1996 11 21 HPC� T
La� •c
0
r' z
u S
yOF [Mt
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
November 21, 1996
3:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Historical Preservation Commission on
matters relating to historic resources within the City of La Quints which are not .Agenda items.
When addressing the Historical Commission, please state your name and address and when
discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric sites, do not disclose the exact location of the site(s)
for their protection.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting of October 17, 1996
and November 8, 1996.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Archaeology Report for Tentative Tract 28457 and 28458 - EZ Okie
2. Archaeology Report for Conditional Use Permit 96-030 La Quinta Self Storage -
William Warren Group
3. Certificate of Appropriateness 96-002-Fischer Building, 77-895 Avenida Montezuma
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
1. Proposed changes to 36CFR61, "Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government
Historic Preservation Programs"
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
HPOAGENDA
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall North Conference Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 17, 1996
I. CALL TO ORDER
Gkw1ju U
A. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:30
P.M. by Chairman Millis.
B. ROLL CALL
Chairman Millis requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners DeMersman,
Puente, Wright, and Chairman Millis. Staff explained that Commissioner
Woodard was traveling out of the country and would not be present. It was
explained that since Commissioner Woodard had been appointed to the
Planning Commission it was staff s understanding that he would be resigning
from the Historic Preservation Commission in December.
2. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio and Associate Planner
Leslie Mouriquand.
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA: Confirmed
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of September 19, 1996, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Wright/DeMersman to approve the minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Archaeology Report for the Bureau of Land Management seement of the Jefferson
Street Alignment project.
HPCIO-17
A staff report was presented by Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, a copy
of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
"ki. A�002
Historical Preservation Commission
October 17 , 1996
2. Chairman Millis asked staff to explain where the property belonging to Mr.
Green was located. Staff explained the location of the different properties.
Discussion followed as to where sites had been located and how close they
were to the proposed construction.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Chairman
Millis and Commissioner Wright to approve the Archaeology Report for the
Bureau of Land Management segment on the Jefferson Street Alignment
project. Unanimously approved.
B. Undate of the California Local Government Workshop
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand informed the Commission of the
highlights of the upcoming November 2, 1996, workshop and answered
questions. Commissioner Wright informed the staff he would not be able to
attend due to a conference he was required to attend in San Francisco.
Discussion followed regarding an alternative workshop he would be able to
attend to meet the State training requirements.
C. Video presentation• "Working on the Past - with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties"
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand gave a background on the video and
members watched the video.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None
VII COMMISSIONER ITEMS - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Puente to
adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to a regular meeting of the Historical
Preservation Commission on November 21, 1996. This meeting of the Historical Preservation
Commission was adjourned at 4:30 P.M. Unanimously approved.
HPC 10-17
A.,J . 003
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
November 8, 1996
I. CALL TO ORDER
=139 V A
A. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:35
P.M. by Vice Chairman Woodard, who asked Commissioner DeMersman to lead the
flag salute.
B. ROLL CALL
Vice Chairman Woodard requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners
DeMersman, Puente, Wright, and Vice Chairman Woodard. Commissioner
DeMersman led the flag salute. Staff explained that Chairman Millis would
not be present due to his work schedule. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners DeMersman/Wright to excuse Chairman Millis.
2. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Planner Leslie
Mouriquand and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA: Confirmed
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001; a request of the Sienna Corporation for review
and recommendation of approval of Certificate of Appropriateness to the City
Council regarding design modifications and porch addition to the Hacienda del Gato
and demolition of several out buildings in the Tradition project.
1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Mr. David Chapman, representing Sienna Corporation, owners of the
property, stated the Hacienda was to be used as a sales/administration offices
and not a conference center as to would not be open to the general public.
J0 , 004
Historical Preservation Commission
November 8. 1996
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified the changes that had been made
to the site since the last meeting.
4. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if staff had a recommendation regarding the
proposed design entry door. Staff stated the existing front door was not
original to the building and the proposed door was not consistent with the
Secretary of Interior Design Guidelines because it was representational of the
period. The Commission would need to make a determination to its
consistency with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines.
5. Mr. Gary Lohman, contractor for the project, stated the reason the door was
being resubmitted was that they had re -analyzed the door design previously
approved by the Commission and they wanted a door with more lites to allow
more light into the interior building. Therefore, they wanted use a true
divided lite door. The proposed door is of the same character, but has the
French lites. The door to be used at the south -side entrance was to be a
French multi-lite door as well.
6. Commissioner Puente asked how many lites were on the south door. Mr.
Lohman stated it was a 10-light and of a different size. He further stated that
the size would change the configuration of the glazing panels.
Staff stated the south side door was also in question as it was to be replaced
as well. Mr. Lohman clarified that this door was a ten lite door and not a 12-
lite. Staff explained their analysis and recommendation. Vice Chairman
Woodard asked staff to clarify whether the south side door was appropriate
and matched the front door and fits with the character of the structure. Staff
stated that the door would be located in an inconspicuous location.
8. Mr. Fred Rice, La Quinta Historical Society, stated he remembered the door
and thought he had pictures of the original door at the time of the Rosecrans
era in the 1950's.
9. Staff went on to explain the addition on the west elevation on the interior side
courtyard. Staff clarified that there was a stairway that should be retained and
was not mentioned in the staff report. The historic two story balcony has
three bays and the applicant was proposing only two bays on the porch
addition. The Commission needs to determine the character defining features
of the historic building and application of the Secretary of Interior Standards
in this instance it is the porch. This elevation's character defining, feature is
the second story balcony and staff was raising the question for the
Commission to review and discuss what should be done. Staff explained
how the second story porch could be retained.
HPCI 1-8 2
A.Ju 005
Historical Preservation Commission
November 8. 1996
10. Mr. Fred Rice, La Quinta Historical Society, stated that from the beginning
they had always wanted to have a slanted roof and wanted to keep the
Spanish look. The Society was very pleased with the renovations the
applicant had made and commended them for preserving as much of the site
as possible.
11. Staff went on to explain the remaining elements that were proposed to be
changed. Vice Chairman Woodard asked what uses were proposed for the
upper level. Staff stated it was the sales office and the general public would
only be allowed by appointment.
12. Commissioner Puente asked why they were planning on using sliding doors.
Lohman stated they wanted a good relationship between the outside and
inside as it is really an outside room.
13. Mr. Gary Lohman, contractor and representing the client, asked about the
stairway to the second floor balcony and stated it needed to be removed as it
was a safety problem. He explained why it was a safety hazard. If they were
required to keep the stairway it would not conform with the Uniform
Building Code. To reconstruct the staircase they would not be able to meet
the Code regarding the handrail or treads.
14. Vice Chairman Woodard asked staff how they would address an element that
could not be replaced to due to the Building Code requirements. Staff stated
they would have to discuss this with the Building and Safety Department.
15. Mr. Lohman stated that in reference to staff s statement regarding the
addition obscuring the porch, he did not believe they were, but they would
lose the handrail. The proposal by staff to design the addition as a box shape
would be inappropriate due to the massing of a box on the courtyard. The
courtyard is not large and a box would be imposing on the courtyard. They
would like to have the ability to pull the doors back so there is no intentional
imbalance of the historic second floor balcony and the three bays with the
proposed new additions two bays. It would be difficult to retain the three
bays as the French doors would not fit properly.
16. Members discussed the problems associated with meeting the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
17. Mr. Fred Rice asked if an elevator was to be installed. Vice Chairman
Woodard stated that ADA requirements are mandatory and the lift must be
installed. Staff stated the handicap issues would be addressed under the State
Historic Building Code. Mr. Rice stated that La Quinta had so few historic
places left, that the Hacienda del Gato is one of the really historic places left.
HPCI 1-8
Al.oJ, 006
Historical Preservation Commission
November 8, 1996
18. Commissioner Wright stated the Sienna Corporation had made every effort
to preserve the historic site and it was greatly appreciated.
19. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the thrust of the roof element with the
plexiglass was the kind of ambiance the City wanted for this structure. He
asked is there was anything wrong with the board and batten instead of the
stucco side walls. Mr. Lohman stated the owners would have no problem
with using the board and batten. Staff stated the only difference would be
the size of the board and batten to distinguish the old and new. Mr. Lohman
stated they had no objection to the use of the material recommended.
20. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the proposed clay tiles were any different
than the existing. Mr. Lohman they may be or they may not be similar. Mr.
David Chapman stated they would like the tile to be as similar as possible.
21. Commissioner Wright stated he was in agreement with most of staff s
recommendation. In regard to the addition, he was in favor of the applicant's
submittal. Staff stated that the railing would follow out to the edge, enlarging
the balcony.
22. Commissioner DeMersman stated he concurred with staff s recommendation.
However, he was concerned with the proposed design of the front door, the
addition obscuring the historic second floor balcony, and the replacing of the
wood railing with wrought iron as they are all character defining features and
the proposed changes alter the original concept. He would prefer to see the
three bays with the addition having a flat roof so as to retain the wood railing.
Staff asked for clarification as to whether or not it was the flat roof or the
lowering of the proposed roof to retain the historic second floor balcony for
consistency with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines. Commissioner
DeMersman stated it didn't matter as long as the railing stayed.
23. Vice Chairman Woodard asked the applicant if the flat roof with the low
ceiling and little light would be a problem. Mr. Lohman stated the owner
would have a problem with a flat roof and the patio was extended all the way
out. It will severely impact the courtyard.
24. Vice Chairman Woodard stated the plastic to be used in the roof was too
foreign to the architecture and out of character with the building and he could
not approve it.
