HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL
DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2005
TIME: 9:00 AM
PLACE: KONA OUTDOOR CIRCLE
76-6280 Kuakini Highway|Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Leningrad Elarionoff, Kohala
Ku Kahakalau, Hamakua
Ulu Sherlock, Hilo
Cynthia Nazara, Kona
Dutchie Saffrey, Puna
Anna Cariaga, Ka'u
Ronald Dela Cruz, Kohala
Pele Hanoa, Ka'u
Kaleo Kuali'i, Kona
Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program
Maryanne Maigret, Hawai'i Island Assistant Archaeologist
Vince Kanemoto, Deputy Attorney General
John Kadowaki Jr.
Sheri Flying Hawk
Clarence Medeiros Jr.
I. OPENING REMARKS
Ulu Sherlock (Sherlock) calls the meeting to order at 917am.
Dutchie Saffrey (Saffrey) offers a pule.
Introduction of Hawai'i Island Burial Council (HIBC) Members, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) staff, and the Deputy Attorney General.
II. ELECTION OF HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
Leningrad Elarionoff (Elarionoff) nominates Ulu Sherlock for the HIBC Chair.
Jacqui Hoover seconds the nomination of Ulu Sherlock for HIBC Chair.
Sherlock thanks Elarionoff and Hoover for the nomination, and would like to accept, but this is her last year on the HIBC, and a lot of the issues are continuous, so unless she is re-appointed this is her last year.
Cynthia Nazara (Nazara) nominates Charlie Young for the HIBC Chair.
A motion is made to close the nominations for HIBC Chair. (Nazara/Helbush)
Vote: All in favor
The vote is unanimous to elect Charlie Young as the HIBC Chair.
HIBC Chair Charlie Young (Young) opens nominations for HIBC Vice-Chair.
Young nominates Roger Harris.
Hoover seconds the nomination of Roger Harris for HIBC Vice-Chair.
Sherlock nominates Ku Kahakalau.
Nazara seconds the nomination of Ku Kahakalau.
Harris says he only has another year left on the HIBC, so he would support Kahakalau's nomination, but thanks the other members for the nomination.
Ku Kahakalau (Kahakalau) nominates Ulu Sherlock
A motion is made to close the nominations for HIBC Vice-Chair (Nazara/Saffrey)
Vote: All in Favor
Voting for HIBC Vice-Chair:
Roger Harris- 2 votes
Ku Kahakalau- 2 votes
Ulu Sherlock- 5 votes
Ulu Sherlock is elected HIBC Vice-Chair.
Elarionoff says that there has been some discussion about implementing policies for the HIBC meetings. One policy that should be addressed is a time limit for those who wish to give testimony. Elarionoff would like to discuss this today if possible, and at least seta time limit.
Vince Kanemoto (Kanemoto) says that in order to do that, it will have to be on the agenda for the next meeting- the public has the right to be informed about the policy being discussed, and attend the meeting and testify before that policy is implemented.
Elarionoff would like to see this issue on the agenda.
Young says it will be on the agenda- staff gets the agenda together.
Lindsey asks Young how the agenda should read.
Young answers "Discussion of Burial Council Policies".
Kanemoto says the agenda should specifically say "Policy regarding time limits for public testimony".
Elarionoff asks if it can just be "Discussion of policies", because there may be other policies the HIBC wishes to discuss.
Kanemoto says any specific policy discussion has to be on the agenda, so the public knows and can attend the meeting and testify.
Young says the former HIBC Chair had adopted a procedure where people signed up to testify. People testified in the order they signed up, and after that anyone else was allowed to testify. Young asks Kanemoto if that policy should be adopted as well?.
Kanemoto says that part is administering the proceeding of a meeting which is part of Young's duty as HIBC Chair. People can sign up, and testify in that order, but the bottom line is that the law requires people be allowed to testify. There can be a sign up sheet, and people can testify in the order they sign up.
Young requests that this policy be on next month's agenda.
Harris asks if there should be a discussion on site inspections?.
Kanemoto asks Harris if he is talking about closing site inspections?.
Harris says it just seems that over the years there has been a lot of confusion.
Kanemoto says that is purely operation of law. The law allows the site inspection to be closed if it pertains to the description and location of a burial site. It can be discussed, but it doesn't need to be listed as a policy, because the law allows the site inspection to be closed.
Harris says one issue that keeps coming up is if a sub-committee can do a site inspection, or does there have to be a quorum to do the site inspection.
Kanemoto says a quorum is required, even if the site inspection is closed. A special task force can be assigned to do the site inspection- the way that is done is by operation of law- Chapter 92 HRS. This is a permitted interaction between board members where you don't have a open public meeting. The way that is set up is at one HIBC meeting, at least two, but less than a quorum of members is assigned to investigate a particular burial site- the "task force" would be designated at that meeting. The task force would do their site inspection, and at the next meeting, they would have to come back and report their findings to the full Council. At a third meeting the Council could vote on the issue. It requires three meetings.
Sherlock asks if it is appropriate for the families associated with a particular burial site be allowed to attend the site inspection?.
Kanemoto says the site inspection can be open. A specific exception to open meetings in the burial law, allows the site inspection to be closed, as long as the inspection pertains to the location and description of burial sites.
Sherlock says she is talking about closing the meeting to the general public, but allowing the families to go on the site inspection.
Kanemoto says the Council can have anyone present who the Council feels is necessary, even if the site inspection is closed.
Young says the agenda has to specify that the site inspection is closed.
Kanemoto says if the HIBC wants to close a site inspection, at one meeting, two- thirds of the members present have to vote for closing the site inspection. The next meeting's agenda would then specify that the site inspection is closed.
Young says if the descendants request the site inspection be closed, the HIBC should consider that. Young asks if closing the meeting excludes the landowner and their representatives also?.
Kanemoto says the inspection would be closed to everyone, unless the Council permits them to be there. Permission from the landowner would be required if the site is on private property.
III. APPROVAL OF MAY 19, 2005 HIBC MEETING MINUTES
A Motion is made to approve the May 19, 2005 HIBC Meeting Minutes (Sherlock/Saffrey)
Vote: All in Favor
A. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR SITES 24123 AND 24124- PU'U'EO AHUPUA'A, KA'U DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND
[TMK (3) 9-3-03:73]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation by Rechtman Consulting. Council determination to preserve in place or relocate previously identified burials. Council recommendations to the Department on the short and long term preservation measures detailed in the Burial Treatment Plan. Recognition of cultural and/or lineal descendants.
Young says this item is on the agenda for a determination, and the 45-day clock has started.
Bob Rechtman (Rechtman) of Rechtman Consulting, LLC gives an overview. Rechtman is representing the landowner, who is here today as well.
Rick Vidgen (Vidgen) introduces himself- he is the manager of Kamaoa Development.
