Island Burial Council Document Page
HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2004
TIME: 9:00 AM
PLACE: KONA OUTDOOR CIRCLE EDUCATION CENTER
76-6280 Kuakini Hwy.
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
ATTENDANCE:
HIBC Members:
Geri Bell (Chair)
Ruby McDonald, Kona (Vice-Chair)
Anna Cariaga (Ka'u)
Roger Harris
Ku Kahakalau (Hamakua)
Lily Kong, (Kona)
Ulu Sherlock (Hilo)Absent:
Ron Dela Cruz (Kohala)
Kaleo Kuali'i (Kona)
John Ray
Dutchie Saffrey (Puna)Staff:
Mary Carney, Burial Sites Program
Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program
Mary Anne Maigret, Hawai'i Island Assistant Archaeologist
Melanie Chinen, SHPD AdministratorGuests:
Arthur Mahi
Curtis Tyler
Mary Kalili
Ron Cawthon
Bob Rechtman
Mina Elison
Ali Ghalamfarsa
Luna Kanawai Hauanio
Bob Saunders
Mikahala Roy
Paul Rosendahl
I. Opening Remarks
Aunty Lily Kong (Kong) offers a Pule
Introduction of Hawaii Island Burial Council Members, SHPD Staff, and Melanie Chinen- State Historic Preservation Division Administrator
II. Business
A. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE SHORES AT KOHANAIKI PROJECT, LAND OF KOHANAIKI, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAII ISLAND [TMK (3) 7-3-09: 3, 14]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Formal Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Native Hawaiian Burials, Council Recommendations to the Department on Preservation Measures.
Geri Bell (Bell) says that the applicant is not present, and won't be for another hour.
A motion is made to move this item after item F on today's agenda (Cariaga/McDonald)
All in Favor
B. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR TWO FEATURES OF SIHP SITE 11059, PUA'A 2ND AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK (3) 7-5-09:40]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Formal Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Native Hawaiian Burials, Council Recommendations to the Department on Preservation Measures.
Bob Rechtman (Rechtman) gives a brief overview. Rechtman represents his client, Ali'i Architects, who also have a representative present- Ali Ghalamfarsa. This item was on last months HIBC agenda. Rechtman says he did get a little more direction on identifying potential descendants to the graves that were previously removed. Rechtman says previous efforts to identify the family were frustrating- he spoke with everyone he could, and nobody had any information on who the families were that moved the graves.
Ruby McDonald (McDonald) asks if Rechtman got a hold of Harriet?.
Rechtman says he did not, but spoke to everyone else. Access for descendants will be retained, even though there are no identified descendants. If in the future descendants are identified and recognized, there will be perpetual access, as indicated in the Burial Treatment Plan (BTP).
Kong asks if there are two burial features?.
Rechtman says in the preservation area there is one known feature with more than one individual in it, and another possible feature that may have an individual in it. The previous work by another archaeological consultant is not fully documented. In his update work, Rechtman says he decided to make the preservation area large enough to include all the soil areas around the burial feature to the limits of the exposed pahoehoe to include anything not yet known in the area.
Kong says because of the way the buffer is set up for this particular burial area, the burials should be preserved in place.
McDonald says page 11 of the BTP says access to the burial site for appropriate cultural activities will be permitted to any lineal and/or cultural descendants who have been formally recognized by the HIBC. McDonald says there are no recognized descendants- is this for if someone comes up in the future?.
Rechtman says if someone comes in the future, they can go to the HIBC, be recognized, and the access issue is already addressed. The wording can be changed to read any descendant who has been or will be recognized by the HIBC.
Curtis Tyler (Tyler) says he commented on this project at the last HIBC meeting. Page 11 of the BTP says the preservation area will be accessed along the north side of Building C- he thinks this has been changed.
Ali Ghalamfarsa (Ghalamfarsa) says it should read along the south side of Building C.
Tyler agrees that it should read along the south side of Building C, or north of the driveway coming down. It will be easier to access this way, it will not encroach on any of the residents.
Rechtman says there will be revisions on page 11 of the BTP. The wording for descendants will be changed to read any descendant who has been or will be recognized by the HIBC. In the second paragraph, where it says the northeast corner, it should read southeast corner. Another revision will be that access will be along the south side of Building C, instead of along the north. There are three changes on page 11.
Tyler has concerns regarding the lack of documentation with the State Historic preservation Division (SHPD) on the burials that were moved. There were numerous parties involved in this particular case, and there are no records that can be found- who the families were, who gave the permission, etc. To have this information lost in such a short period of time is very surprising to him.
McDonald asks Rechtman if he has contacted the previous landowner?.
Rechtman says yes, and they did not share information with who the family is. He spoke with Eddie Ayau, who said he was not involved with this, and that it did not go to the HIBC. Rechtman also spoke with Ross Cordy, who did not remember anything. Rechtman says he has been through the files in the SHPD offices in Kona and Kapolei, and there is a record of the action, but no record of the family. Homelani Funeral Home was sold at some point, and the previous owner took all the records, so they currently have no records of this. Kahu Teves did not remember anything as well. The iwi were reburied at Kahikolu Church, but everyone Rechtman has spoken to don't remember who the family is.
When the burials were removed in 1991, other burials were discovered, but left in place. The distinction was that the ones that were removed were in wooden coffins. Whoever removed them was sure that it was their family. The title to the property said there was two historic graves located on the property. The burials were removed, but the rest were left where they are.
McDonald says the burials that were moved, the family knew were there. McDonald knows the burials were moved to Kahikolu, because she saw them.
Rechtman says the documentation mentions the burials were reburied at Kahikolu.
McDonald says this issue did come before the HIBC on April 18, 1991. The minutes say that the Kurishige Family are lineal descendants of Henryetta Moku.
Rechtman says he contacted that family, and they did not remember anything.
Ulu Sherlock (Sherlock) asks Rechtman if the revisions the SHPD required in an October 29, 2004 letter have been made.
Geri Bell (Bell) says that the letter refers to the Archaeological Inventory Survey.
Mary Anne Maigret (Maigret) says the Inventory Survey has been approved.
Rechtman says the concerns were addressed by making the preservation area bigger.
Tyler says that it is interesting that the HIBC gets copies of the Burial Treatment Plans, but no copies of the Archaeological Inventory Surveys. The Hawai'i County Council always gets copies of the inventory surveys with rezoning. At a bare minimum the HIBC should be getting copies of the accepted inventory surveys- they are quite helpful and comprehensive.
Keola Lindsey (Lindsey) says that when the HIBC requests a copy of a specific inventory survey, it is included in the mail out- if the HIBC wants copies of every Inventory Survey for items on the agenda- that can be done. Once the Archaeology Branch has completed their review of an inventory survey, and it is accepted, that acceptance letter is usually what is included in the HIBC's packet of information for a given month.
Anna Cariaga (Cariaga) asks if the minutes, and inventory surveys are on file with the Lieutenant Governors Office?
Lindsey says that the agenda's are filed with the Lieutenant Governor's Office. Copies of inventory survey's, and burial treatment plans, and relative correspondence are on file with the SHPD.
Cariaga says she would like to introduce a motion that the HIBC receive copies of the inventory surveys.
McDonald says that the HIBC used to receive copies, but combined with all the other information, sometimes it was too much. If there are questions on any agenda item, the HIBC can ask the archaeologist.
Cariaga says all this is new to her, and she has the time to do the reading. A lot of the cases are in places she is not familiar with.
Bell says that any Council Member who would like a copy of an inventory survey can request one and staff will get them a copy.
