Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-02 - Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Memo[Type text] MEMORANDUM DATE: September 25, 2017 TO: Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission FROM: Matthew Martin, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Overview of the October 2, 2017, Historic Landmarks Meeting The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the upcoming Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) meeting on October 2, 2017. The meeting will include: 1. Training Recap: Certified Local Government and the National Register of Historic Places 2. Nomination Review: Nomination of Central Oregon Canal Segment for the National Register of Historic Places 3. Other Items 1. TRAINING RECAP: Certified Local Government and the National Register Of Historic Places On September 19, 2017, Jason Allen of the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a training with the intent to provide an understanding of the National Register, the Landmarks Commission’s role and responsibilities to the National Register nomination process, and how to effectively serve that role. He provided a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 1) as part of the training. Included in his presentation were references to National Register Bulletins (NRB). For reference, the following are links to NRBs cited:  NRB 15 – How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/  NRB 16A - How to Complete the National Register Registration Form https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/INDEX.htm This training serves as an excellent primer for the review of the current and any future nominations for the National Register of Historic Places. 2. NOMINATION REVIEW: Nomination of Central Oregon Canal Segment for the National Register of Historic Places A nomination to list a segment of the Central Oregon Canal as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places has been submitted to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. The proposed district is located southeast of the City of Bend and generally bound by Ward Road to the west and Gosney Road to the east. The materials received by the County from the SHPO include:  August 16, 2017, Cover Letter from SHPO (Attachment 2)  Agenda for the October 20, 2017 Meeting of the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (Attachment 3)  July 21, 2017, Memo from SHPO to Patricia Kliewer, Preparer (Attachment 4)  National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet (Attachment 5)  National Register of Historic Placer Registration Form (nomination)1 As part of the review of the nomination, the local Certified Local Government (CLG) is afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the nomination. Evaluation by the CLG is expected to be through the completion of the National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet and a supporting narrative. To be considered by the SACHP, the evaluation must be submitted in advance of their meeting on October 20th. Procedurally, a formal public hearing before the HLC is not required but a “…reasonable opportunity for public comment…” (54 U.S.C. 3025504) shall be provided. Determination of what a “reasonable opportunity for public comment” is at the discretion of the HLC. Staff notes that Pat Kliewer, preparer of the nomination, and Craig Horrell, Central Oregon Irrigation District Manager, have both expressed interest in providing comments. Mrs. Kliewer also indicated others may want to comment. Mr. Horrell submitted a memo on September 7, 2017, addressing the nomination (Attachment 6). Following the meeting on October 20th, the SACHP will make a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer to approve or deny the document, or choose to table the issue for a future meeting. If recommended for approval or denial, the document will be held by SHPO for a 90-day comment period. The State Historic Preservation Officer will then make a recommendation to the National Park Service (NPS), the federal agency responsible for the administration of the National Register of Historic Places. The NPS will review the document for 45 calendar days. 3. OTHER ITEMS CLG Workshop: The SHPO has scheduled a CLG workshop on October 17th in Canby. The agenda has not been finalized at this time but will be forwarded to the HLC when available. Staff plans on attending and can facilitate a carpool based on commissioner interest. CLG Grant Update: Staff will provide a general update on projects associated with the CLG Grant. Attachments: 1. PowerPoint from 9/19/17 Training: Certified Local Government and the National Register Of Historic Places 2. 8/16/17 Cover Letter from SHPO 3. Agenda for the 10/20/17 Meeting of the SACHP 4. 7/21/17 Memo from SHPO to Patricia Kliewer, Preparer 5. National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet 6. 9/7/17 Memo from Craig Horrell, COID 1 Due to the size of the electronic version of the National Register of Histgoric Places Registraion Form (16MB) it is not attached. The document can be found at the following link: http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/docs/sachp_docs/CentralOregonCanalHD_SACHP_Draft.pdf Certified Local Government and the National Register of Historic Places Major Subjects •The legally-defined role of the CLG and the HLC in the National Register nomination process •Overview of the National Register Process •Intro to the National Register •Determining eligibility •Special Cases •Resources Agenda Jason’s Goal for the Day To provide this HLC with an understanding of the National Register, the Commission’s role and responsibilities to the National Register nomination process, and how to effectively serve that role. Part I: Roles and Authorities Who does what, and who says you get to? Cast of Players •National Park Service •State Historic Preservation Office •State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation •Certified Local Government (Historic Landmark Commission) •Sponsor/Preparer of nomination •Property owner(s) •Members of the Public (Proponents/opponents) Who is involved? Reviewing Bodies (in order of review) •SHPO –provides NR process and nomination mechanics expertise •HLC –provides local historical expertise •SACHP –provides broad, statewide, interdisciplinary professional expertise •NPS –provides final NR mechanical expertise Each body is reviewing for essentially the same things –accuracy and technical completeness –but each brings different expertise that compliment each other. CLGs and the National Register Legally Speaking… •54 USC 300311 –Describes the National Register Program •54 USC 302501-302505 –Describes the CLG Program 54 USC 302504 -Participation of Certified Local Governments in National Register Nominations 54 USC 302504 §302504 (a) Notice –Before anything else, SHPO must notify the owner, chief local elected official, and the HLC. •SHPO does this. (b) Report –Commission shall (after “a reasonable opportunity for public comment”)prepare a report on whether the nomination meets the criteria of the National Register, and deliver that report to the SHPO within 60 days of receipt of the notice. •The review form provided by the SHPO serves as the report. (c) Recommend –In the report, HLC recommends listing (or files no report) or recommends not listing. If HLC and chief elected official both recommend not listing, the process ends, unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO within 30 days of receipt of the recommendation. Appealed nominations go forward, accompanied by HLC’s report and recommendation. •Also covered on the review form. The HLC’s responsibility in the National Register process is to review nominations, and make official decisions on whether the HLC feels that the nomination meets the National Register Criteria, and to recommend to the SHPO whether the nomination should be forwarded to the NPS for listing. To Recap: Part II: The Road to Listing A Brief Overview of the National Register Nomination Process Step 1:“Somebody ought to list that place in the National Register!” •Nominations begin when someone realizes a place is important, and that the National Register is the way to honor it. Then begins the vetting process. Step 2: “Lets see if the SHPO thinks it’s worth looking into.” •Submission of a Historic Resource Record (HRR) to SHPO. SHPO recommends either moving forward or not, based on what we know at that point. Step 3: “Okay, lets get started on the nomination!” •SHPO works with preparer through the revision process until the nomination is ready for the SACHP. Nomination Process Step 4: Scheduling for the SACHP •SACHP meets in February, June, and October every year. The date at which it will be heard is the key to all other major dates in the process. •60-days before the SACHP hearing, the draft nomination is sent to HLC for review and comment, notification given to owner(s) and chief elected official that a nomination has been made. •30-days before the SACHP hearing, SACHP members receive the nomination for review. SACHP Hearing •Committee conducts a similar review as the HLC, on the same elements. They consider comments received from the public, relevant officials, and the HLC, and renders a recommendation to the SHPO. •Forwarding to NPS for listing •Forwarding to NPS for listing, with conditions •Do not forward to NPS for listing* •Table for substantial revision and re-hearing at a later date.* *Proponents may appeal this recommendation and force consideration by NPS. After the SACHP Hearing… •Final revisions, if any; •90-day waiting period for comment and, if a district, voting of property owners. •Forward to NPS •45-day review period •Listing! Or not… The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. -NPS National Register homepage Part III –The National Register Nomination It’s about recognizing and honoring the historically important places throughout the country and… •Federal Government •Federal Tax benefits, impact consideration during federal project planning •State Government •State Tax benefits, grant eligibility •Local Government •Regulation, building code flexibility, grant eligibility, economic development (especially commercial districts) •Private non-profits •Grant eligibility Why list a property? Here’s the only formula you need to know: Significance + Integrity = Eligibility Preservation Math 101 Put another way: Informed Subjective Decision + Informed Subjective Decision Non-arbitrary Judgement Remember that, above all, the decision made must not be or appear arbitrary. It is not important that the recommendation agree with other reviewers, so long as it is reasonably defensible. About that “informed” part… Resources: •SHPO Staff •Local Preservationists •Local Historians •Other HLC’s And, especially: •NPS Guidance Documents!! •NR Bulletins •General, property type specific, criterion-specific, etc. •White Papers •Webinars Remember: you have 60 days to make an informed decision. Use that time to get the expertise you need, if you don’t have it handy. NR nuts and bolts Sections 1 through 7 of the nomination are pretty straightforward –identify the property and describe it. 1. Name –is it appropriately named to reflect its significance? 2. Location –is this accurately and completely provided? 3. and 4. Certification –this will be filled out by SHPO and NPS at the end of the process. 5. Classification –buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts. •Explanations of these, and examples are in NRB 16A •Is all the stuff in the nominated area accounted for? This is important! 