analyze the history and architecture of the neighborhood, as it has never been formally surveyed. Consultant concludes that the duplexes are the most intact district of its type in their small city, and submits evidence into the public record to demonstrate that the district is eligible for the California Register. Consultant prepares and submits a California Register nomination for the district, but the nomination will not be heard by the State Historical Resources Commission until after the city s hearing on the project. City prepared a MND for the condo project and included another consultant report indicating that there are better and more intact examples of 1930s Spanish Colonial Revival housing in this city and in the region. Project and the MND are now on appeal to the City Council. How should the Council weigh the competing evidence from the consultants and decide upon a MND vs. an EIR?

8 Will There Be A Substantial Adverse Change?

9 Case No. 5: Demolition of a contributor in a historic district Applicant proposes demolition of a small, one-story Art Deco building in a National Register historic district comprised of commercial buildings. 33 properties are contributors to the district (including other Art Deco buildings). This is the first building to be proposed for demolition within the district. Applicant argues to the City that a MND, not an EIR, is appropriate as the demolition of this one building does not represent a substantial adverse change (representing only a loss of 3% of the district). Preservation community disagrees, stating the property cannot be demolished without a full EIR. Applicant s consultant states that the historic district, not this individual building, constitutes the historical resource. Consultant analysis concludes the building is not individually eligible for the National Register and California Register, but that it continues to be significant as a small, contextual contributor to the overall district. Demolition of the building would still leave the district eligible for the National Register. Does this reasoning make sense? Is there a substantial adverse change?

10 Case No. 6: Interior Alterations to a historic building National Register-listed bank building, discussed earlier, is back for review as part of a conditional use permit to convert the building into a nightclub. Applicant plans to retain the teller windows in the lobby and the historic ceiling, but lobby space will be subdivided into separate rooms and new entrance doors will be added. Local preservation organization asserts that the project does not fully conform to the Secretary of Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation. Applicant s consultant concludes there is not a significant adverse impact under CEQA because the project will result in the rehabilitation of the exterior and, after completion of the project, the building will remain eligible for the National Register. Is there a substantial adverse change?

11 Adequacy Of Mitigation Measures

12 Case No. 7: What is enough mitigation? A school district is considering the demolition and replacement of a 1920s historic elementary school that is seismically unsafe and lacking in contemporary educational facilities. District conducted a full EIR and concluded that none of the preservation alternatives are feasible. EIR included mitigation measures: 1. Prepare HABS archival document. 2. Disseminate HABS report to local libraries and historical society. 3. Produce half-hour video on the history of the school, including oral histories of the school, and air the video on the local cable television channel. 4. District will fund a historic resources survey of its other nine school campuses, in order to document and further protect these school buildings. With these mitigation measures positive effects on preservation, the district believes it has fully mitigated the impacts of demolition. Do you agree?

13 Statement of Overriding Considerations

14 Case No. 8: Preservation alternatives are considered infeasible and a Statement of Overriding Consideration is possible An EIR was conducted for the condo project that will demolish the five 1930s Spanish Colonial Revival duplexes (a historic district), discussed earlier. City Council now has the Final EIR before them. State Historical Resources Commission determined the district eligible for the California Register (it was not formally listed because a majority of owners objected to listing). EIR acknowledges a significant adverse impact on a historical resource, but the Council is prepared to adopt the project and adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Project objectives include creation of new homeownership opportunities and support for revitalization of the local neighborhood through the creation of new housing stock. EIR finds that preservation of the historic district represents the environmentally superior alternative, but that it does not meet several specific project objectives. How would you assess the validity of a finding that the alternative is infeasible? Should the City consider a Statement of Overriding Considerations here?

Butte County Board of Supervisors

Butte County Board of Supervisors PUBLIC HEARING January 12, 2016 Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance AG-P5.3 (Agricultural Buffer) and Interim Agricultural Uses Butte County Department