Rechtman recommends that when burials are identified in an inventory survey, and it is likely that it will be going before the HIBC, that the Archaeological Consultant doing the work submit one additional copy of the inventory survey for the HIBC regional member for the area.
McDonald says that what is missing now is in the presentation- plans used to show what archaeological features are present now on a given property with a development plan overlay on them.
Kong agrees that it would be good to have everything on one poster that could be shown to the Council, and the public. The way it is now, the public does not see the information.
Cariaga says it is not that she mistrusts anyone. She has been on other Boards and Commissions before, and they always had the minutes from previous meetings for reference. Testimonies are very important. If copies of the minutes are available, then who said what is clear. She is not there just for herself, she is there for the Ka'u Community. She goes back, and has to explain what is going on.
She is telling people in Ka'u to register their burials and historic sites. When development comes, the community can show where the sites are. The developers can then work around the sites, or the families can work on it.
End Tape #1 Side A
Begin Side B
Sherlock says she reads all the correspondence, and when she has questions, she will bring it up with staff before the meeting.
Bell asks if another letter was sent to Rechtman?. Since the HIBC got the initial letter, they should have gotten the follow up. Bell recalls that the HIBC used to see maps from developers and consultants that showed all of the cultural and historic sites overlaid with development plans- that will help tremendously. Over the last few years, those kinds of presentations have been missing.
Arthur Mahi (Mahi) says that burials are an issue for the Hawaiian People. The burials should be left alone. The land takes care of the people, it provides food- if we don't care for the land, how can we expect the land to care for us?.
Luna Kanawai Hauanio (Hauanio) understands that this petition is in the Ahupua'a of Pua'a. Hawai'i Administrative Rules 13-300-3 talks about the jurisdiction of the HIBC. It is his understanding that the HIBC's authority applies to sites found within the boundaries of the State of Hawai'i, not situated in a known, maintained, actively used cemetery where human skeletal remains are discovered or known to be present. The Chapter applies to remains over 50 years old, and any burial goods.
Hearing this mornings testimony, Hauanio does not know the qualifications of the petitioner or the petitioner's agent giving representation as to a formal investigation being made regarding any theft, or unauthorized removal of burial remains or what they call burial site belongings, or burial goods. Hauanio has not seen law enforcement come and give their representation that they have done a formal investigation under the penal code or civil codes of the proper agency that would be the proper agent. It is his understanding that there was a two day workshop at the Kona Airport where there was a mass casualty workshop. It was clear to him that the coroner is the police chief for this Island. He has not heard any representation form that agency that has been contacted to investigate this particular incident.
The authority not the qualification that is being presented before the Council today, he thinks the Council should really take strict review on that representation.
Kong asks if Hauanio is speaking on this particular subject?.
Hauanio says on the removal of the burials as identified by the petitioner. On the website, the SHPD posts the minutes- the last ones posted are February 2004. It is unknown what all of the other minutes are- the discussions that went on regarding this particular agenda item. He finds it questionable that those discussions are not available for the public to scrutinize, before a determination is made. Without the minutes available there is a problem, he knows everyone is trying to rush through a lot of the applicants.
He had an opportunity to sit in on a meeting regarding the Police Commission's responsibilities because of ethical questions that come up. Questionable ethical conduct comes up before the HIBC as well. He has heard testimony about what a Commissioners role is when there is questionable ethical conduct. Hauanio's testimony today is not to personally attack anyone, just to identify a severe problem that new HIBC members face.
The burials are within the Ahupua'a of Pua'a- Hawai'i Revised Statute 1-1 talks about Hawaiian usage, and Hawaii judicial precedent. Article 12, Section 7 of the State Constitution talks about the State cannot take away any of those rights that Hawaiians are asserting their rights under Hawai'i Revised Statutes Section 1-1 which predates November 25, 1892.
Pua'a was to be the private lands of Kamehameha III. There are rights protected under the State Constitution, Article 12, Section 7.
McDonald asks Hauanio what happened to the lands of Pua'a from Kamehameha III's time until today?.
Hauanio says under the United States Code, Chapter 42, Section 11-7-01- it describes a congressional record of what happened to those lands. Those lands are of his lands, and his heirs.
McDonald asks if that was part of the Mahele?. Was it part of Government Lands later?.
Hauanio says according to the doctrine, his private lands
McDonald asks was it sold?.
Hauanio says the HIBC should inquire with the petitioner how they got it. He believes let the record speak for itself, unless the applicant can demonstrate that he got it from the King's Estate.
Kong says her Tutu, Charlie Kaaieke was her Godfather. He was the land over-seer for (King) Kalakaua and (Queen) Lili'uokalani. During the Mahele, the land was given to the people to farm. If the land was productive, it was for the family that farmed the land for the Ali'i. Kong's family has land of that kind, 24 acres up in Honalo. That was from her Tutu to her Mother. These are called Crown Grants.
Sometimes the land was lost. It is not the job of the HIBC to research how the land was lost- the HIBC's job is the iwi. She understands why the people are hurt, but the HIBC's concern is the protection of the iwi.
Cariaga agrees that the HIBC's job is the iwi. She also understands why people are concerned about the Mahele.
The Mahele had three books. First was the Mahele Buke, then the Mahele, then the great Mahele. You won't be able to find the Mahele Buke- that is the original book that started it all, if you could find it, you would be on the right track. That is something the community must research, and knowledgeable individuals must share.
Some of the laws from before have changed, others are the same. Any law can be revised, but that doesn't mean it has been approved. It needs to be signed and dated to be official. Many laws in the Mahele were revised, but never passed and approved.
The land was lost, but the HIBC's job is to make sure the iwi are in place. It is up to the families to tell the Council that they have decided to move the iwi. When the family comes to an agreement, it is easy. When half the family comes and says move, and the other half says leave them, it makes it very hard- then there is a problem. If a family representative comes to the Council, with a signed letter from the rest of the family, and everything is ironed out, there isn't a problem. The family needs to have it together before they come to the Council, so the HIBC doesn't get blamed.
Cariaga wants the information, so she can follow-up. She is listening to Hauanio, and when he mentions the ethic code, he wants to say something about the Council Members, something he is trying to tell the Council, that some Council Members may be sitting there illegally. Cariaga has never met Hauanio, but she is trying to figure him out.
Hauanio says 13-300-33 describes lineal and cultural descendants, and it gives a criteria, and a qualification. It says they go back to the Ahupua'a, and when he looks at this case, he sees this land (Pua'a) as the King's private land. Hauanio thinks the heirs of the King are the ones who should be consulted, not the police. No one filed a police report to find out if those families are the heirs of Kamehameha III.
The way things were done during a given time period may have been wrong. Hauanio is not going after the HIBC personally- it is what the letter of the law says. Hawaii Revised Statute 172-11 says every land patent issued upon a reward of the Board of Commissioners to quite land titles shall be in the name of the person to which the original award was made. Even if the person is deceased, or the title to the real estate whereby granted has been alienated, and all land patents so issued shall endure to the benefit of the heirs and assign of the holder of the original award.
The original award in this case was to Kamehameha III, not the person before the Council. Hauanio thinks the HIBC should not be to quick to make decisions without allowing the general public to examine the previous testimony made in accordance to the minute. If the public can't get the minutes, the appropriate information can't be given to the Council to make the right decision.
Ron Cawthon (Cawthon) says Hawaiians need to jump through a lot of hoops. He is not trying to cause problems for the applicant, but wants to know how Counicl knows that the applicant owns the property, before making a decision.
Bell says that is not in the HIBC's purview.