Rechtman says the burial treatment plan (BTP) proposes preservation in place of two sites located on the subject property. The property is located very near the intersection of Kama'oa and South Point Road in Ka'u. It is a roughly 190 acre parcel.
The burial sites are located in the more mauka section of the property. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted, and identified the burial sites, and some other sites- one site was interpreted as a heiau in the more makai side of the property.
Both burials are in small lava tube/blisters within a very large collapsed sinkhole portion of a lava tube that runs mauka-makai through the property. The collapsed section has tubes leading to, and out of it, and the burials are located in these smaller tubes, on the periphery of the larger collapsed blister.
The figure, on page 4 of the BTP shows the locations of these sites within the property. One of the burials appeared to have been historic in origin- a leather shoe is associated with this burial.
There were advertisements for descendants in Ka Wai Ola o OHA, the Honolulu Advertiser, Hilo Tribune Herald, and the West Hawai'i Today. One response was received from Clarence Medeiros Jr. Rechtman consulted with Medeiros on the treatment measures for the burial sites- the input Medeiros provided was incorporated into the BTP.
The proposal is preservation in place. The proposed treatments begin on page 10 of the BTP. A preservation buffer will be established, and that will be permanent, perpetual. The buffer will be 20 feet from the edge of the sinkhole collapse, not the burial sites themselves, so the buffer from the actual burials will be larger than 20 feet. The grey, shaded area in figure 8 on page 11 of the BTP is the preservation area. The buffer will be delineated with native or Polynesian introduced vegetation. No development will be permitted within these preservation easements. There will be some Christmas berry, and evasive vegetation removed, but otherwise nothing will happen in the easements.
Access to the site will be permitted across an easement, created just for the purpose of accessing these burial sites. Figure 8 on page 11 of the BTP shows the access easement. The easement extends from Kama'oa Road down the side of what will be Lot #9 of the subdivision, across the bottom of Lot #9 to the preservation area. These easements for both access and preservation will be recorded against the titles of the properties themselves, as the properties are recorded, as the development progresses. If a homeowners association is established which governs areas and activities in the preservation areas, the current developer will make sure the protections will be doubly enforced by incorporating them into the bylaws of the homeowners association.
Brightly colored construction fencing will be established on the boundaries of the preservation easements prior to any development activities. The sites will be on the project plans and maps, and there will be a pre-construction meeting to inform everyone where these sites are.
The development team will establish the preservation easements prior to the sale of any lots, or turning over any responsibilities to a private landowner or homeowners association. Everything will be in place, prior to the land being sold.
Hoover says she does not see anything in the BTP that addresses who will be taking care of the sites- are the sites going to be left as they are?.
Rechtman says the sites are going to be left in their natural state. The maintenance of the sites for invasive plants will be with the homeowners association.
Hoover asks if that is going to be clearly stated?.
Vidgen says they are preparing CC&R's now- they will be recorded, and will cover the maintenance of the sites through the homeowners association.
Kahakalau asks how far it is to walk on the access easement from Kama'oa Road to the sites?- She is thinking of the Kupuna.
Rechtman says about 1200 feet.
Kahakalau says there is a 20 foot permanent buffer.
Rechtman says that is from the large sinkhole- not the burials themselves- the actual distance from the burials to the edge of the buffer would probably be twice that.
Kahakalau says there is normally an interim construction buffer zone.
Young says that is normally a 75 foot construction buffer.
Kahakalau is not sure if the proposed interim buffer in the BTP addresses that.
Rechtman says the interim preservation measures proposed in the BTP is orange construction fencing erected at the edge of the 20 foot permanent buffer.
Kahakalau says the interim buffer is normally bigger than the permanent buffer.
Vidgen does not think that is an issue at all, they would be happy to do that. In actuality, the building site is about 150 feet away.
Rechtman asks if there is a particular distance?.
Young says it is typically 75 feet, but is determined by the nature of the type of bulldozing or equipment being used.
Vidgen says they haven't bulldozed any of the property- there will be some bulldozing for a housepad. The slope of the land is very gentle. They have used an hydroax- which is like a big mower. There is no intention to bulldoze, with the exception of the road. The cuts on the road are closer to the kuleana lot up top, the rest of the road is a fairly gentle slope.
Vidgen doesn't think a bigger interim buffer is a restriction he would be concerned about.
Sherlock says that 75 foot construction buffer is something the HIBC is asking for.
Rechtman says page 12 of the BTP will be modified to read "interim preservation measures will include erecting brightly colored construction fencing at a distance of 75 feet from the edge of the lava tube collapses".
Young says if he understands the chronology correctly, this developer will only be putting in the road at this time. The lots have been subdivided. It is up to the individual property owner to follow the restrictions of the BTP when they begin the construction.
Vigen says they are in the process of doing the CC&R's. Their intention is to have everything in the BTP incorporated into the CC&R's which will be recorded.
Young asks if that will run with the title of the land?.
Vidgen answers yes.
Roy Helbush (Helbush) asks if CC&R's ever expire?.
Rechtman says they don't they run with the land. There are times when homeowners associations can vote on things, and do something different- that is why in this case these restrictions will be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances against the title of the land- the restrictions will run with the property.
Sherlock asks Rechtman how wide the proposed pedestrian access is?.
Rechtman says 20 feet.
Elarionoff says the leather shoe is being used to determine the age of the site. Usually two shoes would be found with a burial- why was this one shoe used to determine the age of the burial?.
Rechtman says generally, when they encounter human skeletal remains, they do not investigate, and continue digging them up- especially in lava tubes where the remains are exposed. Rechtman just investigates what they see- when you have an item of European manufacture directly associated with the remains is generally an indication that the burial occurred during the historic period, and not during pre-contact times.
Elarionoff says this is not an exact science. With a lot of these burial sites you don't know- sometimes people throw beer cans and trash in when they are passing by- the archaeologist comes along, and needs to distinguish what is associated with the gravesite.
Rechtman says they try to determine if more recent items are intrusive- have they been placed there?, or are these items part of the context?.
In this case, the leather shoe, at least the base of it is a type that people do not use anymore. The shoe itself is probably typical of the late 1800's-early 1900's. The shoe was not just sitting there loose- it was embedded in a little soil, and in a location near the ankle and foot, where you would expect a shoe to be. Archaeology in this investigation is as much an art as it is a science.
Elarionoff asks if there was any other method the landowner could have considered for this?- other than preservation in place or relocation?.
Rechtman says the two options are preserve in place, or relocate somewhere else.
Elarionoff says the idea is, maha'oi or niele- people who stick their nose where it doesn't belong. It happens so often- from what Elarionoff understands, this gravesite has not been taken care of, correct?.
Rechtman says there is no evidence of someone taking care of it over the years.
Elarionoff says now that the site has been identified, instead of having a sign that says it is a burial site, what about finding a way to seal it permanently?, that way no one goes sticking their nose into it.
