Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-25 TBLASMAN0328 PLANNING COMMISSION CONTESTED CASE MINUTES AND HEARING TRANSCRIPT WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) MARCH 28, 2003 The contested case proceedings for WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort, Kahalu`u Ballroom, 78-6740 Ali`i Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Geraldine Giffin presidin PRESENT:Geraldine Giffin, Presiding Officer Hannah Springer, Hearing Officer Grant Togashi, Hearing Officer Applicant: Wayne Blasman Wayne Blasman Randy Vitousek, Esq. Jim Fox Intervenor: Maile David Maile David Intervenor: Jk`m`GtkhGnmt` Mikahala Roy County of HawaiÒi Lester Ishado, Esq. Christopher J. Yuen, Hawai`i County Planning Department Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Staff Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) Î Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 13-unit project and related improvements. The property is located on the east side (mauka) of Ali'i Drive in the vicinity of Hlualoa Bay and across of the Keolonhihi State Historical Park at Kamoa Point, Hlualoa 4, North Kona, Hawai`i, TMK: 7-7-4:26. GIFFIN:Good morning. IÓd like to call the meeting of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission back to order. We recessed last Tuesday and the Applicant today is Wayne Blasman. The SMA No. is 02-03. This is an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 13-unit project and related improvements. This morning, Hearings Officers Hannah Springer, Grant Togashi and myself, Geri Giffin, and we are here this morning with Deputy 1 Corporation Counsel Ivan Torigoe as our counsel. Staff this morning, Norman Hayashi, Phyllis Fujimoto and Sharon Nomura. Did I forget anybody, Sharo NOMURA:ThatÓs it. GIFFIN:ThatÓs it, okay. Thank you. When we recessed on Tuesday, we were in the middle of hearing the ApplicantÓs testifiers. Actually, they were just being cross-examined and, hang on. We heard three of the testifiers on Tuesday and, so weÓre going to go on to -. Norman, did anyone sign up to give public testimony? HAYASHI:We havenÓt received anything. GIFFIN:Nothing? IÓll go ahead and ask. HAYASHI:But we have two written. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe has just reminded me that I should ask, even though no one has formally signed up to give public testimony. Is there anyone who is here this morning to give public testimony on this agenda item? Seeing no hands but -. Mr. Hayashi is now passing out two more public testifiers, written statements. Mr. Hayashi, do you want to just go ahead and give us a briefing on the site? HAYASHI:Thank you, Chairman. Again, a brief orientation as to the location of the site. The subject property is indicated in this red circle on this location map, which is the staffÓs location map. The property is situated on Ali`i Keolonhihi State Historical Park and also the Kekealaniwahine complex mauka of the property. The proposal is to develop a 13-unit condominium project on the mauka side of Ali`i Drive consisting of two- and three-story structures. Again, the Kekealaniwahine complex is situated on the rear portion of the property as well as a portion of the north side. Are there any questions? GIFFIN:Officers, any questions? Hearing none, Norman, thank you much. Mr. Vitousek -. Actually, IÓd like everybody to introduce themselves and to say, for the record, who is here. Beginning with you, Randy? VITOUSEK:Good morning, hearings officers, Randy Vitousek, representing the Applicant. The Applicant, Wayne Blasman, and Mr. Fox, are present in the hearing as well. GIFFIN:Thank you. Lester? ISHADO:Good morning, IÓm Lester Ishado, Deputy Corporation Counsel, County of Hawai`i. With me is Planning Director, Chris Yuen. 2 DAVID:Aloha, good morning, Maile David, lineal descendant, Intervenor. ROY:Aloha, kakou, Mikahala Roy, Executive Director, Klana Huli Honua, Foundation for the Search of Wisdom, community non-profit 501(c)(3), Intervenor. GIFFIN:Thank you. And, Norman, could you go ahead and enter int record the two pieces of paper you passed out. HAYASHI:Yes, we did receive two witness statements this morning, testimony. These testimonies are undated. One is from Cory Har from Imaikalani Aiu. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, when we recessed your next public testifier, your next witness, who had submitted their testimony but was going to be subject to cross- examination, if IÓm not mistaken, is Paul Bleck. VITOUSEK:ThatÓs correct. GIFFIN:Is Mr. Bleck present? VITOUSEK:He is. GIFFIN:Okay. My notes show that I did not swear you in. Is that true? BLECK:ThatÓs correct. GIFFIN:Okay. Would you please come forward and weÓve set this table up as the table for the witnesses. If youÓll just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? BLECK:I do. GIFFIN:Thank you. If you would just state your name for the rec your resident address. BLECK:Paul Bleck, 75-5885 Walua Road, Kailua-Kona. GIFFIN:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yeah, weÓre offering Mr. Bleck as the Project Architect and, also, as an expert in architecture to the extent that his testimony contains opinions. And, so, I guess the, you know, we have outlined his credentials in the written testimony. I guess if any of the parties want to question him on the credentials before heÓs determined to being, whether or not heÓs qualified as an expert, I guess, this would be a perfect time to do that. 3 GIFFIN:Sure. Parties? Lester? ISHADO:I donÓt have any questions. GIFFIN:Maile? DAVID:Yes. I have just one question. Did Mr. Bleck submit written testimony? GIFFIN:Yes, he did. DAVID:Oh, okay. Is that included in this -? GIFFIN:ItÓs, towards the back. DAVID:Okay. Thank you. No, I have no further -. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:IÓm locating the testimony. Thanks, Ms. Giffin. GIFFIN:Please take your time. ItÓs towards the back; and the pages are not numbered so -. ROY:Thank you. Just to reserve the right to question in the vein of his specialty and any related questions that I can think of -. GIFFIN:Sure. ROY:Along the way, thank you. GIFFIN:Sure. Without any further adieu, then, Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Do I understand that heÓs being accepted as an expert in architecture? GIFFIN:With reservations and the ability to question later, if I understood Mikahala correctly. VITOUSEK:Yes, sure. Madam Chairman, generally, the procedure is that, you know, they have an opportunity to voir dire the witness on their expertise only -. GIFFIN:Yeah, right. 4 VITOUSEK:And then, that the witnesses qualify as expert or not qualified so that they can give opinions or not give opinions. GIFFIN:I know. I am happy to recess for a few minutes to give t a chance to review Mr. BleckÓs written testimony. Because we did not the last time certify anyone as a witness, I think that this maybe kind of out of context. And, so, IÓm willing to call for a recess if you would like to review the testimony, Mikahala. ROY:Yes. GIFFIN:Why donÓt we take, is five minutes sufficient or would you like ten? ROY:Ten. GIFFIN:Ten, all right, weÓre in recess for ten minutes. RECESSEDThe Presiding Officer called a short recess at 9:13 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 9:23 a.m. GIFFIN:Once again, IÓd like to call the meeting of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission back to order. The Applicant is Wayne Blasm SMA No. 02-03. When we took the short recess, it was to enable one of the parties to review, once again, the written testimony of Paul Bleck, AIA. It was on the question of rendering the status of expert witness, and there was some reservation. Mikahala? ROY:IÓm now, this is Mikahala, I now do not agree with rendering him an expert for -. If youÓd like I can tell you the questions that IÓd like answered for me to be able to call him an expert in the area. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe, should we proceed with, on the questions tha wants to ask him out of sequence, or should we determine experti TORIGOE:I guess at this point, if Mr. Vitousek has offered the witness as an expert, you should hear what objections there are to that. IÓd like to also to kind of clarify exactly what it is that Mr. Vitousek feels he needs to accomplish by getting the witness on as an expert. Because strict rules of evidence donÓt apply in these proceedings; and IÓm not entirely sure that we need to have experts qualified here. We also had, I think, a lot of the written testimony that has been received into evidence which has opinions in it already; and I donÓt think, you know, that this Commission should foreclose people from giving reasonable opinions even though they have not been technically qualified as experts. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek? 5 VITOUSEK:I just donÓt want to be in a situation where we get to the end of the hearing and thereÓs a challenge to the fact that a witness offered opinions based on the fact that they werenÓt offered or qualified as an expert witness. And, so, itÓs really more a matter to, you know, preserve the record in that respect. If the presiding officer rules that theyÓll accept the, you know, testimony of the witness as presented and if they, and if the parties want to cross-examine the witness relative to qualifications or other issues so that that can go to the weight that they give the testimony, the weight that the hearings officers give the testimony, thatÓs fine with me. I just donÓt want to have the record challenged based on the witnesses not having been offered as expert witnesses, given the fact that there are opinions in their testimony. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:What I suggest then is if Mr. Vitousek wants to make that record an offer, then he can do so; and we can hear any objections. But I think, ultimately, you know, you should allow the opinions to come in; and there would be a record as to any objections as well as the offer. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:And precisely the reason for bringing this to the floor at this time is an expert, that title, qualifies the party for extenuating respect in the matter at hand. And IÓm raising questions as far as his thorough knowledge of the property that heÓs working with in the context of the entire Kaluaokalani. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Let me just say that I think you all will have opportunity to cross- examine all the witnesses in asking questions that will bring to light any deficiencies that you think need to be brought out regarding their knowledge of the properties. ROY:As long as heÓs not admitted as an expert to the testimony in this proceeding. TORIGOE:Well, I think weÓre not going to be technically doing that. I think weÓre, you know, just allowing Mr. Vitousek to make the request for the record so that nobody can argue later that he didnÓt try. But I donÓt think weÓre going to be technically qualifying anybody as an expert. WeÓll just be allowing them to testify, give their opinions, and youÓll have a full opportunity to question their opinions and the basis for their decision. ROY:Very good. SPRINGER:Madam Chair? GIFFIN:Commissioner Springer? 6 SPRINGER:Just for clarification, at this point, do I understand the Deputy Corporation Counsel correctly that heÓs recommending that thereÓd be no experts qualified as experts? GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Yeah, I think, because this is an administrative hearing where strict rules in evidence do not apply; and if we start drawing lines between expert testimony and non-expert testimony, especially in this case, that can become very contentious and could end up with you excluding certain opinions. Because if you decline somebody or deny somebody expert status and they start offering opinions, then, you know somebody could then argue that because heÓs not expert or sheÓs not expert, he/she should not be giving opinions. And we donÓt want to get into that position. GIFFIN:No. TORIGOE:But we do want to allow reasonable opinions to be given in an administrative hearing and we do want to have full cross-examination of those opinions. SPRINGER:May I ask another question? GIFFIN:Yes. SPRINGER:So for consistency sake as well as the opinion the Deputy Corporation Counsel has just given, again, nobody will be entered an expert witness? TORIGOE:That would be my recommendation. And I think thatÓs especially to protect the Intervenors because, you know, their experts probably will not have or may not have the kind of academic training that some people may thin expert. But, nevertheless, you know, their opinions, if theyÓre based on reasonable experience and training of, thatÓs relevant, certainly it should be respected by the panel. SPRINGER:Thank you. GIFFIN:YouÓre welcome. Mikahala? ROY:Ms. Giffin, if I understood the Corporation Counsel who expressed that this would be in consideration of, in fact, IntervenorsÓ behalf, I would say that, definitely, in light of the subject material being of Hawaiian heritage and culture, that which the Planning Commission members, with the exception of one, do not have expertise in, that you would allow cultural experts to be established for the record. ItÓs clear that at stake here is the CountyÓs upholding of statutes, Hawai`i statutes, for the protection of Hawaiian heritage and culture. So I would raise the idea that we would have the right to have such experts qualified and our experts would not need qualification in the, in the sciences that are being spoken of here. 7 GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:If you want to follow the same procedure that Mr.Vitousek is going through, that is to offer them as experts and offer their qualifications, then Mr.Vitousek will have the opportunity to dispute that, you know, that could occur. ROY:That might take awhile, Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:That might, that might. ROY:That might take awhile because I would offer that opportunity to him. TORIGOE:And thatÓs why I think one of the reasons why administrative hearings do not follow strict rules of evidence is because itÓs a chance to efficiently put on the record what is relevant. ROY:If we could try to make sure that the balance is level, thatÓs my concern, for the record. GIFFIN:If I understood you correctly, Mikahala, and please correct me if IÓm wrong, youÓre saying that, then, any other witnesses, say, for those that he may be presenting should not be granted the expert status but those that you are should be? ROY:No. ItÓs when I am qualifying that expert in the field of the field at hand what, be it what it may, expert in the opinions related to this property in every way. Expert meaning if he is an expert in the field of architecture, then I am going to ask if thatÓs his connection to his being an expert with relation to this property. In other words, my experts, our experts would be related to this property; and that has everything to do with the subjects that you are going to be considering. You need to know as much about this property, and every public arena that you have is your chance to do that from day one here. GIFFIN:So if I understand what youÓre saying, youÓre not objecting, then, to what Mr. Vitousek is requesting. ItÓs just that you want to be able to question whether or not the designation of expert is valid? ROY:I am willing to accept for cross-examination the witness. B term of Ðexpert,Ñ maybe I do hold in a very special category, I do, we do, with regard to any of these perspectives with the relation to the sacred site. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Well, I think, you know, obviously, we do want to keep a level playing field. And, so, and I think generally speaking in an administrative hearing, we 8 really do not need to designate experts. And I think it can complicate the matter. And, if for the record people want to offer them as having special expertise then they can put that on the record and the Commission can take that into account in giving weight to the testimony. And if you put all your credentials on the record and the Commission acknowledges those, you know, that should make a clear enough record without necessarily putting a label on that may cause you evidentiary problems. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Mr. Torigoe, thank you. Are you prepared to compare written oral validation or credentials? Can, would you be prepared to do that? ÒCause thatÓs what youÓre asking? GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:IÓm not sure I understand what youÓre asking. ROY:My understanding of what you just said is that you would make sure that all parties would submit credentials to be considered as experts. My contention is that Mr. Bleck may be an expert in the field of architecture but he is not in my mind an expert in this field of architecture with relation to this sacred site. TORIGOE:Well, and thatÓs something that you can certainly argue and you can ask him questions about, you know, how his expertise is applied to the particular site. ROY:My concern is right here is your ability to differentiate between experts, Mr. Torigoe, the County, in understanding what is a cultural expert and the credentials. Those credentials are in bloodline, in years of exposure to oral testimony or history. It is in the years of time they have spent on the land. These are not on a piece o paper. So how would you equal that to a paper of credentials? TORIGOE:That is not something that IÓm trying to do at this point and itÓs not my job to do that. But you certainly have every opportunity to bring up testimony that would establish, orally or written, what you feel are the credentials that give a particular witness weight. ROY:So could you clarify your position again? TORIGOE:Basically, that it is not, I think, necessary or normal procedure to qualify people as experts for purposes of an administrative hearing. If you want to put on record that you want to offer that person as an expert for whatever purposes, then youÓre certainly free to establish that by way of written documents or oral testimony and to put on record why the Commission should consider a personÓs testimony of more weight than someone elseÓs. You know, youÓre free to do that. YouÓre also free to question the credentials or the weight that should be given to another witnessÓ testimony by way of cross-examination. 