A motion is made to preserve in place site 11059 on the grounds that the landowner is proposing to preserve in place (Harris/Kong)
All in favor
A motion is made that the language be clarified in the Burial Treatment Plan for access, the corrections be submitted to the Department, and clarification on the recognized descendants be made. All three changes are on page 11 of the Burial Treatment Plan (Harris/McDonald)
All in favor
A recommendation is made that the Department review procedures regarding the relocation of iwi to ensure that there is proper record keeping and accountability for the iwi.
All in favor
Ali Ghalamfarsa says cultural emotional things are sometimes like a fire that burns everything in the forest, good trees and bad trees- everything.
He comes from a very old cultural background. He was born half way around the world, and all of his ancestors were born in that place. His father and him are the first generations to leave after 12 centuries of documented geneology. He understands what people are saying. He has made Hawai'i his home, and he hopes he can continue to do that- it has nothing to do with development.
C. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR BURIAL SITE 20380 B AND A PROBABLE BURIAL LOCATED AT OWEN'S PARCEL, PU'ULANI RANCH SUBDIVISION, PU'UANAHULU AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK (3) 7-1-06:58]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Formal Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Native Hawaiian Burials, Council Recommendations to the Department on Preservation Measures.
Bell says this agenda item is up for a formal Council determination to preserve in place or relocate.
Mina Elison (Elison) says Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific is representing Mr. Dave Owens. They are requesting to preserve in place two burials located on a 1.1 acre parcel in Pu'ulani Ranch.
End Tape #1 Side B
Begin Tape #2 Side A
Elison says Site 20380 is described as a rectangular alignment of stones adjacent to two walls. The feature measures approximately 9 feet by 9 feet. It was identified during an inventory survey. Part of the site is located on the adjacent property. Outside the alignment there are a few stones. The site is slightly disturbed, and the feature includes the stacked wall adjacent to it.
The area was delineated by descendants Mr. John Kailiwai and his daughter Debbie. The probable burial site area (figure 6 of the BTP) was delineated by the descendants. This site was not identified during the inventory survey, so it does not have a site number.
Legal notices were published in all the newspapers, and letters sent to all the descendants. Shirley Ann Keakealani responded, and she approved of the preservation in place, but was concerned with the buffer zone, which she said was typically 20 feet. Right now the plan calls for a temporary buffer zone of 10 meters or 32.8 feet, and a 5 meter permanent buffer zone, which is about 15 feet.
At the last meeting it was requested that a new TMK map replace the older one in the plan- that can be done easily. Perpetual access was also an issue.
McDonald says that the Council did ask for a new map last month. It was very important that she sees the new map.
Elison says the preservation areas will be cleared by hand, and a pre-construction briefing would take place with construction personal before any grading activities on the property. The probable burial area was described as a slight depression in the ground. Mr. Kailiwai was told to stay away from the area after his father in law was digging a cesspool. No sub-surface testing was conducted in the area. The cultural sensitive area was determined to be about 10 feet in diameter.
Bell says that the map shows a outhouse, weapons carrier, and metal posts- are those to be removed?.
Elison says they are not in the preservation plan.
Bell asks how far is the outhouse from the burial feature?.
Elison says 10 feet maybe more- maybe 15 feet.
Bell asks if the outhouse was just recently built?.
Elison says no it is from the homestead time.
Bell asks if the landowner has plans to remove it?. It appears to be close to the burial.
Elison says there are no development plans, and she believes the owner just sold the property.
Bell asks Elison if Owens just sold the property?
Elison says she is not sure, she has to confirm that there are transactions going on.
McDonald asks Elison if Mr. Owens is present?
Elison says no. She feels lucky to have had a site visit with Mr. Charles Aipia and John Kailiwai and his daughter. That really made her feel good about what she was doing. It is a fairly large preservation area that has been delineated.
Bell asks SHPD staff if they participated in the site visit?. Were the descendants satisfied with buffer zones?.
Lindsey says he is not sure what the descendants comments on buffer zones are. Lindsey knows it has been a long process for the families, and they have been working with Elison as a landowner representative to identify the burials. From Lindsey's discussions with the descendants in the past, they want to preserve in place.
This is the first time this item is on the agenda, so the 45 day clock started today if there are any concerns.
Bell clarifies that means the HIBC doesn't have to make a decision today, the Council can wait until next meeting.
Lindsey agrees
Kahakalau says maybe by then the HIBC can get the new TMK maps.
Bell says that was one critical piece of information that the Council requested at the last meeting, and they need that.
McDonald is concerned that only a portion of Site 20380 is on Dave Owens property. Page 1 of the Burial Treatment Plan (BTP) says that preservation of the other portion of Site 20380 is discussed in another BTP currently in a Draft. McDonald asks Elison what does that mean?.
Elison says that has changed. She was doing a BTP for the following agenda item. At the time she thought the rest of site was on that property- but it is not. When a decision is made by the Council, that decision would by attached to the deed of the adjacent property as well. The conditions would follow over for protection and preservation of the entire site- if she is not mistaken. The site in it's entirety would be preserved and protected.
Bell asks who is the adjacent landowner? The Nichols?.
Elison says yes, but not in that particular area (near site 20380).
Bell asks for clarification from SHPD staff. If the Council makes a decision for a site that is located on part of someone's property, that it includes the entire site, and the adjacent landowner is bound by any decisions made.
Lindsey says the Department is concerned about who the current landowner for the subject property is. The BTP on the agenda is being presented on the behalf of Dave Owens, who may no longer be the landowner. The adjacent landowner would also have to be informed that a decision is pending.
Lindsey asks Elison if it has been confirmed that the property has been sold?.
Elison says she doesn't want to say anything about that.
Bell recommends Elison work with SHPD staff. When she comes back to the Council it will be clearer who the landowners involved are, and how the BTP is going to affect the adjacent landowners. The Council wants agreement from the other landowners on what is going to occur.
Lindsey says the map on page 9 of the BTP shows the site being split in half by the property line. It is not just the buffers, it is literally the site.
Bell says all those issues need to be cleared up before this becomes an agenda item again.
McDonald asks if the 45 day clock is still running?.
Lindsey says the first thing is to clarify who the current landowner is.
Kahakalau asks if a plan is approved, and the property is sold, and it is not going to be the same plan, the landowner would have to come back to the Council?.
Bell says they would have to come back with a revised plan. She does not want to defer it until next month, with the clock running, and then still have the same questions that need to be answered, and have to make a formal decision and make recommendations.
Virginia Isabell (Isabell) suggests tabling the matter until the requested information is submitted.
Tyler says the item needs to be deferred. He was at the last meeting, when the Council made a request for information- that information has not been provided. The rules are very clear on what information is to be provided. The 45 day clock should not be running on this because the HIBC does not have the information to make the decision- it is not the Council's fault- it is the applicants fault- they did not follow through.
Ali'i Park Place was a similar situation where a property boundary split a burial site. He is a descendant to that area. It is two parcels and both landowners were in on the discussions, and agreed on how they were going to handle it. One landowner cannot record something on another's property deed.
The Council should not be in this position. Tyler is saying the HIBC does not have the information- the agenda item should not be tabled- it should be deferred until the Council has the information. It is up to the applicants representative to get the information.
Isabell says there is a difference between tabling an item and deferring it.
Cariaga says she wants to defer the item because the Council does not have all the information.
Kahakalau wants to clarify the 45 day clock.
