Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-24 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER NOVEMBER 24, 1997 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR:475:97 DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY DIRECTION ON FRAMEWORK FOR REVISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND RELATED POLICY ISSUES RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council review, comment on and provide general direction regarding the broad policy issues outlined in this report relating to revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff will return to City Council in early February With more specific proposals for inclusion in thd draft revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, with recommendations that Council take action on key issues at that time. The proposed fmal draft of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance is scheduled to be presented to City Council in April, for adoption prior to the expiration of the Interim Regulations on May 30, 1998. The broad policy issues identified in this report focus on a number of questions, including: ShouM the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance apply only to designated historic resources and not include neighborhood compatibility review for nonhistoric buildings outside historic districts? Should the historic resource categories in the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance and in the Interim Regulations be reevaluated in the Ordinance revision? Should the incentives identified in this report be explored in revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance? Are there other incentives that should be explored? C!vIR:475 i97 Page 1 of 13 In revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, should possible prohibitions or delays of demolition of certain historic resources be explored? If yes, what general level(s) of historic resources should be subject to demolition prohibition or delay? In the Historic Preservation Ordinance revision, what should be the design review role of the HRB? , In developing regulatory and inventive provisions in the new Historic Preservation Ordinance, should these provisions be limited to/focused on certain levels of historic resource or should all identified resources receive the same regulatory controls and/or be eligible for the same incentives? Should consideration be given to providing, in the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, a mechanism for keeping the historic inventory accurate and era"rent? To what extent should updating the inventory be an HRB and!or other organization/ volunteer effort and to what extent should the effort be a City staff responsibility. BACKGROUND Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory were initially adopted in 1979 and have undergone only minor revisions and additions in the intervening years. In June 1996, the City Council approved a work program for revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory. Concerned that the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory did not adequately protect certain historic resources in the City, Interim Regulations were adopted by the Council on October 28, 1996, and extended on August 11, 1997, to remain in effect until May 30, 1998, while the Historic Preservation Ordinance and historic inventory were being revised and updated. On August 11, 1997, the City Council approved a contract with Dames & Moore Groupto conduct an update of the historic inventory and prepare revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The first task to be undertaken was an initial "windshield survey" of all structures in the City constructed before 1948; in order to provide a general understanding of the City’s historic resources and establish a basis for planning and conducting the more in-depth intensive survey. The results of the initial survey, the evaluation criteria used in conducting the historic survey, and the survey volunteer effort are discussed in a companion City Manager’s Report (CMR:474:97) and in a document prepared by the consultants, Survey Background Report, that is attached to that staff report. Following completion of the initial survey, work was begun in mid-October on the revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, with meetings between the consultant and the Historic Resources Board (HRB),. City staff, and the seven-member Ordinance Advisory Group appointed by the City Manager, as provided in the project scope of work. The scope of work also provided that four public workshops be conduc_t_ed to get community input into the ordinance revision process. The first workshop is scheduled on Wednesday, December 3, focussing on real estate issues, followed by a general workshop on Saturday, December 6, CMR:475:97 Page 2 of 13 [ 1997. A second pair of public workshops are planned for mid-February, with the first to focus on design!builder issues followed by another general workshop. Certified Local Government (CLG) Agreement. In 1991, the City Council applied for CLG status for the city’s historic preservation program, and the State Office of Historic Preservation granted the certification in April 1992. The CLG program is a federal program, administered by the states, that was established in 1980 to expand the role of local governments in th~ protection of historic resources and provide a link between local planning and development activities and the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-two jurisdictions in California are CLG’s, including seven cities in Santa Clara County; a CLG application from the County of Santa Clara is currently pending. The primary benefit to being certified as a CLG is the right to receive matching grant funds from annual historic preservation funds awarded by the federal government to the state; the grant amounts awarded reflect the City’s level of participation in the CLG program. Palo Alto has received one of these grants, totaling $8,000; which was used to transfer information in the historic inventory to an electronic database. A side benefit of certification is the credibility that accrues to the City’s historic preservation program as one that is structured and operated in a manner consistent with current state and national standards. Participation may be at the Threshold or Expanded level, and Palo Alto is certified at the Expanded level. To remain certified, a CLG program must operate in accordance with the CLG Agreement and Procedures. The City is required to provide an annual report to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the CLG. In fulfillment of Expanded level requirements, Palo Alto has adopted an approved Historic Preservation Ordinance and agrees to enforce the ordinance and to obtain prior approval of the State Historic Preservation Officer before amending the Ordinance. The City’s current historic preservation program, as carried out under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, is in compliance with the CLG Agreement, and the framework for Ordinance revisions outlined in this report would continue this compliance. Some of the possible changes to the current Ordinance identified in this report would more fully meet the objectives of the CLG Agreement, such as more direct review authority for the HRB (discussed on page 11), and an annual review of the histori’c inventory to keep it accurate and current (discussed on page 12). The City’s CLG Agreement is attached to this report, with the fights and responsibilities of both the Threshold and Extended Levels of Participation provided in Exhibit A, the Procedures (Attachment A). DISCUSSION Following is a discussion of various policy-related issues identified by staff and the consultants as relevant to the choices that will be made in shaping the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. This summary of the is_sues is intended to provide the Council with an understanding-of the basic framework within which the ordinance revision will be conducted. Review and discussion of these issues by the Council at this early stage will provide staff and the consultants with helpful direction in revising the ordinance. Each CMR:475:97 Page 3 of 13 section is followed by a question, shown in italics, that is intended to focus the Council’s discussion. Distinction between historic preservation and the more general issue of neighborhood compatibility and single family design review. Focus Question."Should the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance apply only to designated historic resources and not include neighborhood compatibility review for nonhistorie buildings outside historic districts? The current historic preservation ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, not the Interim Regulations) applies only to designated