HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041994 - 1.56 154 through 1.57
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 4, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Bishop, Torlakson, and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE
Item No.
1.54 LETTERS dated September 21, 1994, from various citizens in Pleasant Hill opposing a four
to six lane road along the Southern Pacific right-of-way from the Pleasant Hill BART Station
to Monument Boulevard.
***REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1.55 LETTER dated September 22, 1994, from The Reverend Curtis Timmons, P.O. Box 8213,
Pittsburg 94565,urging support equal to that given to the Council of Churches for the Multi-
Cultural Development Association for counseling services for minority youth and young
adults in East Contra Costa County.
***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1.56 LETTER dated September 19, 1994, from R. Zwanziger, Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
Siskiyou County, P.O. Box 338, Yreka 96097, urging support for their opposition to the
designation of Mt. Shasta as eligible for listing as an Historic District,and requesting support
to amend provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
1.57 LETTER dated September 23, 1994, from David A. Gold, Morrison & Foerster, P.O. Box
8130, Walnut Creek 94596, on behalf of the Contra Costa Centre Association, urging the
Board to include the Southern Pacific Arterial as an alternate in the Pleasant Hill BART area
traffic study and reject the proposal of the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee to reduce
land use entitlement of the Planning Area.
***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Superviri f.gn the datg�s�gwn.
ATTESTED: .� (�� LL�� ISI 44
PHIL. BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County ad inistrator
cc: Correspondents
County Administrator puts
Public Works Director
Deputy Director-Redevelopment
Community Development Director
MEMBERS: " • V pCLERK:
Clancy Dutra.................Dist.1 of 10O Lisa Chandler
Ivan Young.. .. ... .. ........Dist.2 Phone: (916)842 8081
Roger Zwanziger.............Dist.3
SISKIYOU COUNTY
Jerry Giardino...... .... .... .Dist.4 P.O. Box 338
George Thackeray. ..... ... .Dist.5 Yreka, California 96097 RECEIVED
F
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
m_ CONTRA COSTA CO I
TO: ALL CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
FROM: SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RE: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 AS AMENDED OCTOBER
1992.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
Please find enclosed copy of letter sent to U.S. representatives
stating opposition to the designation of Mt . Shasta as eligible for
listing as a Historic District , and requesting support to amend
provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966 .
We urge you to contact appropriate legislators to express
opposition to the designation of Mt . Shasta, and support to amend
the provisions of the NHPA of 1966 to ensure that other areas in
the country do not become listed , without following due process, by
the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places as eligible
for historical designation .
You will also find enclosed an Information Sheet covering
background information relative to the Mt . Shasta historial
eligibility listing .
Thanking you in advance for your support - it is vital .
Sincerely,
SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS
Ker-1
Chairman Roger Zwanziger
RZ/cd
Enclosures
MBABERS of
Clancy Dutra.......................................Dist.1 CLERK:
Ivan Young...........................................Dist.2 S I S K ! Y 0 U COUNTY Lisa Chandler
Roger Zwanziger..................................Dist.3 Phone:916 842-8081
Jerry Glardlno.....................................Dist.4 P.O. Box 338
George Thackeray...............................Dist.5
Yreka,California 96097
September 14, 1994
The Honorable Wally Herger
House Office Building
1108 Longworth
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Hqrger:
The Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou California, is extremely concerned with
the Mt. Shasta Historical District Eligibility Listing, Ethnic Heritage: Native American.
We are equally concerned with the provisions in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) which enabled this to occur and could occur elsewhere in Siskiyou County and
the entire country.
Provisions of the referenced NHPA provide mechanisms by which Native Americans
can control all activities ("Undertakings") on ALL GOVERNMENT OWNED LANDS by
invoking claims of religious and cultural importance. Once an area is established as
being eligible for listing,,the Protection of Historic Properties Regulations (36 CFT Part
800) are imposed. This issue is of major significance locally, state wide and
nationally.
We oppose the listing proposing or treating as a historic district or site, any essentially
unimproved or essentially unmodified landscape feature which lacks artifacts or other
physical evidence of human activity.
We therefore request that you take the necessary action to amend the provisions of
the NHPA as amended October 1992, that has permitted this to occur.
Page Two
Representative Wally Herger
September 14, 1994
We would appreciate your prompt response to our request.