9 GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Thank you and just the last question -. IÓm uneasy about whether later he would be termed an expert and being able to be called an expert, say, a gentleman such as going to be testifying at the moment. So IÓd rather discuss it at the outset. TORIGOE:I donÓt know if the parties have any leaning on this. I know it seems that at least the Intervenor and Ms. Roy would like to see some form of expert recognition. I guess if the parties would like to stipulate to have some form of expert recognition as part of a Contested Case procedure, we could do that. Is there any feeling? GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yeah, I mean, I think that the procedure that Mr. Torig with, which was that people be allowed to express opinions, subject to cross-examination by other parties and subject to the hearings officers being able to determine on, by whatever criteria they apply the weight that theyÓre going to give to the testimony, is fair and equal. So thatÓs fine with me. As a practical approach, thatÓs probably the best one. As you know IÓm comfortable offering someone as expert witness and establishing their credentials and cross-examining somebody elseÓs credentials. But I think that Mr. Torigoe is trying to avoid this becoming overly legalistic and -. GIFFIN:Oh, I understand that and I appreciate that. VITOUSEK:And I think thatÓs a good point. GIFFIN:Right, right. VITOUSEK:So as long as we understand that whether testimony is, you know, characterized as something they saw or heard, or an opinion, that it comes in, subject to cross-examination, thatÓs fine with me. GIFFIN:And without the formal designation -? VITOUSEK:Without the formal -. GIFFIN:On our part of accepting that individual as an expert? VITOUSEK:Yes. GIFFIN:Thank you. VITOUSEK:You know, but, on the other hand if itÓs going to made an issue by another party, then we want to make sure we comply with whateverÓs required. 10 GIFFIN:Right. Right. Mikahala? ROY:I defer to Maile. GIFFIN:Oh, IÓm sorry. I didnÓt see your hand up. Maile? DAVID:Well, my comment is I believe Mr. TorigoeÓs suggestion tha keep this open and not get into the legal area of whoÓs an expert and whoÓs not -. I think we all can understand that the Native Hawaiian culture, their experts are qualified via different criteria. So my opinion is that if we can all have an equal footing and be able to question each other, like Mr. Torigoe said, I think thatÓs a fair, thatÓs a fair situation for all. And because we being lay people and not well-versed in what the evidence rules are should this go any further, I donÓt want to do anything here at this point and leave our options pretty open and equal. ThatÓs all I have to say. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Thank you. Again, just for the record of qualifying whether this body comes to the table with ability to discern what is expert in terms of cultural, in other words, would you be able to understand my questioning of a witness such as this with regard to his cultural expertise in relation to his field? Would you be able to understand the depth of those questions is my question to the body. In other words, if you determine later to call in your opinions, the body, this person, what makes up your ability to judge with what relative to what Mrs. David said, you know, balance level way? In other words, IÓm checking for your ability to understand fairly the objections that are brought up for that matter. GIFFIN:Mikahala, I donÓt profess to know everything there is about our culture. But I can tell you that I would be very, and IÓm sure Mr. Torigoe would, as I know him would, give it our very best effort; and thatÓs why we are here, Mr. Togashi, not Mr. Torigoe. But that is why we are here, to give it our very best effort. ROY:Thank you, Mrs. Giffin. I have no doubt and IÓm not objecting at all to you, as persons there. But for the record, in this day, people are not adept to our culture. ItÓs just a given, all of us. GIFFIN:Oh, and thatÓs well accepted. I understand that. ROY:And, so, for the record, IÓm stating that. GIFFIN:And thatÓs well taken. However, I do want you to know th come here with that attitude of trying to do the very best that we can. So without any further adieu, I think that we were in consensus of, correct me if IÓm wrong, that what Mr. Torigoe has suggested is what we are going to do. Mr. Ishado? 11 ISHADO:Well, I agree with the perspectives of both sides here. Basically, I do see that a lot of expertise is not in the education with degrees or something like that. However, I do think that the panel has the wisdom, if you will, to make a determination of what should be given weight. And I certainly had no qualms about all the parties being made experts. But I think Mr. TorigoeÓs point is well taken. GIFFIN:Hannah, I know you had a question or Î. SPRINGER:No. GIFFIN:Okay. Thank you. Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Okay. If I could just briefly examine the witness in order to establish the design of the building, and then weÓll turn him over for cross-examination. So what IÓd like to do is just question Mr. Bleck relative to using the models so that we can get the orientation of the model, and then we can, hopefully, use that as part of ou the presentation and then cross-examination. GIFFIN:Yes. VITOUSEK:So would you please state your name for the record? BLECK:Paul Bleck. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, Mr. Bleck, youÓre retained as project architect by Mr. Blasman relative to this proposed condominium, is that correct? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. And as part of that, you came up with a proposed conceptual design for the condominium, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:ThatÓs correct. VITOUSEK:And in front of you on the table, on the witness table, is a model of the proposed project. IsnÓt that correct? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, Madam Chair, can I stand up and re-orient the model? GIFFIN:Yes. VITOUSEK:Thank you. What I would really like to do is try to orient it so that we all agree on what the, on which direction is makai, which direction is mauka -. 12 GIFFIN:Sure. VITOUSEK:And so -. If we orient it in this way, then I think this most accurately reflects the orientation to Ali`i Drive, and to the ocean, and to the mountain. So, Mr. Bleck, can you show us where on the model, as currently oriented, Ali`i Drive would be located. BLECK:Ali`i Drive is in the front. VITOUSEK:And so youÓre indicating on the portion of the model that is closest to the counsel table, is that correct? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so where is the existing, IÓm just asking these questions in reference to the fact we were all at the site visit. And so my question is, where is the existing driveway into the property? BLECK:ItÓs in the same location as our proposed driveway, right here; and it comes up through the middle of the property and services the are across the back of the property. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so will the driveway into the proposed project be the same as the existing, the same location as the existing driveway into the property? BLECK:The driveway entrance from Ali`i Drive is in the same loca the road that services the structures runs up along the side, and across the back, and along this side as well. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so let me also refer to another exhibit. And so, can everyone see that exhibit as well? GIFFIN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And so, Mr. Bleck, can you orient us on the exhibit, the drawing exhibit relative to the model, in other words, where Ali`i Drive would be located. BLECK:Sure. Again, Ali`i Drive is across the bottom of this plan view and hereÓs the entry to the property, the existing and the proposed entry is in the same location. And our proposed road follows the perimeter of the property boundary and services the different units. These three units are down low. In fact, the existing grade is sort of shaped like a bowl and these existing units are tucked into that bowl. So weÓve minimized the grading, and these units are built on existing grade. So tampering with the existing grade is minimal. 13 VITOUSEK:Okay. So what I would like to do at this time, as long hearings officers understand the exhibits and their relationship to each other and their relationship to the site, then, and because Mr. BleckÓs written testimony is already in the record, to save time what IÓd like to do is offer Mr. Bleck for cross-examination by the parties and questioning by the hearings officers. And then I would follow up and re- direct if appropriate. Thank you. GIFFIN:Maile? DAVID:Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Bleck. BLECK:Good morning. DAVID:In your testimony, I see you were asked to design a low de unit condominium. Were you asked to consider plans for a single BLECK:A single-family dwelling? DAVID:Right, as opposed to a 13-unit condominium? Mr. Blasman testified that that was his intent to live here. Were you -? BLECK:No, the program was presented to me to be approximately a unit. DAVID:Okay. Thank you. On your model, the complexes that will tucked away as you said in the existing lower portion, so the units that are surrounding the perimeter, are they going to be, are those the two-story or three-story units? BLECK:TheyÓre two-stories with a basement, technically speaking, because the lower level is tucked into finished grade. DAVID:Okay. BLECK:So all the structures are two-story and the -. DAVID:With a basement? BLECK:Well, there are three that are tucked in in the existing bowl of the existing contours of the land, those are two-story. And then these five duplexes are two- story with a basement. DAVID:So the model reflects that theyÓre all on one elevation. So those two-story with a basement will actually be sitting on that rise that we visited yesterday? 14 BLECK:ItÓs, the construction begins at existing grade, yes. This building out here towards the front is maybe two feet lower. So these are all approximately the same elevation built from existing grade. DAVID:Okay, which is what approximately, from Ali`i Drive, Ali`i Drive, the elevation was what, 30-40 feet? BLECK:Thirty-two, I think. Well, here is the contour 30, 32. DAVID:IÓm just trying to visualize that the actual height of the model will be slightly different than what IÓm looking at right now because VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry. Can I just clarify for the record, Mr. Bleck was indicating the 30-foot contour on the exhibit which has, which has been already received. I understand itÓs Exhibit F to the application, which is, the application itself was the ApplicantÓs Exhibit 1. And, so, what he just said, Ðhere is the 30-foot contour,Ñ he was referring to a portion of the, to the diagram of the proposed development. So maybe, maybe we can refer to it as a, what will we call this -? BLECK:Well, that elevation is elevation about sea level. VITOUSEK:Okay, IÓm sorry. What is that, you prepared that drawing, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:What would you call that drawing? BLECK:The site plan. VITOUSEK:Okay, so if you can refer that as the site plan and then refer to the model as the model. Just when you say here, this, it doesnÓt appear on the record. IÓm sorry, thank you. GIFFIN:YouÓre welcome. DAVID:All right. So on the model, the buildings that are located at the far, at the rear perimeter, how high are those buildings? BLECK:TheyÓre approximately 38 feet high. DAVID:Thirty-eight feet high. And theyÓre on the existing grade which is about 32 feet? BLECK:Correct. 15 DAVID:So is that about 60 feet, you would say? BLECK:Above sea level. Correct. DAVID:Now those trees, IÓm not sure whether theyÓre on the model not sure whether they depict what the height, the true height. I see them far over the height of the existing buildings. What kind of trees do you thi BLECK:Well, the landscape architect could probably better answer that question. But I think these trees, at the time we selected them, depict wili wili trees, and they can grow quite tall. If you drive down the, on Maui, the main road that goes down to the Valley, itÓs, on each side of that are very mature wili wili trees, the same. DAVID:Is that the mock wili wili or the, I guess, the Native Hawaiian version? BLECK:I canÓt answer that one. DAVID:Okay. IÓll ask the flora and fauna person, then. Sorry. Just a couple more questions. In designing that plan or prior to designing that plan, were you aware of the recommendations of the State Parks people and the State Historic Preservation people that they listed in their July 2002 letters regarding recommendations and impacts? BLECK:Well, I think that, I canÓt remember the timetable but I m done the design before that date. DAVID:So are you aware of those recommendations now? BLECK:I havenÓt read them, no. DAVID:In your opinion, if acquisition took place via land exchange or whatever other method, could this design, as you have on your model or on the site plan, could this be applied to another piece of property with about the same land area? BLECK:ItÓs, I doubt it. DAVID:Why is that? BLECK:This project is designed specifically to take advantage of the attributes of the contours of the land, the view of the ocean and so forth; and itÓs very rare that you can take a building thatÓs designed for one property and put it on another successfully. DAVID:Would you be able to accomplish that with some land-moving efforts on another piece of property? 16 BLECK:ItÓs possible. DAVID:Thank you. I have no further questions. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Thank you. Morning, Mr. Bleck. BLECK:Good morning. ROY:Did you know the extent of the quality of sacred sites surrounding the proposed project when you embarked in this project? BLECK:When we walked the project, I was impressed by what I saw. ROY:When was that walking? BLECK:Wow, it has been so long. Two years ago. ROY:And who took you? BLECK:I met with a group of architects and the client. We all walked the property. ROY:And, again, I state the question. Did you know the extent of the quality of sacred site that, around this property, when you initially began your work? BLECK:Well, not at the time we walked the property. ROY:And how can you describe the efforts youÓve taken to underst the quality of the site? BLECK:IÓve listened to testimony and as this issue has developed. ROY:From what date? BLECK:Probably from the date that the SMA was first heard from the Planning Department. ROY:So, would it be correct to say that you planned it without any consideration of the quality of sacred site youÓre near? BLECK:Yes. ROY:Will any digging in your property take place by your plan? 17 BLECK:Yes, IÓm digging. ROY:How much? BLECK:ThatÓs a tough -. ROY:And where? BLECK:WeÓre going to excavate down to allow for these two-story units down in front. ROY:And how far down? BLECK:The extreme, itÓs ten feet in the back of those buildings. If I could illustrate a little better, thereÓs, weÓre going to, thereÓs the existing bowl effect where in order to put these buildings, weÓre going to have to excavate in this area to create a level spot -. ROY:So were you with the -? VITOUSEK:Referring to the site plan. ROY:Thank you. Were you with us on the site visit yesterday or other day? BLECK:No, I was not. ROY:As the property archaeology study shows thereÓs on the mauka of a, solid pahoehoe in this area. Could you describe the efforts that would be taken to accomplish that goal? BLECK:Well, itÓs an unknown when you excavate underground. If t can put a hook in it, you know, behind the D-10, then thatÓll be preferable to using a hoe ram. But either one of those options. ROY:I imagine that if you hit blue rock, for example, would it be within your plans to use very disruptive dynamite, for example? BLECK:I donÓt think dynamite would be used. ROY:What would be? BLECK:A hoe ram. ROY:Could you describe the process of what a hoe ram does? 18 BLECK:ItÓs a, well, itÓs a hydraulic-driven track layer device that literally chisels out the rock. ROY:I will share with all present that it has been the testimony of people in our community that when development has come to the area of K area, that existing stonewalls have fallen. Walls that have been there for hundreds of years have fallen because of the extent of shaking and disruption of machines crushing the land. Therefore, that is an important question. And, so may I ask, in the back of your area, do you also plan to dig there to create basements? How would basements be made? BLECK:WeÓre going to bring in fill material to fill around the base of the building, so we will not be digging down in the rear of the property. ROY:So theyÓre really three-stories high, correct? BLECK:From existing grade; but, technically speaking, they are two-story with a basement. ROY:So would you agree that they are really three-story buildings? VITOUSEK:Now that question has been asked and answered. BLECK:Not according to the Uniform Building Code. ROY:I donÓt understand your perception of your answer, sir. Chairman Giffin? GIFFIN:Mikahala, yes, and I acknowledge your dilemma. Mr. Bleck, I would like you to clarify for the lay people here, myself included, whether or not it would be technically three stories high, which is what I think youÓre ROY:Correct. GIFFIN:Or if there will be some, for want of a better word, digging to create the basement floor. Right? ROY:Correct. GIFFIN:Mr. Bleck? BLECK:ThereÓs no digging to create the basement floor. GIFFIN:Okay. ROY:And the former part of her question, is it a three-story building? 