|
that one of the things that I did ask for is more specifications about the public access plan. But
<br /> we can't give all of that until we work with Ala Kahakai and Na Ala Hele about that. But I'm
<br /> happy to include any specifics about the public access plan in the SMA permit. As far as I'm
<br /> concerned, the more specific the better. I think—Bob, [inaudible].
<br /> RECHTMAN: At this point in the process, with an approved archaeological inventory survey,
<br /> you have the significance determinations made for all the sites and the approved treatments. So
<br /> if a site is known, it's going to be preserved. The specific details of the preservation obviously
<br /> will take place once the applicant has an approved project, and then they know how they are
<br /> going to develop their project. But the treatments that knowing how these sites are going to be
<br /> treated is already done with completion of the AIS.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So, you mentioned the word"project,"to your understanding of it, is the issuance
<br /> of an SMA permit qualified as a project? Well, to me, the answer is yes, it is. It's a, it's a
<br /> permit, which is specifically listed as a project under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E-2.
<br /> RECHTMAN: Right, and, right, and for me, for me, Dr. Myhrvold doesn't have a project yet;
<br /> until he gets approval that he has a project, there isn't a project yet. It's just now a bunch of lines
<br /> on a piece of paper, for me.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Again, you know, the State rules, laws, clearly indicate that, you know,this is a
<br /> project for review, this triggers historic preservation review. That's why we've gone to this
<br /> state. And, there are six steps in the historic preservation review, you know: Identification;
<br /> significance assessments; determination of effect; mitigation commitments—and we've done all
<br /> those, right? We haven't finished the process; we haven't created a detailed mitigation plan for
<br /> the sites, and we haven't verified the completion of that detailed mitigation plan yet. So we've
<br /> taken a part way through the historic preservation review process, and we're being asked to
<br /> basically kick it down the road and say that, you know, we are not going to have the opportunity
<br /> to review this based on the actual preservation plan. So, again, to me, looking at this project, it's
<br /> awesome, it's a great project, but for us to kick it on without having the preservation process
<br /> completed, then, then we are not doing our job adequately and we are setting the project up for
<br /> potential issues.
<br /> MOOERS: Excuse me, Commissioner, I have to say that I've been doing this for 30 years and
<br /> I've never been required at the SMA level to have those studies done; it's always been a
<br /> condition of subdivision approval because it's almost impossible to do those plans that you
<br /> suggest until we have a commitment of what we've got, you know, and, I don't, you know, I
<br /> guess I don't see what the risk is because if there is anything of a commitment that is not going
<br /> to be met, ultimately it's not this body to decide; it's SHPD that decides in consultation with the
<br /> Planning Department, with consultation with whoever else they want to bring in. And if they
<br /> want to come back to this body and ask for review again, I, I don't see a problem with that, but I
<br /> have a problem with trying to prepare plans around a project that we are not even sure we are
<br /> going to have. You know, I mean, if we had done all of this for the nine lots,that would all be
<br /> wasted, we would just have to throw it out. It's always been, to my recollection, it's always been
<br /> a condition of subdivision approval, that the approved AIS was adequate to get through SMA,
<br /> rezoning, and then the specifics of the data recovery plan, the preservation plan, the burial
<br /> 19
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />
|