Sincerely,
SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS
Roer Z nziger
Chairman
RZ:sb
cc: Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt
Governor Pete Wilson
Senator Maurice Johannessen
TI\TTP RM.4 'Ir TC-)1\T SHFF`T'
MT SHASTA HISTORICAL ELIGIBILITY LISTING:
NATIVE AMERICAN: CRITERION A, ETHNIC HERITAGE
ELIGIBILITY LISTING
HOW DID IT HAPPEN
1 . MT SHASTA SKI BOWL PROJECT APPEALS BY ACTIVIST ( 1984/1992 )
2 . REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL LISTING BASED UPON NATIVE AMERICAN
SPIRITUAL AND CULTURE IMPORTANCE PER ITEM A
A. 1992 AMENDMENT TO 1966 NHPA (Many significant changes)
1 ) . 1SECTION 101 (d) (6) (A) PROPERTIES OF TRADITIONAL.
RELIGIOUS & CULTURAL IMPORTANCE TO AN INDIAN TRIBE
OR NATIVE HAWAIIAN ORIGINATION ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
INCLUSION IN THE REGISTER
2 ) . SECTION 101 (d) (6) (B) FEDERAL AGENCY 106 PROCESS
REQUIRES CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES) ON ANY
"UNDERTAKING" THAT ATTACHES RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL
°SIGNIFICANCE TO PROPERTY
3) . SECTION 110 REQUIRES FEDERAL AGENCY TO REVIEW ALL
GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED PROPERTY FOR HISTORICAL
ELIGIBILITY
41 . USFS IN SPRING OF 1992 "REQUESTED COMMENTS FROM
LIST OF "INTERESTED PERSONS" ( USFS claims it sent
900 letters and received approximately 200
responses)
5 . ) ETHNOGRAPHIC REVIEW BY USFS CONSULTANT INTERVIEWED
40 AMERICAN INDIANS TO DETERMINE ' SPIRITUAL AND
CULTURAL IMPORTANCE
5 . THE KEEPER IGNORED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE USFS, ,SHPO,
COUNTY AND CITY AND THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES OF DEPT OF
INTERIOR REGULATIONS 36 CFR PART 60. ON MARCH 11, 1994 HE
DECLARED 23,5 SQUARE MILES OF MT SHASTA ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING
PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
WHO HAS CONTROL ?
1 . PROPERTIES/DISTRICTS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ARE SUBJECT TO THE
SAME PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS AS A FORMALLY LISTED PROPERTY OR
DISTRICT PER 36 CFR PART 800 (ADVISORY COUNCIL PROCEDURE)
A. USFS INITIATES AN "UNDERTAKING"
1 . 106 PROCESS PROVIDES FOR CONTACT 'WITH POSSIBLE
CONSULTING PARTIES
B. FEDERAL AGENCY (USFS) * (REQUIRED)
a. INDIAN TRIBES * (REQUIRED) **
b. INTERESTED PERSONS
c . LOCAL GOVERNMENT
d. FEDERAL APPLICANT
e . PUBLIC
2) . SHPO (STATE) * (REQUIRED)
3) . ADVISORY COUNCIL * (REQUIRED)
C. SHPO/CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
EIR' S ARE NOW REQUIRED FOR ALL PROPERTY THAT MAY HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON A FEDERALLY LISTED OR
ELIGIBLE PROPERTY/DISTRICT PER AB2881 APR 1992
** NOTE: INDIAN TRIBE CLAIMS/CONCERNS OF RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE
T.ci THF. 11CT(_ATTVTf 71MrVf1 nV 'TnTATt- V71/1TP113 TwT mvnnr.
INFO SHEET- MT SHASTA HISTORICAL ELIGIBILITY LISTING
PROCEDURES & APPEALS
FEDERAL REGULATORY DOCUMENTS
1 . 36 CFR PART 63 DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
A. SECTION 63 . 4 Keeper makes determination on properties nominate
by Federal Agencies under section 2 (a) of Executive order
11593 .
1) . Executive Order 11593 (WE DON' T HAVE THIS ONE)
B. SECTION 63 .6 REVIEW AND NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE
1) . 63 . 6 (a) For Federal owned property Keeper request
formally nominated within six months .
2 ) . . 63 . 6 (b) For property not under Federal control Keeper
request SHPO to nominate the property within six months .