Lindsey says because the item was put on the agenda, the 45 day window for a Council decision has started- the clock is ticking. In the time between this meeting and the December meeting, the Department will be talking with the consultant to get all the requested information. One of the main issues is who the landowner is. If all the issues can't be cleared up by December's HIBC meeting, the Department will ask the applicant to withdraw the item, and the 45 day clock would end.
A motion is made to defer the agenda item (Cariaga/Harris)
All in favor
D. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT NICHOLS PARCEL, PU'ULANI RANCH SUBDIVISION, PU'UANAHULU AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I. [TMK (3) 7-1-05:12 & 7-1-06:129]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Formal Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Native Hawaiian Burials, Council Recommendations to the Department on Preservation Measures. Informational Presentation by Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific.
Mina Elison says she is representing the landowners Mr. and Mrs. Craig Nichols who are requesting to preserve in place Sites 18488, 20381, and another burial area delineated by descendants. The parcel is a 6.6 acre lot in Pu'ulani Ranch.
Site 18488 is described as an irregular mound constructed of basalt cobbles and boulders situated in a flat grassy area.
Site 20381 is described as a single grave encountered in the Ha'o/Kailiwai garden. No surface features are present. Informant Charles 'Aipia remembers multiple graves in the immediate area. During a site visit Charles 'Aipia was able to identify the site, which he had originally identified during the inventory survey. John Kailiwai, and Debbie Kailiwai-Ray were also there, and they were able to visit the probable burial area which measures approximately 41 by 20 feet.
Temporary buffer zones will be 32 feet, and will be in place prior to construction activities. Permanent buffer zone will be 15 feet and will be cleared by hand, and planted with indigenous plants.
Input was obtained from Charles 'Aipia, John Kailiwai, and Debbie Kailiwai-Ray. This input was incorporated into the plan. Shirley Ann Keakealani agreed to preservation in place, but said the buffer zones are usually 20 feet.
McDonald asks how close the burial 20381 is to the road?. McDonald requests a current map that shows how close the road is to the burials.
Elison says she knows there is a historic road in the area, but doesn't know if there are any other roads. The inventory survey says the area near site 20381 was partially graded for a dirt road.
McDonald asks Lindsey if he was on the site visit with Elison and the descendants?. What were the mana'o of the descendants?.
Lindsey says he thinks the descendants were happy to finally get the sites identified, and thinks they wanted to preserve in place. The buffer issue still needs to be worked out, but can be addressed in the preservation plan, which the Department has 90 days to approve.
McDonald says the map on page 7 of the BTP shows buffers extending off of the property. McDonald asks Elison who are the adjacent landowners?. Are they in agreement?.
Elison says she has not spoken with adjacent landowners
Roger Harris (Harris) asks isn't it Dave Owens?.
Elison says yes. The buffer zones extend onto adjacent properties, but the burial site does not.
Bell asks Elison if the buffer zones were contained just in the Nichols property, how much would the buffers be reduced?. Would they be very close to the burial?.
Elison says she is not sure about Site 18488. The probable burial area is close to the property boundary.
Harris suggests that Elison come back before the Council with a composite map showing the Nichols and Owens parcels because it looks like the sites and buffers overlap. It looks like the two properties are next door to each other.
Bell says both landowners need to be before the Council. It looks like buffers and sites are extending onto adjacent properties
Harris says it looks like a third property might be involved. Everthing needs to be cleared up, and everyone needs to agree to preserve in place, and the buffers.
Mary Anne Maigret (Maigret) says that Nichols has tried to contact Owens, but was not successful. Nichols was very interested in establishing a cooperative effort to clear vegetation, and to identify sites.
A motion is made to defer the item, and to have the Department clear up all the unresolved issues (Cariaga/McDonald)
All in favor
McDonald recommends the Department not accept any more applications from Pu'ulani Ranch. The HIBC had asked the County for information on the conditions for the Pu'ulani Ranch Subdivision approval.
Harris says the Subdivision approval for Pu'ulani Ranch was 20 years ago. The County approved it. There were probably conditions for an archaeological inventory survey, and compliance with preservation conditions. If the Subdivision is not compliant, it can't be voided- lots have already been sold. If someone puts pressure on the developer, it may force him to be compliant. It is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative other than to have the landowners come in with their plans individually. As much as the developer should be held accountable, the current lot owners need to get things moving.
The HIBC should follow up with the County again, and get a response. Not accepting any more plans for Pu'ulani won't solve the problem.
A motion is made to write a letter to the County Planning Director and to ask specifically if all the increments of Pu'ulani Ranch are in compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval. (Harris/McDonald)
Tyler says on October 16, 2003 when the HIBC held it's meeting at Puuanahulu, this same matter came up. Mr. Darryn Arai was present from the Hawai'i County Planning Department. Arai said that the County was not approving any land alteration or building permits at Pu'ulani Ranch without clearance from the SHPD. Arai said if the landowner does not request a permit, then the County does not know what is happening. All of the landowners have been told about the requirement to get the SHPD's approval. A letter had been sent to Newell Bohnett (Pu'ulani Developer) from Hawai'i County, and there was no reply. There were no violations because no permits had been requested- a grubbing and grading permit is not required for under 1 acre.
There had been a request from the HIBC that the County stop all ground alteration- even if a permit was not required.
The conditions of the rezoning, and most likely the subdivision was that a Project Burial Treatment Plan be prepared. No overall BTP has ever been prepared.
A motion is made that the Department write a letter to the Hawai'i County Planning Department to ask specifically if all the increments of the Pu'ulani Ranch Subdivision are in compliance with the conditions of the subdivision approval (Harris/McDonald)
All in favor
Mary Anne Maigret (Maigret) says there have been new requests for subdivisions within Pu'ulani Ranch that have triggered new recommendations from the SHPD to Hawai'i County.
End Tape #2 Side A
Begin Side B
Mikihala Roy (Roy) agrees that the Council should not be hearing these cases without an answer from the Planning Director. There has been trouble in Pu'ulani Ranch for years. The lands of Pu'uanahulu are very important. She has heard nothing but heartache from the families.
It is offensive to her to be talking about parcels and land referring to those who own it today- this is not their land. It should not go by the name Owens or Nichols just for the ease of the SHPD's record keeping. Recording by TMK is fine.
E. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR SITE 50-10-28-20448 LOCATED ON A PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF SARONA ROAD AND KUAKINI HIGHWAY, KAILUA-KONA, HONUA'ULA AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII [TMK (3) 7-5-07:28]
Information/Recommendation: Informational Presentation by Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific on Burial Treatment Plan for Previously Identified Burials.
Mina Elison (Elison) of Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific, Inc. is representing Mr. Ali Ghalamfarsa of Ali'i Architects, who is the landowner. The project is located at the intersection of Sarona Road and Kuakini Highway. The total area of the property is 4789 square feet.
Elison refers to page 7 of the Burial Treatment Plan (BTP), which shows a plan view of Site 20448. Inventory Survey excavations were conducted in 1999, and identified one site. Site 20448 is an enclosure containing a platform and a previously disinterred grave. The platform measures 30 by 15 feet, and is enclosed by a wall that surrounds it on the northern side of the property, and also on the south. Additional testing was conducted which resulted in the identification of seven burials- six were determined to be from the post contact era. The burial locations and locations of test units are on page 7 of the BTP.
Descendant John Wahinekapu (the grandson of Joseph Wahinekapu, whose remains were disinterred from the site) is an 80 year old resident of Kona, and is the only living family member who lived on the neighboring property. John Wahinekapu was consulted, and he was unaware of the burials in the platform.
Ms. Lucy Makuakane-Tripp, also a lifetime resident of the area who lives approximately two miles from the site on Ali'i Drive was also unaware of the existence of burials in a platform.