19 BLECK:No. GIFFIN:I understand that -. ROY:ItÓs a dilemma. GIFFIN:YouÓre referring to the Uniform Building Code and, so, yo going on a technicality. But correct me if IÓm wrong and I think, Mikahala, what youÓre trying to get at is the fact that because thereÓs going to be no digging, for want of a better word, then the basement will be at the ground level and then there will be two stories above it. Correct? BLECK:Yes. GIFFIN:Okay. VITOUSEK:Excuse me, but I think he has testified that the building will be 38 feet above existing grade. GIFFIN:Right. VITOUSEK:So I donÓt think thereÓs any effort to, you know, hide the height of the building. I mean -. GIFFIN:No, no, that was not my, I didnÓt perceive it that way. VITOUSEK:But what heÓs saying, yeah, I understand. But I just wanted to make that statement. I mean, you know, it has been clear that itÓs 38 feet above existing grade, not 38 feet above the fill grade. GIFFIN:Right, right. And I was just in the process of writing my notes about what you just said regarding fill. So, Mikahala, would you please move on? ROY:Thank you. Are you aware of the cultural heritage associated with Kaluaokalani? BLECK:No. ROY:What qualifies you with reference to these matters regarding sacredness of site and mandate by the State Statutes to, what qualifies you as an expert to be speaking on the development or architecture with regard to a sacred site in HawaiÒi? BLECK:I have none. 20 ROY:Thank you. One more question. In cultural protocol and tradition there are existing parameters for sacredness. For example, are you aware that there are site, site, height prohibitions and encroachment, physical prohi sacred sites? Are you aware of those? BLECK:IÓve never read anything, no. ROY:Have you ever been informed by any Hawaiian experts? BLECK:IÓve watched television programs that talk about setbacks to sacred sites and IÓve run across it in other Planning Commission hearings where other condominium projects have been approved surrounding sacred sites and minimum setback distances to those sites from the building structure. ROY:And height restrictions, did you say? Did you acquire any of that knowledge here? BLECK:Well, we were -. What I had seen to date didnÓt seem to a this project because we were so far away from the historic site. ROY:And, again, your cultural training, spiritual training for Hawaiian culture and spirit, could you please tell us what that training has been? BLECK:IÓve had no formal training in that. ROY:Thank you. Thank you, no further questions. GIFFIN:Lester? ISHADO:At this time, Madam Chair, IÓd like to make a request of the Chair. For Mr. Bleck and I believe for the landscape artist, weÓd like to ask the Chair to allow Mr. Yuen to ask questions. I wonÓt be asking anything. I believe he has certain technical points which he needs to clarify. GIFFIN:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Thank you. Let me start with this question of the proximity of some of the archeological sites. GIFFIN:You know, Mr. Bleck, before you answer that, excuse me, Mr. Yuen and Mr. Bleck, I was just cautioned by Mr. Torigoe that I should have asked the other parties if there was any objection to Mr. Yuen questioning the testifier. ROY:No. DAVID:None. 21 VITOUSEK:No. GIFFIN:Thank you. Please continue. YUEN:One of the sites which in, some of the materials that have submitted has identified the enclosure surrounding the home of Keakealawahine as very close to the back property line. Just for the point of putting it on the record, I donÓt know if we have it on the record the distance from the property line to that, the beginning of that stonewall. And IÓm not sure, if you know that, if we could put that on the record now. BLECK:We measured it but we didnÓt have a licensed surveyor to measure it. But we, you know, measured it to be 50 feet. YUEN:Okay. Have you looked at ways to block or shield the views of the structure from people who might be visiting this site in the future as part of the State park? VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry, Chris, are you asking whether -? YUEN:With respect to the Keakealawahine -. VITOUSEK:Shielding the view of the proposed project from Keakealawahine? YUEN:Right, right. BLECK:We would rely on landscaping. YUEN:Well, have you looked at, have you looked at how to do that and integrating that into the site plan, or is it that the landscaping just has to work with the site plan as it stands? BLECK:Well, the landscape architect might be better to answer that question. YUEN:What I mean is, have you, then and, if you havenÓt worked on this, then IÓll just ask questions of the landscape architect. But have you worked with the landscape architect in, whether there is sufficient space on site to accommodate the kinds of trees or shrubs that might successfully block the view of the structures from Keakealawahine compound? BLECK:Well, the wili wiliÓs and maybe in combination with another tree and the hopes that maybe in combination the two properties could share, you know, the solution in the landscaping. 22 YUEN:So, well, have you worked with, have you verified whether itÓd be possible to have, to plant sufficient trees and shrubs on this property to accomplish shielding of the proposed structures from Keakealawahine complex? BLECK:It seems like itÓs a better question for the landscape architect. IÓve used wili wiliÓs a number of times on my own property a couple o you know, an effective screen, quite tall and thick. YUEN:Turning to the question of the height of the buildings and I guess returning to this question, I just want to establish all the heights on the record. Your, you have a triplex in the front, thatÓs one story with a basement? BLECK:ItÓs two stories because none of the perimeter walls of the triplex touch grade. YUEN:All right. What is the top, and the finish grade would be about 20 feet above sea level? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:Uh huh. And what would be the height of the building to the peak of the roof? BLECK:Well, weÓre using a metal roof on this so a very low-pitched roof. We donÓt have it on the plan; but just guessing, it looks three or four feet to the ridges. We can have a pitched roof -. YUEN:IÓm trying to establish what is eventually going to be the height of the front buildings above sea level, and then the height of the back buildings above sea level. And where IÓm going with this, IÓm not trying to do any kind of backing you into something, IÓm trying to figure out what -. I take it that your goal was to provide views for the back buildings over the front buildings? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:Okay. And what IÓm trying to figure out is how high the ba buildings have to be to do that. BLECK:Well, actually, looking back to the model, the lower levels of some of these back units, especially this one, a little bit this one -. YUEN:Could you tell us which one this one is so that itÓs clear on the record? BLECK:The most northerly duplex. 23 YUEN:All right. BLECK:The lower level views from that bedroom will be blocked by roof of this triplex; but the second story will have a view over it. YUEN:All right. Will the lower levels of the other back buildin from the most northerly ones, have views from the first floor? BLECK:TheyÓll still be interrupted by the roof. But the further you get away from that building, it eases the view problem. YUEN:Well, returning to this question where I started, though, on heights, okay, your front building starts off at 20 feet above sea level. ThatÓs the finished grade -? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:And what is the height from the finished grade to the peak of the roof? BLECK:Nineteen feet, 20 feet maybe. YUEN:So the peak of the roof is about 40 feet above sea level? BLECK:Yeah. YUEN:All right. Then your back buildings start at a grade of 32 feet above sea level? BLECK:Correct. YUEN:Then the first floor, the first occupied, then these buildings are designed with parking underneath, right? BLECK:ThereÓs a garage on the first floor with a bedroom, also a stairway. YUEN:Okay. And then, then thereÓs a second floor? BLECK:Level. YUEN:Okay, letÓs refer to, about this second level. BLECK:Okay. YUEN:All right. How high is the second level above sea level? BLECK:ItÓd be 90 feet, above that, this will be 41 feet. 24 BLECK:All right. YUEN:And then the third level is another nine feet? BLECK:Another nine. YUEN:All right. What is the predominant view direction of the, the most desirable view direction of the back units? Is there one? BLECK:Yes. ThereÓs a window of opportunity for view; and thatÓs why they swing around in this arc and all sort of point in that one window of opportunity that looks out across LymanÓs Bay. YUEN:All right. If youÓre taking a direction, it would be, of the view would be toward the driveway entrance on Ali`i Drive, more or less -? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:Where the predominantly desirable view in this -? BLECK:Yes. And in the triplex, we have, the view is off the cor again, in that direction, the same direction. YUEN:Did you do a lot of work in trying to set up the views for the units? Is that why the orientations are that way, the way they are? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:But what did you do to, you were on site. Did you climb up anything, look around? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:Did you have to be more scientific in planning this? BLECK:The owner did. I mean, I walked the site but he brought a device out and went up in the air and checked out the views. YUEN:You mean a -. BLECK:I think he used a scissor jack. YUEN:Oh, okay. BLECK:You can ride up, vertically. 25 YUEN:There are recommendations from State Parks, that the buildi limited to one story; and IÓm not sure if they mean one level or seen that recommendation? BLECK:No. YUEN:What would that do to your plan? BLECK:Negate it. YUEN:You had some questions about, already about, necessity for excavation and how that would be accomplished. Do you have any whether to expect, or how you could predict whether stonewalls of old Hawaiian construction would be disturbed by a hoe ram, other possible ground disturbance for the excavation, whether that would cause walls to collapse? BLECK:I couldnÓt answer that question. YUEN:Would you be able to have a view from the back buildings wi lower profiled building, other ocean view? BLECK:How much lower? YUEN:Ten feet lower? BLECK:I donÓt see that working, no. YUEN:Why did you say that? BLECK:Well, with the building in front it would partially obscure your ocean view. YUEN:The roof peaks, the roof of the building? BLECK:Yes. YUEN:Just one last question. The building in front, thereÓs a profile of, where the pitch of the roof comes to a peak, I mean, the whole roof. We talked earlier that the roof peak is at 41 feet or was it, no, 39 feet was it? BLECK:On the lower levels or -? YUEN:No, on the triplex building. BLECK:The 19, 20? 26 YUEN:Yes. BLECK:Above the 20 feet. Yes, so itÓd be -. YUEN:So itÓd be 39 above sea level. ThatÓs at the highest point of the roof? BLECK:Correct. YUEN:What about the saddles between the roof peaks, how high are those? BLECK:The eave is approximately 16 to 17, somewhere in there. YUEN:So it doesnÓt vary that much? BLECK:No. YUEN:Okay. ThatÓs all I have. Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Officers, any questions? Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Bleck. BLECK:Good morning. TOGASHI:I was wondering, before you came up with this site plan here, were there any other preliminary designs that you put together? BLECK:Well, we didnÓt -. TOGASHI:In other words, the drawings that you have made but not being presented today because thatÓs not, it was just preliminary draw BLECK:We only did schematic alternative drawings and then pursued the one that seemed to work well. TOGASHI:Schematic meaning, not in its final form but just maybe things down? BLECK:Just penciled sketches. TOGASHI:Penciled -. Can you identify on the site plan there the building that is nearest to the walled enclosure? Would that be the second from the left? 27 BLECK:On the site plan, this building. TOGASHI:That would be that in there? BLECK:Right. TOGASHI:I noticed that the design here of the five buildings are basically symmetrical and a, is that, would be called an elliptical shape, or a bowl shape, or a concave shape. Was any thought given maybe to do it in a, kind of like in a zigzag fashion like a ÐwÑ like going up, down, up, down and still keeping the orientation to Holualoa Bay? Because you would still have that by, for example, if the second building was pushed on more makai and just kind of followed a zigzag type of shape, like this. For the record, that would be like a ÐwÑ or a teeth-type of design and they would still be able to, still have that orientation toward the ocean. BLECK:ThereÓs really no room to move. The buildings would becom attached if we did that. And we like the openness between these separate structures for light and ventilation. TOGASHI:Or how about, maybe, a symmetrical design meaning that instead of having five buildings, perhaps four buildings with the one closest to the walled enclosure maybe eliminated from the design? BLECK:If we did move the buildings forward, they would join; and thatÓs a possibility. TOGASHI:And how about the possibility of even eliminating the building that is nearest to the walled enclosure? BLECK:Eliminating it? TOGASHI:Yes. BLECK:Well, thatÓs -. TOGASHI:ThatÓs something that you have to discuss with your -? BLECK:The owner, right. ThatÓs his program. TOGASHI:I have no further questions. GIFFIN:Thank you, Mr. Togashi. Hannah? SPRINGER:I just have a couple of questions. Did you study the objectives, policies and guidelines of 205-A, HawaiÒi Revised Statutes, especially with regard to 28 placement and height of the mauka-most buildings as they relate to the Pakiha in particular and to Kekuaokalani, in general? BLECK:No, I did not. SPRINGER:Thank you. And then your share of work on the project this, who do you rely on for guidance regarding statutes, such as 205-A and compliance with them? BLECK:IÓve never read 205-A. SPRINGER:So who in the project team do you rely on for guidance, if anyone? BLECK:I guess I rely on myself. SPRINGER:Thank you. GIFFIN:Officers, any more questions of Mr. Bleck? Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yeah, if I could just ask a couple of questions. Mr. Bleck, whatÓs your understanding of the permitted density in this, in the zoning district for the subject property? BLECK:I recall 36 units. VITOUSEK:Okay. And whatÓs the permitted height in this zoning district? BLECK:Forty-five feet. VITOUSEK:Okay. Were you ever asked to design a structure for 36 units? BLECK:No. VITOUSEK:Were you ever asked to design a structure for any numbe other than the 13 units? BLECK:No. I was surprised that the owner approached me with that request. VITOUSEK:Okay. Now you said in answer to one of your questions about the buildings joining, and so thatÓs something IÓd like to be a little bit more specific on. The design that you offered on the site plan is made up of separate structures, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Correct. 29 VITOUSEK:And how did, does that or how does that relate to the design concept for the project and mitigating potential adverse impacts BLECK:Well, I felt that it was better in keeping with the locale or the community that we had smaller separated structures that looked as though they were individual single-family homes like many of the other structures around Ali`i Drive that also let light and air between the structures, landscape to grow up between the structures. I think the individual owners would have a better sense of owning their own home and caring for it. And all this was versus the alternative which would have been a massive building perhaps of much higher height, exposed parking, not in keeping, I think, with the character of the neighborhood. VITOUSEK:And you said you made consideration for the character of the neighborhood. What, if anything, did you do it in the design of these units themselves to have them consistent with the character of similar dwellings along Ali`i Drive? BLECK:Well, if you look at the details of some of the other buildings along Ali`i Drive, theyÓre not ostentatious and their appearance we borrowed or intend to borrow details from some of the older buildings, the trend, the word Ðcorrugated metal roofing.Ñ And the random, in this, in the site planning I think, too, also, reflects the site planning that you see when you drive down Ali`i Drive, itÓs not a rigid track arrangement. VITOUSEK:Okay. And looking at the multiple-unit design from the perspective of visual impact, is there a difference, in your opinion, between the visual impact of a multiple-unit project versus a single structure 13-unit condominium project? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:And what are those differences? BLECK:Well, one big mass. ItÓs hard to give, you know, scale that can relate back to community with one big structure as opposed to several smaller ones. VITOUSEK:Okay. And then, specifically, if you were standing mauka of the mauka boundary of the property and looking back towards the project you have designed, how would the multiple-unitÓs design impact or mitigate an impact of the view of the project from that location? Do you understand my question? BLECK:I believe so. It just gives breathing space between the structures, again, for landscape. I believe the grade goes up on the mauka side of the property which, you know, so the, youÓd be looking down a little bit more. It takes away some of the height of our buildings. 30 VITOUSEK:Okay. And the structures that you designed for the mau of the property, are any of the wall lines of the units youÓve designed parallel to the property line? BLECK:No. VITOUSEK:Okay. And what is the effect of that? In other words, essentially, these are designed so that a corner of the individual building is most approximate to the mauka property line, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Right. ThereÓs, you know, physical mass relief. If I can the site plan. You know, the structures go in and out as opposed to paralleling the property line and the mass impacting the neighboring property in a more major way than as is shown. VITOUSEK:Okay, so what is the closest that any of those buildings comes to the property line, based on your site plan? BLECK:This building is the closest, and that is the upper level With the 20-foot setback, I estimate that to be almost 30 feet, 28 feet. VITOUSEK:Okay. And that is a corner of the building, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Right. And then it gets further away. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, was the part of your design concept, in terms of where those structures are located well to the property line, to reduce the perception of a single mass building, in other words to create a perception more of a number of smaller units rather than a single mass building? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Now, there has been some discussion about increasing the distance from the structures to the property line on the mauka side. That was one of the questions you were asked in cross-examination, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, presumably that means you would have to the structures, structure or more structures, further makai, is that correct? BLECK:Right. VITOUSEK:And what, in your opinion, would be the impact of doing 31 BLECK:Well, to move this one, this structure further north, it w into this lower building here, and that really canÓt be done. WeÓd have to redesign and to move these other buildings further forward, then they would join and become one massive structure. VITOUSEK:So by moving them where they would have to be, by moving them all closer to the middle of the property, it would be, that would be a design more consistent with a single large building rather than this more of a separate individual structure concept, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Exactly. VITOUSEK:Okay. Now, Mr. Bleck, there are other building structures in the vicinity of this project, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:And did those structures pose design limitations or challenges on this project? BLECK:Yes, the existing homes across the street, across Ali`i Dr VITOUSEK:And is that something you took into consideration in how you designed and sited this project? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, specifically, the homes across Ali`i Drive, can you indicate where on the site plan and on the model those homes are located relative to the proposed project? BLECK:Yes, on the site plan, theyÓre directly across Ali`i Drive. I believe thereÓs four homes; and all of that property is resort-zoned as well, and they can be built to 45 feet in height. So we couldnÓt count on directing our views in that direction; and thatÓs why we just have one window of opportunity for a view. VITOUSEK:Okay. And isnÓt it a fact, Mr. Bleck, that thereÓs also a building on the, a single-family home, a large single-family home on the nor BLECK:Yes, thatÓd be Casa Grande. VITOUSEK:Casa Grande. Okay, and then on the south side of the property, isnÓt it correct thereÓs another single-family home located in that area? BLECK:Yes, on the model itÓs right here. 32 VITOUSEK:HeÓs indicating on the corner of the model outside the property line, thereÓs another white box that presents existing single-family homes. Is that correct? BLECK:Correct, yeah. VITOUSEK:And, so, in terms of assessing the viewplanes from the proposed project, isnÓt it a fact that it was the single-family homes located across Ali`i Drive from the project that blocked a direct makai view from this site? BLECK:ThatÓs correct. VITOUSEK:In other words, itÓs not a terrain issue. ItÓs a fact that there are existing single-family residences which prevents you from looking directly makai of the property and getting an ocean view, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:ThatÓs correct. VITOUSEK:And, so, even if the structures were at this height, isnÓt it a fact that those existing structures on the makai side of Ali`i Drive will impact on this projectÓs ability to get an ocean view? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:So doesnÓt that necessarily mean that, even if this structure werenÓt built, you would not be able to get a view of the ocean from mauka of the subject property because that view also would be blocked by the structur BLECK:I believe so, yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, then you talked about the window of opportunity presented for a view of the ocean, is that correct? BLECK:Yeah. VITOUSEK:That means that thatÓs the only portion of the property where you can actually see the ocean without that view being blocked by other existing structures, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:ThatÓs correct. VITOUSEK:Now, the project is designed with a perimeter access road, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Yes. 33 VITOUSEK:And what were the design considerations that went into locating the access road around the perimeter of the property? BLECK:ThatÓs the fire truck access road and it has a, so that the truck can enter and reach all the buildings easily; and then this is the backup hammerhead for the fire truck. VITOUSEK:And one additional effect of that is to create some usa additional setback area around the property perimeter, isnÓt that correct? BLECK:Oh, yes. I mean it also services the garage parking for the structures and sets it away from the property line. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, and you say garage parking. Did you co state in response to cross-examination that all parking for this project will be interior parking? Is that correct? BLECK:Not all of it. VITOUSEK:But it will be sufficient into your parking for the -? BLECK:The substantial required parking, yes, interior parking. VITOUSEK:Have you taken or in the way youÓve taken in the design of the project, is the intent to reduce the reflectivity of windows and issues like that? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:And how about colors? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. Then in terms of the colors what will be the int recommending particular colors? BLECK:WeÓve used, we select colors from the Benjamin Moore manufacturer historic color chart. WeÓve used it several times on other buildings that IÓve used. TheyÓre sort of a flat tone, non-glossy, they have a weathered look even though itÓs new paint. Coconut grove, weÓve used a sample, some VITOUSEK:In terms of your concept, when you began designing this what was your intent with respect to the amount of earth work or site work that had to be done to develop the project youÓre designing? BLECK:Based on experience, it was intended to be more minimal than what weÓve encountered on other properties. 34 VITOUSEK:And did you, was it your intent to minimize the amount work necessary -? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:To accomplish the project? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:And have you, in terms of the landscape design, have yo with Fielding Schultz with respect to this project? BLECK:Yes. VITOUSEK:And did you, and how did Fielding Schultz come to be associated with the project? BLECK:HeÓs our landscape contractor and -. VITOUSEK:Did you retain him or did you contact him? BLECK:I recommended him to the owner. VITOUSEK:Okay. And what is the reasoning you recommended Fieldi Schultz as opposed to somebody else? BLECK:HeÓs just very knowledgeable of local landscape designs. VITOUSEK:Okay. Let me just take a quick look here. Thank you. GIFFIN:YouÓre welcome, Mr. Vitousek. Mr. Bleck, IÓm sorry I didnÓt ask while we were at the officersÓ level to question you, but I do have a few questions that IÓd like to ask. And, so, with your indulgence, IÓd like to take this opportunity before we dismiss this witness. Mr. Bleck, weÓve been talking about a 13-unit project. I trust that was with the guidance of the owner, Mr. Blasman. BLECK:That was his request, yes. GIFFIN:Requirement. Did he ever express to you why 13 and why not 11, 9? BLECK:Well, weÓve come down quite a ways from 36 to 13. GIFFIN:Oh, I understand that. But I just wondered if he had eve expressed to you the reason, 13? 35 BLECK:No, IÓm not sure. You know, it was what seemed to fit, I GIFFIN:Yeah, and I, you know, I understand that that was probably the request that Mr. Blasman gave you before you even set out to design this very nice project. I also wondered whether or not, in the scheme of things, as Mr. Togashi asked you, if this is the only scheme of the placement of the buildings that you came up with, or are there some other choices for the placement of the structures without compromising that to a single building, which I understand, you know. BLECK:We did look at alternatives in the schematic phase of the design but nothing seemed to work. You know, getting the fire truck on and off the property is a very big issue. GIFFIN:Right. In any of those possible schemes, were the distance from the boundary, especially the one closest to the project that abuts this property, greater? Is there any way that setback could be greater? BLECK:Well -. GIFFIN:And still maintaining the characteristics, as you said earlier? You know, I understand light, I understand ventilation. But I just wondered if in your consideration there might have been, you know, a plan that could enable that one building to be pushed further makai without having the buildings abut and then, you know, making it one building? BLECK:Well, theyÓre very close now. Just looking at it now, it looks like it could move a few feet but not a significant amount. GIFFIN:Okay. And if I understood the site plan and also by looking at the model, if I am a resident of one of those back models, you know, structures, is at any time my perspective mauka? BLECK:Well, the views are directed towards the ocean. There is a bedroom on the back side, and then there is a balcony there and windows for ventilation, for three ventilation. But a lot of that adds, you know, an articulated form to that side of the building, you know, so -. GIFFIN:What level is that on? BLECK:ThatÓs on the top level. Actually, you know, thereÓs a kitchen and then thereÓs a bedroom above. And, you know, if we could, you k have a building that had an articulated form, not just a box and so -. GIFFIN:Oh, absolutely. 36 BLECK:Yeah, so, part of the reason for even putting a little balcony there was just for looks, really, and to give some articulated form and shade for those windows that were in the back. GIFFIN:And, then, I know that thereÓs a designation in for pool, right in the center? BLECK:Yes. GIFFIN:Is there going to be any type of paipai, or any kind of gazebo, or a community center by the pool, or will people simply go from their residences back-and- forth to the pool, or will there be a gathering place? I guess thatÓs what I want to know. BLECK:WeÓve talked about having a shade gazebo sort of thing, ma and a barbecue, a small structure; but, you know, itÓs not shown here. We havenÓt gone further with that. GIFFIN:I have to confess that, you know, really concerns me in t noise. And, so, the placement of the pool, is that firm? BLECK:No. GIFFIN:Okay. ThatÓs all I have. Thank you very much for your p BLECK:Sure. ROY:Ms. Giffin? GIFFIN:Yes, Mikahala? ROY:Ms. Giffin, in light of the fact that the testimony has brou forward new information, would we be allowed to ask a couple of more questions? GIFFIN:Yes. ROY:Thank you. Mr. Bleck, regarding the balconies on the back portions, what then would we look out on at the level of the highest balcony? BLECK:Well, mostly at whatever our landscape is. ROY:And I was pleased to see in your testimony the low density, low, your comments on the developerÓs desire for a low density, low i buildings that would afford a quality lifestyle for its occupants and blend in to the local environment of Ali`i Drive. When I read that, I speak of, when I hear local, I think immediately of what complex youÓre in the middle of. And, so, my question is, if the 37 desire is to be low density, low impact, why do you have trees built and surrounding your property, project buildings if it was designed to be so low impact? BLECK:Well, weÓre going to propose quite a lot of changes, not just at the perimeter but in and throughout the site. ROY:Thank you. And with such concerns that were brought forward views, viewplanes, and actually not enough or not anything said on breezes, may I say that in defense of Keakealani, what view does Keakealani then have of the sea and the breezes that will come from the sea with this development here? BLECK:Well, the breeze, you know, I think, because the buildings are separate, thereÓll be, some more breeze would be allowed to get through the structure. ROY:And views? BLECK:ThereÓll be some view blockage, of course, with the landscaping and the buildings. ROY:Would you answer, say, how deep you would plan to build your pool? BLECK:How deep? ROY:Yes. BLECK:They usually, we donÓt make them too deep, you know, four five feet. ROY:Four or five feet? BLECK:Yeah. ROY:Where are those structures on the model, the one closest to BLECK:This one? ROY:Yes. BLECK:On the model, this is an existing residence. ROY:I see. And on the other one, on the table, are those -? BLECK:These were to represent the buildings across Ali`i Drive. 38 ROY:And is that on a hill, would you comment the existing reside the model, is that on the hill? BLECK:ItÓs on approximately the same level as our upper level. ROY:Looking at the model, it doesnÓt look like itÓs on a hill an incline when, in fact, that property is on a hill and is known as pu`u. BLECK:Well, itÓs on top. ThereÓs a, theyÓve had to tunnel up from Ali`i Drive, a very steep driveway to get up to the, to use this residence. ROY:Thank you. Yes, it doesnÓt, just for the record, your model does not look like that. BLECK:The model doesnÓt have that tunnel up through there. ROY:It doesnÓt have the height indication, either, to my eye. BLECK:Well, thatÓs your, understand that it -. ROY:Just physically, the model, just may I say, I donÓt see the incline that is appropriate to what the land is. It is a true incline and that is not reflected by the model. No, not such a big point but it really is a big point. Thank you. No further questions. GIFFIN:Thank you. Once again, officers? Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask about the choic wili wili trees. IÓm really not sure what kind of tree it is. But is it going to basically create this massive vegetative wall or is there going to be four buildings within the trees itself or between trees? BLECK:I like wili wili trees but IÓ not the landscape architect. IÓve used them successfully. TOGASHI:Is it going to create a, basically, a vegetative, a massive wall without -? BLECK:It can, but IÓm not sure what the ultimate solution -. TOGASHI:I wanted to ask about the architectural design principles. Mr. Vitousek mentioned that the choice of having, the choice of multi-structures was to create this feeling of openness and airy-ness. BLECK:In scale. 39 TOGASHI:In what? BLECK:Scale. TOGASHI:In scale. Is there some kind of a disconnect between the choice of having multi-structures and this vegetative wall? Is there some kind of a, IÓm not sure what the word is, but it seems to contradict each other. BLECK:Well, I think -. TOGASHI:The choice of landscaping and a wall which would not, to me, create this, lend this feeling of airy-ness. In fact, it contradicts the feeling of airy-ness. BLECK:Well, this is our model and, you know, itÓs presented this a simplistic solution for the level that weÓre at. But, in fact, if you look on the site plan, there are other areas where different kinds of spreading trees w solution. So it wonÓt be just a wall of trees like this. ThereÓll be areas where we can have large, broad-spreading trees that will give more of a random look to the landcape solution, which then dovetails with the randomness of the structures. TOGASHI:So by having a variety of trees, does it also not lend itself to looking into having views of the complex, will it not also create additional views of the complex? BLECK:Well, thereÓll probably be big trees with shrubs under it, and then wili wili, and then, again, another kind of tree further down th TOGASHI:So -. BLECK:Sorry. I mean, I think they will be able to see the complex through the trees. TOGASHI:Okay. Thank you. GIFFIN:Any other questions? Lester, you had your hand up. ISHADO:I just want to make sure that the site plan and the model, is that in evidence? GIFFIN:Site plan is. I think it was already -. VITOUSEK:You know, I had assumed that since the model is a requi the application, which it is, by rule, given that -. But if isnÓt, IÓd like to move it into evidence, just to make sure that itÓs -. GIFFIN:It is accepted. I assumed it was because of the ruling. 40 VITOUSEK:And I think the site plan, I think, as I stated, is a portion of Exhibit F to the application. The application is ApplicantÓs Exhibit 1. GIFFIN:Yeah, Mr. Vitousek, just one minute. Mr. Torigoe has reminded me that I need to ask for any objections to accepting the model into evidence. Mikahala? ROY:I have objections to the degree that for what I spoke on earlier. ThereÓs no topographical baseline here of evidence that goes along with the model, and I had to ask the question just from looking at it. It doesnÓt look like a hill to me. Is it accurate as far as scale and so forth? VITOUSEK:Yes, thatÓs the, that was the requirement of the statute, I mean, of the rule; and it is accurate as to scale. IÓd also point out that the rule does not require us to do an accurate topographical representation of areas off the property. It is accurate but IÓm saying that what sheÓs concerned about is a portion of the model which is off the subject property. GIFFIN:Any other comments, then? Maile? DAVID:Yes, just one comment as far as the topographical. From what IÓve seen yesterday, the landscape is, there is a definite rise that I do not see on this model; and thatÓs the only thing I wanted to point out in the record. GIFFIN:Anything else? Mr. Torigoe has asked me to ask who created the model, Mr. Vitousek, and is he willing or are they willing to testify to its authenticity, accuracy? VITOUSEK:Well, it was created by a company in Orange County that creates models. I think we could, you know, I think we could, he can ma Mr. Blasman can say what he requested from the company, what he provided them. Mr. Bleck can say how the model reflects his site plan based on the elevation. I donÓt know of any, you know, this is, like I say, this is a required part of the application. The application has been accepted and I think itÓs already part of it. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Do we have anything in the record that authenticates the accuracy of this model with respect to the topography? GIFFIN:If not? TORIGOE:Then I think we can accept it just as a part of the application that was submitted under the requirements. GIFFIN:The rule. 41 TORIGOE:But you might, you know, the record may have to reflect donÓt have, we have no testimony as to the authenticity of the representation of the topography. VITOUSEK:No, we donÓt have, I mean, I donÓt have testimony of th maker from Orange County to say that it is, you know, built in any particular scale. That is the representation weÓre making. I donÓt think that it has been, I donÓt think there has been testimony that is dependent upon the model being entirely accurate as to scale. I think that, you know, the only reason there is a model -. You have to understand these are extremely expensive to have made and I think that the rule has been amended to say that itÓs not necessarily that you can do in other ways because of this. And, so, the model is offered, you know, because it was a required element of the application; and we would like to say that it at least generally represents the finished topography of the project itself. GIFFIN:Lester? ISHADO:LetÓs see, the County doesnÓt object to -. We think we should get along to other matters. If Mr. Vitousek and the panel, you know, concurs, and the parties have no problem with that, maybe they could just submit an affid effect that itÓs a scaled model. But we donÓt have any problems. We just think this hearing should go on to other matters. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Klana Huli Honua does not accept the model, it doesnÓt faithfully depict the actual topography. GIFFIN:Any other comments before I rule? IÓm going to rule that going to accept this, not as an accurate depiction of what weÓre speaking of but just as a part of the application as required. And all the objections and the reasons why are on the record. Any other questions of this testifier, this witness? So, before we call on your next witness, who I think is Ron Terry, IÓm going to call for a recess, but note that weÓre on a really tight schedule. Can I say five minutes? VITOUSEK:Fine. GIFFIN:Okay. Five-minute recess. ISHADO:Madam Chair, just as a reminder that the telephone conference with the Mayor is at eleven. GIFFIN:What time do you have, Lester? Do you have six of? ISHADO:ItÓs six minutes of the -. 