At the Planning Commission meeting tonight there was open discussion in regards to drafting a policy on historic stone curb repair, removal and replacement. There were many concerned residents present with apprehensions that the commission would allow for the Public Works department to replace the stone curbs in our neighborhood, specifically along Arrow Highway, with modern concrete curbs that would be half the cost.

Our fears were realized when the Board voted to not create a policy to preserve the stone curbs due to the increased cost, and one Board member remarked on how selfish it was of us to make this request in preserving our historic neighborhood curbs during this economic downturn. The stimulus money has already been allocated for this project - yet many Board members agreed that the money could be used for better purposes elsewhere.

If you are concerned about this - please visit the link below. Pasted below are the details. Please forward this to all that you think might share your concerns and contact the Upland Public Works Department and your local officials.

http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/public-policy/perfect-storm/protecting-places.html

Thank you -

Pleasant View Neighbors Group

Protecting Places in a Stimulus Environment

Medium-sized image unavailable for this photo.
Section 106 allows local citizens to participate in planning meetings as consulting parties when federal funding or actions impact historic places.

Will historic properties be subject to existing environmental reviews under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

The answer is yes. According to Section 1.6 of the Initial Implementation Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and related statutes, including requirements for plans and projects to be reviewed and documented in accordance with those processes."

The National Historic Preservation Act protects the rights and values of private property owners, local officials and citizens across the United States, giving them a place at the table when the actions of federal agencies threaten to affect historic properties. Section 106 of the act provides a process that requires those agencies to "take into account" the effects of their decisions and their projects on historic properties, as well as to work with states, tribes and local communities to seek ways to lessen the effects of those projects.

Section 106 requires a process, not an outcome. The goal is not to save every historic site, but to make sure that they are considered and that their value is weighed against other public values. Section 106 helps to prevent governmental agencies from running roughshod over the rights of citizens, private property owners, and local and tribal governments when it comes to the protection of our history.

Section 106 reviews are divided into four basic steps:

• Identify the project, its location and whether any historical or archeological resources are located within the project area. If the project area has not yet been surveyed for resources, the applicant is responsible for identifying resources.
• The federal agency and state historic preservation office review the findings and determine whether the project will have an effect on identified resources.
• If there is an effect, the two agencies determine whether the effect is adverse, and if so, whether the adverse effect can be avoided, minimized or mitigated.
• If the adverse effects cannot be avoided or minimized, the agencies work with the applicant to create a mitigation package to address the adverse impacts.

For more information on Section 106, please visit the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to readProtecting Historic Properties: A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review and their new Q&A briefing paper, Coordination of Section 106 for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Programs and Activities.

http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/public-policy/perfect-storm/protecting-places.html