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

Home

VITOUSEK: 100 percent, 100 percent, and that's what I'm suggesting as an avenue to explore with the Planning Department is to have an avenue where a professional archaeologist can make a recommendation as a part of this that the agency can agree with or not agree with. And then pass that on to SHPD and then use that determination to move forward when they miss their deadline. KERN: So, would that be are you proposing that across the board because then so just thinking out loud here. If that's proposed across the board then everybody is required to hire a licensed archaeologist. VITOUSEK: And as you said, I don't know that it has to be across the board. It's just us brainstorming here, right. But if that's another line item where someone may submit that along with their application that could happen. KERN: Like I say, and we do do that or we say, hey you're coming in the an area where we know that there's a high likelihood it's in your best interest to prepare the recon or just do a full-blown AIS and submit that with your package. VITOUSEK: Yeah. KERN: And then we've also seen other cases where they don't do it and then we get caught up in the process or for example, we've seen the case where its come here and you've requested and say, hey I want to see something more. Right. VITOUSEK: Yeah. KERN: We saw that recently in Kaloko. VITOUSEK: Just like how the rules are currently written. There're multiple types of submittal that satisfy the archaeological requirement. So, if this is just one of them. What the current language states is you need a map and any known historic sites. That basically puts you at a point where you're at the bottom of the historic preservation review process and you have to claw your way through all of that without a lot of support from the Department because they don't have any information on it. But if there's another line item that allows you to submit a more complete assessment. In the federal review process Section 106, which Hawaii Administrative Rules is patterned after you receive a letter that identifies the historic properties in the area, describes any assesses them for their significance and then describe any needed mitigation. So, you're at the end of the ladder. You're just basically saying yes, you agree or no you don't agree and if the County is receiving those types of assessments prior to this it would make it a lot easier for the County to make adequate determination of effect. To me, it's like we basically do the same thing that we did with Act 16, but you compare it instead to 13-284 and you see how that process works together. Where you take what's existing in 284 and then put that into the language for archaeological assessment under 9-11 or whatever it is. 17 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT)