Notice2024-03164
Notice of Adoption of Policy Statement on Housing and Historic Preservation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 15, 2024
Effective
December 22, 2023
Issuing agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Abstract
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has adopted its Policy Statement on Housing and Historic Preservation.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11847-11854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Notice of Adoption of Policy Statement on Housing and Historic
Preservation
AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
ACTION: Notice of adoption of policy statement on housing and historic
preservation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has adopted its
Policy Statement on Housing and Historic Preservation.
DATES: The policy statement was adopted and went into effect on
December 22, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Druscilla Null, (202) 517-1487,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8aeee4ffe6e6caebe9e2faa4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e3a302b32321e3f3d362e70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), an independent Federal agency created by the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), works to promote the
preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation's diverse
historic resources, and advises the President and the Congress on
national historic preservation policy.
Under the NHPA, the ACHP's duties include advising the President
and Congress on matters relating to historic preservation; recommending
measures to coordinate activities of Federal, state, and local agencies
and private institutions and individuals related to historic
preservation; and advising on the dissemination of information
pertaining to those activities. In keeping with these mandates, in June
2023 the ACHP initiated discussions regarding the role that
rehabilitation of historic buildings can play in alleviating America's
housing shortage and how the ACHP might advise and assist Federal
agencies and other stakeholders on the topic.
[[Page 11848]]
ACHP staff developed a draft discussion outline that was provided
to the full ACHP membership for review in July 2023. The general
consensus of the members was to move forward with drafting of the
policy statement using the proposed outline. Staff then developed a
draft policy statement, with input from ACHP members and feedback from
the Chair's Expert Advisory Committee. (For more information on this
committee, see <a href="https://www.achp.gov/expertsadvisorycommittee">https://www.achp.gov/expertsadvisorycommittee</a>.)
Subsequently, the members approved providing the draft to
stakeholders and the public for comment. Two consultation events were
held, one for Tribal and Native Hawaiian organization leaders and the
other for State Historic Preservation Officers and their staffs.
General public comments also were solicited. Based on the feedback
received, the draft was revised. The final version of the policy
statement was adopted by vote of the ACHP members on December 22, 2023.
The ACHP issues the regulations (36 CFR part 800) that implement
section 106 of the NHPA, which requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of projects they carry out, approve, or fund on
historic properties. The policy statement applies to the consideration
of housing issues during section 106 reviews.
While the policy statement pertains to Federal agency challenges
and opportunities, it also speaks broadly to nonfederal parties,
including but not limited to state, Tribal, and local governments;
community groups; nonprofit organizations; developers, and others in
the private sector. The document defines the scope of the challenge and
discusses why rehabilitating and reusing historic buildings can be so
impactful in addressing the housing shortfall being experienced by many
communities. The policy statement promotes streamlining and improved
permitting to support reuse of historic buildings for housing. It also
explicitly acknowledges and aims to address burdens historically
imposed on disadvantaged and underserved communities, and communities
with environmental justice concerns.
The bulk of the document consists of a series of policy principles
that are grouped under five general topics: reuse historic buildings;
accelerate project permitting and environmental review; gather
information; educate; and collaborate.
Text of the Policy Statement on Housing and Historic Preservation
The full text of the adopted policy statement is reproduced below:
ACHP Housing and Historic Preservation Policy Statement
Many communities across America are experiencing housing shortages,
especially shortages of affordable housing. Cumulatively, this problem
has grown to crisis proportions. Tackling this challenge requires a
multi-pronged effort, of which rehabilitation of historic buildings is
a critically important component. Recognizing that facilitating
rehabilitations can help boost housing supply, meet sustainability
goals, and utilize community assets more effectively, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has developed this policy
statement to encourage both rehabilitation of historic housing
(including historic public housing) and adaptation of historic
buildings not originally built for housing.
Scope of the Issue
Estimates vary among studies quantifying the scope of the current
housing shortage, but the overall conclusion is the same-America is
facing a significant deficit in housing supply versus demand in many
communities. This deficit is a major cause of rising costs. A 2023
report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,
The State of the Nation's Housing 2023, succinctly summarizes what many
other studies have found:
Millions of households are now priced out of homeownership,
grappling with housing cost burdens, or lacking shelter altogether,
including a disproportionate share of people of color, increasing the
need for policies to address the national housing shortfall at the root
of the affordability crisis.