Page 13 of the BTP shows the buffer zones. The temporary buffer zone is 3 feet from the wall, which acts as a natural boundary from the platform burials. The permanent buffer zone would be at the edge of the wall. Appendix D of the BTP has the proposed architectural and design plans for the house.
The proposed house is a single family dwelling for the owners parents who are elderly.
Ali Ghalamfarsa (Ghalamfarsa) says when Bank of Hawai'i owned the property they did a study in 1998. One of the things done at John Wahinekapu's request, was moving his grandfather (Joseph) to a cemetery. The Department of Land and Natural Resources required data recover on another site on another property where they are going to build a small hotel. This property was included in that study. Site 20448 is actually in the Kuakini widening project- the plans show the sidewalk stopping before the feature, and continuing after it, so the entire site will be preserved.
The zoning for the property would allow four condo units, or an office building to be built. What Ghalamfarsa wants to do is build one house. He is doing this because his parents live up mauka, his mother doesn't drive, and his dad is 85 years old, and has to drive to town everyday. This would be the perfect place for them.
Ghalamfarsa understands that buffer zones are usually 20 feet. Appendix D-2 of the BTP shows that if there were a 20 foot buffer, the house would be an L-shape. He is proposing dedicating nearly one-third of the property for preservation, and then build on the rest of the property. The existing rock wall would be restored, and the site cleaned. He is proposing building a four foot high traditional rock wall around the entire site (shown on appendix D-3 of the BTP).
Lily Kong says the BTP says the burial was removed and taken to Mokuaikaua Church.
Ghalamfarsa says that is what he understands. The proposed plan does not call for any more moving. A rock wall will be built around the site. Appendix D-4 of the BTP shows the proposed house.
Ku Kahakalau refers to page 7 of the BTP and asks Elison how far the wall is from Site 20448 feature 3A?.
Elison says about 6 feet from the outside edge.
Ruby McDonald (McDonald) says page 8 of the BTP talks about the Mokuaikaua Church Cemetery _ mile northwest of the property- there is no Cemetery there. The burials were moved up mauka.
Elison says the disinterment permit is in the BTP appendix.
Kahakalau asks Elison if there are any more burials in the wall?.
Elison says the inventory survey did not identify any.
Kahakalau says if there were burials in the wall, there would be zero buffer between the wall and the proposed house.
Ghalamfarsa says that all the information is from the inventory survey report, which was done by Joe Kennedy (Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific, Inc.). Ghalamfarsa will ask Kennedy about that.
Bell says the question is if there are burials in the wall.
Kahakalau says it is significant because if there are, the proposed house will be a lot closer to burials. Feature 3A is the closest burial to the proposed house now, and that is 6 feet.
Ghalamfarsa says he needs to ask Kennedy to verify that.
Mary Anne Maigret (Maigret) says she did the inventory survey work when she worked for Kennedy about 10 years ago.
Kahakalau says her concerns are specifically the wall on the makai side of the property- are there any burials?.
Maigret says the property slopes down from where the Wahinekapu burial was. It is a slopping pahoehoe surface with shallow soil deposits. She interpreted the wall to be a boundary wall for where there are still burials. Maigret says if Kahakalau's question is whether or not there are burials directly associated with or beneath that wall- that is not known. The testing occurred within the platform, and multiple individuals were confirmed. Maigret thought the wall was a demarcation to separate the platform from the rest of the area- it was not investigated as a potential burial feature.
Bell asks Maigret if the Wahinekapu burial was found in the wall or in the enclosure?.
Maigret says inside the enclosure. There is evidence of a recessed concrete crypt space- the concrete and the stones that were dislodged are still there. The site (Wahinekapu) is perched on the top of the slopping pahoehoe surface, with thin soils down below.
McDonald asks Ghalamfarsa how close the adjacent property is?.
Ghalamfarsa says they are separated by a parking lot- so it is about 60-80 feet.
McDonald says there is a descendant who responded to the burial notice- Iwalani Arakaki. McDonald asks Elison and SHPD staff if they had gotten a letter from Arakaki- she comes from the Ma'a and Kamaka lines which were listed in the notice.
Elison says no
Lindsey says he is unaware of any pending descendant claims.
Mikahala Roy (Roy) says she is there on behalf of Arakaki. Arakaki has called two or three other people to speak on this item today.
Bell asks if Roy is speaking to Arakaki, please tell her to submit her information to the Department, so she can be recognized.
Elison says she has Arakaki's address, so it won't be a problem to get in touch with her.
Roy asks Maigret if Hawaiian cultual experts have been consulted about the platform.
Maigret says there was speculation in the beginning on if it was a house site. Other than researching previous land use in the area, and consulting the family on the burial site, no other consultations were done.
Roy says consultations should have been specifically done for that area. The Honua'ula area is important as a part of the larger Kailua Kona area for the occupation by Chiefs. Roy wants to know why the State has not consulted with cultural experts- it is lacking in all of the SHPD's records. It is not acceptable to test to see if there are burials, when there are 'ohana saying there are. There is no input from Hawaiian cultural experts on what that platform is.
The descendants should get to see the maps that are being referred to.
Bell says descendants can get all the information in the Burial Treatment Plan, but they need to get their information to the Department, so they can be recognized.
Lindsey asks Ghalamfarsa if sites exist where the actual house is proposed.
Ghalamfarsa says there is nothing there.
Lindsey asks it is a clear lot that has been graded already?
Ghalamfarsa says it was partially cleared up to the rock wall.
Roy says the question then is what was there. There has never been a comprehensive report done by the SHPD for the Kailua Kona area.
A recommendation is made for a site visit with recognized descendants, the HIBC, and SHPD staff.
Tyler says he is a recognized descendant. It took him four or five years to be recognized, because he had no responses to his letters. He was recommended to be recognized on March 17 of this year- the HIBC did recognize him for parcel 9 [TMK (3) 7-5-07:09]. On June 25 he sent another request for recognition to parcel 28 [TMK (3) 7-5-07:28].
The first burial notices were published July 21, 22, and 25 of 1999. He submitted his request for parcels 9 and 28 in February of 2000. He submitted it again about three times. He was recognized for parcel 9, where they are going to build the hotel, which has already come before the Council. He urges the Council to go on the site visit so they can see for themselves what is there.
Page 6 of the BTP says that the walls are an integral part of the site. The Council has always measured buffer zones from the outer edge of the feature (platform, enclosure, cave etc.). This has always been done.
The original proposed interim buffer zone was supposed to be 4 meters (12 feet). The revised proposed interim buffer zone is now 1 meter- that is entirely unsatisfactory. He is not aware of any interim buffer that is less than 30 feet- Tyler will not go along with that. Page 14 of the BTP basically says there will be no permanent buffer zone. Tyler is not aware of the Council or the Department approving no buffers.
The adjacent parcel 9, with a single burial crypt, has significantly different buffers. The buffers for the two parcels should be similar not only because they are in the same Ahupua'a, but because the two properties are next to each other.
Tyler wants to be consulted and informed on when the site visit is going to take place. There are a number of families that should be involved. Lucy Makuakane-Tripp has passed away. Tyler knows the Roys used to live nearby.
Kahakalau asks Maigret to confirm that this burial site is not part of any larger identified historical sites in the Kailua-Kona area?.
Maigret says that as a part of the inventory survey, background historical information was presented on Land Commission Awards from that area. Maigret did get information when she was working on the other property (parcel 9). There is background information, but she is unaware of any specific information related to the platform.
