Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-27 TBLASMAN PLANNING COMMISSION CONTESTED CASE MINUTES AND HEARING TRANSCRIPT WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) MAY 27, 2003 The contested case proceedings for WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Royal Kona Resort, Resolution Room, 75-5852 Alii Drive, Kailua-Kona, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Geraldine Giffin presiding. PRESENT:Geraldine Giffin, Presiding Officer Hannah Springer, Hearing Officer Grant Togashi, Hearing Officer Applicant: Wayne Blasman Randy Vitousek, Esq. Wayne Blasman Intervenor: Maile David Maile David Karen Eoff Intervenor: Jk`m`GtkhGnmt` Mikahala Roy David 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 3 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, and I'd like to call the meeting of the Haw County Planning Commission to order. Today's agenda item is a contested case. The Applicant is Wayne Blasman. The SMA number is 02-03. This is an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a condominium project and related improvements. The property is located on the east side 1 (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. Norman, do you want to, just for the record, go ahead and give us some specifics. HAYASHI:Okay. GIFFIN:In terms of the placement. HAYASHI:I think all of you are familiar with the subject property so, Madam Chair, if I may dispense with that. GIFFIN:Sure. HAYASHI:I'd just like to inform you that the hearing for today's th published in the, on April 25 in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, West Hawaii Today, Honolulu Star Bulletin, The Garden Isle, and The Maui News, and the hearing notice was thth for May 27, 2003, and continuing on to May 28 and 29, if necessary. The starting time was published as 9:00 a.m., and also the place of the hearing was published as the Royal Kona Resort, Resolution Room, 75-5852 Ali`i Drive, Kailua-Kona, North Kona, Hawai`i. th By letter dated April 9, we also informed the parties of this meeting and the information was earlier provided to you. th On May 9, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 01-03, which is a resolution confirming the appointment of the Hearings Officers. M. ROY:Ms. Giffin? GIFFIN:You're welcome, Norman. Yes, Mikahala. M. ROY:Thank you. For the record, there has been great confusion regarding this reshifting of location for this public hearing, for this contested hearing. At th the last session, we announced that it would be held at the dates 27, 28, 29, and in the community it has been spread about that these would be the days. The location was shared to be at Ohana. Some of us didn't even, with the nature of the way the recordation happens with letters from the County, I wish that calls would be made to the parties because I wasn't aware of this, that I had received this notice. So, for the record, your procedures of letting public know changes are inefficient and insufficient. Thank you. GIFFIN:It is with regret that this confusion has occurred. Over the weekend, I did spend a lot of time reviewing the record of those last two meetings, and on Pages 78 and 79 of the minutes, although we do speak of the dates, it is not mentioned where. And I would like to be corrected if I am wrong, but the site was not stated on the record; the dates were, but not the place. M. ROY:Thank you. 2 GIFFIN:And I think subsequent to that, the County sent out the letters indicating that the site for today's hearing had been scheduled for here. While we are on that subject, I think it's important for me to go ahead and introduce everybody. Beginning at my far right, my fellow Hearing Officer is Hannah Springer. I'm Geri Giffin, and to my left is our Deputy Corporation Counsel Ivan Torigoe. To his left is Hearings Officer Grant Togashi. At this time, I'd like to please introduce themselves, starting with the Applicant. Randy? VITOUSEK:Good morning, Randy Vitousek representing the Applicant, Wayne Blasman. Mr. Blasman is on Island and on his way here from the And I take responsibility for not clarifying with my client the changed location of the hearing. It was clearly on the notices, I just, I'm afraid I didn't read it carefully enough. And fortunately I have a good secretary who sent me to the right place this morning. GIFFIN:Thank you. Mikahala. Maile. DAVID:Good morning, everyone, Maile David, lineal descendent of Keakealaniwahine. GIFFIN:And with you? DAVID:Intervenor. And with me I have Karen Eoff. GIFFIN:Thank you. Mikahala. M. ROY:Good morning, Mikahala Roy, Executive Director representing the board for Klana Huli Honua Foundation for the Search of Wisdom, and Intervenor. To my right, president of the corporation, my father, David Roy. GIFFIN:Thank you. Lester. ISHADO:Good morning. GIFFIN:Good morning. ISHADO:Lester Ishado, Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director, and with me is Planning Director Christopher Yuen. Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you. Staff this morning, Norman Hayashi, Phyllis F I always get her name wrong, Sharon Nomura. I hope I didn't for Moving right along then, this body has received two correspondences and I want to th address them right now. Dated May 6 from Randy Vitousek, it was a request for tomorrow's hearing to end at 4:00 p.m. Just for the record, I did want everyone to know 3 that I'm looking every day at 5:00 to recess, and so that would be for today, and I have granted Mr. Vitousek's request to recess tomorrow at 4:00. Randy? VITOUSEK:Thank you. th GIFFIN:You're welcome. The second letter is dated May 15, and it is from Maile David, and it is a request to change the order of today's witnesses to have instead of Maile David going first, the Intervenor Klana Huli Honua to go first; and that has been granted, as well. M. ROY:Mahalo. GIFFIN:Okay. Are there any questions? Maile? DAVID:Yes, excuse me. Before we start, and just for my preparat purposes, would you ask the Applicant to let us know the order of his witnesses today, that -. GIFFIN:Oh, I -. DAVID:Who he's calling? GIFFIN:I thought I had that pretty well cleared up. After reviewing the minutes, I think I can answer that. DAVID:Okay. GIFFIN:I'm not sure, there may be some additions. But I thought going to go into his fifth witness, Dr. Rechtman, and then following him, he had his sixth witness, and I can give you that witness' name. VITOUSEK:That witness' name is -. GIFFIN:Fielding Schultz. VITOUSEK:Fielding Schultz, but he's not available. GIFFIN:Okay, so he will not testify today. VITOUSEK:And he will not testify today, hence -. GIFFIN:So he will not be available for cross-examination. Howev think that after reading his testimony, if you have any questions, you might want to just address them to the Applicant's representative. VITOUSEK:Or to the Applicant. 4 GIFFIN:Would that be fair? VITOUSEK:Yes. GIFFIN:Or to the Applicant. VITOUSEK:Yes. GIFFIN:Okay. VITOUSEK:And then, so at the present time, Madam Chair, I plan only to call Dr. Rechtman. GIFFIN:Great. All right. DAVID:So you're calling Dr. Rechtman, and then you're done with case? VITOUSEK:Correct. GIFFIN:That's all the -. VITOUSEK:Unless -. GIFFIN:Written testimony we received. DAVID:Okay. GIFFIN:And so I'm going to go by that. DAVID:Okay. So other than written testimony, are you calling an other listed witnesses for oral testimony? VITOUSEK:Not at this time. You know, I did reserve, in the -. GIFFIN:Yes, he did. VITOUSEK:Witness statement, the right to call rebuttal witnesses. But other than that, Maile, no. DAVID:Thank you. GIFFIN:Okay. 5 VITOUSEK:Let me, gosh, I hate to be a lawyer and keep qualifying it, but it may be that if something comes up in Dr. Rechtman's testimony, I may ask the Applicant to testify again, either at the close of my case or on rebuttal. But other than that, that's all I have. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify the stat Keone Schultz's testimony. So you submitted oral testimony, I m but he won't be available for cross-examination? VITOUSEK:That's correct. The written testimony was submitted, a correct statement, and it's Fielding Schultz. Keone Schultz is an associate in our office. TORIGOE:Oh, Fielding Schultz, okay. VITOUSEK:Fielding Schultz. TORIGOE:Sorry. I think we need to get clear on the record before we end your case the parties' positions on that, you know, if -. Are y expecting the panel to take into account or consider Mr. Schultz' written testimony without cross-examination? VITOUSEK:We are offering his testimony. Yes, we've offered his written testimony, and that's, and so obviously if a party has a position on that, that' s something the Commission's going to have to decide. GIFFIN:The Applicant's representative did say that if there was anyone who had any questions regarding that, that he would refer those questions to the Applicant himself, correct? VITOUSEK:That's correct. And I understand, I mean the point is well taken, Mr. Torigoe, and it's just something that the Commission is going to have to decide. And if I don't, if the witness isn't here, has submitted written testimony, that becomes an issue for the Commission as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to wi ISHADO:Madam Chair, if -? I'm sorry. GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:If I could state the County's position on that. You know, there has been some concern expressed at the previous hearings on the, I guess the landscaping, the effect of the visual sites, use of the trees to shield the area. So we do have questions for the, for Mr. Schultz, you know. We won't object to the introduction of his written testimony, but we'd like to state we do have concerns about cross-examination; and only because, you know, this was brought up at the hearing. 6 GIFFIN:Absolutely, absolutely. Maile? DAVID:Yes, thank you. I would like to state, for the record, that I too would not want to waive my right to cross-examine Mr. Schultz be his testimony as far as buffers and planting schemes, etcetera. GIFFIN:Randy? VITOUSEK:Yeah, Madam Chair, and the I think the appropriate time to make any decision that the Commission has to make is at the close of my case. And when I say that's all I have, then if there are objections to receiving the written testimony without cross-examination, that's, that would seem to be the appropriate time. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe will remind me this discussion needs to be ad at that time, and that was what our consensus was between us, that at that time we will address it, it will not be ignored. Mikahala. M. ROY:Just that Klana Huli Honua echoes the concern -. GIFFIN:Yeah. M. ROY:With Maile. GIFFIN:Fair. Fair. Any other comments, Commissioners? None? Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:None. GIFFIN:None? Okay. I'll kind of follow, I've written up an ord would like to follow today. And because we do have a person who public testimony, I would like to begin with public testimony first. And if at any time there are more people who arrive who are here to give public testimony, I will allow them to testify, even if it means interrupting the order that I have set up. After public testimony, I would like the Applicant's witnesses to continue, and then from there we'll go ahead and begin with Mikahala's witnesses. Yes? Okay. Is Alfred Spinney here? And I hope I've pronounced your name correctly. Please come forward. Yes, there is a table and a chair for you. Watch out for the cords. Aloha, Alfred, Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth this morning before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? SPINNEY:I do. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Your name and resident address, please. 7 SPINNEY:My name is Alfred Spinney. My address is 74-5172 -. NOMURA:Please -. SPINNEY:Kanai Place, Kailua-Kona, Hawaiian Kingdom 96740. GIFFIN:Thank you. You may begin. SPINNEY:Okay. Aloha -. GIFFIN:Aloha. SPINNEY:Maka`anana. DAVID:Aloha mai. M. ROY:Aloha. SPINNEY:And officers of the occupying administration. Let's see. It's no secret, you know, about what had happened to the Hawaiian Kingdom, yeah. This is all relevant to all cases that come before the Council, because it's well documented in history. It's more along the international arena that this matter has to be dealt with because of the position that the, well, the occupier has, which is not being responsible and accountable for the actions that had taken place. Okay. But oc extinguish the legal attitude of this state or the citizen base. But it is destroying a lot of the landmarks, traditional and historical marks, landmarks. For example, the pier, okay, but there's more than just one. There has been a lot of buildin Kingdom, a lot of destruction. But, apparently, you know, money talks. That's the thinking frame of America, is progress and money. Okay. This is not meant to be addressed on a personal addressment, so I'm not really addressing it personally, but because you are in the position to make these decisions. And we have Rowena Akana up in Washington who had already stated that what the Hawaiian nationals wanted was their kingdom back and that it was not a reality, that's like an opinion. So weÓve got to understand that it's the international arena that makes these decisions and not the domestics of the US that occupy this place. Okay. So what I really need to stress is that because you hold an office within the administration of the occupier, and you make certain decisions that affect the outcome and the lives of the nationals that live here, then from this day on, I'd like to put the Councils, I'd like to put the representatives, the whole administration of the State of Hawai`i on notice that any destruction that comes to our historic landmarks, any destruction of the resources that get destroyed, a lot of resources have been destroyed, that you will be held accountable. Because regardless of the opinions of the United States, the State of Hawai`i administrations, it's a international decision that will be made. And no matter what color this act, this unlawful act is painted, white is white, black is black. So, like I said, it's well documented in history of what had happened. You are in the position right now 8 making those decisions that affect literally thousands. You might not see the nationals, but you can't see God, and he's here. The nationals are here, and I'm looking at, at least eight to 10,000. So right now, what we're dealing with is within the international arena, because the unlawful State of Hawai`i right now just conducts its business. But you need to know, when you're in this position, to make decisions that affect the nationals, as well as the Kingdom, that because of the documents that the State of Hawai`i has, you need to know that the State of Hawai`i and its administration will be placed on notice that any further destruction, that each individual that helps make those decisions shall be held accountable, along with the administration. So not meant towards you on a personal basis, but because you are in that position, you are making those decisions, you shall be held accountable, legally, legally accountable for the destruction. If you allow construction sites and money to talk and to change the minds and the rezoning of what the State has now, like I say, any destruction shall be placed on record, and it is inevitable that the Hawaiian Kingdom will be back. I mean I have no doubt about it because I see what's happening. It's just that the State of Hawai`i, the United States just does not want to accept responsibility for the unlawful acts that it had committed, so we'll let the international world decide on that. So just to let you know again that the whole State of Hawai`i, the United States administration is placed on notice to please stop the destructions of our lands, our resources, our historic sites. Thank you. GIFFIN:YouÓre welcome. Hang on just a minute. Hearings Officer beginning with you, Hannah, any questions? SPRINGER:No. GIFFIN:Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:No. GIFFIN:Okay. Applicant, Intervenors, any questions of Mr. Spinney? Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:No, no questions. Thank you. GIFFIN:Maile? DAVID:No questions. Thank you. GIFFIN:Mikahala? M. ROY:Aloha, Mr. Spinney. I want to ask you, in clarification, what you are stating is that for the decision made by this opportunity in this action, when you mean 9 effect to the land, are you meaning the detrimental effect to Kehihi, Keakealani complex? Is that what you're meaning, that location? SPINNEY:I am talking about all lands belonging to the Hawaiian Kingdom, not just one particular site, you see, because the destruction had been going on for over a century. M. ROY:Do you know personally about this location and why it's i to us? SPINNEY:Personally, I know it was a heiau that stretched from Kamakahonu across to the palace or near the palace. M. ROY:In this particular case, we are talking about a location Drive, Kaluaokalani, and this is the area on the maps behind you there. And I can appreciate, that's why I'm asking the clarifying question that you are meaning effect to sacred sites, correct, that the development this application brings? Is that correct? SPINNEY:Yes, it is correct. M. ROY:Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who came at th to give public testimony on this agenda item? Okay. Have you signed in, ma'am, with the Staff? MORALES:No, I haven't. GIFFIN:Okay. We do need a record, so if you would please sign in. And if there is anyone else who has come so far this morning to give public testimony, please come in and sign up. And then, Phyllis, could I have that individual piece of paper? I think that man is signing up to testify, as well, so what I'm going to do is swear both of you in at the same time. Sir, could you please raise your right hand, and you, too, ma'am. Do you swear or -? Your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GIFFIN:Thank you. Will you please state your name and your resi address and sit down and speak into the microphone. Thank you. MORALES:Aloha. GIFFIN:Aloha. 10 MORALES:My name is Ku`uipo Kalahiki Morales, and I live at 77-6489 Ali`i Drive. GIFFIN:Could you speak a little louder? MORALES:Pardon me? GIFFIN:Speak a little louder. MORALES:My name is Ku`uipo Kalahiki Morales. I do live at 77-6489 Ali`i Drive, Kailua-Kona. GIFFIN:Please begin your testimony. MORALES:I can't stay at this hearing today, but I just want to voice my concern about Keolonhihi. And if, you know, I don't know how many of you have gone out to this site and checked over the site. This is a wonderful educational center that must be used not only for us here at the present but for our future generations; and it's a wonderful, wonderful tool that we can use for the State of Hawai`i to educate people on our culture and our history here on this Island, one of the many, many places. And it is coming, being very disrespectful to change this place and to put a building on it. Please. I mean for the education of our children, have some respect of this historic site. And if you haven't gone there, you need to go there and feel this place and see what is out there, because it is fantastic and magnificent, and such a beautiful part of this culture and the history of our land. Mahalo. GIFFIN:Mahalo. Hang on one minute, please, Ku`uipo. Hearings Officer, Commissioner Springer, questions? SPRINGER:I'm wondering, do you understand that the subject property for this application is already fully developed? MORALES:No, I don't. SPRINGER:There are several units on the property, and it's adjacent to that part of Kaluaokalani known as the Pakiha. I'm wondering how you envision this developed property to fit into the educational vision that you described to us. MORALES:Well, whatever is left is what I'm really getting at, because I do understand. I've lived there for almost 30 years on Ali`i Drive, and I know the area, and I've seen the development; and whatever is left should be respectfully left alone. That's my concern. GIFFIN:Thank you. Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:No questions. 11 GIFFIN:Randy, representing the Applicant? VITOUSEK:Hi, I'm Randy Vitousek, I represent the Applicant. Where on Ali`i Drive do you live? MORALES:I live right across the street from that new parking lot Ali`i Drive, at that beach that they call White Sands. VITOUSEK:Ok, okay. MORALES:We call it La`aloa. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so you've been there about 30 years, is that right? MORALES:Me and my family, yes. VITOUSEK:Do you remember when there was a Snug Harbor Motel that located just, right down by Lyman's, right across from, I think, that was Dean's house? MORALES:Yeah, I know Dean's house. VITOUSEK:Okay. You know across, mauka side of the street, there was the Snug Harbor Motel, do you remember that? MORALES:No, I don't. VITOUSEK:Oh, okay. Because that's what this property is. This is where the Snug Harbor Motel was located. And, as Commissioner Springer said, there are now four houses on that property which were the motel. So I just wanted to make sure that you knew what property we were talking about. MORALES:Yeah, it's all relevant. VITOUSEK:Okay. Thanks. I don't have any other questions. GIFFIN:Thank you. Maile, any questions? DAVID:No. GIFFIN:Mikahala? M. ROY:Aloha, Ku`uipo. That development called Snug Harbor, in your opinion, is it obtrusive or inobtrusive to the area of that area? In other words that, what is there at this location that Mr. Vitousek just spoke of, in your mind, is it something that catches your eye as you go by? 12 MORALES:Oh, yes. Yes, it does. And every day I go by, that whole area in there, is pretty sad for me, you know. It's hard, it's really h M. ROY:In your opinion, you would rather it stay in this condition than be developed into a 13-unit condo, is that correct? MORALES:Absolutely. M. ROY:Why? MORALES:Because even though it was developed already, I certainly don't want to see it further affected. M. ROY:Yes, thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Robert S. Mist. You may begin your public testimony after you've given us your full name and your resident address, please. MIST:Yeah, my name's Robert Mist. I'd rather give you my P.O. box number here in Kona, which is 2172, Kailua-Kona. GIFFIN:You may begin your testimony. MIST:Yeah, I was born here on the Island in Hilo. I spend my su here, as Randy Vitousek knows, often with Gwen and Roger William concerned with the preservation of the artifacts and the culture, as was his wife. And my testimony is just simple, and that's that if we cannot prevent development going forward here, that at least it would be done in good taste. Meaning that, and Randy would know this, somebody like Val Ossipoff, who's no longer living, or som would see to it that the land itself would not be disturbed as, I don't mean to make a pun, but earthly possible to leave it alone, not put the bulldozer over it, and do something on stilts, or whatever you have to do. But a long time ago there was a vision for Kona. The Kona Inn w after Val got done with it. The Waiaka Lodge was pretty respectable, by my standard. Some of the homes that were built in Keauhou Bay, if and when they were removed, you could, when they were removed, the land was back to the way it w So my testimony is simple and that's that Lyman's is one of the most spectacular places on the coastline, and whatever can be done to respectfully preserve it, I wholeheartedly endorse anyone that's willing to do that. GIFFIN:Thank you. Commissioner Springer. 