While discussing the need to construct new units, the report also
concludes that:
In addition to expanding the supply of new homes, improving the
existing housing supply is critical. Substantial investment will be
needed to preserve the aging stock and respond to climate change. At 43
years of age, the median home in 2021 was the oldest it has ever been .
. .
Rehabilitating and reusing existing buildings must be integral to
addressing the housing shortage, which is not a problem America can
build its way out of solely through new construction.
Because approximately 40 percent of America's current building
stock (residential and commercial) is at least 50 years old,
rehabilitation of historic and older buildings must play an important
role in addressing the housing supply shortfall. In towns, counties,
and cities, and on Tribal lands throughout the country, historic
buildings either are or can be rehabilitated as housing. Given that the
cost of rehabilitation on a per-square-foot basis tends to be less than
new construction, historic buildings are an important source of so-
called ``naturally occurring'' affordable housing. The opportunities
for housing creation and retention are immense. Further, every person
should have safe, clean, and affordable options for housing and a
healthy environment, and these needs are closely linked with other
social determinants of health and environmental justice goals.
This policy statement pertains primarily to historic properties--
buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects--which are
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register), and principally to individual
historic buildings and buildings within historic districts. However, it
is important to recognize that many older buildings that could qualify
for historic designation have not yet been designated. Others are not
yet 50 years old--the usual age threshold that must be reached to be
considered eligible for National Register designation. The ACHP
acknowledges that many of the strategies and suggestions offered in
this policy statement can apply to older buildings generally, not just
those formally determined to be historic.
It also is important to acknowledge that while efforts to honor and
preserve the stories of all Americans are expanding, historic
properties in disadvantaged and underserved communities, as well as
communities with environmental justice concerns, are often
underrepresented on the National Register, creating imbalances in
access to preservation incentives. Disproportionately affected by the
housing shortage, these communities also often lack management and
decision-making authority that would help them determine where and how
investments in the reuse of historic buildings for housing are made, or
address any negative impacts of such determinations.
Projects to rehabilitate historic buildings for housing or build
new housing may be subject to historic preservation review at the
Federal, state, and/or local levels. The existence of these processes
sometimes gives rise to an assumption that historic preservation
[[Page 11849]]
reviews will complicate or be a barrier to housing development,
particularly of affordable housing. This need not be the case, and when
fully integrated into regular project planning and scheduling, such
reviews can benefit project development without causing delay or
increasing project costs. However, such reviews do need to be grounded
in a flexible yet consistent approach to ensure that housing can be
developed expeditiously while still preserving the historic qualities
of affected historic properties. One intent of this policy statement is
to encourage such flexibility.
Role of the Federal Government
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) states that it is the
policy of the Federal government ``to foster conditions under which our
modern society and our historic property can exist in productive
harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations.'' \1\ Consistent with this, the Federal
government plays a role in establishing and implementing both historic
preservation and housing policy. It also directly funds both historic
preservation projects and housing projects, undertaken by public and
private actors alike. And finally, it sets forth standards for the
treatment of historic properties that are, in turn, interpreted and
applied by state, Tribal, and local governments and private parties.
Thus, the Federal government has a significant role to play in the way
that buildings are updated or repurposed for housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 54 U.S.C. 300101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key player regarding historic preservation is the ACHP, an
independent Federal agency created by the NHPA. It works to promote the
preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation's diverse
historic resources. It is the ACHP's responsibility to ``advise the
President and Congress on matters relating to historic preservation,
recommend measures to coordinate activities of Federal, state, and
local agencies and private institutions and individuals related to
historic preservation, and advise on the dissemination of information
pertaining to those activities.'' \2\ The ACHP has developed this
policy statement in keeping with this mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 54 U.S.C. 304102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the Federal government, agencies are responsible for
directly managing and caring for historic properties under their
control, and for fostering both nonfederal, governmental, and private
preservation activities. Section 110 of the NHPA sets out these broad
historic preservation responsibilities of Federal agencies and is
intended to ensure that historic preservation is fully integrated into
their ongoing programs.\3\ Federal agencies with responsibilities
regarding housing must consider historic properties as part of their
program planning, addressing the role historic buildings can play in
providing housing and the potential impacts of housing projects and
programs on historic properties of all types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 54 U.S.C. 306101-306107; 306109-306114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies also must consider the effects of projects--
including housing projects--they carry out, approve, or fund on
historic properties. This requirement has been enshrined in section 106
of the NHPA and in corresponding regulations issued by the ACHP.\4\
Section 106 applies both to housing built directly by Federal agencies
and to housing funded by Federal agencies. Many Federal agencies,
including the Departments of Defense, Interior, and Agriculture build
housing for their staff and for other purposes. In addition, some
Federal agencies, notably the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs, provide funding
to and/or partner with public housing authorities, state and local
governments, and private entities for the creation of housing. These
Federal agencies (and funding recipients that have assumed HUD's
environmental review requirements by statute) must comply with section
106.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 54 U.S.C 306108; 36 CFR part 800.