Rechtman says as part of this process, we are identifying descendants now who have somehow lost the historical connection or knowledge of the site through the generations, but are now regaining that knowledge. To seal off the cave, may deny modern Hawaiians, who have descent status, access. Providing access provides people with the ability to come in and pay respects and care for these things.
Elarionoff says so this process allows modern descendants to come in and care for the gravesite and somehow prevent the maha'oi guys from going there.
Rechtman says this is private property so who is going to be maha'oi- the landowner?- it is their property.
Elarionoff says no- not the landowner, he has seen it done, that is one of the reasons he is here- Elarionoff is sure other Council members have seen similar situations.
Rechtman says he has seen it to- in more public places- off of the highway. Generally speaking in subdivisions and on private property like this, people don't get in there.
Vidgen says at both of these sites, it would have to be a very determined person to get in there- both of these sites are not easily accessible.
Elarionoff says he is very familiar with this site- he was born and raised a couple of miles from there. How will the Christmas berry bushes be removed from the site?.
Rechtman says the bushes are not in the gravesite- they are in the center of the collapse, and the removal will be done by hand, maybe chainsaw.
Vidgen says the have been using the hydroax, and left a barrier around the site- they did not want to get to close.
End Tape 1 Side A
Begin Side B
Iwalani Arakaki (Arakaki) reads a letter dated July 21, 2005 from Keran Lilinoe regarding TMK (3) 7-3-2:09 in Kalaoa, North Kona, Hawai'i Island.
Arakaki says these are the lands of Kupono.
Young says Kalaoa is the next agenda item- we are still on Pu'u'eo, Ka'u, although this is not a problem, Arakaki's testimony is on the record, and we can come back to it when we reach Kalaoa on the agenda.
Keolalani Hanoa (Hanoa) says she is from the Ahupua'a of Punalu'u and Wailau. She has concerns regarding the preconstruction buffer- it should be 75 feet- that is usually what it is. The permanent buffer should be no less than 25 feet. The word "perpetual" should be added to the pedestrian access portion of the BTP. There are also concerns if the access would be handicap accessible- she is thinking of the kupuna.
There are other descendants who want to come forward- the Moi, A'i, Cadenus, Kamaka, and Kaikua'ana 'Ohana are all descendants of this Pu'u'eo area. Hanoa talked to Rechtman and Vidgen about this.
Hanoa is concerned that there are no "case updates" on the today's HIBC agenda. There are previous cases in Ka'u that have not been assessed- the lands of Hokukano, next to Kawa- the building of a house on conservation land on a known cemetery. Hanoa brought this issue to the attention of the HIBC in May, and now the house is completed- it is built on a known cemetery. There was no call for lineal or cultural descendants prior to this development taking place.
At a meeting two years ago in Ka'u, Daryl DeSilva came forward asking for a site visit to Okoe, wanting protect burials in Okoe- this has never been assessed.
These concerns need to be addressed. It seems like when lineal descendants come forward for burial site assessment, it takes longer than when developers come up. The HIBC needs to act on these items- these people have been waiting almost two years.
The Hokukano house has it's grand opening this week. Hanoa has a copy of the file that was pulled from Sam Lemmo's office- DLNR conservation area- it shows the mapping of the concentration of this burial cemetery in Hokukano- they took a walk out there and took a look and there are caves- it is the outcrop of a lava flow.
There needs to be a site visit to Hokukano and Okoe Beach.
Hanoa will be working with Rechtman and Vidgen to identify the other descendants she mentioned.
Young asks if Hanoa is going to working with the Department for descendant recognition?.
Hanoa says she is just going to be working with Rechtman- there are people who want to come forward with old maps. Rechtman can work with Lindsey and the Department.
Clarence Medeiros Jr. (Medeiros) says he was in consultation with the developer and Rechtman, and he was satisfied with the final treatment. Medeiros says his name was misspelled in the BTP, but Rechtman says he was going to correct that.
Medeiros says if his siblings want to submit descendant claims, they can use his genealogy.
Kahakalau says Medeiros submitted a lineal descent claim, and the Department recommended Cultural Descendant recognition- Kahakalau is wondering if Medeiros has any mana'o on that?.
Medeiros says he is lineal to the konohiki, Kaumaumanui, but he cannot pinpoint the site, so cultural would probably be
Young asks Medeiros about Hanoa's recommendation for a 25 foot permanent buffer zone.
Medeiros says he would agree with that, but also agreed with the 20 foot proposal.
Young was wondering if there was a difference of opinion.
Medeiros says there is no difference.
Rechtman says the change in permanent buffer from 20 feet to 25 feet is perfectly acceptable to the landowner, and will be reflected in revisions to the BTP.
The pedestrian access is 20 feet wide. It has the capability if someone needs to get in a truck to get to the site- it is possible. The BTP can reflect that possibility- if a Kupuna needs to use a truck, it is ok, but it is still called a "pedestrian access".
Kahakalau asks Kanemoto about using the word "perpetual" regarding the access- is that necessary?, is perpetual access implied?.
Kanemoto says it is best to be specific and explicit, that way you don't have to argue that it is implied.
Rechtman asks if permanent and perpetual are different?.
Kanemoto says you could argue they are, but if you use both words "perpetual permanent access", then no one can argue.
Rechtman says they will add the word perpetual.
Maryanne Maigret (Maigret) says that there is a request from Hawai'i County for comment from the SHPD on this proposed subdivision. The SHPD will recommend that the easements and preservation areas are depicted on the subdivision plats- that is on thing that lends to the perpetuity of the easement- that it is depicted on the plat maps.
Rechtman says the language in the proposed sign just says that it is a culturally sensitive area- it does not say "burial".
Saffrey asks Lindsey if the proposed buffer zone of 20-25 feet is standard?, and if so how come?.
Lindsey says there is no set buffer zone distance- it is always case by case. Generally if you look at all of the cases that have come before the Council in the last couple of years, generally the buffer distances average 20 to 25 feet.
Saffrey asks Maigret if specifically in this case, would increasing the buffer zone from 20 to 25 feet- would that additional five feet make a difference.
Maigret says that her understanding is in determining a buffer distance, terrain and the nature of the site are taken into consideration. Sometimes uniform buffers are fine- there are cases where we have to have a varying buffer to accommodate topography or something. In most cases, what we see are proposals for uniform buffers, at that does work out, but we do like to see customized buffers- does it fit the site?, does it fit the landscape?.
Kanemoto says going back to the question of perpetual versus permanent, it may be best to say "permanent and perpetual", that way there is no question.
Harris says generally, the 20 foot buffer has been accepted as the standard buffer. The HIBC makes recommendations- Department staff truly set the buffer distance, although Harris is sure they take into account the testimony presented. It is nice to have a standard that has the potential to be modified.