6. Function or Use (historical and current) •categories, sub-categories, and examples are provided in NRB 16A 7. Description –architectural style, materials, narrative description •Is it accurate? Is it complete? •Is it understandable? NRB 16A!! NR nuts and bolts National Register Significance Criteria Criterion A Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B Association with the lives of persons significant to our past. Translation: These help to tell the story of our history Translation: These reflect the historical achievements or influence of important individuals John C. Ainsworth Antelope School NRB 15!! NRB 32!! Section 8 -Significance National Register Significance Criteria (cont.) Criterion C Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significance and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history NR nuts and bolts Translation: architectural merit or engineering achievement Translation: property as artifact from which we can learn NRB 15!! NR nuts and bolts National Register Criteria Considerations These are for properties that are usually not eligible, but can be under certain circumstances. A.Religious Property B.Moved Property C.Birthplace or Grave D.Cemetery E.Reconstructed Property F.Commemorative Property G.Property less than 50 years old These are pretty rare, but they do happen on occasion. NRB 15, Part VII deals with each of these in detail. NRB 15!! Area of Significance This is a narrowing of the Significance Criteria –in what realm of history is this property important? Examples are Agriculture, Industry, Transportation, Commerce, etc. The narrative statement of significance should speak directly to the Area of Significance, and should provide context on that subject NRB 15!!NRB 16A!! Period of Significance This defines the time during which the property achieved significance. For some, especially under Criterion C, the construction date is the period of significance. For associated criteria (A, B) it is often a period of time. This is related to Integrity (more on this in a moment), in that the integrity of the property should reflect the period during which it was important. NR nuts and bolts Elements of Section 8: Statement of Significance •Summary Statement of Significance •The highlights –Criterion, Area of Significance, level of significance (local, statewide, national), and VERY briefly, why it’s important. •Narrative Statement of Significance •Describes the history of the property, and how it reflects the Area of Significance. •Descriptions of related contexts •Place the property within its context –if it’s a rural school, tell the story of rural education. If it’s significant as an example of a type of school, tell about the history of school architecture. •Comparative Analysis •How does the property stack up against others that share its contexts? NRB 16A!!NR nuts and bolts Integrity Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance. It is not the same as condition. •Usually this is a reflection of appearance, relative to its Period of Significance. •The relative importance of the various aspects of integrity are related to the significance Criterion and the Area of Significance. NRB 15!! Would a person from that time easily recognize this property? Does the property still convey the story it is a part of? What are the character-defining features, and are they still present? NR nuts and bolts Understanding the 7 Aspects of Integrity 1.Location 2.Design 3.Setting 4.Materials 5.Workmanship 6.Feeling 7.Association NRB 15!! Integrity is closely related to the Period of Significance, in that it must physically reflect the character-defining elements that were present during the time it achieved significance. Alterations made after the period of significance affect integrity. Vancouver Avenue First Baptist Church NR nuts and bolts Historic Districts 1.Historic Districts (traditional) –all of the above applies, but to the district rather than each individual property. The integrity of the overall district flows from that of the individual buildings, but in aggregate, and is judged holistically. Generally, a traditional historic district requires a majority of elements to be contributing. 2.Linear Historic Districts –these are unusual in that they frequently center on a single, primary resource, and include related, secondary elements that can contribute or not. Because of this, it is not uncommon to have more non-contributing than contributing. NR nuts and bolts Section 9 –Bibliography •are the best authoritative sources for local information cited and used? •Are all cited materials accounted for in the bibliography? Section 10 –Boundary •NR boundaries are based on the significance of the property. Period. Planning considerations, buffers, etc. are not valid boundaries. •Is the boundary justified by the significance argument? Is it clearly defined? Especially with linear historic districts, NPS always want to know why the nominated area ends where it does. Additional Information (Figures) •maps, plans, historical photos –are they clear and sufficient to understand what they are attempting to convey? A few last things… NR nuts and bolts CLG Review Form The form will arrive with this filled out. Final recommendation – elaborate in a memo Are possible integrity issues explained? Is anything missing? Is the case for significance adequately made? Is it accurate? Are additional materials sufficient? Would more help? Important questions to ask during a review of a nomination 1.Are all the parts filled out correctly? 2.Is the description factually correct, logically organized, and understandable? 3.Is the Period of Significance logically defined? 4.Is the Area of Significance correctly identified and supported by contexts provided in the nomination? 5.Is the NR Criterion/Criteria properly identified? 6.Are all asserted Criteria supported in the Statement of Significance? 7.Is the historical information factually correct? 8.Is there any important historical information missing or contextual connections not made? 9.Is the property adequately photographed? 10.Are the maps and plans legible and useful? 11.Are all resources within the property accounted for? 12.Does the property retain integrity in the important aspects? 