\5\ This statement incorporates provisions of a 2006 ACHP Policy
Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation (a
replacement for a previous 1995 policy statement), which was
designed to serve as a guide for Federal agencies and other
stakeholders when making decisions about affordable housing projects
during section 106 review. In recognition that the Federal
government engages in undertakings triggering section 106 review for
both affordable housing and other types of housing, this policy
statement removes the word ``affordable'' from text that previously
appeared in the 2006 policy statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Influencing the physical nature and form of both public and private
projects, whether subject to the section 106 review process or not, are
standards for the treatment of historic properties set forth by the
Department of the Interior, including the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary's Standards). These standards
have been adopted by state and local governments and also influence
private action.
It is within this context of the Federal government's role at the
intersection of housing and historic preservation that this policy
statement has been developed.
Intended Audience
Given the leadership role of the Federal government in addressing
both housing and historic preservation, the following policy principles
seek to promote informed policy making, decision making, and
responsible stewardship of historic properties by the Federal
government. The ACHP also has designed this policy statement to assist
Tribal, state, and local governments; community groups; and nonprofit
organizations (collectively, along with Federal agencies, ``public-
serving institutions''); developers, and others in the private sector
as they seek to reuse historic buildings for housing as a strategy to
address the housing crisis.
It is important to note that a wide variety of nonprofit
organizations can play a role in rehabilitation of historic buildings
for housing. Among these are nonprofit housing corporations, community
development corporations, land banks, and heritage conservancies.
Similarly, for-profit developers are central to maximizing housing
creation through historic building rehabilitation, frequently creating
affordable housing through the use of local, state, or Federal tax
credits or subsidies. The ACHP encourages both the nonprofit and the
for-profit private sectors to explore the opportunities inherent in
reusing historic buildings for housing.
Policy Principles
It is the policy of the ACHP to encourage and accelerate
rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing and to assist in
harmonizing historic preservation and housing goals. The ACHP has
developed the following principles to guide its own actions and to
advise public-serving institutions and other public and private
entities on these issues. The ACHP will integrate these principles into
its oversight of the Federal section 106 review process and into the
advice it provides to Federal agencies, Tribal, state, and local
governments, and the general public.
Reuse Historic Buildings
1. The Federal government and state governments should develop
additional historic tax incentives and easier ways to pair those
incentives with housing and energy tax incentives. The existing Federal
historic tax credit provides a 20 percent income tax credit for the
rehabilitation of historic, income-producing buildings. As of June
2023, 39 states also have adopted state historic tax credits. Retaining
and enhancing these credits and developing new
[[Page 11850]]
historic tax incentives is vitally important to scaling up
rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing. Policymakers should
consider increasing historic tax credit percentages for rehabilitation
projects that create housing, particularly affordable housing, as well
as setting aside a portion of tax credit benefits for housing creation
in states where the state historic tax credit has a monetary program
cap.
Tax credits for rehabilitation of older buildings that are not
formally designated as historic also would contribute to housing
creation while complementing and supporting efforts to rehabilitate
nearby historic buildings in historic neighborhoods. Also, expanding
homeowner historic tax credits should be considered. Rehabilitation of
owner-occupied historic housing does not qualify for all state credits
or the Federal historic tax credit. Homeowner rehabilitation tax
credits would encourage preservation of existing historic housing by
helping to support maintenance, rehabilitation, weatherization, and
energy retrofits of historic homes.