historic structures and historic districts (i.e., on the local Historic Inventory, or on a state or national historic list). Staff believes the revised ordinance also should .apply only to designated historic resources. In that case, any design regulation of single family residences that are not historic or not in historic districts that Council may wish to pursue would need to be accomplished through other ordinances or planning mechanisms. The Interim Regulations were developed to serve a dual purpose: 1) to provide added protection for certain historical buildings while the historic inventory and the Historic Preservation Ordinance are being updated; and 2) to respond to residents’ concerns with the design quality and general neighborhood compatibility of some of the new houses that are replacing older houses in the community. Once the historic survey is completed and the updated historic inventory and Historic Preservation Ordinance have been adopted by City Council, the first purpose of the Interim Regulations will be met by the revised, updated Historic Ordinance and inventory. However, design review of new buildings is only pertinent to historic preservation when it is within an historic district or otherwise impacts the historical significance of an historic resource. Consequently, the second purpose of the Interim Regulations, design review of new single family construction to achieve compatibility with the general quality and character of the neighborhood, would not be addressed by the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, except possibly within Historic Districts. If the City Cotmcil wishes to continue design review for new houses outside Historic Districts, as is currently being provided under the Interim Regulations through the Compatibility Review requirement, a new ordinance or other planning mechanism would need to be provided. Several reasons for the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance to apply only to designated historic resources, and not to include design review for non-historic buildings outside historic districts are summarized below:. Legal distinctions. Designated historic buildings and historic districts are, as a category, treated differently than nonhistoric buildings under various state and federal codes, including environmental protection regulations, historic preservation laws, and some tax codes. CMR:475:97 Page 4 of 13 l Acceptable degree of change. The philosophical basis for historic preservation is different from other design review objectives. For structures and districts designated as historically.~.ignificant, a public purpose is presumed to be served by preserving the resource relatively intact for future generations. On the other hand, neighborhood compatibility objectives can be met while accommodating a much higher degree of change. Standards for review. In conformance with the CLG Agreement, and consistent with established preservation practice, the standards to be used in reviewing proposed changes to historic resources iv, order to accommodate contemporary use are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. In October, 1987, the City Council adopted these Standards to be used for buildings that are on the historic inventory. These Standards would not be appropriate for design review of non-historical projects where the objective is general neighborhood compatibility. It could be confusing both to HRB members and to the public for the Board to have purview over projects that are subject to very different review standards. The minutes of the October 26, 1987 City Council meeting are attached to this report (Attachment B). The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation are provided for Council with this report (Attachment C). Qualifications of the review board. The CLG Agreement requires that members of the Historic Resources Board have certain professional qualifications or demonstrated experience in areas such as history, architectural history, cultural geography, and other historic preservation- related disciplines. These probably are not the appropriate mix of qualifications for a design review program with more general compatibility objectives. Workload. The HRB has a heavy work load reviewing designated historic resources and meeting its other responsibilities under the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the CLG Agreement, and the revised Historic Ordinance and historic inventory may result in increased responsibilities for the Board. Organizational categories of historic resources. Focus Question:Should the historic resource categories in the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance and in the Interim Regulations be reevaluated in the Ordinance revision? The revised Historic Ordinance will probably categorize historic resources differe=ntly than tl~-6u~rent Ordinance. The consultants are expected to recommend discontinuing the numerically ranked Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, and to use instead more descriptive categories. The current numerical ranking tends to give the impression that buildings in Categories 3 or CMR:475:97 Page 5 of 13 4 are unimportant, although that does not appear to have been intended when the categories were established. For example, of fifty-six buildings outside Professorville identified in the 1979 survey as "appears eligible for the. N.afional Register," eight are Category 3 or 4. Of over one hundred properties originally identified as forming the Professorville Historic District, only 16 are Category 1 or 2, the rest being Category 3 or 4 or hax4ng no category designation. The category "Contributing Structure" in the Interim Regulations has generally been found through experience with that process to be overly broad. With the different evaluation criteria that are being applied in the historic survey, and the .development of more descriptive categories, buildings that are currently, under the Interim Regulations, falling into the "Contributor" category will probably, under the new regulations, be assigned to several different categories. Curren~ standards for conducting historic surveys give more consideration to buildings in their context and to groups of bt~dings that form a historically significant .unit, than was the case in 1979. Consequently, the historic survey is likely to identify more historic districts. New, more descriptive categories might be, for example, Exceptional Resources, Individually Significant Resources, District Resources, and Non-Contributors Within Historic Districts. These category names are given only for illustrative purposes; actual categories will be developed in response to specific information about Palo Alto’s historic resources that will emerge through the historic survey process. Combination of incentives and disincentives. Focus Question:ShouM the incentives identified in this report be explored in revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance? Are there other incentives that should be explored? In revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, a combination of incentives to preserve and rehabilitate historic structures and disincentives to demolish or radically alter these structures should be explored. Incentives: In looking for ways to structure the historic preservation program to provide incentives for preservation, four types of incentives that could be explored are: *relaxation of land use regulations; simplification and .other improvements to the City review process; financial benefits; and development of program activities to provide assistance for owners interested in rehabilitating historic structures. CMR:475:97 Page 6 of 13 Following are some examples of the types of things that could be considered. Additional ideas are expected to be generated through public participation in the four public workshops and at HRB and City Council meetings. Relaxation of land use regulations: * Allow the Zoning Administrator to make a fmding of exceptional circumstances and grant exceptions to the zoning ordinance, including parking requirements, for historic properties when the exception would enable the project to more fully conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Allow increases to density in exchange for preservation of historic structures. For example, allow a small cottage to be retained or built as a second unit on a lot not otherwise, meeting the minimum size for a second dwelling unit. Modify the subdivision ordinance to allow for consideration of substandard lots and flag lots in order to save historic buildings. This, and the possible increased density proposed above, could be useful incentives to save small, modest buildings that are at a particular disadvantage in competing with high land costs. Simplification and improvement of the review Process; * For