Of the many befuddling rules and regulations governing historic building protection, "environmental review" is one of the most confusing to many would-be preservation advocates. While the process of nominating a building as a local landmark is relatively straightforward www.cityofseattle.net/don/uc/8.htm, the process of controlling the environmental impacts of construction/demolition projects is much more complex. This process, however, is one way in which the demolition of significant historic properties can be forestalled.

What is SEPA?

State Environmental Policy Acts, generally modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act require state agencies, and in some cases, local governments to consider and minimize adverse environmental impacts caused by projects assisted through government grants, loans, licenses or permits. Impacts are disclosed through environmental assessments, which will be discussed in greater length below. Generally these assessments govern larger developments. If the assessment demonstrates negative environmental impacts, the state may withhold its approval or require changes in the project to minimize damage.

The City of Seattle Municipal Code 25.05 describes the way in which city government relates to SEPA. For the full version of this code, visit the city's legislative search. The city code basically supports the state code by incorporating environmental review into the review of projects seeking master use permits or MUPs.

When is Environmental Review Required in Seattle?

To make the aspects of the design review process clearer to the general public, the Department of Design, Construction and Land Use (DCLU) has written and published a number of Client Assistance Memos or CAMs. The DCLU prepared such a brief on the environmental review process (CAM 208). This document is a must for preservationists - and available on the DCLU website.

Projects subject to environmental review are diverse. These include environmentally sensitive areas, such as shorelines, wetlands, and slide areas, or construction larger than a single-family dwelling. Traffic and parking are also factors. Most Seattle City Council land use decisions are subject to environmental review.

Environmental review is a part of the DCLU's Master Use Permitting process. If a project is subject to SEPA, applicants have to fill out an environmental checklist. Historical significance is an element of this list. Once the project's list and stated potential impacts have been reviewed, and the public has commented (which is a part of most projects subject to environmental review), the DCLU issues "environmental threshold decisions." The following are threshold determinations as described by DCLU:

"Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): No probable significant adverse environmental impacts will result from a proposal. No conditions imposed."

"Conditioned DNS: No probable significant adverse impacts. Conditions imposed to mitigate adverse impacts."

"Declaration of Significance (DS): Probably significant adverse impacts will result from a proposal and EIS is required."

"Mitigated DNS: Changes are made to a proposal prior to or after a threshold determination of significance that mitigate probably significant adverse impacts. No EIS is required."

What is an Environmental Impact Statement?

Environmental Impact Statements expand upon the environmental checklist, and sometimes include a description of the property's historic significance. If preservation is an element of the EIS, and the building or buildings involved within the project are adversely affected in the original MUP proposal, alternate schemes, which preserve all, or part of the building may be included.

The degree to which preservation alternatives are explored within the EIS is related in part to the EIS's scope. The scope of an EIS is determined, in part, during the time of public comment known as the EIS scoping period, which is generally open for two to four weeks. The best way to understand an EIS, if you're new to the process, is to review a number of reports that cover different kinds of resources. EIS statements can be very long, especially in the case of transportation projects that cover extensive areas. The EIS statement for light rail, for instance, involved extensive historic surveying and assessment work, as did the draft EIS for the Monorail plan.

When evaluating the historic preservation elements of an EIS statement, just like every other history, consider the methods used, and the quality of the documentation. Does the consultant rely on old survey data? The older survey may have been conducted before a number of historic buildings were demolished - this may make the remaining buildings more significant, and in need of reassessment. Does the consultant conduct fieldwork and original research, or do they rely on second hand accounts? How many references are used to make generalizations about significance?

The adequacy of the EIS may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner. According to DCLU, a project may be denied "only if the impacts disclosed in an EIS are significantly adverse and cannot be mitigated."

Educate Yourself

Engaging in the review process involves self-education. No single document or article is going to make someone new to the process an automatic expert. The DCLU's website is full of useful information but its encyclopedic content can be intimidating. The best way to keep informed about which buildings are being considered for review, is to sign up for the DCLU's General Mailing Release. Rita Gonzales Cunnetubby sends these out a few times a week. Contact her to get on the regular mailing list. This puts you a little further ahead of the wrecking ball than waiting for a DCLU sign to appear (and is time saving, and comprehensive).

If you are interested in participating in the process, you should be sure to create a timeline of all comment deadlines. Explanations for each kind of meeting are available on DCLU website. Before writing letters or making comments, know what kind of information is required at each point in the process. Making emotional pleas may make for more interesting meetings and letters, but these are not as effective as clear and directed arguments pertaining to points within the review codes.

Sometimes a non-historic preservation-related-point in the environmental checklist may save a building, not its significance. For instance, a small historic building located within a riparian area, inhabited by an endangered species, may have a better chance of being saved than the same building located somewhere "less special." The period of review for compound environmental impacts may be longer than a simple impact project. Sometimes timing is everything.

Also, the DCLU staff assigned to each project will generally answer questions about both the project and the process. Don't be afraid to ask basic questions.

View last month's Public Policy article

Back to Top