In this case, these are huge lots. There is a buffer around the collapse- the applicant is saying that 25 feet is ok. There was one case where someone recommended a 200 foot buffer- that kind of blows away the HIBC's credibility. If we go with 20 feet by and large, it has been ok over the years. Harris thinks the HIBC needs to protect it's status and credibility.
Saffrey says that is why she is asking about the standard buffer size.
Harris says it has been 10 feet, 15, 20- it really depends on the lot size. In some cases a 5 foot buffer is all you can get, and it is ok, the site is protected.
Rechtman says if you look at figure 8 of the BTP, you can see the buffer zones start from the edge of the collapse, and the larger tube runs mauka-makai. In some cases, the two sites are going to be protected by a huge buffer zone- 400-500 feet mauka-makai in some cases, because it is a series of tubes.
Site 24123 is going to have about a 400 foot buffer on it's mauka side, and site 24124 is going to have a 400 foot buffer on it's makai side, just because of the nature of the site.
Young says to summarize some of the three recommendations so far: 1. add perpetual and/or permanent access 2. implement a 75 foot construction buffer and 3. increase the permanent buffer to 25 feet from the edge of the collapse.
Young says a determination does not have to made today, it can wait until next meeting, because the HIBC has 45 days.
Hoover says there is still the issue of additional descendants coming forward.
Kahakalau says because there are more descendants, she would recommend that we wait- that way if descendants come forward, the can do so at the next meeting, because it appears they were not able to participate in the process at this meeting. There are descendants whop may have comments- maybe some of them will be lineal- we don't know.
Young says the HIBC does not have to make a determination today.
Nazara says there are concerns about people being maha'oi and niele at the site. Right now, it may be hard to get to the site, but once the project starts, and the land is clear, there will be access- people may be niele.
Harris says the thing to remember is the access easement is not for the public- it for the descendants. The landowner is basically in charge of the easement- if the area becomes a party spot or other inappropriate activities are taking place, the landowner can let the Council or the Department know, and something can be done.
Nazara says we know for a fact, that people will disturb sites even if the sign says "kapu".
Young says over the years the HIBC has had recommendations form descendants and landowners that vary- some descendants would prefer to seal it, some want a grate, some want nothing- leave it open. The HIBC tries to take the lead from the descendants. Young would assume during that the consultation process, descendants would have told Rechtman their mana'o. When the descendants disagree, then there is problems. Preservation in place is the easy part- all the other stuff gets difficult.
Saffrey asks when the legal newspaper notices are published, what is the rule in terms of descendants responding to the publications?.
Kanemoto says the notice is published, and if anyone thinks they are a descendant, it is their responsibility to contact the Council or the Department.
Young asks if there is a time limit for recognition after the publication?.
Kanemoto says descendant recognition is always on-going. But the law requires that the notice state that interested persons contact the Department within 30 days of the published notice. If they don't respond within 30 days, that does not mean they can never apply- but after 30 days the applicant can move forward with developing a BTP.
Saffrey says the notice was published in February- if the HIBC waits until next month to make a decision, how does that effect the developer?.
Vidgen says they would like to move forward as soon as possible, but his and his partners philosophy is to do what is right. If they have to wait 45 days, they will.
Kahakalau says if the descendants are ok with it, then Kahakalau is comfortable with voting on it, but Hanoa has said there are other families that will be coming forward.
Saffrey is concerned for both parties- the applicant and the descendants. Saffrey's concern is that Hanoa has indicated that she is working directly with other descendants.
Kanemoto says the Council has 45 days from today to make a determination- that is up to the HIBC to discuss concerns and recommendations and decide what to do.
Kahakalau asks Hanoa if there are additional descendants who intend to come forward next time, or if it is ok to make a decision now?.
Hanoa says if she remembers correctly, the responsibility of the Burial Council is to represent lineal and or cultural descendants first, not just policies of the State. Hanoa lives in the district of Ka'u- plenty people no get the paper- you are talking about one of the most rural areas on the Island- people don't know what is in the paper, because they don't get it.
Hanoa thought that by being here today to tell the HIBC that there are other descendants coming forward, this would give those people a chance. This Council is not supposed to be about political agendas or politics- this Council is supposed to assess the needs of Native Hawaiians and burials. Hanoa does not think people should be penalized because they do not read the newspaper in a rural community, and then not have the chance to come forward to be recognized. Why does there have to be a timeline for these people to come forward, when they already have come forward to the HIBC regional representative and said "yes we are families and we know of more".
It seems like it is the policy of the Department to put time limits on the Native Hawaiian Community. A good example is when Native Hawaiians come here to the Council to have their burials recognized, they wait two years- when developers come, they are immediately put on the agenda. Why is the priority always for developers and development when that is not the priority of this Council?- the concern should be representing the lineal and cultural descendants and the protection of their burials. That is why things like Hokuli'a happen, that's why things at Hokukano continue to happen- it is because we are not clear what the exact responsibility of this Council is.
Hanoa's understanding when she took her HIBC oath is she worked for the people. The HIBC is supposed to represent the consensus of the native people- if they come forward and made Hanoa the messenger to come here, then the HIBC needs to give them the opportunity to be here.
Kanemoto says the law does not cut-off the recognition of descendants.
Hanoa says they need to be here to be a part of the process- either relocation or preserve in place. Hanoa asks if there was a site visit to see where these burials are located. How come we are all of a sudden making decisions without the Council seeing what is at the site to see what we are dealing with? Pictures aren't good enough. The Council has always gone on site visits- it is virtually impossible to make a decision without seeing what the site looks like. How can we assess the needs of the descendants without seeing what the site looks like- what about access? What about our kupuna who are 80 years old, and cannot walk that far?.
Kahakalau says the easement will be wide enough for a vehicle.
Hanoa says before this Council makes a determination, they need to go on a site visit to see what the site looks like, and give opportunity to those descendants to come- they found out last minute- just because they didn't hear about it, does that mean they don't count?- Hanoa doesn't think so.
Saffrey says her reassurance is that she heard Hanoa is working with the descendants and developer.
Hanoa says she volunteered to help them.
Saffrey that is very clear to her- that is where she was comfortable. Saffrey is new to the Council- she wants to do what is right. The HIBC is guided like it or not by the laws that are given to the Council Members- they have no choice. Saffrey wants to do what is right for our people- but like it or not there is a 45 day clock, and if the HIBC does not decide, someone else makes the decision.
Hanoa says the HIBC should not be tired of hearing testimony. This is the only avenue that our people have to protect their iwi. If we have to make the time to change the rules, then it is our responsibility to do everything we can to asses what the needs of our people are. Hanoa does not think just rubber stamping things is going to make it better- we are in a crisis all over this State. Not doing our job to the fullest is not going to help.
You will realize, as Hanoa has, that once you make an oath to represent our people and our kupuna on this Council, your job is never over even after you leave this Council. People still call Hanoa- she will help because it is her responsibility to her people and her kupuna.
