Island Burial Council Document Page
HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL
DATE: THURSDAY, March 17, 2005
TIME: 10:00 AM
PLACE: KONA OUTDOOR CIRCLE EDUCATIONAL CENTER
76-6280 Kuakini Highway
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Geri Bell (Chair)
Ruby McDonald, Kona (Vice-Chair)
Anna Cariaga, Ka'u
Ron Dela Cruz, Kohala
Ku Kahakalau, Hamakua
Kaleo Kuali'i, Kona
Dutchie Saffrey, Puna
Ulu Sherlock, Hilo
Absent: John Ray
Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program
Vince Kanemoto, Deputy Attorney General
Mary Anne Maigret, Hawai'i Island Assistant Archaeologist
I. 8:30-9:30 am- HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL SITE VISIT TO SITE 5608 FEATURE U- 'AUHAUKEA'E AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND [TMK (3) 7-5-09:054 por.]
Information: Burial Council Site Visit to Site 5608, Feature U, as requested at the November 2004 HIBC Meeting to gather more information about the burial site and other cultural sites located in the immediate area.
* The site visit was cancelled due to a lack of quorum.
Begin Tape 1 Side A
II. OPENING REMARKS
HIBC Chair Geri Bell (Bell) calls the meeting to order at 1015 am
Dutchie Saffrey (Saffrey) offers a pule.
Bell says that there was no quorum at the site visit this morning- quorum is required.
Ruby McDonald (McDonald) says she has a correction on the meeting agenda under item one regarding this morning's site visit- the TMK is in error, it should read (3) 7-5-09:54 por. The TMK on the agenda is actually the parcel down by Sarona (Road) and Kuakini (Highway).
III. APPROVAL OF HIBC MEETING MINUTES
Bell says the June 17, 2004 HIBC meeting minutes are still in rough draft form. Bell asks Keola Lindsey (Lindsey) if these minutes will be updated?.
Lindsey says staff will get them into a better format before next months meeting
Approval of the June 17, 2004 HIBC meeting minutes is deferred.
HIBC Meeting Minutes Corrections
July 27, 2004 HIBC Meeting Minutes
Geri Bell does not arrive at the meeting until page the top of 4, and distributes the sign in sheet for testimony at that time. Vice Chair McDonald had opened the meeting.
Page 7 David Mauna Roy is misspelled.
Page 1 Keolalani Hanoa is misspelled.
Page 5 Keauhou is misspelled.
Page 5 McDonald is being accused of something she did not do- she had asked for an apology, and was told "no way".
Page 8 Nancy Pischiccio is misspelled, and she is not listed as a guest.
Page 9 defer is misspelled.
A motion is made to approve the July 27, 2004 HIBC Meeting Minutes as amended. (Harris/Sherlock)
Vote: All in Favor
Bell says the August HIBC Meeting Minutes are missing from the list of minutes to be approved on today's meeting agenda. Bell does not recall if the August minutes were approved at a previous meeting.
Keola Lindsey (Lindsey) says the August minutes were left off today's agenda- they will be on the agenda for approval in April.
September 23, 2004 HIBC Meeting Minutes
Pamai Kaninau is misspelled.
Page 15 Naluahine Ka'opua is two words.
Page 25 our is misspelled.
Page 36 Tabrahs is misspelled.
Page 3 been is misspelled.
A motion is made to approve the September 23, 2004 HIBC Meeting Minutes as amended. (Harris/McDonald)
Vote: All in Favor
The October, November, and January HIBC Meeting Minutes are deferred until after item IV of today's meeting agenda.
A. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR FEATURE U OF SITE 5608 LOCATED ON A PROPERTY IN 'AUHAUKEA'E 1ST AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND [TMK (3) 7-5-09:54 por.]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Discussion of the Council's Morning Site Visit. Presentation By Rechtman Consulting. Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Burial. Council Recommendations to the Department on the short and long term mitigation measures detailed in the burial treatment plan. Recognition of Descendants.
Bell says there will be no discussion on the scheduled site visit- there was no quorum. Bell asks Lindsey if this item is up for a formal determination?.
Lindsey says yes- this is the first time this item is on the HIBC agenda for a determination, although in November 2004 Bob Rechtman did an informational presentation.
Bell asks Lindsey if the 45 day clock for the HIBC to make a determination starts today?.
Lindsey says yes.
Bob Rechtman (Rechtman) gives an overview. The Burial Treatment Plan was distributed to the HIBC in November. One replacement page was submitted to the SHPD, which clarifies Ruby McDonald's status as a descendant.
Rechtman says he is representing his firm, Rechtman Consulting and his client, CBS Hospitality Management- Bob Saunders who is not here today, but if the Council remembers he was here in November. Unfortunately the site visit with the Council did not go as planned, but SHPD staff did go and look at the site- they may want to provide a report on the status of the site.
This property was originally surveyed by PHRI for a previous landowner. No formal inventory survey was done, although they did a very detailed reconnaissance and recorded all of the sites. In the years that followed, this property sat undeveloped, and the adjacent property was purchased by another developer, who had plans for a giant hotel that were approved. Another developer then purchased both parcels. The lower portion of this TMK parcel (54) is put into conservation because of the known archaeological sites that are there. The latest Rechtman has heard is that the County is agreeable to separating this TMK parcel (54) and keeping the lower part in conservation completely- this was a condition of sale.
Rechtman's archaeological inventory work focused on the upper part of this parcel- they did not re-inventory the lower portion of the parcel.
Bell asks Rechtman what is the parcel number ?.
Rechtman says 3-7-5-09:54. If you look at page three of the burial treatment plan (BTP), the grey portion of parcel 54 is what is being joined with parcel 67, which fronts Hualalai Road, which forms this development area. The lower portion of parcel 54 is what is going to be perpetually preserved.
As a result of the inventory survey for the upper portion of parcel 54, one feature was identified that had human remains. That is the feature that SHPD staff saw today.
Bell asks Rechtman if that is feature U ?.
Bell asks Rechtman on page 5 of the BTP, there is a table that lists possible burial features of Site 5608, there are several possible burial features listed.
Rechtman says as part of the inventory survey, they tested those features.
Bell asks Rechtman after the excavation, they became agricultural features ?.
Rechtman says yes, or some sort of modified outcrop. Generally those are called agricultural features if there are a bunch of them together. Areas where there were filled in cracks in the outcrops were excavated. Only feature U had a burial. Feature U was not a modified outcrop, it was a platform.
McDonald asks Rechtman feature HHH is listed as a filled in crack- what made this agricultural?.
Rechtman says it is a matter of traditional convention. When there is a series of modified outcrops- filled in cracks, traditionally those have been called agricultural features by the archaeological community. The ethnographic information that leads to that interpretation has been Ellis' descriptions of cracks in the pahoehoe were used to grow sweet potatoes. From a personal perspective, Rechtman has recently visited similar sites in Samoa. Rechtman asked the guys making mounds, and filling in cracks why they were making them, and they said the cracks were filled in so it is easy to walk so you don't trip.
Bell says we went from 10 possible burial features to one confirmed burial feature. Bell asks Lindsey if during construction, if any of these features are determined to be burials, are they classified as previously known ?.
Lindsey says no, they will be inadvertent.
Bell says the previous function is listed as possible burial- it is currently classified as agricultural- if a burial is found during construction, it is classified as inadvertent?. They were classified as possible burial features in 1981.
Mary Anne Maigret (Maigret) says technically, yes.
Bell says that is a shame.
Maigret says all the information will determine how to treat the inadvertent find. The way the rules are written, the inventory is accepted by the SHPD, and the inventory only identifies one burial site.
Anna Carriaga (Carriaga) asks what the current zoning of the parcel is?.
Rechtman says he is not sure- probably hotel/commercial.
Curtis Tyler (Tyler) says it is zoned multi-family/residential 4.
Roger Harris (Harris) asks Rechtman how many units are being proposed?.