13 SPRINGER:Good morning. I just wanted to be clear that I understand your testimony to us. Are you suggesting that, are you recommending if development goes forward to use post and pier style construction rather than excavation and slab? MIST:Absolutely. SPRINGER:Thank you. GIFFIN:Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:No questions. GIFFIN:The Applicant's representative, Randy? VITOUSEK:No questions. Just say hello to Robert. MIST:Good morning. GIFFIN:Maile? DAVID:No questions. GIFFIN:Mikahala? M. ROY:Aloha, Robert. Are you familiar with the study and the complexities of the facts of the land at Keolonhihi, KeakealaniÓs residence? Are you familiar with the data that's known of this area? MIST:No. M. ROY:The application is regarding the 1.25 acres which is now called Snug Harbor. If I were to say, based on reports given on this area, that this was one entire complex before a road interrupted it, highly sacred in nature, only found here now in the Islands, would you still say you are in favor of development here? MIST:I didn't say I was in favor of development here. I just si that if I wasn't able to prevent it, then I would encourage the least amount of disruption possible. I am familiar with the area, maybe not prior to the road being there, of course, but I am aware there was a hill there. I think there may have been graves up there on the hill, I'm not sure. But I can go back far enough to say that wh board and Rabbit Kekai got it for my father and it was brought up here to this Island, I, it's full of holes because of the rocks at Lyman's, but no one else surfed out there, and I never saw anybody out in the water with me. So I'm familiar eno or less what that coastline looked like and also often think that when you go down to Miloli`i and walk to, help me, Honomalino, it probably looked something like that, I'm not sure. But does that answer your question? 14 M. ROY:Yes. Because I respect you as a resident, longtime, of Kona, and have much aloha for you, I want to ask you what is your heart's area, development or non? MIST:The only reason why I hesitate here is I'm a little embarrassed this morning not to be completely aware. I caught this thing, exactly what this is. I believe it's the area that's across the street from some of those large residences that are there, and I do remember some kind of a complex in there people rented in the summer. I think that they were almost insignificant. If you blew them, they'd probably fall down. I think I'd defer to you and your father on that matter. M. ROY:Just a simple question to clarify is for the future, if t application is about, to develop on that particular Snug Harbor parcel, are you in favor of that or not? MIST:You know, please, I don't know. I'd like to look into it f I, my instincts are, you know, any of these areas, it's a tragedy that, we have to develop somewhere, but it's a tragedy that it has to be developed on -. You know, and when the surf is up, that area is going to be full of people and, you know, there's not enough room to park; and it's, you know, it's just incompatible. We've already seen that on the north shore of O`ahu and other places. So whatever is done needs to be done to preserve what Ku`uipo said, plus the activities that go on in the water there. M. ROY:Mahalo. Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you very much for coming this morning. Oh, I'm sor Maile. DAVID:I thought of one question. Thank you. Mr. Mist, your feeling is that you'd rather, if you see any development on this particular property, you'd rather see a post and pier as opposed to a slab type project. Are you aware that this, the proposed project, is what would be a three-story condominium project? How does that affect your opinion on what should be appropriate there if something had to be built? What is your opinion on a three-story condominium project? MIST:Pretty tough to put it on post and pier and go up three stories. DAVID:Would you -? MIST:Waiaka Lodge was two stories, so they could do it. DAVID:Okay. What is your opinion as far as impacts that a three-story structure such as that would impose on the historic sites, on the complexes which share common boundaries? 15 MIST:I think it's a lot of density for a small area. DAVID:Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you. Any other questions of the testifier? Mr. Togashi. TOGASHI:May I ask what your occupation is? MIST:That's a good question. I've worked for six years for, fir Keauhou Kona Construction, and then I recently worked for Wai`ele Drilling and Development. And I currently was injured, I mean I was injured and I've just come back to Kona several days ago; and, I guess, you could say I'm not employed at the moment. TOGASHI:Did any of this involve a role in a supervisory capacity in your jobs at these two companies? MIST:It was rather unclear what I did there. I did everything nobody else wanted to do. TOGASHI:Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Thank you for coming this morning. there anyone else who has come this morning to give public testimony? Hearing none, Randy. VITOUSEK:Yeah, I'd like to call Dr. Rechtman as my next witness. DAVID:I wonder if -? VITOUSEK:Break? Yeah, that's fine. I have no objection if the parties want to take a break. DAVID:Right. I was just going to request that we have a short break. GIFFIN:Sure. DAVID:Thanks. Before we start this. Thanks. GIFFIN:Sure. Sure. We're in recess. Let me give you time, ten minutes. DAVID:Thank you. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a short recess at 10:03 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:20 a.m. 16 GIFFIN:I'd like to call this hearing back to order. This is an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit. We are in a contested cas Wayne Blasman, and his SMA number is 02-03. At the point that we recessed, I think we were going to continue with the Applicant's witness. VITOUSEK:Yeah, that's correct, and we were going to call Dr. Rechtman as the next witness. GIFFIN:Thank you. Mr. Rechtman. Did I swear you in originally? RECHTMAN:Yes. GIFFIN:I thought so. There was only one other person who I didn we did when I heard his testimony. Do you want to move the table out further so you have more room? RECHTMAN:I'm okay. GIFFIN:You're okay? Good. Thank you very much for coming. Mr Vitousek. VITOUSEK:Could you please state your full name for the record. RECHTMAN:Robert Benjamin Rechtman. VITOUSEK:Okay. RECHTMAN:My -. VITOUSEK:Go ahead. RECHTMAN:My address is -. VITOUSEK:Yeah. RECHTMAN:HC 1, Box 4149, Kea`au, Hawai`i 96749. VITOUSEK:And it's correct that you are the founder and principal archaeologist for Rechtman Consulting, is that correct? RECHTMAN:That's correct. VITOUSEK:Okay. And Dr. Rechtman, we had asked you to prepare wr testimony to submit to the Planning Commission in this contested case, isn't that correct? 17 RECHTMAN:That's correct. VITOUSEK:And you did, in fact, prepare written testimony? RECHTMAN:Yes, I did. VITOUSEK:Okay. And, Madam Chairman, we had previously submitted written testimony of Dr. Rechtman. He is here subject to cross-examination. However, before, because there are a couple of additional matters, I would like to question him a little bit about some supplemental work that he did after the date that his testimony was submitted; and that, then we'll offer him for cross-examination GIFFIN:Fine. VITOUSEK:And then to that end, I would like to offer an exhibit, a supplemental exhibit that is a copy of Dr. Rechtman's supplemental report on subsurface investigation. If I don't have enough copies, I'm sorry, and I can get more copies made. I have ten, I think. So, Dr. Rechtman, first the, your initial work relative to the property was done in 2001, is that correct, August 2001? RECHTMAN:Yeah, that's correct. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so after August 2001, did you perform any further site assessment of the property, and specifically in reference to a site assessment after some of the vegetation of the property was moved? RECHTMAN:Yes, I did. VITOUSEK:Okay. Can you describe what you did and why? RECHTMAN:As a result of the first study, which was included in the package that you have, there was some comments made, both by the State Historic Preservation Division and members of the community, relative to the potentials for subsurface remains on the property. My initial assessment, as a result of my initi that the likelihood of any subsurface remains was extremely minimal because of the exposed bedrock all over the property and the fact that it had been graded before. But in response to that, I went and did further -. We cleared the vegetation from the makai portion of the property, there was all this cereus cactus, and put an excavation unit in by hand in that part of the property, which is the only area that did have soil in it, perhaps about four to five inches worth of soil. So we dug an archaeological systematic test unit there and found no intact cultural deposits. The kinds of materials that came out, the kinds of things that I would have expected having to digging a hole anywhere along Ali`i Drive, a mixture of historic materials, and some shell and things like that. 18 The other concern from the community was that there was a cemetery there, and I did -. The testing showed that there wasn't, and I also did, sorry -. I also did some further oral interview work with people who had knowledge of a former cemetery on an adjacent parcel, the little small remnant parcel that's shown on a series of these exhibits that currently Kimi Cook has a house on. That parcel was part of a larger Land Commission award that ultimately ended up in the Mueller family. And the Mueller family had a cemetery on that parcel which had been, members of their family members of their family from that cemetery and relocated them to elsewhere. So I consulted with both the former property owner of the Snug Harbor property to get an idea of whether, what the extent of grading and dozing and digging had gone on in that property over the years. And he described that the property had been completely graded, and he had to dig a big, giant trench to tie into the sewer at some point. And I asked him if he had ever encountered burials or other archaeological resources there, and he explained to me no. And I also spoke with Mrs. Elizabeth Lee, a longtime resident of the area. Her aunt or mother, I can't remember which, once actually lived in one of th Harbor property; and she remembered going to that cemetery all of the time. She was collaterally related to the Muellers. She had an aunt who was married to a Mueller. And she described to me, on site, where the cemetery was. The walls that exist on the adjacent, are shared with the adjacent Kimi Cook property were the boundary walls of this little walled-in cemetery is, and there was a staircase leading up where the current driveway is for the, on the Cook property now. So that, in my mind, clarified where the cemetery area was; and the subsurface testing clarified that there were no subsurface archaeological remains intact on the property there. VITOUSEK:Dr. Rechtman, can I ask you to refer to the map which i on the wall behind you, which refers to the archaeological complexes, and just for the sake of clarity with the Hearings Officers, can you point out where the cemetery had been located? This is the cemetery that had been moved by the Mueller family. But can you show where it had been located? RECHTMAN:It was located on this little parcel right here. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so that's indicating the parcel that is immediately, is adjacent to and immediately south of the subject property -. RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:Is that correct? Okay. And that, you referred to that Mueller property, is that correct? 19 RECHTMAN:I only refer to it as that because I know the Mueller family and I know that they at one time owned it. I think the last name of the ownership was different though. VITOUSEK:Okay. And that's also the property that Ms. Kimi Cook has a home on, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:And so that property is currently developed with a single family home, is that correct? RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:And then you made a reference to moving the cereus vege and looking at a rock wall in that area, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:And can you tell us what you did and what your findings were? RECHTMAN:We, with a small backhoe. VITOUSEK:You can probably refer to the other map, as well. It's larger scale. RECHTMAN:Yeah. VITOUSEK:The adjacent -. RECHTMAN:Trying to orient myself on this one. Okay. With a sma this whole makai portion of the property had been overgrown in cereus cactus, so we went in and essentially removed from the surface all of the cereus cactus that we could easily get to. There was a couple of patches we couldn't get to because there were old cars underneath it. So we cleared all of that, located a stone wall on the south property boundary adjoining the current Cook property, which would have been the northern boundary wall to the walled in cemetery area; and we excavated a single test unit more or less in the center of the cleared area of the makai edge of the property, central to where that cereus cactus was growing. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so would you, you said that that wall former enclosed, well, that's a portion of the wall that formerly enclosed the Mueller family cemetery, is that correct? RECHTMAN:That's, from the oral information, that's what we got. other remnants of that wall exist on the other side of the property here and a small piece that joins across is still left. 20 VITOUSEK:Okay. Thank you. Now did, in your various field work property, did you find any evidence of cultural deposits, or remains, or archaeological features, or anything of that nature intact on the property? RECHTMAN:No. VITOUSEK:Okay. And did you find any evidence of any kind of tra other physical on the ground evidence that the property was used as a means of connecting one historical complex to another? RECHTMAN:No. VITOUSEK:And did your research disclose whether there is any remnant of a trail connecting the Keolonhihi and Keakealaniwahine complexes? RECHTMAN:Well, there have been archaeological studies done on adjacent parcels, particularly the parcel to the south. I believe it's owned by Pocobo -. VITOUSEK:Okay. RECHTMAN:Who was an earlier party to this. And, again, looking at the Keolonhihi and Keakealaniwahine historical complexes map, the archaeological work that was done before does show a trail, and you can see remnants of it. It's indicated on this map by a double line running mauka-makai, perhaps from the complex straight down to the Keolonhihi complex, which given other testimony about the nature of this area being called pu`u, which I think was given before, would make sense that people skirted around the hill rather than going up and over it. VITOUSEK:Okay. Now, Dr. Rechtman, you are familiar, I assume, w historical complexes located in the same area as the subject property, is that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And to your knowledge, are those sites of cultural significance? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And how would you grade the cultural significance of those sites relative to the other sites in the area, in the region? RECHTMAN:Extremely culturally significant. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so in your evaluation of the subject property, your evaluation took into consideration the extreme historical or very high historical and cultural significance of the adjoining properties, is that correct? 21 RECHTMAN:Yes, it did. VITOUSEK:Okay. That's all the questions I have at this point. GIFFIN:Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Dr. Rechtman? SPRINGER:Yes. GIFFIN:Ms. Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. I'd like to make an inquiry of you that I m Martha Yent during her testimony. With regard to archaeology, history, and culture, they seem to be used interchangeably and sometimes distinctly in Chapter 205; and previous testifiers on behalf of the Applicant indicated that you would be addressing Chapter 205 issues. So can you give us your definition of the differences between archaeology, history, and culture, please. RECHTMAN:Sure. I'll do that as perhaps as well as elaborating on why the confusion exists in there. History is essentially simply that which has happened; and in reference to the discipline of archaeology, the term tends to be used when you are talking about a period of time after the written record. Although history is a much broader term than that in the sense of archaeology when people are using the term history, they're using the term relative to the historical period, the period when there is a written record. Archaeology is simply just one way of gaining information about the past, using a particular set of methods. And those methods are examining objects and associations that were left behind by people in history to develop a concept about how life was at a previous point in time. Those methods could be applied to things during the historic period; they're not limited to pre-history. It's just a different way of gaining knowledge. An example would be there's a project that is, it's called a garbage project in the State of Arizona. Rather than going to the people's houses and interviewing them what they ate and da-da-da, because people can perhaps give different informat things sometimes, students from the University of Arizona go and collect trash out of people's trash cans. And they catalog all the trash, and they figure out what people ate, what kinds of products they were using, and developed this whole consumer report about individuals using archaeological methods as opposed to other methods. Culture, there's textbook definitions of it, the life ways of a group of people. It is not usually a definition within the discipline that is used for individual behavior but rather group behavior. And where the confusion comes in in the regulations is that there's things called cultural resources; and cultural resources, as a very broad term, can refer to both archaeological types of things, non-archaeological, more human types of things. An individual can be a cultural resource. Land forms that are non-archaeological can be 22 cultural resources, and so on. There's the interchanged word historic resources, and that word has a history. When the federal legislation was created to protect archaeological and cultural sites, they created what was called a National Register of Historic Places. And they made a distinction between your everyday archaeological or cultural resource and something they called a historic property. For something to be a historic property, it had to be a cultural resource, or a historical resource, or an archaeological resource that was eligible to be put on the Register of, National Register of Historic Places. So when Hawai`i created its legislation, it borrowed that term historic resources or historic properties, but it didn't borrow the definition that came with it. So they use, in the regs here, they use the term historic properties to mean any archaeological or cultural resource, whereas its original definition meant an archaeological or cultural resource that was so significant it could be listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a specific term in capital letters. So all these terms get inter, used interchangeably here, because of a series of, you know, historical events essentially. Did that clear it or not? SPRINGER:With that in mind, I have a couple more questions. Acc the Hawai`i County General Plan, the Kamoa Point complex at Hlualoa is both on the Hawai`i Register and National Register. Is that accurate? RECHTMAN:Yes, I believe that is accurate. If it's not on the Na it was perhaps determined eligible for the National Register, wh status. SPRINGER:I see. Thank you for that. Can you tell me, or can yo the map where the Kamoa Point complex is situated. RECHTMAN:The entire complex? SPRINGER:The entire complex. RECHTMAN:Which would, in my mind, include Keolonhihi as well as the Kaumalumalu site, is -. GIFFIN:Excuse me for just one minute. We do, for the record, ne specify exactly what map you are talking about. RECHTMAN:Well, I'm looking at the Keolonhihi and Keakealaniwahine Historical Complexes map. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe. RECHTMAN:Exhibit -. TORIGOE:Go ahead. RECHTMAN:Is there an exhibit number for it? 23 TORIGOE:I just wanted to clarify. I think that is Map Figure 2 from the, yeah, it's the Visual Impact Assessment. RECHTMAN:Yeah, I think that's correct. M. ROY:Excuse me, Madam Chair, I can't see. But we can't see th set up. Can you set it -? RECHTMAN:Shall I move this map out? GIFFIN:Norman. TOGASHI:You did some limited, not in your testimony but in your credentials, you listed you performed limited subsurface testing in Hawaiian Beaches, is that correct? I think it was part of the credentials that you -. RECHTMAN:Okay. Yes. TOGASHI:Oh, I guess, you don't remember that? RECHTMAN:Yeah, I can remember some Hawaiian Beaches projects. TOGASHI:You did those, you did some testing there as well as test excavations. RECHTMAN:Yeah, I remember that project, yes. TOGASHI:Okay. RECHTMAN:I can speak to that. TOGASHI:What was the reason for doing excavations in Hawaiian Be on that particular project? RECHTMAN:That particular property had an over two meter high and three meter wide platform constructed on the makai part of that property. So we decided to excavate in the top of that to see what that platform was, to be able to interpret what it was. TOGASHI:When you say platform, do you mean like a wall or a rock, a stone foundation? RECHTMAN:A pile of rocks. TOGASHI:A pile of rocks. 24 RECHTMAN:That was flat and paved on top. And, in that case, we put a one by one meter test unit in the top of that, removing the rocks. TOGASHI:I see. You also did some test excavations in San Clemen RECHTMAN:Yes. TOGASHI:According to your credentials that you listed. Was that confined to just a single one by one meter test excavation? RECHTMAN:No, in that case, the sites were extremely different an TOGASHI:So you're saying that the topography of the land, soil conditions, dictate the amount of testing that you do. RECHTMAN:Yes. TOGASHI:There has been some testimony offered, I've forgotten by but, as to the possibility of conducting excavations and should this, let's say, should this project be approved. And what the developer wants to do is he would want to excavate part of the property; and to do that, he would have to get a hoe ram or a D-8. In your opinion, do you foresee any destruction to the residence enclosure in the, on the Keakealaniwahine complex from the vibrations that the hoe ram or D-8 could do? RECHTMAN:I don't have enough experience or knowledge to answer that. I know that I just used a hoe ram in my yard, and all the dry stack walls that I made didn't fall apart. But I, but beyond that, a big giant machine like that, I don't know. TOGASHI:You have to argue as to what effect that would have on the nearby archaeological site what it would be. I'll yield the floor for now. I do have some other questions listed here, but for the life of me, I can't remember what I was trying to ask. GIFFIN:I don't know if this would help clarify it for you, Mr. Togashi, but I think the discussion that you were just referring to was with the testimony of Ms. Yent. TOGASHI:I'm not sure the, on the subject matter of the hoe ram as to which testimony it occurred in, but I do remember -. GIFFIN:Yeah. TOGASHI:Many questions regarding the use of that equipment. GIFFIN:Yeah. Right. And I think it was brought up as a question from one of the Intervenors, but I'm not sure. 25 M. ROY:Madam Chair, I've been trying to -. GIFFIN:Mikahala, please. M. ROY:It's Mikahala. I just wanted to say that there was heavy discussion on that matter, and it was brought up perhaps by the, one of ourselves; but then there was active discussion on that. GIFFIN:Was it when Ms. Yent spoke? Was it during that time? Be it was, I have that area marked in my minutes? VITOUSEK:It was the architect, I think. GIFFIN:Was it the architect? M. ROY:I agree with Mr. Vitousek. I believe it was when the architect spoke. VITOUSEK:I think he said what, he was describing what site work would be required. That's the best of my recollection but I -. GIFFIN:Was that on the first or the second day? VITOUSEK:We've had two days, I think it was on the first day. GIFFIN:Okay. VITOUSEK:I think so. GIFFIN:Okay. If that's the case, you can look at that discussion in your minutes. All right. Ms. Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. With regard to your supplemental testimony, that one volcanic glass piece, was the glass worked? RECHTMAN:No. SPRINGER:Thank you. In your references cited from your report that's a part of the application, I see no citation of "Exalted Sits the Chief" or the Kanahele piece that was prepared for State Parks, both of which include information relevant to Kamoa, if we're calling Kamoa Point complex the whole complex, as well as associated with this region. Can you explain to us why those were excluded? RECHTMAN:They weren't necessarily excluded. The report was an assessment report as opposed to an archaeological inventory survey. So the level of background research for an assessment report is somewhat less than that for an inventory survey. 26 And it just, there are probably ten other references to things in the area that could have been added in. But in terms of the assessment, they wouldn't ha perhaps new or different. SPRINGER:May I continue? GIFFIN:Yes, you may. SPRINGER:In your introduction of your report that appears with the application, it says that you, or indicates that you conferred with Dr. McCoy -. RECHTMAN:Yes. SPRINGER:Who indicated that the archaeological assessment would constitute an appropriate level of work. RECHTMAN:That is what he said. SPRINGER:Thank you. Madam Chair, I need to collect my thoughts, someone else has questions. GIFFIN:Fine. And you may interrupt at any time. Mr. Togashi. TOGASHI:I have recollected. Anyway, I do want to ask, how would you characterize your aims versus the aims or the overall goal of the State Historic Preservation Division? Are the aims virtually the same or different? RECHTMAN:I'm not sure I understand the question. TOGASHI:I guess the objectives of what the State Historic Preservation Division, their objectives or goals, would you say that your, in your profession as an archaeologist, would they be, these, would their aims be synonymous with yours? RECHTMAN:The, I'll try to answer that as best as I can. The State Historic Preservation Division operates under a set of rules, albeit draft rules, that govern them as a regulatory agency. And my work as a consultant is to keep my client in compliance with the rules of regulatory agencies, whether it be Historic Preservation rules, which again are draft, but those are Rules 205, 6(e) law, Chapter 6(e) State law. So my aim is, there's no agenda to my aim. My aim is to have the client, in this case the Applicant for this project, comply with those laws as best as he can. And whether he, you know -. The outcome of that depends on the resource that's there. So I give him guidance within the parameters of the regulations and the laws. 27 TOGASHI:Thank you. GIFFIN:Mr. Togashi, are you pau? TOGASHI:I am, yes, thank you. GIFFIN:Ms. Springer. SPRINGER:With regard to our concern with, in particular, Chapter 205, there is a section there, 205A-26(2)(a) which discusses cumulative effects of activity. We've heard from a number of sources that the present post and pier single story units that are there offer one set of circumstances, and that the proposed excavation and slab building will present another set of circumstances. Are you prepared to discuss, from a cultural context, the relative differences between these two construction types and their impact on the sites mauka of the present Snug Harbor, and if you could discuss the significance, particularly of the Pakiha, which I believe is the structure closest to the property. RECHTMAN:In that order? SPRINGER:Maybe a reverse order is more sensible. RECHTMAN:Okay. The Pakiha enclosure in the historical literature is referred to in two different ways. One as the actual residential compound for Keakealaniwahine's parents, and in another historical sense, another documented historical sense, it's referred to as a pu`uhonua. It could actually be both, or the pu`uhonua could be somewhere else within the complex. In I`i's book, his writings which date to 1803, 1802, 1801, a little later, a little earlier, right in that time period, refer to the area as the place above Keolonhihi where Keakealani's parents once lived. In later writings, 20 years later or so perhaps, in 1823, Ellis the coast, and an informant he was with, this is again supposition because the details are not in Ellis, but told him the village name along the coast there was, as, excuse me, I feel like Grant here, my mind went blank, Kaluaokalani. And then there's a translation presented in Ellis, in Ellis' words, the second heaven, which was, again, the historical reference on that does not necessarily give where he got that translation. It could have been the person he was with told him. It could have been his knowledge of Tahitian that led him to a translation like that, and then, so that, get at the historical significance of that area, including the Pakiha area. When you ask me to, from a cultural perspective, to describe different building styles on the property, I'm not sure which cultural perspective you want me to answer that from. SPRINGER:If I understand correctly, you have been identified as the member of the Applicant's team who would be addressing the historic, the archaeological, and 28 cultural aspects of the application and also the impacts of the proposed development upon those cultural, historical, or archaeological resources. So I'm trying to understand what the two different architectural styles, including the building, the actual construction of them, would present to those sites from a cultural perspective. RECHTMAN:I didn't do a cultural impact assessment for this. But had I, and had I done interviews with individuals, kama'aina in the area, my gu professional experience, that the preferred situation is no development on this property from a cultural prospective, no further anything, and sale of the property to an entity like State Parks, and then State Parks developing it as their interpretive center for the whole area. As I understand there were efforts to do that but that didn't happen. I don't think, if I was interviewing people and getting a cultural perspective on development of the property that any one architectural style would be more culturally sensitive than another relative to this property, because I think from that perspective, the no development situation would be the preferred situation. To carry it a little bit further, obviously, certainly architectural styles are more, you know, fit better in certain landscapes, less ground disturbance, things like that. But I, if that answers your question. SPRINGER:Yes, thank you. May I continue, Madam Chair? GIFFIN:Yes. SPRINGER:Why was no cultural impact assessment or statement prep RECHTMAN:I don't believe it was required under the law, the regulations. SPRINGER:Madam Chair, if anybody else has questions, I'd like to collect my thoughts again, please. GIFFIN:Yes. Maile, any questions of the witness? DAVID:Yes, thank you. GIFFIN:I'm sorry, excuse me for just one minute. DAVID:Oh, go ahead. TOGASHI:I should have hollered, but anyway, I did want to follow up on Ms. Springer's question regarding, she talked about the, you know, the alternative architectural styles to the building being proposed. Anyway, on Page 21 of the minutes of March 28, in Mikahala Roy's questioning of Mr. Bleck, she speaks about Hawaiian cultural protocol. Well, let me just say what Ms. Roy asked of Mr. Bleck, she says that in cultural protocol and tradition, meaning Hawaiian cultural protocol and tradition, there are existing parameters for sacredness. For example, are you aware that there are site height prohibitions and encroachment, physical prohibitions to sacredness and sacred 29 sites? Are you aware of those? And she is asking this of Mr. Bleck. And I wanted you to comment on this questioning. Are you aware of, I guess, Hawaiian cultural protocols or parameters governing site height prohibitions and encroachment, and physical prohibitions to sacredness? RECHTMAN:Yes. Hawaiian as well as the general Polynesian values associated with those. TOGASHI:And can you expand on those in relationship to, I guess, maybe this project here and the Pakiha? RECHTMAN:Yeah, there is a general sentiment in Polynesian cultur as well, that being high and above something else is reserved for the most elite. So that in a cultural situation when people perhaps walked into somebody's house, they crouched, they got down, they didn't elevate their head higher than the highest ranking elite person that was there. They also didn't build their houses taller than other people's houses. So height is an important aspect to that. Most every sacred site has a particular way of entering it. And it, there are different avenues of ingress for different people of different social levels so that certain parts of a sacred site can only be accessed by common people from a certain way, and there would be another entrance or another way to access it for somebody of higher social status. That's quickly, without doing some more major research on it, those are -. TOGASHI:Would you say that the proposed building would be in perhaps violation of the height parameters under that Hawaiian protocol, that you not build beyond a certain height of an enclosure which was formerly resided in by the parents of queen, of the queen? RECHTMAN:One perhaps could see it that way. It's hard when you' for me, when you're mixing some, a traditional concept and a modern development plan. The structures that were inside that residential complex are no longer there. The heights of those structures I don't know. The elevation change is fairly significant from that structure down to the property. TOGASHI:But given the, I guess, what's there as far as a wall enclosure, would the proposed building height be -? RECHTMAN:There's no question that it could offend Hawaiian sensibilities. TOGASHI:Thank you very much. GIFFIN:Any other questions? Now, Maile. DAVID:Good morning, Mr. Rechtman. 30 RECHTMAN:Good morning. DAVID:I mean, I'm sorry, Doctor. RECHTMAN:That's okay. DAVID:I have a few questions that will cover what you have just testified about and maybe also have some of my own. Who was it that said in, that in digging for a cesspool on the subject property, there were no subsurface historic remains? I think earlier in your testimony you, when you were talking or discussing testing, you said that I think it was, was it the prior owner? RECHTMAN:Julian Silva. DAVID:Oh, okay. Okay. RECHTMAN:And it was actually not a cesspool. DAVID:Oh, I'm sorry. RECHTMAN:It was a sewer line to connect to the main sewer. DAVID:Okay. Thank you. Is Mr. Silva an expert in identifying s historic remains, in your opinion? RECHTMAN:I don't know. DAVID:Thank you. Mr. Togashi's question about your testing done Hawaiian Beaches, you referred to the reason, the testing is determined on what's basically found on the subject property and, in that case, there was a pile of rocks, you described. RECHTMAN:It was a very formal pile of rocks. DAVID:Okay. And was this an archaeological site, in your opinion? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Thank you. In following up with Mr. Togashi's questions a being, about the height importance being an important aspect in the cultural ways, since you do have this great understanding, did you consider these things in your assessment, in doing your assessment? RECHTMAN:I did, and I considered these things again within the parameters of existing rules and regulations. 31 DAVID:And so your consideration of the impact that the height wo was done in, from the point of whether or not this three-story building would impact that particular practice, or tradition, or belief? RECHTMAN:No. It was whether the construction of this building was going to further -. The decision, my decision was that the viewplane, if you will, between Keakealaniwahine and the coast already had a series of tall, extremely tall, and one, now one more floor taller structures on Ali`i Drive, and that these structures, as long as he was not violating any other legal codes, would not, would be in a viewplane that was already obstructed. DAVID:I see. RECHTMAN:I didn't necessarily consider, because I didn't do a cu assessment for so much, you know, the relationship between the h versus the height of a nearby historically significant structure and so on. DAVID:Thank you. Are you aware that historical accounts state that Keolonhihi, Keakealaniwahine, and Kaumalumalu was once, or once comprised one chiefly royal complex? RECHTMAN:I haven't seen, I've heard people talk about that, but I haven't seen the primary sources for that in the literature. DAVID:Who did you hear this from? RECHTMAN:I've heard it here at this hearing. I can remember a reference, one archaeological study in a nearby area there may have talked about it in that way. DAVID:Thank you. Are you familiar with Section 205A that we've talking about, the Coastal Zone Management Area? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Thank you. RECHTMAN:Inasmuch as it relates, not the whole section, just the part relating to -. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:Archaeological resources. DAVID:Okay. Could you explain how your archaeological assessment would satisfy the objective to protect, preserve and, where desirable, restore those natural 32 and manmade historic and prehistoric resources within this Coastal Zone Management Area that is significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture? RECHTMAN:My assessment was made that that property had been bull grubbed, and essentially destroyed. The archaeological resources from that property had, if there were any, had been destroyed in the past, and -. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:I left it at that, that that, the area was basically gone. DAVID:I see. So it was limited, your assessment was limited to property? RECHTMAN:Correct. DAVID:Thank you. In your opinion, does your assessment provide adequate information that would enable the Hearings Officers here to make a determination whether potential impacts of the proposed development would not warrant protection under Section 205A? RECHTMAN:Concerning archaeological issues, yes. DAVID:Could you explain how your assessment satisfies the policy of the Coastal Zone Management Program to identify and analyze significant archaeological resources? RECHTMAN:There are no significant archaeological resources on the property. DAVID:Do you agree that the subject property is located within the Coastal Zone Management Area? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Would you agree that Keakealaniwahine and Keolonhihi are manmade historic and prehistoric resources also within the Coastal Zone Management Area? RECHTMAN:Yes. I'm not sure of the Coastal Zone Management Area boundary mauka of the property, so I don't know if Keakealaniwahine is in that, but it seems that it probably is. DAVID:Would you agree that the objectives to protect and preserve these historic sites apply to the surrounding areas, as well? RECHTMAN:Potentially. 