HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-28 TBLASMAN (3)
PLANNING COMMISSION CONTESTED CASE
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
WAYNE BLASMAN
JULY 29, 2003
The contested case proceedings for WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) was called to
order at 9:17 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort, Kahaluu Ballroom, 78-6740 Alii
Drive, Keauhou, 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.
Intervenor: Maile David
Maile David
Karen Eoff
Intervenor: Klana Huli Honua
Mikahala Roy
David Roy
Kahala Ann Trask-Gibson
County of HawaiÒi
Pat OÓToole, Esq.
Christopher J. Yuen, Hawai`i County Planning Department
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Norman Hayashi, Staff
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff
And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) Î Application for a Special
Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 13-unit
project and related improvements. The property is located on the east side (mauka) of
Ali'i Drive in the vicinity of Hlualoa Bay and across of the Keolonhihi State Historical
Park at Kamoa Point, Hlualoa 4, North Kona, Hawai`i, TMK: 7-7-4:26.
GIFFIN:Good morning, IÓd like to call the Contested Case Hearing back to
order. The Applicant is Wayne Blasman. This is an application for a Special
Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 13-unit
project and related improvements. The SMA No. is 02-03. Mikahala, last night when
we, before we recessed, we had some discussion about the order. And so IÓd like to have
1
some discussion from you, input from you, as to what you suggest
to begin with Pua Kanahele this morning?
M. ROY:Yes, Madam Chair.
GIFFIN:Okay. Okay. And then, weÓll maybe then, talk about the order
after sheÓs pau.
M. ROY:Thank you. If youÓll give me one minute.
GIFFIN:I will.
M. ROY:One moment. Thank you.
GIFFIN:Would you like a five-minute recess?
M. ROY:Yes, please.
GIFFIN:All right, then, we are in recess, ladies and gentlemen, for five
minutes.
RECESSEDThe Presiding Officer called a short recess at 9:18 a.m.
RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 9:23 a.m.
GIFFIN:Good morning, once again. IÓd like to call this Contested Case
Hearing back to order. This is an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit
to allow the development of a 13-unit condominium project and related improvements.
The Applicant is Wayne Blasman and the SMA No. is 02-03. Mikaha
M. ROY:Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, aloha. Klana Huli
Honua is very grateful to present Mrs. Pua Kanahele as our next witness. We especially
want to thank her, at her coming at her own expense and time for not only this Contested
Hearing but for the one that was held about almost a year ago, I believe, today, also, one
other meeting in the community. So with great thanks I welcome Mrs. Kanahele from
Hilo this morning.
KANAHELE:Aloha.
M. ROY:Aloha. As we welcome Mrs. Kanahele, it is the practice of the
presentation of love in the form of lei maile, for these are sacred elders that have passed
to us the wisdom of these sacred places and are the living connectors to these places. So
in this small way, this is our maile lauliili for Mrs. Kanahele today. Thank you, Pua.
KANAHELE:Thank you.
2
GIFFIN:YouÓre welcome. Mikahala, I need to swear her in. Thank you.
Will you please raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you swear
truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission?
KANAHELE:I do.
GIFFIN:Thank you. And, into the mike, will you please state you
and your resident address?
KANAHELE:My name is Pualani Kanakaole Kanahele. I live in Hilo on 1110
Awai Road.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Mikahala, when this witness is through, I will go
ahead and introduce everybody who is here, Òcause I forgot to do that before I turned it
over to you.
M. ROY:Would you like to do that?
GIFFIN:Okay. Thank you. As I said I forgot to earlier introduc
everybody. To my right is Hearings Officer Hannah Springer. IÓm Geri Giffin. To my
left is our Deputy Corporation Counsel Ivan Torigoe. To his left is Hearings Officer
Grant Togashi. And the parties who are present, starting with you, Mr. Vitousek.
VITOUSEK:Good morning, Randy Vitousek, representing the Applicant,
Wayne Blasman.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Maile?
DAVID:IÓm Maile David, Intervenor, and Karen Eoff, to my left.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Mikahala?
M. ROY:Mikahala Roy, Executive Director, Klana Huli Honua and Kahala
Gibson, to my right, and my father, David Roy.
GIFFIN:Thank you. And representing the County?
OÓTOOLE:Good morning, Patricia OÓToole, representing the Planning
Director; and the Planning Director Chris Yuen is present.
GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Once again, Mikahala.
M. ROY:Aloha Maikaua.
KANAHELE:Aloha Kakahiaka.
3
M. ROY:Aloha Kakahiaka. Aunty Pua, please tell us of your involvement
with the State regarding the area being spoken of, Keolonhihi-Keakealaniwahine
Complex at this morningÓs meeting.