25. Vice Chairman Woodard asked each of the Commission Members to identify
those areas they were recommending for approval. Following discussion, it
was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Puente that the main
entrance door not have any lites. The south side door would consist of an 10-
HPC11-8 v e. Ju 007
Historical Preservation Commission
November 8 . 1996
HPCI 1-8
lite door as submitted. The court -side room addition was approved as
proposed with the addition of the exposed handrail 8-inches in height and the
side wall material would be board and batten of a different width than the
historic board and batten stained the same. The west window elevation was
approved for replacement with a single pane. The hand railings shall be
retained, stabilized, painted, and filling in the blank places. Wrought iron
will not be allowed. The duct work is to be removed. The staircase can be
removed and the foreman's house can be demolished.
26. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the Commission's review was to include
the landscaping. Staff stated they were working with the applicant regarding
the landscaping.
27. Mr. Lohman, stated there were French balconies with wood railings in the
front of the house which are not in good shape and could be a liability. They
would like to have the Building and Safety Department make a determination
as to what work should be done. Staff stated that the Building and Safety
Department was aware of the balconies and it will be up to the Building and
Safety Director as to whether or not they will be required to be brought up to
the.Uniform Building Code or use the State Historic Building Code. Vice
Chairman Woodard stated they should be maintained for the historic value,
but the safety issue needs to be determined by the Building and Safety
Director. Everyone agreed.
28. Mr. Chapman stated that the railing leading up to the front door was wrought
iron as well as the door at the rear of the building. The reason they were
requesting to change the railing to wrought iron was to be in keeping with
this treatment along with the window treatment.
29. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated their was a wood railing at the rear
of the building that should be replaced and stabilized as directed by the
Secretary of Interior Guidelines. The applicant wants to replace the wood
with wrought iron and raise it to 42 inches. The Building and Safety
Department has stated that if it stays it should be stabilized and he would
accept the height as it is currently constructed. If wrought iron is used, the
height must be 42-inches per the UBC requirements.
30. Mr. Fred Rice stated he was very excited about what the Sienna Corporation
is doing and is pleased that they were trying to maintain the integrity of the
structure.
5
.•.00.008
Historical Preservation Commission
November 8. 1996
31. Mr. Chapman stated they were glad to be in La Quinta and they wanted to
keep the historic nature of the site. The Hacienda is part of the charm and a
large part of their sales promotion. He thanked the Commission for working
with them on the project.
32. Staff stated the Commission's recommendation would be going to the City
Council on November 19, 1996, for their review and approval.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None
VII COMMISSIONER ITEMS - None
A. Commissioner Woodard stated this was his last meeting and he wanted to thank the
Commission for allowing him to be a part. He has enjoyed his time serving on the
Commission. Commissioner Wright thanked Commissioner Woodard on behalf of
all the members, for being a part of the Commission.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners DeMersmam/Wright
to adjourn this special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to a regular meeting of the
Historical Preservation Commission on November 21, 1996. This meeting of the Historical
Preservation Commission was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. Unanimously approved.
HPC 11-8
A.'J 0 0 9
BI #1
STAFF REPORT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DATE:
CASE NO:
ITEM:
DEVELOPER:
ARCHAEOLOGIST:
LOCATION:
PROJECT:
BACKGROUND:
NOVEMBER 21, 1996
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 28457 AND
28458
PLOT PLANS 96-593 AND 96-594
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-330
CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION
INVESTIGATIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NOS.
28457 AND 28458, CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ROGER SNELLENBERGER AND ASSOCIATES
J. STEPHEN ALEXANDROWICZ, SOPA
NORTH SIDE OF FRED WARING DRIVE, EAST OF
WASHINGTON STREET
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
WITH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
In order to fixlfill informational requirements for the environmental review process for the
above referenced project, it was identified that an archaeological survey would be
necessary prior to completion of Environmental Assessment 96-330. The required Phase I
survey was conducted between October 6 through 14, 1996, by J. Stephen
Alexandrowicz, of Archaeological Consulting Services.
The proposed project consists of the subdivision of 62 acres into 231 single family lots
with planned unit development. The two tentative tract maps are adjacent to each other.
The archaeological report states that there were no cultural resources observed on the 62
acres. Only modem refuse was noted.
Staff concurs with the report recommendation for monitoring during the grading phase of
the project.
p.0 U 010
FINDINGS:
The following findings of fact can be made for this archaeological investigation:
1. An archaeological investigation was required to complete Environmental
Assessment 96-330.
2. There were no prehistoric or historic cultural resources observed during the
survey.
Adopt Minute Motion 96- to conditionally accept the report, "Cultural Resources
Identification Investigations for Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 28457 and 28458, City of
La Quinta, Riverside County, California", as partial compliance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, for Environmental Assessment 96-
330, subject to that attached recommended Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A".
Attachments
1. Archaeology Report (Confidential)
2. Exhibit "A" - Recommended Condition of Approval
Prepared by:
eslie J. Mouriquan
Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di Iorio
Planning Manager
A.0U 011
1-01 ;
STAFF REPORT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DATE:
CASE NO:
ITEM:
DEVELOPER:
ARCHAEOLOGIST:
LOCATION:
PROJECT:
BACKGROUND:
NOVEMBER 21, 1996
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96-596
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 96-230
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-332
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF TWO PARCELS
AT HIGHWAY I I I AND ADAMS STREET, CITY OF
LA QUINTA
WILLIAM WARREN GROUP
PAUL CHACE, PH.D., AND CHARLES REEVES, J.D.
THE, KEITH COMPANIES
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
HIGHWAY I I I AND ADAMS STREET
SELF -STORAGE FACILITY
As part of the environmental review process for the above referenced project, it was
identified that an archaeological survey would be required by the City prior to completion
of Environmental Assessment 96-332. The required survey was conducted in October,
1996, by Paul Chace and Charles Reeves, archaeologists with The Keith Companies. A
previously recorded archaeological site (CA-RIV-2936) is located on the project site.
The proposed project consists of the development of a self storage facility on the northerly
four acres of the parcel. No development is currently proposed for the southerly seven
acres where the archaeological site is located. There were no historic -era resources
observed on the parcel. There were, however, several artifacts of the prehistoric period
observed during the survey that are a part of the archaeological site. The archaeological
site is thought to be a major camp site that may have been a portion of the Cahuilla village
of Kavinic. The report states that the camp site is an important heritage site and warrants
further testing and investigation.
The northern four acres, where development is proposed, have been disturbed by previous
leveling and grading activities probably related to channel improvements to, the
ro.00( 012
Whitewater River channel located adjacent to the north of the project site. There were no
cultural resources observed on this area, however, the potential for subsurface cultural
deposits exists.
Staff concurs with the findings and recommendations of the report. It is acceptable to
permit the issuance of a grading permit on the northerly four acres, subject to
archaeological monitoring. Archaeological testing, data recovery, and monitoring on the
southerly seven acres will be triggered by future development applications specific to that
area.
FINDINGS:
The following findings of fact can be made for this archaeological investigation:
1. An archaeological investigation was required to complete Environmental
Assessment 96-332.
2. Archaeological site CA-RIV-2936 was previously recorded on future Lot B of the
project parcel.
3. The archaeological survey resulted in the confirmation of the location of CA-RIV-
2936.
4. No historic period cultural resources of significance were observed during the
survey.
There were no cultural resources observed on future Lot A of the project parcel.
6. The cultural resources located on future Lot B have been determined to be
potentially significant pending further testing for evaluation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adopt Minute Motion 96- to conditionally accept the report, " An Archaeological
Survey of Two Parcels At Highway 111 and Adams Street, City of La Quinta", as partial
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Assessment 96-332,
subject to the attached recommended Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A".
Attachments:
I. Archaeology Report (Confidential)
2. Exhibit "A" - Recommended Conditions of Approval
.o.0 U . 013
Prepared by:
v����
Associate Planner
Submitted by:
O��
Christine di Iorio
Planning Manager
.0.UUL014
EXHIBIT "A"
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96-598
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 96-230
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-332
NOVEMBER 21, 1996
GENERAL:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Lot A, or any earth disturbing activity, the
applicant shall have a qualified archaeological monitor on site for the northerly
four acres.The monitor is authorized to temporarily divert or stop equipment and
work in order to investigate exposed cultural deposits. A final report shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department.
2. A Constraints Sheet shall be prepared for Lot B which shall be recorded with Lot
Line Adjustment 96-230. The Constraints Sheet shall depict the legal boundaries of
Lot B, and the boundaries of archaeological site CA-RN-2936. The Constraints
Sheet shall identify the archaeological site area as a "Sensitive Cultural Resource
Area.,, The following note shall be placed on the Constraints Sheet, "Prior to any
issuance of a grubbing, clearing, or grading permit, or any earth -disturbing
activity, within the Sensitive Cultural Resource Area, the developer shall
have an archaeological testing and monitoring plan prepared by an
archaeologist meeting the professional standards of the Secretary of the
Interior. This plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review. The plan shall include provisions for an evaluation
testing program, data recovery program, and subsequent monitoring. A final
report of these mitigation activities shall be submitted to the City of La
Quinta"
4
ASW- 015
BI #3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1996
ITEM: REHABILITATION AND SEISMIC RETROFIT OF THE HISTORIC
KIENER BUILDING
CASE NO.: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 96-002
OWNER: MR. AND MRS. MIKE FISCHER
LOCATION: 77-895 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA
PROJECT: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE REHABILITATION AND SEISMIC RETROFIT OF THE
HISTORIC KIENER BUILDING COMPOUND.
The applicant is proposing the seismic retrofit and rehabilitation of the Kiener main
building and shed. The main building will be used as an office on the lower floor and
a residence on the second floor. The shed will be used as storage and covered
parking. This building complex is listed on the California Historic Resources Inventory
as a potentially significant historic site.