42 GIFFIN:Okay, then when we resume, weÓll go ahead and do the phon testimony by the Mayor, and then after that -. VITOUSEK:Whose witness is the Mayor? GIFFIN:Maile DavidÓs. VITOUSEK:Maile DavidÓs, okay. RECESSEDThe Chair called a recess at 10:54 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:04 a.m. GIFFIN:IÓd like to call the meeting of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission back to order. We are in Contested Case. The Applicant is Wayne Blasman, the SMA No. is 02-03. If my memory serves me correctly, Maile, all of us agreed to take the Mayor out of sequence. And, so, IÓd just like to have that on the record, and that the Mayor is testifying via phone conference. All right, Maile? DAVID:Yes. ISHADO:May I note something for the record, Maile? DAVID:Yesa. ISHADO:Just to let you know that the Deputy Corporation Counsel, Kathy Garson, is with the Mayor since I couldnÓt be in two places at once. GIFFIN:Fine. Thank you. Maile? DAVID:Aloha, Mayor Kim? HAYASHI:Okay, Virgie? MILLER:Yes? HAYASHI:Could you ask the Mayor, weÓre going to put him on now. MILLER:Okay. HAYASHI:And Maile David will be asking the questions. MILLER:Okay, IÓll transfer you to the Mayor. HAYASHI:Okay. 43 GIFFIN:Maile, one minute. I need to swear him in. Do I need to there, too, Norman? HAYASHI:You probably can just stay -. GIFFIN:Sit, right. Mayor? KIM:Hello? GIFFIN:Hello, Mayor? KIM:Hello. GIFFIN:Mayor Kim, this is Geri Giffin; and I need to swear you in. KIM:Okay. GIFFIN:Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? KIM:I do. GIFFIN:Will you please state your name, your office and your res address, for the record? KIM:Harry Kim, Office of the Mayor, my resident address is 471 Hookena Place, Hilo, Hawai`i. GIFFIN:Thank you. Maile David is right there ready to ask you questions. KIM:Okay. DAVID:Hello, Mayor Kim, this is Maile David; and IÓd like to express my sincere aloha for allowing time out of your busy schedule to testify in this contested case hearing. I have just a few questions for you. Are you familiar with the area on Ali`i Drive where the Keakealawahine complex is located? KIM:IÓm not personally familiar with it but I know it by, I drove by it and, you know, I sort of am familiar my maps and those things. DAVID:I see. So your understanding in speaking with the Hawaiia community and community members, do you agree that Keakealawahine is a significant cultural resource to the Native Hawaiians? KIM:I do. 44 DAVID:I see. Do you also agree that it should be preserved and protected from further impacts? KIM:I do. DAVID:In my opening statement I spoke of historical injustices that have caused Native Hawaiians to suffer great losses. Do you think efforts should be undertaken to prevent further injustices? ISHADO:Madam Chair, I told Maile that, you know, probably we wou need to interject from time to time. Is the question dealing wi general, or is it dealing with this property here? DAVID:IÓm sorry, could you explain a little more? ISHADO:IÓm sorry. Was the question directed to the subject property here thatÓs before the SMA? DAVID:This is a general question -. ISHADO:Okay. DAVID:Only because part of the issues weÓre discussing is part o overall issues that relate to the Native Hawaiians; and this is just a general question what his personal understanding is. ISHADO:Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. And if I could, just for the record, note an objection on the grounds of relevance and, therefore, the fact that the Mayor is not in expert in this matter. GIFFIN:And for the record, that is Lester Ishado -. ISHADO:Yes, thank you. GIFFIN:Corporation Counsel. ISHADO:Well, if you think, well, first weÓll ask for a ruling from the Chair. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:You get to rule whether he answers or not. GIFFIN:I know. TORIGOE:Yeah. So consider the objection. 45 GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado, you are objecting to the line of questioning on relevancy? ISHADO:Well, for any parcel other than the subject one, yeah. GIFFIN:Excuse me? Say it one more time. ISHADO:Any parcel other than the one thatÓs before this panel. DAVID:I object. GIFFIN:You object to Mr. Ishado or do you object to the question? NOMURA:Excuse me, I need to get you a microphone. GIFFIN:Yeah. Mikahala? ROY:I object to the question and I want to make sure I understand Mr. Ishado. Are you saying that her questions are not permissible to the Mayor? ISHADO:No, no. The objection is weÓre here, the SMA is before this panel, and weÓve taken this position before, I believe, that on the grounds of relevancy, we believe certain items are not relevant to the decision at hand. And I wish to state that for the record. GIFFIN:I appreciate your question and I am going to rule, Mikahala, that I think that the question that Maile David has asked of the Mayor think that the Mayor can express his opinions regarding the answer, or his answer to her questions. So please proceed. Maile? DAVID:IÓm sorry, Mayor, would you like me to repeat that question again? KIM:Yeah, and just for your information, IÓm not able to hear clearly the discussion in the back. So when you come back I need you to because I donÓt know what your conversation is in the background DAVID:Okay. Did you hear the objection that Mr. Ishado had made to my question? KIM:I heard the objection but I didnÓt hear the context of it. DAVID:Would you like to hear that -? KIM:If itÓs relevant. I need to know what I am to answer now? 46 DAVID:Okay. I was just allowed to ask you that same question th going to ask you again. In my opening statement I spoke of historical injustices that caused Native Hawaiians to suffer great losses. Do you think efforts should be undertaken to prevent further injustices? KIM:I do. DAVID:Have you experienced personal injustices with respect to your own experience or your own culture? ISHADO:Maile, IÓm sorry. Same objection, relevance. DAVID:So, Mayor Kim, that was objected to, again, by Mr. Ishado and I guess itÓs -. GIFFIN:No. Maile, hang on for just a minute, please, excuse me. IÓm going to do is rule on the objection. And I am going to rule that the objection is not accepted and that your question should go on but not, you know, forever, that youÓre just, if I understand you correctly, trying to lay the groundwork for some further specific questions. Okay, if we can go ahead and lay the groundwork in a timely manner and proceed to the real crux of the reasons you want to have the Mayor testifying. VITOUSEK:Excuse me, Madam Chair, I just wanted to follow up -. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek. VITOUSEK:Relative to the objection. I think her question was if you experienced similar objections with respect to your own culture. GIFFIN:I think what she -. VITOUSEK:And I think that question is without foundation as to what culture she is referring to. I think she has to establish what the MayorÓs culture is before she can ask whether he has experienced injustices with respect to it. And I think that shows us weÓre getting pretty far afield. GIFFIN:Yeah. I have to agree with you, Mr. Vitousek, because that occurred to me. And I thought Korean culture being the Mayor. But, were you, in fact, Maile, trying to establish the MayorÓs personal cultural injustices or were you speaking of the Mayor being a resident of the State of Hawai`i? DAVID:All IÓm asking the Mayor is whether he can relate to the injustices of the Hawaiian people. GIFFIN:Oh, can relate? 47 DAVID:Yes. GIFFIN:Not whether or not he can -? DAVID:Yes, through experiences of his own. GIFFIN:I see, I see. In that regard, then, please go ahead and I will deny the objections. DAVID:Thank you. IÓm sorry, Mayor Kim, did you hear my question KIM:Could you repeat that, too much chatting in the back for me clearly understand what was said. IÓm sorry. DAVID:Okay, no, IÓm sorry. In your personal experiences with respect to your own culture, do you, can you relate to the Native Hawaiian injustices that I speak of? KIM:In regards, I heard part of the conversation, my own culture or are you talking about be it heritage Korean or heritage Korean-American born in Hawai`i? DAVID:Well, both. KIM:Both. In answer in regards, I guess it would be the same. That answer is yes. DAVID:All right. And this is my last question is -. In this case, cultural experts of State Historic Preservation Division of State Parks and the concerned citizens of the Kona community feel that the best way to preserve the cultural integrity and significance of this historic area would be through acquisition or condemnation of the property. Do you agree? ISHADO:Madam Chair, we did make an objection when Mr. Vitousek asked the same question. And, you know, just for the record you ruled that the question is permissible; but we would like the record to show that our position is that the SMA permit should not involve discussions about proposed sales and so forth. GIFFIN:The record will note that you have objected. Please go ahead. DAVID:IÓm sorry, Mayor. Do you agree with what IÓve just stated? KIM:IÓd like to answer it this way. As Mayor of this County, in discussion with people that IÓve discussed this, especially for The Public Lands, Public Trust, I stated what I felt is clearly my position on this. And itÓs that I recognize and understood that the cultural and historical significance of this particular parcel of land is very important for a specialist. And IÓm committed to work with the community to try to 48 see how we can acquire this parcel so it can preserved and consolidated with the State lands adjacent to it. In regards to your questions of acquisition or condemnation, itÓs just a semantical thing here. But in the explaining to people our position, I said that we would -. Through any option open in regards to the acquisition of this land, I felt that, I feel that condemnation is one of the, you know, alternatives as far as the pursuit of the acquisition of this land, if not more, our position, or condemnation. And along with that, you know, I went over various things that possibly may be pursued, realizing all of this discussion is prior to what weÓre doing here as far as litigation. We talked about land swap, we talked about condemnation, we talked about purchase by State, talked about purchase by County and we talked about corporation as far as purchase by any other entity, State, County, Kamehameha Investment Company, OHA, Kamehameha Schools, Trust for Public Lands, Federal Mitigation Fund. And, surely, I just went over a whole array of means that I felt that we should pursue for the possible acquisition of this land. And, again, this is, you know, administratively, I have stated. DAVID:Well, I thank you very much, Mayor Kim, for your participa today and all your efforts in this matter. I have no further questions for you, and mahalo. KIM:Thank you. GIFFIN:Just a minute, weÓre not through, though. The next perso ahead and question the Mayor is the ApplicantÓs representative, Mr. Vitousek. KIM:Okay. VITOUSEK:Mayor Kim, Randy Vitousek. I represent the Applicant, Wayne Blasman. How are you? KIM:IÓm fine, thank you. I think I need to interject here that I have Corporation Counsel, Ms. Garson, here by my side. IÓm not sure if itÓs relevant or irrelvant. I feel I need to say that. VITOUSEK:Yeah, weÓre aware of that, Mayor, thank you. KIM:Thank you. VITOUSEK:When did the County become interested in acquiring this property? KIM:Again, itÓs not acquire. ItÓs just to, I donÓt want to say inform, but various people, including community, including the Public Trust, Trust for Public Lands, briefing all the specialists of this land. If you want the specific time element, I need to go back to my calendar and see when the first appointment was made and discussion was made. It was several months ago. 49 VITOUSEK:Okay. But are you aware of any effort that the County has made at any time before or couple months ago -? KIM:I didnÓt say couple months, I said several months ago. VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry, several months ago. Are you aware of any ef County of Hawai`i made before this application for an SMA permit was filed to acquire this property? KIM:No, IÓm not. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, Mayor Kim, are you aware that when an application is filed that the application is circulated to various agencies of the County of Hawai`i by the Planning Department and that those agencies make comments on the application? KIM:Generally, yes. VITOUSEK:And are you aware that as a result of that the County Planning Department comes out with a Background Report which it submits t Planning Commission? KIM:Generally, again, yes. VITOUSEK:And are you aware that in the comments from the various agencies and in the CountyÓs Background Report, there is no reference to the CountyÓs interest in acquiring this property? KIM:Oh, I wouldnÓt doubt that. Because in the first discussion of this, I openly admitted my personal ignorance on the specialists and background of this land. VITOUSEK:Okay. You say youÓve met with various members of the community, does that include the members of the community who are Intervenors in this particular application? KIM:The Intervenors would be -? Let me tell you who I met with. I think itÓs easier than asking you who are the Intervenors. VITOUSEK:Sure, fair enough. KIM:Cindy Punahaole asked me about it with some other people tha was with her. VITOUSEK:Okay. KIM:And primarily that was the one group and, also, The Trust Fo Public Lands. 50 VITOUSEK:And, so, did you actually meet with someone with The Trust For Public Lands to discuss acquiring this property? KIM:Yes. ItÓs more than once. VITOUSEK:And was The Trust For Public Lands working with conjunc with the County in terms of its, The Trust For Public Lands negotiations with Wayne Blasman relative to purchase of the property? ISHADO:Objection, Madam Chair. I donÓt know what he means by th term, Ðin conjunction with the County,Ñ and I object to this line of questioning. But, you know, if you could clarify that then maybe IÓll withdraw my objection. GIFFIN:Randy, do you care to clarify? VITOUSEK:Well, IÓm entitled to cross-examine the witness. He testified under direct examination that he spoke with The Trust For -. GIFFIN:Yes, I know he did. Mr. Ishado is just asking for clarification of your term. VITOUSEK:IÓm trying to get, I donÓt think the term needs to be clarified. I think that the question stands as it is. IÓm trying to explore what the MayorÓs understanding of that relationship was. GIFFIN:I understand. Randy, would you say that Ðin conjunctionÑ means ÐwithÑ in this instance? VITOUSEK:Yes. GIFFIN:Lester? ISHADO:IÓm sorry, could you repeat the question using the paraphrase to, suggested by the Madam Chair? VITOUSEK:I tell you what, IÓll withdraw the question. GIFFIN:Fine. VITOUSEK:Mayor Kim, can you describe, to the extent you can recall, the specifics of your conversation with the representative of The Trust For Public Lands? KIM:Okay. The first person I met with was Josh who gave me the background. After I found out about this land, I needed to get additional information of who was doing what, to and about this land, and it was informed to me that The Trust For 51 Public Lands were involved in it. I asked for a meeting with them to only discuss this with me and give me background on it. It was at that time they called me that, what they were going to do in regards to try to negotiate, if thatÓs the proper term Ðnegotiate,Ñ with the property owners in regards to try to see if they could come up with some kind of agreement in regards to this special, this land. And it was at that meeting and the meeting after that, you know, they kept, informed me as to was going on. time and just recently when they informed me that it was, they did not meet with success, that I had not pursued it because, you know, my hope was that they could resolve it; and thatÓs about the entire relationship with them on this. VITOUSEK:Did you discuss with The Trust For Public Lands where t would, what, where they would get the funds to purchase the property? KIM:They were basically answering to my question because a lot of lack of information on my part, and The Trust for Public Lands o had some misinformation, personal misinformation that, how they worked it, so they explained to me how the process would work, yes. VITOUSEK:And did you have any discussions about whether the County would, was interested in purchasing the property from The Trust For Public Lands? KIM:At that time, you know, that was, I think, asked. IÓm trying to recall, in regards to what happened. And they said that itÓs their responsibility to see who and where to get the monies for a purchase of it from them. And I think discussions may have been held. IÓm pretty sure it was held that, you know, would the County be able to be an interested buyer. And I think it was at that time that I stated in regards to the land purchase of any kind unlike the, naturally, itÓs the action of the County Council and the Mayor does not have that unilateral authority; but I would support the intent if that was necessary. VITOUSEK:So in your discussion with The Trust For Public Lands, it reached the point where you had expressed an interest as mayor in potentially acquiring this property from The Trust For Public Lands if they acquired it from Mr. Blasman, is that correct? KIM:ItÓs correct in the sense of the way I answered it in regards to if they elaborated what they would try to do. IÓm pretty sure they elaborated it and found that their first option would be with the State government. VITOUSEK:And then did you discuss with them any, any consultant reports relative to an assessment of the value of the property that they were using in negotiations with the owner? ISHADO:Further objection. Madam Chair, the objection basically is heÓs referring to a document which he, by its own terms, says is a preliminary report, itÓs not an appraisal. There is this written testimony by the Applicant as to receiving the second 52 document, but we donÓt have the second document with us. So IÓm wondering if, you know, if itÓs in evidence, maybe we can look at it. But to depend upon the testimony, and IÓm not accusing Mr. Blasman of, you know, being dishonest or anything like that, but theyÓre referring to this as a preliminary to another preliminary document. GIFFIN:Randy, could you please repeat your question? VITOUSEK:The question was, first IÓd like to say in response to the objection, I never used the term Ðappraisal.Ñ What I said -. GIFFIN:ThatÓs why I want to hear the -. VITOUSEK:Was consultantÓs assessment. GIFFIN:IÓd like to hear your question, please? VITOUSEK:The question was whether The Trust For Public Lands shared with Mayor Kim a, the results of The Trust For Public LandsÓ consultantÓs assessment of the value of the property, either by discussing it with him or giving him a copy of it. GIFFIN:I think LesterÓs questioning was whether or not that information had been entered in with your information; and if my memory serves me correctly, it has. And, so, in that regard, Lester, your objection is, objection rejected; and I am going to allow the question. ISHADO:IÓd like to see that document because I havenÓt seen it e There are two preliminary assessments; and they refer to the first one, thatÓs Exhibit 15. But then they talk, well, then thereÓs the devalue because of the so-called word because of a ÐcontestedÑ proceeding. That second document is not in evi GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yes, sure. IÓm referring to page 4 of the letter of January 17, 2003, which is the same exhibit. What Mr. Ishado isnÓt understanding is that the same letter had two different steps of the assessment of the value. Step one was assessing the value assuming that construction could start within six months. Step two, in the same document, contains the statement, ÐIn our opinion, this is not a reasonable assumption,Ñ that is, the start date is not a reasonable assumption. ÐBased on the Contested Case hearing status of the developerÓs SMA permit, it is our preliminary opinion that an assumed pre-construction period of anywhere between one year to four years for the proposed Snug Harbor project is more appropriate for consideration. Therefore, the Step 1, prospective value indications should be adjusted downward by a second round of discounting to compensate for the anticipated holding costs associated with the pre- construction period.Ñ So, I think that the exhibit is extremely clear that what they did was discount the value of the property because of the contested case hearing. And IÓm trying 53 to ask the Mayor whether he had discussions relative to this report with The Trust For Public Lands. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, I concur, so please continue. VITOUSEK:Okay, Mayor Kim, the pending question is whether you ha discussions with the representative for The Trust For Public Lands relative to their consultantÓs assessment of the value of the property? KIM:Okay, first of all, IÓm trying to track timeframe here. I admit I did not do any preparation for this question and answer thing because of other things. But in turn let me clarify, first of all, put myself on track. First people I talked to in regards to, would be Cindy Punihaole on the special and subject plan. And then after that it came The Trust people, Public Trust. I still subsequently met after that with the people of The Trust. They explained to me what the process was going to be because I was completely, I think, a little ignorant of what their entire processes as far as negotiation, as far as assessment and valuation of the property. During that time, the process had not started. But there was no discussion by them to me or asked questions by me in regards to the value of the property. The only time that it was discussed money of value as far as what was agreed or not agreed to assessment was just recently, r of days ago, when I asked them, ÐIs it pretty private information relayed to me, what the assessment was?Ñ And that was the only time that figures were g response by them was that their highest, what they anticipated to be their high line was way below what the landowner, Blasman, was interested in. So, basically, negotiations ceased. I recall thatÓs the only time money or a value was established. VITOUSEK:Okay. And did they tell you what that high line was, that there, what Mr. BlasmanÓs high line was or what the County -? ISHADO:You know -. VITOUSEK:No, excuse me. I get to finish asking the question bef objection, what the CountyÓs, what the ownerÓs high line was and what the TPLÓs high line was? ISHADO:Okay. Madam Chair, I have to object again. Basically, f a better term, you know, heÓs asking about sealed negotiable, negotiable items. And if the owner ever intends to negotiate with the State, County or The Public Trust, you know, then I think itÓs inappropriate for this council to, you know, require the disclosure of these terms. I mean, you might as well ask about why donÓt you just give me a blank check and then -. You know, youÓre giving them information that they can use; and same objection, relevance. VITOUSEK:Madam Chair? GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, if youÓll just hang on for just one minute. 54 Mr. Togashi, is it your opinion that this line is questioning should continue or not? Also, Hannah, what is your feeling? TOGASHI:I donÓt have any objections to it. GIFFIN:Thank you. Hannah? SPRINGER:I take any cautions from Mr. Ishado seriously. And so when he cautioned me in this area, yesterday, I changed the course of my questions in responses away from this matter. Is there, can Mr. Ishado give us a citation where this line of questioning is clearly prohibited? ISHADO:I think, basically, if the intent or the result of this line of questioning is to help the Applicant determine the bargaining stance of the proposed buyer, sure, I think itÓs confidential and should not be disclosed. In essence, not relevant and, you know, as most of our objections again. SPRINGER:Madam Chair, IÓve tried to familiarize myself with 205 and 205-A; and I think for the purposes of this hearing, we should structure our questions and answers around that statute. GIFFIN:Then I think the, if I understand you correctly, what you are agreeing with Mr. Ishado about is its relevancy? SPRINGER:Yes. GIFFIN:Then, Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yeah, a couple of things. One is, you know, under Rule Planning Commission Rules, weÓre absolutely entitled to cross-ex and that is what I am doing. There are different areas you explore in cross-examination, one of them is bias. Now, IÓm not trying to say that the Mayor is, you know, personally biased. But what IÓm saying is when the County of Hawai`i is actively pursuing acquisition of a parcel and may be aware from correspondence wit talked about, that the Contested Case Hearing is devaluing the property. In other words, that the value of the property has gone down because of the Contested Case Hearing. That has direct relevance to the position that the County may be taking in the Contested Case Hearing. In other words, they have a direct monetary interest in either having the permit denied or in having conditions imposed which would devalue the property; and that is a totally appropriate area of inquiry on cross-examination. This is the Mayor of the County testifying as a witness for an Intervenor and IÓm entitled to ask questions in this area. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, no one ever denied that you have the right to question. And in this regard, regarding the negotiations that the County, in the position 55 of the Mayor, as he stated, itÓs accurate. And, so, I will allow you to go ahead with your line of questioning. VITOUSEK:Okay and just to -. ISHADO:Over objections. VITOUSEK:And, just to be clear, the reason IÓm asking the question about the top line of value and the bottom line of value is cause thatÓs where the direct reference to valuations that were stated in the report, that is, the pre-contested case hearing value versus the post-contested case hearing value. GIFFIN:Thank you. Please go on. VITOUSEK:So the question, Mayor, is did The Trust For Public Lands tell you what the ownerÓs high line was and what The Trust For Public LandsÓ high line was in that negotiation? KIM:I donÓt think they mentioned, best as I can recall, IÓve not ever, ever heard what they said, Mr. Vitousek, what the ownerÓs high line was. A discussion was in differences in how valuation was, excuse me, was made in regards to The Trust For Public Lands. I hope IÓm right on this but I think they said their high was 1.2 million. VITOUSEK:The Trust For Public Lands said their high was 1.2 mill Mayor Kim, did you ever discuss acquisition of this property or the CountyÓs interest in acquiring this property with the owner of the property? KIM:No, sir. VITOUSEK:When you were in a meeting with The Trust For Public La they tell you that in their opinion discussions between Mr. Blasman and The Trust For Public Lands were confidential and that the results of those, of that negotiation should not be shared with other parties, including you, for example? ISHADO:Objection, relevance. VITOUSEK:Okay. Let me respond to that. Mr. Ishado objected to my putting this report in by saying The Trust For Public Lands said that the report was confidential between Mr. Blasman and The Trust For Public Lands. He is now o about The Trust For Public Lands disclosing the information relative to the transaction to an unrelated party; and, so, it goes directly to his objection to a document I have offered in evidence. ISHADO:Madam Chair, I think it should be clear that the letter itself is objecting to the introduction, and I really point that out to the panel. 56 GIFFIN:Are you referring to the letter that we received this morning as well? ISHADO:I donÓt know of any letter this morning. GIFFIN:I think we received another, right, Norman? HAYASHI:I believe we did receive another letter from The Public Trust but that was the same letter that was entered into evidence a couple of days ago. GIFFIN:On Tuesday? HAYASHI:Yes. So thatÓs a duplication. VITOUSEK:Right. And that was the letter that Mr. Ishado referred to on Tuesday when he objected to our Exhibit 15 by saying that The Trust For Public Lands said it was, that the negotiations were confidential. And what I was establishing is that The Trust For Public Lands did not treat those negotiations as confidential. GIFFIN:Okay. Just one minute. ISHADO:Madam Chair, IÓm sorry, one more point. I think we need clarify what dates weÓre talking about? GIFFIN:All right. Hang on, just one minute. Before we even do Mr. Vitousek, will you please clarify once again the relevancy of your questioning and this SMA permit? VITOUSEK:Sure. I had offered Exhibit 15 as an exhibit in the Contested Case Hearing relative to this SMA permit. The County of Hawai`i objected to that exhibit saying that the documents included in that were confidential as between The Trust For Public Lands and Mr. Blasman, based on a letter from The Trust For Public Lands which was submitted directly to the Planning Commission in this Contested Case Hearing. The question I asked Mayor Kim was that in his discussions that he met with The Trust For Public Lands and discussed, apparently, the negotiations between Mr. Blasman and The Trust For Public Lands -. And IÓm establishing that that demonstrates that The Trust For Public Lands itself did not consider the negotiations confidential as between The Trust and Mr. Blasman. And, so, in other words, it supports my offering Exhibit 15 against the CountyÓs objection. GIFFIN:So what was your reasoning, then, for even submitting tha exhibit? Was it, well, you just tell me your reasoning for even the so-called negotiations. 57 VITOUSEK:Yes, again, the reason is, one of the reasons is that what this document establishes is that The Trust For Public Lands, which was negotiating with Mr. Blasman to purchase the property, apparently, on behalf of the County or the State, attaches a different value to the property because it is in a Contested Case Hearing. ThatÓs what the document establishes. So that shows that both the State and the County have a motivation. If they want to buy the property at a lower cost, they want, they support a Contested Case Hearing; and they want the permit to be denied or conditions imposed which would make it economically infeasible to develop t developing the project would increase the value of the property. So it is a direct inquiry into an alternative buyerÓs or alternative motive on the part of parties and witnesses in the Contested Case Hearing. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, I think that that might be appropriate for you to go ahead and ask the Mayor that since he was the person supposedly negotiating with The Trust. VITOUSEK:I believe I already have established that. GIFFIN:Well, he -. VITOUSEK:I, do I expect the Mayor to say, yes, I have an ulterior motive? IÓm trying -? GIFFIN:Or I have a -. VITOUSEK:No, I donÓt. ThatÓs why I donÓt, thatÓs why IÓm totally conducting the questioning, you know, in the way that I am. ISHADO:Madam Chair -. GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado? ISHADO:WeÓre getting into a point where, you know, you can see what the problem with allowing this and as irrelevant evidence, what kind of problems it creates. You know, I would ask that the panel look at the letters from The Public Trust, see if it determines that that is what is, purports to be by the ApplicantÓs counsel. You know, to me, it clearly says thereÓs no appraisal, this is an internal document; and that is why I believe that the letter from Public Trust objecting to the introduction of this document was made. It was for their internal use. This person was not hired by the Applicant. He was hired by The Public Trust and now weÓre getting into things, possible motive. You know, basically what it comes out to is this. We have parallel lines here. One is an SMA permit has to be decided at least on what the law is in terms of Chapter 205-A. You know, some negotiations, should they ever take place, you know, would be a separate parallel line; but, you know, one does not touch the other. If the Chair wants to 58 ask the Mayor is involved with that, you know, thatÓs fine. But now we have Mr. Vitousek saying heÓs not going to accept that. Well, I mean GIFFIN:Wait, IÓm sorry, you said Mr. Vitousek said he would not accept what? ISHADO:He would not ask the Mayor in response to your question because obviously he will say yes. VITOUSEK:Excuse me, what I said was, IÓm not going to ask that q And anybody else whoÓs entitled to ask questions could ask whatever question they want. I just want to conduct the cross-examination in the way that I deem appropriate. And I, you know, the only question I asked was whether the representative of The Trust For Public Lands advised him that the negotiations were confidential between The Trust For Public Lands and the owner? ThatÓs the pending question. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, please continue. VITOUSEK:Okay. I think, we, what we need is the witness to answer that question Òcause he hasnÓt answered it. So the question was, did The Trust For Public Lands in these meetings tell you that the negotiations that they were telling you about were confidential as between The Trust For Public Lands and the owner? KIM:Mr. Vitousek, I think I need to clarify what IÓve said. First of all, you know, I did meet with The Trust For Public Lands twice. The first time in regards to background of these special lands, and at the time also saying what they hope to pursue. The only time, and they explained the process of what they were going to do or hope to do. The only other time I had talked to them about the situation was just a couple of days ago when they gave me a summary of this has not materialized and they wanted to inform me that their attempt to acquire this land was not successful. At the time they explained to me the process, I donÓt think there was any discussion on confidentiality or nonconfidentiality because they had not began the process; and the second time the discussion was they were not successful in the negotiation of this land. VITOUSEK:Okay. And at that time when they told you that the negotiations were not successful, did they tell you that those negotiations were confidential as between the owner and The Trust For Public Lands? KIM:I donÓt recall that discussion at all. VITOUSEK:Okay. Does the County have any funds in its budget to acquire this property? KIM:No. 59 VITOUSEK:Is this part of any, is this included in any request for appropriation to the County Council? KIM:No. You know, IÓm really trying to be overly -. Background IÓve said that my whole hopes as IÓve stated did not pursue anything of this in any discussion as far as with the land purchase, condemnation, acquisition in any way because my hope was in regards to the people, Trust for Public Lands would be successful; and thatÓs exactly what I told them the day before. VITOUSEK:And did you have any discussions with your Planning Director relative to this Contested Case Hearing? KIM:On the Contested Case Hearing discussion with Mr. Roy Takemo and Chris Yuen was very short and simple and they told me in regards to the application. I said you do your job and I will do mine. VITOUSEK:Okay. And your job, their job is what, in your understanding? KIM:Their job is to work with any landowner in their rights in regards to whatever their responsibilities are as far as the Planning Commission and the Planning Director for the use of that land. And I think we had discussion that I cannot place them in any kind of position of uncomfortableness, and discussion is VITOUSEK:Okay. And then what do you see is your job relative to this property? KIM:In regards to this piece of land, property, sir? VITOUSEK:Yes, sir. KIM:Being that I discuss with people in the community, of Cindy and Trust for Public Lands, that I felt that this was indeed, after being informed of the background of this property, indeed, they are special lands and that I felt that it was important that government pursue the acquisition of this is piece of property and not have it developed. VITOUSEKAnd do you personally have an opinion as to what impact, denial of this present application would have on the value of the property? ISHADO:Objection, this calls for speculation. And, again, itÓs not relevant. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, will you repeat your question? VITOUSEK:Sure. I asked the Mayor whether, in his opinion, did he have an opinion as to what impact, if any, a denial of the present application would have on the value of the subject property. 60 GIFFIN:And the reason youÓre asking him that? VITOUSEK:Well, if his job is to, as he stated, is to acquire the property on behalf of the public, then, and recall that I am cross-examining a witness offered by another party. GIFFIN:Right, right. VITOUSEK:And, so, IÓm inquiring as to whether his position would be that the value of the property would be reduced if the permit is denied. I think he is competent to testify as to that as the Mayor of the County, who is the, who he has said it is the policy of his office to acquire this property. ISHADO:Madam Chair, if I could, weÓre sorry to keep going over t you know, if itÓs not relevant, we can ask anyone to come off the street and give their opinion as to whether this will develop properly -. In Exhibit 15, you know, clearly, it wasnÓt offered as evidence. It clearly states, this TPL letter, to say itÓs not an appraisal, itÓs for preliminary purposes only, not intended to be an appraisal. I mean the document itself has actually said it. So I think unless Mr. Vitousek has, you know, a document from someone that says it will actually reduce the value of the property, then I donÓt think itÓs irrelevant. VITOUSEK:If I may, I wasnÓt asking that, I was asking a specific question of a specific witness. I think itÓs interesting that the Deputy Corporation Counsel says that itÓs as if IÓ m asking anyone on the street what their opinion is. I mean, IÓm asking the Mayor of the County after the Mayor has testified that is the policy of his office to acquire this property. And then, and his office, and the County is a party in this proceeding. So itÓs a fairly straight-forward question and I -. GIFFIN:Yeah, yeah. ISHADO:But there is a lack of foundation, Madam Chair. You know, we have a document which by itself is limiting. You know, it says, this, itÓs limited by this, and so forth, by its own terms if you take a look at the document. So I would say thereÓs a lack of foundation as to whether this is true or not. VITOUSEK:I didnÓt say it was true. I just asked the Mayor what his opinion was. ThereÓs no reference to the document. And I take it my last question hasnÓt been answered. GIFFIN:I agree and I think that you should just ask your last question, get your answer from the Mayor, and then weÓll move on. 61 VITOUSEK:Thank you. My question, Mayor, was, do you have an opi to whether or not a denial of this application, you know, to develop this property by the Planning Commission would reduce the value of the property? KIM:Not, not really. I, if you want me to summarize an opinion now, I never really thought about it. VITOUSEK:Well, my question was whether you have an opinion. KIM:I donÓt have one now. VITOUSEK:Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Aloha, Mr. Mayor. This is Mikahala Roy speaking for Klana Huli Honua, aloha. KIM:How are you, Ms. Roy? ROY:Fine, thank you. Thank you, Mayor, for making yourself and time available to members of the Kona community. We are non-profit, Klana Huli Honua. In fact, we appreciate Cindy Punahaole as our representative in speaking with you. And, as I informed, in this proceeding, Mr. Wayne Blasman, negotiations with Mr. Wayne Blasman and associates, it is through this avenue that all attempts at deriving a solution for this dilemma occurred and began immediately after the last public hearing on this application. And, so, in fact, this community has been grateful for you and continues to be in your work here. I have one question that I think I know the answer to already but IÓll ask it anyway, Mayor. Bear with me. Are you sworn to uphold the provisions of the State Constitution and all other administrative conditions of the government as it stands today? KIM:Constitution, yes, maÓam. ROY:Thank you. And, as you stated earlier, you are aware of the efforts in the community from concerned citizens regarding this property, youÓve been aware of the concerns that have come to your office. Correct? KIM:ThatÓs correct. ROY:Thank you. We are appreciative for all of your efforts to understand more of this site. We praise public officials that would do same. In hopes of alleviating any situation that was brought just before my speaking, may I ask the question, really out there, is a property devalued? And, Mayor, if you can answer this, 62 you may, but if you cannot, thatÓs all right. Is the property devalued in any way because of the truth of historical quality? KIM:I mentioned that the one way in regards to the word devalued, I think, in discussion with you and members of the Public Trust, Lands For Public Trus,t is that the value of this land and my involvement is because of the specialness of this land in regards to our heritage of culture. If youÓre talking of the value of the land in regards to money just because of that, I can, we can all assume that if things are related to, of cultural maybe conflicts with the other use of it, then naturally it becomes, therefore, yes. But I need to emphasize here my whole involvement with this as f personally because you were involved in one of the discussions, is that my involved years in the community and Public Trust, Lands for Public Trust people have indicated to me the special value of this land in regards to cultural heritage. ThatÓs why the involvement of this administration to see what we can do to preserve that value. ROY:Again, thank you, Mayor, very much for answering that questi and, again, for your support to your community. GIFFIN:Lester or Chris? ISHADO:Mayor, actually, I donÓt have any questions. We didnÓt have a lot of discussions back here. Madam Chair, IÓd just like to know whether the parties are finished or whether the panelists are finished or not. GIFFIN:I was going to ask the officers if they had any questions of the Mayor. So if youÓre not going to ask any questions, then I will ask my fellow hearings officers. ISHADO:ThatÓs fine. GIFFIN:Hannah? Yes, she does. We have one more question. SPRINGER:Mr. Mayor, this is Commissioner Springer speaking; and I have two questions for you. KIM:Yes? SPRINGER:With regard to your understanding and your answers to Maile DavidÓs questions regarding the significance and the cultural value of the Keakealani complex, in particular, are they consistent with that section of HRS 205-A(4)(b) (sic) which reads: ÐIn implementing the objectives of the coastal zone management program, the agencies shall give full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, esthetic, recreational, scenic, and open space values, and coastal hazards, as well as to needs for economic development.Ñ KIM:IÓm trying to listen to all of the words there. I would say 63 SPRINGER:Thank you. Similarly, Mr. Mayor, with regard to your understanding and your answers -. KIM:If I may elaborate on that, yes, if I may -? SPRINGER:Yes. KIM:Because IÓm trying to reflect on that, you know, an expert in regards to what you just quoted. But when you use words in regards to cultural, then, you know, obviously, it relates to that. But, obviously, you also stated of economical and naturally there is a, in this particular case, it seems like thereÓs a conflict between those, the words there. By saying yes, that seems like a conflict in answers. IÓm answering yes, in the whole of the question. SPRINGER:Yes, Mr. Mayor. If I may repeat for you the initial clause of that section: ÐIn implementing the objectives of the coastal zone management program, the agencies shall give full consideration,Ñ to those various aspects mentioned, Ðas well as to the needs for economic development.Ñ And thatÓs for your inform the Historic, Hawai`i Revised Statutes. May I continue, Mr. Mayor? KIM:Yes. SPRINGER:With regard to your understanding and your answers to Maile DavidÓs questions regarding the significance in cultural value of the Keakealawahine complex, in particular, are they consistent with that section of the Hawai`i County General Plan regarding historic sites which reads, under Goals, to ÐProtect and enhance the sites, buildings and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawai`i.Ñ Further under Policies, ÐThe County of Hawai`i shall require both public and private developers of land to provide a historical survey prior to the clearing or development of land when there are indications that the land under consideration has historical significance.Ñ And, also, Mr. Mayor, under the Standards which indicate the following: ÐThe following standards establish a framework for evaluating sites. Importance in the life or activities of a major historic person. Associated with a major group or organization in the history of the island or community. Associated with a major historic event. Associated with a major recurring event in the history of the community (such as annual celebrations). Unique example of a particular style or period. One of the few of its age remaining.Ñ Original materials being comprised of, ÐOriginal materials and/or workmanship which can be valued in themselves. Sites wit original materials in context and complexes rather than single isolated sites -.Ñ And, finally, ÐSites of traditional and cultural significance.Ñ ThatÓs in the Hawai`i County General Plan. KIM:I sure would hate to ask you to ask that question again. I really tried to listen to it. The answer is generally yes to what you said. 64 SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no further questions. GIFFIN:Do any of the other parties have any more questions of the Mayor? Hearing none, Norman, I think that thatÓs the end of the questioning period for the Mayor. HAYASHI:Mayor, this is Norman Hayashi. Thank you very much. Yo hang up. KIM:I would like to thank you all for allowing me to give testimony through the phone and saving me a trip. Thank you very much. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mayor. GIFFIN:Randy, I think weÓll continue, then, with your witness. previously stated, your next witness, I think, is Ron Terry. Randy? VITOUSEK:Okay. I assume that we donÓt need to go through the same discussion regarding -. GIFFIN:Yes, we donÓt need to. VITOUSEK:So weÓve offered Mr. TerryÓs written testimony and I un has been accepted in evidence. GIFFIN:Yes, it has. VITOUSEK:And, so, what I will do is similar to Mr. BleckÓs testi offer Mr. Terry for cross-examination; and then I may do some re-direct, depending on whether I feel there are areas that are left open. So, Mr. Terry is here. Please state your name for the record. TERRY:My name is Ron Terry. IÓm a resident, and my address is H Box 9575, KeaÒau, Hawai`i. VITOUSEK:Okay. And do you, whatÓs the name of your business? TERRY:Geometrician Associates. VITOUSEK:Okay. And in that business what do you do? TERRY:I do environmental impact assessments, visual impact asses flora and fauna, remote sensing, geographic information systems. VITOUSEK:Okay. And do you also, by way of your academic trainin have a Ph.D., is that correct? 65 TERRY:Yes, I have a Ph.D. in Geography from Lousiana State and BachelorÓs in Geography from the University of Hawai`i. VITOUSEK:Okay. And in respect to this particular project, what were you retained to do? TERRY:Mr. Blasman retained me to perform a visual impact assessm and a flora and fauna survey. VITOUSEK:You have provided both the visual impact assessment and and fauna survey and they were incorporated in this SMA application. IsnÓt that correct? TERRY:Yes, sir. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, you have also prepared written testimon has been submitted to the Planning Commission? TERRY:Yes, I have. VITOUSEK:Okay. So with that foundational, I offer Mr. Terry for cross- examination. GIFFIN:Thank you. Maile? DAVID:Good morning, Mr. Terry. TERRY:Good morning. DAVID:Are you aware of the State Historic Preservation Division and State ParksÓ July 2002 recommendations that require greater setbacks to provide a buffer between the development and the Pakiha site to maintain the historical and cultural setting for Kaluaokalani? TERRY:I did read that letter. It has been sometime since IÓve read it. I remember them requesting rather than requiring. DAVID:Okay. Recommendations in that letter, so did you consider these recommendations in your landscaping design? TERRY:Well, I didnÓt do the landscaping design. But I believe that the letter came subsequent to my, on my work on the project. DAVID:And in that recommendation, did you address the visual concern about conducting of visual impacts other than from Kuakini Highway to the subject property? 66 TERRY:I remember that they did provide a recommendation. And, of course, again, I want to stress that that recommendation was given after I turned in my report and was, you know, I was given a copy of this letter at some point. But it was after when my work was concluded. I think that if you get on the site, itÓs fairly obvious that the viewplane, the existing viewplane from the site to the ocean is extremely restricted, and not only by vegetation but somewhat by topography as well, especially as you get anywhere off the back of the, off the very front of the site. And itÓs restricted by buildings both on the foreground and background. DAVID:And it is, is it your opinion that this development would increase that restrictive viewplane? VITOUSEK:Sorry, can I -? Just one, I have a question, clarification, I guess, maybe itÓs an objection. The question is vague. IÓm not sure what viewplane weÓre, what sheÓs referring to. In other words, whether weÓre reviewing the viewplane from the property, makai or mauka, or from some other property, in the property? IÓm just -. GIFFIN:Maile, could you please elaborate? DAVID:Okay. GIFFIN:Thank you. DAVID:Okay. IÓm sorry, we were talking earlier about the view studies you did from Kuakini Highway, looking down. TERRY:Right. DAVID:And then you responded that already there are numerous visual impacts on the subject, I mean, restrictions. TERRY:Correct. DAVID:Okay. Now my question is, the proposed project, would that create more visual impacts? TERRY:No, I donÓt believe it would create more visual impacts if theyÓre properly mitigated. And if youÓre referring specifically to the sight line from Kuakini Highway, there are already existing structures. And, you know, itÓs my policy to look at what exists and, also, what could be planned. But with the existing structures, thereÓs no additional impact from any of the highway views on the shoreline. DAVID:Okay. So the visual study, that was just from Kuakini Highway looking down? 67 TERRY:I did three profiles from Kuakini Highway looking down to address one of the concerns in Chapter 205A and the Planning Commission Rules. I also looked at the views from, to and along Ali`i Drive from the shoreline and up from Ali`i Drive. And I also looked at the views from the Keakealawahine complex to the property and the views across from the property to Keakealawahine which are, essentially, you know, kind of two sides of the same coin, and then views across hihi complex as well. DAVID:And your visual from within Keakealawahine, how far back o what point in the complex area were you making this view? TERRY:Well, I looked, I wanted the complex, to the best of my ability I couldnÓt identify all the features from the archaeological map that I had and I had never been on that property before. I was somewhat quite, actually, q Keolonhihi and only heard about Keakealawahine; and I hadnÓt been able to go there before. But I was mainly concerned about the structures that were right adjacent to the property because those were the ones that would suffer the visual impacts. The topography on that property is such that it stretches back at a very low grade from the makai portion of the property back up towards the mountain although there is, thatÓs simplifying it. But, basically, itÓs a pretty low grade. The farther you get back, the more, the topography, the vegetation and even the existing features of the complex interfere with views of makai. DAVID:And your adjacent, can you describe the adjacent areas youÓre talking about when you did the studies, not the other adjacent areas that you studied? TERRY:The adjacent areas in Keakealawahine complex or other -? DAVID:You said other adjacent areas that you -. TERRY:Yeah, I think, I think, correct me if IÓm wrong, maybe IÓm not making the right recollection here, but I was referring to the other features in the Keakealawahine complex, the ones that are behind there. And I donÓt know the names of those features, but behind the Pahika. DAVID:Did you, having read the recommendations after you made yo designed your plan, have you done anything regarding the recommendation for minimum setback of 100 feet from the property line? TERRY:I did not do any subsequent analysis for the, after I saw recommendations that were in July, I think it was July 2002 letter, because I already turned in my report. I was not requested by any parties to re-perform the analysis. DAVID:Okay. So no one asked you to, considering receipt of thes recommendations, no one asked you to redo your plan? 68 TERRY:No. If I had done that, I would have wanted to see the other site plan where weÓd have the building heights and that sort of thing, Òcause I used the topography. You know, itÓs kind of a precise mathematical way for doing the sight lines. So IÓd have to have everything in order to do that. DAVID:Okay. So none of the recommendations made by the State Historic Preservation Division or States Parks were implemented in your -? TERRY:Analysis? DAVID:Yes. TERRY:No. They werenÓt analyzed in my analysis. DAVID:All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Aloha, Dr. Terry. TERRY:Aloha. ROY:Aloha. IÓm aware that you were a co-creator of a, that you did work in 1995, at least, for the Keolonhihi State Historical Park, is that correct? TERRY:It was, I was. It was one of the best experiences in my life. ROY:When did you begin that work? TERRY:I think was Ó93 or maybe early Ó94. ROY:In your training, in general, if I may ask a general question, what has been your exposure to cultural education, Hawaiian cultural education? TERRY:IÓve had many, many lessons. I donÓt know if IÓd been a good student but I certainly had some wonderful teachers. I started studying ethnobotany under the auspices of Auntie Edith Kanakaole. And IÓve gone on, I was a professor at the University of Hawai`i and I had colleagues there, many Hawaiian studies colleagues that I learned a lot from. I volunteered, also, I taught Napua Noeau, native Hawaiian children; and we designed the geography program that emphasized the relationship between Hawaiian culture and geography. IÓve also worked as a volunteer on a number of projects. I volunteered for the Edith Kanakaole Foundation. I helped them get their SMA permits and their special permits Òcause they do a lot of activities in the coastal zone, too. And IÓve worked with Ku o ka la, Hawaiian Emergence School (sic), in Kapoho and, also, as a, on a pro bono basis. And I learned an incredible amount from 69 Keikialoha Kekipi, and the wonderful folks over there. And IÓve worked with Kala Mossman in Hau Òola, Incorporated, which is the community organization for Panaewa; and IÓve developed a forest stewardship management plan also on a pro bono basis to help them manage the forest there and promote Hawaiian species. ROY:ThatÓs very good to hear in this, especially in a matter pertaining to such an application and work here. Are you aware that those parties, some of them that you mentioned, are heartily against this application? TERRY:IÓve heard that Pua Kanahele may testify, yes; and I haven spoken to her about it, though. ROY:In fact, your work with Roy Takemoto for the environmental impact statement for Keolonhihi State Historical Park really rallied much support in terms of your, that reports background of this area. Is it so that the report says, I quote: ÐThe major portion of Keakealawahine complex is situated within a 16-acre parcel identified as TMK: 7-7-4-11. Prior to the subdivision and new configuration of these two parcels in 1990, the Keakealawahine complex was located in both parcels 11 and 43. Together, the Keolonhihi and Keakealawahine complexes comprise the Holualoa chiefly residence but the construction of Ali`i Drive has separated the larger compound into the two complexes. Many sites have been given site numbers in Keakealawahine.