33 DAVID: In your testimony, you state that development of these hi complexes and long term plans are dependent upon funding that has not been secured, is that correct? RECHTMAN:That was the information -. Development of -. DAVID:Of the State-owned properties in your testimony. RECHTMAN:State-owned properties, yeah. From the information I received from Martha Yent, that was, that's the information I have. DAVID:Based on that, is it your opinion that due to this lack of funding, are the State and permitting agencies relieved of their duty and obl protect significant historic sites? RECHTMAN:No. DAVID:Section Î, another section in 205A states that in implementing the objectives within the Coastal Zone Management Program, agencies shall give full consideration to, among other things, one of them is cultural values, as well as the need for economic development. Do you agree that in order for someth consideration, accurate and complete information must be provide RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:You state that it is logical to assume that the subject property once contained archaeological features, and that those features likely were residential in nature. In your testimony, do you recall that, associated with lesser chiefs or caretakers? RECHTMAN:Yes, I do. DAVID:Is it your opinion that prior to modern development, the s property was part of the Keakealaniwahine and Keolonhihi complexes? RECHTMAN:I would say it was, it was part of the Keakealaniwahine complex, probably. DAVID:With regard to Hawaiian cultural resources, historic sites, and traditional practices, do you agree that the laws of the State as well as the State Constitution provide that whether or not a property is developed potential impacts must be properly identified and assessed? RECHTMAN:Yeah. Yes. 34 DAVID:What process did you use in identifying the archaeological resources? You talked about there's a standard that you use in identifying the archaeological. Could you briefly tell me what the process is? RECHTMAN:The process first is to look at existing records from any previous work that may have been done on the property and, in this case, there was none. The next step was to physically walk on the property, looking for any surface indications that there may be, you know, previous resident or other activities on the property, and none was observed. And then finally in response to some questions, subsurface test was done which verified that essentially there is no soil on the property and there are no intact soil deposits, just disturbed soil in the area in the makai portion of the property. DAVID:Okay. Could I pass my turn while I get my questions? GIFFIN:Yes. DAVID:Thank you. GIFFIN:You're welcome. Mikahala. M. ROY:Thank you. Aloha. RECHTMAN:Hi. M. ROY:Just for the record, in being given today your additional work dated th March 27, 2003, we do need more time to review this. We wouldn't be abl over today substantially to be able to use it for questioning. In reviewing your written testimony, Dr. Rechtman, you note and you give reference to your knowledge of this land in the statement of the property is in the coastal edge of the Kona Field System. Are you familiar with how that phrase was co RECHTMAN:Kona Field System? M. ROY:Correct. RECHTMAN:Yes. M. ROY:How was it begun? RECHTMAN:It started as, as far as I understand it, as an observation that there was a series of agricultural fields throughout the area. And there was a study done of aerial photographs above Kealakekua Bay, and it documented this cross-hatched pattern of kuawi and terrace walls that seemed to extend from when it was, whe put it all together, from about Ka`, above the airport, to Ho`okena. And the term became used by archaeologists as a single complex, in essence, o 35 agricultural features across the landscape. It's, that, it's now, the concept of that is now changing. But Soren and Newman had a study; and then as a result of their work, a portion of the area was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. M. ROY:To reflect your cultural understanding, can you tell me the Hawaiian term for this way of planting? RECHTMAN:Which way, the -? M. ROY:What you have just described as the Field System. RECHTMAN:There's a couple of planting techniques that -. M. ROY:No, there is a -. RECHTMAN:That I know about? M. ROY:I'd like to know what your knowledge is on the term for o planting system. There is a term. Are you familiar with it? RECHTMAN:I'm -. M. ROY:To reflect your cultural knowledge. RECHTMAN:I'm perhaps not familiar with the term you're looking f M. ROY:Thank you very much. It's very broadly known throughout cultural resources, the name of our system. Are you aware of, what is Khewa? RECHTMAN:Khewa was an agricultural field, its size unknown, its location not necessarily known, that was ancient gardens that were reestablished by Kamehameha when he moved back to this Island to take up residence. Whether it's in the mauka portion of Kahalu`u or further more towards town, we don't exactly know. But it refers to a large, large obviously by the name, agricultural complex that was Kamehameha's fields when he returned back here. M. ROY:Thank you. I noted in your testimony and find it very glaring that you have done no cultural impact assessment here. And anyone wh about our culture would know of the locations of information reghewa, that this is an established garden, a personal garden of Kamehameha the Great, which is, extends Kep through Keauhou. What is a pu`uhonua? RECHTMAN:A place of refuge, a sanctuary area. 36 M. ROY:Could you compare the statement that this place is, that locations in this whole entire complex that we are discussing is a pu`uhonua to the Pu`uhonua o Hnaunau? RECHTMAN:I'm not sure I understood that. M. ROY:What is your understanding of the grounds of Pu`uhonua o Hnaunau? RECHTMAN:The grounds of the national park area? M. ROY:Correct. Regarding the definition of pu`uhonua, the extent of the way that that system is cared for and operated, how do you compare that to a location that is said to be a pu`uhonua here? RECHTMAN:They're on a different scale. This location here seems to, I'm not sure I understand your question. But if there is a particular feature here that was referred to as that, then it's a feature within this overall complex. M. ROY:And I do believe you stated it was a pu`uhonua. RECHTMAN:There is evidence in historical sources that suggests that perhaps that one feature would serve that function but -. M. ROY:And yet you do not know the depths of what a pu`uhonua is say it's a sanctuary, or did you say a place of -? RECHTMAN:A place of refuge someone could -. M. ROY:Refuge? RECHTMAN:Could go there -. M. ROY:I see. RECHTMAN:To resolve, to be protected. M. ROY:I see. And, again, for the record, you have said that th property is a part of the important cultural and spiritual area regarding or near this area which is part of a, including a pu`uhonua. Then as you've noted in your written testimony, you've taught with subject titles including Comparative Cultures, Theories of Human Behavior, Transmissions of Culture. What has your training been in Hawaiian culture and Hawaiian spirituality? RECHTMAN:No formal training in Hawaiian culture or spirituality. 37 M. ROY:Thank you. And yet you attempt to define the word pu`uho Could you describe with any knowledge the spiritual significance of the 1.25 acres being, that is the subject parcel here? RECHTMAN:No. M. ROY:Not at all? RECHTMAN:I, the spiritual significance? Inasmuch as that it's land here on Hawai`i Island and it's adjacent to an existing historical complex and likely had archaeological features on it at some point, it is, I'm sure that there are people that have a spiritual connection to that land. M. ROY:Again, as Commissioner Springer has brought to light, you not included some of the most important cultural testimony and work that's been done on this area, namely Pua Kanahele's report, that does talk about these missions. And, for the record, it is glaringly absent. Please define in your opinion then -. Well, let me ask you this. Exactly when did you know of the term pu`u? RECHTMAN:With respect to a place, a specific place associated with this project area? M. ROY:Yes. Can you just say about when you became familiar wit term? RECHTMAN:I don't remember. M. ROY:Ten years ago? RECHTMAN:Within the last two years. M. ROY:Thank you. Within the last two years. I have further qu will stop here for now. GIFFIN:Officers, any other questions of the witness right now? Commissioner Springer. ISHADO:Can I -? GIFFIN:I apologize, Lester. ISHADO:Thank you very much, Madam Chair. GIFFIN:But it's just that, you know, Mr. Yuen was smiling so broadly I thought we were through on that end. 38 ISHADO:Dr. Rechtman, if I could, basically, you know, we don't k the answer is, but we think it might be significant to the parties here -. Well, first of all, looking at this map that you have before you showing the complexes, and I believe it's Figure 2, do you know who drew this map or where it came from? RECHTMAN:I think this map came from a study done by Hal Hammett ISHADO:Hal Hammett. RECHTMAN:In maybe 19, I can't remember the exact date, in perhap 70's, early 80's, maybe '83. He did a report and included this particular map in that report. Now if you're referring to the source of information that he used to get aspects of this map, that's a different, those came from different sources. But this figure in this configuration, this map I believe is a direct reproduction from that report. ISHADO:Okay. The reason I was asking is, yeah, the map does appear to show some structures on the subject property. And I was wondering when this was done and, well, basically what resources he had to prepare it. RECHTMAN:Yeah, I think it shows the existing houses on the subject property, I believe. ISHADO:Are you aware of a map by Kekahuna in the 1950's showing subject property, subject area? RECHTMAN:Yes. ISHADO:And would that map show anything in terms of, I guess, th development of the property? RECHTMAN:I don't believe that that map shows the particular parcel that we're talking about here. It shows, if you're talking about the Keakealaniwahine complex map of Kekahuna's, it, my recollection is it doesn't show anything makai of Pakiha. ISHADO:Okay. You know, and part of the reason we're asking is t know, we understand that there are questions by the parties and by the Hearings Officers as to, you know, what this particular parcel, I guess what the configuration was. Right now we know it today as a 1.2 or 1.3 acre parcel. Do you know when that separate parcel was created? Do you know anything about the background? RECHTMAN:I don't. ISHADO:And you mentioned it was part of a Land Court award to Loi back in I'm not sure the year but -. 39 RECHTMAN:Yeah, that award, that's a ali`i, that's an ahupua`a award; I don't believe it's just that parcel, it was the whole area. ISHADO:But you're not aware of how it was created or why? RECHTMAN:No. ISHADO:Are you aware of when the Keakealaniwahine parcel became a separate parcel? RECHTMAN:When it became part of the State Park system. ISHADO:When was the parcel created? RECHTMAN:That includes the Keakealaniwahine complex, that parcel ISHADO:That's -. RECHTMAN:The State piece? I know that it was with maybe, gosh, only five years ago or so that it was sectioned out and given to the State. I don't even know if that transaction is complete yet. ISHADO:Okay. Madam Chair, the reason we're asking, so I can exp perhaps, you know, the Hearings Officer can follow up on this, w what the significance of this 1.2 Î 1.3 acre parcel is. Because apparently when the Keakealaniwahine complex parcel was created, it was created as a 17-acre parcel. It wasn't, you know, broken down to 1.3 acre parcel. And we would know, the historical background of how this was done and why. And, you know, if any of the parties or the Applicant has information, you know, we'd appreciate knowing more about it. If I could just go on and go over your earlier testimony. First of all, this study parcel you have is Figure 11. I guess it's really upside down, depending on where you're standing. But the test unit is located along Ali`i Drive, is that correct? RECHTMAN:Correct, above -. ISHADO:On the bottom portion of the -. RECHTMAN:Above Ali`i Drive, in this portion of the property. And I'm indicating the makai portion of the property, I'd say a third of the way from the south boundary. ISHADO:Okay. And I just wanted to clarify that for the record because when we look at your maps, it's kind of upside down. But -. 40 RECHTMAN:It fit on the page better that way. ISHADO:Now as far as studies that, you know, the Department of Land and Natural Resources recommended, and as far as studies that you have done, as far as your studies, you've concluded an initial study and then this supplemental study. Did you do any other studies on the archaeological sites on this property? RECHTMAN:No. ISHADO:Are you aware of any other studies by anyone else regarding this property? RECHTMAN:No. ISHADO:And the recommendations of DLNR, basically, they're talki about limitation of the building to one story. Has that recommendation changed at all as far as you know? RECHTMAN: I don't know. ISHADO:And they've recommended a 100-foot buffer. Has that chan RECHTMAN:I don't know. ISHADO:Do you agree or disagree with that recommendation? RECHTMAN:Is that -? ISHADO:And I realize that's a difficult question. RECHTMAN:Is that on a professional question or a personal question? ISHADO:Well, let's keep it at a professional level. RECHTMAN:From professional level, I think the 100-foot setback is excessive. ISHADO:And what about the one-story building? RECHTMAN:I think it would be, on a professional level, I think it would be difficult to develop the property in the way that the property owner wants to develop it, given one-story height restrictions. ISHADO:Can you perhaps clarify that 100-foot buffer being excessive? What is the basis for that opinion? 41 RECHTMAN:The amount of space, again, it's tied to what the owner wants to do on the property, and the amount of space, footprint space left by having a setback of 100 feet off the mauka boundary. Is this what we're talking about? ISHADO:Yes. RECHTMAN:You know, it takes a substantial portion of the property. It can be done, but then one would have to scale back their 13-unit proposed plan. And then, this is getting outside of my range of expertise, but then the economics of it don't work, I understand. ISHADO:There is a, you did make the recommendation for a archaeological monitoring during construction, is that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. ISHADO:And how would this monitoring work? I mean would you hir somebody or -? RECHTMAN:The owner of the property would have a professional archaeologist there during initial work, primarily only where there's soil, because once you're into the rock, then the only thing that you can potentially encounter would be a lava tube or something that someone would respond to if that was found anyway archaeologist would be there alongside or actually just in front of a bulldozer. ISHADO:Speaking of lava tubes, have your studies or any other study indicated the presence of lava tubes in the area? RECHTMAN:There was one reference to a lava tube, location unknown, entrance unknown, somewhere perhaps makai of Ali`i Drive at the bottom portion of the former Mueller large Land Commission Award. And this came, I had a dis Mueller descendent who said that there was a tube that they cemented closed at one point. But where it ran, where it was, the information seems to have been lost. ISHADO: Is there a way of exploring to see whether there is a tube there under the subject property? RECHTMAN:Not archaeologically. I mean you might be able to get a well drill, I mean someone may be able to drill a hole through the rock and see if they hit a void, but there's no, there are no archaeological techniques for discovering subsurface lava tubes that don't have entrances. ISHADO:And what is your recommendation if a lava tube is encount during the construction period? 42 RECHTMAN:There is State law that governs that. If a lava tube is encountered, work stops, they contact an archaeologist. The archaeologist examines it to see if it is an archaeological site. If it is, DLNR is consulted as to how to treat it. ISHADO:Do you know why Mr. Mueller cemented the tube? Did he -? RECHTMAN:The information was that they had placed some objects i were of significance to their family and then closed it, but I couldn't track any further information on that. Nobody had any firsthand knowledge of it anymore. If I can -. I did ask the resident of the house in, Kimi Cook, if when they graded for that house they encountered any lava tubes, and she told me no. ISHADO:Okay. Dr. Rechtman, just one final question. Regarding the visual or noise impacts, I realize this is not in your field, but, you know, we may not have a chance to talk to Mr. Schultz about this. Do you have any comments about the, I guess, minimizing the visual or noise impacts for the property? RECHTMAN:It's outside my range of expertise. ISHADO:Thank you very much. Appreciate it. GIFFIN:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. In your discussion with Dr. McCoy, was the of these sites and their significance and cultural relevance discussed? RECHTMAN:He knew exactly where the project area was. The recomm or agreement that an archaeological assessment would be an appropriate study was based on the fact that the property had been developed before, and purely for that reason. SPRINGER:And with that, there's no, in your opinion, no requirement for a cultural impact assessment? RECHTMAN:Correct. I was never asked to do one, and I believe there was no regulatory trigger for one. SPRINGER:Thank you. In your discussion just a moment ago, you prefaced a number of your remarks that in your professional consideration the heights and the recommendations by State Parks were perhaps excessive. Do I understand that your obligation is to protect your client and their intentions, in particular with regard to their economic liability? RECHTMAN:No. 43 SPRINGER:I thought I understood, so please correct me because I may have heard wrong, that in that discussion you indicated that, I thought that you indicated that the 100-foot setback and the height limitation would cause the economics not to work. RECHTMAN:No, that was perhaps a misspeak. Those are, from a pro standpoint, those are considerations as part of a project team. In terms of, and I can elaborate on the answer now for you. I've been involved with several projects that included heiau and preservation areas associated with those. And the largest buffer off of something of a ceremonial structure that I've seen on a large, they do, on big properties, is about a 70-foot buffer. I've seen others that are bigger in other areas, but they are very large properties. On small properties, I've seen the State require buffers of something on the order of 10 feet, 5 feet, 20 feet, depending on, again, the consideration for how much of a person's land you're taking and whether you're causing, whe limiting someone from developing their land. So that's, it was that that I haven't, that, you know, setting a 100-foot buffer zone and height limitations beyond that seemed excessive. I've seen condominium projects be approved under the same rules with 15-foot buffers off of what I would consider significant burial features and two- and three-story structures immediately adjacent to those. Again, not necessarily culturally sensitive, but regulatorily approved. SPRINGER:When you mentioned those other heiau which have smaller buffer zones, were they as well documented as to names and use and association with historic figures? RECHTMAN:Some were. SPRINGER:May I continue? GIFFIN:Yes. SPRINGER:The study we have before us, I think from your own testimony, you indicate that a fully developed property may lack significant archaeological resources but still be subject of cultural practice. RECHTMAN:Potentially. SPRINGER:The archaeological report which you presented, as well as the supplemental document, focuses on archaeological resources. As part of our decision making though, looking at 205 and how they use those terms somewhat interchangeably, where would we turn to for consideration of cultural impacts to help us with decision making? RECHTMAN:I guess short of the Applicant providing some kind of c assessment to weigh, the information obtained from native indivi provide you testimony. 44 SPRINGER:So through the course of the hearing process, is that -? RECHTMAN:Yeah. SPRINGER:Your answer? RECHTMAN:Yeah. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. I have just one more question. Earlier in your testimony, you pointed out that sites such as the Pakiha might have prescribed accesses to them. I'm wondering if you could point out on the map that we'v discussion, identified as Map Figure 2, you can point out these Pakiha? RECHTMAN:I don't think that I could. SPRINGER:Okay. RECHTMAN:The only information on the map that shows walkway or trail ways is a remnant of a trail that's essentially running on the property adjacent to the subject property to the south in a mauka-makai direction, somewhere here. As again, I'm indicating coming makai, heading mauka, and then crossing into the shaded area on this map, that's Keakealaniwahine. SPRINGER:And I guess I should ask, did your, did you go onto the any other of the features associated with Kaluaokalani for the purposes of your work on this project? RECHTMAN:For the purposes of work on this project, I went back to Pakiha, none of the other features. I went to look at the relationship between that and the property boundary to get an idea of how far it was beyond the pr almost 50 feet or something like that, I don't remember exactly, beyond the property boundary and so on. SPRINGER:So in that time that you spent at the Pakiha, you could find no evidence of an entryway, either primary or secondary? RECHTMAN:I don't remember an entryway. SPRINGER:Thank you. We've heard from various testimony that the associated with Keakealaniwahine and her family and may have been used as a pu`uhonua. Can you interpret the word or the name Pakiha for us? RECHTMAN:No. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 45 GIFFIN:You're welcome. Mr. Togashi, any other questions? TOGASHI:I have no questions. GIFFIN:Mikahala. M. ROY:Ms. Giffin, my father has a question. May he route a question to the, to Dr. Rechtman? Could he pose a question? GIFFIN:Yes, as long as it's germane to the material that's been M. ROY:Thank you. GIFFIN:You're welcome. Mr. Roy. D.ROY:In your discussion about the Kona Field System, you say you had no idea how far it extended on the top of the, on the upper elevations, or -. Could you describe where it -? RECHTMAN:The Kona -. D.ROY:Where Khewa was located? RECHTMAN:The Field System, in terms of its formal features, exte much to the forest line. And what I said relative to Khewa was that I don't have any knowledge. And from what I have, I have actually just been doing some research on this because I'm doing another project in Kahalu`u, the exact location of what was called Khewa is not necessarily known. It may simply just mean the vast amount of fields that are up in the mountain, in the foothill areas there, as opposed to a particular place. It's -. D.ROY:I would like to suggest that John I`i was one who knew Khewa. And he mentions that it extended from Kep to several land divisions down the way, eight or nine or more; and that leaves us with a pretty good description of where Khewa or the expansion of Khewa is. Kua, Kep is at the northern end of the district pretty much, and it probably ends up at Keauhou and Kahalu`u. When he described this place here, he described it as a place where Kamehameha established his k`ele, or his personal garden, to help the people in recovering from their famine. Do you remember that? RECHTMAN:Yes, I've read that in I`i. D.ROY:Okay. Now do you know where Pu`u was by way of the map system that the State has, in any part of Kona? Did you ever kn located? 