COM 0314.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

KAY: So the, I think the wrinkle here, although this is where it ended up, initially when SHPD accepted the archaeological inventory survey, they agreed with the findings of that survey, which recommended archaeological data recovery; it was only after Mr. Stewart got that letter that he determined that preservation was his choice over archaeological data recovery, at which point SHPD agreed that that would be also an appropriate treatment and went through VITOUSEK: Yep KAY: —the preservation plan. So I think that— VITOUSEK: Yeah, I understand, I understand that completely. That's the initial treatment recommendation for data recovery, and that's base for a historic preservation review, but the mitigation commitment is preservation. So initial treatment recommendation in this case is different from the mitigation commitment that is tied to the effect with the agreed-upon Mitigation commitments for this project. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: This project is conditioned upon preservation of these two sites under the conditions established in the preservation plan. Do you guys agree with that? KAY: I think, logically,yes. And I'll defer to your experience and expertise on this. VITOUSEK: Thank you,yeah,yeah, so basically, in order for data recovery to be a mitigation commitment for this project, it would have to go back to historic preservation in its entirety where they would review the effect of the project on whether it can be data recovered or not. So at this point we cannot offer data recovery as a mitigation commitment because SHPD has already established preservation as the mitigation commitment for the approval of this project. Is that, is that something that the county would be willing to move forward? DARROW: Well, that was the discussion, and that's where I, I thought we'd end up being with your background and expertise. That's why it would be good to talk with the applicants and get their view on that and see if they oppose that. But if they are on board, we can amend the condition to make it clear that they preserve in place. Hopefully, as Christian mentioned in his presentation, that if there is some issues with the buffer that they might have the ability to do a little bit of adjustment through the preservation plan, at least that gives them some ability to fix some problems that they might run into. VITOUSEK: Yeah, so the permanent preservation buffer, that's the 14 feet, that's the only aspect that's subject to the metes and bounds and the preparation of restrictive covenant in the deed restriction. The additional interim buffer is a temporary buffer and is not intended to permanently block the access. And revising the preservation plan is a simple as a letter to allow the boundary to come in a little bit and allow for access through the temporary buffer, because the assumption is the area within the temporary buffer can be impacted after the permanent preservation measures are created, so that's a simple solution. But data recovery basically brings the whole project back to square one in my opinion. 13 DRAFT