|
VAN BERGEN: Let me clarify just so there is no question. The burial areas were hand-cleared
<br /> with a monitor, construction fence put up, and then it was grubbed all 11 acres with a monitor
<br /> from Mr. Haun's office. So it's under compliance with all protocols based on the burial plan and
<br /> the preservation plan.
<br /> ARAI: And we can appreciate Ka Pa`akai O Ka `Rina requirements, right, I mean and the
<br /> implications for making a decision without having the report. But in this particular case, I guess
<br /> the reason for the condition was also in respect to the fact that the report was done in 2006, it
<br /> was assessed by various decision makers at the County level, throughout County level, all the
<br /> way up to the County Council; based on those decisions and actions, the applicant proceeded
<br /> with various actions related to the development of this subdivision, complying with all of the
<br /> requirements that, including doing additional studies off-site for like the La`aloa Park, all of
<br /> these things were set into motion based on expectations and decision made back in from 2006 to
<br /> the decisions issued in 2009. So over, over ado my math—and then the applicant secured the
<br /> property in 2013, and now almost a decade later just when they are this close to getting final
<br /> subdivision approval, they lost the funding, and then they have to take a step back and say where
<br /> do we go from here, and they ultimately decided, the decision was let's keep trying. And that's
<br /> what brings us here today, which is why at the very end conclusion, we totally get the concerns
<br /> about the adequacy of the Cultural Assessment, Impact Assessment, but it's not like it was never
<br /> done, it was not something that was overlooked or disregarded. And there was this reliance on
<br /> the people that we thought would review it and provide that proper.
<br /> VITOUSEK: And it may have been adequate for the time in 2006 when it was prepared, but the
<br /> nature of the elapsed permit means that we have to evaluate the project based on existing
<br /> conditions, not conditions in 2006. Had they gone through and gotten their everything taken care
<br /> of in time, we have no say here, we have no voice. But because we are back here on an elapsed
<br /> permit requesting a time extension, we have to almost treat this as if it's a new project that's
<br /> coming in, which is very common when we get these time extensions, and we get up-to-date
<br /> analysis of these issues. And whether it reaches the level of a Cultural Impact Assessment or
<br /> not, there is usually some indication that the conditions that are on the property today are
<br /> actually the same as they were in 2008, or there has been change maybe, maybe given the
<br /> amount of consultation with the cultural resource committee with the amount of people who are
<br /> involved in traditional and cultural practices, maybe a different environment out there, there may
<br /> be people doing things that weren't done in 2006. We don't know. And so it's hard for us to
<br /> make an evaluation without that.
<br /> VAN BERGEN: When you say doing things, what are you referring to?
<br /> VITOUSEK: Well, as many of the cultural practitioners have suggested, these sites could be
<br /> used for religious purposes, for worship, for other,you know, traditional cultural practices. I,
<br /> there is a bunch of examples that people have talked about in the committee, the Cultural
<br /> Resources Commission, you know, there is a descendant access for religious purposes, for
<br /> worshiping burial sites
<br /> VAN BERGEN: So for cultural practices
<br /> 15
<br /> EXHIBIT G
<br />
|