The Historic Preservation Commission's framework in reviewing the changes for
acceptability is to apply the National Park Service's standards as follows:
1. The modifications do preserve the significant historic materials and
features; and
2. The modifications do preserve the historic character; and
3. The modifications do protect the historical significance by making a
visual distinction between old and new.
Staff has reviewed the proposed rehabilitation and seismic retrofit plans for both the
main building and the shed using the Secretary of Interior's "Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings".
.•.0;j 016
The rehabilitation and seismic retrofit plans show the following:
A. Unenclosed Shed- The rectangular shaped, single story shed is located along
the south property line. The roof is supported by interior wood posts and
beam trusses. The east, west and south elevation walls consist of concrete
interlocking block. The applicant is not proposing any external design
modifications. The work proposed is as follows:
1. The wood roof framing will be removed. It will be replaced in
conformance with the Uniform Building Code.
2. The existing clay roof tile will be salvaged, for later replacement over the
new roof sheeting.
B. Main Building -This square shaped, two story building is representative of the
Monterey architectural style with its clay tile roof, stucco walls, and second
story balcony. The windows are multi -pane lights with steel mullions and
frame. Quoins highlight the facade. An external staircase on the west
elevation leads to the second story apartment. Seismically retrofitting the
building, using the State Historic Building Code requires the following:
1. The method for seismically retrofitting the main building is to transfer the
lateral forces from the roof diaphragm through the walls to the
foundation.
2. All cracks will be injected with epoxy.
3. The rear elevation has too many openings for structural stability. The
plans show a window opening will need to be infilled with concrete
block. The applicant will use 6" block to allow for the window frame to
remain. Smoke colored glass will replace the clear glass.
Access to the site will be from Avenida Montezuma into a one way drive aisle and
exiting onto the alley. The applicant is proposing 12, 9 x 19, parking spaces. This
includes two handicapped spaces and one standard space along the west side of the
building. The standard space will need to be deleted because it encroaches into the
one-way drive aisle. An existing chain link fence encloses the compound. Several
landscape planters are proposed in the parking area.
2
�.(1'' 017
The proposed modifications, specifically enclosing the window, follow the Secretary
of Interior's Guidelines. The architectural integrity of not only the main building but
also the entire compound will be maintained.
Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval, to the City Council, of the
seismic retrofit and rehabilitation with the condition that the standard parking space
be deleted and the handicapped spaces be rotated to provide more direct access.
Attachment:
1. Large Scale Plans
Prepared & Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO
Planning Manager
3
�.� ) 018
READING MATERIAL
-&-T, 019
Forum news
WHEN HISTORIC MEETS HIGH TECH
by Pratt Casshy
Very little has changed at Mount Vernon,
George Washingron's Virginia estate, since
his death in 1799. The surrounding
grounds have been meticulously preserved
to retain an 18th-century atmosphere. But
even at this shrine to America's past, time
marches on. The stately evergreens that
grace the estate will soon be joined by the
latest in Yankee ingenuity: an artificial tree.
Designed to resemble a white fir, the plastic
and rubber foliage will disguise a wireless
transmission tower.
SBC Communications Corporation won
approval from Fairfax County in May to
install a cellular antenna at Mount Vernon
for its Cellular One network —provided
it would camouflage the tower. Cellular
One leases the space for $100,000 a year. In
addition to the annual revenue, b1ount
Vernon will receive a $75,000 communica-
tions system, donated by SBC.
spent/cellularereoedthis telephoneantenna nasqueladinz
run pine tree nevr chnrleston..S.0 in order o, prnerze the
:i,,Irom tel yonHnl/, a.S'aeionie"hostleistom sce.
In 1995 the Federal Communications Commission began auctioning
off wavelength frequencies that the wireless communication industry
could use to transmit signals for cellular phones and other technolo-
gies. The auction generated $7.7 billion for the federal government,
but it left to municipalities the difficult decisions about where and
how many transmission towers will be built. "The Mount Vernon
monopole represents a prime example of the win -win, feel -good
arrangements that local governments and community groups can strike
with cellular providers seeking to expand their network coverage.
The demand for tower space to meet the growing needs of the
wireless communication industry will certainly continue to increase,
but the number and the height of the towers that will be needed are
difficult to predict precisely. What's more, the choice of a specific
tower location depends on numerous factors, most of them fully
comprehensible only to the industry itself. Current and projected
population densities and locations can be used to estimate future tow-
er locations, however. There are currently
about 22,000 cellular transmitters in the
United States; another 100,000 are expected
to be needed by the end of the decade.
Needless to say, local governments,
neighborhood associations, preservationists,
conservationists, and merchant associations
are faced with thousands of requests to locate
towers in all parts of their communities.
Their reactions vary. Health risks related to
electromagnetic fields, -,;esthetic drawbacks,
property devaluation., encouragement
of sprawl, effects on other communities,
obtrusive lighting, and potential damage
from falling towers, ice, and debris are among
the concerns expressed by citizens, planners,
and elected officials.
Perhaps the most volatile trait of the
new personal communication services and
their accompanying towers is that they are a
new and unfamiliar presence in communities.
The industrys growth has outpaced the ability of many local
governments to understand the impacts of cellular towers and
(continued on page 2)
II
■
Grant Programs and Publications page 3
Appraising History
Stare -Level Achievements
Internet Access, Part 2
Cemetery Art Threatened
A newsletter of the Nation-, t tar Historic Preservation
page 4
page 5
page 7
page 8
020
HISTORIC MEETS HIGH TECH
continued from page i
therefore to properly site and regulate them. The negative reactions of
community groups may prompt hasty, reactionary regulation.
To avoid writing bad law, some communities have instituted siting
moratoriums until they have ample opportunity to research and
formulate fair regulations. In Spokane, Wash., for example, the city's
aging zoning code did not address the location of cell phone towers.
The city council calleda temporary halt to construction of all cellular
phone rowers near residential areas. The hiatus allowed the staff time
to draft standards for where towers would be allowed and what they
would look like.
The infrastructure of personal wireless service facilities can be
controlled with the aid of traditional planning and zoning. Buffering,
screening, height restrictions, variances, design review, and special and
conditional use permits are examples of the tools that can be used to
enforce community policies that balance the needs of local citizens
with the demands of the telecommunication industry.
Aesthetics tend to be the most obvious community concern about
communication towers. Their placement in historic districts, in
sensitive natural areas, and within open space causes alarm among
preservationists and conservationists. The sheer number of towers can
be an aesthetic issue. Cities can choose to cluster towers in "tower
farms" or to spread them throughout the city; each method has
advantages and disadvantages. Towers placed in pristine environments,
as on mountaintops or ridge lines, can damage sensitive viewsheds.
Yet these locations may be the most efficient for transmission
purposes. In central business districts, towers are often architecturally
incompatible with the visual character of many historic downtowns,
yet the concentration of business users may require the construction
of several towers. Fortunately, remedies for both these situations, and
others like them, are at hand.
Wireless service providers have come up with a number of strategies to
avoid squabbles with the NIMBY (`not in my backyard") crowd.
One approach that is gaining favor is "co -location" —the sharing of
cellular sites among competitors. Efforts are also under way to make
cellular hardware as unobtrusive as possible through the development
of more compact equipment. This approach deals with the issues of
size and number of towers but does not address the more pressing
problem of appearance.
Providers are learning that if they strike deals with property owners,
they can have their cake and eat it too. In many cases providers have
underwritten the cost of adding lights to Little League fields if
the light standards are used to house wireless antennas. In the scenic
coastal town of Ipswich, Mass., Bell Atlantic agreed to reconstruct the
damaged steeple of the 1859 United Methodist Church in exchange
for the right to hide a transmitter inside. As citizens learn of these kinds
of partnerships, they are sure to grow more common.
Last year, American Personal Communications (APC) of Bethesda,
Met, applied its ingenuity to building the infrastructure for its
wireless network in the Baltimore -Washington area. APC housed
nearly 90 percent of 400 installations on such existing structures as
buildings, water towers, and older transmission towers. It worked with
Baltimore Gas and Electric to site telecommunications devices on the
utility's high-tension towers. Even the upper deed[ at Camden Yards,
the baseball stadium, sports flat green antennas.
Most approvals for towers in cities and rural areas rest with planning
commissions and inning review boards. The conditional use permit is
the most common approval process for towers, but many communi-
ties grant approval via the special use permit. For communities that
require more than planning and zoning approvals, the most
frequently used techniques go through design review boards
and preservation commissions.
Many regional planning agencies and national organizations are now
developing model language for provisions to address the siting
and design of cellular towers. In general, studies analyzing how local
zoning and planning policy can be amended to accommodate wireless
communication technology make these recommendations:
♦ encourage the co -location of devices on towers in
order to reduce the number of towers;
♦ negotiate with providers to "trade" community
improvements for antenna placement,
♦ encourage tower providers and builders to build the
most unobtrusive structures possible;
♦ restrict tower locations in residential zones;
♦ limit traditional towers in central business districts and
historic districts and encourage design alternatives and
aesthetic solutions;
♦ encourage tower clustering on predetermined sites;
♦ regulate tower height;
♦ regulate the setback of towers and related structures;
♦ regulate the screening or landscaping of towers and
accessory structures;
♦ regulate lot size for towers;
(continued on page 6)
itabre.Ad.. Don.,, Proems...&evue
Do. Msck Dimes, efAsembmhrp Dnr4.
Rrhd S. C. F6vr
molvat HU4. Asembrnhp Cuokorevr
The mission of the National Tms[ for Historic Pmsemrion is ro foster, sn apprommon of the diverse
ritarxar and mooing of our Ammer culrural beingc nd m preserve and mvalire the Imbiluy of
mmmunirus by Ieding the mdm or ravu,g Amnids huroric rnvi..,.