C. 36 CFR PART 60 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
1 ) . 60 . 4 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
a) . 60.4(a) The quality of significance in American
History--culture--feeling and association that are
associated with events that have made a significant
contributions tothe broad patterns of our
history--(Mt Shasta .eligibility determination)
2 ) . 60 . 6 NOMINATIONS BY SHPO
a) . 60 . 6(b) The State shall consult with local
authorities in the nomination process .
b) . 60 . 6(b) State is required to notify in writing the
property owner(s) .
c) ,. 60 . 6 (.g) Will not be listed i,f majority of Property
owner(s) object .
d) . 60.,6(n) Property owners object, SHPO submits to
Keeper for Eligibility listing only (Eligible
Listings have the Protective restrictions as
Formally listed! )
e) . 60 . 6 (t) Any person or origination which supports or
objects during nomination process may petition
keeper to accept or reject the nomination .
f) . 60 . 6 (v) Veto power of Keeper!
3) . 60 . 9 NOMINATIONS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
a) . 60 . 9( 1) same as 60 . 6(t)
4 ) . 60. 10 CONCURRENT STATE AND FEDERAL NOMINATION
a) . 60 . 10(b) Portion of area not under Federal or
control requires notification to property owners .
b) . 60 . 10(c) SHPO and State Review Board agreement or
disagreement requirements -
C.) . 60 . 10 (d) Property owner objection prevents formal
listing but still can be listed as eligible with
all of those restrictions
d) . 60 . 14 ( a) ( 2 ) BOUNDARY CHANGES Four justifications
exist for altering a boundary:
1 . Professional error
2 . loss of historic integrity
3 . additional significance,,
4 . additional research
INFO SHEET: MT SHASTA HISTORICAL ELIGIBILITY LISTING
5 ) . 60 . 15 REMOVING PROPERTIES FROM THE REGISTER
a) . 60 . 15 ( x) Grounds for removing property from the
register.
1 . Ceased to meet criteria for listing
2 . Additional information
*** 3 . Error in professional judgement
*** 4. Prejudicial procedural error in nomination or
listing process
b) . 160 . 15 (c) Person of originations removal petition
c) . ,60 .15(g) SHPO may elect to have property removed
d) . 60 . 15 (k) Keeper may remove property from listing
e) . 60. 15(1) Exhausted administrative remedies when
keeper. denies petition for removal!
9/11/94 jw
SAMPLE LE_-F-1- EF:?,
September 3 , 1994
TO: The Honorable Barbara Boxer, United States Senate
The Honorable Diane Feinstein, United States Senate
The Honorable Wally Herger, United States Representative
Mr. Jerry L Rogers, Associate Director, Cultural Resources
And Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND PROVISIONS. OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 AS AMENDED OCTOBER 1992 AND REMOVE THE
ELIGIBILITY DISTRICT STATUS OF MOUNT SHASTA, CA.
REFERENCE: THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA) OF 1966
AS AMENDED OCTOBER 1992 .
Dear Senators and Congressman,
The city Council of County of is
extremely concerned with the Mt. Shasta Historical District
Eligibility Listing, Ethnic Heritage: Native American located in
Siskiyou County, CA. We are equally concerned with the provisions
in the NHPA which enabled this to occur and could occur elsewhere
in this state and anywhere in the entire country.
Provisions of the referenced NHPA provide mechanisms by
which Native Americans can control all activities ( "Undertakings" )
on ALL GOVERNMENT OWNED LANDS by invoking claims of Religious and
Cultural Importance. once an area is established as being Eligible
for Listing, the Protection of Historic Properties Regulations ( 36
CFR Part 800) are imposed. This issue is of major significance,
locally, state wide and Nationally!
we oppose the listing, proposing, or treating as a historic
district or site any essentially unimproved or essentially
unmodified landscape feature which lacks artifacts or other
physical evidence of human activity..
we threfore request that you take the necessaryactionto
amend the provisions of the NHPA as amended October, 1992 that has
permitted this to occur and remove the Eligibility District
listing now imposed on Mount Shasta.
We would appreciate a quick response.
Sincerely,
Mayor,
cc : secretary of Interior Bruce Babbit
Governor Pete Wilson
Senator Maurice Johannesson
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
All Citv Councils . Siskivou Countv
STATE OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Govoma(
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O.BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO 9-4296-0001
(916)653-6624
FAX:(916)653-9824
FACT SHEET: CEQA AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
What is CEQA?