Young asks if this is the first time on the agenda, and it is up for a determination already?.
Hanoa says it has always been the policy to do a site visit.
Young agrees and says a site visit is usually conducted before the item is on the agenda for a determination.
Lindsey asks on every agenda item?.
Hanoa says just about- except for some that slide through like Okoe Bay.
Young says it is certainly true for larger developments. It has been the Councils wish to go to smaller projects as well. Young is looking at a timeline for site visits.
Kanemoto says if you want, you can recess this meeting right now, and do the site visit, and come back- it is a big island, so Kanemoto does not know if that is going to work.
Hanoa says that is virtually impossible.
Elarionoff says he is willing to go to Ka'u, and is pretty sure he can find the site. He will go if the other Council members are willing to trust him to look at the sites and talk to the archaeologist to see what is there.
Hanoa says that is a honorable gesture, but this Council has always been kakou- policies and decisions are made as a full Council.
Kanemoto says the HIBC could vote right now to do a closed site visit- and a quorum of members would have to be present. The site visit could be before the next meeting, and hopefully the descendants issues would be worked out- the HIBC would still be within the 45 day clock.
Young asks if there is a venue for the next meeting?
Lindsey says no
Young says we could have the next meeting in Ka'u. We could do a site visit next time.
Elarionoff asks if it is the HIBC's decision to go on the site visit?.
Young says it is, and Hanoa is making a strong case for one.
Elarionoff says if we do the site visit, we better have quorum.
Kanemoto says if you intend to close the site visit, you need to vote on it, and two-thirds of the HIBC needs to vote for it.
Harris maybe we should wait until the end of today's meeting to discuss the site visit. In this case we should definitely wait on the decision to try and resolve the descendant issue- We will have to vote at the next meeting, and if we don't the Department will make the decision. We should decide on the site visit at the end of the meeting, and defer a determination until next meeting. The decision is going to be preserve in place- it is not a big mystery.
Kahakalau says the reality of it is that every agenda is going to have two or three or more places to look at, and more than likely they are not going to be in the same place.
End Tape 1 Side B
Begin Tape 2 Side A
We should probably ask the descendants if they want a site visit, but if it is preserve in place and it looks like the developer is working with the descendants, and they are agreeing to the proposed general plan, then that is one way to avoid doing a site visit, considering the logistics of the size of this Island, and the different items on the agenda. We still need to listen to all the descendants.
Lindsey reads a Memorandum dated July 14, 2005. The Memorandum is a Staff recommendation to recognize Clarence A. Medeiros Jr., Kareen K. Medeiros, Jacob L Medeiros, Lincoln K. Medeiros, Jamison K. Medeiros and Jayla A Medeiros as cultural descendants to the unidentified burials within sites 24123 and 24124 located on TMK (3) 9-03-3:73 located in Pu'u'eo Ahupua'a, Ka'u District, Hawai'i Island.
Young says that Medeiros mentioned his siblings as well.
Lindsey says if any of his siblings come forward to be recognized, it should be a fairly smooth process, because Clarence Medeiros has already been recognized for this Ahupua'a.
A motion is made to accept Staff recommendation to recognize the applicants listed in the memorandum as Cultural Descendants (Kahakalau/Harris)
Vote: All in Favor
B. BURIAL TRETAMENT PLAN FOR SITE 24214- KALAOA 2ND AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND
[TMK (3) 7-3-2:09]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation by Rechtman Consulting. Council determination to preserve in place or relocate previously identified burials. Council recommendations to the Department on the short and long term preservation measures detailed in the Burial Treatment Plan. Recognition of cultural and/or lineal descendants.
Bob Rechtman gives an overview. The property is owned by Lowell Davidson. This property was subject to an archaeological inventory survey by Rechtman's firm. At some point in the past, Rechtman isn't sure of the date- maybe the 1970's, this entire parcel- about 23 acres had been grubbed and graded except for one small area where there was some ohi'a left, and there was some small lava tubes. In the inventory survey, the only sites identified were in this undisturbed area. There was a lava tube that had two sets of iwi- one an adult, the other a juvenile.
The map of that tube is on page 5 of the BTP. The grey area shows the subsurface extent of the tube. The darker grey area is the opening to the tube. The remains are in the back portion of the tube. Figure 5 is a photograph of the opening to the tube, and the other picture is a small cobble pile in the tube.
Rechtman advertised in all the appropriate newspapers, and received several responses to the published newspaper notices. The individuals that responded were: Arthur Mahi, Isabella Mahi-Medeiros, Elizabeth Mahi-Fukuda, Junior Kanuha, Iwalani Arakaki, Joseph Arboleda and Kekapa P.K. Lee.
Rechtman says he contacted all the descendants who responded, and set up a field inspection to the property- Arboleda and Lee were not at the filed inspection. They visited the site, and discussed the preservation in place of the site. Rechtman recalls Arakaki recommending a 30 foot buffer- the landowner, Davidson is willing to do that, and will has proposed constructing a dry stacked stone wall with a small gate at the 30 foot distance. The 30 foot buffer will be established from the sub-surface limits of the tube.
The figure on page 9 of the BTP shows the proposed subdivision of the property. The landowner is hoping for a zoning change to AG-3, and create 6 lots. The map shows lots 1 and 2, which currently have the landowners house and a horse arena on them The property is located mauka of Mahilani street as you are coming into Kona on the Upper Road from Waimea. The burials are located on lot 6.
The preservation area and the right for descendants to access the burial site will be recorded against the property title as it is subdivided. Descendants will be able to call the landowner (Davidson) who will then grant them permission to access the site. The rights for access will be included in the description of the parcel. An existing road will be used to access the burial site. Final access agreements will be worked out between Davidson and any descendants who have been formally recognized. Rechtman is not sure if anyone has formally submitted a descendancy claim. Rechtman knows the individuals who responded to the newspaper notice are descendants of Kupono, who was a grantee there.
Some of the more invasive species, like the Christmas berry will be removed from the preservation area- the other plants will be left.
Rechtman hopes he is representing what the descendants told him at the field inspection.
Kahakalau says she does not see any mention of a construction buffer in the BTP.
Rechtman says Davidson is going to construct the permanent buffer before anything takes place. The wall will go in before any subdivision improvements are made.
Kahakalau asks Rechtman if the site is a lava tube?.
Rechtman says it is.
Kahakalau asks Maigret if the buffer is 30 feet, and a bulldozer is at 31 feet, could the lava tube collapse?.
Maigret says this issue comes up a lot, but she is not a geologist. Generally, Maigret has been amazed at the strength of tubes. The critical information is knowing where the sub-surface limits of the tube are. If you have tape and compass information, there should be additional buffers- If you have good survey data, then you know exactly where the tube ends. If you have a 30 foot buffer delineated by a wall, then the machines can come right up to the wall. Generally big construction buffers are for when you have big project areas, and huge machines working- lots of activity. Eventually the construction buffers come down, and that area within the temporary buffer is eligible for being altered.