The effectiveness of Federal and state historic tax credits could
be further leveraged if it were easier to couple them with housing and
energy tax incentives, notably the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC). Legislative and/or administrative fixes should be explored to
reconcile conflicts. It is particularly important to address
disconnects that are making pairing of the Federal historic tax credit
and LIHTC increasingly difficult, including both tax policy and
application-based challenges. More states should consider giving
preference points for historic preservation projects in their
allocation of LIHTCs, as some already do.
2. Public-serving institutions should support existing programs and
develop new programs that assist homeowners (particularly lower- and
middle-income homeowners) and small-scale landlords in maintaining,
repairing, and weatherizing their historic homes, and reducing their
energy costs through renewable energy installation. While historic tax
credits for homeowners and small-scale landlords are one vehicle to
help preserve historic homes, other forms of assistance are needed.
Support is particularly critical in the case of low- and middle-income
housing and can help assist in discouraging displacement of long-term
residents in established neighborhoods. Financial constraints of owners
can lead to a spiral of deferred maintenance and an inability to lower
utility costs through weatherization and energy retrofitting,
potentially leading to eventual vacancy and demolition of buildings.
Types of assistance--with an emphasis on retention and repair of
historic materials--that should be considered include the following:
grants and low-cost loans for repairs and hazard mitigation
(remediation of lead-based paint, asbestos, mold, etc.); do-it-yourself
support through materials warehouses, tool sharing programs, and
training workshops; free or low-cost energy audits; and job training
programs focused on historic home repair.
3. Public-serving institutions should support zoning code changes
that encourage greater density and availability of housing in tandem
with preserving historic buildings, that allow for mixed uses, and that
allow housing in historic buildings in areas where it is now
prohibited. Increasing density and expanding housing options in
existing neighborhoods--including historic neighborhoods and historic
districts--are potential solutions to help address the shortfall in
housing supply. This and other changes to zoning to better balance
competing factors--such as through the use of form-based codes--should
be seriously explored.
Taking into account the unique conditions of each community,
consideration should be given to allowing and incentivizing ``density
without demolition'' through: conversion of historic single-family
dwellings to multi-family dwellings; creation of accessory dwelling
units, either in rehabilitated historic structures or through
compatible new construction; removal or reduction of minimum parking
requirements in historic neighborhoods; enabling transfer of
development rights to incentivize rehabilitation of historic buildings
while allowing new development in alternative locations; adoption of
procedures and permitting incentives to facilitate the reuse of
existing buildings for housing; and compatible infill construction of
multi-family housing on vacant parcels in historic districts. More
guidelines, pattern books, best practices, and other resources are
needed to help assist local governments and developers in implementing
additional density in a manner most compatible with a community's
historic buildings. Proactive efforts should be made, however, to
ensure ``density without demolition'' also means ``density without
displacement,'' so that long-term residents are not priced out of
living in their historic homes and neighborhoods.
Many zoning codes prohibit historic buildings in certain areas from
being converted into housing. There is a significant need to rezone
neighborhoods filled with office and commercial buildings for
residential use. In addition, large-scale historic industrial
buildings, like New England mill buildings, are often zoned for
industrial purposes, even in locations where manufacturing seems
unlikely to return. And finally, public-serving institutions should
consider zoning for historic Main Streets, which organically developed
with housing mixed with (and usually above) shops but which are too
often now subject to prohibitions on residential uses enacted through
ever-stricter zoning codes. Upper stories can be returned to
residential use and, in some instances, first-floor commercial space
could be converted to housing. This mix of uses that proved to enrich
small towns and larger cities alike should be allowed again through
zoning.
Local historic preservation commissions can play a pivotal role in
advising on zoning changes to address the issues raised above. They, as
well as the planners responsible for zoning code development and
revision, should have the training and resources they need to
understand the options and opportunities for enabling and promoting
rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing and development of
compatible new infill construction.
4. Public-serving institutions should advocate for changes in
building codes and interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act to create more flexible standards (especially for small-scale
housing of four units or fewer) to facilitate conversion of
nonresidential historic buildings to residential use and to prioritize
design solutions for historic housing that ensure access and inclusion
of disabled residents and visitors. Traditional building codes tend to
focus on new construction to the detriment of rehabilitation of
historic buildings, particularly for affordable housing. Property
owners wishing to undertake renovations, regardless of their scope, are
often confronted with requirements to bring a historic building into
full compliance with the building code requirements for new
construction. Cities and states should consider adoption of
performance-based rehabilitation building codes (such as the
International Existing Building Code) or other building code changes to
provide needed flexibility and better relate building code requirements
to the scale of projects. This also would facilitate new approaches to
housing development, such as conversion of underused office and retail
buildings-including those that are historic-for use as housing.
[[Page 11851]]
The American with Disabilities Act prohibits public-serving
institutions from discriminating on the basis of disability in
providing or making available housing. Public-serving institutions
should give full consideration of all that is needed to ensure
accessibility for users of housing, including historic properties used
for housing. Interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
public officials should prioritize the need to provide accessible
environments to all users of housing in historic buildings. Collecting
successful examples of projects that promote both preservation ideals
and accessibility could be useful to many different actors. It also is
imperative that planners, local historic preservation commission
members and staff, and building inspectors have the training and
resources they need to understand the code enforcement options
available for the rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing and
development of compatible new infill construction.
5. Public-serving institutions should seek to promote thoughtful
energy retrofitting during rehabilitation of historic buildings for
housing. Most states have adopted energy conservation codes to enhance
creation and operation of energy efficient buildings. Widely used codes
and standards often include options for exempting historic buildings in
situations where full compliance would damage their historic design and
materials. However, as the climate crisis becomes more acute, use of
such waivers may increasingly be seen as seen as problematic,
discourage reuse of historic buildings for housing, and cause
disproportionate and adverse health or environmental impacts on already
overburdened communities with environmental justice concerns. More
guidelines, best practices, and other resources are needed to help
promote energy retrofitting of historic buildings used for housing in a
manner most compatible with their historic character.
6. Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments should lead by
example through disposition or outleasing of excess or underutilized
historic government buildings for housing development. Government
building inventories often include structures that are no longer needed
to facilitate agency missions and that are vacant or underutilized.
Enhanced use of telework and remote work, sparked by the COVID-19
pandemic, has further increased the amount of government office space
that is underused. Governments at all levels should examine the
opportunities inherent in excess and underutilized government
buildings-including those that are historic-to create housing through
office-to-housing conversions and other adaptive use. Strategic
disposal (with protective covenants) and leasing to nongovernmental
partners should be considered. Section 111 of the NHPA and other
agency-specific authorities allow Federal property-managing agencies to
outlease historic buildings (or portions thereof) to nonfederal
parties. Federal agencies should identify and remove impediments to
outleasing their historic buildings, with consideration given to the
recommendations of the ACHP's 2021 report, Leveraging Federal Historic
Buildings.
7. The Federal government should expand upon its guidance regarding
reuse and rehabilitation of historic properties for housing and should
encourage flexible yet consistent application of such guidance. Federal
standards and guidelines significantly influence the rehabilitation of
historic properties, public and private alike, because they are often
adopted or adapted by state and local governments, as has been the case
with the Secretary's Standards. The Federal government should add to
and flexibly apply its guidance on the treatment of historic properties
in ways that will incentivize housing development, particularly of
affordable housing, and facilitate adapting nonresidential buildings to
housing. Likewise, additional guidance is needed on remediating
environmental, health, and safety hazards when rehabilitating historic
buildings and providing access for persons with disabilities. The
Federal government, particularly agencies that fund housing
development, also should accelerate the development of guidance on the
benefits of rehabilitating historic housing (including historic public
housing) and of adapting historic commercial buildings for use as
housing. Enhanced recommendations and training are needed to encourage
reuse of historic buildings and promote project planning and review
that are adaptable yet consistent.
Accelerate Project Permitting and Environmental Review
8. Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments should expedite
development of housing projects through efficient and effective
permitting processes and environmental reviews while still ensuring
full consideration of potential impacts to historic properties.
Addressing the problem of insufficient housing supply will require
widespread large-scale and small-scale projects, both for new
construction and for rehabilitation of historic and other existing
buildings. Environmental reviews and permitting processes for such
projects, especially small-scale projects with limited impacts, should
be managed in such a way as to proceed expeditiously. However,
potential adverse effects to historic properties must be carefully
addressed, whether they be physical or visual impacts to historic
properties from new housing construction or effects to the historic
qualities of historic buildings that are being rehabilitated. It also
is important that actions not be taken that result in the damage or
destruction of historic properties prior to applicants seeking tax
credits and government funding, and prior to agencies completing
environmental review.
Efficient permitting and environmental review depends in large part
upon the funding and staffing capacity of the government agencies at
all levels participating in the reviews. It is vitally important to
build capacity for historic preservation review within Federal
agencies, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and local
historic preservation commissions, and to provide robust training for
staff. Public-serving institutions also should seek to educate
communities and project sponsors on environmental review requirements;
their roles in those review processes; the need to initiate
environmental review early in planning; and the importance of flexible
consideration of project alternatives.
Current housing needs pose complex challenges that need to be
addressed on an increasingly accelerated timeline, and it is important
that environmental reviews be rooted in flexibility and creativity. The
section 106 regulations provide for development of program alternatives
to tailor and expedite the review process while at the same time
ensuring the consultation process is accessible, meaningful, and
transparent to the wide variety of consulting parties and
stakeholders.\6\ Program alternatives already are in use for a variety
of housing-related projects and programs. The ACHP will explore further
opportunities to use program alternatives to expedite housing
development, as should other Federal agencies. Federal agencies also
should explore how best to integrate section 106 review with review
under the National Environmental Policy Act, based on options available
in the section 106 regulations and advice in NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook
for Integrating
[[Page 11852]]
NEPA and Section 106, issued by the ACHP and the Council on
Environmental Quality in 2013. Policy Principle #9 offers further
recommendations on flexibly proceeding through section 106 review
specifically for housing projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 36 CFR 800.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. All participants in section 106 review of housing projects
should approach the review flexibly in keeping with the following
principles and any applicable implementing guidance from the ACHP. In
keeping with section 110(f) of the NHPA,\7\ which requires Federal
agencies to minimize harm to National Historic Landmarks to the maximum
extent possible, the following provisions should not apply to National
Historic Landmarks. The ACHP plans to issue implementing guidance on
effect determinations under section 106, including addressing the
potential adverse effects of housing projects to the interiors of
historic buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 54 U.S.C 306107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Review of effects on historic districts made up of buildings
should focus on effects to exterior features. Section 106 review of
effects focuses on potential alterations to the characteristics that
qualify a property for listing in the National Register. The
significance of a historic district comprised of buildings is typically
associated in large part with the exterior features of the buildings,
which cumulatively convey the significance of the overall district and
qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. Accordingly, unless
a building in a district is listed or considered eligible for listing
in the National Register as an individual property or specific interior
elements contribute to maintaining a historic district's character,
review under section 106 should focus on proposed changes to the
exteriors of the district's buildings.
b. Consultation should consider the overall preservation and
housing goals of the community. When assessing, and negotiating the
resolution of, the effects of housing projects on historic properties,
consultation should focus not simply on individual buildings but on the
historic preservation goals of the broader neighborhood or community.
If the affected historic property is a historic district, the agency
official should assess effects on the historic district as a whole.
c. When possible, plans and specifications should adhere to the
Secretary's Standards, taking into account the economic and technical
feasibility of the project. The Secretary's Standards outline a
consistent national approach to the treatment of historic properties
that can be applied flexibly in a way that relates to local character
and needs and project requirements. Plans and specifications for
rehabilitation, new construction, and abatement of hazardous conditions
in housing projects associated with historic properties should strive
to adhere to the recommended approaches in the Secretary's Standards
when possible. However, the ACHP recognizes that there are mission-
related, economic, or other circumstances when the Secretary's
Standards cannot be followed and that section 106 allows for the
negotiation of other outcomes.
When assessing effects during section 106 review and seeking to
avoid adverse effects for housing projects, priority should be given to
consistency with the Secretary's Standards for the exterior of
buildings. Adverse effects to historic interior spaces and features may
more frequently need to be accepted and resolved to facilitate reuse of
the buildings for housing. This especially is the case for conversions
of commercial or institutional buildings to housing and to address
issues such as energy retrofitting, providing access for persons with
disabilities, and hazard remediation. Projects taking advantage of the
Federal historic tax credit must be reviewed by the National Park
Service for adherence to the Secretary's Standards in a separate and
distinct process that benefits from early coordination.
d. Section 106 consultation should emphasize consensus building.
