2003-02-07 tpuaa - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TheyÓre going to do their own water system with storage tanks and lines coming down the hill to the south of us. It may be more cost-effective or better for us to join with them in their construction of the project improvements rather than to do our own line. And thatÓs why weÓre requesting that the specific details of the water line construction plan be deleted from the rezoning ordinance. The bottom line is that the portion thatÓs remaining is that the Department of Water Supply will always have to approve what we do anyway. And, so, weÓd just like the flexibility to not have to follow this particular alignment. Next change is Condition No. E which relates to the burial treatment plan. As Mr. Cook th indicated, we will be proceeding for a February 20 Hawaii Island Burial Council meeting. This is going to be about the, I think, third or fourth time that theyÓre going, so theyÓll conduct a site visit. We would anticipate that the proposal to reinter the bone fragments that were found along the site into the preserve site thatÓs located at the makai end of the property in the refuge cave will be approved. So the proposal is that, there really werenÓt two burials. ThereÓs actually, the way that Mr. Kennedy, the archaeologist, explains it to me is there was one what you would call a burial, and thatÓs in the refuge cave to the makai portion of the property. The others were scattered bone fragments that they picked up on the ground; and they donÓt know why that was scattered or when. And so theyÓve asked the Burial Council to take what he describes to me as two handfuls of bone fragments to be interred into the burial that is in the refuge cave; and thatÓs what the request is for the Hawaii Island Burial Council. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:May I make an inquiry of Mr. Lim at this time or would you rather take questions when he concludes his remarks? GALDONES:After he concludes his remarks, then we can take questions. Thank you. LIM:And that is the reason for the deletion of the reference to two burials. And so we just said that even if itÓs any burials, you know, so that we donÓt have a terminology issue. Next proposed change is on F, same reason weÓre deleting the reference to specific sites. The one to be preserved is 21762. And we deleted the reference to the inventory survey report Òcause we now have a final report that was approved by the State Historic Preservation Division; and thatÓs that exhibit which we just passed out to the Commission. The proposed changes to Condition H with regard to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, in order to do that, that were proposed by Mr. Arai are acceptable to us with the understanding that the section related to 42 U.S. Code, Section 3607, is the one that weÓre actually dealing with. We donÓt have the sites available to us but the intent is that we would be following the Federal regulations that require all occupants to be over age 62. So I think itÓs the correct reference. One potential change on that is that, to the second 19