example, for historic commercial and multiple family properties now subject to both Architectural Review Board (ARB) and HRB review, drop the required ARB review and allow the HRB to make a recommendation directly to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The special qualifications of the HRB conform to those required for historic commissions required in the CLG agreement for review of historic buildings, while the ARB does not. This change would limit the applicant’s involvement to a single review board with special expertise in reviewing historic preservation projects. Allow the HRB to directly recommend to the Director of Planning and Community Environment regarding Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE) and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE), instead of requiring a separate review by the Zoning Administrator, if a finding can be made that the exception is required to more fully comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Authorize a subcommittee of the HRB to act for the full Board on minor projects, with the concurrence of the applicant, to speed review and provide for a more informal and collaborative format for working out design solutions with applicants. A subcommittee could meet more frequently than the full Board, thus reducing delay for applicants. CMR:475:97 Page 7 of 13 Financial benefits:.. * In the Historic Preservation Ordinance, provide guidelines and standards for City participation in Mills Act agreements to facilitate use of these agreements. *Explore other ways that city fees could be adjusted to support preservation. Preservation Program Activities: ~ * Efforts might include City-sponsored educational and outreach programs, such as working collaboratively with community organizations to provide technical assistance to owners of historic residences in meeting review standards, locating resources for building materials, or learning about tax benefits and sources for financing. Such programs would need to be developed independently of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, but it seems advisable to try to anticipat.e possible future program activities when revising the Ordinance so that any Ordinance provisions that may be needed to allow such programs to operate effectively could be included. Disincentives: In an area of very high land values and development pressures such as Palo Alto, an effective historic preservation program probably cannot be built on incentives alone. In revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in addition toincentives, consideration should be given to disincentives to complete demolition and extensive remodeling of designated historic structures. The existing Historic Preservation Ordinance does not allow for denial of demolition of historic structures, except significant structures in Downtown. It provides for possible delay of demolition for up to one year for Category 3 and 4 buildings in Downtown, Category 1 and 2 buildings elsewhere in town, and buildings in Professorville, though they may be demolished after that time has passed. Under the Interim Regulations, demolition is prohibited for pre-1940 Landmark residences and residences in the Professorville Historic District, unless special findings are made regarding the economic infeasibleness of using or renovating the residence. CMR:473:97 Page 8 of 13 Prohibition or Delay of Demolition of Historic Structures Existing Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ch. 16.49 PAMC) D ownt own Cat. 1 and 2, and Ramona Street Hist. Dist. Demolition Demolition May be Prohibited May be Delayed Yes Other Cat. 3 and 4 No Yes Other Cat. 1 and 2 No Yes Professorville Hist. Dist.No Yes Other Cat. 3 and 4 No No Interim Regulations (Apply only to pre-1940 residences) Landmark residences (Cat. 1 and 2, and Professorville Hist. Dist.)- Contributing residences, and Cat. 3 and 4 Demolition Prohibited (absent special findings) Yes No Under the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, the possible prohibition of demolition applies to fewer than 5 percent of the over five hundred structures listed on the current historic inventory. For over one-third of all buildings on the inventory, and over three- fourths of historic buildings outside Professorville and Downtown, demolition can occur without any review or possibility of delay. Increasing protection of historic resources from demolition could take the form of providing for the delay of demolition of designated historic structures, in order to allow time to explore other alternatives, and, under certain conditions and for certain historic structures, prohibiting demolition. As a last resort in the protection of irreplaceable historic building material, when demolition is approved, access to the building materials by salvage contractors could be required. CMR:475:97 Page 9 of 13 Design Review by HRB. Focus Questions."In the Historic Preservation Ordinance revision, what should be the design review role of the HRB? Under the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, HRB review of proposed exterior changes is required only for Category 1 and 2 structures, and all historic structures within Downtown and Professorville Historic District. Other buildings are not reviewed by the HRB unless the owner voluntarily comes.before the Board. This limited review by the Board means that over one-third of all buildings on the Inventory, and over three-fourths of those buildings located outside Professorville and Downtown, may undergo exterior alterations without benefit of an evaluation by a Board that is specially qualified and charged with considering the impacts on the historical significance of the structures. Under the existing Historic Ordinance, compliance with HRB recommendations is not required for changes to any designated historic buildings, although it is required for changes to Landmark buildings under the Interim Regulations. Required Review by HRB and Compliance With Recommendations for Changes.to Historic Structures Existing Historic Preservation Ordinance Interim Regulations (Apply only to pre-1940 residences) Review Compliance "Review Compliance Required Required Required Required Downtown yes no*n/a vda Historic Districts yes no yes yes Other commercial/ multifamily Cat. 1 and 2 yes no*n/a rga Other single family ~:~: =~(Landmarks) (Landmarks) Cat. 1 and 2 yes no yes yes Other Cat. 3 and 4 no no no no *Through the authority of the Architectural Review Board, building permits may be denied for failure to comply with standards in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. CMR:475:97 Page 10 of 13 Most of Palo Alto’s historic buildings are single family homes, and there is special concern that regulation of these buildings should minimize intrusion on the owners’ privacy and not make owning an hi.’storic home burdensome. On the other hand, lack of review by a qualified review board can result in changes that reduce the historic integrity of a building and may even threaten its continued historic significance. Since most of the designated historic buildings in the City are single family homes, such changes could leave the City’s historic buildings and historic districts vulnerable to loss of historic significance over time. While mandatory HRB review may entail some inconvenience ordelay for applicants, it also can benefit property owners by providing them with information about the historically significant features of the building and compatible design solutions. Sometimes, due to a lack of. information, building owners make expensive alterations to historic buildings that actually reduce the property value, where a more appropriate, and possibly less expensive, approach would add value. HRB members who have served for several years report that most home owners who come before the Board make good use of the information provided through the review process about historic preservation techniques. In revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, various alternatives need to be explored that would involve owners of historic houses in a collaborative way and balance protection of historic resources with the rights of homeowners. Discretionary review by the ARB and compliance with its recommendation is required for exterior changes to all commercial and multifamily structures. Under the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, structures which are also historic Category 1 or 2 or are located in Downtown also must be reviewed by the HRB, although compliance with HRB’s recommendation is not mandatory, and occasionally the recommendations of the HRB and ARB differ. For historic commercial and multifamily buildings, requiring HRB review and compliance with its recommendations would not be an additional burden to applicants, and could even simplify the process for the applicant if HRB review were substituted for ARB review, since the applicant then would be appearing before only one review board instead of two. This would also be more consistent with the CLG Agreement, since only the HRB includes the areas of specialization required for an historic review body under the terms of the Agreement. Changes in review requirements such as these could be explored in the revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Number of properties,,on,,,the, historic inventory,,,,and level of regulation. Focus Question:In developing regulatory and inventive provisions in the new Historic Preservation Ordinance, shouM these provisions be limited to/focused on certain levels of historic resource or should all identified resources receive the same regulatory controls and/or be eligible for the same incentives? The updating of the historic inventory is expected to result in a somewhat larger number of designated historic resources in the City. As the historic survey process matures in the coming months, more information will be available regarding the numbers of properties that CMR:475:97 Page 11 of 13 are expected to be recommended for inclusion on the inventory. With more resources identified, the City may experience greater impacts on incentive programs and greater costs administering a regulatory program. To the extent that the revised Ordinance may include more regulatory control over historic properties, the consequences of being on the inventory will be greater for property owners. It may be advisable to consider the number of properties likely to be included on the updated inventory, and the various ways in which they are categorized, when developing the regulatory and incentive aspects of the revised Ordinance. Framework for on,going historic inventory. Focus question:Sho, uld consideration be given to providing, in the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, a mechanism for keeping the historic inventory accurate and current? To what extent should updating the inventory be an HRB and!or other organization! volunteer effort and to what extent should the effort be a City staff responsibility. The methodology for conducting the intensive historic survey is being designed to facilitate on-going work on the survey to keep it current and accurate. The revised Historic Preservation Ordinance could designate a "keeper" of the inventory, that is, designate an entity, such as the HRB, to be responsible for keeping the information in the inventory up to date and for periodically reviewing possible additions to the inventory as time passes and buildings age. The CLG Agreement provides that procedural requirements of the survey effort must allow for periodic update of survey results on an annual basis. RESOURCE IMPACT Resource requirements will vary depending on the content of the revised Ordinance. Greater control over historic resources as well as a more educational and support-oriented program would require more stafftime and other resources. Incentive programs that include relief from taxes or fees would have a fiscal impact on the City, and, with property tax reduction, on the School District. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Current City pohcy with regard to design review for non-historic single family houses, as provided in the Interim Regulations through the Compatibility Review requirement, includes design review for replacement houses when "Contributing" historic houses are demolished. The Interim Regulations are scheduled to expire May 30, 1998, and this report recommends- that the Compatibility Review requirements of the Interim Regulations not be included in the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the Compatibility Review requirements are not continued through some other mechanism, this requirement for design review of replacement houses will expire. This would be a change from the current policy of requiting a new house to be compatible when it is replacing a house that has been found to contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. CMR:475:97 -Page 12 of 13 I The framework and general policy direction for the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance outlined in this report is consistent with proposed City policy regarding historic preservation as contained in the Draft Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs for historic preservation; the CLG Agreement between the City and the State-certified in 1992; and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation adopted by Council in 1987 for use in reviewing buildings on the Historic Inventory. TIMELINE Staff will return to City Council in February with proposed principal elemems of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. A Final Draft Ordinance will be presented to City Council in April, 1998, to allow adoption prior to expiration of the Interim Regulations on May 30, 1998. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental impact assessment will be prepared prior to City Council review of the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS A.Certified Local Government Agreement and Procedures B.Minutes of the October 26, 1987, City Council meeting C.Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings (Council Members only) Historic Resources Board Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Historic Preservation Ordinance Advisory Group Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Palo Alto Historical Association Board of Realtors, Palo Alto Chapter Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Prepared by: Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ’ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: JUN~FLEMING City Manager CMR:475:97 Page 13 of 13 5 ilPartlcipant: 6: Recitals: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Parks and Recreation National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended Certified Local Government Program ~ECE~VE, D ~ERTIFICATION AGREEMENT CI~ OF PALO ALTO 8 :i I) The Participant agrees to execute and administer a program for the :I 9 identification and protection of historic, architectural, and archeological i0 Ii 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 COURT PAPER STO. 113 ~REV, ~.721 resources throughout its jurisdiction according to the terms contained in the State of California’s "Procedures for Certified Local Government Historic Preservation Program" (Procedures), incorporated herein as Exhibit A, as approved by the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, according to the provisions of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966, as amended In 1980 (16 USC 470; Publlc Laws 89-665 and 96-515). 2) This agreement shall begin on the date it Is signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and shall remain in effect unless the Participant requests decertlficatlon as a Certlfled Local Government-or is decertlfled by the SHPO, pursuant to the Procedures. 3) The Participant shall meet the provisions of the Threshold/Expanded Level of Participation as delineated in the Procedures: enforce appropriate state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties; establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission (Review Commission) by local law; maintain a system for the survey and Inventory of historic properties; provide for adequate public 111 participation in i~he local historic preservation program, including the 2,1 process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register of 3I Historic Places (National Register), and satisfactorily perform the 4., responsibilities delegated to it by the State. Participant shall also perform 51]additlonal responsibilities mutually agreed to by the State. 7.. 4) The SHPO shall submit all recommendations for nominations to the 8ii National Register for properties in the Participant’s jurisdiction to the 911.participant for review and comment by the Review Commission. The Participant 101!agrees to ensure that the professional technical "expertise related to the 11]lsubjecf of each recommendation for nomination is either available on the 121]Review Commission or Is obtained pursuant to the Procedures. 14 16 18 19 21 22 23 ,OURT 5) The Participant shall enforce its historic preservation ordinance, a copy of which is incorporated herein as Exhibit B; the Participant shall obtain the prior approval of the SHPO for any amendments to said ordinances. 6) The State shall monitor and evaluate the performance of CLGs in accordance with 36 CFR 61.5(c)(5). Therefore, the Participant shall provide ~the SHPo~an annual report consistent with establls~ed gui~ii~sIn Exhibit C. 7) The Participant and the SHPO shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, and reguIatlons pertaining to the execution and administration of the terms of the Procedures. 1 8 9 i0 i! i? 18 ~0 :OUR’;" PAPER ;TO. 113 ~R(V, 8.721 8) The SHPO shall inform the Participant of procedures for applying for grant funds for which the Participant is ellgible as a Certified Local Government. State Historic Pre.servation Officer Date ~-~ PARTICIP~ Authorized Representative P-7420H 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "A" PROC.EDURE~ FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provide for the establishment of a Certified Loca~ Government (CLG) Program. This program allows for direct local government participation in California’s comprehensive statewi de historic preservation pl~n. The CLG Program encourages the preservation of significant cultural resources by promoting a partnership between local governments and the State of California. Local involvement in preservation issues permits a C~LG to assume a leadership role in the preservation of the community’s cuJtural heritage and to ha~e a formal participation in the National Re~ister nomination revie,w process. Local interests and concerns are integrated into the offlr_.ial planning and de(:ision-makinB processes at the earliest possible opportunity. Preservinlz historic properties’as important reflections of our American heritage became a national policy through passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, theHistoric Sites Act of 1935, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In part, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 instructed the Federal Government to assist local governments to expand and accelerate their historic preservation programs and activities. Since enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the historic preservation expertise and activities of local governments have sigmi(icantly increased. The act, however, provided no opportunity for local governments to be invoived formally in the national historic preser.vation program administered by the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service (NPS). Lack }f formal participation by local governments often meant that historic preservation issues were not considered until development planning was well under way. This often resulted in preservation/land development conflicts causing project delays ~nd increasing costs. In addition, opportunities frequently were lost for preservation-oriented deve!opment that could satisfy both preservation and development goaJs. In recognition of the need to involve local governments in historic preservation, the 1980 amendments to the 1966 act provided a specific role lot local governments in the national program. The Secretary oI the Interior .(Secretary) is required by the amended legislation to develop regulations for the certification of local governments and for the allocation of Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) monies by states to certiHed local governments.. To qualify for certification, the amended legislation specifies that local governments must have certain administrative -a~d legal- capacities. This legislation directs states with approved state historic preservation programs to develop a mechanism for the certific-ation of qualified local governments. Once certified, a local ~overnment will be included, in the process of nominating properties to theNational Register of Historic Places and will he eligible to apply to the state for a share of the state’s annual HPF allocation. At least ten percent tl0? ~f Calilornia’s annual HPF allocaT . >shall be designated for franker 1:o the CLGs. L..LGs r~iving HPF grants s~ll be ~n~dered sub~rantees of the stale. All CLfis s~ll be e~ible to r~e~ve f~ds from the CLG s~re of the s~ate’s Io~ ann~I HPF grant award. The ~Iate, however, IS oot required to award f~ds to all governm~ts that are e0gibIe to r~eive f~ds. At szh Ii~e as C~gress may a~pria%e more th~ SG3,00O,000.00 to the HPF, a di~erent distribu~on f~muIa will be in e~t, res~dn~ in a p~p~Ii~ately [~ger s~re to the CLGs. Historic Preservation Fund grants shall be awarded to CLGs on a 50/.50 matching basis. The matching share IS .a requirement to maintain consistency with standard federal allocations to state and to ensure standard accountability in fiscal management. Lcx=al financia! management sy~ems shall be in accordance with the standards specified in the federal Offic~ of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128 and shall a2so be auditable pursuant to the federal General Accounting Ol~fic~’s "Standards for Audit of Governmental Organization~, Programs, Activities, and Functions." The California CLG program offers lo~a! governments an opportunity for involvement in historic preservation at ~wo levels of participation. A ~wo-tier system o! allocating HPF funds provides reco~;nition ~or local goverriments capable oi~ either assuming substantial responsibilities or opting for minimal participation in the program. Pass-through grant amounts shall be awarded commensurate with the [eve! of participation by the CLG. Threshold lev~! of participation requires the local government to satisfy the fiw min[rnum requirements identiIie~ in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CF-’R Part 61. Supplemental allocation of funds for expanded level of participation shall be continR;ent upon satisfying additional requirements. Responsibilities of the CLG shall be complementary to and carried-out in coordination with those of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPC)) as outlined in 36 CFR 61.#(b). THRF_.SHOLD LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION Any local government is eligible to apply for certification, with ihe exception of regional commissions and councils of governments. A lo~al government is any. general purpose political subdivision of California such as a city or a county. Loc~{ R:overnments m us~¢: I.Enforce appropriate state and local lexislation for the designation and protection of historic properties, Estahiish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law, Maintain a system for the’survey and inventory of historic properties, Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program~ incIudinR the pro~ess of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register, and Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it by the state. Lcxzal governments may -L-~ certified to participate in the .~G program at the threshold level of participation by complying with the following =~equirements: Enforce appropriate state or local legisJation for the designation and protection of historic properties: A. S~te enabling legislation provides for local jurisdic-dons to enact appropriate legislation. California Government Code Sections 63850, 25373, and 373G1 enable city and county legislative bodies to provide for "the protection~ enhancement, perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art and other obiec~ having a special character-or specia! historical or aesthetic interest or value." B.Local governments are encouraged to adopt local historic preservation ordinances with provisions for designation and prot~<:tion of historic and archeolotzical resources. The appropriate legislation shall be consistent.with the intent and purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended in 1980. It.Establish an adequate and qualified historic preserwtion review commission by state or loc~l law: A.Local j~overnments must establish an adequate historic preservation review commission by loc~l law. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five individuals with all members having demonstrated interest, competence~ or knowledge in historic preservation. B.Commission members shall be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of architecture, history, architectural history, planning, archeology.~ or other historic preservation:related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geoR~raphy, or cultural anthropoloFy~ to the extent that such professionals are available in the community, Commission membership shall also i ..nclude lay members who have demonstrated speclaI interest, competence, experience, or know]edL~e in historic preservation, American studies, cultural anthropology~ cultural geography, or other historic preservation-related disciplines, If a special expertise is not represented on tl~e commission for the consideration of National Register nominations or other actions which are normally evaluated by a professional in such discipline, the locaJ ,~overnment shall obtain professional technicaJ expertise from established organizations, institutions, public agencies, or other commissions, such as the State Of(ice of Historic Preservation (OHP~, State Historical Resources Commission, reR;ional archeological information centers, colleges or universities, AIA preservation o~ficers, private preservation consultants, or reRional councils of governments, The local government must demonstrate that it has made a reasonab[e effort to fill .positions on the commission with professional and lay members as highly qualified, and. representinl~ as diverse a range of disciplines, as possible. Commission n.: ..... bets shall be appointed by the chi.:..