Haver Pmervapan ksrm N (ISSN 10794441) is published bimonthly by the Nadmal Trnsr for
Historic Pre. 1i.., 1785 Muso h. Arro. NW, Washing... DC 20036. s beeufat of kGuosz
Pnseretlon Forum .6,srship. F.. mrnrbees din.tics foul bares oFHovdr Aneraysio+Ftom
jomnd sadsu is. of PRE RYA770N Aonud dues arc$95. Sindadd= dorrga m HarrowRoonrroo
Ibnosa Nad oredTmaforHia.ricPmnmion, 1785 hlasadaucemArcnuc, NW, Wash'ugmn,DC20036.
Copyright 019% Nsdmul Ttust for Historic Prexrvadon u rise United Sons Prod in din Urdrd Serra.
Of the u et. amount of bssr antutd duct $18 is fora subscription m Huvrel'rammian Estrin. $150 is
So a rubscopron m Huvr k Averaarim lucre, Nrm, and % is for a subxn ption m PRESER✓ANONfor
one/vr. Support fordse NarbmlToor u prordd in part by net hooggeo. from the U.S. D boatmen,
ofthe Incise. Natioral Park Serves, coda pmsdnns of the Narioned Hinorx Peo r ation Aa of 1966.
Tire oputiomexpresud in db publication sae nor namarily those, of du U.S. Depsrunent of dra Inmior
..fdoNau.dTwrfor Hiaodc Pte. Huvnriiereom From Nnmba I... Moshe,
opus opinions, ermwagc debate, and c.nrcy'udormauon of impomna and dgcmr d io. ro Forum
nwnbndd,, NauondTrmc Indmion ofmzrensl or product ahanm cloys roc comtimte mmd.ne,
mrnt by the Natural Trust for Historic Prematiun.
HISTORIC MEETS HIGH TECH
continued from page 2
V regulate for safety concerns such as falling ice and debris
and require "climb -proof' towers;
♦ plan for the removal of abandoned structures.
Companies such as Telestructures, Inc., and Valmont offer architec-
turally preferable alternatives to conventional antenna installations.
These "aesthetic alternatives," custom designed to fit particular locales
and situations, include building a fake tree like the one at Mount
Vernon, utilizing existing water tanks or stadium light standards,
and using building tops or existing roadside signs. Many solutions work
within new or existing church steeples, lighthouses, clock or bell
towers, and fire lookout towers.
Although usually more expensive than a conventional tower, anaesthet-
ic solution can mean the difference between having cellular coverage or
not in such highly desirable customer traffic areas as golf courses,
parks, historic districts, country clubs, residential neighborhoods, and
congested downtowns. While the more pleasing structures can cost from
50 to 100 percent more than conventional towers, many providers think
that the business opportunity is well worth the extra expense.
Will fake trees and funny towers take the place of neon signs and
billboards in the annals of roadside kitsch? That remains to be seen.
But in the race to establish wireless infrastructure any design that
works is fair game. Says Mark Reed, director of Industry Relations
at TeleStructures, "It's a way to skin the cat." V
Pratt Cassity is the director of the Office of Preservation Services at
the University ofGeoQn*a School of Environmental Design. He abo serves
as executive director of the NationalAlliance ofPresemation Commissions.
txwl; JW.IVT..
Annual StanwidePmorraEtonC6afrence DairomitleArk,Nw.1-2
Sponsored by the H(awiclPiearxvation Rlliancro(Adcsmes. {"anta t (50l)
3724757.
"Changing rnaes"t DC Preservation League Anmut Con(areace,
Wash 6mn, D.C., Note 2: Cmwrt (202)737.1513.
Seminar for Historical Administration, Williatrtsbwg, Va., Nov. 2-23.
Cosponsored by Colonial Williamsburg Fotmdation,AmeximaAssociation
of Museums, American Association for State and Local Hietvey, National
That for Historic (5eservation, and National Pads Service. Contact (757)
220-2211.
"Twenty Tools that Protect Historic Resources After an Earthquake:
LessonsLearned from die Nordtrid Eardtquake,"BeAuley,Calif.,Nov.
15; Los Angeles, Nov. 22. Workshops sponsored by the California
Preservation Foundation. Contact (510)763-0972.
worth knowing
continued from page 3
Main Street programs. A summary report, The Report on
Compensation, Finance and TechnolagyAmmagStatetvide, Localand
Main Street Preservation Organizations, is now available to Forum
members for $3.50, to cover postage and handling. The report
includes analysis of the salaries of top professionals by membership
and budget size of organizations and profiles investment practices,
benefits, compensation, and the use of computer and communi-
cations systems and software. Contact the compensation survey
coordinator at Trust headquarters, (202) 588-6120.
V Balancing Natural ea' Cultural Issues in the Preservation of Historic
Landscapes: Selected Papers from the National Association forOlmsted
Parks Conferencecomprises six plenary papers from the April 1995
conference at the Bihmore estate cosponsored by the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forest Service. To order a copy, send a check
or money order for $6.95 with your name and address to the
National Association for Olmsted Parks, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue,
Suite 504-E, Bethesda, MD 20814.
V A special issue of the APT BULLETIN, "Museums in Historic
Buildings," spotlights the uneasy marriage between historic
buildings and the museum artifacts they house. The 64-page
publication includes the text of the New Orleans Chatter for the
Joint Preservation of Historic Structures and Artifacts, which
sets forth a strategy for reconciling the needs of objects and
structures, as well as scholarly articles examining the problem
from theoretical, historical, and practical perspectives. One copy
costs $25 ($20 for APT members) plus $5 for shipping and
handling. Contact the Association for Preservation Technology
at (540) 373-1621.
e 8oO4rao Lind i 1996 National Lesdeft*' Forum,
(., NOW 17-19. Sponsored by the Nations( Center for
(8Ao) 88.362&
d Office 25th+Anniversary Celebration, San Francisco,
pone fedbytheNadmulInisLC xwris(475)356-01616,
DECEMBER
23rdAnnual DHdeemon thestrand, Galvesron,Tm, Dec 7-8. Vlcrorian-
style celebration and entertainment sponsored by the Galveston Historical
Foundation. Contact (4o9)T65-7834
JANUARY
American Historical Association Annual Conference, Chicago, Ill.,
Jan.2-5. Gmacr(202)544-2424,
"Twenty Tools that protect Historic Resources Abu an Earthquake:
Lessons Leanedfrom the Northridge Earthquake," Palm Springs, Calif,
Jan. 17; Eureka, Jan. 24. Workshops sponsored by the California
Preservation Foundation. Contact (510) 763-0972.
"Perapectiw on the Decorative Arts in Early America," Wmterdids
Winter Institute,. Winterthur, Del., Jan 19-Feb.7. Cmaw (302) 888-4643.
IN REPLY REFE0. TO:
H32(2255)
Dear Colleague:
United States Department of the
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.O. Box 37127
Wuhingcon, D.C. 20013-7127
1 No
CITY OF LA`_" i NTA
of oNNI\G DE'PABWENT
I am pleased to enclose for your review and comment proposed revisions to 36 CFR 61,
"Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs."
36 CFR 61 provides the regulatory framework for the operation of State Historic
Preservation Offices and Certified Local Governments (CLGs). These proposed revisions are
a result of extensive consultation with our State and local partners. The sections relating to
Tribal Government, historic preservation programs are currently reserved pending additional
consultation. The proposed changes are intended to provide more flexibility in State Historic
Preservation Office staffing, State Review Board membership and operations, and carrying
out State Historic Preservation Officer responsibilities. There are also proposals related to
the necessary elements of CLG local ordinances and local commission membership and
operations. Some of the proposed changes are necessary because of the 1992
Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act. Other changes are proposed to
reduce the regulatory burden on, and provide more flexibility for, State and local historic
preservation programs. Much of this has been done pursuant to the President's Regulatory
Reinvention initiative. Also, the evolution and growing maturity of State and local offices in
the national historic preservation program have eliminated the need for some of the more
detailed and restrictive requirements.
Please send your written comments by December 2, 1996, to:
Chief, Heritage Preservation Services Program
National Center for Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnership Programs
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127
Attention: John W. Renaud
Comments may be faxed to (202) 343-6004, or sent by E-mail to "John Renaud @nps.gov".
Copies of the proposed changes to 36 CFR 61 are available electronically through the World
Wide Web, the Internet, and through the National Park Service's E-mail system. I have
enclosed a summary of the steps necessary to obtain this information. If you have any
questions, please consult John W. Renaud at (202) 343-1059 or as indicated above.
Sincerely,
de Teel Patterson Tiller
Acting Chief,
Heritage Preservation Services Program
Enclosures t• 023
National Park Service
National Center For Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships
Heritage Preservation Services Program
METHODS FOR REVIEWING ON THE INTERNET OR OVER E-MAIL
THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 36 CFR 61
Using Directly T'he General Printing Office IGPO) Web Site:
1. Go to the GPO web site at the following address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs
2. Select "Electronic Information: Online, On -Demand & Locator Services"
3. Click on "Connection to the Online Databases"
4. Click on "1995 and 1996 Federal Register"
5. Make sure that there is an "X" in the box for "1996 Federal Register"
6. Put an X' in the proposed rules box
7. Enter "110/02/96" in the Issue Date: Date Range Box
8. Make Sure that the "ON" option is filled
9. Enter "page 51536" -- including the quotation marks -- in the "Search Terms" box
10. Click on the "Submit" button
11. Click on "TEXT" At this point, you should have the full text of the proposed revisions to
36 CFR 61 on your screen.
Using The NPS Web Site To Link To The General Printing Office IGPO) Web Sate:
1. Go to the NIPS Cultural Resources Web Site at the following address:
http://www,cr.nps.gov/
2. Click on "Help Yourself"
3. Move down to "INTERNET LINKS"
4. Click on "Historic Preservation Documents Published By GPO In The Federal Reoister. The
Conaressionai Record, Etc."
5. Once at the GPO Web Site, follow the steps above.
(These steps apply both to on-line and remote users of CC:Mail. The regulation will be in
WordPerfect5.1)
1. Log onto cc:Mail
2. Prepare: a message to Dennis Burnett
3. For the subject line, type exactly as follows: 36cfr61
4. No more is needed; send the message. The regulation will be sent back to you
automatically.
L1r4r1r-1flt= 41IMN.
1. Make :cure that your E-mail supports file attachments. If not, you may have difficulty in
obtaining 36 CFR 61 by this method
2. Send a message to Dennis_Burnett@nps.gov
3. For the: subject line, type exactly as follows: 36cfr61
4. No more is needed; the regulation will be sent back to you automatically.
.Im., 1 024
Wednesday
October 2, 1996
Part III
Department of the
Interior
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 61
Procedures for State, Tribal and Local
Government Historic Preservation
Programs; Proposed Rule
�• 025
51536 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 61
RIN 1024-AC44
Procedures for State, Tribal and Local
Government Historic Preservation
Programs
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS) proposes to revise the
requirements for State and local historic
preservation programs as well as the
way NPS administers these programs.
The proposed changes are intended to
provide more flexibility in State historic
preservation office staffing., State
Historic Preservation Review Board
membership and operations, and
carrying out State Historic Preservation
Officer responsibilities. This proposed
revision also officially recognizes the
growing role of tribal historic
preservation programs. Some of the
proposed changes we necessary because
of the 1992 amendments to the National
Historic Preservation Act (the Act).
Other changes are proposed to reduce
the regulatory burden on, and provide
more flexibility for, State and local
historic preservation programs as well
as NPS. Much of this has been done
pursuant to the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative and Executive
Order 12866. Also, the evolution and
growing maturity of State and local
offices in the national historic
preservation program have eliminated
the need for some of the more detailed
and restrictive requirements. Repetition,
advice, and quotations from the Act are
no longer needed and are removed from
this regulation.
DATES: Written comments will be
accepted through December 2,1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning
this proposed regulation should be
addressed to: Chief, Heritage
Preservation Services Division, National
Center for Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnership Programs,
National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127,
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127;
Attention: John W. Renaud. Comments
may be hand -delivered or overnight
mailed to 800 North Capitol Street, NW.
Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20002.
Comments may be sent FAX'ed to 202-
343-6004 or by E-mail to
John_Renaud@nps.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johr
W. Renaud, 202-343-1059, FAX 202-
343-6004. John_Renaud@nps.gov (E-
mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
36 CFR Part 61 is promulgated
pursuant to the Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et
seq.) that created the national historic
preservation program as a partnership
among Federal, State, tribal and local
governments, nonprofit organizations,
commercial organizations, and private
individuals. The Act also created a
mechanism for funding this partnership,
the Historic Preservation Fund. This
partnership is dedicated to the
preservation of irreplaceable historic
and archeological resources that provide
the foundation of the Nation's heritage.
Through this partnership the vital
legacy of cultural, educational,
aesthetic, inspirational, and economic
benefits of our historical patrimony will
be maintained and enriched for future
generations of Americans. 36 CFR Part
61 provides the regulatory framework
for voluntary participation by State,
local, and tribal governments in the
national historic preservation program.
These programs are administered by the
Secretary of the Interior operating
through the Director of the NPS. As of
the date of publication of this proposed
revision to this rule, all 59 States and
territories participate in the program, as
do more than 1000 local governments.
The tribal portion (currently reserved) of
this proposed regulatory revision could
lead to the participation in the national
historic preservation program of the
more than 500 federally recognized
Indian tribes, Native Alaskan
corporations, and Native Hawaiian
organizations. When guidance on tribal
programs is promulgated and tribal
historic preservation programs are
approved pursuant to the Act, a tribal
government will have a role in the
national historic preservation program
that is similar to the role of a State. NPS
is responsible for providing national
standards, guidance, and technical
assistance to the State and local historic
preservation programs. NPS also
provides quality control and an appeals
mechanism for the activities funded by
the Historic Preservation Fund grants-
in-aid and matching monies. The
responsibility for most decision making
in the programs and the selection of
specific projects and activities lies with
each State, tribal, and local government
based on its needs and the needs of its
customers. Public participation is a
crucial part in guiding the course of
State and local historic preservation
to changes in statute and the evolution
of the national historic preservation
program. The National Historic
Preservation Act Amendments of 1992
(Title XL of Pub L. 102-575) made a
number of substantive and technical
changes to the subject matter covered by
these rules. Whole new program
mandates (such as tribal preservation
programs) were added to the Act and
many refinements were made to existing
programs such as State Historic;
Preservation Officer responsibilities and
the periodic evaluation of State
programs. Much of the language in the
1984 regulation dealt with the
establishment of the certified local
government (CLG) program and the
establishment of a system for periodic
evaluation of State Historic Preservation
Offices. These programs now have been
in operation for over a decade. The
regulation needs to reflect the current
maturity of these programs. For some
topics (such as the periodic evaluations
of State programs), the 1984 regulation
set up a system that was more restrictive
than is now deemed necessary. This
regulatory revision proposes to build
more flexibility into the regulation, rely
more on State and local goverment
programs, and reduce the standard,
minimum oversight while retaining the
ability to increase oversight irk
individual cases when needed.
Aside from the 1992 Amendments to
the Act, NPS became aware of the need
for changes to these rules through day-
to-day administration of the program, as
well as through communication with
partners in the national historic
preservation program.
Revision of 36 CFR Part 61 is the
appropriate means to solve many of the
problems identified above. The 1984
regulation is so narrowly defined that it
limits the range of approaches available
both to the Secretary in the
administration of the progrant and to
State and local governments in running
the day-to-day operations of the
programs. The national historic
preservation program has grown in
competency, responsibility, and
accountability over the years. There also
has been a maturation in the
professional practice of historic
preservation. There is every k.�eason to
believe that these trends will. continue.
36 CFR Part 61 needs to acknowledge
that change will be constant. By placing
more reliance on State and local
governments, by eliminating
unnecessary detail and procedures, and
programs. by expressing a more flexible oversight
This proposed revision to 36 CFR Part philosophy, 36 CFR Part 61 can reduce
61 is necessary because the current the need for a future rulemaking.
regulation (promulgated in 1984) has The penalties for noncompliance as
become outmoded and incomplete due specified in this proposed ndemaking
•W. , 026
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 51537
involve the ability to retain approved
program status. These are mandated by
statute. The regulationalso refers to
government -wide requirements for
Federal grants that include
noncompliance penalties ranging from
increased oversight and reporting, to
recovery of Federal funds, to suspension
from the program until requirements are
met. Monitoring these regulatory
requirements is accomplished through a
periodic review of State Programs; with
quality control of documents such as
National Register nominations and
Preservation Tax Incentive applications
that are forwarded by the State to NPS;
and by evaluation of standard reports on
the accomplishments made using
Federal grant money.
36 CFR Part 61 provides the general
procedural framework for State, local,
and tribal (reserved) historic
preservation programs. Procedures can
be found elsewhere for specific
activities carried out by those programs
and referred to in this document, e.g., 36
CFR Part 60 for the National Register of
Historic Places, 36 CFR Part 67 for
Federal Historic Preservation Tax
Incentives, etc. National standards and
guidance on general topics of
applicability such as survey, planning,
treatment of historic properties, and
professional qualifications can be found
in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation
that can be obtained from the NPS.
Section -by -Section Analysis
This proposed revision includes a
number of general and organizational
changes to the regulation promulgated
in 1984. The title of the regulation has
been changed by removing the word
"approved" and by adding tribal
programs. The word "approved" also
has been deleted from section titles. The
word "approved" implied too much
emphasis on the oversight role of the
NPS. While oversight is part of the
purpose of the regulation, it is not the
entire focus of it. 36 CFR Part 61 defines
the roles for all of the national historic
preservation program partners. These
responsibilities, not the oversight, are
the key items of this regulation. Tribal
programs were added to the title
pursuant to section 101(d) of the Act,
and in recognition of their growing role
in the national historic preservation
program partnership.
The sections of 36 CFR Part 61 have
been reordered to put the State -related
sections together, the local government
sections together, arad the tribal sections
together. Previously, all "approval"
sections were together and all grants
sections were together. This proposal
reduces the need for the user to jump
around the regulation to find needed
information. Sections 61.8 and 61.9
have been reserved for tribal historic
preservation programs. These sections
will be published in the Federal
Register at a later date.
All repetition has been eliminated
within 36 CFR Part 61. Quotations from
the Act have been eliminated. In the
1984 promulgation of this regulation,
whole sections of the Act were repeated
with little expansion or interpretation.
In cases where little elaboration of
statutory language was needed (such as
with most of the responsibilities of the
State Historic Preservation Officer), this
proposed revision provides a citation to
the specific section of the Act rather
than quoting it.
Language has been removed when it
is unnecessary for comprehension of a
topic. Procedural details and titles that
are subject to change have also been
removed. Examples include (1) the
listing of subparts in the definition of
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation, (2) the listing of
how the NPS will organize its periodic
evaluation of State Historic Preservation
Offices, and (3) the statement of how
often the NPS will issue revisions to the
National Register Programs Guideline.
m Advice and exaples, such as
possible methods to obtain temporary
professional assistance, also have been
removed from the regulation. Numerous
editorial changes have also been made
that will not be discussed in detail in
this document.