Kahakalau asks if big machines are going to be used here?.
Maigret says she does not know. Eventually the area between the permanent buffer and temporary buffer has the potential to be developed. A judgment needs to be made to determine what is adequate protection. What we don't want is a huge machine with an operator that can't see the ground running in tight places.
Young says he is for preservation in place and the buffers, but this landowner does not even have his zoning yet- the plot plan we are looking at is not the final plot plan. It could be a whole different development plan if the landowner does not get his zoning. The configuration of the lots could change as well. The HIBC is being asked to make a determination and approve a preservation plan outlined a specific lot that could be a bigger lot- we don't know.
It is hard for Young to conceptualize, when things have not been set in place.
Hoover says it appears the entire site has been taken into consideration- the 30 foot buffer is around the entire tube, not just the entrance. That gives Hoover some comfort, regardless of what the final development is.
Rechtman says with the preservation measures established, the development has to work around the site.
Saffrey asks if it would be a problem to have a 75 foot interim buffer?.
Rechtman says the proposed subdivision road is about 150 feet from the edge of the permanent buffer.
Young says the individual lot owner will be responsible for the requirements in the BTP- if the HIBC asks for the 75 foot temporary buffer, that responsibility is not with the current landowner.
Rechtman says the current landowner will construct the rockwall at the 30 foot permanent buffer. Rechtman does not understand the need for the temporary buffer, after the permanent buffer is in place.
Junior Kanuha (Kanuha) says the machines have already been all over this property. When they met up there, the discussion was that the landowner was going to do rentals- Kanuha is not sure where all of these development plans came from.
The descendants want the 30 foot buffer from the edge of the cave out. The machines have already been all over the property.
Sherlock asks how close the edge of the site is to the northern property line?.
Rechtman says the edge of the lava tube projected to the surface to the property line is about 26 feet. The landowner has no control over what happens outside of his property. There is a rockwall that delineates the property line.
Nazara says the wall will be built on his property then.
Rechtman says yes, the wall will be off of the existing boundary wall, around the site, and then back to the boundary wall.
Elarionoff says the summary of the burial site in the BTP indicates that at one time, the entrance to the tube may have been concealed by stacked stones- has any consideration been given to sealing the entrance to the tube?. Elarionoff has seen burial sites where people take everything they can- the hinges from the casket, the buckles form the shoes, the buttons from the coat.
Rechtman says that is up to the descendants. If the descendants want to do that, it shouldn't be a problem- the opening is not that big. One descendant said that tube has been open for quite a long time- when he was kid, he had been in there.
Elarionoff asks if the HIBC accepts or rejects the plan?, or does the HIBC just make recommendations?.
Kanemoto says the HIBC makes the decision to preserve in place or relocate. The Department approves the final plan. The Department initially reviews the plan to ensure it is in compliance, and then passes it on to the HIBC for recommendations. The recommendations can address any issue. The Department needs to approve the final preservation plan within 90 days of the HIBC's determination to preserve in place or relocate.
Elizabeth Fukuda (Fukuda) says her main concern is that there may be more burials than what has been identified- we don't know.
Elarionoff says if there are five burials in the tube, or if there are 10- as long as the limits of the lava tube are identified. If the cave is sealed, nobody can go kolohe.
Fukuda says how can the property be developed if we don't know if there are more burials?.
Kanemoto says that is a concern that can be addressed when the HIBC makes it's recommendations to the Department on the BTP.
Arakaki says that Kupono is the person of that land. The family has to be buried there- the old folks buried within their property.
Young asks if the concern regarding more graves was expressed to Rechtman when you folks met at the property?.
Fukuda is not sure.
Hoover says it is her understanding that the HIBC's kuleana is for previously known burials.
Kanemoto says the issue of more burials in the cave can be addressed in the HIBC's recommendations on the BTP to the Department.
Hoover says she is hearing that there are other burial caves that have not been identified.
Kahakalau says it is her understanding that an archaeological inventory survey was conducted on the entire property, and that survey identified one burial cave with two individuals in it.
If cultural and lineal descendants come forward and claim that there may be more, the least we can do is address it- we somehow need to initiate further investigations in those areas- maybe another site visit with the descendants to make sure.
Kanuha says hust to clarify, that whole property was bulldozed before- Uncle Aka (Arthur Mahi) knows of places that had before, but now, we don't know- it was bulldozed. Right now all we know of is the one site, and the agreement on what we are trying to do to protect the sites. Down below, where everything was bulldozed going right into the church area- there is a cemetery on the church property.
Young says we don't know if any caves were collapsed by the bulldozing, or if any records were kept- if iwi were found and recorded. Young is concerned that people with a connection to the property say something about it is a oral tradition we need to respect. What we do have is Rechtmans BTP, and if we have information that is contrary to the BTP, that might question the BTP. The decision will be preserve in place, but in Young's mind he will wonder if we found all the burials. Young is not sure how to address this issue.
Kanuha says if any other burials are found, please notify the families.
Young says notification to the families is required by law.
Kahakalau says another way the HIBC did it in the past is to make a recommendation that if other burials are found, they be treated as "previously identified".
Kanemoto says under the law, previously identified burials are only those that are found during an archaeological inventory survey, during data recovery of "possible burials", or burials that are registered with the Department.
If the descendants know of other burial sites- they can work with the Department to register those sites- that way if any iwi are found there, they will be previously known, and they will fall under the HIBC's jurisdiction, not the Department's.
Hoover asks Kanuha if Mahi has gone to Rechtman or the Department to identify the other sites he knows of?.
Kanuha says the families can get together, and make sure that happens. Kanuha thinks Mahi knows of plenty burials in caves up by were the landowner wants to put the stables.
Hoover says it looks like the landowner is motivated to do the right thing. If we can be proactive, we can record it and address this sooner rather then later.
Kanuha says for the record, Mahi would have been here today, but he had to attend a funeral.
Young says if there are additional burials on the property, and they are not in the BTP, is the BTP complete?.
Kanemoto says the BTP addresses the known burials- that is it.
Young says the HIBC has 45 days to make a determination- if other burials are identified, they could be incorporated into this BTP?.
Kanemoto says additional burials would be covered under a separate plan- the current BTP addresses only the known burials.
Lindsey no additional burials are going to found within the next 45 days by land alteration- no permits are going to be approved until the BTP is approved. If the families know about more burials, they can come in and work with the Department.
Young says it is incumbent on the families to register any additional burials.
Hoover says she wants to clarify if the families support a HIBC decision to preserve in place the known site, with the understanding that the families will work with the landowner, the Department and Rechtman to identify any other sites.
