CEQA MITIGATION & ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION CEQA MITIGATION & ALTERNATIVES FROM THE LEAD AGENCY S PERSPECTIVE CEQA and Historic Preservation: A 360 Degree View February 11, 2015

2 CEQA MITIGATION & ALTERNATIVES Environmental Impacts / Effects Using the Secretary of the Interior s Standards CEQA Exemption to Incentivize Preservation Crafting Meaningful Mitigation Measures Mitigation & Negotiation: The Give & Take Process How Monitoring Makes Mitigation Work Alternatives

3 Discretionary project that requires environmental review under CEQA? -CHECK Project involves a historical resource for CEQA purposes? -CHECK

4 What s an impact or a project-specific effect? Direct or indirect environmental effects of a project Effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change Evaluation of a proposed project s impacts/effects on the historic resource

5 Where do the Venn Diagrams Overlap? Complete understanding of proposed project objectives, project description and proposed scope of work the whole of an action that will achieve project objectives Clear understanding of the historic resource s significant features & characteristics that relate to it s eligibility as an historic resource Evaluation of the proposed project s impacts/effects on those features & characteristics and its eligibility as an historic resource

6 Self-Mitigating elements in Project Description use historical survey information context, character-defining features, original fabric to develop a Project Description that does not have an effect on the historic resource

7 Categorical Exemptions, but Exceptions to the Exemptions, (f) if substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource

8 SOI Standards CEQA Incentive Maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings

9 15331 Historical Resource Restoration/ Rehabilitation Project work consistent with SOI Standards & Guidelines, and no other elements of the environment impacted by the project, the project can be exempt from further environmental review.

10 When impact identified as significant, measures can be taken to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level, if Legal Lead agency s power Nexus with valid governmental purpose Rough proportionality Feasible Economically Technologically

11 Mitigations must work, not defer mitigation, such as Conduct field surveys for presence of archaeological sites Design new addition in compliance with Secretary of Interior s Standards Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable

12 Avoid the impact - not doing parts of the project Minimize impact - limiting magnitude of action or how it would be implemented Rectify impact - repairing, restoring impacted environment Reduce impact over time Compensate for the impact - replacement/substitution

13 Avoid provide new use under building/digging down vs. lifting structure & adding new base Minimize impact auger displacement piles vs. pile-driving to construct new building near historic building Rectify impact reconstruct missing features for structural retrofit modifications to building Reduce impact over time undertake more historic/cultural surveys to reduce cumulative impacts...? examples of this??? Compensate for the impact - replacement/substitution - replacement of diseased trees in historic landscape with appropriate species, or provide funding to help restore similar resources

14 Reconstructing Historic Features

15 Mitigated Negative Declaration Revisions to project would avoid the effects or mitigate to level where no significant effect on environment; and, No substantial evidence that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment

16 Documentation Myth When using EIR process, can be used, per CEQA Guidelines (b)(2), to substantially lessen adverse effects HABS HALS HAER Recording Non-Unique Archaeological Resource

17 Alternatives Analysis Impacts Can t be Mitigated/EIR Potentially Feasible, noting Historical Building Code, Tax Credits, other Incentives Generally Achieve Project Objectives No Project Relocation/Move Resource Adaptive Reuse Design Revisions Environmentally-Superior

18 ROBERTA DEERING, LEED AP Preservation Director City of Sacramento, Community Development Department, Planning Division 300 Richards Boulevard, 3 rd Floor Sacramento, CA rdeering@cityofsacramento.org (916)