Section 106 review strives to build consensus with affected communities
in all phases of the process. Consultation with affected communities
should be on a scale appropriate to that of the undertaking. Various
stakeholders, including community members and neighborhood residents,
should be included in the section 106 review process as consulting
parties so that the full range of issues can be addressed in developing
a balance between historic preservation and housing goals. See Policy
Principle #10 regarding the importance on consultation with Indian
Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and engagement with
disadvantaged and underserved communities, and communities with
environmental justice concerns, including people with disabilities.
e. The ACHP encourages streamlining the Section 106 process to
respond to local conditions. The ACHP encourages participants to seek
innovative and practical ways to streamline the section 106 process
that respond to unique local conditions related to the delivery of
housing. Programmatic Agreements are one approach to enhance efficiency
in section 106 reviews. Some such agreements delegate the section 106
review role of the State Historic Preservation Officer to local
governments, particularly where local preservation ordinances exist
and/or where qualified preservation professionals are employed to
improve the efficiency of historic preservation reviews. Such
agreements may also target the section 106 review process to local
circumstances that warrant the creation of exempt categories for
routine activities, the adoption of ``treatment and design protocols''
for rehabilitation and new infill construction, and the development of
design guidelines tailored to a specific historic district and/or
neighborhood.
f. Archaeological investigations should be avoided or minimized for
rehabilitation projects with minimal ground disturbance. No
archaeological investigations should be carried out for housing
projects limited to rehabilitation or energy retrofitting that require
no ground disturbance. In those circumstances where minimal ground
disturbance may be necessary to carry out rehabilitations,
archaeological investigations should be minimized and proportional to
the potential effects of such disturbance. Guidance on archaeological
investigations in this context can be found in the ACHP's section 106
Archaeology Guidance. For all other projects, archaeological
investigation may be needed, to be determined and carried out in
consultation with State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
Inadvertent discoveries related to any housing project once
construction has begun should be addressed in accordance with the
section 106 regulations, the ACHP's Policy Statement on Burial Sites,
Human Remains, and Funerary Objects, applicable state burial laws, and
the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (if
applicable).
10. During planning, permitting, and environmental reviews
(including section 106 reviews) for housing projects, Federal, state,
and local governments should consult and engage--beginning early in the
process--with Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs),
disadvantaged and underserved communities, and communities with
environmental justice concerns, including people with disabilities, and
should explore capacity building options for supporting their
participation in consultation. The section 106 process under the NHPA
already requires Federal agency
[[Page 11853]]
consultation with Indian Tribes, NHOs, and other consulting parties
regarding the impact of projects on historic properties. Here, the ACHP
would like to emphasize the importance of consultation and engagement--
whether or not section 106 applies--with Indian Tribes, NHOs,
disadvantaged and underserved communities, and communities with
environmental justice concerns, including people with disabilities, all
of whom are disproportionately impacted by the housing supply
shortfall. Soliciting and considering their views on reuse of historic
buildings for housing and the impacts of housing projects on historic
properties should be done proactively, early in planning, and
throughout environmental reviews and permitting processes.
In some cases, limited resources may constrain the active
participation of disadvantaged and underserved communities and
communities with environmental justice concerns in consultation.
Federal, state, and local government entities should consider options
for strategic financial investments or other assistance to help with
needed capacity development. The ACHP previously has recommended
capacity-building support for consulting parties pursuant to the
agency's ``Guidance on Assistance to Consulting Parties in the section
106 Review Process.'' Since many Indian Tribes have been incorporating
consideration of housing issues into their environmental reviews and
permitting processes for decades, housing-related project planning
should seek to adopt or align with existing practices and standards,
where feasible. On trust land, Tribes should control how housing is
developed and its location, whether as new construction or
rehabilitation.
Gather Information
11. Public-serving institutions should work collaboratively to
research and share information with each other, policymakers, the
private sector, and the public about the costs, benefits, incentives,
and disincentives associated with rehabilitating historic buildings for
housing. To maximize reuse of historic buildings, ongoing research and
study are needed in order to identify opportunities, document benefits,
shape guidance development, and disseminate best practices. Public-
serving institutions should undertake such research; recommended areas
for study and dissemination of information include those below.
