Laserfiche WebLink
`'None the above sites is (sic) recommended for preservation and is considered <br />for its research potential alone" - are further examples of a declarative statement <br />without any current information to support such statements. While the <br />applicant/proponent is pointing out existing lanquaoe. the habit of making <br />statements without supporting documents is nothing more than stating an <br />opinion, and not fact; this should not be supported or endorsed by the County <br />of Hawaii in documents that are submitted for land use entitlement requests. <br />5. This proposal should go before the Cultural Resources Commission in order to <br />have this hearing body review this proposal. Development applications that are <br />proposed on lands where cultural and archeological artifacts exist should go <br />before this Commission as a standing and routine review of development <br />proposals. <br />6. Damage of existing graves due to "bulldozing" in 2018. Why do we continue to <br />read of damage to properties where development is proposed, and before any <br />development proposal is heard by the elected or appointed hearing bodies? If <br />an activity like grubbing or minor grading is required on a site, the Planning or <br />Public Works Department should be requiring a permit for this work, and <br />conducting a site visit to ensure the appropriate level and type of work occurs. <br />This kind of site destruction, where cultural artifacts exist, continues to indicate <br />that the County should create a Code Enforcement program so concerned <br />citizens can report unpermitted site work. Additionally, this "hands off" approach <br />to destruction of archeological artifacts of the County seems to imply this loss of <br />cultural artifacts, through site destruction, is acceptable. This tone deaf attitude <br />would not be tolerated by Native American tribes on the mainland, and it <br />shouldn't be tolerated here. We know this isn't the only site where this has <br />happened (the Naniloa site, and Kahului'u area, for example). <br />7. Page 3 of the background report indicates that no floral or faunal surveys were <br />prepared, and this statement in #17 on Page 3 of this report does not feel <br />appropriate or neutral for this proposal: "the applicant does not believe <br />(emphasis added) that any rare or endangered flora or faunal resources are likely <br />to be found on the property due to the previous development on the property, <br />and the suburban nature of the surrounding area". This is simply speculation on <br />the part of the applicant of this proposal. The Hawaiian Hawk (lb), Hawaiian Owl <br />(Pueo), and Hawaiian Hoary Bat have all been observed hunting on and around <br />this property and the surrounding areas. Without a survey to independently and <br />conclusively determine these species are or are not living in the area, it is <br />unprofessional to not have this kind of survey prepared for this proposal. <br />& A Special Management Application, and at the major level, is needed now, not <br />later, and after any public hearing. Not requiring the SMA application now, and <br />having this application be at the minor level (should this proposal be approved <br />by the County Council) is completely opposite of the practice of the Planning <br />Department. It also feels like this is preferential treatment of this application. <br />3 of 6 <br />