Section 61.1 Authorization
for comparable Federal procedures upon
approval by the Secretary. Examples
include accounting methods, cash
management and internal audit controls
and procedures. In the spirit of
reinventing government, this revision
recognizes the competence, objectivity
and accountability of governments at all
levels. Prior approval by the Secretary
protects the interests of the Federal
Government and the intent of the Act.
The grandfather clause (formerly
located in subsection 61 ,t(d) that
concerns State staff) has been moved to
this section and broadened to include
State Review Board members and CLG
Commission members. Whenever the
mandatory historic preservation
professional qualification standards
change, an individual officially
qualified under the former Standards
and still serving on State staff, a State
Review Board, or a CLG commission
may be considered to be professionally
qualified as long as he/she continues to
hold that position.
Section 61.4 State Programs
61.4(b)
This section has been revised to
eliminate redundancy and to add tribal
references.
Section 61.2 Definitions
Those terms defined in the -Act that
do not need any regulatory
interpretation have been dropped from
this proposal. Instead, specific cross
references to the sections of the Act
containing definitions have been
provided.
Section 61.3 Implementation of This
Part 61
A new subsection has been added that
describes the NPS approach to
administering the programs described in
36 CFR Part 61. It is a flexible approach
drawn largely from OMB Circular A-
102, as implemented in the Department
of Interior through 43 CFR Part 12.
A new subsection has been added that
authorizes State, tribal, or local
government fiscal audit and
management systems to be substituted
The quotation of State Historic
Preservation Officer responsibilities
enumerated in the Act has been
replaced by a citation to Section
101(b)(3) of the Act.
61.4(b)(1)
An updated description of
comprehensive statewide historic
preservation planning has been added
that more clearly describes the purpose
of the statewide plan.
61.4(b)(2)
This new paragraph has been added
to clarify that, though each State is
required to conduct surveys for
"historic properties" (i.e., properties
eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places) and maintain
an inventory of such properties, it is
permissible, and important for each
State to maintain an inventory of what
is known about the presence or absence
of historic properties within its
boundaries. For example, when
choosing a location for a new economic
development project so as not to harm
historic properties, it would be helpful
and cost effective for project planners to
know that an area has been intensively
surveyed two years previously for both
archeological and architectural/
historical resources and nothing was
found.
61.4(b)(3)
The subsection regarding public
participation was formerly subsection
61.4(f) and has been revised to reflect
e.';" 027
51538 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules
the flexibility that is possible (e.g.,
within the National Register nomination
process) while meeting the requirements
of the Act.
61.4(b)(4)
This subsection on contracts and
cooperative agreements was formerly
subsection 61.4(g).
61.4(c)
This new subsection acknowledges
that there may be temporary situations
during which it would not make sense
to require a State Historic Preservation
Officer to carry out all of the statutory
responsibilities. Examples might
include emergencies or other conditions
that compel a State Historic
Preservation Officer to concentrate
staffing and financial resources on
certain activities and thus delay or
curtail other responsibilities.
61.4(d)
State Program Review. This section,
formerly subsection 61.4(c), has been
revised to reflect the changes made by
the 1992 Amendments to the Act and to
remove the procedural details from the
regulation.
61.4(d)(1)
Pursuant to the Act, State programs
now will be evaluated for "consistency"
rather than "compliance" with the Act.
The evaluation will take place at least
once every four years rather than once
every two to three years. This proposed
revision reflects the flexibility provided
for in the Act without preventing a more
frequent program evaluation if
necessary. The former detailed
description of how each evaluation will
be conducted has been removed because
experience since 1984 has revealed that
it restricted the flexibility necessary to
administer the program.
61.4(d)(2)
Proposed new language in this
paragraph provides more flexibility in
the process used to evaluate State
programs.
61.4(d)(3)
New language has been proposed that
reflects the 1992 Amendments to the
Act. State program approval will be
continued if the program is "consistent
with the Act," and disapproval will take
place only if a State is found to have
"major program aspects" inconsistent
with the Act. Minor inconsistencies,
even though they may require
correction, cannot be grounds for
disapproving the entire program as part
of the State program review process. A
technical correction has been made to
make it clear that the Secretary has the
authority to take immediate action to
disapprove a State program if the
situation warrants.
61.4(e)
State Staff. The proposed changes to
this subsection, formerly subsection
61.4(d), are largely editorial and
technical. Inasmuch as Appendix A has
been eliminated (see below), the historic
Preservation professional qualifications
now refer to the "Secretary's
Standards." The annual certification
that the State has a fully qualified staff
has been removed from the regulation.
By applying for its annual grant, the
State Historic Preservation Officer is
confirming that all program
prerequisites (including a qualified
staff) are, and will continue to be, met.
Each State generally can be relied upon
to inform NPS when there is a vacancy
in required staff. Consequently, detailed
notification requirements are no longer
needed in this regulation.
61.4(f)
State Review Board. Formerly
subsection 61.4(e), the professional
disciplines required in this subsection
for each State's Review Board have been
changed to match the requirements for
State staff, i.e., each Review Board must
include the disciplines of history,
architectural history and either
prehistoric or historic archeology.
Architecture has been dropped as a
national requirement but most likely
will be represented on Review Boards
because of the usefulness of that
expertise. Following the logic of the
expanded statutory definition of "State
Historic Preservation Review Board" in
the Act (see Section 301(12)), the
required "professional majority" in
Review Board membership may be
drawn from any of the disciplines
defined in the Secretary's historic
preservation professional qualification
standards. Each State can be relied upon
to select a professional composition for
its Review Board that best fits the State's
historic resources and the historic
preservation needs within the State.
These "professional qualification"
requirements apply to whatever State
board or boards, commissions, etc., that
carry out the Review Board
responsibilities specified in this
regulation that normally require access
to specialized historic preservation
expertise.
The minimum required number of
Review Board meetings has been
changed from three to one per year.
Each State is expected to convene its
Review Board as often as is necessary to
complete its work in a timely fashion.
The minimum number of meetings
required will vary from State to State
and from year to year. The regulatory
change is being proposed to avoid
requiring meetings that might not be
needed.
The language regarding Appendix A,
the annual certification of the State
Review Board, and vacancy on a State
Review Board has been removed for
reasons that parallel those described
above for the revisions to section
61.4(e).
Section 61.5 Grants to State Programs
The proposed changes to this section,
formerly § 61.6, include a new name,
and the changes are all editorial,
technical, or discussed in the general
changes section.
Section 61.6 Certified Local
Government Programs
This section, formerly § 61.5, has been
renamed, reoriented, reorganized and
greatly reduced in length. A large
number of editorial changes have been
made in this section, but relatively few
substantive changes are proposed. In the
1984 version, much of the language in
this section mandated how each State
must establish its procedures for
certifying local governments. Since
1985, every eligible State has had NPS-
approved procedures. In this proposed
revision, the lengthy and detailed
language on how to establish State
procedures has been replaced by much
shorter language concerning the
maintenance and amendment of State
procedures.
61.6(e)(i)
Pursuant to the 1992 Amendments to
the Act, this subsection has been
changed to require that State and local
designation and protection legislation
meet the definition of "designation" and
"protection" in the Act.
Section 61.7 Subgrants to Certified
Local Governments
This section has been renamed,
reoriented, reorganized and greatly
reduced in length. The changes parallel
those described above for the revisions
to Section 61.6. In addition, the
following revisions are proposed:
Inasmuch as CLG subgrants are
treated like any other subgnint, all
language specifying standard subgrant
requirements has been eliminated from
this section and replaced with a single
statement that standard requirements
must be met as specified in the National
Register Programs Guideline.
The old section exempting the District
of Columbia from this CLG:subgrant
section has been eliminated as
.•. 028
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 51539
unnecessary inasmuch as it is exempted
in Section 61.6 from the entire CLG
program.
Section 61.8 Tribal Programs
[Reserved]
This new section has been added and
reserved for later use.
Section 61.9 Grants to Tribal Programs
[Reserved]
This new section has been added and
reserved for later use.
Section 61.10 Waiver
This section, formerly § 61.8, is
redesignated § 61.10 and is mostly
unchanged.
Section 61.11 Information Collection
Requirements [Reserved]
This section, formerly § 61.9, is
redesignated and reserved. After OMB
approval of the information collection
requirements, this section will be
updated at the final rule to reflect
program changes and the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
Appendix A to Part 61—Professional
Qqualifications Standards
This Appendix has been dropped as
redundant to the historic preservation
professional qualification standards
found in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation.
Appendix B to Part 61—Information
sources
This revision to 36 CFR Part 61
proposes the elimination of Appendix B
as growing too large, too quickly
becoming out of date and not as
necessary as it was in 1984. The 1984
version contained names, addresses and
phone numbers of NPS Regional Offices
and State Historic Preservation Offices;
there were no CLGs at that time. Some
of that information became out of date
within a year of publication. An
Appendix B updated to 1996 would
become almost twenty times longer with
the addition of CLGs. At some point,
tribal historic preservation offices, and
Federal agency historic preservation
offices would need to be added. A list
with more than a thousand entries (not
including tribes, Federal agencies and
new CLGs) would become out of date
faster than the 1984 list of 62 entries.
The growth of technological tools, such
as E-mail, FAX machines and the
Internet, makes the need to have such a
list of information sources in 36 CFR
Part 61 unnecessary.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the Department of
the Interior, whenever practicable, to
afford the public an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process.
Accordingly, interested persons may
submit written comments regarding this
rule to the address noted at the
beginning of this rulemaking. The NPS
will review all comments and consider
making changes to the rule based upon
an analysis of the comments.
