Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-08 Cultural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES June 8, 2022 MEETING LOCATION: Hybrid in-person and interactive video conference through Zoom with live observation through YouTube. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Bell (Chair), Matthew Clark, Kilohana Hirano, Roberta "Ku'ulei" Keakealani (arrived at 10:20 a.m.), Kealohanuiopuna Kinney,Nicole Lui, and Aaron Spielman COMMISSIONERS ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Natalie Kurashima (Vice Chair), Scott Mahoney ALSO PRESENT: Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel; Zendo Kern, Planning Department Director (left at 12:05 p.m.); Kamuela Plunkett, Planner; Christian Kay, Planner; Shawna Blackford, interactive conference technology support; and Kim Tanaka, Board Secretary Chair Geraldine Bell called the Cultural Resources Commission (CRC)meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. A quorum was established with six members in attendance. Pursuant to the Governor's Emergency Proclamation related to Sunshine Law in-person meetings, effective January 1, 2022, the Cultural Resources Commission meetings will host a hybrid of online and in-person participants. The meeting can also be viewed live or at a later time online via YouTube. Commissioners were reminded that only one person may speak at a time and were asked to raise their hands to be recognized before speaking. Staff introductions were made, and commissioners were asked to introduce themselves. Also, in accordance with the recent amendment to the Sunshine Law, commissioners identified any member(s)present within the household. All members reported being alone in the household except for Commissioner Keakealani who identified two individuals, and Commissioner Spielman who identified one individual. There were no addendums or supplemental agenda items. STATEMENT(S) FROM THE PUBLIC There were 11 members of the public in attendance. At 10:09 a.m., Chair Bell opened the floor for public testimony and verified that all written testimony has been distributed to commissioners. There were three individuals providing in-person testimony. The first testifier, Elizabeth Dunn, provided her testimony. She began by stating that she lives in the Naniloa project. She is familiar Page 1 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 with the site and stated that there is a wealth of deposits in the area from Ali`i to Kuakini. She pointed out several nearby sites with identified archeological sites to support her request for consideration of how development would affect the Kona community, and to keep the artifacts in its current condition. She stated that the parcel makai is intended for and received an approval for a road and reported that there were no members of the public in favor of the proposal at the Planning Commission hearing in April. The developer did not work with any cultural or lineal descendants of the area and the development team could not respond to whether cultural or lineal descendants were recognized for this project. She would like the staff and commission to ensure that lineal and cultural descendants are contacted to work directly with these development applications, and that development proposals come to the Cultural Commission first,before the Planning Commission. Louis Barrere provided in-person testimony and began by stating that he moved to the area three years ago. He has educated himself on the culture of the area and was aghast to discover how much desecration has occurred with native Hawaiian burial grounds and sacred sites. He believes these cultural sites should be kept sacred. Development around or on top, and relocation of cultural sites is a horrible thing to do. He feels that so much disturbance of burial sites and sacred places has taken place in the past and not building where burial sites are located is respectful. It is his understanding that the Planning Commission gets the applications before the Cultural Resources Commission has a chance to review them. He added that water pressure is very low and wonders why large developments are getting approved when there may not be water or sewer services to support it. Many projects have been approved that are beyond the capacity of sewer and water, which he feels is absurd. He would like to see sacred sites remain sacred. Clare Loprissi began her in-person testimony in 'Melo no`eau and informed the commission that this is her 50th year helping deliver babies (YouTube timestamp 13:25). She expressed that it is disgraceful that the Kuakini Wall is even being discussed and that it is hewa. She doesn't know any Hawaiian who is comfortable with the ramifications of digging up the iwi. She believes there needs to be an EIS, although the time for an EIS has passed several years ago. She expressed that the area is kapu and that the iwi and ki`i are always together. She feels that an EIS needs to be reopened. She stated that if you are not aware of generational trauma and cultural sensitivity and the effects of that on children and generations to come, this will have a deep effect. She mentioned Hawaiian Homelands and how packed the people are in the area. Ms. Loprissi ended her testimony warning the commission that it is necessary to ensure the archaeologists are not paid off when an EIS is done because she