2023-04-20 DRAFT Joint Meeting Exh B (Proposed Amendments to PC Ruls 8 & 9)

Home

we have within the department that show that there are historic or cultural resources on the property. That way SHPD has not only the applicant's information but the department's information as well. LIN: Thank you for the clarity. DEFRANCO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: The question is to Commissioner Vitousek. Can you please restate the motion you made? VITOUSEK: My motion is that we basically don't make this change that's being proposed. That the language be kept as is for now until we can revise it to make it more adequate for considering the effect of the project on historic properties. So. DEFRANCO: Okay, we can talk about the proposed language right now. VITOUSEK: Okay. To me, I think that would be most helpful is if the Department is receiving an assessment from a qualified archaeologist that's able to look at, do their own review of it and say there are no historic properties on this parcel. We've checked it out, we looked at the records all that and they have a archaeological license that they can stamp on it and then the Department doesn't need to have that expertise internally. They can review the qualified perspective and then they can say they've checked against their records, agree, and send that over to the State. If the qualified archaeologist says hey, there are sites here, you guys got to do a full-on AIS then you'll have that information up front, and we'll all be able to really assess the effect of the project on historic sites. PAISHON-DUARTE: I'd like to comment. So, I wholeheartedly agree with the thought process behind this. I believe that it could be beneficial for all parties involved. My question is to the staff. What might be some other reasons or challenges that need to be overcome to implement a recommendation like this? CAMERO: So, I think one of the more confusing mentions in this specific section that I've had trouble with, with applicants that come before me is the request for the copy of the letter written by the applicant to the DLNR-SHPD requesting a no-effect . In the past I've had members of the public tell me that SHPD doesn't want to hear from them. Those were kind of the words that they would rather hear from the Department and a lot of the times some of these applicants are really laymen. It's their first time they are applying for this type of application and so, I understand where Commissioner Vitousek is coming from. There are certain sections in there that are still confusing for the layman's. So, I'm not too sure. VITOUSEK: Sure, for that particular example. If we're just strictly going off of the administrative rules it'd be HAR 13-284 (c)(1). The agency has responsibility for initiating the historic preservation review process. The agency may have others prepare the review process items. So, under the rules, the agency can formally delegate to the applicant to conduct the review process. To prepare the archaeological assessment, to prepare the request for a letter 14 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT)