My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0666.018 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0666.018 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2008 12:37:24 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 6:37:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0666
Point
018
Author
Christoper J. Yuen, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close file - 11/07/07
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2007/10/17 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
AGE COUNCIL 2007/11/07 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
BIL 176 Draft 02 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planners <br /> Page 7 <br /> <br /> ` Apri121, 2003 <br /> coordinate with the SHPD time frames. The following comments with respect to <br /> rezonings, SMA permits, and special permits, assume that there has been no prior historic <br /> sites review. <br /> 1. Rezonings and non-LUC boundary amendments <br /> The application should be accompanied by one of the following: <br /> 1. An archaeological inventory report, containing significance assessments, <br /> effect determinations, and proposed mitigation commitments. The report <br /> will have to be done pursuant to SHPD rules, but we will not require <br /> SHPD approval of the report, assessments, and mitigation before <br /> accepting the application for further processing. (These stages can take <br /> some time even when there is substantial agreement about what needs to <br /> be preserved.) <br /> 2. A "no effect" letter from SHPD. <br /> 3. A letter from the applicant to SHPD requesting a "no effect" letter, <br /> including supporting documentation, to which SHPD has not responded <br /> after 30 days (their time limit under their rules.) <br /> - If the applicant is relying upon #3, staff should review the documentation to see if the <br /> applicant has logically established the probability of "no effect". We have an <br /> independent obligation under the PASH and Ka Pa'akai court decisions to protect native <br /> Hawaiian cultural practices and resources, and we must still do this if SHPD has, for <br /> some reason, failed to act. Generally, the following are strong indications that there are <br /> no historic sites and we are safe in assuming "no effect": intensive cultivation, such as <br /> former sugar cane fields; prior bulldozing; chain dragging for pastures; urbanization (for <br /> example, requests for use permits in residential subdivisions); recent lava flows. We can <br /> also accept short letter reports from archaeologists who have made site surveys, less than <br /> full inventory surveys, to establish "no effect" under #3. (SHPD will sometimes rely on <br /> these in issuing a "no effect" letter.) On the other hand, previously undeveloped coastal <br /> property is likely to contain historic sites. If staff feels that there maybe historic sites <br /> present, and the applicant is relying upon #3, please bring the application to the director <br /> before accepting it as complete. We may require an inventory surveyor some further <br /> archaeological work as a condition of approval. <br /> Before we prepare our staff recommendation to the Planning Commission, we should <br /> have SHPD concurrence that the inventory survey has found all significant sites, and <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.