knows that archaeologists have quit in the past because they were told they would lose their jobs if they did not comply. Upon concluding the in-person testimony, the commission heard from individuals providing online Zoom testimony. Janet Matlock provided her testimony. She began by stating that she is a resident of Kailua-Kona, not far from the parcel in discussion. She informed the Commission that she also provided written testimony about the importance of the entire surrounding area as a whole, not parcel by parcel to understand what will be lost, including the potential desecration and destruction of the great wall of Kuakini. She encouraged the recognition of decisions made over a decade and a half ago as they are no longer respectful of the challenges faced by the island and the world today. She also cautioned to consider carefully whether the developer will be able to follow through on their promises. The County of Hawai`i Property Tax website showed that this parcel Page 2 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 and the property immediately makai have assessed penalties and interest on their taxes every year since 2018. She brought to the Commission's attention He Wahi Mo`olelo, a collection of traditions and historical accounts from the Kahalu'u-Keauhou vicinity in Kona. It is a 102-page document written by Kepa Maly and can be found on the Kohala Center's website. She provided a brief overview of the document, including what she found on page 47 which highlighted words from Kekahuna and Kelsey who were native Hawaiian historians who wrote extensively in the 1940s and 1950s, and quoted Kepa Maly, "Because so much of the cultural landscape has changed since the time of their original writing, the urgency of their words is more important now than ever before."Also included on this page are thoughts from Kekahuna and Kelsey that were written over 60 years ago, "We hope that the people will cherish the things that should be preserved for themselves and for posterity. Things which they now deliberately destroy or allow to perish, but for which in a very few years from now we will be clamoring," "Let us awaken now, not later, lest our precious remnants of the past be lost forever." Ms. Matlock asked the Commission to encourage the Planning Commission to deny the application. A brief interruption occurred at 10:27 a.m. to introduce Commissioner Keakealani who joined the meeting at 10:20 a.m., and to identify any individuals present at her location. Peter Matlock stated that he lives in the Kailua-Kona region, close to Kahalu'u. He is aware of the area's immensely rich cultural and historical legacy, and knows that this legacy is being dismantled, destroyed, and lost to future generations in a piecemeal fashion. The place-based knowledge that is increasingly important to maintaining Hawaiian culture is being lost forever. He added that it is also important to the world's future and the wellbeing of future generations. Pre- contact Hawaiians lived sustainably for centuries, utilizing approaches in situations that were difficult and often hostile. There are many examples of how agriculture was practiced which continues to astound people today. This indicates that the knowledge is critical especially with climate change as it forces recognition of the flaws in Western approaches. There is interest in alternative approaches to maintaining sustainable societies as informed by indigenous cultures and perspectives. The Hawaiian culture can be a key to saving the planet. The knowledge of pre- contact Hawaiian culture is imbedded in the physical remains of pre-contact Hawaiian society. In the past archaeological surveys identified few burial sites for preservation and allowed bulldozing of the rest. Archaeology has since changed, and it is now interested in comprehensive understanding of complete social, economic, and cultural systems. Each year there are better tools to understand the past. This area, including the ahupua'a is not a collection of rocks and shrubs to be turned into homes unaffordable to locals. It is a rich and valuable place with burial sites and ancestorial remains and is a direct window into pre-contact Hawaiian culture and society. It is a source of knowledge critical to our future. Mr. Matlock ended his testimony by encouraging the maintenance of this and the whole region as it is a unique and valuable treasure. The next online testifier, Lokelani McMichael introduced herself and stated that she is from Kona. She thanked the commission for hearing from the testifiers and for volunteering their time. She began by quoting the first paragraph of the findings in the Archaeological Inventory Survey prepared in January 2006, which identified 14 sites with 172 features. "The sites consist of seven single feature sites, and seven complexes of features that contain two to 142 component features. The 172 identified features consist of 120 modified outcrops, 15 mounds, 14 platforms, 8 enclosures, 5 terraces, 5 walls, 3 pavements, 1 lava blister, and 1 walled platform. Functionally, Page 3 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 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 year-old survey, and inadequate kuleana regarding the 1830 Pa Kuakini. The wall is not on the parcel,but the plan includes an access plan which breaches the wall to get to Ali`i Drive. The wall was