Ñ Would that be an accurate, if you can recall? TERRY:To the best of my knowledge, thatÓs a pretty good quote from you. I mean, I donÓt remember the parcel numbers and acreages, but that sounds just about how I understood it. ROY:Thank you. In order for you to conduct your work, what leve investment of yourself is made into your final product? TERRY:You mean how many hours, is that when I work on something? ROY:Let me rephrase it. IÓm trying to get to hear one of, as I just testified, one of the things that makes the community hardened by, say, a report earlier on your, on Keolonhihi, is the degree to which the people who are writing this invest themselves in study and, like you say, your background. That speaks well. How can you, my obvious point is, you did work of this integrity on the Keolonhihi complex but, here, your writing is substantiating an applicant who will now impair the view, the sacred to the sacred sites that you were just talking about earlier. TERRY:Well, itÓs my hope and my belief that they will not impair that view, that the views across the complex, from complex to complex are really essentially blocked at this point. Probably the most problematic view is the one from the back of the structures towards the complex and from the complex towards the structures. I believe that can be solved. I recommended in my report that vegetation be used. I wasnÓt envisioning a single line of wili wili trees, actually, to be the vegetation screen. And I 70 donÓt know if this accuracy, accurately reflects the landscape plan. But I didnÓt design the landscape plan. I said that the Applicant should work with the State Historic Preservation Division and State Parks to come up with an acceptable screen; and I believe that thereÓs more than 50 feet in the design between this, too. I think that an acceptable screen can come up. ThatÓs a lot of territory. ROY:Could you comment on that which you can surmise, having been student of Auntie Edith Kanakaole, what is meant by Hawaiians, by spirit of Hawai`i? TERRY:I think youÓre referring to the traditional culture, the respect and the inter-relationship between people and the land. It was one thing. ROY:What was one thing? TERRY:The people and the land were not viewed as separate entities. Man was not superior to the land. The land nourished people and people nourished the land. ItÓs a relationship that established the mana that sustain the land. ROY:What is mana? TERRY:Well, thatÓs, I guess, you know, maybe IÓm not qualified to answer mana but it is a power and it is a presence. And I probably donÓt, I probably canÓt speak to it. I might be profaning the concept if I try to define it. ROY:Again, I come back to that earlier question. What is the de investment of yourself in your product? TERRY:I try to do the best job I can in everything. ROY:And my question is, if you view that mana and Hawaiian relationship to their land is so that you can invest yourself so favorably in your work earlier for Keolonhihi, and then at this product, I want to see what degree of you, Mr. Terry, is able for you to speak now for a development that will negatively impact this entire complex. TERRY:Well, I donÓt want to take credit for Keolonhihi. That was a lot of people with way more knowledge and commitment than I did. I was project and I learned a lot. I was very lucky to work on that project. And your father and other people are the real people that deserve credit on that, not me. It was a learning experience. I think that if this property were undeveloped and were not in any sort of views right now, that there might, and it was not zoned for urban use, it might be very unreasonable to request what the Applicant is requesting. But the truth is, it is fully developed into urban uses, there are buildings back there and they have been for many years. And I have to measure against the existing reality of whatÓs out there, not what might have been a 71 hundred years ago or what could have been. And if this land is purchased, I think it could be a wonderful addition to the complex and would help to some degree to unify it. ROY:And, Dr. Terry, with respect to what you said about -. Ever thought go right out of your mind? TERRY:Always -. ROY:I thank you for giving credit to the components of that earl in 1995 as being the community and so forth, Roy Takemoto of the I ask you to comment, when you say in the past, or work in the past, or speculating for future, would you comment on the StateÓs very law that protects in the SMA, Hawaiian cultural heritage? I believe, weÓve identified that many times. TERRY:I think itÓs an essential law and it needs to be vigorously enforced. ROY:Would you say that spirit, mana, is a part of Hawaiian heritage? TERRY:Yes, I would. ROY:To what degree, then, can you agree that blocking a view and intruding on sacredness there is desirable here, in your opinion? TERRY:Well, again, I have to compare with what the existing situ and the existing situation is their homes and people and a number of things, actually, that are closer than these proposed structures will be. ThereÓs no landscaping blocking it. And I think, you know, the first time I went back there and looked at it I thought it was kind of horrible, the actual situation and I was shocked. There was garbage and plants that have been thrown over there; and that needs to be fixed. Now I believe that this development can result in a condition that is going to be much better than the existing situation; and that has to be my yardstick. ROY:Thank you for your views. Many people would say that they would agree that in terms of what is beautiful, there are many views on that. And one of the least beautiful, in my eyes and in our eyes, is development right now those buildings are more desirable in the condition they are because they are less intrusive on this land and they have no further encroachment on the land by digging. Indeed, what this development does is it brings the way to harm this land further. And I question your integrity for saying one thing at one point and then coming to say, really, that it has no effect or that you can be behind such a project. And would you say that youÓve been in community meetings where youÓve heard Hawaiians talk about healthily their future with respect to hopes -, for example, even the idea and prospect of making sure that that land becomes all one complex and safe for the future? ThatÓs all, in our opinion, as community people heavily talked about. Have you ever been in arenas to talk about that? 72 TERRY:Well, if youÓre referring to this specific property, you know, going through that Keolonhihi EIS, there was never one suggestion that someone should acquire that property. ROY:What year was that? TERRY:In Ó94 and Ó95, and I think I worked a little bit on Ó96 Òcause we had some challenges and things. ROY:As a doctor, no doubt, professor and teacher at some point along the way, would you be able to answer a studentÓs question on what is the effect of enlightenment through time? TERRY:Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesnÓt. ROY:The fact that it happens, you have to agree with me is well shot at looking for it. Would you agree? TERRY:Well, I would agree that enlightenment is a good thing. ROY:The enlightenment that IÓm speaking about is directly in terms of Hawaiian identity in our homeland. And I appreciate your even taking the time to learn what mana is. But, again, I highly question how you can be in the position you are after having contributed and worked with this community and learning what you have with our resources. Thank you. No further questions. GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado? ISHADO:The County has no questions at this time. GIFFIN:Thank you. Officers, some questions? Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a few questions. Let with your written testimony. On page 2 of your written testimon that ÐDecades of neglect have allowed a dense forest of kiawe, opiuma and koa haole trees to blanket the sites. These trees threaten the structural integrity of the archaeological resources....Ñ In your opinion, should these trees be removed? TERRY:Absolutely, as soon as possible. ItÓs the major cause of destruction of the structures at Keolonhihi and itÓs a source of intense frustration to many members of the community who have wanted to volunteer and go clean this out; and they have trouble getting permission from the State to do it. TOGASHI:And, I guess, youÓre also speaking of the trees in Keolonhihi? 73 TERRY:Particularly Òcause they want it to be fixed; and those are banyans, and theyÓre just awful, awful trees for restoring sites. TOGASHI:Any trees in particular, perhaps maybe those closer to the walls, or just trees in general? TERRY:The trees are close to the walls. Because theyÓre trees, of course, roots grow and they separate rocks. TOGASHI:Okay. Another question I have is also in the written testimony that you say that ÐLandscaping for the frontage of Ali`i Drive can reduce any intrusiveness of the Project on the Keolonhihi Complex.Ñ Can you elaborate on this statement here, while other landscaping -? TERRY:Yeah, if you landscape the frontage of the property, Keolonhihi is located not in the ocean viewplane. If youÓre looking towards the, I guess it would be the northwest, you have an ocean viewplane as the structures are oriented. If you landscape along Ali`i Drive in the front, you can prevent any intrusiveness, say, if you want a structure. If they eventually they do go with the structures at Keolonhihi, as I hope they will, then youÓll be looking up. And the whole hill, of course, will be covered with homes and apartments, and roads and telephone wires, and cell towers and everything else. But, you know, at least some of those views would be nice if it was greenery and not development; and I think this can help, not totally mitigate it though. TOGASHI:Okay. And the last question I have is you made a commen that the, in a sense, the subject property parcel will help unify the two complexes. Can you, I guess, from your perspective, can you tell me how by having this subject property undeveloped help unify the two? TERRY:Well, if it were purchased by the State, you could use it as a -. I think what theyÓd mainly use it for is a parking and staging area, visitor center, restrooms. We had a terrible time with Keolonhihi, trying to find an area that was appropriate for that. We had to have a kind of a small area; and any property that could serve that way would help the State park function. TOGASHI:I thought maybe it was more of a, not with the intent that thereÓd be some kind of a visitor center, but I thought it was more in a general sense or more of a spiritual sense that you were. But thatÓs not the intent of the, your intent of the State land? TERRY:ThatÓs not the sense that I meant it in, no. TOGASHI:Okay. No further questions. GIFFIN:Once again, Commissioner Springer, no questions? 74 SPRINGER:No questions. GIFFIN:Okay. Ron, I know you are not the landscape architect. your background, in native flora? TERRY:I -. GIFFIN:What would you recommend to the Applicant regarding landscaping to provide that kind of buffer shield that would be, that would work? TERRY:Okay. This is where you always get in trouble -. GIFFIN:I donÓt mean to put you on a spot or get you in trouble, thatÓs not my intent. TERRY:But I think the wili wili trees are not a bad idea as one layer of the landscaping; but, you know, personally, I donÓt like to see a bunch of sticks. ItÓs really used extensively in Puna, and I think itÓs kind of overdone. You need layered masses; and they should be layered both horizontally and vertically, where you have an alternation there so that the landscaping appears much more natural. I would use dry land plants from Hawai`i. I would use milo, ko. There are some beautiful plants. But when you start the landscaping, you know, if a concern is to immediately create a big buffer, something like wili wili works well. You can stick a stick in the ground and if you water it, itÓll grow like crazy. The native plants take much longer to grow. So sometimes you have an interim landscaping plan and a permanent one. Then you actually take out the wili wili trees. GIFFIN:Sure. Thank you very much. Hannah? SPRINGER:Thank you. Dr. Terry, can you clarify for us if the species that are proposed as the visual screen at this time are native or an erathrina from abroad? TERRY:YouÓre right, itÓs an erathrina from abroad. SPRINGER:Thank you. GIFFIN:Randy? VITOUSEK:I donÓt have any. GIFFIN:Any other comments for Dr. Terry? SPRINGER:Madam Chair? GIFFIN:Yes. 75 SPRINGER:Ron, during your consultation, do you work with the landscape architect? TERRY:I have before. I didnÓt on this project. SPRINGER:Okay. TERRY:I gave recommendations and I hope that the landscape architect is looking at that. SPRINGER:Thank you. One more follow up then, Ron, when consider native species and the various values that they have, were you able to make recommendations in particular with regard to species that would be appropriate, given the historic sites nearby? TERRY:No, and thatÓs one reason I recommended in my report consultation with State Historic Preservation Division and State Parks, because I thought they would be better suited. ItÓs a very sensitive issue; and I think itÓs one of the most important decisions, to make sure that you donÓt have visual impacts or you minimize them. SPRINGER:Thank you. GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Thank you, Ms. Giffin. Dr. Terry, when you say that earlier were thankful for the informants and, on your study for Keolonhihi, may I ask you the question, where has the bulk of information come from regarding Kaluaokalani, these complexes? Has it been, yeah, where has it come from? TERRY:I believe itÓs oral history. I think Martha Yent gave a really good explanation in her testimony earlier. ROY:So, in your answer just previously, are those oral histories, are they the same as State Historic Preservation folks? TERRY:The State Historic Preservation does consider informants but they, you know, the Holly McEldowney study rely a lot on oral history, but itÓs not the equivalent. ROY:So would you say they are the font of information? ThatÓs w my question is. Do you say that the State Preservation people that work in these fields are the generators of this information? TERRY:Generally theyÓre not. TheyÓre more the recipients and distributors of the information. They understand the regulations that govern activities. 76 ROY:Thank you. So you acknowledge that the source of these, this information is from, in fact, the Hawaiian families from the are TERRY:That, and archaeology; and there is a written record as well, wonderful Hawaiian newspapers, for example. ROY:Not for predominantly the issues that have arisen here as you must be familiar with. I have another question. Your report says that thereÓs no problem with endangered species, yet the species survey was only done during the day. The hory bat comes out at night. Did Mr. Blasman engage you to do a daytime TERRY:No, he didnÓt specify the time of day. ROY:When did you go? TERRY:I went during the day. ROY:Did you go at night at all? TERRY:No. I havenÓt been there at night. ROY:IÓm grateful for the earlier question on the related species of sacred areas. The fact that we donÓt know, also, is a component. We s that information, and we do rely on oral sources. Thank you. TERRY:Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you. Randy, if weÓre through with Ron, IÓm happy t excuse him. VITOUSEK:Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that, you know, we submitted written testimony of Mr. Terry separately for the visual impact and the flora and fauna; and, so, his being here as a witness today would be relative to both aspects of his performance. GIFFIN:Yes. VITOUSEK:So just so we have clarity that if there are any questions that any party wants to ask him or the Commissioners want to him relative to the flora and fauna, I see that one question was asked. But if there are any other questions, now is the time. GIFFIN:Seeing none. Thank you. TERRY:Thank you, Commission. VITOUSEK:Thank you. 77 GIFFIN:Randy, with your indulgence, instead of going on to your next witness, it is going on 1 oÓclock right now, and I think that -. VITOUSEK:You donÓt think we can finish Mr. RechtmanÓs testimony ten minutes? GIFFIN:No, unless something happens thatÓs really different. We do have one housekeeping thing, and that was to determine dates for future hearings; and, so, I need to address that first. And I do believe when we, before we recessed on Tuesday, the parties weÓre going to get together with at least a couple suggested dates. And I must confess that we were supposed to have the hearings officers do the same thing and we did not. VITOUSEK:Mr. Ishado was very prompt and at the end of the hearing on Tuesday gave me a list of dates he was available. I took that back to my office and compared it to the dates that I was available and came up with three dates; and, unfortunately, I donÓt know that my, recall -. ROY:I donÓt -. VITOUSEK:Yeah, but none of those dates were available for the Intervenors. GIFFIN:Oh. VITOUSEK:So weÓre kind of -. GIFFIN:Back to square one. VITOUSEK:Nowhere, yeah. GIFFIN:Okay. The other thought that had been expressed to me by Mr. Togashi earlier was that perhaps the hearings officers could get together and offer a couple of dates and then go from there. In which case, we need ISHADO:I was going to say that Norman has a calendar where he ha to several people. GIFFIN:Okay. I might suggest what we came up with since thatÓs what we rd were doing. And we are open to continuing this hearing on Thursday, April 3, Tuesday, thth April 8, and/or Friday, April 11. VITOUSEK:Madam Chair, maybe we can get some kind of estimate of much longer we think weÓre going to go. Because what IÓd like to request is that we find, if weÓre going to be rescheduling for more than one day, IÓd like if all possible that theyÓd 78 be consecutively or nearly consecutive days because of the ApplicantÓs traveling from the mainland to attend the hearing. GIFFIN:I understand and I was going to suggest that, too, so -. VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry, I suppose, to start, I have at least a three-week, maybe th four-week trial on April 14, itÓs on Maui. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe has suggested that we go into recess so that we donÓt need to encumber our record with all of this. RECESSEDThe Chair call a short recess at 12:44 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 12:52 p.m. GIFFIN:IÓd like to call the meeting of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission back to order. After some discussion, it was, we have consensus to continue the Contested Case Hearing to, and we have three dates, consecutive dates, 5/27, 5/28 and 5/29. It was also requested by the Applicant that theyÓd be able to take the model back with them to California and -. VITOUSEK:Not to California. GIFFIN:Not to California, IÓm sorry, take it -. VITOUSEK:It was requested that the Planning Department take it but -. GIFFIN:Planning Department declined. So if you have no objections, we are going to go ahead and have the Applicant hang on to the model. Once these hearings, hearing has come to a point of that model has to be shown again at the Commission level. So itÓs not as if it will be lost forever but -. VITOUSEK:Madam Chair, itÓs just the difficulty of taking this through the airport was what was concerning. GIFFIN:We canÓt tell you what to do with the -. So I just wanted the parties to know it; and if there was any objection, to please voice it now. No one. All right. Any other housekeeping items? Sharon NOMURA:None. GIFFIN:Norman, anything else, no? 79 HAYASHI:No. GIFFIN:Parties? ROY:No. DAVID:No. ISHADO:No. GIFFIN:Officers? TOGASHI:No. SPRINGER:No, thank you. GIFFIN:All right. Thank you very much. ROY:Mahalo. DAVID:Mahalo. The discussion ended at 12:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary A T T E S T: Geraldine M. Giffin, Presiding Officer 80