Kawehi Kanui (Kanui) says her family could not make it- they will be here next month. Kanui is asking the HIBC to defer any decisions regarding this issue. Her Family genealogist says she is a lineal and cultural descendant- she did not want to come here and say that. They are here to claim their descendants graves, crypts, caves and heiau. Four years ago an issue came up about the bones. Her family wrote letters, and Kana'i Kapeliela took their documents, and they never heard back about what the decision was on those bones. A year ago, this thing about Kupono came up- Ross Cordy wrote a book, and the family recognized the cave as Kupono's Cave.
Their concern is about the land, not just the burials sites because of the native tenants rights on these lands. Kanui has been assigned to birddog the HIBC. Kanui also works for the Hawaiian Law Offices, and they are trying to track the ways the land is being used, and claimed to be owned- they want to see documents proving ownership. We are talking about bones and caves, but nobody is talking about the people who claim to own these lands having proper title. Kanui is a land title researcher and a paralegal- she is also involved in the sovereignty movement for over 30 years.
Kanui has her genealogy, and can provide it to the HIBC if necessary. She also has a two page thing that she can give to Lindsey as part of her testimony today. Kanui has several documents here to let the HIBC know where they are coming from on these issues. They are here to protect the rights of native tenants- they are not attorneys, but do know that Hawaiian law exists.
Kanui did work on several community plans in Honolulu, and this process seems kind of backwards. Kanui would like to see Hawaiians on that land making money, but that is not the case right now until the occupation by the United States is over, and they are working on that right now as well.
Sherlock says this is out of order- this is not a Commission to protect native rights.
Kanui says basically they want to educate people about native tenant rights. Kanui asks that when they come back next month, this issue be brought up. They are offering the HIBC an hour and a half on native tenant rights- who can have titles to land, how titles are given.
Sherlock says that is not the HIBC's kuleana.
Kanui says that is the problem native tenant rights exist if people want to know that or not.
Sherlock says that is true, but the HIBC is not the body to address that.
Young says he believes in native tenant rights as well- he is in the movement as well, but this Council cannot make decisions on that.
End Tape 2 Side A
Begin Side B
Young asks Kanuha if he is going to be applying for cultural descendancy?- are Arakaki and Mahi?. Young asks Kanuha if he has been working with Rechtman?.
Kanuha says he has been working with Rechtman. Kanuha has been continuously been talking to Lindsey- Kanuha does not feel he has to apply for descendancy. The laws for descendancy do not reflect him.
Arakaki says she has three nieces that were not informed of the meeting- she wants that on the record.
Young asks if Arakaki submitted a descendant claim?.
Arakaki says it is the letter she read earlier today- she will follow up with Lindsey.
Young says it is up to Arakaki- she has been consulted. The question asked earlier was if the families are o.k. with the plan for this one particular burial, and sound like the answer is yes.
Kanuha says they did agree upon it there, not knowing that there was more coming in, just to have status quo. Uncle Aka said there are more out there, but he has to look at it.
Hoover says the families are supportive of the BTP, and would prefer that it not be deferred.
Kanuha says as long as the families are in consensus.
Saffrey says she hears what the people are saying, but the HIBC members site here with rules and laws that are given to them, and their hands are tied by the law.
Hoover says after listening to everything, this item should not be deferred. The families have said three times today that they wish to protect this burial site, and then address additional sites.
A motion is made to preserve the burial within site 24214 in place, and to accept the Burial Treatment Plan for Site 24124 located in Kalaoa Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Hawai'i Island TMK (3) 7-3-002:009 as presented. (Hoover/Saffrey)
Kahakalau says she heard from Kanuha that Mahi wanted to be here today to testify about burials on this property. Kahakalau's understanding is that when the HIBC makes decisions, it is not about one site on the property, it is about the entire property. Kahakalau says she is hearing that there is a high potential that there are other sites that should be part of a burial plan. The subdivision has not been approved, so there is nothing happening within the next month.
Kahakalau would like to wait until next month to hear from Mahi.
Kanemoto says the two decisions the HIBC has to make on this agenda item is preserve in place or relocate and recognition of lineal or cultural descendants. The HIBC also makes recommendations to the Department on the BTP.
Young says he is confused- he always thought the BTP was for the entire property- it was the one BTP, and the only BTP. Once the HIBC approved that BTP, it carried with the property, and it did not matter when and if other burials were identified. What additional avenues are available if the families are saying there are additional burials there?.
Lindsey says a BTP addresses specific burial sites on a given property.
Hoover says Uncle Aka needs to take the information he has, and get those sites registered- that way, those sites will not be inadvertent. Burial Registrations are the vehicle by which the 'ohana can protect their interests. The law is very clear about previously identified burial sites- the BTP addresses the previously known burials- the only other options are Burial Registration, or inadvertent find. Uncle Aka needs to work with the Department to register those sites.
People may think Hoover is trying to take care of a special interest- she is not, she is interested in the 'ohana concerns. There is a way to protect the sites in the BTP while at the same time there is an avenue by which other burial sites on the property can be protected.
Kanemoto says the HIBC only has jurisdiction over previously identified burials. There are only two ways a burial can be previously identified- 1. if it is identified in an archaeological inventory survey, like the ones in this BTP, or if it is a Registered Site with the Department. Anything else is inadvertent, and the HIBC does not make the determination- the Department does.
Young says conceivably the BTP could be approved, and land alteration could start before Uncle Aka has a chance, and those burials would be inadvertent?.
Lindsey says yes, if that scenario played out, additional burials found by land alteration before Uncle Aka Registered them would be treated as inadvertent.
Young says that is the scenario he is concerned about.
Hanoa says the HIBC has always been the place where people come in to discuss burials- it has never been the policy to stamp, sign and deliver everything now. This is where input is given, this is where lineal descendants come forward, this is where changes are made. The BTP is supposed to assess the whole development in its entirety- that has been the policy, and that is how this Council has been run.
All of the history of Native Hawaiians needs to be recognized- it says in the law that oral testimony has to be accepted- if someone comes forward and says this is a burial, then it has to fly. Oral history by Native Hawaiians on where burials are is credible. Many kupuna come in and say these are burials- we need to honor that, not question it. The HIBC has never made a BTP for every single burial on that property- they need to come in with one BTP that assesses the development in its entirety. This is the process where input is taken from lineal descendants, and changes are made before the final determination.
That has always been the policy, and the State has not always been correct in implementing the BTP laws- Hanoa wants to make that a fact.
Kahakalau says the HIBC should be able to make recommendations- whether the Department is going to listen is another story.
Kanemoto says the HIBC can make recommendations that if inadvertent burials are discovered, they should be preserved in place. This BTP is specific to certain sites on the property.
Hanoa says the Council can also recommend if this BTP is incomplete.
Kanemoto says the HIBC can make whatever recommendation they want.