originally six miles long, but the County has repeatedly allowed it to be breached for development. She asked if the County has a map with GIS layers of the wall and across the TMKs, and if the County tracks each breach and its cumulative impact. Have segments been deemed to be preserved and not allow breaching? Is the County monitoring the compliance of preservation plans like SIHP Site 6302 and University of Nations Development? Will the CRC, the Planning Commission, the County Council, and the mayor continue to be complicit in the piecemeal destruction of Pa Kuakini until there is nothing left?As a pre-condition of moving forward, if it cannot be stopped all together, Ms. Harvey asked that the wall be evaluated in its entirety and the impact of destruction of 55 feet for this development. If a breach is allowed, she asked that it be minimal, that restoration be done, that preservation be done to compensate, and require the preservation plans to be monitored. Tiare Makaio was the next online testifier. She stated that she is against the destruction of the Kuakini Wall. She informed the Commission that a blue tarp, chair, and breach in the wall was witnessed in August of 2017. It was deep in the bush and the wall was being taken apart and restacked. She stated that she is completely against destruction of the wall and development for profit. Jennie Nahale-Green stated that she is against the destruction of Kuakini Wall as Kahulu`u is sacred to her and her `ohana. Neither she nor her sisters knew about the plan. Ms. Makaio interjected saying that Ms. Nahale-Green is a direct descendant, she grew up in the area, and she does not want it. Public testimony was closed at 10:49 a.m., and members of the public were asked to log off from Zoom and watch the remainder of the proceeding on YouTube. BUSINESS OF COMMISSION 1. Hawaii Onel Investors LLC's Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 09-8 and Special Management Area Use Permit No. 07-024 related to a proposed 65-lot, single- family residential subdivision on parcel (3)7-7-008:121, Pahoehoe 1st, Kapala'alaea 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii. On May 10, 2022, the Planning Director forwarded a request from the Leeward Planning Commission to the CRC for consultation by way of review, comments, and/or recommendations consistent with CRC Rule 4-3(b). This item was taken at 10:50 a.m. Chair Bell introduced this item and asked the project coordinators to introduce themselves. Mr. Daryn Arai, land use planning consultant assisting Hawaii Onel, LLC, introduced Mr. Matt Mansi,project manager for Hawai`i One Investments; Ken Van Bergen, consultant; and Dr. Alan Haun, consulting archaeologist. Mr. Sidney Fuke has also been assisting on this matter but was unable to attend this meeting. Page 5 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 At this time, Commissioner Matthew Clark disclosed that he worked for ASM Affiliates, who prepared the Archaeological Preservation Plan and Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the makai parcel where the road is intended. He did not personally work on the project,had no prior knowledge of it, and had not been on the property,but did work for Ken Van Bergen. After reviewing the County Code of Conduct, he does not believe this is a conflict of interest. Mr. Arai stated that the request before the Leeward Planning Commission (LPC) is a five- year extension of time to complete and secure final subdivision approval for the 62-lot Single- Family Residential subdivision consisting of lots ranging from 3,000 to about 6,500 square feet in size. The second part of the request is an amendment to Condition K, which focuses on providing the opportunity to bond the proposal, require drain system improvements, along with the other improvements that typically allow the opportunity to be bonded to secure final subdivision approval. In the seven years since the applicant purchased the property in 2013, they accomplished a lot toward completing the subdivision as approved by the Hawai`i County Council. It included the approval of Plan Unit Development permit in 2016, the preparation and issuance of finding of no significant impact for the La'aloa Park in 2018 which was a conditional requirement of their permits. They purchased and secured SMA approval for the makai property to provide a secondary access directly out to Ali`i Drive. They also secured tentative subdivision approval for Phase I of the project, consisting of 18 lots. Most importantly, they secured final approval for Burial Treatment Plan and Data Recovery Plan from the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) in 2017. Mr. Arai explained that the amendments requested from LPC are necessary for seeking out additional funding for the proposed subdivision. The LPC on April 21, 2022, questioned whether the level of consultation with lineal descendants in the planning of the overall project was sufficient, and whether lineal descendant access issues have been fully considered by SHPD and resolved in the burial treatment plans. And finally, whether the additional lineal descendant access and open space requirements should be proposed to mitigate or minimize project impacts on the overall cultural landscape. Mr. Arai provided the following information to address the concerns of the LPC. The project site is not situated within the