13.Is the case for significance made? If you’re not sure, it may need to be strengthened… Summing up 1. The role of the HLC in the nomination review process is IMPORTANT, and compliments those of the other reviewing bodies. No other reviewer brings the local knowledge that the HLC does. 2. If you agree that the property is eligible, but the nomination falls short, suggest ways to improve it. The goal is not just critique, it is useful feedback to facilitate a successful nomination! Final Thoughts… Resources: National Park Service Guidance Documents https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance.htm Training Webinars https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/webinars.htm Oregon SHPO National Register Program http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/Pages/index.aspx Guidance –Preparing National Register Nominations in Oregon. http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/docs/6-14-17_NR%20Handbook.pdf Guidance –Guidelines for Recording and Evaluating Linear Resources in Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/SHPO/docs/ORLinearResourcesGuidancev2.pdf 1055 SW Lake Ct. Redmond, OR 97756 541-548-6047 coid.org MEMO To: Matt Martin, Deschutes County From: Craig Horrell, COID Date: September 7, 2017 RE: Historic Nomination of COID Canal Dear Matt, Thank you for your inquiry about COID’s position regarding the historic nomination of the section of the Central Oregon Canal between Ward Road and Gosney Road. We have not been provided a copy of the nomination, so the following are only our preliminary concerns. 1. Conflict with MPD/other nominations COID recently completed a multi-year study and preparation of a Multiple Property Document that provided a comprehensive analysis of the historic resources that make up the irrigation systems within our region. That process resulted in a formal MPD approved by the National Park Service, as well as nomination of important and representative sections of the Pilot Butte Canal and Central Oregon Canal at Redmond and Brasada Ranch. Our thorough, systematic process reflected an enormous investment of time and money in order to thoroughly study, document, and preserve important historic resources. In contrast, the piecemeal “hostile nomination” of COID canal sections by those opposed to conservation projects lack the study, documentation, analysis, and holistic approach that COID has taken. If SHPO allows this piecemeal nomination process to proceed, it will undermine the efficacy and value of the MPD process and discourage entities like COID from investing in thorough study and analysis of historic resources. This is bad policy and bad precedent. 2. COID Ownership COID owns the canal as well as significant parcels of the adjacent land. COID acquired its interest in the Central Oregon Canal thorough Carey Act irrigation rights-of-way more than 100 years ago. In addition, COID owns in fee title several parcels of land adjacent to the canal in this section. Despite our ownership, we have yet to receive a copy of the nomination and have not been consulted. Again, SHPO’s allowance of hostile nominations without the consent or approval of property owners is seriously problematic and the County should discourage this precedent. 1055 SW Lake Ct. Redmond, OR 97756 541-548-6047 coid.org 3. Lack of Historic Value The canal section between Ward and Gosney Roads may be the single section of canal that presents COID with the largest maintenance and operational challenges. Over the years, we have had constant maintenance challenges in this section. We have faced problems with burrowing animals, erosion, and ground collapse that have required COID to add rip rap, perform excavation, add soil, and/or make other modifications on a nearly annual basis. There are at least eight different sections of this stretch that have been substantially rebuilt in the last 10-15 years. In addition, we have repeatedly lined this canal section with collected silt, such that very little of this section reflects its original character. Thus, unlike other sections of the canal, this particular section has less historic value and does not reflect its original construction. Instead, this is a section that has been constantly altered and worked on to try to address the thorny geology and other conditions that present ongoing maintenance challenges. This raises another concern, which is that over the years COID has repeatedly had to make emergency repairs to this section of canal. To the degree that historic nomination might preclude or impair our ability to make rapid emergency repairs (i.e., by adding large amounts of rip rap or backfill materials in the event of a collapse or breach), this could present a significant danger of harm to property or safety. 4. Conflict with Conservation In addition, we are implementing a system improvement plan to eventually pipe most of the Central Oregon Canal. This piping will allow COID to obtain substantial water conservation savings, allowing us to shore up flow in the Deschutes River, assist junior water rights holders, and meet the habitat demands of endangered and threatened species. SHPO seems to take a myopic view about historic nominations, without consideration of competing and important community values. The risk is that the historic nomination process will become a tool for obstruction of conservation, potentially tying up conservation projects in needless red tape. We are concerned that this particular nomination has very little to do with the historic value of this section of canal, and much more to do with the desire of a few property owners to preserve a water feature that they enjoy. As the County comments on this proposal, it should consider the larger context and the overall community benefit that comes from water conservation projects. While we do not have a present funding source to pipe the Ward to Goseny Roads section, COID does anticipate seeking such funding and, if successful, will look to pipe this section at some point in the future. We trust that the County recognizes COID’s appreciation and commitment to historic preservation. In large and small ways, COID celebrates its history and role in the development of Central Oregon. As an example, as part of the demolition at the old Cline Falls hydro facility, we have preserved sections of the original structure and are designing a kiosk to tell the story of that noteworthy site. Our MPD and nominations of sections of the Central Oregon and Pilot Butte canals were meaningful efforts to celebrate and preserve important components of our history. At the same time, just as the telegraph eventually gave way to telephone lines and fiber optic cable, our community must recognize that open, unlined, leaky canals are not the most efficient or appropriate way to convey water across lava rock in a high desert.