Rechtman says 92 total. It was a down zoning on what was allowed. Page 10 of the BTP has a development plan. It was previously zoned resort, essentially it was a down zone to spread out the density.
Ron Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) asks Rechtman how were the sites reclassified from possible burial to agricultural?.
Rechtman says they excavated all of these sites by hand until they hit solid bedrock.
They did a search for descendants- newspaper advertisements, which is the usual. Rechtman knew there were lineal descendants from another case in 'Auhaukea'e. He contacted Ruby McDonald, and gave her a copy of the plan, and they had a discussion with the landowner. They talked about treatments- buffers, walls, and landscaping. As a result of those discussions, Rechtman hopes the treatment of the site reflects what they talked about.
A 20 foot buffer measured form the edge of the feature is being proposed. No development or activities will be permitted within the buffer. The feature will be stabilized- it is currently in a pretty good reconstructed state from when they excavated- there may be a few stones they need to stack here and there. Generally the site is in good shape now. There is a desire to keep the area surrounding the site in its natural state. They are not going to rip out all the existing vegetation and replant- perhaps there will be a little weed and grass control instead, but keep the kiawe, and maybe plant a few native shade trees- milo or lama. Any tree would be planted at a distance that would keep the root systems from disturbing the site.
Signs would be placed at the site. Access would be guaranteed to the descendants in the language that would be set forth as the development moves forward. One of the concerns Rechtman has is that this parcel is one of the last overgrown areas in town for those who unfortunately don't have a place to live- there are people living in the bushes there. There are several makeshift residences- these are fairly substantial. Rocks are being moved to support tents, wooden railings are being built, and the tents are huge. There are at least five encampments. There are dogs. The landowners have been alerted of this situation, and the authorities are going to be called in to do what they need to do.
Rechtman thinks the interim protection measures need to go up, and the property should be grubbed to get rid of the bushes. They cannot get a permit for that until, they get through the HIBC process. The people living there are using the rocks, and the feature is cleared and exposed, which makes it vulnerable.
Page 10 of the BTP shows the development plan. The burial feature is shaded dark grey, and the preservation area is around it. There is additional open space leading to the back of the pavilion. The public entry would be un-gated off of Hualalai Road. There will be a designated parking area for descendants, which is delineated and marked on the map.
McDonald asks where the entrance to the development will be relative to where the HIBC was supposed to meet this morning?.
Rechtman says the entrance to the development would be across the street, and a little mauka of where we were this morning.
Carriaga asks Rechtman if the developer has made commitments to the community?.
Rechtman says it is difficult for him to speak for the developer outside of historic preservation commitments.
Ku Kahakalau (Kahakalau) asks Rechtman if anyone responded to the newspaper notices?.
Rechtman says nobody responded.
Kahakalau asks McDonald if she is comfortable with the proposal?.
McDonald says she has to check one thing- McDonald asks Rechtman if they are moving the trash cans?. The trash cans were to close, and they are still on the map.
Rechtman says that they have been shifted to the other side of the parking lot, closer to where the pool is.
McDonald says she will reserve further comments at this time- when the project gets started, they are going to check on it.
Kahakalu says in light of the concerns regarding the site's security, and unless other members of the HIBC, or staff have a reason to, she doest not see why the HIBC should postpone making a decision on this matter- it is just a suggestion.
McDonald says Rechtman has recommended implementing the interim protection measures immediately. McDonald asks Rechtman what would those be?.
Rechtman says the BTP states typical construction fencing will go up at the preservation buffer.
McDonald asks how close the tents or camps are to the site?.
Lindsey says 10 to 15 feet, maybe 20 at the most.
Rechtman says these are sprawling- not just a sheet tied to a tree- this is a community.
Curtis Tyler (Tyler) thanks the HIBC for the opportunity to testify on this agenda item. He has worked with the developer's representative in the past when he (Tyler) was on the Hawai'i County Council. Tyler made them aware of the significance of the makai portion of parcel 54., as well as the significance of 'Auhaukea'e 1 and 2- the residence of the Queen Mother as reported by Captain Cleveland in 1803.
The applicant through his representative has indicated that they are very willing to developing a new paradigm from development in an urban area, particularly Kailua Village. Tyler has spoken with them at some length on a number of occasions, and has also spoken with the previous landowner, Mr. Greenwell because of the significance of the area. The decision was made by the current landowner to purchase from the Greenwells to augment the long narrow piece which is adjacent to this parcel on the south side of Hualalai Road. The original development was going to be high density, high rise condominium complex. The current landowner decided to consolidate and sub-divide, assuming they can get the zoning change. They down zoned the small mauka-makai parcel, and they up zoned the mauka portion only. They also told the County Council that they would not utilize the full density of the re-zoning on the upper portion of parcel 54. They spread the density out over a larger area, and made the maximum height of two stories. This is far better than a six story condominium situation.
There were assurances made in the re-zoning ordinance that the applicant, the owner of the property would initiate a down zoning of the makai portion to either open or conservation, so it would be protected forever. The issue here is that we don't want to put it into some kind of zoning where we can't clear it, or take care of it, or augment it with pathways or something like that. This is something the applicant is very cognizant of, and they want to be sure whatever they do with the Planning Department will be done in a timely fashion, but it won't foreclose opportunities for the lower part of the property to be used as green space, conservation area, or a cultural center. Tyler thinks this is commendable.
Essentially the owner of the property is going to preserve almost three acres. In the heart of an urban area- Kailua Village to have almost three acres set aside in perpetuity for conservation and open space is unheard of. Tyler says he doesn't work for the landowner, he is interested in this community, and he is interested in the history of this land.
Tyler says that Rechtman has mentioned as part of this new paradigm we are hoping to utilize the fair share assessments, which would be fairly substantial for this project, based on the number of units. This matter has not been finalized with the Hawai'i County Council- some of the new members decided to defer this matter.
Tyler suggests the permanent buffer be put up immediately, and that there be no temporary buffer. Tyler has suggested to Bob Saunders (the applicants representative) that they use the rock from the area to build the rock walls. Tyler was assured that there was not going to be massive cuts and fills changing the topography of the land- they are going to keep it as natural as possible.
Tyler also spoke to the developer about a transition area between the project area and the makai parcel which will be preserved. Tyler suggests that this not be a radical change- this is a little sliver of looking back in time at the ahupua'a model. In addition to the 20 foot buffer, there should be an additional 10 foot no build buffer. That way there won't be parking lots or lights shining down on the site- this is something he has said before. The eastern or mauka boundary of this project is the Pa Kuakini, or the Great Wall of Kuakini. Tyler recalls that the SHPD requires a 10 meter buffer, approximately 30 feet, from the wall, and there is no building allowed within this buffer. Directly mauka of the Pa Kuakini is a small housing development, four or five houses, and the Hualalai Elderly Housing, and there was a buffer for the wall in that project. Those who drive on Hualalai Road have noted that the Pa Kuakini is being dismantled by an adjacent property owner. Tyler has alerted the SHPD, and suggested that someone go and take a look.
The landowner is interested in protecting the cultural resources there on the lower portion of parcel 54, and somehow involving the youth of the community to get to know this area. They will then get to know this area, and begin to recognize the significance and protect it- they will be the kahu, and pass it on to their children.
Roger Harris refers to the TMK map and says the shaded area and the adjacent area will be developed as the plan shows. Harris asks Tyler where is the makai preserve area?.
Tyler says it is the whole white area below the shaded area on the TMK map. The other parcel below the long sliver on the north side is Kona Mazda. Where that long sliver is, there were plans to have a water park there.
McDonald says she has not been there, but listening to Tyler's description of the topography, it sounds steep.
Tyler says he has not walked the property in years, he wouldn't call it steep, but there are some areas that are like a ravine the way the lava came down. If you drive by there on Kuakini, you can see where the fill was brought in the lower portion. There is a gate there- it used to be there, maybe it was taken down. When Kuakini was built, gates were put in wherever there were mauka-makai trails. Tyler says his Uncle John D. Weeks was the surveyor (for Kuakini Highway), and avoided Kealakowa'a Heiau. The Judd Trail still has a gate. During the time of Keopuolani, there probably weren't many trails running through her residence.
Lunakanawai Hauanio (Hauanio) wants to bring Article 12, Section 7 of the State Constitution to the HIBC's attention. Any rules, statutes or laws that conflict with that mandate because of the HIBC's commission
End Tape 1 Side A
Begin Side B
Because the State Constitution is a mandate, and the HIBC sit as judges, the HIBC is protected to go against the rules and policies that are in place if the HIBC feels those rules violate Article 12, Section 7. An example from circuit court is Kelly vs. Oceanside 1250. In that case, Judge Ibarra ruled in his final ruling, that all the previously identified and inadvertent finds shall be classified as previously known. Because it has been brought to the HIBC's attention on the record that it appears that this particular agenda item may fall within the parameters of violating Article 12, Section 7. Hauanio strongly suggests the HIBC implement another motion that any inadvertent finds be classified as previously known burials. As far as the fair share funds to assist in the perpetuation and caretaking of the site- that is really maika'i. The only problem that may come up is that currently there is no guideline on how the community organizations are selected. There are many organizations that are really at heart with the place, then someone is selected that is not at heart with the place. Those are the concerns Hauanio has for this agenda item.
Kahakalau asks Rechtman if these are separate parcels?.
Rechtman says the subdivision has not occurred yet.
Kahakalau says the BTP is just for the upper portion- that was an issue last time. Because it is not two parcels yet, is it legal?.
Rechtman says he is not sure how far along the County is with that.
Tyler says that the SHPD sent a letter to the Hawai'i County Planning Commission during the proposed rezoning, indicating the SHPD wanted to make sure the lower portion would be inventoried, and it wasn't going to be piecemeal. As a result of that, Tyler thinks the language was changed, and an amendment added to be sure that no grubbing or grading permits would be issued near the makai portion. There was another amendment added that said within a certain period of time, Tyler thinks it was six months, that the landowner would apply to down zone that makai parcel so it would be protected.
Maigret says she did ask if the County was going to entertain rezoning and subdividing the parcel, that we be mindful that there is no inventory- it is through inventory that we assign significance. It is through significance assessments that descendants are recognized, and that people have the opportunity through 6E to comment and participate in the process.
Maigret has fears about the precedent this sets- it is a well meaning circumvention of 6E. There is no inventory and there is no preservation plan, as written in 6E. Those doors for participation and consultation in the process are not open. She admires the intent, but has great misgivings about it. We have here what Maigret calls avoided sites- they are not preserved, they are avoided. Maigret expressed her concerns to the County, and it is their call to move ahead.
Kahakalau asks Maigret if it is common to submit a BTP for half a property?.
Maigret says you can inventory a portion of a property, that is no problem. When the SHPD gets these applications from the County, it is how you define the project area- is it the parcel boundaries?, or is it the portion that is going to be developed. Most of the time when we rezone entire parcels, it is the boundaries of the parcel- in this case the project area is just the upper portion. Maigret does not have a problem with that. She has a concern with language that moves us into preservation scenario for sites that haven't stepped through the 6E evaluation process. There are opportunities for public comment, and decisions of who is going to care for the sites, how paths are going to be routed. A preservation plan is preceded by an inventory, that is where she is going with this.
Kahakalau asks Maigret if that could be a part of the HIBC's recommendation- would that help?.
Maigret does not think so because the project area which has been inventoried, where the burial has been identified, is where the development is going to occur. This is a related important issue, that doesn't bear on the HIBC's decision.
Rechtman says the lower part of the property that is being avoided at this time will have to go through the inventory process before anything happens there. They are not going to turn it over to a community group, and just let people go out there and have fun- that part of the property will be inventoried, and a BTP developed. The lower part of the property is not within the project area, and avoiding it provides some degree of preservation or protection. A formal inventory will have to be done, and Rechtman is hoping the inventory will be done with students, or a community group's involvement.
Ulu Sherlock (Sherlock) says what is being done today, is strictly on the top portion of the parcel- and that negates what is happening on the bottom portion. Sherlock is wondering if something can be done to inventory the entire parcel.
Bell says she thinks that is outside of the HIBC's purview. Maybe the HIBC could craft a recommendation, but the HIBC's kuleana is the iwi.
Sherlock says she would like to make a recommendation.
Rechtman says that language is tied into the County ordinance relative to permits being issued there- work has to be done on the property before permits are issued.
Bell says the HIBC can make some recommendations.
Rechtman says perhaps the HIBC, through the DLNR staff, can draft something and send something to the County Council that says the HIBC supports the preservation of this area, but the HIBC wants to make sure the property is inventoried, and any burials come before the HIBC.
Iwalani Arakaki (Arakaki) distributes documents she found regarding the Honua'ula burials that were on the HIBC agenda in January (TMK 3-7-57:28).
Lindsey says staff is working with Arakaki on the issue, and an update will be on the next HIBC agenda in April.
Arthur Mahi (Mahi) says he has not gotten any information on this issue. He wants to know what is going on. If there are burials on the land, take care of them, fence them off, and leave them alone. The land provides, it is not about money. Mahi knows this area as Kalaoa- it looks like the name has been changed.
Dutchie Saffrey is concerned. Mahi is saying the place name is incorrect.
Bell says Kalaoa is not on the agenda, but she knows where Mahi is coming from. Bell suggests to DLNR staff, that when an item is on the agenda, that research on the original place names of areas be done, so the kupuna know where we are talking about.
Saffrey says it would be helpful for the HIBC as well.
Hauanio is concerned about the HIBC meeting minutes. The HIBC reviews them, and makes corrections, and then approves them without the public being given the opportunity to make corrections. Hauanio would like to see the public given the opportunity to review what is going to become the permanent record, before approval.
McDonald says she does not see anything about access in the permanent preservation measures detailed in the BTP. It just says it will be incorporated into the deed- McDonald does not see a plan that shows the access. McDonald is concerned because where her family is buried in 'Auhaukea'e makai, her family was initially shown a map with the parking lot, and access to the burial area. A year later, the parking lot was actually ten feet higher than the burial area- they couldn't get there.
Rechtman says page 9 of the BTP address that issue. The preservation area will be accessed from a guest parking stall located adjacent to the preservation easement- that is the designated access point.
McDonald asks Rechtman where the trash cans were?.
Rechtman says no, on the other side. There will be no rock walls around the site.
McDonald says if the old folks wanted a wall, they would have built a wall around the site.
Kahakalau wants to clarify the zoning issues that are still in process. Kahakalau wants to make sure the HIBC's decision does not impact that issue one way or the other.
Tyler says there is an ordinance that controls the zoning on the resort parcel. The applicant has all the necessary discretionary approvals for that project- they could go ahead. It has not been approved by the County Council. If the HIBC has concerns, they need to let the County Council know. The issue got to the first reading with the County Council, and then it was deferred- there are two readings. There is nothing that is cast in law at this point.
Kahakalau says the reason she is asking is because of the 45 day clock for the HIBC to make a determination- would there be a difference next month?.
Tyler says he can't answer that question, but he will be watching this very carefully. Tyler wants to make sure the makai parcel, feature U, and the Pa Kuakini are taken care of. If the HIBC wants to make a recommendation to the Hawai'i County Council, time is of the essence.
Kahakalau says she is concerned, because on one side there is a need to expedite to protect the site, and on the other side there are concerns about rushing approvals before formally protecting the makai parcel.
Cariaga is concerned for the iwi- even if there is only one. They can say they are going to protect the iwi, but when development comes in, sometimes negligence happens and that is going to be the excuse of why that iwi got destroyed. Cariaga wants to know if there is a guarantee that those iwi are going to be protected.
Rechtman says he isn't there all the time, he can't guarantee anything, but he can say that the iwi won't be destroyed by the developer.
Cariaga says it is the people that get hired- when the heavy equipment comes in, they are not told that these are iwi.
Rechtman says the BTP details that an archaeologist will meet with the people operating equipment before they get in there. The site will be on the construction plans, and will be fenced off.
Cariaga says Curtis Tyler has been really supportive of this project.
Tyler says the idea of the lower density, and that almost three acres is going to be protected in the heart of Kailua Village.
Cariaga asks if the grave (feature U) is in the three acres?.
Tyler says no, it is in the mauka portion. There are no guarantees, but Tyler has a strong interest in seeing this area protected- he has made it very clear to the applicant that it is time for a new paradigm- it is time for cultural resources to be a priority, and not secondary.
Dela Cruz says that there will be a pre-construction briefing between the archaeologist and the construction crew. What happens if someone calls in sick, or a different operator comes in?- they might not have the same vision. What happened at Honokahua on Maui was that the developer actually hired someone from the community, someone with family- an interest in that ahupua'a. That person stayed there from sun up to sun down- they watched the archaeologists every minute. It is a sensitive issue, and something we should take a look at.
Rechtman says he can't commit the developer to anything, but he can make a recommendation- maybe the HIBC wants to make a recommendation as well. There should be someone on site to ensure the protection of this burial.
Dela Cruz says you have to take care of the site, and make sure that when that second operator comes in there aren't problems.
Harris says he thinks there is an immediate threat to the site. There should be a decision to preserve in place, and strong recommendations that the owner put up a strong interim fencing so that the people that are living nearby won't disturb the site- the site will then be protected. It is going to be some time before the big bulldozers come in- the developer is still with the County Council. They need to get their permits, and finish the issues with the lower parcel.
Cariaga wants to know if the HIBC can write a letter expressing concerns regarding these burials.
Lindsey says another option is to make recommendations to the Department, who then can send out a letter to the appropriate parties.
A motion is made to preserve in place Site 5608 Feature U, located on TMK 3-7-5-09:54 por. (Kahakalau/Cariaga)
Vote: All in Favor
Bell says it has also been mentioned that an additional 10 foot no build buffer be established in addition to the proposed 20 foot preservation buffer.
Harris says in the past, the no build buffers were for vertical construction, so you avoid having a building looming over the site. Parking and landscaping would be allowed.
Rechtman says outside of the 20 foot buffer, it is another 20 feet or so to the closest vertical structure. The pavilion and Building 7B would be the closest structures.
A motion is made to recommend to the Department that in addition to the proposed 20 foot permanent buffer, a ten foot no vertical construction buffer area be established where in landscaping, parking, and sidewalks but no structures would be acceptable. Furthermore it is recommended that the landowner immediately erect a barrier at the permanent 20 foot buffer to protect the site. (Harris/McDonald)
Vote: All in Favor
Maigret is concerned about defining vertical construction- there should be a set height. People come in sometimes and ask what they can or cannot build- rock walls etc.
Harris says it should be about 30 inches.
A motion is made that any inadvertent finds be classified as previously known burials. (Kahakalau/Cariaga)
Harris says he respects everyone's opinion and desire to do this, but it is changing the law- the system. He can't vote in favor of that.
Bell says they know what the law is, but it is making a statement from the HIBC.
Kahakalau says it is because we have conflicting archaeological information.
Vince Kanemoto (Kanemoto) asks Bell if the HIBC wants to consult with him. Is there a motion?- he is there to protect the Council.
Tyler says this is a very important motion, the Council has made these motions before, and passed them. It is not about protecting the Council, it is about protecting the iwi
Kanemoto says the Council needs to act in compliance with the law.
Tyler says he understands that. The Council is making a recommendation, the likes of which they have passed many times before. Tyler knows from a personal experience at Wai'aha where possible burials were subsequently identified as agricultural features. It turns out that they were major burials, and Tyler was the descendant- DLNR staff worked closely with him, but it was a bad situation for everybody. In this case, this is a good motion.
Saffrey says we know who is from this area- Keopuolani. This needs to be handled very carefully. The developers need to understand how sacred this area is, even the landscaping needs to be carefully chosen.
Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay (Harris) the motion is carried.
Lindsey says he appreciates where the Council is coming from, but the Council should consider that in the event the Department reviews the matter, and still determines the burials to be inadvertent, that perhaps a recommendation be made that any inadvertent burials be treated in a manner consistent with feature U.
James Kalili (Kalili) says any inadvertent burials will be undisturbed.
Lindsey says basically, yes.
A motion is made to treat any burial finds determined to be inadvertent by the Department, in a manner consistent with Site 5608 Feature U. (Sherlock/Cariaga)
Vote: All in Favor
McDonald asks that Kana'i Kapeliela follow up on her request, and Curtis Tyler's descendant claims for this agenda item. They have never been formally recognized.
Lindsey says staff will get a memo to the HIBC next month recommending that the Council recognize them as cultural descendants.
A motion is made to recommend on-site cultural monitoring for the duration of ground disturbance. (Dela Cruz/Kahakalau)
Vote: All in Favor
Kalili says in 1971, there was a joint resolution by the House of Representatives and the Senate- it was the Freedom of Religion Act- will that be incorporated?.
Bell asks Kalili if he is speaking of the American Religious Freedom Act.
Kalili says that was for the Alaskans, Native Americans and the Native Hawaiians.
Lindsey says that access is being granted for descendants for cultural activities.
Kalili asks if it is under that authority?.
Lindsey says not necessarily.
Kalili says this is addressed under Article 12, it is very specific. Under Article 12, we have a right to express our mana'o here at this meeting. Kalili is suggesting we should follow Article 12.
Bell says the American Religious Freedom Act was for federal property.
End Tape 1 Side B
Begin Tape 2 Side A
Kalili says he objects- it doesn't say federal property. It is wherever there are heiau- that is the language.
Bell says the HIBC always makes sure that there is access to these sites for descendants
Kalili says a few weeks ago. He tried to visit Hokuli'a, and was denied.
Hauanio asks if there is a process in place for the selection of a cultural monitor?.
Lindsey says there is not.
Hauanio says the persons that assume that role needs to have purview to the information of the site. In his own personal experience, there have been sites for cultural people to look over, and they don't have a clue to the background of the area. Then the developer hires someone with background, and then they are terminated. The persons hired need to have the background, and the legal ability to protect the site.
Sherlock says one of the reasons for the recommendation is to use the expertise of the DLNR staff. This is an issue that is being addressed by a lot of other council's- who is or isn't qualified to be a cultural monitor. It is always a tough decision to decide who and who is not.
Hauanio says he appreciates that.
Tyler congratulates the HIBC- look at the significance of this parcel and the actions that have been taken- it is fabulous. Tyler is also happy that the monitor is not someone that is just an archaeologist- it will be someone from the area. Tyler has been working with others in the community for the last four years with the Army at Pohakuloa. Tyler is going to call the developer to discuss the significance of what has happened here today- it is part of the new paradigm.
B. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR SITE 2009- HAUKALUA HEIAU, LOCATED IN LA'ALOA BEACH PARK, LA'ALOA AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND [TMK (3) 7-7-10:36]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation by Rechtman Consulting. Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Burial. Council Recommendations to the Department on the short and long term Mitigation Measures Detailed in the Burial Treatment Plan. Recognition of Descendants.
Lindsey gives an overview. This item was on the January HIBC agenda for information. The site is located within La'aloa Beach Park, a County Park. There are quite a few sites within the Park, and the Department included the Kepa Maly historical background report in this months HIBC packet. The one burial site be are dealing with is also a Heiau, Haukalua Heiau. This is the first time this item is on the agenda for a determination. Once the HIBC makes a determination, there are still a lot of issues for the Department, the County, the descendants and the families- people who have been involved with this for a long time- to deal with. All those issues still need to be worked out. The Department is aware, that after a determination, there is a lot of work for staff to do.
Rechtman introduces himself. With him today are Diane Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel and Pam Mizuno, a Deputy with The County Parks and Recreation. Rechtman says he provided some information on the history of this project, and more history was provided by members of the public, who commented on the matter at the last meeting. A Burial Treatment Plan has been submitted. The BTP plan addresses a burial site, and what has come to be known as Haukalua Heiau. It is within the property adjacent to where the sand is half the year at La'aloa Beach Park.
Rechtman says human remains were discovered at the site either from a washout from the ocean, or disturbance from vandals digging in the site- or maybe a combination of both. The remains were reburied in 1995 into the Heiau, where it was thought they had originated- there were observations made at the time that there were other remains in the area. The Heiau is clearly also a burial site. Rechtman published the legal notices seeking descendants. The advertisements included names of recognized historical figures from the area- folks who had received land commission awards or grants. Two sets of descendants responded, both with ancestry to an individual named Opunui. One descendant is Valerie Luhiau Ako- she sent in a letter that Lindsey read the last time. The other descendant is Thomas Hanuna from O'ahu. Rechtman has had long conversations with both. Their mana'o has been incorporated into the preservation of this site- it included a large buffer- 50 feet.
It was their desire that this burial site be treated like other burial sites in that activities on the site be restricted to those of recognized descendants. In 1996 in an effort to preserve and protect this site, the La'aloa 'Ohana was formed, and in their efforts to preserve and protect this site, some things occurred. One was the construction of a lele, and some moving of coral. The heiau was rededicated as a religious site. The current wishes of the descendants is that perhaps the lele be moved from on top of the site to an area on the ground next to the site, and that some of the coral be removed, and the site be restored to a condition prior to 1996. These points may be subject to some public contention.
The property on which this property sits was originally acquired for the beach park to expand, and to put in a parking lot. There was a hurry up action associated with putting in the parking lot, which has been interpreted by some members of the community as an offensive action. In meetings with the current Mayor, he has decided to honor a commitment he has made to members of the public to remove a portion of the parking lot that lays directly mauka of this Heiau. Rechtman believes there has been a contract put out to redesign that portion of the parking lot to accommodate the removal of cars parking directly mauka of the Heiau.
The preservation treatment is a proposal to preserve the burials in place, and to have a 50 foot preservation buffer established in all directions from the Heiau. The boundaries of this preservation buffer will be a combination of appropriate signs, and planting of native, or Polynesian introduced foliage. As part of the larger archaeological preservation plan, a landscaping plan will be developed that will be approved by the Department. The wishes of the descendants is to restore the condition of the Heiau to one that the kupuna of the area remember prior to 1996- an that the lele be removed of the physical heiau structure.
Page 9 of the BTP shows an example of preservation signage which would be placed at various locations around the Heiau. The overall treatment of this property will be a combination of preservation of the archaeological resources and the creation of perhaps a interpretive walking trail to restrict access away from walking on sites. The would be an opportunity at one end of this trail to have a interpretive sign describing Haukalua Heiau. The proposed sign and language are on page 9.
There was a detailed background study, archival and historical, done by Kepa Maly. What is contained in that study is represented in the BTP. Quoting from that study with regard to specific treatment of this site, which the current identified descendants have pointed out, the introduction of that study quotes with respect to Haukalua Heiau- it is recorded by kupuna with familial ties to the land of La'aloa, that the site identified as Haukalua Heiau, Site 2009 has undergone significant alterations since 1996. The kupuna suggest coral modifications to the Heiau be removed, and that the Heiau be protected as it was in their youth. The descendants unfortunately are not here today, but both called Rechtman yesterday and the day before. Rechtman explained it is difficult to represent them and explain their position, but they wanted Rechtman to let the HIBC know that the BTP has gone to them. In his words, Thomas Haununa whole heartedly supported this BTP. Valerie Luhiau has previously submitted her comments via letter.
If there are general questions about the park, and the parking lot, the County representatives can answer those questions.
Kahakalau says she has a question in regards to page 9 of the BTP. Kahakalau asks Rechtman who drafted the language for the signs?.
Rechtman says it is a very close version of what Kepa Maly drafted in an earlier preservation plan.
Kahakalau says she has some objections to the references on the sign. It says "this area was one of importance in ancient Hawai'i". That implies that it is not important now- that kind of language perpetuates this on going idea that Hawaiians were once great, and now we are nothing, and we don't exist anymore. It is the same thing with the part of the proposed sign that says "their associations were soon forgotten"- Kahakalau strongly begs to differ, that our kupuna soon forgot the significance of these heiau. Kahakalau does not feel that the terminology is favorable to Hawaiians, and current practitioners specifically. Kahakalau would like to see this restated from a Hawaiian perspective. Kahakalau would defer to the La'aloa 'Ohana, or whoever to be a part of forming the signage.
Rechtman says that is a point well taken, and can see how to revise the language to make it as present as possible.
Harris asks if the County has a conceptual master plan for the whole park?.
Unidentified County Representative (either Diane Noda or Pam Mizuno) says they do, but it is not included in the BTP. The County does have a conceptual plan that includes the pathways Rechtman mentioned, and preservation of the sites that the County will be working with the DLNR on.
Rechtman says there will be preservation of a series of sites, and an interpretive trail that leads up and around outside of the preservation areas, with interpretive signs describing the significance of the area, past and present.
Harris asks about access to the burial site- will it be just for lineal descendants?. There is some differences about who can do what.
Rechtman says lineal and or cultural descendants who have been formally recognized will have access. The County will work out an agreement with the formally recognized descendants, but the site is accessible- it is open and right there. The only thing that is going to keep anyone out is a sign asking them to be respectful in this area.
Sherlock asks about the portion of the parking lot that is being removed. When the initial parking lot was installed, was there a study to identify any cultural or burial sites prior to constructing the parking lot?.
Unidentified County Representative (either Diane Noda or Pam Mizuno) says the preliminary study was done with DLNR to recognize the sites. It was the initial report that Kepa Maly completed.
Sherlock says it is her understanding that there were burial sites in the area where the parking lot is. It is just what she has heard, and she was wondering if there was anything on record.
Rechtman says if you look at the figure in the BTP, there is a faded double line that runs on the makai edge of the parking lot- that is the old road. Before Ali'i Drive, that was the old roadway.
Sherlock says the Inabas owned the property.
Rechtman points to where the old Inaba house was.
Sherlock asks Rechtman before the parking lot and Ali'i Drive, this area was just open?.
Rechtman says he isn't sure what was there before Ali'i Drive.
Sherlock says that is where she was told there were burials.
Rechtman says none of the previous archaeological studies recorded burials in that area.
Lindsey says when the DLNR-SHPD concurred with and authorized the construction of the parking lot, there was no information regarding the existence of sites in that area.
Kahakalau wants to address the concerns about the lele, and access to the Heiau by cultural practitioners. Page 7 of the BTP says the work may include relocation of the lele off of the Heiau site, and removal of the coral and restoration of the site to a condition the kupuna remember. Kahakalau completely respects what the kupuna remember, but this is a new time now, and those of us who are back to practicing our religion are reasserting our right to do so in places where our kupuna have done so for a very long time, but not necessarily in recent times- the last 50 or 20 years. When a plan says "may", it makes her uncomfortable.
Rechtman says the reason "may" is there is because he wanted to give the descendants he has spoken to the latitude- the descendants were complaining that while they recognize there are practices going on, they don't want it happening on top of their iwi kupuna. The "may" is there because it gave the flexibility for those who are practicing there to work with the descendants, and maybe they can come to an understanding. If the plan says "will" than it has to be done. If the plan says "may", then it may be done, or the 'ohana that is taking on a descendant role there can work with the La'aloa 'Ohana and come to an agreement. "May" leaves the possibilities open. The descendants have said they want to move the lele off of the physical heiau site, and onto the ground next to it.
Kahakalau says it would be good to include a sentence in the BTP clarifying that.
Bell opens the floor for public comment, and says that there has been a substantial amount of testimony on this issue at previous meetings. Comments should be related to the burial treatment plan, and the proposal to preserve in place.
Ron Cawthon (Cawthon) distributes certified copies of what the Opunui Family has in La'aloa. Opunui was granted a 1.5 acre kuleana in mauka La'aloa- this one 'ohana will determine the religious practices for everyone else in the ahupua'a- that is something that people all over the world have fought and died for- religious practice. In this case one family is going to decide- that is wrong.
Bell asks Kahakalau if there was a reference to descendants in the BTP?- was that something Kahakalau brought up?.
Kahakalau says page 7 of the BTP refers to the issue of the lele. The word "may" was used. Kahakalau that there should be clarification on the issue so that it is not just a verbal thing, it is in writing.
Cawthon says he can assure the HIBC that the County's intent is to remove that lele and stop religious practices at La'aloa. Cawthon reads a letter from the La'aloa 'Ohana to the HIBC dated March 17, 2005.
The certified copies of the land commission award to Opunui are the inherent problem of this- here you have one family who has very small kuleana in a large ahupua'a, and this process is going to allow them to dictate the religious practices here. Cawthon says he does not go on the Heiau- he knows better. What is happening here is the removal of a religious shrine without the religious practitioner's approval because someone got a land commission award way up mauka in 1859. That is the inherent flaw with the system. Cawthon says he is adamant about this- bring out all the descendants, but one 'ohana does not have the right, if this is the United States, to determine the religious practices for everyone in an ahupua'a- that will be the effect if the HIBC legitimizes what the County is trying to do here.
The County has mentioned they are removing the parking lot- Cawthon would put a large capital B.S on that- the La'aloa 'Ohana has gotten no communication on that, and there have been no contracts put out for redesign. The County told them in June 2004 that they would do it, and it has not been done. Cawthon says he checked the County web-site and there is nothing. This is a sham.
Hauanio says there was information presented to the HIBC- information that the public has not been made purview of, to adequately respond to. Hauanio wanted to say that for the record.
Hauanio says he has been involved with the protection of Haukalua Heiau for a little over twelve years now. The pattern of practice that we have talked about previously- The wealth of our community members have gotten together in 1994- some years ago. Everyone agreed to put in the best practice. As time went on those best practices became even better because we have a situation here that does not take into consideration other grant awards to Kanewa 'Ohana at La'aloa, to Kalua 'Ohana, to Kalepa'a at La'aloa, and the Pu'u, Pu'uka'i, Kika, Puhi, and Pihaina 'Ohana. There are many family names here and they are all coming out of the woodwork based on the County's due diligence. The County gets the chance to mold the thoughts of their contacts, the information they want to provide to their contact before giving the opportunity to eleven or twelve years of trying to protect the site from being totally desecrated. Let's not forget that this particular item on the agenda there was previously known records, previously known information about the kupuna iwi on the mauka side underneath the hardtop now. Previous records about the wall having iwi. Previous record that if in fact there was bones there, and it was removed, Hauanio believes the HIBC got a quasi determination that NAGPRA would kick in because the iwi was removed, it needs to be put back- the one in the wall, that has not been done.
We need to take into consideration that before the purchase of the 1.8 million dollar property going into the County's hands there were significant sites that they should have taken into consideration. There were plans for 80 plus parking stalls, but it was reduced because of the efforts of the named parties in the La'aloa 'Ohana, to reduce the adverse inpact. Dr. Rechtman clearly identified that there are other issues. Hauanio finds it difficult to understand how we can come before the HIBC and say o.k. they (the County) only found one burial, and according to what they are producing we protect in place that one burial. What about the two that are underneath the hardtop?. What about the ones that are in the wall?. Those things are in Kepa Maly's report.
Cawthon says kupuna identified other iwi on the site, and they were never investigated.
Hauanio says they have had lengthy discussions with Dr. Rechtman. Hauanio thinks for him to come here and outright state there is nothing there is highly questionable- Hauanio thinks the HIBC should to. Hauanio believes with all of these outstanding issues not resolved, the HIBC should not approve until all of the issues have been resolved.
Cawthon says that Rechtman states that the kupuna decided the lele should be put back. If you read Kepa's report you will find that one of the many, many kupuna in there made that recommendation- one kupuna, not the body of kupuna including Uncle Leon, Aunty Lei, Uncle George Naope- the list goes on and on. One kupuna thought that she did not think it was right- that is how the County deals with things, they don't focus on the desires of what the majority of the kupuna want- they focus on what fits their needs. Kepa's report is clear on it.
Hauanio says they are trying to work with the County- we have a little discrepancy. The little discrepancy is this- the County wants the La'aloa 'Ohana to form themselves as a non profit organization- all we ask is that the County produce some information to us- show us where does it say that for us Hawaiians to practice our traditional and cultural rights that we have to be non-profit- that is all we asked.
Iwalani Arakaki (Arakaki) says back in November, she gave the HIBC and staff a deed- it had to do with La'aloa- she is one of the descendants, and she comes from a big family. She was not contacted.
Bell asks Lindsey if the Department has reviewed Arakaki's information.
Lindsey says he recalls Arakaki giving staff paperwork, but did not know it was for La'aloa.
Arakaki says it goes way back.. The deed was given to her mom, before her tutu died, so it is important. She has all the genealogy.
Bell says Lindsey will follow up, and the information Arakaki submitted can be used for her to be recognized as a descendant.
Arakaki says Hauanio and Cawthon are doing a good job- they are going to take the kids from 'Ehunuikaimalino tomorrow.
Curtis Tyler (Tyler) says he has had some involvement in this area since 1994. Cawthon mentioned Uncle Leon and some other kupuna- they got him there too, because of his (Tyler's) connection to the area. Tyler can say that himself, Uncle Leon, and others worked a long time with members of the community to try and resolve some of the issues, many which were not mentioned today, and are not germane to what is going on here. They worked with the County under the previous mayor, and Henry Cho- Tyler thinks Cho was quite empathetic about the situation.
Since 1994, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Tyler spent late 1996 to late 2004 as a county councilman, and there was occasion to appropriate money etc. Cawthon and Hauanio have contacted him over this time period, and after Tyler was on the County Council, they had some further meetings with the Deputy Planning Director regarding this project. It has come to light to Tyler that there have been some cases, way back in 1993 when the property was purchased- actually the County did not finalize it until 1996- that there were foundational difficulties- there was some representations that there weren't cultural resources there that turned out to be there. In any case, a lot of water has gone under the bridge, and we can't turn back the hands of time.
Tyler has not kept current on this for the last year or so. He has not seen the conceptual park plan, and was quite surprised to hear about the removal of a portion of the parking lot, because there were many hours of discussions to down size that parking lot. Tyler recalls discussions on the burials- there were reports of burials, but none turned up. There has been removal of vegetation, and disturbance of the area, but there has not been a lot of grading thanks to the efforts the community has put into this.
The significance of La'aloa has become much better known to Tyler personally, and he thinks other members of the community, that was not known prior to the efforts of the La'aloa 'Ohana and others in the community. That has been good, because we have learned more about our culture and tradition.
Tyler says his connection to the area is that his fourth great grandfather, Kipapa received a land commission award and royal patent for the lands immediately adjacent to this area in Pahoehoe 3rd. In 1873 Kipapa testified before the Boundary Commission regarding the boundaries adjacent in La'aloa- he testified on various things there, and it is quite interesting, and Kepa Maly brought it to Tyler's attention.
It is very important to perpetuate what is left of these valuable assets- Tyler regards these kinds of cultural resources not as liabilities, but as assets. At times these could be viewed as liabilities because there has been a lot of disagreement and discussions. Tyler hopes that the HIBC would be the catalytic element- Tyler realizes the HIBC is being asked to make a decision on the burials- he assumes it will be preserve in place. Maybe the HIBC individually, and collectively, since they have had the opportunity to review Kepa's report
End Tape 2 Side A
Tape 2 Side B not recorded on
Begin Tape 3 Side A
and that it has gone on for so long, it can be resolved- maybe it can't be and maybe it is at an impasse. Tyler will offer to be helpful, and does so in the sprit of proactive collaboration so we can up with as win-win a situation as we can. Tyler is not privy to what the County's plan for the park is. If he can be helpful, he has some kuleana because of his connection to the land. Tyler thinks the HIBC has the background, and the information to make some helpful recommendations or suggestions as to how we can perpetuate the culture and yet meet the needs of the present generation. Tyler does not know if it is possible, but with prayer and thoughtful consideration, anything is possible.
Arthur Mahi (Mahi) says in his younger days, they used to there- never had hale or anything. Before the hotel came up, they used to go there and get limu 'ele'ele by where the sand is. Now, too many people use suntan lotion, and it pollutes the limu 'ele'ele. People used to take care of La'aloa. Mahi does not know what the County has against them trying to take care of their ancestors. There are burial grounds where now there is a parking lot.
It is not about the money- before days everyone used to get together and clean up the place. Everyone did right, and the land gave the food for you. Now everyone talks with money. Mahi wants to know what is going to happen to the iwi- are they going to be protected or what?. When they start pushing, and find the iwi, they are inadvertent- Mahi does not like that word- inadvertent. Mahi does not agree getting a 501(c)(3) non-profit status- that is not part of the culture. Mahi wants to understand where we are going, and what the result is going to be- he wants to know now, not later, so we can plan for the future. People are looking out for the money, and not those who malama 'aina.
Bell asks Lindsey if a decision needs to be made today?.
Lindsey says the 45 day clock for the HIBC to make a determination starts today.
Mahi says the people never get any follow-up on what happens at HIBC meetings- they are told to come, but don't know if they are doing right or wrong.
Bell says that is something we are working on- some of the HIBC minutes were approved today. Bell knows these issues are important to Mahi, because if they weren't, he would not keep coming to the meetings.
Dutchie Saffrey (Saffrey) says Queen Lili'uokalani made statement after she was overthrown. She said she could not help the political change that was coming- we are like the blade of the pili grass, and the gift we have is to see the unseen, and to hear the unheard. That is the gift of our kupuna, and Saffrey feels it is our gift too. Saffrey hears and feels what Mahi is saying, and she agrees. We cannot control the changes that are coming upon us, and that is serious. We have to bind together, stick together- not in anger. Saffrey heard Mahi at the first HIBC meeting she attended when Mahi talked about living in his shack while the million dollar homes are going up. What is going to happen to him?- that is a real question.
Saffrey knows people with the same story. A hotel gets built, and all the Hawaiians on that street are out. This is where we have to be wiser, and understand that, and go to our legislators because we are the people that are being forced off the land. Saffrey asks Mahi to keep coming.
Mahi says he doesn't want to stop coming. The cultural people are looking for advice and information on where we are going. We can do things that are pono for everybody if we work together as a culture. Now people flip their position- give me money and I will work for you- before we did not have that, because we had aloha for each other- that is how we made things happen. If we can work together and focus on moving forward.
Roger Harris (Harris) says this is a County Park, and tax money was used to build it.
Mahi says tax money is supposed to be used to keep up our 'aina- the roads and everything.
Harris asks Mahi what would he like to see done here?.
Mahi says he would like to see a place where cultural people can get together and have meetings- they don't have one here- they have on Maui, O'ahu, and Kaua'i- this is the biggest island, and no more nothing. When people come, here they have a place to stay if they cannot afford hotels. Mahi says we give aloha- we don't get paid.
Anna Cariaga says we have Hawaiian programs, and we need to use them. In the mean time, like the County- what is their commitment to the community?.
Kahakalau says when you look at the long term recommendations that were done by Kepa Maly, there is one that says make a halau for cultural education within the buffer zones. Kahakalau asks Mahi if that is something he would support?.
Mahi says it is not just the halau, it is a meeting place.
Kahakalau says the Opunui 'Ohana have come forward- are they lineal descendants?, can they directly say those iwi there are their kupuna?.
Lindsey says, the Opunui 'Ohana are cultural descendants to La'aloa Ahupua'a.
Kahakalau says that is a very important point in this case in terms of what is going to be decided in a case that deals with a heiau- really, all cultural practitioners should have access and should have a right to determine not just the immediate, but a reasonable buffer area around the site, a minimum buffer area. That is her main concern. We know that there are cultural descendants, there are no lineal descendants- is that correct?.
Lindsey agrees that there are no lineal descendants.
Kahakalau says the word La'aloa itself should cause a light bulb to go off- intense sacredness. With a name like that we should be extremely mindful that Hawaiians don't use names or words that don't mean anything or don't have a connection to that place. When you hear the name La'aloa, it is a huge issue to be in any way confined or restricted. Kahakalau suggests this item be deferred until the next meeting, because those are some huge issues that need to be clarified.
Bell says at the April HIBC meeting a decision will be made, and recommendations will be made to the Department. Bell asks Lindsey if the HIBC will still be in the 45 day timeframe to make a determination at the next meeting?.
Lindsey says the April HIBC meeting will still be within the 45 day time period.
Bell says the HIBC will review the Kepa Maly report and the BTP, and come to the April HIBC meeting with some idea on recommendations that can be made to the Department.
Tyler says we have heard testimony identifying other families connected to this area. Tyler has not heard those names before. This is a common problem, and Tyler is wondering if there is a mechanism that Kana'i Kapeliela has with respect to his genealogical records, that will allow him to establish some current day name connections. Many of those names are not heard anymore. This something that continues to recur before the HIBC- Tyler has been coming to these meetings for 15 years- the same problems always come up. It may be some 'ohana don't know they have a connection. Some people don't read all the legal notices at the back of the paper. Tyler does realize that some of the kuleana is with the descendants. Many genealogies are confidential, but maybe there is a way the Department can share their information with regional members of the HIBC and families can be identified that way. The Department does not have a way to track families that have already applied and been granted descendant status for an ahupua'a- the families have to go through the process all over again.
Lindsey says researching someone's genealogy without their permission or knowledge is a really dangerous thing, and that is generally why the Department is not more active in tracking down families.
Tyler realizes it is a double edged sword.
Lindsey says it is tough to call someone out of the blue, and say, hey let's talk about your family iwi.
McDonald says the individuals also bear some of the responsibility.
Lindsey says he agrees with the criticism that running newspaper ads is not enough, but doesn't know what else can be done.
Tyler says maybe each of us as members of the Hawaiian community should go out and talk to people when issues come up. Problems don't go away, unless there are solutions. People are angry with the process.
Saffrey says the names Hauanio brought up are important- personally she would try and find those people.
Hauanio says he wanted to clarify that he really wants a copy of the BTP, and wants the process to move forward. He really wants to work with the County- they don't return his calls. He has spoken with family members- they have put trust in the La'aloa 'Ohana that they have an idea, that they can really make a difference in the community.
Hauanio says he has asked the State to tell him where in the State Constitution does it say in order for him to practice his culture he needs to apply?. It is absolutely clear in his mind that the process does not conform to Article 12, Section 7 of the State Constitution.
Saffrey says at some point, you need to bend to get your foot into the door.
Haunaio says they have bent- they are pau bending. It is to the point they have lost burials- he has seen the iwi there.
Kalili says the HIBC has a responsibility to address their concerns regarding iwi, including heiau- it is very important.
Kahakalau leaves at 239p- quorum is maintained.
C. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR SITES LOCATED ON A PROPERTY IN KAIHOLENA AHUPUA'A, NORTH KOHALA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND
[TMK (3) 5-8-001:11]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation by Tom Dye & Colleagues. Council Determination to preserve in place or relocate previously identified burials found during an archaeological inventory survey. Council recommendations to the Department on the short and long term mitigation measures detailed in the burial treatment plan. Recognition of descendants.
Roger Harris says he is going to recuse himself- he is a consultant for the landowner.
Bell asks Kanemoto if it is Harris' prerogative to recuse himself if he has a relationship with the developer?.
Kanemoto says there is a direct conflict.