Kahulu`u Historic District, as confirmed with the Planning Department. An Archaeological Inventory Survey was prepared by Haun and Associates in 2006 and accepted by SHPD. It mentioned the 14 sites identified as significant for information content, 9 sites for mitigation for data recovery, as well as 2 sites for preservation. The final data recovery plan and the burial treatment plan has been completed and accepted. A cultural assessment study was completed by Kaimipono Consulting Services in 2006 and revised in October 2007. It was referenced in the application to the LPC and referenced in the Planning Director's favorable recommendation on both the SMA and Rezoning applications. Mr. Arai was apologetic for its late submission to the CRC as consultants discovered only days before the meeting that the document had not been distributed. A brief overview of the document was provided. The study concluded that while evidence of traditional cultural practices still exists on the project land, there does not appear to be any evidence of ongoing traditional cultural practices, except perhaps fishing, which while not directly impacted by the project, may indirectly impact this resource. The applicant is unaware of any evidence of traditional or customary native Hawaiian rights being practiced Page 6 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 on the project site or nearby area, nor existence of any known valued cultural historical or native resources within the project site. The second concern of the LPC was whether the level of consultation with lineal descendants in the planning of the overall project was sufficient. Legal public notices regarding the burials located on the property was published three times in the Honolulu Star Advertiser and the West Hawai`i Today in July 2016, and in Ka Wai Ola in August 2016. There are no kuleana awardees known for the project site. In January 2017, only one descendant responded to the notice and was placed in contact with SHPD to obtain the descendancy application. An earlier notice in 2007 resulted in a SHPD-confirmed descendant, Clarence Medeiros. The cultural assessment, as one of its findings and recommendation stated that the Kahulamu and Hale `ohana whose ancestors are from these lands afforded the opportunity to have a walkthrough of the project site prior to bulldozing and grading activities. The late Josephine Nahale Kamoku of the Nahale `ohana and Hiram Rivera of the Kahulamu `ohana were consulted in preparation for the cultural assessment study. Others that participated as consultants were Wattie Green, Clarence Medeiros, and Mahealani Pai. The third concern of the LPC was whether lineal descendant access issues have been fully considered by SHPD and resolved in a burial treatment plan. The final burial treatment plan accepted by SHPD indicated that access to the burials for appropriate cultural activities will be permitted to any lineal or cultural descendant formally recognized by the Hawai`i Island Burial Council and by SHPD. If descendants wish to visit, they will need to coordinate with landowners and provide 24-hour notice prior to accessing the burial site. Finally, the LPC was concerned with whether lineal descendant access and open space should be proposed to mitigate or minimize project impact upon the overall cultural landscape. This question has been specifically directed to the CRC by the LPC based on the voluminous information on the record and that has been provided to all commissioners. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Arai stated that years of studies conducted, and mitigation plans developed and prepared under the direction and guidance of County Council, Planning Commission, Planning Department, SHPD, and the Hawai`i Island Burial Council have demonstrated that this project would not have a significant adverse impact on the overall cultural landscape within the portion of North Kona. At this time Commissioner Hirano disclosed that consultant Sidney Fuke is his uncle. However, he explained that he has not had any communication with Mr. Fuke about this project and it is not a conflict. Commissioner Hirano offered this information for transparency purposes. Mr. Van Bergen stated that the original ordinance was for parcel 121. It was for a 62-home subdivision. The ordinance allowed for two accesses to the subdivision, one off Naniloa and one off Ali`i Drive. Later, negotiations were made with the previous landowner of Parcel 1, for the easement off Ali`i Drive. A year later the landowner purchased the easement. A grubbing permit in 2018 allowed for bulldozing of parcel 121. A cultural monitor was hired and was on site during all activities. The two burial sites were hand-cleared as indicated in the burial plan and installed the 70-foot construction fencing. All the protocols were followed. Regarding the Kuakini Wall on parcel 1, the easement was created in 2018 and surveyors were hired to survey the easement and a soft boundary assessment. This is the location where Page 7 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 testifiers mentioned the blue tent and desecration, but this is why the blue tent was erected. No other work was done on Parcel 1. At this time, Chair Bell opened the floor for comments or questions from commissioners. She began the discussion by asking if additional attempts to contact the lineal and cultural descendants listed in the burial treatment plan were made beyond the newspaper articles. Mr. Arai stated that he is unaware of additional efforts made to contact descendants and asked Dr. Alan Haun to respond to the question. Dr. Haun responded that one individual was identified as a potential descendant. He provided a copy of the burial treatment plan to that individual in March 2017, and received no further comment from him. In obtaining the burial treatment plan approval, it was required for the applicant to attend three meetings which were held in November 2016, April, and May. Mr. Haun did not elaborate on the discussion at the meetings. He reported that the burial council extended extra efforts in reviewing the plan and treatments in attempt to compensate for the lack of descendant input. Other individuals who attended the meetings provided comment as well. The plan underwent three revisions associated with the three meetings and other potential descendants were able to get their requests recognized. The plan was changed in response to information gathered during the meetings. Chair Bell pointed out that a testifier at this meeting identified herself as a lineal descendant. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Van Bergen for clarification on parcel 121, if was grubbed in 2018. Mr. Van Bergen replied that it could have been 2017, but yes, they grubbed most of the 11 acres outside of the construction fencing around the burial areas. Upon further questioning from Commissioner Clark, Mr. Van Bergen stated that they hired Dr. Haun's office to provide on-site archaeological monitoring, and reported the monitor was present at all times when the equipment was running. Commissioner Clark asked Dr. Haun about the status of the data recovery plan and monitoring report and asked for a summary of the findings. Dr. Haun responded that the data recovery plan was implemented, and the field work was completed in 2017. At that time, they requested a 2-step verification process where SHPD acknowledges that the field work is complete and permits on-site construction to begin with the commitment that the report will be submitted in the future. SHPD agreed and the report has been competed and is pending the assignment of a SHPD number from their new system. During the original inventory survey, they did 23 square meters of testing, and during the data recovery work another 16 square meters of testing was done and was focused on the habitation sites in the primarily seaward portion of the parcel and some excavations in some agricultural features. They found a small inventory of remains that appeared to be transient. The material found is not typical of permanent habitation sites. Dating results indicate that the activity falls within 1600 and 1700s. The work is not guided by a SHPD-required monitoring plan but was done in response to requests received during burial treatment plan hearings, and SHPD has acknowledged this. A report has not yet been completed as more work will be done in the future. Dr. Haun noted that there were no new discoveries during the monitoring. Commissioner Kinney asked if the walkthrough with the Nahale family took place and what resulted from the walkthrough. Mr. Arai stated that based on Mr. Van Bergen's presentation, some grubbing had occurred, but is unclear if grading occurred. Commissioner Kinney repeated his question if the lineal descendants had the opportunity to walk through the area Page 8 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 prior to grubbing. Mr. Van Bergen stated that prior to the grubbing the parcel was not walkable as it was overgrown with shrubs and trees. Commissioner Keakealani stated that the document she reviewed mentions in italic font that the level of effort was "limited." Limited cultural and historical background review. This language caused her great concern as she advocates for extensive and expansive reviews. She noticed that five oral histories were from individuals connected to her genealogy and offered her oral history in `olelo no'eau (YouTube timestamp: 1:16:43 to 1:18:29). She also noticed that the ranching era was noted in the study and suggests outreach and a request for consultation with her uncle, Wayne Kahulamu, Hiram's brother, and her father Sonny Keakealani, as they may be the only two remaining Pu`u Wa`awa`a Ranch cowboys. Commissioner Kinney thanked Commissioner Keakealani for her mana`o. He asked why lineal descendants were not contacted, naming the Kipapa family in particular. He agreed that the outreach was limited, as many others have expressed. He also asked what improvements would be considered if changes could be made, especially because comments about this project are common and persistent. For clarification Mr. Arai asked whether this question is in reference to the Cultural Impact Assessment, and not the Burial Treatment; Commissioner Kinney confirmed. Mr. Arai stated that the assessment study was done in 2007 and although they hoped to have the author of the study present at this hearing, she was unable to attend. He added that the team cannot make assumptions about why things were or were not done and must rely on the study as presented. He stated, however, that he appreciates the comments received about additional outreach to other descendants in the adjoining ahupua'a. Commissioner Lui informed the group that she was a recognized cultural descendant of Kapala'alaea in 2010, and believes she is also a lineal descendant. Regarding Mr. Van Bergen's statement about the foliage making the land unwalkable and "cannot be done,"it has been her experience that the archaeologist will clear a path for descendants to walk through. She does not feel that overgrown terrain is a viable reason to deny a descendant walkthrough. The younger generation could walk the area and the kupuna could be present but not participate in the walk, and the walkthrough should have been done. She also provided a brief history of her genealogy and her connection to Kapala'alaea. Commissioner Lui also asked where the name La`ipala came from in the Planning Department's Background Report. The CIA listed the name properly, Laipala, which means yellow ti leaf. La`i means calm,peaceful, serene. Pala means rubbish, the softness of a boil, or yellow of a melon or leaf. She also pointed out that in the Background Report, number 28, the diacritical marks in Kapala'alaea are in the wrong place, and instead of North Kona, it is written as "North Kana." She suggests the Planning Department be more aware, proofread their reports, and put diacritical marks in the correct places, especially if these documents will be used for future reference. She feels that these types of inaccuracies show a lack of respect to the Hawaiian culture and the language. Kapala means to stain,print, or stamp. `Alaea is the ocherous earth used for coloring salt or dying and red coloring matter, also used for purification ceremonies. Kapala`alaea is also the name of a god that was carried during the Makahiki festival, making this ahupua'a even more culturally sensitive. Commissioner Lui knows some of the younger generation Nahale's who say that this ahupua'a has a high level of spiritual occurrences. She has a lot of connections to the people of the `aina and to the `aina itself, and noticed the CIA mentioned Keawe-nui-a`Umi, but there was no mention of the Page 9 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 battle between he and his brother, Keli`iokaloa-a`Umi. Pu'u-o-Kaloa is where Kalaoa died, in the ahupua'a of Keahuolu on the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust land. Pu`u-o-Kaloa is also known for the clouds and mist that settles on the pu'u, signaling to the sweet potato farmers when to plant `uala. Commissioner Lui believes that the CIA needs to be updated, the Planning Department report needs to be corrected, and more consultation is needed. Commissioner Lui asked if the Kuakini Wall has been broken. Mr. Van Bergen responded that the wall has not been broken, but the wall was already breached upon acquisition. Commissioner Lui is aware that approximately 10 feet of the wall had to be breached during the construction of Ane Keohokalole Highway. The rocks from the section of the wall that was removed was repurposed to repair sections of the wall where rocks were stolen. If the wall must be breached, she suggests saving the rocks to be repurposed in other areas of the wall. Commissioner Clark asked if the developers were considering keeping the open space on the makai parcel. Mr. Van Bergen stated that the ordinance allowed the two accesses to parcel 121 for the subdivision. They analyzed the Naniloa access and Ali`i Drive access and negotiated the easement. The owner of the parcel expressed interest in acquiring the easement, not for the road initially,but may be open to developing in a culturally sensitive, ecological, legal way but there are no definitive plans. Open space may be included. A public benefit to this subdivision is the 3-acre La'aloa Park allowed by the ordinance. It is a large commitment for a project of this size but a benefit to the community. Chair Bell asked if there are any plans to update the Archaeological Survey which was done 16 years ago. Mr. Van Bergen stated that there has not been a requirement to update the survey as there has been zero activity aside from the survey of the easement and the grubbing which was monitored. It could be questioned if the archaeologists did a good job,but SHPD signed off both AIS and preservation plan. To the commissioners, Chair Bell stated that the one topic that continues to resonate throughout the meeting is the level or extent of consultation with lineal and cultural descendants of the area, and the neighboring ahupua'a. At this point, she asked for a motion to assure that both the cultural and lineal descendants are contacted. Commissioner Hirano motioned to recommend additional consultation with lineal descendants from the proposed parcel and neighboring ahupua'a. Commissioner Lui seconded. Commissioner Clark asked to add cultural descendants to the motion, which Commissioner Hirano accepted as a friendly amendment. Chair Bell requested a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously with seven aye votes (Clark, Hirano, Keakealani, Kinney, Lui, Spielman, and Bell). Commissioner Keakealani mentioned that the impacts on traffic, water usage, infrastructure, and roadways must be considered. Impact to site and place must also be considered as she fears that remnants might be all that remains of culture if not careful. Chair Bell asked that the comments provided by Commissioner Keakealani be incorporated into the letter to the Director without a vote by the commission. Mr. Plunkett stated that comments made at this hearing will be transmitted to the Director and the LPC regardless of receiving a formal vote. Commissioner Lui asked if this will be a gated community and if the homeowners will have an association. Mr. Van Bergen responded that he does not believe it will be as Naniloa is a public road and the streets will be dedicable. To the second question, he responded that most Page 10 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 subdivisions have associations, and this association will have limited duties such as maintaining the properties with two burial sites, a 5,000-foot park, the entrance of Naniloa, and open spaces that are common areas. The association will honor any cultural resources or descendant visits. It will be a limited association. The developer will write the association rules and commitments, but once 50 percent of the units are sold, the association will slowly transition to the owners until all units are sold. Preservation rules and commitments will be in place before the association transitions completely to unit owners. Commissioner Lui pointed out that from a young age, her grandfather taught her that the water flows underground. The Planning Department's Background Report number 4 [sic], Proposed Development regarding water mentions, "additional parcels will set aside either as an archaeological preserve,park and open space," but wonders if it should say park and/or open space. Number 34, Description of the Property, Water, identifies two archaeological sites and states that open space will not be needing water. Mr. Van Bergen provided clarification explaining that the subdivision will be under a master meter. This means the water will come off of the Department of Water Supply waterline, into a master meter, then directed to the units which includes irrigation for the open space, burial, and small park. The number of units allocated dictates how many structures can be built. He stated what Commissioner Lui read refers to two different things, and admits it is not worded well in the document. Mr. Plunkett encouraged commissioners to think about their next steps and suggested they review for what was requested and review the rules and allowable procedures. He offered to provide a slide to remind commissioners of their options. Commissioner Lui asked about access for lineal descendants. SHPD cultural branch has not been doing their due diligence and has not been sharing names of individuals who have been recognized. It is not entirely the archaeologist's fault as SHPD should provide the list of all recognized descendants of the ahupua'a. She feels that a list should also be provided to the County. She feels that community meetings for sensitive areas should be held, and because not everyone reads the newspaper, she feels that a billboard should be posted in the area to alert people about the project. Mr. Plunkett shared his screen providing an overview of CRC policies and rules, and possible CRC action options. He stated that the two things the commission can vote on at this hearing are the level of impact and possible modifications, mitigation measures, or suggestions to the proposal. Despite not having enough consultation with lineal descendants, Commissioner Kinney asked what mitigation measures were taken to deal with the impacts. Mr. Van Bergen replied that he became involved in the project in 2017. The reports had already been out for a while, and the focus at that time was rezoning ordinances and SHPD approved preservation plans. No measures were purposely skipped. Mr. Van Bergen assured the commission that the owners are open to implement what is fair and needed because they are culturally sensitive. He shared with the commission his personal connection with local families to express his desire to be culturally sensitive. He asked how the developers can honor the recommendations of the CRC Page 11 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 while following existing plans because the project is so far along in the process, understanding that it is difficult to make changes to things done in the past. He informed the commission that the project should have been a"done deal,"however, Housing delayed the project causing issues with the funding and bonding. Commissioner Kinney believes that the open space and the burial treatment plan were mitigation measures taken. Following up on the environmental aspect, he asked what system will be used for the sewage or septic plan. Mr. Van Bergen replied that connection to the sewer on Ali`i Drive is the approved wastewater treatment plan. The piping will be under the access road, to Ali`i Drive, then 500 feet north to connect to the existing sewer. Commissioner Kinney asked whether the 12,000 square-foot lot size recommended in the cultural impact statement was not possible, and if the 3-acre open park space was a mitigation measure for the smaller lot sizes. Mr. Van Bergen stated that Hawai`i Onel originally wanted to create a larger project, and discussions with the County for the ordinance led to a 3-acre park option. When the project was downsized substantially, the developer agreed to keep the commitment for the park although a project of this size does not call for a fair share this large. Mr. Van Bergen stated that the 12,000 square-foot lot size discussion and decisions were made well before he began with the project. Developer Matt Mansi stated that larger lots were considered when the project was much larger, but it was not financially feasible once the project was downsized. Commissioner Lui quoted the letter to the CRC from the Planning Director and asked what is meant by "questions about the level of consultation with lineal descendants in planning the overall construction of the project." Mr. Kay replied and stated that he drafted the letter using language directly stated from the Planning Commissioners. He provided that this was a statement made by Chair Vitousek of the Leeward Planning Commission. Mr. Arai stated that his presentation highlighted four components in response to the LPC's request in attempt to address each of the questions as best as possible. Upon Chair Bell's request, Mr. Arai reiterated the four items for the commission. He added that the applicant and landowner tried hard to follow the process and if they are perceived to have fallen short, it was not because of a lack of effort, intelligence, or diligence. Chair Bell stated that the impact to cultural landscape is hard to define in this area, especially with the information received for review of the project and because the commission did not have the opportunity to view the site via a site visit. Access by lineal and cultural descendants should be defined in the burial treatment plan and must be spelled out clearly. Chair Bell asked about additional efforts for the open space requirements. Mr. Arai responded that the testimony by the developer indicates that off-site improvement to La'aloa, improvements to the 5,000 square-foot neighborhood park, the burial site preservation areas and associate buffers all speak to appropriate open space accommodations for the size and scope of the project. If the commission feels this is not enough, the developers would like to understand why and what other things should be reviewed more thoroughly to properly assess what is needed. Commissioner Clark stated that he believes the developers did as they were supposed to and fulfilled the obligations that SHPD required, although he believes that SHPD failed in their Page 12 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 obligation to require additional consultation. However, he believes that it is unlikely any of the sites are still on the ground. He believes that some opportunities have been foreclosed upon,but moving forward, he believes there are more opportunities for consultation such as the area makai of the subdivision, which he is aware hosts at least 20 burial features. If SHPD review is required, the CRC could address issues at that time. In response to an inquiry by Chair Bell regarding the CRC's response time to the Planning Director and LPC, Mr. Plunkett stated that it is good practice to respond as quickly as possible, but it is up to the commission whether they feel the quality of the review and deliberation is sufficient. Chair Bell asked the commissioners if they feel satisfied with the quality of the materials and deliberation and discussion held. She stated that a letter capturing the comments of this meeting will be sent to the Planning Director and the LPC. Commissioner Lui asked if an amendment could be done to the existing CIA. Commissioner Clark responded that he does not believe there are any requirements to prepare a CIA. Commissioner Lui asked if there is a process for the developers to obtain additional consultation to include in one of the previously prepared documents. Chair Bell suggested a motion be made to include this as a recommendation. Commissioner Lui motioned to request an updated Cultural Impact Assessment to include additional consultation with present cultural and lineal descendants. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirano. Commissioner Clark agreed that additional consultation is needed but would like the motion to be worded differently. After some discussion, the commission agreed that the previous motion sufficiently covered the recommendations of the members. Commissioner Lui withdrew her motion and Commissioner Hirano agreed. Mr. Van Bergen informed the commission that no work has been done on the land and invited commissioners to visit. Ms. Campbell reminded the commission to keep the number of commissioners under quorum if doing a site visit to prevent violation of the Sunshine Law. Hearing no further comments, Chair Bell closed this agenda item at 12:45 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. Approval of Minutes of the May 11, 2022, meeting. This agenda item was taken up at 12:45 p.m. Chairperson Bell asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hirano motioned to accept the minutes as circulated; Commissioner Keakealani seconded. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes. A unanimous show of hand vote was taken. (Hirano, Keakealani, Clark, Kinney, Lui, Spielman, Bell). 2. Next meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 13, 2022. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 12:47 p.m. the meeting was adjourned by a unanimous show of hands. Page 13 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022 Respectfully Submitted, Kim L. Tanaka, Secretary ATTEST : e Geraldine Bell, Chairperson Cultural Resources Commission Page 14 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022