Consistent with their missions and authorities, Federal agencies should
provide funding and technical assistance to support state, Tribal,
local, and nongovernmental research efforts.
Existing Government Programs
--Survey laws and financial incentives at the Federal, state, Tribal,
and local levels that address rehabilitation of historic buildings for
housing and assess the impact of such laws and incentives on housing
supply, housing affordability, mixed-use development (including housing
above ground-floor commercial), and equitably distributed development;
and determine if such policies should be updated, modified, or expanded
to ensure they are applied and interpreted in a flexible manner
allowing for housing production.
--Study how well Federal programs are helping to meet the housing needs
of Indian Tribes and disadvantaged and underserved communities, as well
as communities with environmental justice concerns, while encouraging
the reuse and protection of historic properties, and what changes may
be needed to make the application process for Federal assistance more
inclusive and easier to navigate.
Historic Properties and Neighborhoods
--Assemble information about the location, size, condition, quality of
features, and occupancy of historic buildings in localities and assess
those against local housing needs.
--Evaluate any links between historic designation and housing
affordability, and between historic designation and displacement of
residents in disadvantaged and underserved communities, and in
communities with environmental justice concerns.
--Explore impacts of institutional real estate investment in owner-
occupied housing for rental use and (in some communities) an increase
in short-term rentals, seasonally occupied homes, and second homes in
historic neighborhoods.
Rehabilitation of Existing Properties for Housing
--Study the costs of rehabilitating historic buildings for housing
relative to new construction, considering intangible and environmental
costs and benefits in addition to monetary cost.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Studies should not conflate rehabilitation and adaptive use
with restoration (defined as accurately restoring a building to its
appearance at a particular point in time). The latter generally is
more expensive and is not necessary for effective reuse of historic
buildings for housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Study the climate impacts of rehabilitating historic buildings for
housing, including decarbonization; improved operational energy
efficiency; climate resilience; decreased emissions through reduced
urban sprawl; and responding to housing needs following disasters.
Preservation Workforce
--Survey the current and anticipated future state of the public sector
preservation workforce and its expertise and capacity to handle
environmental reviews, including section 106 reviews, of housing
projects in a timely manner.
--Survey the current and anticipated future state of the private sector
preservation workforce, including its ability to rehabilitate existing
buildings for housing and conduct energy efficiency retrofits.
Educate
12. Public-serving institutions should educate policymakers,
housing advocates, developers, the media, and the public about the
benefits of reusing historic buildings in housing development and
debunk misperceptions regarding historic preservation as a barrier to
addressing the housing supply shortfall. With increasing attention
being paid to reusing existing buildings to help address the housing
shortage, consciousness raising efforts are needed regarding the role
historic buildings can play. Outreach is needed to explain: why
historic building rehabilitation for housing is a sound financial
investment and what incentives are available; how modern housing needs
(including accessibility for people with disabilities) can be
accommodated in historic buildings without sacrificing their historic
qualities; and how rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing
also has intangible and environmental benefits for communities.
Countering misperceptions of historic preservation review as a
barrier to addressing the housing shortage also is critical.
Preservation regulations that require review of housing projects
affecting historic properties help to preserve what makes the
properties historically significant and give local citizens a voice in
project planning. However, such review can be--and should be--
approached flexibly, consistently, and expeditiously, taking into
consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.
Public-serving institutions overseeing preservation reviews should
embrace this imperative and actively work to educate all stakeholders,
the media, and the public on how the historic preservation review
process balances
[[Page 11854]]
consideration of housing needs and preservation of the community's
historic places.
Collaborate
13. Public-serving institutions and the private sector should
cooperate and form partnerships across agencies, between levels of
government, and within communities to enhance the implementation of
each of the principles discussed above. The impacts of America's
housing supply shortfall are so wide-ranging that collaboration among
public-serving institutions, developers, financial institutions,
philanthropic organizations, and others in the private sector is
essential. Cooperation and forging of partnerships will enhance
implementation of each of the principles discussed above. Federal
agencies can take a leadership role in this regard through their own
collaborative work and by encouraging such work through funding and
technical assistance.
Adopted December 22, 2023.
(END OF DOCUMENT)
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 304102(a).
Dated: February 12, 2024.
Javier E. Marques,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-03164 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 15, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.