Harris asks Rechtman- you did the inventory survey- it has been accepted by the SHPD. You found one burial, and submitted a BTP- Is Uncle Arthur coming to the property soon?.
Rechtman says Mahi was part of the site visit. Rechtman consulted with him on at least three occasions.
Harris asks Rechtman if Mahi is going to go to the property and point out other burial sites?.
Rechtman says that is the first he has heard of that. If Mahi knows of other burials, great- the only site Mahi told Rechtman about was the site in the BTP, which Mahi said he went into when he was a boy.
Harris asks Kanuha if Mahi is going to go back to the property and find more burials?.
Kanuha says he is- time permitting- Mahi is a busy guy.
Harris asks Rechtman what the timeframe is if the decision is deferred until next meeting?.
Rechtman says if it is deferred, Rechtman will try to get with Mahi in the next couple of days to get with him and see where these other burials are.
Harris says the item should be deferred then.
Young says the motion on the floor needs to be withdrawn.
Hoover says she is willing to withdraw the motion, but needs clarification from Kanemoto.
Kanemoto says the HIBC is deferring making a determination on the site in the BTP.
Hoover says if Uncle Aka identifies additional sites- and those sites are registered or found during land alteration, they will be addressed by a different BTP?.
Kanemoto says if additional iwi are found in the future, there will be another BTP.
Young says if Mahi is adamant about more burials on the property, it will call the question in Young's mind if this BTP is complete.
Kanemoto says any additional burials will be addressed by a plan.
Hoover says the family wants to protect the site in the BTP, and want to make sure any other burials that are identified are protected. The owner is willing to build the wall, and make sure the iwi in the BTP are preserved in place and protected.
Young says if the HIBC acts on this BTP now, the developer has no obligation to come back to the HIBC, unless the developer finds more burials.
Kanemoto says the HIBC is making a determination on the site in the BTP, and making recommendations on the treatment of the site.
Saffrey says the family has met with the developer and agreed to the protection of the iwi in the BTP. Is that correct?.
Arakaki says when they met with the landowner, he just told them what and what he was going to do.
Kahakalau says she is hearing that this is an incomplete BTP. Uncle Aka is able to identify other burial sites- even if a lava tube is collapsed, if there are burials, they are still there. The iwi we know about are safe for the next 30 days- the developer does not have his zoning, and won't be getting any permits. Two separate descendants have said this BTP is incomplete- not because Rechtman did not do a good job, but because bulldozing years ago may have collapsed lava tube entrances.
If Uncle Aka says there was a puka there and get three kanaka- then the HIBC needs to honor that. We need to make sure a house does not get built on those areas.
Rechtman says if Mahi says there are burials there, and registers those sites with the Department, and the HIBC accepts Mahi's oral testimony, that will trigger another BTP.
Young says it would be consistent for the HIBC to defer a decision on this matter, to make an attempt to hear additional information.
Hoover says she is unwilling to withdraw her motion at this time, because she does not see what deferring the matter will accomplish, other than deferring it. If Mahi identifies additional iwi, a BTP will address those iwi.
Kanuha says the consensus of the Family is to defer, until we can hear from Uncle Aka, and go up there with Rechtman, and do everything at one time.
Kanuha says just give the Family the 30 days until the next meeting.
Hoover says she withdraws her motion.
Saffrey says she withdraws her second.
Young says the legal 45 day clock started today, so a decision needs to be made by next month.
Unidentified Female asks if the burials will be disturbed?.
Young says the burial in the BTP is previously identified, and disturbing it would be against the law.
Rechtman says he will work with the families to identify additional sites, and work with the landowner to allow these additional investigations to take place.
Lindsey says because this particular property is going to be developed as soon as all the necessary approvals are in place, if Uncle Aka and the Family register burials, and oral testimony is presented to the HIBC, the HIBC will need to decide whether or not to accept that testimony. If the testimony is accepted, and the sites are recognized as burials, another BTP will have to be submitted.
Generally speaking however, not every burial site that is registered is immediately subject to a BTP, until the property those sites are on is subject to some kind of land alteration permit or action- re-zoning or subdivision etc.
Specifically in this case, if any additional burials are registered or identified, they will need to be mitigated by a BTP.
Unidentified Female asks if that means the site won't be disturbed in the next 45 days?.
Lindsey says the site will not be disturbed legally.
A motion is made to defer making a determination on site 24214 in Kalaoa Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Hawai'i Island TMK (3)7-3-002:009 (Hoover/Harris)
Vote: All in Favor
A motion is made to go into Executive Session to discuss the HIBC's duties, powers and liabilities with the Deputy Attorney General (Harris/Saffrey)
Vote: All in Favor
Young says the HIBC is now in Executive Session, and the room will be closed.
A motion is made to end the Executive Session (Hoover/Harris)
Vote: All in Favor
Young asks Lindsey about Hanoa's request for two items to be on the agenda in August?.
Lindsey says Okoe, and Hokukano will be on the August agenda as case updates. Staff will try and get background information together on both items for the Council's review.
Kahakalau asks that the Council be kept updated on agenda items after the Council makes determinations or recommendations- a lot of times the Council never hears what the conclusion was.
Lindsey says most of the correspondence on agenda items makes it in the Council's packet each month, but he will try and make it a point to keep the Council updated.
Young says we will go back to the discussion on the Pu'u'eo site visit.
Elarionoff says the Council should vote on if the site visit is necessary. There are some cases where the situation may be controversial, and then the site visit would be necessary. In this case, Elarionoff does not see the need for the site visit.
Kahakalau says if the HIBC does a site visit, there should be a pressing reason to do it. Kahakalau suggests having the meeting in Ka'u- that way more of the community can come out.
Young says having the meeting in Ka'u would be good. We are still waiting to hear something back from Mahi regarding Kalaoa- either way someone is going to have to travel.
Harris wonders how far a walk it is to the Pu'u'eo site.
Lindsey says the easement is a quarter mile off of Kama'oa Road.
Kahakalau says the easement that is in the plan does not exist yet.
Young says he has actually been to the Pu'u'eo site. Vidgen had contacted him a couple of years ago, and Young had gotten Vidgen in touch with Hanoa.
It is not an easily accessible area.
Harris says that to do the site visit, there should be a really good reason. It is a good idea to have the meeting in Ka'u.
Sherlock says one member can go individually, and next month when we are discussing the issue, that member can share their mana'o with the rest of the Council.
Young says it sounds like the meeting will be in Ka'u, but there will not be a site visit. Elarionoff and Helbush will be going on their own to the site.
A motion is made to defer decision making on the burial treatment plan for site 24123 and 24124 located in Pu'u'eo Ahupua'a, Ka'u District TMK (3) 9-3-03:73
Vote: All in Favor
A motion is made to adjourn the meeting (Saffrey/Kahakalau)
Vote: All in Favor
The meeting is adjourned at 235p
Return to Island Burial Council document directory