My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-01-03 tkona
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2008
>
2008-01-03 tkona
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 9:03:41 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 9:03:39 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
done, it said essentially there were two major features on the property; one was the crypt, <br />and the other one was the, a habitation area. And the archeologist report said that the <br />habitation area should go through data recovery. However, when it was subsequently <br />reviewed by the DLNR, DLNR initially concluded that data recover <br />And, I guess, depending on whoÓs reviewing it, then the second review around, then, the <br />same DLNR agency said, ÐNo, I think data recovery is needed.Ñ So I think your staffÓs <br />report does not necessarily cover the data recovery; and it makes it clear that you have to <br />have a burial treatment plan; and that has been done right now by the same archeologist. <br />However, like, if DLNR wants to have the data recovery done, it will have to be done by <br />the developer independent of what this condition says, because they need to have a <br />grading permit issued, you know, grading or grubbing permit issued, you know, prior to <br />any construction activity and DLNR signs off on it. So -. <br />KUBOTA:Yeah, thatÓs my concern. ItÓs not, I donÓt see it reflected in our <br />conditions. <br />FUKE:ThatÓs right, itÓs not in here. And even if itÓs not in here, if DLNR <br />still insists that data recovery is needed, then they will require that before the grading <br />permit is issued for the site. <br />KUBOTA:Okay. Part of the thing is that there seems to be like s <br />difference of opinion within DLNR, as far as whether data recovery is or is not needed <br />for the remaining site. And I think by leaving that up to the DLNR in the end, it would <br />be better, rather than having it mandated in the condition now, because they might change <br />their position again. <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? <br />KUBOTA:I feel rather uneasy after all the problems that cropped up with <br />burial sites and archeological findings and protection of sacred lands. I would feel more <br />comfortable if our conditions reflected some verbiage of our knowledge that we are <br />recognizing the report of DLNR. If they should they change their minds later, well, thatÓs <br />up to them. <br />GALDONES:Perhaps Commissioner -. <br />KUBOTA:I donÓt know how to verbalize it. I donÓt know how to put it into a <br />condition or language, but I would feel a lot more comfortable. <br />GALDONES:Okay. Then perhaps when we do take action on the subje <br />you may want to introduce that as an amendment for consideration. I forgot that there are <br />two people from the people who had signed up to testify that I need to address, also. <br />But, Commissioner Graham? <br />GRAHAM:ThatÓs okay. <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.