‘ .~lected local official and approved ’toy the ci:), council or board of supervisors. The chief elected local .official shall make interim appointments to 5ill unexpired terms in the event of vacarK:ies occurring durinl~ the term of members o5 the commission. The appointing authority shall act within sixty (60) days to fill a vacancy. Terms of office of the commission members shall be staggered and of two (2) year minimum duration (except as provided in the inizia:ion of the commission). The commission shall meet at least four (~) times per year. with meetinRs held at reRular intervals, in a public place, advertised in advance, and open to the public, pursuant to the California Open MeetinR Act. Written minutes 0f commission meetini~s shall be kept on file and available for public inspection. Each commission member is required to a~end at least one informational of educational meetinl~, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and 5unctions of the commission and wouJd be approvable by the state. The annual State Historic Preservation Conference, sponsored by OHP, provides special sessions devoted to the issues, objectives, and responsibilities of commissions. The commission shall publish procedurai rules for registering historical properties identified in a local cultura~ resources survey program for the National Register o~ Historic Places, in accordance with the requirements in the NationaI Historic Preservation Act, Section i01(c)(2). The pro<:edura! requirements must include standards and criteria for individua! properties and districts ~vith boundary identification, property owner notification, public meetinR format, and appeal procedures in accordance with established National Register regulations. The CLG does not have the authority to nominate properties directly to the National Resister. The commission shall be responsible for overseeing the compi!in~, recordinR[, and updatinR of information on cultural resources within i~s jurisdiction. The information shall be based on a comprehensive survey whi~.h is conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures. Surveys completed prior to the certification of a lo~’al governmenl must be done in accordance with state standards. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the state at the end of each calendar year. The reports shall include, but not be limited "1o, such information as appointments to the commission, resumes oI commission members and staff, attendance records o5 members, official minutes of the commission meetings, revisions in the enabling ordinance if applicable, sponsorship of special programs such as educationaJ ~vorkshops or conferences, summaries of environmental review cases requirin~ commission comments, new landmarks and historic districts designated, reviev~ of National Register nominations, cultural resources survey updates, and other pertinent activities perSormed by the commission. Ill. IV. ~Aaintain a system ’ the survey and inventory of hist, ...-~properties: The CLG shah be responsible for organizing, developing, and administering an inventory o~ cultu~l resources within the entire CLG. A.The commission shall develop procedures for conducting an inventory of c~ltur~l resources. Survey activities shaI! be coordinated with ’and complementary to the state program to ensure that survey results produced by the CLG will be readily integrated into the statewide comprehensive historic preservation planninlK process. As part o£ any ongoing survey efJ~ort, procedural requirements must allow for periodic update of survey results on an annual basis as buildings R~ain maturity and as new areas are incorporated or annexed by the CLG. The commission must adopt s~ate guidelines for conductin~ its inventory of historic properties. State-approved inventory forms (I~PR .s23), encodin~ sheets (DPR 660), and the California Historic Resources Inventory Survey Workbook shall he used to fac£[ita~e ~ntegration into the state electronic data system and for statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning purposes. Pro<zedural standards for evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria. The commission shall establish interna! procedures to facilitate the use of survey results in the planning process by the CLG oflicials and departments. The commission shal! submit survey results to the CLG. C.opies o.( the survey mu~ be on deposit at the local plannin~ department and OHP. See IVB(2) below for public access requirements. Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program: A.The CLG shall provide opportunities for public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the CLG, in accordance with appropriate regulations, standards, and guidelines. The CLG shall encourage public participation in local historic preservation proRrams. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in direct involvemen~ on the local historic preservation commission as professional or lay members. Commission meetings shall be open to the public, with published agenda and minutes in accordance with the Cali(ornia Open ~4eetinB Act. The published a~enda shall be mai~ed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen orR~anizations interested in the commission’s activities. Public par~ .’oation shall be fully encouraged i’ -~he performance of the histori~.L, urvey program at all levels of c~- ~letion to identify and inventory significant cultural resources in the jurisdiction of the CLG. Survey results shall be of public record and on file at a public institutiont except in the case of sensitive resources, archeological sites subj.,~e(.:, t to vandalism. Public participation and comment shall be fully encouraged in the nomination process for the National Register of Historic Places program. The CLG shall publish the procedures by which asse~smen~ of potential National Register nomination~ will be administered. Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to the CLG: A.The state shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the CLG for consistency with the identiZication~ evaluation~ and preservation priorities of the comprehensive state historic preservation planninF~ process. The state shalJ conduc’¢ an annual review ol CLGs to assure that each government continues to meet the minimal requirements and issatisfactorily performin!~~ its responsibilities. As part of this review, the state shall examine the annual reports submitted by the CLGs, records of the administration of funds allocated from the HPF, and other documents as necessary, The CLG shall make these records available to the state. If the state evaluation indicates that the CLG no lon~er meets the minimal requirements or that in any other way a CLG’s performance is not satisfactory, the state shall document tha~ assessment and recommend to the local government steps to bring its performance up to a ,satisfactory level. The CLG shah have a period of not less than 30 nor more than I~O days to implement improvements. If the state determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred~ the state shall recommend decertiIication of ,the Io~.al government to the .Se~.retary, citin~ specific reasons for the recommendation. Performance shall be deemed unsatisfactory if one or more of the following conditions exist or is applicable.