Tom Dye (Dye) says the BTP is to preserve in place eight traditional archaeological sites that were probably use for human burial. Dye has worked on this property for about three years doing the inventory survey, and now the BTP. They finished the data recovery project there late last fall. The have never found a human bone on the property. At the end of the inventory survey there were nine sites they thought were possibly used for human burial. They were set aside in the inventory survey. The landowner took a look at those nine sites. The landowner is committed to preserving as many sites at Kaiholena as they can. There was one possible burial site that was in the way of possible development- there are no set development plans for this parcel yet. The owner has subdivided into six parcels, and his intent is to sell.
There was one possible burial site that might have been in an area where a landowner would want to build a home. Dye went back in during data recovery work, and discovered there was nobody there- it was just a pile of rocks on top of a outcrop. Legal notices were placed in the West Hawai'i Today, and the Honolulu Advertiser- two people came forward with a connection to coastal Kaiholena. One of them is here- Arthur Mahi. The other one is Anthony Ako who lives in Kapa'au. They worked closely with Ako and Mahi during the archaeological work. Mahi has had the opportunity to come down and participate and work with Dye, especially during the data recovery. Mahi and Ako have been given copies of the plans Dye has produced, so they have been consulted during the process.
The eight sites that are still probable burials are located in figure 1 of the BTP. A close up of each site, showing a stylized map and a proposed buffer around the site is also included. The funny thing about Hawaiian archaeology is that Kaiholena is really three or four villages on the coast, but it is divided up into hundreds of sites. Bishop Museum, who did the initial work there identified 216 sites. Dye has tried to put those back together- instead of just drawing a buffer just around the burial feature, they have taken the burial feature, and all the features around it and put it into a logical spatial cluster. Then they have drawn the buffer zone around that cluster of features. The intent there is to make sure they are not breaking apart clusters of sites that traditionally functioned together, and were seen as part of a whole.
The BTP has the usual provisions for not building within the buffers, and make sure the sites are not disturbed in any way. They have chosen to mark them with three foot high wood posts to which are affixed small labels indicating the site number. This is for a couple of reasons- these sites are going to be in the middle of private property that is going to be developed. Dye expects that the owners are going to know very well where these sites are. Those who have had the privilege of seeing sites in North Kohala, know that the sites are very impressive. The architecture is very well built- it stands up very tall and proud on the landscape- traditional Kohala style with the big back wall. The intent here is to let those stones speak in a way they did in the past, and not to disturb the rhythm of the architecture on the landscape with walls corralling them in.
Saffrey asks if there are restrictions on the style of home that is to be built to complement what Dye has just described.
Dye says there is not. The proposal here is ahead of any planned development.
Saffrey says there have been homes that are an eye sore to the landscape. There are restrictions on certain developments- that is why she asked the question.
Dela Cruz asks Dye if there were no claims by native tenants in Kaiholena?.
Dye says in the Mahele, correct. That is what Kepa Maly came up with in his research.
Bell says in the past, the HIBC has requested to see development plans. Dye has said the property has been subdivided, and the lots will be sold. Bell does not see anything in the plan related to legal documentation that will be put into the deeds fore the new landowners.
Dye says page 7 of the BTP says the right to access the sites by descendants who have been formally recognized descendants will be incorporated into the property deed by way of a covenant.
Lindsey asks if the other responsibilities related to the burial sites will be incorporated into the property deed.
Dye asks Lindsey if he would want the wording to say those responsibilities would be incorporated into the deed.
Lindsey says that would be good- it is pretty standard.
Maigret says when this whole project started, the SHPD recommendation to the County was that this mitigation plan be a condition of rezoning, so it did not become the responsibility of individual lot owners to deal with. That is why there was no development plan- the mitigation was a condition of the rezoning. We recommended the strongest language possible, that way if they don't do it, they are in violation of their ordinance.
Lindsey asks Dye if the lots have already been subdivided?.
Dye says they have been.
Maigret says she has not read the ordinance, but that was the suggested language.
Lindsey asks Maigret if that happened?.
Maigret says she is not sure.
Saffrey says that is important information that the HIBC needs.
Dela Cruz says otherwise we will be dealing with this lot by lot.
Bell says like at Pu'ulani Ranch.
Dye says he is there before any lots have been sold, and the BTP addresses the entire project.
McDonald says she is not sure where this property is relative to other ahupua'a.
Dela Cruz says it is near the eleven mile marker of Akoni Pule Highway.
Kuali'i asks how far south of Lapakahi State Park is the property?.
Dye says about three miles. The plan does address the whole project area. The idea was to have a comprehensive plan before new landowners come on the scene.
Dela Cruz says what happens if something comes up during construction- that would be inadvertent?.
Dye says we can't plan for that. The area used to be ranch land. The one thing about Kaiholena is that the area has lost a lot of top soil- the fine material is gone- it is called deflation. If there were any iwi there, they have washed away. With the deflation and the cows eating all the vegetation the water just flows over the surface of the land through the sites. They have walked over the parcel a lot- Dye has spent a lot of time there, and thinks the chances of finding inadvertents during construction there is very low.
Lindsey says he is confused by table 1 on page 3. The further work category shows the one site that was addressed during data recovery, but three still show further work, and the previous paragraph says further work was recommended.
Dye says that was during the inventory survey. The landowner has decided to just preserve in place, and there is no need to test.
Lindsey asks Dye if this is a situation where in the future, landowners will be requesting testing to confirm these sites are burials.
Dye says no, according to the plan these sites will be preserved in perpetuity.
Lindsey says the table should be revised.
Dye says he can't revise what was recommended in the inventory survey. The inventory survey has been accepted, and is a public document.
Lindsey says the way he reads it is that the possibility is left open for testing in the future.
Dye says that is an inference. There will be no further work. The inventory survey recommended further testing, but what happened since then is the landowner has decided to preserve these sites forever- it is very strongly stated throughout the plan- especially on page 7 of the BTP.
Bell says because the landowner has agreed to preserve these probable burial sites- Bell asks Dye about removing the word probable?- is there a problem with doing that?.
Dye says that is not a problem.
Bell commends the landowner for knowing these sites probable burials, and deciding to preserve them in place.
Bell says she is still concerned about how the responsibilities related to the burials will be transferred to the new landowners.
Dye says the BTP can be revised so that the responsibilities related to the burials will be incorporated into the property deed by way of a covenant.
Lindsey says the long term goal is always perpetual protection.
Mahi says the buffers are ok. It would be good if the Hawaiian people can come and take care of the sites- maybe plant some trees- right now there are only kiawe trees. As long as they take care of the iwi and the sites it is ok.
Hauanio says he wants to extend his appreciation to the landowner- it made our jobs a lot easier. Hauanio remembers this area is of the Pua and Kalua Family. They would go down there with his mom's father. The fishing is maika'i. If the owner is thinking of setting a good precedent, Hauanio would like to see a cultural site there, and begin implementation of a cultural center as part of their preservation plan. Hauanio always thinks about who is going to pull the weeds and all those essential needs. If there is a halau there practicing culture, it is maika'i.
A motion is made to defer this agenda item (Kuali'i/McDonald).
Vote: All in Favor
III. Approval of HIBC Meeting Minutes
* the approval of the October 2004, November 2004 and January 2005 HIBC Meeting Minutes had been deferred earlier in this meeting.
A motion is made to approve the October 21, 2004, November 18, 2004, and January 20, 2005 HIBC Meeting Minutes (Dela Cruz/Cariaga)
Vote: Dela Cruz- aye
4 ayes and 3 nays- the motion carries
McDonald says she won't take responsibility for the approval. There are lots of typo's.
Saffrey says there are lots of misspelled words.
Lindsey says to tell him if there are any corrections that people want.
Bell says the issue of Forbes Cave has come back up- there were NAGPRA hearings recently on O'ahu.
The HIBC requests a workshop to discuss the different laws that apply to the HIBC- Sunshine Law, Hawai'i Revised Statutes, Administrative Rules, etc.
The meeting is adjourned at 350p.
Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program