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the
principal statute mandating environmental assessment of projects
in California. CEQA applies to all projects carried out by
state and local government agencies, special districts and
public institutions of higher education. It also applies to
private projects which require a discretionary permit or
license. CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources
Code (PRC) section 21000 et seq.
The purpose of CEQA review is to evaluate whether a proposed
project may have an adverse effect on the environment, and,
if so, if that effect can be reduced or eliminated by pursuing
an alternative course of action or through mitigation.
The Guidelines for 'the California Environmental Quality Act
are the regulations which govern the implementation of CEQA.
The 'Guidelines are codified in the California Administrative Code
section 15000 et seq. and are binding on state and local
governments.
How does CEQA affect historical resources?
Historical resources have always been recognized as a part of
the environment under CEQA (PRC section 21001 (b) ) . Projects
affecting i:istorical resources have been routinely reviewed by
state and local governments as part of the environmental review
process mandated -by CEQA.
How does AB 2881 change CEQA?
AB 2881 ammended CEQA to make it much easier to identify and
define historical resources and actions which have an adverse
effect on them.
AB 2881 defined an "historical resource's as:
a resource listed or eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources
(PRC section 5024 . 1 (a) .
84
FACT SHEET: CEQA AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES Pg 2
AB 2881 established a presumption of significance unless
proven otherwise:
locally significant resources are presumed to be
significant unless the preponderance of the
evidence demonstrates that it is not historically
or culturally significant (PRC section 21084 . 1) .
AB 2881 defined a "substantial adverse effect" on
an historical resource as:
an effect that may change the significance
of -the resource (PRC section 5020. 1
21084 . 1) .
AB 2881 re-emphasized, and clarified, the
application of CEQA to historical properties:
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource
is a significant effect on the environment
(PRC section 21084. 1)..
AB 2881 limits the use of categorical exemptions
when an historical property is involved:
no class of projects which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource
may be categorically exempted from CEQA
review (PRC section 21084 (e) ) .
Demolition, replacement, substantial alteration, and
relocation of historic properties are actions which will change
the significance of an historical resource.
What does the California Register have to do with CEQA?
The California Register is now the authoritative listing of
California's significant historical resources for purposes
of. CEQA.
The California Register includes all National Register listed
and eligible properties. California Landmarks and Points of
Historical. Interest determined eligible for listing by the State
Historical Resources Commission will also be listed. It also
allows, subject to SHPO review and State Historical Resources
commissionreview and approval, inclusion of properties of local
significance (i.e. locally designated- landmarks and districts) .
l✓ a
FACT SHEET: CEQA AND HIS'T'ORICAL RESOURCES Pg 3
However, projects which would have substantial adverse
impacts on historical properties not listed on the California
Register are not exempt from CEQA.
How does AB 2881 affect the way local governments deal with
projects affecting historic properties?
AS 2881 does not create any new permit review requirements or
procedures. It does not affect the issuance of permits which
are ministerial.
In cities and counties with historic preservation ordinances, -
local Landmark Commissions will now need to apply the new
definitions provided by AB 2881 in project evaluation.
In jurisdictions where there is no local ordinance or
commission, the determination of "substantial adverse effect" on
an historical resource will be made by the local permitting
authority. Most cities and counties regularly make
determinations regarding the applicability of CEQA to proposed
projects. As in the case of the local Landmark Commissions, the
definitions provided by AB 288.1. must now be applied.
How will the California Register and the CEQA provisions of
AB 2881 be implemented?
AB 2881 mandated the listing of certain categories of
significant historic properties. Other properties placed on the
California Register must be reviewed by the State Historical
Resources Commission under procedures they are required to adopt.
At the present time the Commission and a sub-committee
representing a broad spectrum of preservation, local government
and property owner interests, are working to develop criteria and
procedures for placing properties on the Register. As work
progresses, public input and comment will be solicited through the
State Historical Resources Commission regular public meeting
process.
In addition, the State .Historic Preservation Office will be
working to provide state and local agencies with information on
listed properties within their jurisdictions. The SHPO
will also be upgrading an electronic information system to
service local governments and citizen groups, and to provide
technical information to assist in implementation of the Register
and the protections it provides for California's important
historic heritage.
Individuals wishing to comment on draft procedures, Register
guidelines and application forms may be placed on an informational
mailing list by contacting the California Register Program, State
Office of Historic Preservation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA,
94296-0001, or by calling (916) 653-6624.
86