46 RECHTMAN:The Pu`u, if we're referring to the place named Pu`u -. D.ROY:The Pu`u that is referred to by John I`i. RECHTMAN:As he was, when they were in Keolonhihi. D.ROY:He didn't, he mentioned it when Kalani`pu`u left for Ka`, he left Kamehameha behind. RECHTMAN:Right. D.ROY:At Pu`u. RECHTMAN:Right. D.ROY:Do you know where that Pu`u is? RECHTMAN:My understanding is that it is the area -. D.ROY:How did you know that that was your understanding? RECHTMAN:I'm trying to remember now. I think the term, I think to that particular place I heard for the first time two years ag someone by the name of Desmond Cagamgpang, who was a, I don't kn him, but he was married into the Mueller family, as well. And he referred to, he remembered, he referred to it in that name when we were talking about the area a couple years ago, and that there, you know, before the road went in and everything else, that it actually was a physical little hill there that is no longer ther D.ROY:That's right. RECHTMAN:I believe that that's when I first came to the association between Pu`u and that particular place on the map. D.ROY:It might interest you to know that back in the early 50's and 60's, I had been looking for Pu`u and I found, I mean I had gone through the State survey office and there was no indication of Pu`u on the maps at the location where we know it is now. And that's why I was curious as to how you got to know that because there were no maps. RECHTMAN:Right. It came from oral information. D.ROY:Thank you. M. ROY:Madam Chair, I have continuing questions. Thanks. So yo reference to Pu`u did not come from John I`i then? 47 RECHTMAN:I read it in I`i, but it didn't give a specific spot on the ground that you could tie to a map or a point location. M. ROY:Then would you say that it was not noteworthy in your rea then? RECHTMAN:No. I wouldn't say that. M. ROY:Thank you. Also, when you talked about your information heiau and your buffer zones and so forth, again I ask you, what is the depth of your spiritual training and the background of heiau in Hawai`i? RECHTMAN:Only what I've gathered from working with kama`aina and with an associate of mine who provides me with background when h M. ROY:Compared to your background in archaeology, how would you compare your study of Hawaiian spirituality and a location such as this, which you have qualified as an extremely significant historical site? Compared to archaeology, how has your study of Hawaiian culture and spirituality, how does that c RECHTMAN:I have studied archaeology worldwide and have studied it in greater depth and have a greater knowledge of archaeology than I perhaps do of Hawaiian spirituality. M. ROY:Because -. Thank you. Because your statement has reflected that, as you've testified, the surrounding area surrounding this parcel you've called extremely significant. And my question is how would you not move, with your vast background as the archaeologist you are, how would you not have moved to your expressed that cultural research be done? Why would that not have come from you, with your vast background in this area? You, as Commissioner Springer has reminded us, you are the team player that is supposed to be sufficiently able to answer all questions regarding culture, heritage, history regarding this application. RECHTMAN:I'm not sure if that characterization is exactly accurate. But there was, there is, the advice relative to cultural studies -. It goes the other way. I get asked to do studies rather than telling people what studies should be done. But there was, there seemed to be, and I think the decision was made with the attorneys and everything else, that there was no regulatory requirement to do a cultural impact assessment. This didn't trigger a different state law that would require that. M. ROY:I guess what I look for as a citizen and a component of this community is the integrity of those that are involved in processes that are regulated. However, when they do involve very sensitive areas such as this, that all is done to the best of your team players' abilities. That's my observation. 48 Also, when you spoke of those heiau, can you name them that you regarding buffer areas and so forth? RECHTMAN:There was one, I'm trying to think ones in town that I was involved with. Again, these were names of heiau that were on Kekahuna ma called Pa`a`umi, which was, it was on a property that, as yet to be developed, but the preservation aspects of it have already been done. There was another one associated with that called pnui. Offhand, those are the named ones that I can remember bein involved with in recent projects where buffers were, they may no as other sites, but buffer zones were established, very minimal. M. ROY:And, again, can you tell us what your understanding is of Native Hawaiian religious significance to sites and why such buffers would exist in the old understanding? Are you familiar with the true Hawaiian understa regard to mana? RECHTMAN:Sure. These areas were kapu. People could not and shouldn't have been near them unless they were there for a particular reason. M. ROY:So, in fact, can you say how many feet were a part of tho traditional buffers? RECHTMAN:Traditional buffers? M. ROY:Yes. RECHTMAN:Absolutely not. M. ROY:Thank you. Regarding digging, excavation of this property, if in fact you did come across any sites subsurface, if your report is in error, what would that do to the integrity of what you found? Say, for example, it has been testified by another component of your team that they plan to dig down, it said in the record how many feet. As we find at Oceanside 1250, they sadly find out about these things after a bulldozer has gone into the area. If that happens here through your digging, what does that do to the integrity of a system that is there in a site area that you've designated as extremely important? RECHTMAN:I'm not sure of the question. It's my best professional opinion that there is no archaeological resources to be found on the property and that if they dug, if they were excavating for however many feet it was specified, and were digging through solid rock, I wouldn't expect that they would find anything below the solid rock given how old that solid rock is. M. ROY:I just find it suspect to have you say earlier that you acknowledge the presence of possible systems, tubes and so forth, and that you are so willing to say 49 that your research is so true, that really this area could not hold subsurface components and features. RECHTMAN:It's possible that they could, anytime you dig in Kona, to encounter a subsurface lava tube and it's possible that that subsurface lava tube may have archaeological remains in it. M. ROY:And I come back to the same question to you. In an area you've acknowledged as culturally extremely significant, what this would do to material and components that you may find in an area like this, is just merely the question I pose to you. And the reflection that you are saying to me today is that that could very well be. You could be incorrect. There could be something there, and yet you move ahead stating that this is, to the best of your ability, not present. I have other questions, and I would like to reserve the right to continue questioning. GIFFIN:Mikahala, I think that what we're going to do right now is if there are, by the spokespeople for the Intervenors and for the County Hearings Officers, if there aren't any immediate questions, what I'm going to do is in reference to your comment earlier about just receiving the supplemental report that Randy Vitousek presented this morning, I'm going to ask that thi least after lunch, so that it'll give you a fair chance to examine the material that had been presented to us. I think that that's what you were asking for. In addition to that, I think Mr. Torigoe has some comments he wants to make on, not just the supplemental report but another issue that had been raised earlier. Right, Mr. Torigoe? M. ROY:Excuse me, ma'am, I can't read this at lunch, I'm going t lunch. GIFFIN:Then I'm happy to extend the lunch recess for another 30 after that. But, in addition to that, no more. So Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: I think, I just wanted to make sure that we didn't forget to deal with, for one thing, the offering of the supplemental report into evidence. I don't know if that has been done, or if you want to do that. VITOUSEK:Yeah, I do. I just want to add it on as either next exhibit in order, which I don't know the number or, yeah, let's just add it on as the next exhibit in order. And then I guess if you need, the Intervenors need time to read it, then the discussion which we'd have after they read it, but it's about 300 words. GIFFIN:I know. It's not very -. VITOUSEK:It shouldn't take that long to read. GIFFIN:Lengthy at all. 50 TORIGOE:The other issue was just, again, as we discussed earlier the, we need to make some kind of a disposition of Mr. Schultz' written testimony. And I think, again, we should deal with that at the very end of the case, of the Applicant's case. GIFFIN:Okay. I have about 12:15 right now. And what I would like to do is recess for lunch. Give us an hour, 1:15, and then another 30 minutes so that as per the request of one of the Intervenors, so 1:45 to reconvene here. All right? Thank you very much. VITOUSEK:I'm sorry, Madam Chair. M. ROY:Thank you. VITOUSEK:Is the room here be secure, we can leave our -? HAYASHI:Yes. GIFFIN:Sharon? Norman? Thank you. M. ROY:Thank you. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a lunch recess at 12:15 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:45 p.m. GIFFIN:I'd like to call the meeting of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission back to order. The agenda item is, the Applicant is Wayne Blasman. The SMA number is 02-03. This is an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit. And where we were when we stopped for lunch was we were listening to Robert, Dr. Robert Rechtman, who will please come forward again. Yeah, I know, it's a maze. Thank you for coming back and waiting through lunch. There was the Intervenor regarding ability to go ahead and read the supplemental report that was presented to us today so that she could adequately, you know, respond to some of the information that you have in it. And there may be other members of this panel who also may have questions, too. So let's begin with the Hearing Officers. Hannah, any questions regarding anything that this witness has said and, maybe, in particular the supplemental report. SPRINGER:Not at this time. GIFFIN:Okay. Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI:No, not at this time. 51 GIFFIN:Okay. Mikahala. M. ROY:Thank you. Yes, I do, I do have questions. I suppose my questions to Dr. Rechtman previously leaning toward the background of Khewa, for example, the Hawaiian name for what the archaeologists call a fi developed by a very recent study that he explained in the 1970's by this scientist by the name of Estelle Newman. My questions go there, and if you notice, my father's did, too, because as you reflect in this report on Page 9, it just takes my mind and soul to the discussion of the land in this area. Khewa is, in fact, Kamehameha's private or his personal k`ele; and in this parcel, this would be the lands very much near this garden, you see. And for the record, Dr. Rechtman could not speak on his knowledge of the parameters of Khewa, I'd like to raise that point. And then pertaining to his study, I notice he lists on Page 9 -. VITOUSEK:Excuse me, Madam Chair, I'm sorry, but I want, you know the time for asking questions. This sounds more like argument than asking questions. So what I guess I -. You know, ordinarily, we're not entitled to comment on the evidence as it's being presented, and so I'd object to the question as not being a question but in fact being a comment on the evidence. And we just, you know, just to that there's a time to ask questions and get responses, and then there's a time to argue the point. GIFFIN:I agree. And the Intervenor, I did want you to know that there is a time during this hearing to do just exactly what you're doing, which is what I think Mr. Vitousek is referring to. M. ROY:Thank you. Being a lay person -. GIFFIN:Yeah. M. ROY:I'm not privy to that procedural aspect. And thank you, Mr. Vitousek, for flagging that for me. However, I did want to comment on a statement I had made earlier and previously and why I link it now to -. GIFFIN:And I think -. M. ROY:This drawing -. GIFFIN:I think that that's just fair. M. ROY:This data. GIFFIN:But if there's more, then I ask that you wait until that appropriate -. M. ROY:Certainly. 52 GIFFIN:Time. But go ahead, and just go ahead and finish your qu and then we'll move along in accordance to what Mr. Vitousek sai M. ROY:Under, well, so anyway on Page 9, I just reflect that your Layer 1 is listed as very dark grayish brown fine silt. It just leads my mind to question the component consistency of Khewa's land, very nearby. But Page 1, I will bring our attention to, as it's written, just as we start the paragraph, "The DLNR SHPD review questioned 'whether there are any subsurface cultural deposits on the property that were not destroyed. DLNR SHPD staff have never physically examined the property.'" That statement, is that correct? RECHTMAN:As far as I know, that is correct. M. ROY:And yet they make the assessment, the answer to their question is no, without a physical trip to the property. Is, am I reading that right? Maybe you need a copy. RECHTMAN:That DLNR, DLNR made that assessment without ever having seen the property. M. ROY:Correct. Is that correct? RECHTMAN:That is correct. M. ROY:Thank you. GIFFIN:You're welcome. Any more questions? Then Randy. I am - DAVID:No, that's okay. GIFFIN:So sorry. I didn't see you. Excuse me. DAVID:That's all right. I do have some questions, you know. GIFFIN:Please. DAVID:Continuing questions. GIFFIN:And I apologize. DAVID:Okay. That's okay. GIFFIN:Kind of -. Stand up, raise your hands, and yell. 53 DAVID:Okay. Dr. Rechtman, bear with me. Before I get back to m regular line of questioning, I did have one comment or one question, excuse me, about the supplement assessment or the supplemental report on the subsurface investigation. You state the test found no intact remains. Is it possible in tests of this kind to discover historic remains that are not necessarily intact -? RECHTMAN:The items, in fact, in this case -. DAVID:That are not completely whole but, you know? RECHTMAN:Oh, but intact, in that sense -. DAVID:What's intact? RECHTMAN:Intact, in that sense, meant an undisturbed, an undisturbed soil profile. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:So the physical, the intact of the physical area didn't necessarily mean an intact item. DAVID:I see. RECHTMAN:Items are found that are all disturbed, churned up, bulldozed around and so on. DAVID:Did you find any of these churned, disturbed items on the property? RECHTMAN:There were, in, there's a table in that report which lists all of the items we found in that excavation. DAVID:I'm sorry, yes, there is. RECHTMAN:And so that's the answer. DAVID:Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. What are the established professional standards for assessing an area so great in historic significance? Let's say an archaeological standard, what's the standard if you have a site, which I believe testimony has said or referred to this as being the most historic site in the world, as far as its relationship to Hawaiian culture? RECHTMAN:Is, there's -. DAVID:Is there a stan -? 54 RECHTMAN:No question. DAVID:No, well, what is the standard? Is the standard the same whether an archaeological site or a cultural resource has a, like you say, is very greatly significant? The standards are the same? RECHTMAN:Standard is the same. DAVID:And those standards are set by whom? RECHTMAN:Well, there's draft regulations that the State Historic Division works under, which set out certain parameters. But the specifics of how one investigates is more governed by unwritten, let's say, professional standards, knowledge of what the area looks like, what the potential for resources are, and so on. So, in this particular case, with the knowledge that the property was almost completely dozed away and that there was no surface soil except for a few places, the standard would be looked at the surface, see what's there. Nothing's there? Possibly do a test unit to verify that the soil that's there is actually disturbed soil rather than an intact deposit. That would be the standard under which this was done. DAVID:Okay. And then am I to understand that the standard is basically left to the archaeologist conducting the assessment? RECHTMAN:In practice, yes, and then it reaches a regulatory body, and then the body decides whether or not the archaeologist did a sufficient job. DAVID:And, along those lines, are these standards peer-reviewed? RECHTMAN:Inasmuch as the staff at DLNR who review these are peer doesn't go to other firms or other non-regulatory bodies for rev DAVID:I see. So would you say that the State Historic Preservation Division and State Parks, the DLNR, State Parks, they're conside RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Thank you. Would you, in your opinion, would you, in your experience, would you say that these standards have been evolving somewhat? RECHTMAN:In practice, I would say yes, things change. And if that's what you mean by evolution change. DAVID:Yes. Yes. Thank you. Are there higher standards that should apply here because of the undisputed great significance on the adjoining parcels? 55 RECHTMAN:From an archaeological perspective and a professional archaeological perspective, no. The same standards should be applied to this as are applied to a pile of stones that someone might not recognize what it is but may contain ancestral remains. You don't know, so the same standards get ap DAVID:Okay. So as, in your expert opinion, what would you, there seems to be a dilemma here when an archaeological pile of stones are considered in the same light as something, with something as significant as these complexes. RECHTMAN:I don't think there's a dilemma there because what coul contained in that archaeological pile of bones could be `iwi, somebody's, stones could be somebody's, you know, ancestor buried there. DAVID:Right. RECHTMAN:That, from an archaeological scientific, pure discipline point of view, that pile of rocks is just as significant and tells you just about as much about the past as a very formal looking known place. In fact, it may tell you, give you more information about the past, because there isn't oral tradition associated with it. And without the archaeological work, you would have never known that that pile of stone has represented a place that someone was buried. DAVID:I see. So I guess it's your opinion that there's no dilemma. But as a Hawaiian, there is, there does seem to be a dilemma because the assessment, it would be unfortunate that we don't have a standard that would apply differently in assessments. But, anyway, thank you. I think you answered my question. What would you consider a high profile archaeological assessment? What would you consider something that you would assess that would be defined as a high profile cultural or archaeological assessment? RECHTMAN:You mean a resource that -? DAVID:A resource, right. RECHTMAN:A resource that would be, let's say, more high profile than something else. It could vary, depending on the location of a particular resource within a community, oral traditions associated with a resource, obviously a heiau, one that is named, those resources that the public knows more about than other resources because of past work. DAVID:Would you consider Kaho`olawe as a high profile archaeological -? RECHTMAN:Landscape. 56 DAVID:Landscape, yes. RECHTMAN:Yes, I would. DAVID:How many prior high profile assessments have you done? RECHTMAN:If the question is how many projects have I worked on o where it's a more high profile project, a resource is more high profile, several. DAVID:As, let me say, as you answered, you considered Kaho`olawe such a high profile. Does any -? RECHTMAN:Yes. I've never -. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:Worked on Kaho'lawe DAVID:Okay. And what, I'm sorry, which high profile projects, c remember which ones you worked on that you consider high profile RECHTMAN:Recently, and the project is still ongoing, inventory surveying and data recovery work in Ki`ilae and Kauleol Ahupua`a, on the other side of Hnaunau. Part of that land went into the National Trust and ultimately became part of the Park Service; and that was, I think, fairly high profile. DAVID:What, can you elaborate on what made that particular project high profile? RECHTMAN:The Hawaii Island Journal. It appearing in the newspapers constantly, being part of public scrutiny makes it high profile. DAVID:Is, any others? RECHTMAN:There are. It would take me, I'd have to think. I mean there's, I've done -. DAVID:General locations. RECHTMAN:Hundreds of projects in the last few years. Some things on Maui, in Palauea Beach. I don't know if you're, I mean that's a high community. DAVID:And in this high -. Oh, I'm sorry, are you done? 57 RECHTMAN:No, there's other, I'd have to, work in, work I've done Ka`plehu, I think, is high profile. DAVID:And in these high profile projects that you've worked on, what was the outcome of those, the protection for those high profile site RECHTMAN:The sites in those projects, for the, a substantial amo are, end up being preserved and protected. Again, for the work in South Kona, 238 acres plus another hundred, almost three hundred, you know, 50 acres will be put into public trust containing thousands and thousands of archaeological sites. DAVID:Would you consider, based on the testimonies about Keakealaniwahine, Keolonhihi and Kaumalumalu, that this would be a high profile type case? RECHTMAN:Those are high profile sites. I would, if this project area was to impact, directly impact resources in those area, I would consider it a high profile case. DAVID:Bear with me. If I've asked you these questions before, please tell me that you've already answered them. It's hard to keep track. Would extra measures have to be taken when you assess high profile resources? RECHTMAN:I'm not sure I understood that. DAVID:In the course of your assessment of high profile type reso would you take any extra measures in doing your assessments? RECHTMAN:Nothing above and beyond what I would normally do for a a resource. DAVID:In your testing of the subject property, if you had found important object, what would be the steps that you'd take in dealing with that? RECHTMAN:We would document our finding and report it as such and then make recommendations based on an evaluation of the significance of what we found. DAVID:And your evaluation would be, what types of evaluations or decisions could you make if you found an important object? RECHTMAN:If we found an important resource -. DAVID:Resource. RECHTMAN:Site or something like that, we would assess first the regulatory requirements, specify what we do. But we would assess the significance based on the criteria that the State used. And then based on that, we would make a recommendation 58 treatment, treatment recommendation; and that could range anywhere from no further work to data recovery, mitigate the resource to preserve the resource in place, depending on what the recourse was. DAVID:And if no, if the resource is deemed, for information purp what happens to that? RECHTMAN:If it's deemed significant for information purposes, th assessment is made as to whether enough information has been rec mitigate any impacts to it, or whether further information is needed to be gathered from it in some way, or whether that information was so significant that the resource should be left as it is forever. DAVID:Are archaeological resources tangible? Are they always tangible? RECHTMAN:By, if you -. DAVID:Touch it or feel? RECHTMAN:Use a different word -. DAVID:Yeah. RECHTMAN:I would say no. But archaeological resources, by definition, I would say archaeological resources are tangible things, things that you can measure, weigh, count, touch, feel, yes. DAVID:Could archaeological resources also be intangible? RECHTMAN:They would be called something else, perhaps; I would use a different term, cultural resource as opposed to an archaeological resource. DAVID:I see. So for intangible resources, you would refer to them as cultural resources, is that my -? RECHTMAN:I'd use a broader term rather than the specific archaeo because that -. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:Carries some things with it, yeah. DAVID:Okay. I'm learning. I know you went through the steps on to -. When you identify an archaeological resource, how do you determine impacts? RECHTMAN:Not so much determining impacts but assessing the impac 59 DAVID:I'm sorry. RECHTMAN:I mean -. DAVID:Wrong word. RECHTMAN:Which is okay. The, if the resource is physically pres somewhere and there's going to be a development on the property, removal of the resource, then it's going to be completely impacted. Then you have to figure out whether or not, again, we're back to the significance and the treatments, whether or not it's okay that it's impacted or not. And if it is, then maybe collect some information from it. If it's not, then it stays. DAVID:Aside from the visual impact, what other impact studies di in addition to the supplemental? RECHTMAN:I actually didn't, I didn't, the visual impact study was done by somebody else. As part of my work, I assessed, in a simple way, what kinds of visual impacts there might be as a result of the development -. DAVID:All right. RECHTMAN:Relative to the resource. DAVID:Oh, okay. I noticed that you'd spoke about that in your testimony and in your assessment, so that's why I asked the question. RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Okay. In your assessment, did you determine traditions and practices that exist and rely on the use of the surrounding areas? RECHTMAN:I didn't specifically assess traditions and practices. DAVID:Oh, so I guess no potential impacts. Okay. Did you consu any of the members of the 1982 advisory committee such as David regarding the Keolonhihi project, in relation, when you were doing your assessment for this? RECHTMAN:I did not. DAVID:And your assessment did conclude that the proposed develop would have no direct adverse effects on historic sites? RECHTMAN:I concluded it would have no direct adverse effects. I, yeah. 60 DAVID:Would there have been, would there be indirect effects? RECHTMAN:I concluded there would be indirect effects that could be mitigated. DAVID:And one of them was the visual? RECHTMAN:Correct. DAVID:Any other? RECHTMAN:I believe that that's in the range of the kinds of effects that archaeologists would look at, those, that was the, it would have an indirect effect on the viewplanes. DAVID:You made, you successfully completed nearly a hundred projects on Hawai`i Island in the past three years. Have you ever made recommendations in your assessments that would be significant enough for like a permitti that the Section 205A to preserve and protect historic sites and resources would be applied and the result was a denial of an application? RECHTMAN:I have in many projects made recommendations that areas projects, within developments be preserved. I don't know that I have been involved in a contested case or a situation where the result was a project was denied. I don't think, I think that, there's a couple of projects that I can think of that because of the resource, the nature of the resource on the property, it didn't even get this far. People decided to not, to leave the property alone; and it never got to the point where a board would have to deny it. In fact, that Hawaiian Beaches project you were asking about, there was significant enough stuff inside where we tested that the people walked away from the property. DAVID:In your discussion of potential impacts in your Potential Impact section of your assessment, you state the primary view from the Keakealaniwahine complex looking makai over the beach portion of Keolonhihi would not be obstructed, and then as a result, will not be obstructed by the proposed development. RECHTMAN:Yeah, that would, I think that -. DAVID:What section is that are you talking about? What beach portion of Keolonhihi? RECHTMAN:I don't know that it says, in the report says the beach portion of Keolonhihi. I believe it probably says the beach portion of Hlualoa Bay maybe. But that would be the viewplane from here in the complex. I'm pointing at Map Figure 2, and indicating Keakealaniwahine complex. The direct makai view would be across the area that leads right out to the center part of the bay. 61 DAVID:So it -. Oh, go ahead. RECHTMAN:Because of the former land form that we've talked about here, there may never have been a direct line of sight view from here to the points on Kamoa Point but rather that's, this is the viewplane that I was talking about to seeing the water was directly, this direction straight down. DAVID:Okay. And so the viewplane from, let's say, directly in t the subject property, yes, towards Keolonhihi, did you do an assessment of that? RECHTMAN:I looked at that. And all you can see is the roofs of the houses that are built right here. DAVID:And at what vantage point were you making your assessment? How far back were you within the Keakealaniwahine complex did yo viewplane assessment? RECHTMAN:I did that from standing right here on Pakiha, this, generally in this area right here. DAVID:So your line of sight was this, going towards -. VITOUSEK:Excuse me. Excuse me. This doesn't show up on the rec think that Dr. Rechtman was indicating the makai south corner of the -. GIFFIN:Right. VITOUSEK:Pahika (sic), is that -? RECHTMAN:Pakiha. VITOUSEK:Pakiha, sorry. RECHTMAN:I'm trying to remember that. But, yes, I was standing on the, near the makai wall of Pakiha. DAVID:Okay. Yeah, it's in your testimony, the last page of your testimony, "The primary view from Keakealaniwahine complex, looking makai over the beach portion of Keolonhihi State Park will not be obstructed as a result of the proposed development." So -. RECHTMAN:So as this -. DAVID:I just wanted to -. 62 RECHTMAN:Yes, as this Map Figure 2 indicates, the Keolonhihi State Park seems to be both, in both directions here, this being the beach portion of it. DAVID:Right. But there is the historic complex itself. You made that assessment at what vantage point, did you say? RECHTMAN:Standing on the makai side of Pakiha. DAVID:Okay. And you saw, overlooking Keolonhihi, you saw the tops of the already existing homes, and the shrubbery, and trees? RECHTMAN:You see these, the buildings that are right here. DAVID:Right. Did you see the same amount of shrubbery and trees on the other side? RECHTMAN:Yeah, you see through the trees. And the, the trees in the area of the complex are fairly mature keawe, and you can hardly see through them as it is now. DAVID:Right. So the trees would probably, is it basically the same then as far as the, you abated view because of those trees? RECHTMAN:The immediate area; but you can see through and see into, see the blue of the ocean here. DAVID:I see. RECHTMAN:Looking this direction, you can only see the buildings that are right here. DAVID:And the tops of the trees of Keolonhihi, could you see those, too? RECHTMAN:You could see trees in the background, yes. DAVID:Okay. When you did that site assessment, is that when you you did a walk through of the complex, of Keakealaniwahine? RECHTMAN:When I did the site assessment, that's when I walked ju the first, just back from the property to this area right here, indicating on this Figure 2 the makai south portion of Pakiha. DAVID:Oh, okay. So your walk through was basically from the pro line about how many feet back? RECHTMAN:A hundred feet. 63 DAVID:I think in your testimony also you referred to the existing buildings that are equivalent in height to the proposed development that are either located at the same elevation, I'm sorry. You refer in your testimony to buildings that are equivalent in height to that of the proposed project. Where are these buildings that you are referring to? RECHTMAN:They are on the makai side of Ali`i Drive, directly acr from the existing property, the study property. DAVID:Are there three-story buildings on that side of the street? RECHTMAN:There's two-story and one's getting even an extension, but there's two-story buildings. It was my understanding that, and I might want to get into the semantics of the current project area, but that he was doing two-story buildings with a subterranean floor. DAVID:With a basement. RECHTMAN:Yeah. DAVID:Yeah. Okay. A two-story with a basement. RECHTMAN:Yeah. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:But I think they're excavating out for the basement part, is my understanding of it, so that's, there are two-story structures on the other side of the street. DAVID:Okay. Are there any two-story structures on the mauka side of Ali`i Drive? RECHTMAN:Where? DAVID:On the same side as the subject property. You know, are there any buildings -? Because you refer to buildings that are either equivalent in height to the proposed project or even greater in height, and I'm just trying to figure out where those buildings are. There's a two-story one, you said. RECHTMAN:I was, in that statement, I was simply referring to the occupy the space on the makai side of Ali`i Drive. DAVID:I see. So then there's no buildings equivalent in height at the same elevation as the three-story condominium would be on the subject property? RECHTMAN:I guess not. I'm not sure. 64 DAVID:Well, there's Kimi Cook's house that people have been referring to. RECHTMAN:Right. DAVID:Okay. Is that a three-story or a two-story building or residential complex? RECHTMAN:It's -. DAVID:It's a residence. RECHTMAN:It's a residential, single family, at least two-stories. DAVID:Okay. The one right makai along Ali`i Drive on the same side, is that a two-story? I think it's that Spanish type -. RECHTMAN:On the mauka side? DAVID:On the mauka side to your left. RECHTMAN:Over here somewhere? DAVID:No, closer. RECHTMAN:Right here? DAVID:Adjoining, yes. RECHTMAN:I don't know if that's two-story or not. DAVID:Yeah. It's a single, it's a one-story, okay. I was just wondering where that reference came to you for the other -. RECHTMAN:It came from these structures here. DAVID:Okay. Across the street. So, okay, when you made your assessment as far as, you know, having no visual impacts, itÓs b buildings there that are equivalent in height? RECHTMAN:I believe it was no significant visual impact. DAVID:Okay. The two-story building that you referred to, that's not a greater height as the proposed building, in your opinion, is it? 65 RECHTMAN:I don't know. I don't know how tall it is. I just know that when you're standing there and you're looking across the street, you see these buildings. That's all you see when you look in that direction. DAVID:And you're at an elevated level on the subject property? RECHTMAN:You're at an elevated level on the subject property; and you still don't see over them, correct. DAVID:Is it your opinion that a single family residence would ha same impacts upon Keakealaniwahine complex as would a multi-unit project with common amenities? RECHTMAN:No. DAVID:Which would be more of an impact, in your opinion? RECHTMAN:The larger condominium unit would have more of an impac area than a single family home. DAVID:Maika`i. When you walk the entire -. Oh, I'm sorry. Did walk into the parcel of Keakealaniwahine? RECHTMAN:No. DAVID:Oh. RECHTMAN:Not for this project. DAVID:All right. And you did speak about the trail that you referred to? RECHTMAN:Only, I've only seen it on a map. DAVID:Okay. RECHTMAN:I haven't walked -. That was someone else's property, and I didn't walk on it. DAVID:Okay. Given the ritual landscaping cultural sacredness of Keakealaniwahine complex, did you assess potential noise impacts? RECHTMAN:No. DAVID:That's -. Sorry. You testified that prior development of the subject property destroyed any archaeological resources that might have existed in the past, and therefore the project has no impacts upon archaeological resources. Is that correct? 66 RECHTMAN:Correct. DAVID:Okay. Am I to understand that you are asking this body to disregard cumulative impacts the proposed project may have by virtue of its location, being so close to an undisputed great historical and archaeologically significant site? RECHTMAN:I think the answer is no. No. In terms of resources on the property, on this specific property, there are none. So I don't know that there could be cumulative effects to resources on the subject property. DAVID:And what about the adjoining property? RECHTMAN:There is indirect impacts to resources on the adjoining property. DAVID:Would these be cumulative? RECHTMAN:One, you could consider things cumulative. DAVID:Okay. Are you aware that Rule 9 of the Planning Commissio rules regarding SMA, Section 9-11 provides that the authority may permit proposed development only upon finding that the development is consistent with objectives and policies provided by Chapter 205? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Are you also aware that Rule 9 provides, in Subparagraph (3), that the development must be found to be consistent with the General Plan or also consistent with the General Plan? RECHTMAN:I don't have first-hand knowledge if that's what that says, but that sounds reasonable. DAVID:And did you know that Section E of the General Plan, entitled Historic Sites, has a list or list standards for evaluating the importance of historic sites and establishes a framework for evaluating sites? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Did you use any of these standards in formulating your assessment? RECHTMAN:I evaluated the property as not having any historic sites. ISHADO:Excuse me. Maile, if I could interrupt for just one seco 67 GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:I'd just like to know how much further so we can make our for how much further questions you have in this area. DAVID:It'll take me about 10 more minutes, 10 or 15 more minutes. M. ROY:And I have more. ISHADO:If they weren't covered, you know, we don't have any prob but we would like to move the hearing along, and I appreciate your efforts in that, you know. I do think you're going to try. But we're just trying to get things into perspective in terms of planning for the rest of the hearing. GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado, I think your comments are well taken. And so about 10 more minutes, Maile? DAVID:Yes. GIFFIN:Thank you. ISHADO:Thank you very much. DAVID:Have you read the July 5, 2002, comments to your archaeolo assessment by Daniel Quinn? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:And the July 9, 2002, comments by Don Hibbard? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Are you aware that both agencies do not agree with your assessment and recommend more thorough evaluations? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Are you also aware that both agencies consider your archaeological assessment incomplete? RECHTMAN:I believe they used some language like that. DAVID:And in your opinion, why do you suppose the letter from Mr. Quinn of State Parks states that the SMA application does not address the significance of the subject parcel as part of the Hlualoa Royal Complex, nor does it adequately address the impacts of the proposed development on significant cultural resources? Do you think 68 that statement implies that impact studies must go beyond the property in question, when in fact the property is located in close proximity to an undisputed significant historic site? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:Are you aware that although you state in your assessment t visual impacts from the proposed structures will be negligible, your archaeological assessment was still found to be insufficient with regard to visual impacts? RECHTMAN:I believe that there have, there was a question about the visual impacts. DAVID:And can you, in your opinion, explain the conclusions of your assessment being different from that of the Department of Land and Natural Resources regarding assessments of potential impacts? RECHTMAN:I could only suggest that perhaps a visit to the site by a representative from the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division might have led them to a different conclusion in their report, in their review. DAVID:You prepared a supplemental assessment because of comments raised by the State. Why was a supplemental report or assessment not done for the other concerns raised? RECHTMAN:I felt that that was the only issue that could be addressed archaeologically. DAVID:If you recall, I asked Martha Yent when she was here to testify whether an archaeological assessment contains all information necessary to make an informed decision as to impacts this proposed development would Keakealaniwahine. Do you recall Ms. Yent's response? RECHTMAN:I do not. DAVID:Okay. Well, she deferred answering to the State Historic Preservation Division. Do you agree on deferral in answering questions such as that? RECHTMAN:Sure. It's within their regulatory purview, not hers. DAVID:Do you consider the comments and recommendations of State Parks and the State Historic Preservation Division to be consistent with the recommendations of Pualani Kanaka`ole Kanahele and the 1983 advisory committee? RECHTMAN:I'm not sure that I know the full recommendations of that advisory committee. 69 DAVID:I'm almost done. In 2000, the Hawai`i State Legislature adopted Act 50, which is the cultural impact statement law. This resulted from decades of work by Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians to make changes to land use permi was intended to help agencies make more informed decisions with regard to cultural impacts when reviewing permits. The introduction of Act 50 reads, "The past failure to require Native Hawaiian cultural impact assessments has resulted destruction of many cultural, important cultural resources and has interfered with the exercise of Native Hawaiian culture." Would you agree? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:That is -? RECHTMAN:I would agree with that. DAVID:And would you also agree it's important to protect -? RECHTMAN:Yes. DAVID:The aspects of Hawaiian culture? I'm done. Thank you. GIFFIN:Mikahala. M. ROY:Chairman, excuse me, Chairperson Giffin, may I ask questi this map, and perhaps I can ask Mr. Hayashi more about this map. entered, we are referring to this map. Can I ask some questions regarding that? GIFFIN:Yes. M. ROY:May I approach the map? GIFFIN:Yes. M. ROY:Thank you. GIFFIN:It might be better to come around the other way. Leave your mike there. Come around this way. But be careful about the cords. M. ROY:Mahalo. Norman, this is provided by the County today? HAYASHI:No. That is the Petitioner's submittal. M. ROY:And -. HAYASHI:And that has been moved into evidence, I believe. 70 M. ROY:And would you cite the origin or the placement of the origin of this particular map? Mr. Vitousek, maybe. VITOUSEK:Yeah, I think it was stated earlier, that map was attached as exhibit to the visual assessment, the visual impact assessment that was prepared by Ron Terry. M. ROY:Thank you. My question is as I look at something under h where there are no delineations, I want to know at what point these designated darkened areas are made on these maps, on this map. VITOUSEK:I don't know. Let me just look at the visual impact assessment, okay. M. ROY:Dr. Rechtman, can you answer that? RECHTMAN:Yeah, that -. GIFFIN:In the mike. NOMURA:Use the microphone, please. RECHTMAN:This map was, as it's labeled, Figure 2 in the visual impact study prepared by Ron Terry. The source of that immediately came from my archaeological assessment survey, and I had taken it from, and I have to look at the reference cited, part of my report. I had taken it out of a Cultural Surveys Hawai`i study done for the surrounding area. So a survey of Hal Hammett's company. They h around this whole area, and this was, this, the base map was part of their study. I had just taken it out of that study, and that's why I think there's, the name the Pakiha may be spelled wrong, and other things. It was done in that study. M. ROY:Is there a legend to say what this delineation means? RECHTMAN:It may be in, well, I think the delineation has to do with that being what's considered the Keakealaniwahine complex, the striped area, which would have been, that information would have, was a combination in his study from the earlier Kekahuna map as well as an archaeological survey that they did. M. ROY:So it's my understanding that he says that the origin of this was the Cultural Surveys work of Dr. Hammett. And my question is tomorr present testimony, we will be, in fact, delineating the fullness of Kaluaokalani in our evidence. My question is how is it, this, in fact, in our minds, has not been clearly presented in cultural history? He, Dr. Rechtman admits that thi archaeological research on this property, the very first in all of these years. What else are we finding out for the very first time about this whole area? And I submit, Kaluaokalani has not yet been defined in true parameters so -. 