My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2022-08-18 Leeward Exh B (Items 4 Meneghetti PL-SMA-2022-000017)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2022
>
2022-08-18 Leeward Exh B (Items 4 Meneghetti PL-SMA-2022-000017)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2022 12:30:29 PM
Creation date
10/25/2022 12:30:19 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
And under normal circumstances, the archaeological testing will be done first in the form of an <br /> archaeological inventory survey if anything is found, or an archaeological assessment if they go <br /> out and do the testing and don't find anything. At that point the archaeological assessment <br /> would be submitted to SHPD, and so the County saying, hey, we didn't find anything, everything <br /> is good to go. SHPD would review and comment on that application according to 6E-42, saying <br /> that we've reviewed it, we don't think there is anything. Or if they don't hit their deadline, they <br /> miss it, they don't respond, we've given them the opportunity to review and comment. And <br /> technically, what the law says is that the County agencies, the permitting agencies, have to give <br /> SHPD the opportunity to review and comment on the effect of a proposed project on historic <br /> preservation sites. And so I think that it would make sense in advance to send this to SHPD, and <br /> if they don't make a comment, then we can come back, but we have obligation to send it prior to <br /> the issuance of the permit and not as a condition. <br /> DEFRANCO: It hasn't already been looked at by SHPD? <br /> ROY: Well, actually, the rule is that an archaeological inventory report is done, or a no-effect <br /> letter from SHPD has been provided, or in this case, a copy of a letter written by the applicant to <br /> SHPD requesting a no-effect determination, so the applicant has followed the law in accordance <br /> with our rules for applying for the SMA. It was after my review of all the historic impacts and <br /> my site visit, and then based on the Chair's previous ask that the Planning Department try to take <br /> a better look at whether it needs to go in certain cases or not. But we can definitely condition <br /> and run it through 6E-42 if that would be helpful. <br /> VITOUSEK: So, did the letter that was submitted, did that go to SHPD? <br /> ROY: Yeah, that was, that was his letter. But SHPD doesn't always respond. <br /> VITOUSEK: Sure <br /> ROY: And since the HICRIS system has come into play—if you don't know, that's their online <br /> application submission system they are not really responding to applicants anymore. So it's, <br /> the law needs to be updated, the rule needs to be updated, to kind of take in this new system. <br /> But, and then the HICRIS system does allow you to search the sites, and then as I told you this <br /> morning, there wasn't anything shown on the SHPD map, but that doesn't mean anything; the <br /> things may now have just been registered. <br /> VITOUSEK: Right, right. So what was the process like, Matt? <br /> CLARK: I can clarify. The letter was prepared to go to SHPD. And typically, the submissions <br /> now come from the county to SHPD; they will not take just a letter sent to them without a project <br /> that comes in from the county. So I was anticipating this letter to go to SHPD as part of the <br /> review of the SMA. <br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. <br /> CLARK: That was my, that was the intention of the letter. <br /> 15 <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.