- a)the commission fails to perform its delegated responsibilities within established time periods= b)the CLG fails to coordinate its responsibilities with the statei c} the commission substan~ally fails to malntain.:consistency of its design review decisions with the Secretary’s standards for historic preservationl ~d)the CLG fails to maintain a qualified historic preservation revie~ commission membership or fails to acquire the appropriate expertise for review and commentl e)the CLG fails to enforce the provisions of the local preservation ordinanceI (~) the CLG £ails to comply adequately with proper fiscal management of HPI= lzrants in accordance with OMB Circular A-12~, the Single Audit Act of 198% and the National Re~.ister Prot(rams Manual. The state shall conduct financial assistance ~.lose-out procedures pursuant to the National Re~ister Prol(rams Manual when a local LRoverh~,,~-nt is decerti C.CLGs may , ’tion OHP to be decertified v ’,~tarUy and without p rei udi co. The St-ate shall identify specific respons]bi]ities delegated in common to all CLGs. The CLG may assume certain responsibilities of recommendin~R properties identified in the CLG jurisdiction to the Nationa! Re~;ister o5 Historic Places. The SHPO shall have the s~le responsibility of nominating National Register properties directly to the Secretary. Selection o~ properties for nomination to the National Register shall be based on the results of the ioc~l survey program. Procedural ~Jldelines sh~II specify the process for accepting application requests, property owner notification, public hearing announcements, and coordination with the state. All meetings shall be open to the public at specified intervals and mus~ be in accordance with the California Open Meeting Act. Pubtished agenda a~d minutes o5 the public meetings shall be on ~ile wi%h the commission and the state. l~ecislons of the commission must be presented to the applicant, the property owner, and the state in writini~ with specific reference to the selected National Re~ister criterion and the appropriate level of si~nific~nce. The commission shall .consider all Nationa! Resister appUca~Jons exclusively in accordance with the National ReL~,ister criteria. Membership of the commission mu~ include or have access to qualified exper1~ knowledgeable in the subject area sL~mitted for review. The CLG shall establish procedures for the National ReRister nomina~Jon process consistent with the requirements in the National Historic Preservation Act, Section Subsection IOI(t:)(2)(A) states that "Before a property within the jurisdiction of ~he certified local government may be considered by the State to be nominated ~o the Secretary for inclusion on the National Resister~ the State Historic Preservation Officer shall notify the owner, the applicable chief local ejected officiaJ, and the locaJ.historic preservation commission. The commission, a£ter reasonable opportunity for public comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its Opinion, meets the criteria o£ the National Re~ister. Within sixty days of notice from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the chie~ local elected official shall transmit the report of the commission and his recommendation to the State Historic Preservation O£ficer. Except as provided in subparal~raph (B)~ after receipt of such report and recomrn, endation~ or if no such report and recommendation are received within sixty days, the State shaJ[ m~::-:- the nomination pursuant to Se.~i_:.:,n 101(a~. The State may" expedite such process with thi:- concurrence of the certified Ioca! l~overnment." bo Subsec~on 191(c)(2)(B) states that "If both the commission and the chief Icx:al elected official recommend that a property not be nominated to the National Re~ister, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall take no further action, unless within thir~’y days of the receipt of such recommendation by the State Historic Preservation Officer an appeal is filed with the State. It such an appeal is J~iled, the State shall follow the precedure (or malting a nomination pursuant to Section 10J Ca). Any report and recommendations made under this section shall be included with any nomination s~bmitted by the state to the Secretary". By mutual ~’itten al~reement with the local R~overning body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. EXPANDED LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION Local governments may par’ticipate at the expanded level of participation by ~.omplyinlK ~v~th aJJ responsibilities required at the threshold level o5 participation. By mutual ~ritten a~reement with the "]oca| governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the ~LG. Local governments may be certified to participate in the program at the expanded level o{ participation by IulIiiling selected elements of the following requirements: State enablinl~.legislation provides for local jurisdictions to enact appropriate leL~islation. The CI~G shall adopt a historic preservation ordinance with the {oll owl nl~ provisi ons: I~eclaration of Policy - A statement of purpose should clearly recite the reasons for enactinl~ the ordinance and specil]cally contain a general weliare clause iIlus~ating that historic preservation is in the public interest. The policy declaration shall also describe the public benefits possible for the CLG ~ained throul~h educational, cultural, aesthetic, social, and economic enhancements from historic preservation. Preservation Commission - The ordinance shall authorize the creation of a historic preservation commission. Provisions of the ordinance must include specific ~uidance in the membership composition, qualifications, compensation, appointments, powers, and terms o5 olfice of the commission. The commission s~affinL~, budgeting, rule-making authority, and lei~al jurisdiction overseeing historic preservation activities must be well defined. The ordinance shall give the commission authority to premull~ate its own operating rules. (by-laws). Rules of procedure adopted hy the rnmmission shall be avaiJable for public insF~K:~ion. The area of geographic~l authority for the commission sha[[ be coterminous with the boundaries of the !ocaJ jurisdiction. 8 "It. Penalties and ~ever~biIity - Strict criminal ~a~d~civil penalty provisions mus~ be in~luded to ensure enforcement (mpability and credibility. Sever~biliW shail be included to protect against the disailowance of the iota! ordinance in the event that one section is de:ermined to be unconstioatior~1 or otherwLse invalidated. Operational Definitions - The ordinance shaJJ include precise deflnitions criteria, ~mration ~d ~p~vem~t stand~ds, demo~zion ~ays, ~d ~h~ p~~ t~mi~lo~ ~ ~ip cl~i~ ~ de~ne ~minisI~tive p roce~ ms. The CLG may adopt a historic-~1 preservation element ~or the local )urisdic~ion~ Gener-~ Plan, as authorized by the California Government Code. The CLG, in conjunction with the state, sh~{l establish procedures for implem entation o~ the element. The CLG shall participate in the environmental review of loca! proje~ts in accordance with the requirements under the California F-nvironment~l Qua!ity Ac~. The commLssion may review and comment on permit actions affecting signi~icant listed historic properties and other resources e!igible for l£s~ing, in accordance with locai ordinance requirements and with the Ca.tiforn£a Environmentai Qu~!ity A~t. Procedur-~ ~delines should include_ standards for demolition stays~ design review criteria, anti-neglect reqorements, and appe.~l strategies. IV.The CLG may participate in the review and comment on historic preservation certification applications for tax incentives. The CLG znd ~ate may eszabi~h priests for imp[emenZa~ion of ~he inve~menI ~x credk pro~m a~ the [o~ level in C~£O~ with ~,,S~ret,~y of the [n:~ior’s Standards for His~or ic Present!on, The CLG may develop educational programs promotin~ historic preservation at the local, leve! such as, but no~ limited to, sponsorship of preservation workshops, vabL~c~tion of preservation information, organizin~ preservation fairs, conduc’dng waikinl~ tours, and preparinl~ preservation curricula for schools. VIll. Commission members may acz in an advisory capacity to other officials and depar~rnen~ within the [o(:ai govemmerrt and act as a liaison on behalf of the CLG to indiy!duais and organizations concerned with historic preservation. The CLG may participate in the MiLts Act properD,-tax relief program for -owners of historic properties. The CLG may p~’ticipate in the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act for issuance of tax-exempt induslrial deve!opmen~ bonds, providln8 that the comm£ssion shall serve as all or part of the required citizen advisory board. 9 CER.’TIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS shaft provide a mechani~n foe cer~Jying locaJ govemmen~ ~n participate in CLG p~m. L~ ~ov~nm~ may s~mit app~ca~io~ ~or cer~lca~lon a~ The chief elec~:u-d Ioc-~ official shall reque~ ce~Lfication from the ~a~e in writinI~, with specific referenc~ ~o thr~hold or e.~.anded level of participation. The otficial reques~ for ce~kfic~don ~hall include: A.A wri~en a.~urance by the d~ie~ elected local official that the loca~ governmen= fulfill~ and shall fulfill all the requirements of the cer’~ific~don ~andards, A copy .of the Ioc~l historic preservation legislation and a copy of ~he local ~overnmer~ char~er, wi~h de~cr~p~ion of ~be boundaries adminis’~ered by the local ]uri~dic-tion, C. Re~ume~ for each o~ the members of the h~toric preservation commission, D.Name~ and resumes, where appropriate, of ~a~ members responsible for admini~tration o~ Ihe historic preserv-~ion program for the commission or loc~l ~overnm enIt 11 begun, evidence o~ a cultur~l resources survey performed in !he. comm~i~, wi~ i~mad~ ~ t~ pmg~ ~ ~m intent A brief explanation of ac~ivitie~ proposed by !he local government to provide the s~a~ wit~ preliminary informa~ion on su~ested work functions. 2.The state shall respond %o the chief elec~d local o~5icial wiIhin for~y-five (~5) days of rec~ip~ of an adequately docum ented writlen request. A comml~ee of SHPO ~a~ members sha.