71 GIFFIN:Excuse me, Mikahala, your comments are really well taken by the Chair. I do want to remind you as well as anyone else here today that this is not the time to lecture or to argue with a witness. As we said earlier, there will be a time for us to do all that. Right now, the only thing I really would like all of us to do is to simply ask questions. M. ROY:Okay. GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:All right. GIFFIN:Thank you. M. ROY:Thank you. May I ask you, what is this here? RECHTMAN:By this, are you referring to this apparent roadway that's right here? This, I believe, is the original alignment of whether you want to call it Ali`i Drive, but it's more like the alaloa, it's the coastal trail that was here. And then formerly this, I think, was the original part of the driving road until they somehow busted their way through the big hill, the pu`u, and made Ali`i Drive as we know it today. M. ROY:Thank you. Is this, in fact, the subject parcel, marked in yellow? RECHTMAN:Yeah, that looks like the subject parcel marked in yellow. M. ROY:And was it your testimony that the hill does not remain t RECHTMAN:Not where the road is. M. ROY:Back in time, just for the record, we did speak on how the model that was brought forth earlier did not project the hill. The hill exists. This place is Pu`u. My question to you, Dr. Rechtman, is when you looked at this area, with, if you did not see this delineation or color markings, you would see a whole. And is it your testimony that given the location of this parcel, when you look at this area that has been recorded and documented as significantly important, would you attest and agree to that that has no relationship to this entire parcel, this location, right where it is? RECHTMAN:When I look at this area, I see it even beyond there. I don't, it's not limited to here. I have actually done work on the heiau that's over here, connected to a whole bunch of other things. And in this direction, this connects up and runs up Kaumalumalu. M. ROY:Yes. 72 RECHTMAN:And it's connected all the way to where we stand right today. M. ROY:Very good. RECHTMAN:So it's -. M. ROY:So you'll -. RECHTMAN:All one -. M. ROY:Stand by. RECHTMAN:Big connection. M. ROY:But you are saying that your property has no cultural and significant information here? RECHTMAN:What I said in my report was that this property had bee the past, there are no archaeological features on it, further development of this property won't directly impact any archaeological features. There will be indirect impacts to this Island, just as there are indirect impacts to this Island any time something's developed; and it's up to a board or a body to determine what's appropriate mitigation for that. So that's -. M. ROY:Or, in fact, the nation. Thank you. And if this does indeed cover spiritual background, can you tell me how you could say that that's not spiritually important to this whole complex? GIFFIN:Excuse me. Once again, I'm going to caution you, Mikahal would like the questions to be germane to the information that had been presented in the written testimony, and also germane to what he has said in the past. And I think that that question has already been asked. M. ROY:But he has said that this is not. He, in fact, has not answered the -. GIFFIN:Then that is his opinion. And I think we have to let the -. M. ROY:No, actually, he didn't answer the spiritual part. He said that -. GIFFIN:Would you like to do that, Dr. Rechtman? M. ROY:Yeah, spiritually. RECHTMAN:Sure. Spiritually, I'm sure that this area holds something for somebody and doesn't hold something for other people, just like this area right over here 73 is very spiritual for some people and not other people. I don't think that there is a standard for what is -. M. ROY:Thank you. RECHTMAN:Spiritual. M. ROY:Who inhabited these Islands at Keakealani's reign? RECHTMAN:Hawaiians. M. ROY:Thank you. Anyone else? RECHTMAN:Keakealani's reign? Yeah, there may have been a migra point with some, an influx of people from Samoa, as well, as one migrations. M. ROY:I think broadly you've answered that they are Hawaiians. The spiritual heritage of these lands are known and they are for Hawaiian people. And I thank you for saying that this contains, can contain spiritually important significant material for Hawaiian heritage. Thank you. GIFFIN:You're welcome. Before I, you know, did not acknowledge I called on you, Randy, so if you would -. VITOUSEK:Just a couple things. GIFFIN:In the mike. VITOUSEK:Yes. Yeah, Dr. Rechtman, you, in response to Commissio Togashi's question, he had asked you some questions about heavy equipment operating in the area -. RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK: What possible impacts may be. Now I was just reminded by your earlier testimony that there was substantial earthwork that was done relative to the Ali`i Drive, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:I believe so. VITOUSEK:Isn't the makai portion of the subject property essentially a vertical wall, a vertical rock wall? RECHTMAN:Yes. 74 VITOUSEK:And wasn't that created when, by whatever means, Ali`i carved out of that hill? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. So, in other words, it appears just from what you see physically on the property that there's been a significant amount of earth work that has taken place in the area already, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Right. I'm not sure of the accuracy; but in part of the oral work that I did, I believe somebody told me that they actually had to use dynamite to bust the Ali`i Drive through that area. I'm not sure if that's accurate. VITOUSEK:In other words, along the entire makai boundary of the property, about what would you estimate the height of that vertical rock wall from Ali`i Drive to the -? RECHTMAN:Twelve to 14 feet. VITOUSEK:Okay. So in other words, the whole makai boundary of t property has already been excavated by 12 to 14 feet, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. There was also some questions about cultural, I guess it was cultural aspects of height limitations, isn't that correct, something along that line? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And you talked about height limitations or height considerations in a Polynesian village, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:In a traditional perspective. VITOUSEK:Right. And is, I mean, I don't mean to be flippant, but this is not a traditional Polynesian village, is it? I mean, in other words, what's on the ground there at and near the subject property, in other words, the homes across the street in Casa del Sol next to it and the other residences, that's -? RECHTMAN:There aren't traditional Hawaiians living there. VITOUSEK:Okay. So in terms of height limitations that may be es cultural concerns in a traditional Hawaiian village, those aren't the limitations or criteria that have applied to height limitations in this area at this time, is that correct? 75 RECHTMAN:As far as I know, the Building Code doesn't take those, those aren't the parameters at which the Building Code works. VITOUSEK:Okay. And in terms of the Building Code, I think you noted in your report that the proposed height of these buildings is significantly lower than that permitted by the Building Code, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. My understanding, he didn't max out his heights. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so that, you know, could be considered some to reducing the impact or potential impact of the site on surrounding areas, is that correct? RECHTMAN:It could. VITOUSEK:Okay. So the, there was also questions relative to the communications from Mr. Quinn and Mr. Hibbard, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And isn't it a fact that in both communications, both Mr. Quinn and Mr. Hibbard said that the State wanted to acquire that, the subject property? RECHTMAN:It was my understanding that someone was working toward that effort, right. VITOUSEK:In other words, at the time they're making comments about what limitations should be imposed on the property, they had already announced their intention to try to acquire that property, isn't that correct? ISHADO:Madam Chair, I'd like to object to the line of questioning again on the grounds of relevance; and we've gone through this at the previous hearing. VITOUSEK:If, I mean, I mean I think it's, I mean he was directly asked the question why do you think they imposed those additional setback requirements? In other words, why did Mr. Quinn say they -? GIFFIN:Oh, in his report? VITOUSEK:Should have a hundred feet or why should there be single story? In other words, in cross-examination -. GIFFIN:Cross-examination, right. VITOUSEK:With Dr. Hibbard -. GIFFIN:Right. 76 VITOUSEK:He was asked those questions. ISHADO:Madam -. GIFFIN:Okay. VITOUSEK:And so what I am trying to establish is another reason that he could impose those limitations is to make the development -. ISHADO:Madam -. VITOUSEK:Uneconomical so that the State could buy it cheaper. ISHADO:Madam -. VITOUSEK:In other words, they've already, the State has already said we want to buy this property. And then they say you should have these limitations placed on you that make it so you can't develop it, and then they'll be able to buy it cheaper. ISHADO:Madam Chair? GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:To the extent -. GIFFIN:Just one minute. Yeah, I don't know that that's even som that we would consider right now; and I think that that may be the basis of what you are objecting to, Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:Relevance and also the basic speculation, because he has already testified he doesn't know the reason. GIFFIN:Behind the -. ISHADO:So for Counsel's -. GIFFIN:Yeah. ISHADO:For Counsel to go ahead and suggest a reason for it is asking the witness to then speculate as to what may or may not have existed in the minds of other people. GIFFIN:I hear your question, Mr., I mean your objection, Mr. Ish with that in mind, Mr. Vitousek, could you please change the direction of your questions and move on. 77 VITOUSEK:Sure, absolutely. GIFFIN:Thank you. VITOUSEK:Dr. Rechtman, you were asked questions regarding the cultural impact assessment, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And isn't it correct that under the law that it was quoted to you that cultural impact assessment, because itÓs a requirement of Chapter 343 regarding environmental impact statements, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:And isn't it correct that no environmental impact state environmental assessment was required with respect to this parti RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:And so in terms of assessing impact, you're also famili I'm sorry, assessing potential impacts of the development project on Native Hawaiian customary and traditional resources, you are familiar with the Supreme Court opinion in Ka Pa`akai O Ka Aina versus Land Use Commission, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And under that opinion, it was, there's a requirement on the Land Use Commission in that case that the identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, and natural resources in the petitioned area, including the extent to which native, I'm sorry, including the extent to which traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the petition area. In other words, that the Land Use Commission must make findings on that, on those issues, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Correct. VITOUSEK:And as part of your work, Dr. Rechtman, did you assist in identifying the scope and tradition of valued cultural, historical, and natural resources on the petitioned area? RECHTMAN:In informal discussions. VITOUSEK:Okay. And that was in terms of the cultural, that was informal. In terms of, did you find any physical evidence on the property that would suggest to you 78 that there was ongoing exercise of Native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices on the property? RECHTMAN:We found no evidence of that on the property. VITOUSEK:So there were no religious sites, is that correct? RECHTMAN:Right. No other, no land form features that would have lent that kind of suggestion. The vegetation was all -. VITOUSEK:Yes. In fact, a botanical assessment was done which provides information as to the biological resources of the property, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. So based on your experience and expertise, were to identify any, in the petition area, any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources? RECHTMAN:None. VITOUSEK:Okay. And were you able to develop any evidence about any ongoing exercise of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights in the petition area? RECHTMAN:None within the petition area. VITOUSEK:Okay. Okay. So in terms of the, all of the work that terms of the site visit, in terms of conversations, in terms of talking to other people who did other parts of the study, were you able to identify any valued cultural, historical, or natural resources on the petition area which would suggest to you that there was any ongoing exercise of traditional and customary practices on the subject property? RECHTMAN:No, we didn't identify any resources. VITOUSEK:Okay. The, I'm sorry, to the south of the Keolonhihi area, there is another complex identified. Is that called Kaumalumalu, is that correct? RECHTMAN:Yeah. VITOUSEK:And did, how far south, that's shown on the map as bein makai of Ali`i Drive, isn't that correct? RECHTMAN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And how, does that complex run further south? I mean do -? 79 RECHTMAN:It essentially occupies the other half of Kamoa Point. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so is that, so is that area preserved? RECHTMAN:I don't think so. VITOUSEK:Oh. RECHTMAN:I think there are houses built in there. VITOUSEK:Oh, okay. Okay. Well, that's all the questions I have right now. GIFFIN:Okay. Thank you very much. Once again, Hearings Officer more questions? D.ROY:Excuse me? GIFFIN:Hearing none-. D.ROY:May I ask you a question? GIFFIN:One minute. As I've been advised by Mr. Torigoe, Mr. Roy, we did agree that the spokesperson for your group will be your daughter. However, if you will keep your question brief, I will allow just this question. D.ROY:All right. My question is how relevant is an on-going cultural practice in a historic spot like this? Our cultural value in this area has come long after development has proceeded along the whole portion, and things are radically changed anyway. However, our Hawaiian people hold this to be very true, this is the old habitation site of our ali`i. And the fact that there are no on-going practices at this time indicates radically that the Hawaiian people value this as a historic site that existed, that was active in the past, but not to be intruded on right now or in cultural practices. It is to be preserved as a historical site. And that is my point at this time. Did you have that in your assessment? Did you have that kind of thinking in your mind? This site was subject to that kind of thinking, very intangible. RECHTMAN:I do have that in mind, and I keep that in mind when th physical remains on the ground that can still be preserved. And property, those physical remains are gone. D.ROY:Well, we -. GIFFIN:Mr. Rechtman, Dr. Rechtman, thank you very much. RECHTMAN:Okay. 80 GIFFIN:Mr. Roy, I'm going to have to ask that the question be curtailed. Because, once again, I'd like to remind you procedurally there w will be able, through your daughter, to go ahead and give us som D.ROY:Well -. GIFFIN:And even perhaps, sir, to make some arguments. But this is not the appropriate time in -. D.ROY:I'm not arguing. GIFFIN:The course of the hearing. D.ROY:He is directing this course toward one point. GIFFIN:Thank you, sir. D.ROY:There are no on-going cultural deposits here. GIFFIN:Sir, thank you very much. D.ROY:Well, that is irrelevant. GIFFIN:Dr. Rechtman, thank you very much for being so patient. Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:Just for the record, the County doesn't have any questions. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. ISHADO:But, you know, we do look forward to hearing from Mr. Roy he does testify. Thank you. GIFFIN:Yes. M. ROY:May I also, for the record, say that while I will speak as representative for Klana Huli Honua, I merely assist my father, who is president of corporation. GIFFIN:Yes, you -. M. ROY:And -. GIFFIN:You've made that clear. 81 M. ROY:We have questioned whether, for example, the, at the proceeding where we have questioned whether the understanding of the nature of Hawaiian culture could be understood by this process; this was raised at Keauhou Beach Hotel. And with no disrespect to persons, there was a formal request made for Hearings Officers that would understand the merit of the complaint and the intervening nature of why culturally and Hawaiian, with Hawaiian heritage in mind, this is so important. If you understood that, you would understand. Just like I might say the Counsel does, that where kupuna are involved, in Hawaiian perspective, this is first and foremost due respect. GIFFIN:This isn't to say that that information is not going to b during this hearing, because as I said earlier, it will be. I am just objecting to when, and that's my point now. If there is no other comment or question for the witness, thank you very much again for coming, and thank you for being so patient. VITOUSEK:I'm sorry, may I request like a five-minute recess? GIFFIN:Certainly. Five minutes, yeah. VITOUSEK:Thank you. Thank you. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a short recess at 3:16 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 3:26 p.m. GIFFIN:I'd like to call the meting back to order. This is the c contested case proceedings for Wayne Blasman, SMA 02-03. When we had the short recess requested by Mr. Vitousek, I was going to ask once again, your answer, Mr. Vitousek, was that yes, you wanted to admit the supplemental archaeology report as submitted this afternoon, correct? VITOUSEK:Yes. GIFFIN:Are there any objections to admitting this report? Hearing none, then I will admit it. Thank you. SPRINGER:Madam Chair? GIFFIN:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:What exhibit number does it now become? GIFFIN:Yeah, I know. 82 SPRINGER:Is it supplemental to the original report? GIFFIN:That would, it's different, and we didn't know what the last number was, right? VITOUSEK:Right. I think my last exhibit that we had offered is 15, but I'm not positive, so -. GIFFIN:So we'll label this 16? VITOUSEK:Yeah. GIFFIN:And it's dated March 27, 2003. Okay. Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Okay, the other issue that we had is how shall we treat Mr. Schultz's written testimony which was presented? And as with all the other written testimony of the Applicant, it was presented under the assumption that the witness would be present to allow cross-examination. But apparently the Applicant is now not planning to provide Mr. Schultz for cross-examination, so the Chairperson needs to see what the positions of the parties should be, regarding how Mr. Schultz's testimony should be treated. VITOUSEK:That's essentially correct, Mr. Torigoe. What I'm interested in doing at this point, if possible, just a suggestion I'd like to make, is if we're going to, you know, if, I don't have any further witnesses to offer now. And so if we're going to go forward with, if I'm going to close my case and we're going to go forward with the Intervenors' cases, then this is the appropriate time to make a determination on Mr. Schultz. All I'd say is I can't, I don't have Mr. Schultz to testify today. And so if we're not going to go forward with the Intervenors' cases, in other words, if their witnesses aren't here and they're not ready to go forward, then I'd like to know that because then maybe I can close my case tomorrow morning and see if I can get Mr. Schultz here tomorrow morning. But that's basically where I am. What I don't want to do is close my case and then we go home and then, you know, I'd just as soon try to get Mr. Schultz here tomorrow morning. And if I can't, then I'll close my case. GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:Yeah, Madam Chair, you know, again, our concern is the buffer zone, really. And what I would suggest to Mr. Vitousek is he try and get hold of Mr. Schultz to see if he can be available. And we would have no objections, even if we did start on the Intervenors' case, if the Chair were to decide to allow him to be called back out of turn. We wouldn't have a problem with that. You know, we do believe that all of the evidence that, you know, that this panel needs should be brought forth, you know, and that's basically our position. GIFFIN:Thank you . I'd like to hear from the two Intervenors. 