2019-01-17 Leeward Exh B (AMEND REZ 17-219)

Home

KAY: Right, so, if you look at the – sorry, this is Appendix B in the background report, this is a May 8, 2002, letter from State Historic Preservation Division, the subject is “Replacement Pages, Archaeological Inventory Survey Report – in the third paragraph it speaks to the additional bones that were found. So it says, “Your letter indicates that the bones that you found at 21,798 appear to be remnants of the individual that was dis-interred and that you plan to recover these remnants with the lineal descendant and a mortuary representative. Please contact our Burials Program manager \[Kamanao Mills, 5887-0010\] when this is to be done.” The other piece of information that came in – pardon me \[looking for the document\], sorry about that – it was a February 2001 letter from Mike Matsukawa indicating that, “the burial remains on the parcel were removed pursuant to the directions/approval of the Burial Council. This brings the issue of the identification and relocation of the remains, as well as Burial Council approval, to an end.” But I see now that this was actually done prior to that second round of bones. We did send out the application for review; from SHPD we didn’t receive any other information. The assumption is that it was complete, but I can follow up on that and certainly make sure that, you know, if it hasn’t been done, that it’s done. VITOUSEK: Great, that will make me a lot more comfortable— KAY: Understood. VITOUSEK: —just knowing that it was resolved and— KAY: Yeah, I’ll follow up with that and contact you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. KAY: You’re welcome. And then, you know, it still has to go through the grading process and subdivision process and everything else, so, if it hasn’t been done, we’ll make sure that it’s done prior to those processes. VITOUSEK: Was there SHPD review of the grubbing of the parcel in 2005 whenever that occurred? KAY: I don’t know the answer to that question. I’ll check on that as well. VITOUSEK: Okay. UNGER: Thank you. Any more comments from the applicant? OHAN: Just some updates on the sightline adjustments on the proposed five-lot subdivision. The property lines were amended to show better sightline and that would be, satisfy the Department of Public Works. And, you mentioned water commitments, so those have been obtained and paid for, and you should have a letter in your packet regarding that. Other than that, the grubbing took place prior – I think, in 2001 or 2002 – prior to me purchasing the 6 EXHIBIT B