2022-06-08 Cultural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes

Home

the features are interpreted as agricultural,permanent habitation,permanent habitation/burial, ceremonial, temporary habitation, and livestock control." She stated that these were results of subsurface testing and there is most definitely more. She informed the Commission that she visited the property a few years ago with others and saw a bulldozer on the site. She was told by a neighbor that they got rid of the iwi. She visited a second time and witnessed someone near the wall with a tent and a chair, and she is unsure if they were dismantling the wall. She stated that her aunty wanted to visit because it is part of the national historic registry. They prayed at the south end, then visited the area where Kamehameha Schools is making a park and prayed again. She feels it is important for a new archaeological study by an independent archaeologist, not hired by the developer. She stated that it is part of the seven Royal Centers. A burial treatment plan is needed, and if the wall was destroyed it needs to be repaired. She asked what the data recovery plan will be. She stated that she testified on May 11,but there was no mention of site 6302, great wall of Kuakini. In 2006, the proposed access was changed to Alii Drive from Naniloa. That access will destroy 50 feet of the great wall of Kuakini. She stated that individuals who testified at the Kahalu`u meeting mentioned that there are burials in the wall. The wall meets all the archaeological criteria. Simmy McMichael stated that she is a kanaka maoli,born in the territory of Hawai`i. She thanked Michael Vitousek for suggesting the CRC. She testified at a CRC meeting on April 13, 2016, to protect the adjacent 42 acres by stopping 306 timeshares. At that meeting Theresa Donham, former State Historic Preservation Division Archaeology Branch Chief, went into detail about the national register nomination form and the boundaries that would extend to the northern end of parcel four, which would include the entire project area. She stated that there is a reason why the area has not been developed. Ms. McMichael read a portion of the AIS, page 60, paragraph 4. She felt it was important to mention that Theresa Donham also asked why the destruction of 75 feet of the great wall of Kuakini was left out of the agenda. The answer was because it is on the makai lot, separate, for a driveway. There was no mention that 50 feet of the great wall of Kuakini, site 6302, now a historical site and monument, would be destroyed. They stated that it was allowed by SHPD as a minor SMA permit. Ms. McMichael expressed her disagreement and said it is a major issue, not a minor issue, and it needs to be stopped. She expressed frustration that mainland developers come to Hawai`i in the historic preservation districts and destroys the sacred cultural sites for money. We must protect the sacred lands, respect the ancestors, and save for the next generation. Ms. McMichael also read the sensitive resources policy,NV 11.5 which spoke about the sensitivity of archaeological and historical sites and shall be inventoried as part of the permit application to the County Planning Department and shall be incorporated as assets. If the proposed project is significant and has unavoidable adverse impacts to the resources, the presumption shall be denial of the application. She asked that the commission deny the application for the sake of the `aina. Ms. Lokelani McMichael was asked what date she witnessed the bulldozer. Ms. McMichael reported that she believed it was 2019, but was not confident of the date. Antu Harvey introduced herself and stated that she lives in Holualoa 2, mauka. She is the president of Pulama is Kona Heritage Preservation Council. Besides the concerns of the inadequate infrastructure questions posed to the Planning Commission, she expressed concerns about inadequate consultation with lineal descendants, lack of archaeologist updates to the 20- Page 4 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022