|
morphed into something more than what was initially submitted back in 2015. And you can also
<br />see, you know, right on the mauka side of the anchialine pond a series of structures – this is back
<br />in the 2015 plan; now, if you look at the 2017 plan, you know, which was submitted, there are no
<br />structures between the pond and the parking lot. So, the point being that over time and through a
<br />lot of interactive relation, you know, interaction with the staff, we’ve had, and the County Cultural
<br />\[Resources\] Commission, you know, we’ve had to modify the plans to reflect to come to where
<br />we are today.
<br />
<br />Item Number 6 basically I’ll just kind of like summarize, you know, just talks essentially about
<br />the, just make it easier for the Commission to find it because in 700 pages you are going to have
<br />difficulty finding it, but over there it’s basically talking about the County Cultural Commission,
<br />and until going through this process I didn’t really realize the value of the County Cultural
<br />Commission, but we appear before them three times, and during all of the times constructive
<br />criticism was given on the updated archaeological inventory survey, as well as the preservation
<br />plan. They made some excellent recommendations, and based on those recommendations,
<br /> Dr. Alan Haun who is also here and he’ll testify and answer your questions, he made some
<br />modifications. And only with the modifications or accommodations of the comments made by the
<br />Cultural, County Cultural Commission, then the plan was submitted and SHPD finally approved
<br />it. The SHPD approved it in, back in 2017 they approved the inventory survey and they approved
<br />the preservation plan as well.
<br />
<br />The figure in Number 7 is something that’s already there, and I’ve kind of like covered it. But
<br />Item Number 8 is basically a letter from SHPD, which is kind of burdening your 700-page
<br />document, but it’s November 7, 2017, and SHPD in that letter basically said that they approve
<br />both documents, the archaeological impact survey, or archaeological inventory survey, and the
<br />preservation plan. But there is one section that I’d like to kind of read to you largely for emphasis
<br />because there’s, you are probably going to hear comments about like the developer is not
<br />responsible or not taking into accommodation the archaeological features on the property, but this
<br />is what SHPD says like on Page 2 of their letter, and I’ve kind of highlighted for you, “The
<br />conceptual plan incorporates the agreed upon preservation measures between the landowner, the
<br />SHPD, and the Hawai‘i County Cultural Resources Commission. \[These\] preservation measures
<br />include: (1) the site specific boundaries and buffers; (2) construction barriers; (3) \[partial\]
<br />restoration and re-naturalization and maintenance of the trail systems; (4) \[maintenance and\]
<br />coastal sand replenishment; and (5) a beach stabilization plan.” The coastal sand replenishment
<br />and the beach stabilization plan, they were needed because that’s where the one of the two
<br />petroglyphs are; they are right by the ocean, and they are going to be eroded and lost. So they had
<br />to come up with some program to see how we are going to save the petroglyph. So those are all
<br />agreed upon, and with that understanding, then SHPD went through. You see Page 3 of that same
<br />letter; SHPD basically says that they want to see archaeological monitoring, they want an
<br />archaeological monitoring plan. Well, the monitoring plan, archaeological monitoring plan has
<br />already been there. And most critically they wanted to see a plat map showing where the
<br />archaeological preserves, which include the trails, where they are; they wanted to have it mapped
<br />out by metes and bounds survey. And that leads up to the destruction and how, and the discovery
<br />of the desecration of the trail.
<br />
<br />13
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|