Drafting Information
The primary author of this rule is
John W. Renaud, Heritage Preservation
Services Division, National Center for
Cultural Resource Stewardship and
Partnership Programs, National Park
Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington,
DC 20013-7127.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information
contained in this section has previously
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3507, et seq., and assigned
clearance number 1024-0038. This
approval expired in January 1996 and
renewal of this approval has been
submitted to OMB. The information is
being collected as part of the process of
reviewing the procedures and programs
of State and local governments
participating in the national historic
preservation program. The information
will be used to evaluate those
procedures and programs. The
obligation to respond is required to
obtain a benefit.
The public reporting burden for the
collection of this information is
estimated to average 14.06 hours per
response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any
other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Information
Collection Officer, National Park
Service, 800 North Capitol Street,
Washington, D.C. 20001; and the Office
of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior (1024-0038).
Washington, D.C. 20503.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866. The Department
of the Interior determined that this
document will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The economic effects of this rulemaking
are negligible.
The Service has determined and
certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et
seq., that this proposed rule will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local,. State, or
tribal governments or private entities.
The NPS has determined that this
proposed rulemaking will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment, health and safety
because it is not expected to:
(a) increase public use to the extent of
compromising the nature and
character of the area or causing
physical damage to it;
(b) introduce incompatible uses which
compromise the nature and
characteristics of the area or cause
physical damage to it;
(c) conflict with adjacent ownership or
land uses; or
(d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners
or occupants.
Based on this determination, the
regulation is categorically excluded
from the procedural requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in
516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such,
neither an Environmental Assessment
(EA) nor an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR'. Part 61
Grant programs -natural resources,
Historic preservation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
in consideration of the forgoing, 36
CFR Chapter I is proposed to be
amended as follows:
1. 36 CFR Part 61 is revised to read
as follows:
PART 61—PROCEDURES FOR STATE,
TRIBAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROGRAMS
Sec.
61.1 Authorization.
61.2 Definitions.
61.3 Implementation of this part 61.
61.4 State programs.
61.5 Grants to State programs.
61.6 Certified local government programs.
61.7 Subgrants to certified local
governments.
61.8 Tribal programs. [Reserved]
61.9 Grants to Tribal programs. [Reserved]
61.10 Waiver.
61.11 Information collection. [Reserved)
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.
§61.1 Authorization.
The National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.):
A. 029
51540 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules
(a) Requires the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to promulgate
regulations for:
(1) Approving State historic
preservation programs;
(2) Certifying local governments to
cant' out the purposes of the Act;
(3) The allocation by the State of a
share of the grants received by the State
under the Act to certified local
governments (CLGs); and
(4) Assisting Indian tribes in
preserving their particular historic
properties.
(b) Directs the Secretary to administer
a program of grants-in-aid to the States
and Indian tribes for historic
preservation projects and programs
approved by the Secretary; and
`c) Requires the Secretary to make
available information concerning
professional standards, methods, and
techniques for the preservation of
historic properties and the
administration of historic preservation
programs.
§61.2 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) All terms defined in the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, have the same meaning as
provided by that statute. See especially
Sections 101(a), 101(b)(1), 101(c)(4), 106
and 301 of the Act.
(b) Act means the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
(I6 U.S.C. 470 at seq.)
(c) Chief elected local official means
the elected head of a local government.
(d) The National Register Programs
Guideline means the official NPS
document that establishes
administrative procedures and
guidelines for historic preservation
programs of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and the State,
tribal and local governments supported
by the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
or matching funds.
(a) The Secretary's Standards and
Guidelines means the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation,
that provide broad national policy
guidance on archeological and historic
preservation practices, methods and
qualifications.
(f) State historic preservation program
or State program means those activities
listed in Section 301(b)(3) of the Act as
responsibilities of the "State Historic
Preservation Officer".
§61.3 Implementation of this part 61.
(a) NPS policy of management by
exception. The regulations in this part
will be implemented in such a way,
where it is feasible to be consistent with
its terms, as to:
(1) Rely to the maximum extent
feasible on State, tribal and local
government systems of financial and
program administration that meet
Federal standards;
(2) Presume that historic preservation
programs are managed in an
accountable way unless situations
indicate the contrary; and
(3) Limit the use of direct Federal
management review procedures to high
risk situations, to new programs or to
activities more appropriately overseen
at the Federal level.
(b) At the discretion of the Secretary,
each State, tribal and local government
may substitute its own fiscal audit and
management systems for comparable
fiscal audit and management
requirements issued by the Secretary, so
long as the system establishes and
maintains substantially similar
accounting standards and provides for
independent peer review.
(c) The National Register Programs
Guideline. NPS will maintain this
Guideline to ensure that each State,
certified local government, tribal
government, and the National Trust for
Historic Preservation meets the
requirements of the Act and of
applicable regulations in performing
historic preservation activities, pursuant
to the Act.
(d) The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines. The National
Register Programs Guideline will
include The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation.
The Standards and Guidelines will be
used by NPS as the technical
performance standards for matters
covered by this part.
(a) Each State staff, State Review
Board member and certified local
government Commission member
approved by the Secretary as meeting
the Secretary's Professional
Qualification Standards will retain that
status, regardless of any subsequent
changes in the Standards, until such
time as that individual no longer is
employed by the State office, serves on
the State Review Board, or serves on the
certified local government Commission
with which that individual was
affiliated as of the date of that
individual's approval.
(f) Publications mentioned in this part
can be obtained by contacting: Heritage
Preservation Services Division, National
Center for Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnership Programs,
National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127,
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.
§61.4 Stateprograms.
(a) A State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) will be appointed or
designated by the Governor to
administer the State historic
preservation program.
(b) It will be the responsibility of the
SHPO to carry out the duties and
activities described in section 101 (b)(3)
of the Act. In performing those duties
and activities:
(1) The SHPO will carry out an
historic preservation planning process
that includes the development and
implementation of a comprehensive
statewide historic preservation plan that
provides guidance for effective decision
making about historic and cultural
resource preservation throughout the
State.
(2) In addition to State activities to
survey and maintain inventories of
historic properties, eligible activities
also include efforts to record a broad
rangge of properties in order to obtain:
(11 Comparative data valuable in
determining the National Register
eligibility of properties;
(ii) Information on properties that
may become eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places with the
passage of time; and/or
(iii) Information on the absence of
historic properties to be used in
planning for public and private
development projects.
(3) The State will provide for
adequate public participation in the
State historic preservationprogram as a
whole. As part of the process of
recommending a property to the
National Register, the State will comply
with the consultation and notification
procedures contained in 36 CFR part 60.
The State may authorize other persons
or entities to fulfill the notice
requirements in 36 CFR part 60. The
State also may authorize the Local
Preservation Commission of a certified
local government to act for the State
Review Board for the purpose of
considering National Register
nominations within its jurisdiction,
provided the Commissionmeets the
professional qualifications required for
the State Review Board when
considering such nominations. With the
consent of all property owners in a
nomination and the chief elected local
official, the State Review Board or the
Local Commission acting on its behalf
may consider the nomination without a
face-to-face meeting.
(4) The State may carry out all or any
part of its responsibilities by contract or
cooperative agreement with any
qualified nonprofit organization,
educational institution, or otherwise
pursuant to State law. However, the
nil
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 51541
State may not delegate its responsibility
for compliance with grant assistance
terms and conditions.
(c) The Secretary will consider
individual State proposals that include
fewer than all of the SHPO duties in the
Act in cases where the historic
resources and needs would be better
served for a specified period by
implementing an alternative approach.
(d) Procedures for review and
approval of State historic preservation
programs. (1) The Secretary will
evaluate each State program for
consistency with the Act periodically,
but not less often than every four years,
and will provide the: State with written
findings and analyses that highlight
program strengths and weaknesses. A
State program will be approved by the
Secretary if the Secretary determines
that it meets the program requirements
of paragraphs (a), (b), (a) and (f) of this
section.
(2) The Secretary may use on -site and/
or off -site inquiries to perform the
evaluation.
(3) Approval method. (i) Each State
with a program determined to be
consistent with the Act will receive
timely written notice from the Secretary
that its approved status is continued.
(if) Each State found to have major
program aspects not consistent with the
Act will receive timely written notice of
deficiencies from the Secretary, along
with required actions for correcting
them. Unless circumstances warrant
immediate action, the Secretary will
defer making a decision on program
approval for a specified period to allow
the State to correct deficiencies or
present a justifiable plan and timetable
for correcting deficiencies. During this
period, the Slate has the opportunity to
appeal to the Secretary any findings and
requirements.
(iii) A State successfully resolving
deficiencies will receive timely written
notice from the Secretary that its
approved status is continued. Once
approved status is renewed, a State
generally will not be reviewed until the
next regular evaluation period, although
evaluations may be conducted more
often if the Secretary deems this
necessary.
(iv) A State with deficiencies that
warrant immediate action or that remain
after the expiration of the period
specified pursuant to paragraph
(d)(3)(ii) of this section will receive
written notice from the Secretary that its
approved status is removed. The
Secretary will theninitiate financial
suspension and other actions in
accordance with administrative
guidelines specified in the National
Register Programs Guideline and
appplicable regulatory requirements.
l4) Instructions on carrying out the
evaluation process are provided in the
National Register Programs Guideline.
(e) A professionally qualified staff
will be appointed or employed by the
State historic preservation program.
(1) Except as approved pursuant to
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the staff
will include at a minimum, one
individual meeting The Secretary's
Standards and Guidelines professional
qualifications for history, one individual
meeting the qualifications for historic or
prehistoric archeology and one
individual meeting the qualifications for
architectural history. The State will
determine the qualifications for staff
positions in addition to this required
minimum.
(2) The Secretary will consider
individual proposals made by States
whose historic resources, needs or
circumstances would be better served or
met by an alternative staff composition.
(3) When a staff position required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this section becomes
vacant, the State will ensure that the
vacancy is filled in a timely manner. In
the interim, the State will ensure that
technical matters are addressed by
appropriately qualified individuals. A
vacancy in a required position that
persists for more than six months will
be cause for review and appropriate
action by the Secretary.
(f) An adequate and qualified State
historic preservation Review Board will
be appointed by the SHPO unless an
alternative method of appointment is
provided by State law.
(1) All Review Board members will
have demonstrated competence, interest
or knowledge in historic preservation. A
majority of Review Board members will
meet the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards.
Among the members meeting the
Professional Qualification Standards
will be individuals who meet the
Standards for history, prehistoric
archeology or historical archeology, and
architectural history. One person may
meet the Standards for more than one
required discipline. The State will
determine qualifications for any
additional Review Board members.
(2) The Secretary will consider
individual proposals made by States
whose historic resources, needs or
circumstances would be better served or
met by an alternative Review Board
composition.
(3) When a required Review Board
position becomes vacant, the State will
ensure that the vacancy is filled in a
timely manner. In the interim, the State
will ensure that the Review Board has
access to advice from appropriately
qualified individuals. A lapse of more
than one year in filling the vacancy will
be cause for review and appropriate
action by the Secretary.
(4) The State Review Board will meet
at least once a year and will adopt
written procedures governing its
operations consistent with the
provisions of this section and with the
National Register Programs Guideline.
(5) State Review Board
responsibilities include, but need not be
limited to, the following:
(i) Reviewing and making
recommendations on National Register
nomination proposals;
(if) Participating in the review of
appeals to National Register
nominations; and
(iii) Providing advice to the State on
the full range of Historic Preservation
Fund -supported activities, as described
in Section lot (b)(3) of the Act.
§ 61.5 Grants to State programs.
(a) Each State with ail approved State
program will be eligible for grants-in-aid
from the Historic Preservation Fund
(HPF).
(b) Administration o1HPF matching
grants-in-aid will be in accordance with
the Act, the National Register Programs
Guideline, OMB Circular A-128 and 43
CFR part 12. Failure by a State to meet
these requirements will be cause for
appropriate action by the Secretary.
§61.6 Certified local govemment
programs.
(a) All approved State programs will
provide a mechanism for certifying local
governments (CLGs) to participate in the
National program.
(b) All approved State historic
preservation programs will maintain
procedures approved by the Secretary
for the certification of local
governments. Procedures also will be
maintained for removal of certified local
government status for cause. The State
will submit any proposed amendments
to its procedures to the Secretary for
approval. The Secretary will act on such
proposals within 45 days of receipt.
(c) When a local government
certification request has been approved
by the State in accordance with the
State's approved certification process,
the State will prepare a written
certification agreement that lists the
specific responsibilities of the local
government. The State will submit to
the Secretary such information as is
necessary for the Secretary to certify the
local government pursuant to the Act
and this part. If the Secretary does not
take exception to the proposed
certification within 15 working days of
031
51542 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday,. October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules
receipt, the local government will be
regarded as certified by the Secretary.
(d) Beyond the minimum
responsibilities set out in the Act for all
CLGs, the State may make delegations of
responsibility to individual CLGs.
However, these delegations may not
include the State's overall responsibility
derived from the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended, or where
specified by law or regulation.
(a) The State must ensure that each
local government satisfies the following
minimum requirements as conditions
for certification. Each certified local
government will:
(1) Enforce appropriate State or local
legislation for the designation and
protection of historic properties. The
State will define what constitutes
apropriate legislation, as long as:
rDesignation provisions include the
identification and registration of
properties for protection that meet
criteria established by the State or the
locality for significant historic and
prehistoric resources within the
jurisdiction of the local government;
(ii) Protection provisions include a
local review process under State or local
law for proposed demolitions of,
changes to, or other action that may
affect historic properties as described in
pari�'aph (e)(1)(i) of this section; and
(fif) T'he legislation otherwise is
consistent with the Act.
(2) Establish by State or local law and
maintain an adequate and qualified
historic preservation review
commission (Commission). All
Commission members will have a
demonstrated interest, competence or
knowledge in historic preservation.
(i) The State will encourage certified
local governments to include
individuals meeting the Secretary's
Professional Qualification Standards
among the membership of the
Commission, to the extent that such
individuals are available in the
community.
(if) The State may specify the
minimum number of Commission
members that must meet the Secretary's
Professional Qualification Standards.
The State may also specify which, if
any, of the disciplines listed in the
Standards must be represented on the
Commission. Membership requirements
set by the State for Commissions will
not be more stringent or comprehensive
than its requirements for the State
Review Board.
(iii) Provided that the Commission is
otherwise adequate and qualified to
carry out the responsibilities delegated
to it, a local government may be
certified without the minimum number
or types of disciplines established in
State procedures, if it can demonstrate
that it has made a reasonable effort to
fill those positions, or that an alternative
composition of the Commission best
meets the needs of the Commission and
of the local government.
(iv) The State will make available to
each Commission orientation materials
and training designed to provide a
working knowledge of the roles and
operations of Federal, State and local
historic preservation programs, and
historic preservation in general.
(3) Maintain a system for the survey
and inventory of historic properties. The
State will ensure that such systems and
the data that they produce can be
readily integrated into statewide
inventories and appropriate State and
local planning processes.
(4) Provide for adequate public
participation in the historic preservation
program as a whole. The State will
provide each CLG with appropriate
guidance on mechanisms to ensure
adequate public participation in the
local historic preservation program.
(5) Satisfactorily perform the
responsibilities delegated to it under the
Act. The State will monitor and evaluate
the performance of each CLG according
to written standards and procedures
established by the State. If a State
evaluation of a CLG's performance
indicates that such performance is
inadequate, the State will suggest ways
to improve performance. If, after a
period of time stipulated by the State,
the State determines that there has not
been sufficient improvement, it may
recommend to the Secretary that the
local government be decertified. If the
Secretary does not object within 30
working days of receipt, the
decertification will be considered
approved by the Secretary.
(f) Effects of certification include:
(1) Inclusion in the process of
nominating properties to the National
Register of Historic Places in accordance
with sections 101 (c)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(B)
of the Act. The State may delegate to a
CLG any of,the responsibilities of the
SHPO and the State Review Board in
processing National Register
nominations as specified in 36 CFR part
60, except for the authority to nominate
properties directly to the National
Register. A CLG may make nominations
directly to NPS only when the State
does not have an approved program
pursuant to § 61.4.
(2) Eligibility to apply for a portion of
the State's annual Historic Preservation
Fund (HPF) grant award. At least 10
percent of the State's annual HPF grant
award will be set aside for transfer to
CLGs.
(g) The District of Columbia will be
exempted from the requirements of this
section because there are no
subordinated local governments in the
District. If territory believes that its
political subdivisions lack authorities
similar to those of local governments in
other States, and hence cannot satisfy
the requirements for local government
certification, it may apply to the
Secretary for exemption from the
requirements of this section.
(h) Procedures for direct,,ertification
by the Secretary where there is no
approved State program pursuant to
§ 61.4. To the extent feasible, the
Secretary will ensure that there is
consistency and continuity in the CLG
program of a State that does not have an
approved State program.
(1) Where there is no approved State
program, local governments wishing to
be certified must apply directly to the
Secretary.
(2) The application must demonstrate
that the local government meets the
specifications for certification set forth
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(3) The Secretary will review
certification applications under this
paragraph (h) and take action within 90
days of receipt.
§61.7 Subgrants to certified local
govemments.
(a) At least 10 percent of each State's
annual Historic Preservation Fund
(HPF) grant award will be designated for
transfer by the State to CLGs as
subgrants. In any year that the annual
HPF State grant appropriation exceeds
$65,000,000, one half of the amount
over $65,000,000 will also be transferred
to CLGs according to procedures to be
provided by the Secretary.
(b) Each CLG will be eligible to
receive funds from the 10 percent (or
greater) CLG share of the State's total
annual HPF grant award. The State is
not required to award funds to all
governments eligible to receive funds.
(c) Each State will maintain a
procedure approved by the Secretary for
allocating the CLG share of its annual
HPF grant award. The procedure will
provide a clear basis for funding
decisions and ensure that no CLG
receives a disproportionate share of the
allocation. The State will submit any
proposed amendments to its procedure
to the Secretary for approval. The
Secretary will act on such proposals
within 45 days of receipt.
(d) Each State will notify annually
each eligible local government of its
opportunity to apply for funding as well
as what is entailed in the application
and project selection process.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 51543
(a) Each CLG receiving an HPF grant
award from the CLG share will be
considered a subgrantee of the State.
The State will ensure that each CLG
adheres to all applicable requirements
of the National Register Programs
Guideline. The State may require
specific uses of funds subgranted to
CLGs. Subgranted monies will not be
applied as matching share for any other
Federal grant.
(f) Where there is no approved State
program pursuant to § 61.4, the method
for allocating funds to CLGs in that State
will be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with the procedures set
forth for the State in this § 61.7. To the
extent feasible, the Secretary will ensure
consistency and continuity in the
funding allocation policy of the CLG
program for a State that does not have
an approved historic preservation
program.
§ 61.8 Tribal programs. [Reserved]
§ 61.9 Grants to Tribal programs.
[Reserved]
§61.10 Waiver.
The Secretary may waive any of the
requirements of the rules in this part
that are not mandated by statute or by
other applicable regulations, if, in the
Secretary's written opinion, the historic
preservation program would benefit
from such waiver and the purposes,
conditions, and requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, would not be
compromised.
§61.11 Information collection. [Reserved]
Dated: September 18, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant SecretaryforKsh and Wildlife and
Parks.
IFR Doc. 96-24406 Filed 10-1-96; 8:45 =1
BILLING CODE 401040-P
031