83 DAVID:Yes, thank you. I think I waived, I didn't waive my right question in case Mr. Vitousek calls him, right? Okay. If, the only other thing I'd like to say is that if he closes his case and we don't get a chance to cross that witness, should that be on the record? GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:When you say should that be on the record, you mean shou DAVID:His testimony. TORIGOE:The written testimony be part of the record? DAVID:Right. TORIGOE:Yeah, that's kind of the question we have to determine at this point because, you know, essentially you have the right to cross-examination. DAVID:Okay. Then if he closes his case without us being able, without calling him, we should strike his testimony. It shouldn't be included in this proceeding, should it? TORIGOE:That is one approach. That is one possible approach. DAVID:Okay. TORIGOE:Another possible approach would be, again, if, you know, as the Chairperson was saying, in order to make the fullest record, to allow the witness to be brought out of order. If he can show up tomorrow morning, then, to come on and you guys get a shot at him and the record is full DAVID:Okay. Okay, no, that's perfectly fine. GIFFIN:Thank you. Mikahala. M. ROY:Thank you. If he is able to come and testify, well and fine. If he is not, this should be struck from the record. TORIGOE:Okay. The Chairperson asked me just to read the section of Hawai`i Revised Statutes which deals with these kinds of contested case evidentiary matters, and this is Section 91-10(3), which says, "Every party shall have the right to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts, and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence." 84 GIFFIN:So then if it is okay, what I am going to do is to ask the Applicant's representative to wait, so that he doesn't close his case today. And, with your indulgence, we can begin with the witnesses from the Intervenors. And per the request from Maile David, we'll begin with you, Mikahala. M. ROY:My witnesses are not present to take part today. We were planning, as per last meeting, Mr. Vitousek will let us all know that he would be calling his full list of participants. So, with that in mind, I have arranged for our testimony to begin tomorrow, and as a matter of fact, Thursday, and would say soon, outline the order with you all of the participation of our witnesses. GIFFIN:Oh, okay. Maile, were you still determined to go after Mikahala, or perchance, are your witnesses here? DAVID:No, they're not. And I wanted to make a, to comment on wh understanding was also, that in preparing for three days of hearings, we prepared questions for Mr. Vitousek's witnesses, anticipated witnesses. And it was after our hearing date was established at our last hearing that I realized that this was being set during graduation, and two of my witnesses that are from Honolulu are on the mainland for graduation ceremonies, etcetera. So that's why we've switch GIFFIN:I see. DAVID:Places, hoping that, you know, it will work out, everybody getting, going out of order, or what have you, you know. GIFFIN:Yeah. DAVID:So, yes, I'm prepared to go after Mikahala. I might have to defer to maybe the County to go first. GIFFIN:Yeah. DAVID:You know, in that case, I will. GIFFIN:If the County is ready to go now, would anyone object to taking the County out of order? M. ROY:No. DAVID:No. GIFFIN:Okay. Lester, are you prepared to go today? Mr. Ishado? ISHADO:Madam Chair, basically, you know, the Planning Director is a party, by rule, but he is also an advisor to the Planning Commission. And in fulfilling 85 that duty, he'd like to hear what the parties have to say before, you know, making any kind of recommendation. I know we're going to try and accommodate the panel as much as possible. But, in that regard, you know, it's not as if we're not ready, but I don't believe it's the appropriate time for the County to present its case. GIFFIN:Thank you. Maybe, Randy, this might be a good time for y see if you can get hold of your witness and see if he can come. VITOUSEK:I can't, but I mean I've really tried. And I don't like being in this position where I list a witness and I can't -. GIFFIN:Right. VITOUSEK:So believe me, I've -. GIFFIN:Okay. VITOUSEK:Done what I can. ISHADO:Madam Chair, if I could also point out -. GIFFIN:Mr. Ishado. ISHADO:That we understand the difficulties for Mikahala and for and, you know, I would ask the same accommodations be made for t believe that under Rule 4-11, the parties can be heard in such order as the presiding officer, you know, decides. GIFFIN:Yes. ISHADO:And so that you can, you know, make arrangements or decid procedure. And I really had hoped to be back in Hilo, you know, tomorrow, but, and I can see how important this is for the parties. So perhaps it might just be best to wait until the Intervenors are ready to proceed, and also to hear back from Mr. Vitousek as to what, whether he's been able to get hold of his witness or not. I'd like to ask Maile, is your, I'm sorry, Mikahala, are your witnesses going to be available tomorrow? M. ROY:Excuse me, I'm sorry. Can you please repeat that? ISHADO:No, I'm just wondering, are your witnesses coming in tomo morning? M. ROY:Yes. 86 ISHADO:I just wanted to know. And basically, and then Maile, your witnesses are coming in tomorrow, also, do you think? DAVID:No. ISHADO:No? DAVID:No. That's why we switched. ISHADO:It may be best, if I can make a suggestion to the Chair, that we just close for today. You know, it's up to the Chair and the panel. GIFFIN:Yeah, I appreciate your suggestion. I had a few more questions that I wanted to ask the Intervenors. Maile, you said tomorrow none of your witnesses will be here, but what about Thursday? DAVID:Thursday I might have one. GIFFIN:Okay. And Mikahala, you expect that your list of witnesses will, if I see this correctly, you have 19, right? M. ROY:The updated information for our witness list is as follow Roy will be our first witness. GIFFIN:Hang on one minute. Yes. He will be number one? M. ROY:Number one. GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:It is unclear, we may have Mr. Tom Cummings as number two. GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:Ms. Cindi Punihaole, number three. Continuing on Thursda clear yet on the order, but it may be Kal Mossman, four. GIFFIN:And you are convinced that Kal cannot come in tomorrow? M. ROY:That's correct. GIFFIN:Okay, because of the schedule? M. ROY:Because of, that's correct. I went through the time of making sure that he could come and what day, and it's Thursday. 87 GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:Kal Mossman, followed by Pua Kanahele. GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:Followed by Councilman Curtis Tyler. I might also say, depending on his availability, Curtis Tyler may go Wednesday afternoon. GIFFIN:Oh. M. ROY:Instead of, well, in between perhaps, in the afternoon group, between say Cummings and Punihaole. GIFFIN:So if I've numbered this correctly, you have six -. M. ROY:Correct. GIFFIN:For Wednesday and Thursday. M. ROY:Correct. GIFFIN:And all of these other people you don't know or -? M. ROY:We have heard and interviewed Martha Yent when she was here. GIFFIN:Yes. M. ROY:And the others, we will just call these six, out of this GIFFIN:Okay. So six is pau, after six. M. ROY:Out of my list, that's correct, that's the concluding gro GIFFIN:Okay. Thank you. Maile, may we please do the same with Hang on one minute while I get my list. DAVID:I have one, if anything, to be called on Thursday so -. GIFFIN:Hang on. DAVID:It'll be -. Oh, okay. GIFFIN:Okay. DAVID:That will be Clarence Medeiros. 88 GIFFIN:Junior? DAVID:Junior. GIFFIN:And Thursday? DAVID:That will be on, if there is availability on Thursday, in between. I still need to let him know what day. It might be Wednesday or, Thursday. GIFFIN:And seeing that Mikahala only has three for tomorrow -. Oh, but tomorrow's the day we adjourn or recess at 4:00. What is your best take, Mikahala, on how long these witnesses will take to testify and be cross-examined? Do you think there is any hope that we could hear Clarence Medeiros, Jr. tomorrow, as well? M. ROY:Potentially. GIFFIN:Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. But yet I hate to have h all day, and then not -. I have another thought. Perhaps we could see how the morning is going. Is he available so that perhaps we could call him at lunch and say, you know what, it looks like it's going to be this afternoon? DAVID:I'll check tonight. GIFFIN:Yeah. DAVID:When I get home. GIFFIN:If he is flexible enough. DAVID:Okay. GIFFIN:If he is, I would really appreciate that. DAVID:Okay. I'll check. GIFFIN:Okay. DAVID:Thank you. GIFFIN:You're welcome. And then we'll go ahead and assume that Thursday witnesses will be Thursday. M. ROY:Very fine. 89 GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:Thank you. GIFFIN:And then potentially then the County should be ready by Thursday, correct, Lester? YUEN:After the other parties, yes. GIFFIN:Mikahala only has three for Thursday. DAVID:I have more witnesses. I mean, yeah. GIFFIN:Oh, you're going to call them? I thought -. DAVID:But I can only call Clarence either tomorrow or -. GIFFIN:I see.Okay. So now -. DAVID:Thursday. GIFFIN:When were you looking at calling the other people? DAVID:Well, like I said, I didn't realize that they weren't going to be here -. GIFFIN:Oh. thth DAVID:For this 20, when we scheduled this 25, 27, this round of hearings. And based on what Mr. Vitousek has said that he was calling, you know, all his witnesses, you know, I just really thought that we wouldn't be able to get through the remaining list of his witnesses plus switching with her, you know, in these three days. So -. GIFFIN:So David Foreman, Vicky Holt Takamine, they're not availa this week? Oh, oh. How about Angel? DAVID:Angel's not available. GIFFIN:Not this week. Then we do have a scheduling situation, don't we? VITOUSEK:Madam Chair? I'm sorry, but I need to state an objection, you know, to the point that, you know, we set aside three days to finish the hearing. I don't think it's a legitimate objection to say that the Applicant called fewer witnesses than they listed. I don't think that's a valid objection. The, you know, we present our case. It's up to the Intervenors to be ready to go after that. I've been an Intervenor, as well. And, you 90 know, this, you know, there was a long time interval between our previous hearings and this hearing, and it was scheduled way in advance. And if there was going to be a problem with their witnesses, that's something that should be disclosed before we come to the hearing. And so, I mean, I really don't mind making minor adjustments to accommodate schedules, but another two- or three-month unnecessary delay in the process is really inappropriate. I mean this hearing was noticed and was set for three days; and you have, you know, you have to be ready to go. GIFFIN:Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Yes? GIFFIN:Personally, I feel that you're, you know, you're correct. But there is also a part of me that feels that if these people, and I trust that they are very valid witnesses who we want to hear from because that's the intent of this kind of hearing, and if it is at all possible, I want to accommodate the Intervenors and their witnesses. But I need some input from Mr. Togashi and Commissioner Springer in te from here. Your thoughts, please. Mr. Togashi. TOGASHI:I don't have a problem with what you're saying. And, I given the complexities of this case and the importance of this c feel that despite what Mr. Vitousek said, that they should be heard. And as far as arranging a schedule as to when they could be heard, that's, I would be very flexible on that. And that's about all I have to say. GIFFIN:Hannah? SPRINGER:I appreciate both Mr. Vitousek's concerns as well as the position of the Intervenors. So if we could get some sense by the end of business tomorrow when these people would be available and how we could schedule, and maintain that schedule in the future, that seems to accommodate the needs of everybody we, any other decision would mean that there would not be a voice to the Intervenors' witnesses. But we do have to set some, be disciplined about setting our schedule that's realistic. GIFFIN:I think that. SPRINGER:Thank you. GIFFIN:Also, since I trust Maile will go ahead and contact her witnesses, we should look at blocks of time within the next week or so that are available so that she can go ahead and request and it will not be to, you know -. That's a double negative. So that it'll be a good time for everybody. DAVID:Okay. I'd just like to comment on what Mr. Vitousek says, appreciate what he's saying about being, you know, timely. And I think we've been 91 understanding when Mr. Schultz didn't show up today and, you know, and we are trying to accommodate him in that respect. I just feel that this has been such, this is such an important matter, as you have said, and it's even far more important from where I'm sitting. And to have me feel like I need to rush to put, I mean, you know, not to rush to put on my case but that the, Mr. Vitousek said I want to move this along. We are doing -. I mean the process has been proceeding without any hang-ups, except for this afternoon where we will lose approximately an hour because of no additional witnesses are available. So I definitely would like to be afforded my fair, my right to due process and a fair hearing so that all of those matters can come up, you know, that we want to raise can be raised. This is too important to me and to the, to what's being considered here. So that's all I'm going to say, and any way that I can help, I will. And we'll see by tomorrow afternoon -. GIFFIN:Okay. DAVID:How the witnesses situation is going to be. GIFFIN:I think that one of the big ways that you could help is by trying to contact your witnesses to find out, first of all, if they are available. I am leaving for the th mainland on the 17, and I will not return until the end of the month. So that means that for the month of June, I am really only available for the first two weeks in June, that's next week and the following week. After that, I'm gone. YUEN:I need to mention, I am going on vacation. GIFFIN:Oh, no, that's not allowed. rd YUEN:June 3 and I'll be gone the month of June. GIFFIN:Okay, so that just leaves us next week. YUEN:Which is entirely booked for me. GIFFIN:Okay. ISHADO:Madam Chair, I ask -. GIFFIN:So then we're looking at July, folks, right? Lester. ISHADO:I -. YUEN:Can I say something though? GIFFIN:Yes, you may. 92 YUEN:And this is to Maile David. If you have a problem getting your witnesses, you need to let everyone know that that's a problem, because we have a large group of people here that are trying to get done with the hearin commitment from the witnesses to come to Kona to testify at some point? Do you have a commitment from each -? DAVID:Yeah. YUEN:Of these people -? DAVID:Yes. YUEN:That they will come to Kona -? DAVID:Yes. YUEN:And testify? DAVID:I do. YUEN:Okay. DAVID:Yes. GIFFIN:Well, then, realistically, knowing that Chris' schedule is such, that st pushes us into the month of July. And I am not available from J through at least thth the 10. That brings us to the week of July 14. Hannah and Grant, what does your July look like? TOGASHI:I'm a retiree, so IÓm open. GIFFIN:Well, how nice. SPRINGER:And I'm flexible except for the regularly scheduled Hawai`i County Planning Commission meetings and -. GIFFIN:So -. thth SPRINGER:Wednesday and Thursday, the 16 and 17. GIFFIN:Not available? SPRINGER:I am not available. 93 GIFFIN:Okay. So it looks like that week is junk. Then we're looking at st probably the third week in July, which I think is the 21. And what about you, Mr. Vitousek, and your -? st VITOUSEK:I think I'm good the 21, right? Yeah. st GIFFIN:You're good the week of the 21? VITOUSEK:All week. HAYASHI:You'll be losing two staff members that week. GIFFIN:Well, how important is it? No. HAYASHI:I think it's just as important as yours. st GIFFIN:I do, too. It was a joke, Norman. So the week of the 21 is out. th How about the following week of the 28? thth VITOUSEK:Twenty-eighth, 29, 30 I'll be available. GIFFIN:Not? VITOUSEK:I am available. ththth GIFFIN:Okay. Everybody is available July 28, 29, and 30? I need to know from the Intervenors. I need to know from Maile and Mikaha DAVID:Those days are fine with me. ththth GIFFIN:July 28, 29, and 30, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. M. ROY:With Klana Huli Honua, that's okay. GIFFIN:So place yet to be determined, as I was reminded by Hanna so then, Maile, you will -. DAVID:By tomorrow morning, I'll -. GIFFIN:Know. DAVID:Tell you what days these, my witnesses will be coming. GIFFIN:That's great. Okay. SPRINGER:Madam Chair? 94 GIFFIN:Yes. SPRINGER:Does that mean that we may not be meeting on Thursday? GIFFIN:Oh, no, because they have witnesses. SPRINGER:Okay. GIFFIN:We'll be here on Thursday. Randy. VITOUSEK:Yeah, I'm sorry, if I could just state for the record my client's objection to continuing the hearing again to the, for a couple months. I mean it's a -. GIFFIN:I know. VITOUSEK:Very difficult prospect for him. It's expensive. It's consuming. We had a 60-day delay while there was a negotiation over potential purchase of the property, and you know, it's, he would want me to be very clear on the record that these additional delays are extremely expensive and prejudicial to him and that he had directed me to do whatever we could to move the hearing along, which we are trying to do by limiting our witness list and by offering written testimony and what not. So if I can make that objection for the record, I'd appreciate it. GIFFIN:Fine. VITOUSEK:Thank you. GIFFIN:You're welcome. Mikahala. M. ROY:Just to state, Mr. Vitousek, that in preparation to receive all your witnesses as we were told that before parting our last meeting, this is what we did not have. I know, my readiness to begin today was because I had pre witnesses. GIFFIN:Any other comments in closing? Lester, are you going to grab your mike? ISHADO:No, no, no, I just wanted to check with the panel on the remainder of this week and to encourage the parties to not only set the hearing but to have your witnesses here. Because parties, you know, we're, a lot of people, including yourselves, are making, you know, a commitment to be here. I know how hard it is to, and to get people to show up, and sometimes it's difficult, but it's very i GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek. 95 VITOUSEK:Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'd just like to make another statement. You know, the other thing is, you know, we had offered, in fact, we had circulated a stipulation to the effect that, you know, both the Keolonhihi and Keakealaniwahine complexes were of, you know, very highest order of cultural and historical significance. And so, you know, what we were trying to do was avoid repetitive and cumulative testimony on the same issues. And so, you know, I just don't, I what it would add to the record to be told many times by many different people that these are extremely significant sites because there is no dispute over that. You know, there is certainly issues as to what the specific impacts of the proposed project would be, what, you know, potential mitigation measures exist, whether the project should go forward. I mean those are issues. But just saying that these are significant sites and that they involve a number of issues that are of cultural significance to Hawaiian people, that's not in dispute. So if we could just offer that to try to, you know, streamline the testimony, we would appreciate it. And we certainly don't intend to spend a lot of time cross-examining the witnesses who've been listed for tomorrow, and so I don't see how we're going to have any difficulty finishing three witnesses. And so, you know, if we could have more, that would be great. GIFFIN:Mikahala, I'm not sure that you heard all of the comments Randy Vitousek just said right off the top of his head. Maybe you would like to just repeat what you just said rather than me paraphrasing what you said. VITOUSEK:Sure, I'll -. You know, what I was, all I was saying is that, you know, the issue of the cultural and historical significance of the complex, or the complexes, or the entire area is not in dispute. In other words, the Applicant is not disputing the, that the area is of very high order of cultural and traditional importance to Native Hawaiians and that the area and even the subject property would have spiritual value or contain spiritual resources that are important to people. And so what we're saying is that we don't, the record may not benefit from a lot of repetitive testimony to the effect that these are culturally significant areas. I'm not trying to argue, what I'm trying to say is in the effort of streamlining the case that we really don't dispute that. GIFFIN:You also said something to the effect that, as a result, you don't plan too many cross-examining questions. VITOUSEK:You know, in terms of Mr. Roy and Mr. Cummings and Ms. Punihaole, I don't plan extensive cross-examination, so I don't know how long the direct exam is going to be. But, you know, we may well be able to do m witnesses tomorrow. And if that's possible, that would be great because we should get as much done as we can. GIFFIN:Is there any way that the witnesses that we have scheduled for Thursday, knowing this, could be moved up to tomorrow? 96 M. ROY:Unfortunately, I've asked them if they can make it any earlier; they cannot. Thursday was the day that they were available, and they were kind to make their time available to me, to us. GIFFIN:Well, there is a possibility that Curtis Tyler might be a right? M. ROY:True. Yes. GIFFIN:Okay. M. ROY:And I understand and can appreciate what Mr. Vitousek just shared because, in fact, he circulated, if you recall, the stipulation. However, in my experience in the 80's, the material that comes out of contested case hearings has, in fact, become part of historical record. And for this area, in my understanding, these proceedings have built data. Out of the last one came a 1982 report by an adviso borne of the community in such proceedings. So I would say that anything shared by the community would build in the resource material for this area. GIFFIN:Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Then this contested ca hearing is recessed until 9:00 tomorrow morning. VITOUSEK:Thank you. GIFFIN:Thank you very much. DAVID:Thank you. The discussion ended at 4:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary A T T E S T: Geraldine M. Giffin, Presiding Officer 97