Kahakalau says that when sites are potentially significant, more research should be done by the consultants preparing the BTP. She has seen some plans come in with a very complete research to put the historical information into context.
Roy says that information has not been obtained from cultural sources on the history of cultural sites in Kailua-Kona.
Lindsey says that cultural sources are also the descendants.
Roy says that she is saying that no cultural study on the historical background of Kailua Village. This area is one of a kind, occupied by Chiefs.
Roy says she is speaking for Iwalani Arakaki- no burials should be disturbed.
F. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR FEATURE U OF SITE 5608 LOCATED ALONG HUALALAI ROAD, KAILUA-KONA, 'AUHAUKEA'E 1ST AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII [TMK (3) 7-5-09:54 por.]
Information/Recommendation: Informational Presentation by Rechtman Consulting, LLC on Burial Treatment Plan for Previously Identified Burials.
Bob Rechtman gives an overview. Bob Saunders is also there representing the landowner. There is one feature within a large site area. The history of archaeological work on this property goes back several years. The subject parcel and an adjoining parcel were surveyed by Paul Rosendahl.
Rechtman has recently done an update of the inventory work for the current project. Specifically, he tested a series of features that may have had burials. Page 5 of the BTP has a table that describes all of the sites in this project area.
The project area is a portion of a larger parcel. Page 3 shows the current development parcel and the rest of the TMK parcel is makai. It is a former Greenwell property. The overall development area includes adjoining parcels, which have already had archaeological studies. The landowner is going through the consolidation and rezoning process. The subject property had an archaeological study, but it was never approved by the DLNR.
The remainder of the parcel, outside the development area will be put into conservation for preservation in perpetuity- there are a bunch of archaeological features. This developer is going to carve out parts of the parcels with archaeological features and preserve them. The developer is looking for a community group to be involved in the long term preservation.
Bell asks how many acres is the property?
Bob Saunders (Saunders) says the total area from Kuakini up to the wall is about 6 acres.
Rechtman says page 4 of the BTP shows the actual proposed development area that was part of the archaeological study he did. Within this area there are 15 features that were recorded earlier- one of those features in the Kuakini wall, which is the mauka boundary for the property. Rechtman did sub-surface testing in all of the features that were previously described as possible burials. Table 1 on page 5 of the BTP shows all the sites with their previous classifications, and their current classifications as a result of his follow-up work.
During his follow-up work, a single burial was found in feature U. The other features did not have burials in the places they put their excavations.
End Tape 2 Side B
Begin Tape 3 Side A
Rechtman says he has been consulting with the community, OHA, the Burial Sites Program, HIBC regional members to try find any people with connection to burials in 'Auhaukea'e. Rechtman says Ruby McDonald's name came up because they have a burial site makai of the project area. Rechtman says he has consulted with McDonald- the plan has been modified as a result of those consultations.
Page 10 of the BTP shows the proposed development, and the location of Site 5608 feature U. There is a 20 foot buffer. Consultations resulted in not building a wall around it, but essentially leaving the area as it is- one koa haole may have to be removed because of the roots. The feature is an above ground platform. Indigenous shade trees have been recommended.
Access to the burial area will be perpetual, and included into the description of the project, and ultimately passed on to the homeowners. The project is not gated, so descendants would be able to drive to right next to the preservation area, and have easy access.
Bell asks Saunders the proposed use is single family homes?
Saunders says each building has four dwelling units that are two stories high with a loft. The original plans called for four story buildings with a garage. It was to dense. The developer wanted a more spread out look, and a lower density development. The site has been accurately plotted on site maps, and Saunders has confirmed with his civil engineer that no work will occur in the preservation area.
Kahakalau says that with the preservation area remaining as it is in the middle of this new subdivision, it may attract children who want to play there.
McDonald says her mana'o was not to have walls- she wanted to leave the area as it is. No matter what is done, people may go. It is up to the landowner to be maka'ala and make sure nobody goes inside.
Bell asks Paul Rosendahl if the burials were identified in 1981 as possible burials without any testing?.
Paul Rosnedahl (Rosendahl) says some of them were tested. He needs to clarify the TMK- the original work he did was on a larger TMK parcel (3) 7-5-09:54 and 55.
Rechtman says his work was in a portion of parcel 54.
Rosendahl asks Rechtman who owns parcel 55?.
Rechtman says the Lanihau Corporation &endash; the Greenwell Family.
Rosendahl says when he did the work there in 1979 and 1980, they did 15 acres from the Kuakini Highway to the Kuakini Wall on parcels 54 and 55. He found three major features, two of which he believes are Heiau, and the third is a Chiefly Residence.
Rosendahl started testing, and the first seven features they tested had burials- the landowner had them stop testing where they thought there were burials. Rosendahl then tested five other features that they were unsure of- none of those had burials. The work he did out there would not be classified as inventory survey. The first time out there they found 24 features- the property had high grass. After some cattle went through, they went back out and found 75 features. One of the Heiau has multiple (12) burial features associated with it.
Roy asks Rosendahl if cultural studies were done?.
Rechtman the landowner knows there are significant sites, and that is why he wants to leave that area in perpetual preservation, and look for a partner in the community to malama that area.
Roy says the goal is to understand the magnitude of the different sites to determine buffers- if they are not studied now for the future, we won't know.
McDonald says 'Auhaukea'e is where Keopuolani lived- that is why you would find large kauhale. McDonald is not sure how long Keopuolani lived there, but that is one of the significant aspects of the area.
Roy says the question again is what was there. At Keolanahihi it is the same thing- what is the ancient history.
Rosendahl says an interesting aspect he discovered during his work here was that 300 feet mauka of Kuakini Highway, there are massive sites that had never been touched. They stopped testing for burials, but he thinks there are more. He feels there has never been an inventory survey done, so how can you say everything is going to be preserved, when you don't know everything that is there?.
Maigret says that the recent reviews for this parcel indicate that the portion that is going to be developed will be rezoned. The current subdivision application would take out the portion intended to be developed, with the rest going into preservation. The SHPD recommendation would be to inventory the entire property before subdividing or rezoning. Maigret isn't against the proposal, and agrees that there are portions of the property that should never be developed. Maigret feels preservation planning cannot be addressed until there is an inventory survey.
Saunders says there is a covenant on the land- there can be no development. It will be zoned conservation, and there will be no question that it cannot be developed.
Maigret says even if the land is zoned conservation, if there are plans to clean or care for the land, baseline information from an inventory survey is still needed. The process can't be fast forwarded to conservation. Maigret is not sure how the planning director feels about this. Even when the land is zoned conservation, when use permits are reviewed, if there are any potential adverse effects, an inventory survey is needed as a baseline standard.
Saunders says he wants to create a separate TMK parcel and leave it as is. If others come along, and there is consensus on what should be done, they can propose that. At this time however, they are not proposing to do anything in that area.
Maigret says the development would be really close to sites that have not been inventoried, including the large Heiau. Maigret is not convinced that this development won't have an adverse effect on those unrecorded sites. Partially addressing these concerns only in the area to be developed doesn't help with the big picture. The standard recommendation when there is subdivision is to look at the larger parcel, and then figure out how to subdivide with the least potential to adversely effect sites.
Saunders looks forward to more dialogue on those issues.
Maigret thinks there can be a positive outcome.
Saunders says he wants a mechanism for if the property is sold, no matter who has the land, that area will be preserved. When the Greenwells sold the land to him, they agreed there would be a covenant that on the lower portion of the parcel there would be no development. There have been suggestions to also put the land into conservation, and that is fine with him.
