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

Home

VITOUSEK: Next is on Page 14 it's the 9-13 archaeological material and I'm just curious how you see that working with the timelines for submittal to Planning Department or to Planning Commission and the timeline for the historic preservation review process. JACKSON: That has always been a challenge aligning those two processes because they both have statutory deadlines to follow. So, this change was made because I want to say about 4 years ago, the County met with SHPD and SHPD said we are no longer doing review when requested by applicants. Based on the HAR they wanted to do an agency-to-agency review. Meaning the County initiates the HAR process. So, due to that we removed this section in our applications and we're proposing to remove it now from our rule. Where the applicant would initiate that process by writing a letter to SHPD and saying, hey, I don't have any resources on my property can I get a letter of no-historic effect. And so, what this does it just changes it so that the County initiates that process once we receive an application. So, as you mentioned the downside of that can be that the applicant doesn't think they have any resources on their property and so on the application they say I'm not aware of any resources. Then we send it to SHPD for review and SHPD says "no"we think there may be resources, so we want an AIS done. At that point in time, we typically work with the applicant and say, we could move this forward to Planning Commission but, we wouldn't necessarily be able to provide a favorable recommendation because we don't have the information, we really need to assess the historic and cultural impact. Typically, when that happens the landowner understands that, and they proceed to do the AIS and that puts the application on hold so that process can be completed before coming to the Planning Commission. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean, to me it just feels like that has the potential of making the process longer and more difficult. If the application is submitted and then they have to go to basically square one of accessing impacts on historic properties. I feel like if an application comes in it should have enough information contained within that application to access the effect of that project on historic sites. So, to me, again, SHPD rules haven't changed. The way that they were implemented by SHPD to their HICRIS system that changed but their administrative rules HAR 13-284 haven't changed. They're exactly the same. So, to me I think the language needs to — DEFRANCO: So, Mike. I think that when we get the motion on the table, VITOUSEK: — sure. DEFRANCO: Then, maybe we can discuss that a little further and put it out there. VITOUSEK: Sure. DEFRANCO: Yeah. Okay, yes Commissioner Knowles. KNOWLES: I have one further question. DEFRANCO: It's a question? 9 EXHIBIT B (DRAFT)