[1 review ehe certLfica~ion appllc~don~ %o ~mi~ ~ 1o~ govemmen~ ~b~fi~ ~ m~ s~a~e re~men~ (or the CLC p~m a% either !he %~e~Id or e~ded level of pa~icipa~on. SH~ con~rren~ s~ be ~r~ ~or fi~ approv~ o~ ~r~ic~ion o~ a I~ gov~nm~. When a local government’s certification reque~ ha~ been approved in accordanc~ with the s~ate’s approved certification process, the sta~e shall prepa:’~ a w~i~en certification agreement for presentation to the local govemm @nl. A.The certification agreement shall identkIy the minimum required resoonsiblli~es of the loc-~l governmen~ when certified. The a~reemen~ shaft also include any additional responsib£ll%~es delegated to the CLG. 10 ~ the Secret~ry does not take exception to the reques: within fiSteen (15) working days of receipt of the state’s r~uest, the local government shall be regarded as certLfied by the The delegation of responsibiIi1:ies assigned to the CLG may be modified by amendin~ the cer~Lfica1:ion agreement: wi1:h approval of the Secretary. TRANSFER OF GRANTS TO CERTI~ED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS least ~n percent: of CaJifornla~ annual HI~ aJIo:a1:ion sh~ be wansle~ed to CLGs f~ implementa~ of eligible ~ivt~ whi~ promote t~ iden~iIi~on, ev~uation, ~ml~tion~ ~d pms~tion oi their comm~ities’ m~r~s. ~ific ~ivi~ may include, ~t not be p~ser~tion-related l~la~ion~ developm~I ol p~c ~uca:ion pro~ms, e~[~hme~ o~ compreh~ve comm~iWwi~ hist~ic pres~va~on pl~s, nomi~ion o( pmv~Ii~ m the Nation~ R~ler, ad~n~tra:ion ol a preservation revo[vin~ fund, implementa~ o~ a p~em ~minlsI~zive ~zH posi~n res~tble f~ p~tion ~vi~i~, ~d ~b~cation ol ~era:ure on ~tor~c. pms~va~on. CLGs may n~ use HP~ ~r~ f~ t~ ~quisi~on, developmenl, maimenanc~, or op~ation of h~oric p~p~i~. In addition, wans~erred monies s~ll not be app~ ~ ma~ln~ sha~ f~ ~y olh~ f~er~ gr~= ~ f~ ~obbyin~ pu~es. Any state-directed specLiic uses of HPF funds shad be for activities for which the state would be eligible for HPF 5unding, and which ar~ consisten: with the state coml~r~hensive historic preserva1:ion planning process. CaILfomia shaJl make a reasonable e~ort to distribu1:e HPF grant~ among the maximum number of eliR~ible |(X:.al ~overnments consis1:ent wi~h 36 CFI~ 61.7(~)(I). l~.easonab[a distribution of funds shad include a consideration o~ equitable allocations between urban and rum[ areas and among northern, southern~ and central portions o5 the s’r.ate. Equitable distribution dL~courages a disproportionate share o5 the allocation awarded to a single CLG. The CLG’s share of the HPF shall be o5 a suSficient amount to produce a spe~iSic impact and to generate e51ec~ direc1:ly as a result of the funds transSer. The state is not required to award funds to all governments that are eligible to receive grants. Program consistency and qualizy o5 s~andards require thai: the state not award grant funds to all eligible local l~overnments i5 there is a risk of sacrificing positive, tangible result. EliRIible local- ~oyernmen1:s shall adhere to 1:he state~ ins1:ruction~ for allocation of the CLG shar~ of California’s annual HPF. The s~ate shall periodically not:iCy all CLGs of ~he funding availability oi HPI= gran1:s to qualified local governments. The CLG rece{vin~ a certain minimum require:: L~x:~l financial management systems shall be audita’ble pursuant to the General Accountin~ O~fice~ Standards for Audit .o~ Governmental Or~FanLzations, Pro~rams~ Ac~vizies, and Functions. B.The Gate shall be re~onsible, throuy~h financial audlt~ I~ the proper accounzing o~ CLG s~e moni~ in ~cord~ce with OMB Cir~l~ A-12S, ~ ~ngle A~i~ A~ o~ ~98~ (~c Law 9~502). The CLG shall adhere to all re~remen~ of the National Re~. ister Pro~r~ms Manual., which sets forth adminis~ve procedures and policies ~or HPF R~rants awarded by :he Secretary. Indirect costs may be charged a~ part ol the CLG only if the CLG mee~s the requirements of the National Re~ister Pro,~ra~ss Manual and has a current indirec~ cost rate approved by the cognLzan~: ~ederal agency. The CLG must adhere ~ any requirements mandated by Congress resardin~ the use of the HI~F monies. The CLG shall meet all certification eIigibiJity requirements during the grant period, as specified in the written grant agreement between the state and the CLG. The state shall award funds on a competitive basis to CLGs, contingent upon the following priorities and c~iteria. The CLG demonstrates a clear understanding of state and local preserwation programs contributing .toward the iderrl:ific~tion~ evalua:ion, and protec’don o£ significant cultural resources within the jurisdiction ol the local ~overnment. The CLG provides adequate matching local share (~0%) as match for the federal grant-in-aid. A CLG requesting expanded level of participation shall receive higher sel ec~ion priority. The CLG clearly presents specific goals and objec~ves that are realistically attalnab[e within the funding period. Within thirty (30) days a.fter the state receives formal obligation of funds from the Department of the Interior, the state shaft noti~, CLGs of the successful grant awards. The state shall submit the selected CLGs to the State Historical Resources Commission for concurrence. The state shall make available to the public, upon request, the rationaJe for the applicants sele<:~ed and the amounts awarded. APPENOIX D EFINITION 5-:" .I ¯ For purposes of identification, the: "Approved State ProF~ram" means a ~ate historic preservation program that has been approved by .the Secretary o;{ the Interior. "Certified Local Government" meaJls, a local government that has bee.n ce~Lfied to c~rry o~t the purposes of the Na’r.ior~l Historic PreservaTion Act, as amended. "Chief Elec1~d Local Officia!" means the elected head of a local government. ’~LC Share" means the funding authorLzed for transfer to local governments. "Comprehensive Historic Preservation Planning" means an ongoing process that is consister~ with technical standards issued by the Department o( the Interior and which produces reliable, understandable, and up-to-date information for decision-making related to the identification, evaluation, and protection/treatment of historic resources. "Compr~hensive Statewide l-Estoric Preservation Plan" means the part of the planning process that conforms to the Secretary~ Standards for Preservation Planning and is approved as part of the S~te Program Approval Process. The comprehensive p|an en~aits or~;aniztng a lo~ical sequence of preservaT-~on information per~mining to identification, evaluation, registration, and weatrnent of historic properties, and seTtin~ priorities for accomplishing preservation activities. "Historic Preservation Fund" means the monies accrued under the Outer Continenta! Shelf Lands Act, as amended, to supgort the program of matching grants-in-aid to the s~ates for historic preservation programs and project. "Historic Preservation Review Commission" means a board, councU, commission, or other similar collegial body. "Local Government" means a city, county, parish, township, municipality or borough, or any o~her general-purpose politica~ subdivision of any state. "National Re~ister of I-Estoric Ptaces" means the national List of districts, sites, buildings, strucwdres, and objects significant ~n American history, architecture, archeo[oI~2/, engineering, and culture, maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. "The National Re~ister Programs Manual" means the manual that sets forth NP5 administrative procedures and ~idellnes for aCTivities concerning the federally-related historic preservation programs of the states, local governments, and the National Trust for l-~toric Preservation. This manual includes guidelines and procedures for the administration of the historic preservation grants-in-aid programs and supersedes the HPF Grants Mana.~ement Manua!. 13 "Nation&[ P-~rk Service"" ~ the bureau of the Department ’, the Interior to wh£¢h the Secretary o~ the h,,:--~cx" has delegated the autho~lt3 ~uqd responsibility for adm[nLsterin!~ the National I-llstoric Preservation Program. "S~retary" means the Secretary of the Interior. Unless other~vLse s~ated in law or rexu[ation, the Secretary ha~ delegated the authority and responsibility for administering the National Historic Preservation Program to the National P&rk Service. "Secretary~ Standards and GuideIine~" means the ~r~ar.v of the Interior’s Standards ~ G~de~s, ~ ~ch~Io~ ~d Hist~[c P~s~va~on.’"’"’The ~dar~s "State" means the State of California~ as represented by the State Crffice of HLstoric Preservation. "State Program" means the state historic preserv-~tion program in CaLifornia. "Sub~rante~’ mear~ the certkfied loom[ ~overnment to which a sub, rant is made by the state and which is at:countable to the state for use of the funds provided. D-2337H ! !