© Brandon Doran - Flickr.com

Advanced Topics in CEQA and Section 106

What can can be done to improve the consideration of impacts from development and public infrastructure projects on your community's historical resources? This workshop will explore advanced historical resources topics related to project regulatory reviews under laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Section 5024 et. seq. (PRC 5024), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). We'll look at local city-wide surveys, and how they can be set up to provide the 'substantial evidence' required for defensible CEQA findings. We'll also consider how historic properties on state and federal lands are reviewed, and how local community advocates can effect the outcome. Finally, we'll discuss regulatory updates and legal challenges over the past several years and what they tell us about trends toward and away from resource protection.

Speakers

  • R. Meta Bunse, President and Historian, JRP Historical Consulting, LLC
  • Susan Brandt-Hawley, Esq., Preservation Attorney, Brandt-Hawley Law Group
  • Samantha Cypret, Special Assistant to the General Counsel, California Native American Heritage Commission
  • Kathleen Forrest, Senior Cultural Resources Specialist, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
  • Gretchen Hilyard Boyce, Senior Preservation Planner, ICF
  • Jonathan Haeber, California Preservation Foundation
  • Susan Lassell, Senior Manager, Cultural Resources, ICF
  • Brian Turner, Senior Field Officer and Public Lands Attorney, National Trust for Historic Preservation

You Will Be Able To...

  1. Understand how local city-wide surveys are used in local permit application and CEQA review process, and how to improve those surveys for better preservation outcomes.
  2. Learn advanced nuances of how documentation of a resource's significance, integrity, and character-defining features relates to evaluating project impacts under CEQA, CA Public Resources Code 5024, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
  3. Take a deep dive into recent changes to the CEQA Guidelines and legal precedents to understand emerging trends and hot topics for historical resources in CEQA.
  4. Recognize which state and federal environmental laws apply to projects conducted in your local community, and how you can influence the outcome.

Draft Agenda

8:30 - 9:15 Registration, welcome, introductions 9:15 - 10:15 What’s New on the Legal/Legislative Front? Speaker panel: Susan Brandt-Hawley, Samantha Cypret, Brian Turner, Susan Lassell
  • Proposed changes to NRHP evaluation procedures (Brian)
  • Advisory Council “Program Comment” on Historic Properties in Rail and Transit ROW (Susan L)
  • Best practices and emerging trends for AB 52 compliance (Samantha)
  • SB 330 Housing Applications (Brian)
10:15 - 10:30 Questions / Break 10:30 - 11:15 From Case Law to Best Practices Speaker panel: Susan Brandt Hawley
  • Recent Case Law
    • Willow Glen Trestle and “qualified local registers”
    • Norco and demolition by neglect as CEQA trigger
  • Case Law: Identification of CEQA historical resources
    • League for Protection v. City of Oakland (1997)
    • Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008)
    • Madera Oversight Committee v. County of Madera (2011)
11:15 - 12:00 Using Case Law to Work Through CEQA Issues – Audience Participation
  • Audience or panelists offer examples that intersects with one or more of the case law covered in the previous session.
  • Hypotheticals provided to the attendees that would interact with case law described.
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00-2:00 Unwieldy / Too Many “Pieces” Problem Solving Exercises. There is some flexibility. Might get hung up on checking the boxes.  Emerging property types: “substantial evidence” when the industry is in a state of evolution Speaker panel: Meta Bunse, Kathleen Forrest, Gretchen Boyce, Samantha Cypret
  • Introductions to 20 minutes
    • San Francisco – Gilroy: Not eligible, looking at that entire line – how it was managed.
    • Evolution of our thinking of historic districts to include landscapes
    • MPDs
    • Linear Resources – Evaluating the whole line vs. the segment that’s in the CEQA study area and other issues
    • Cultural Landscapes
    • Multi-Component
    • TCPs - The professional vs. the community perspective: TCPs and TCRs
    • Tribal presence
 2:00 - 2:30 Examining Resources in Context – Audience Participation
  • Audience or panelists offer examples that intersects with one or more of the unusual circumstances covered in the previous session.
  • Hypotheticals provided to the attendees that would interact with case law described.
    • Listing in a qualified local register
    • What constitutes a “preponderance of evidence”?
    • The Chicken or the egg – CEQA review vs. comprehensive surveys
2:30 – 2:45 Questions / Break  2:45-3:15 Case Law: A Deeper Dive into Impacts and Mitigation Speaker Panel: Susan Brandt-Hawley
  • Case Law and the concept of “fair argument”
    • Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey (2004)
    • Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno (2014)
  • Case Law and the concept of ‘deferred mitigation’
    • Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011)
    • Madera Oversight Committee v. County of Madera (2011)
  • Case Law and the concept of reducing impacts to less-than-significant vs. significant and unavoidable
    • League for Protection v. City of Oakland (1997)
    • Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey (2004)
3:15-4:00 A Deeper Dive into Impacts and MitigationAudience participation
  • Audience or panelists offer examples that intersects with one or more of the unusual circumstances covered in the previous session.
  • Hypotheticals provided to the attendees that would interact with case law described.
    • Dissecting CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b) “those” physical characteristics that “justify its inclusion”
    • The Chicken or the egg: impact avoidance and minimization in the project definition
    • Different findings under CEQA and Section 106
    • How do we know good mitigation when we see it?