Opinion ID: 3011395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Approval Under NHPA

Text: Finally, the Society Hill Residents contend that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the City and HUD on the Residents' claim under NHPA. Regulations implementing NHPA are set forth in 36 C.F.R. S 800 et seq. The regulations include specific requirements for implementing NHPA under the UDAG program. 36 C.F.R. S 801. The UDAG regulations provide that the UDAG applicant, rather than HUD, must comply with the regulations. 36 C.F.R. S 801.2(b). A UDAG applicant is required to identify National Register properties, and properties that may meet the criteria for listing on the National Register, that may be affected by the project. 36 C.F.R. S 801.3(b). The applicant is also required to determine the effect of the project on these properties pursuant to criteria set forth in the regulations. 36 C.F.R. S 801.3(c). If an applicant determines that the project will have no effect on any identified historic properties, the project requires no further review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter Council) unless a timely objection is made by the Executive Director. 36 C.F.R. S 801.3(c)(2)(i) (emphasis added). An applicant is required to seek comments from the Council to satisfy the applicant's responsibilities under section 106 of NHPA. 36 C.F.R. S 801.4. The regulations require the following: Upon receipt of a Determination of No Adverse Effect from an applicant, the Executive Director will review the Determination and supporting documentation required by S 801.7(a). Failure to provide the required information at the time the applicant requests Council comments will delay the process. The Executive Director will respond to the applicant within 15 days after receipt of the information required in S 801.7(a). Unless the Executive Director objects to the Determination within 15 days after receipt, the applicant will be considered to have satisfied its responsibilities under section 106 of the Act and these regulations and no further Council review is required. 25 36 C.F.R. S 801.4(b)(1). The documentation required to support a Determination of No Adverse Effects includes: (i) A general discussion and chronology of the pro posed project; (ii) A description of the proposed project includi ng, as appropriate, photographs, maps, drawings and specifications; (iii) A copy of the National Register form or a co py of the Determination of Eligibility documentation for each property that will be affected by the project including a description of each property's physical appearance and significance; (iv) A brief explaining why each of the Criteria o f Adverse Effect (See statement S 801.3(c)(1)) was found inapplicable; (v) Written views of the State Historic Preservati on Officer concerning the Determination of No Adverse Effect, if available; and, (vi) An estimate of the cost of the project includ ing the amount of the UDAG grant and a description of any other Federal involvement. 36 C.F.R. S 801.7(b)(1). During oral argument we expressed our concern that the record did not reflect that the City had afforded the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation an opportunity to respond to the City's finding that the UDAG project would have no adverse affect on the nearby historic district and we asked the parties to submit documentation to support their respective contentions on this issue. See 16 U.S.C. S 470f. The City responded in a letter in which it asserted that review by the Advisory Council was not required under 36 C.F.R. pt. 801 (Part 801) because HUD had delegated the responsibility for assessing the project's impact on the historic district to the City, and the City had determined that there was no impact. In response, the Residents agreed with the City's assertion that the applicant's determination of no effect eliminates the necessity for further review by the Council 26 unless a timely objection is made by the Executive Director, 36 C.F.R. S 801.3(c)(2)(I). However, the Residents argued that: the City's determination of no impact was never submitted to the Executive Director; the City never made a determination of no effect on any National Register property under NHPA (as distinct from any review under NEPA); and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission failed to make its views known as is required under 36 C.F.R. S 801.3(b)(5), as the Commission merely accepted the findings of the City's Historical Preservation Officer; and that the Philadelphia Historical Preservation Officer was demonstrably wrong when he found that a visual barrier protected Society Hill and Old City from the visual impact of the hotel tower and garage wall. However, in their brief on appeal, the Residents' only asserted the following challenge to the City's failure to seek approval of the Advisory Council: The District Court concluded that the City met its delegated responsibility under the NHPA which made review by the Advisory Council unnecessary. The record, however, shows that the findings on historical impact were based upon the City Historical Preservation Officer's belief that construction along Front Street obstructs the view of the proposed hotel from the historic district, and that the result of this visual barrier is that the proposed hotel development on Penn's Landing will have no effect on the Society Hill National Historic District. This conclusion is clearly erroneous. . . . Appellants' Br. at 47. Accordingly, the allegations of error asserted by the Residents in their letter, other than the assertion that the findings on historical impact were clearly erroneous, have been waived and we will not now address them.11 _________________________________________________________________ 11. We note that NHPA appears to require that the appropriate agency or the applicant (where, as here, the agency delegates compliance to the applicant) obtain the review of the Advisory Council. NHPA states that the appropriate agency: 27 Although the Residents clearly disagree with findings pertaining to the line of sight of the proposed project, and the project's impact on the historical district, those findings are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that no further authorization from the Advisory Council was required.