McDonald says the property is currently zoned Ag-1, and Saunders is thinking about down zoning it to conservation.
Saunders says that is correct.
Bell says there needs to be some dialogue between Saunders and the SHPD.
Maigret says and there needs to be a recommendation from the SHPD to the Planning Department.
Kahakalau asks Rechtman how far would the sites (in the proposed conservation area) be from the nearest buildings in the project area?.
Rechtman says 70 feet.
Rosendahl says the HIBC will still have to deal with the burials in the proposed conservation lands, possibly as a condition of the subdivision or rezoning.
Kahakalau says there are concerns not only regarding the one site in the project area (feature U), but also how close the buildings would be to sites in the proposed preservation area.
Rechtman says in advance of a HIBC siste visit, he could demarcate where the project area ends, and open a path through the vegetation to the first sites that are closest.
McDonald says page 8 of the BTP, last paragraph needs a correction. She was not consulted as a OHA or HIBC representative. She was consulted as a cultural descendant.
Roy says the HIBC cannot keep up with what is happening with the coast. If something like Na Hale o Keauhou can happen right across the street from the Lonoikamakahiki residence, then in this case she can respect the State's need to properly inventory.
With all due respect, Roy feels the State is in a mess when it comes to historic preservation, and when it comes to burials.
Tyler says it makes transcribing the meeting minutes harder when people keep standing up from the audience to comment. This is a formal meeting of a Board or Commission, and people should testify in accordance with the normal procedures.
Tyler says it is of record that in 1803 Cleveland came to Hawai'i and brought horses. He anchored in Oneo Bay. Oneo Bay is at the makai end of 'Auhaukea'e 1 and 2. Keopuolani lived there. She was the mother of Liholiho and Kauikeaouli- Kamehameha II and III. It is not by coincidence that this place is loaded with features. This area is filled with cultural resources. If there was ever a need for an inventory survey for this area, and Hienaloli 6th- which is directly adjacent to the north, this is the time.
On November 23 the Hawai'i County Council Planning Committee will be hearing this issue in Hilo. This is an opportunity to ensure that nothing happens in perpetuity to the makai portion of this parcel.
The archaeological study says there are 19 possible burials, three heiau, 10 unknown features, and 4 confirmed burials. When Rosendahl did the study, it included parcels 54 and 55 which is from Hienaloli on the north to Pua'a on the south. The area must be looked at in its entirety.
Cleveland landed in 1803 in the corner of Oneo Bay, where the northeastern corner of the parking lot for the Coconut Grove Market Place is now. That is where Keopuolani was. Tyler encourages the Council to read as much information as possible on this area as possible because it is a very important part of Kona's history, and the history of the Hawaiian People.
Lindsey asks Tyler if the Planning Committee is taking action or making recommendations on the subdivision request ?.
Tyler says it is the County Council Planning Committee will be making a recommendation on the rezoning to the full Council. It is on the November 23rd agenda. Tyler recommends to Saunders that the issue of the makai parcel be taken up at the meeting- make it a condition. Tyler has not seen the recommendations from the Planning Commission, who has already heard this matter. This will be his last Planning Committee meeting and he wants to make sure this makai parcel is preserved, and never developed.
Harris asks Saunders how big of an area will the makai parcel preservation area be?.
Saunders says about three acres.
Tyler says he had spoken with the former owners about the significance of these ahupua'a. He also spoke with Mr.Greenwell. The covenant may be part of the deed. This is very important for the Planning Department to know for when the grubbing and grading permit. This can't be looked at piecemeal.
Maigret says that one of the review comments she had to Rechtman was that he did not do an update of the inventory survey. It is an inventory survey for a portion of this parcel- to say update implies that there was a previously approved comprehensive inventory survey. Only half the property has an inventory survey- the rest does not.
End Tape 3 Side A
Begin Side B
Luna Kanawai Hauanio says it is a great idea that the developer is committing some areas to conservation. He has concerns, because he is involved with a 10 year effort to protect a site. There are sometimes different opinions on what the meaning of a word is.
His concern is, if the land is put into conservation, who is actually going to care for it?. Ninety percent of the sites today have problems with trash around the site. A good example of a management plan is what you have here at the Kona Outdoor Circle. They have a Heiau, and they have someone here to make sure no one messes around with the Heiau. Hauanio wants to know who is going to care for the sites if they are going into conservation.
The La'aloa 'Ohana have been up against the two headed ideology. They are there to malama ka 'aina. When the archaeologist says protect, and the HIBC approves the plan- is it going to be something that is happening to the majority of the sites today- good ideas, but nobody home to protect them. Hauanio recommends agreements should be made- it doesn't matter who the group is- if they want to take care of a site, let them.
Roy says that lineal descendants have not received a timely notification of the meeting- again. Her statements today reflect the condition of the Hawaiian People today at the hands of the State. She respects people individually. It is unprofessional to talk about Hawaiian culture in a cavalier way. The concerns of the people is that there is a blatant disregard for Hawaiian heritage in the SHPD.
She would like to say that her father has said the signs outside the Kona Outdoor Circle saying this is the location of Hale Hau is incorrect, yet the County says it is out here. All bodies that work with Historic Preservation, and the historic keeping of sacred sites, are still learning what it means to care. Her father did initial work at Kealakowa'a Heiau, the Outdoor Circle gave no concern to Kona people when they built this, they asked outside people. This is an example of inappropriate Hawaiian care.
It is important that the people who are from an area, the kupa, are first and foremost. There should be greater efforts to get to the Kupuna of different districts. There should be a comprehensive effort to get oral histories from every ahupua'a. Her father has been asking for years that the State do a study at 'Ahu'ena, and Kamakahonu.
Kahakalau asks if the rezoning has not occurred, why is the Council being asked to review this matter?.
Bell says the rezoning is a completely different matter, outside the purview of the HIBC. It is a requirement that the developer will eventually develop a burial treatment plan and come before the Council. The zoning will be determined by the Hawai'i County Council.
Kahakalau asks that the developer can come to the Council before the rezoning?.
Lindsey says that is why this item is just on the HIBC agenda for information.
Kahakalau asks Lindsey so there is no clock ticking?.
Lindsey says no.
Rechtman says they wanted to do early consultations.
G. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE SHORES AT KOHANAIKI PROJECT, LAND OF KOHANAIKI, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAII ISLAND [TMK (3) 7-3-09:3, 14]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Formal Council Determination to Preserve in Place or Relocate Previously Identified Native Hawaiian Burials, Council Recommendations to the Department on Preservation Measures.
Paul Rosendahl (Rosendahl) gives an overview of the project. There are seven identified burial sites. Several of them had been found during post inventory work, and are technically inadvertent discoveries. The current landowners have included the inadvertents in the same Burial treatment Plan. He has spoken with SHPD staff, and they have agreed that this is a good way to treat them. Basically they are all being treated as previously known.
Five of the seven sites are located in the proposed shoreline park area. The first offer of responsibility for the park will be to the County. If they refuse, then it will be the State. If they refuse, it will be offered to the National Park Service. If they refuse, the owners will continue the care for the park with the provision that at some point a community group will take over.
As part of the agreement with the County, the developer has a portion of an easement to use for the golf course- it is still open space. The immediate shoreline park is where people will do shoreline activities- camping, fishing, surfing etc. The golf course portion is more mauka.
There are two burial sites within the development area. One of them is in the rough portion of the golf course. The other is in a residential lot, and a preservation easement would be included in the deed.
McDonald asks Rosendahl which site is in the golf course
Rosendahl says Site 15137. The burial in the residential lot is 14572.
Kahakalau asks Rosendahl what the plan is for the burial in the residential lot.
Rosendahl says the proposal is preservation in place for all burials. The one that is in the residential lot would have a preservation easement around the burial recorded as part of the deed. A potential buyer would be aware of the site and the requirements for preservation.
Rosendahl would like feedback from the Council, and the community group the developer is working with on buffers. Five of the seven sites are in the shoreline park. Site 1907 for example has 750 feet of open space until the development begins- are buffers in the park itself going to be delineated?. Site 1905 feature D has about 400 feet of open space until the development begins. There is going to be public access to the park, and there are four or five parking areas. The burials and sites within the park are going to need some measures of definition and protection. Should there be walls or plantings?. Maybe no delineation, just signs?- whatever is appropriate. The walls won't prevent people from doing what they want to do.
Kahakalau wants to follow the mana'o of the lineal and cultural descendants. The Council has received two letters from two descendants. One calls for bigger buffers, but doesn't specify the distance, or what the buffer should look like- a wall or planting. The second letter does not specify buffer zone either.
Kahakalau says the descendants should be contacted and specifically asked their mana'o on the buffer distances.
Rosendahl says all the people he contacted, which is double the amount the SHPD has recognized, were agreeable to preservation in place. The various details, such as buffers have not been determined.
Part of the problem now is that the developer wants to do certain activities on the property for which they need agreed upon buffers. They have been trying for some time to get guidance on this issue.
Bell says short term, long term, and interim buffers are proposed in the Burial Treatment Plan (BTP). Bell asks Lindsey if all 120 descendants were mailed a BTP?.
Lindsey says he can't confirm that.
Bell says the hope is that the Department at least mailed the BTP to the descendants, and they are given ample time to review it, and make comments- that is the normal process.
Kong is concerned because the Council received an affidavit from a lineal descendant to Kahape'a in their packet. She feels the descendants to Kahape'a should be making the decision.
Rosendahl says they are no SHPD recognized lineal descendants.
Lindsey says that they may be lineal to Kahape'a, but as far as the identified burials within the project, there are only cultural descendants.
Rosendahl says the only other comments (other than preserve in place) have been related to signage, and not using chemicals on the golf course.
Sherlock asks Rosendahl the descendants that weren't contacted was because you didn't have their contact information?.
Rosendahl says they mailed out information on how to contact the SHPD to anyone they had a phone number or address for. There were a few names for people they did not get a hold of, but in many cases they spoke with other family members.
Harris says this is a somewhat unusual case in that there is a large public park that blends into a private recreation area. It appears that the 20 foot permanent buffers for the sites in the shoreline park are probably ok, because to make a greater buffer means you are essentially lessening the public recreation area. It will probably be a combination of signage and delineation of the 20 foot buffer. There is going to be a lot of public use, so there is going to have to be something. Just because there is a lot of open space doesn't mean the buffers should be increased.
Rosendahl says in a lot of cases over the years, people who have come to use the area have taken apart sites to use the rocks to build fire pits and shelter walls. There was no signage or warnings. The question is still how the sites going to be protected- there can't be a security guard there the whole time.
Harris says he would be comfortable with a determination to preserve in place, and the 20 foot permanent buffer. The implementation of the overall preservation plan should keep in mind that this area (the shoreline park) is going to be a high activity zone- it already is.
Rosendahl says there should be approved minimum buffers, and the developer will continue to work with SHPD staff to determine what the best way to define and protect the sites is.
Kong suggests blocking off the areas with burials from public access.
Rosendahl says there have been various good faith agreements between the developer and community groups. They have gotten into various kinds of improvements for people to use the shoreline park. There would be a halau that would be built on the north boundary. When the improvements are done, it will be more of a draw for people.
Rosendahl feels signage may be the most appropriate way to protect the sites. There is a public access plan that has to be approved by the County as part of the SMA permit that will have some regulation on the level of usage based on the amount of parking. There is going to be heavy usage. The minimum buffers should be approved, and the State can keep working with the community groups and descendants to determine the other details.
McDonald says the proposed walls will be 2.5 to 3 feet high. People may climb over the wall.
End Tape 3 Side B
Begin Tape 4 Side A
Lindsey says the Department has 90 days from the Councils decision to approve a preservation plan. Most times the Burial Treatment Plan becomes the preservation plan. When there are recommendations for signage, buffers, or landscaping revisions can be made before it becomes the preservation plan and approved.
McDonald says she has concerns due to the letter submitted by Ginger Wurdeman, who says her 'ohana is buried on this land (Kohanaiki). Wurdeman says Kapena and his son Kahape'a are buried on this land. Kahape'a was born about 1832 and died about 1887. Kapena's wife Na'aukiukiu is also buried here.
McDonald wants to verify if this is true- she may be a lineal.
Rosendahl says the SHPD rules for a lineal descendant require a more specific burial location to be identified.
Roy says that is contested by the people- it is wrong.
Rosendahl says it is not wrong according to the rules.
Roy says the rules are contested by the people.
Kong wants to know if the Council has the authority to make a decision.
Bell says it is the kuleana of the HIBC to make a decision to preserve in place or relocate.
Lindsey thinks no descendant would argue against preservation in place.
Lindsey reads a letter dated November 17, 2004 from Ginger Wurdeman to the HIBC.
Lindsey reads a letter dated November 17, 2004 from Dayton Arruda to the HIBC.
Kahakalau refers to the Wurdeman letter- it talks about offshore lava tubes. Kahakalau asks Rosendahl if any lava tubes along the shoreline were found?
Rosendahl says they did not look offshore, but did find lava tubes along the shoreline.
Sherlock asks Rosendahl if Dayton Arruda knew what the proposed buffer zones are?. His letter calls for bigger buffer zones.
Rosendahl assumes based on Arruda's letter, that he has not read the Burial Treatment Plan.
Kong says the biggest buffer is 80 feet.
Rosendahl says that is in the shoreline park.
A motion is made to preserve in place the burials within the Shores at Kohanaiki project (Kahakalau/Cariaga)
All in Favor
Hauanio says the County, State and Federal Government does not have the resources and manpower to care for these places. He asks the Council to recommend to the developer to identify the organization that will be caring for the sites. They should identify the Hale Pule and restore that.
Roy says that she has been asked to testify on the behalf of 'Iwalani Arakaki. Burials should be preserved in place.
Roy says she is now speaking for herself. Developers should use their resources to consult with descendants- to hold meetings, call in consultants, and assist the people. It is very important to have the people's input- that is missing from the meeting now. She agrees that the shoreline park is important, but all the issues need to be worked out.
Roy asks Rosendahl if burials were found in the upper portions of the project.
Rosendahl points to an overall project map showing the locations of the burials.
Roy asks Rosendahl when did he do the study?.
Rosendahl says the first survey was in 1986, the data recovery was done in 1990-1991.
Roy says the developer should make changes in the proposed project to make it less intrusive. The people from the area are not done with the whole issue of Kohanaiki- it wasn't finished in any way.
Kong says the developer should be working with the 'ohana.
A recommendation is made for the DLNR to consult with recognized lineal and cultural descendants, Kupuna of the area, and the community regarding buffer zones distances, delineation of buffer zones, signage and landscaping.
Rosendahl says he will wait for a letter from the DLNR.
III. Announcements
IV. Adjournment
A motion is made to adjourn the meeting (Harris/McDonald)
Respectfully Submitted,
Keola Lindsey
Burial Sites Program
Return
to Island Burial Council document directory