KANAHELE:I was asked to do a cultural impact, a cultural study o
Keakealaniwahine, the section thatÓs makai of the Alii Drive; and I did the cultural study
for that particular area, but that also involves the area mauka of Alii Drive. The cultural
impact, not the cultural impact, I keep saying that, the cultural study of Keolonhihi
involved the whole cycle of life, from the beginning of the life, and even before the life,
to death; and, so, it involves the whole cycle of life. It begins with putting together a
union of two people, male and female, to produce a child of a very high rank. And the
thought behind that was to maintain that bloodline which was very important to them
going back for many, many, many generations. It was a duty for them to do that. And
Keolonhihi was one of those places that maintained that particular practice of keeping
that duty. And, I guess, the alii that weÓre all familiar with is Kamehameha; and
Kamehameha was very conscious of his duty to maintain that particular bloodline. And
so his involvement with Keopualani was one of those unions that he would be able to do
his duty, as far as he was concerned, as far as his duty to the bloodline was concerned to
produce the child that was very close to or kept that bloodline pure. So itÓs keeping the
bloodline pure. But it also involved generations of priestesses to keep track of who were
being born, and who the mothers and fathers were, what the unions were and how they
could track them back to the very beginning of their genealogy. And, you know, if you
do look at the kumulipo, the whole kumulipo, is about that, keeping track of births.
Okay. And, so, when we think about, you know, that kind of prac
practice of keeping something pure and something very, very basic stable, you have very
few places throughout the island that maintains that kind of practice, or even come close
to that kind of practice. And Keolonhihi was not the only place that did that, they had
other areas within all of the islands that did that. And whoever was the ruling chief, he
would set up a place, the place where the females could do that; and this is strictly female
work and to keep track of the bloodline. And so, but Keolonhihi is one of the few places
thatÓs left, that we have left that have, that traces back to pureness of the Hawaiian blood.
And, so, thatÓs basically my study. But it goes back to Keakealawahine, who when she
was the ruling chief did not only have that particular kuleana as the ruling chief of
HawaiÒi but also had the kuleana of maintaining the bloodline and maintaining that
practice for the priestesses to maintain the record of the bloodline. And, so, she had, and
KeakealawahineÓs genealogy goes back to Umialiloa, goes back three generations to
Umialiloa, to actually three of his children, three of UmialiloaÓs children. And, so, when
we have that or the indication of that, youÓre looking at somebody who is, who represents
the pureness of that particular bloodline or the pureness of who we are.
And, so, thatÓs what Keakealawahine Hale represents to us, as well as the Keolonhihi
represents, the pureness of who we are. And, you know, if you want to talk about
anything thatÓs sacred for the human, thatÓs perhaps the most sacred that we can come to,
the pureness about who we are.
4
M. ROY:Wonderful.
KANAHELE:IÓm just rambling here.
M. ROY:No, youÓre not. Thank you very much. I assure you youÓr
Can you give us an idea of about when you began working in this area, coming and
working with the State, as far back as you can think?
KANAHELE:You know, I donÓt remember.
M. ROY:Was it the 80Ós?
KANAHELE:Not worked with the State, but was in the 90Ós. And I
aware of the area in the 80Ós when the State acquired it. When did the State acquire it?
M. ROY:In 1982, there was a Commission established. And, perhap
it be that you became aware through the people on that Commission such as Aunty Maile
Akimseu -?
KANAHELE:No, I became aware through your sister, Aala. And I wa
just accompanying my husband Òcause he was on Hawaiian Homes at that time, and they
were having the ceremony about it going back to, the State acquiring it; and so they were
having this particular ceremony and I attended the ceremony. And your sister
approached me and she says, ÐYou know, theyÓre having this ceremony but I donÓt know
if theyÓre having any chants or anything. We should do a chant about this place.Ñ I said,
ÐWell, I donÓt know this place. IÓm not acquainted with this place.Ñ And she said,
ÐNever mind, just think of something.Ñ So in her urgency to hav
connection back to the kupunas, she needed to do this. And so she did a chant and, you
know, while she was doing the chant, I thought of a chant that connected all of the akuas
of this land. And so I came up with the chant of Kane and Kanaloa and Ku and how they
had come together to maintain not only the race of people but to maintain the land and
the connection of the land to people. So I came up with that chant to do, but that, it has
never left me. That particular chant stayed with me, and that particular chant that had to
do with that place stayed with me. And so when I was asked if I would do that, you
know, even if I didnÓt know anything about the place, to me, it was my responsibility to
do it, because I was the one that went in and did the chant and asked for that kind of
knowledge. And I would only know the knowledge if I sat down and studied that and
studied the chants and studied the genealogy.
And so I was very grateful to your sister at that time, even if it made me very nervous, to
ask me to do that because it made me responsible. ÒCause if IÓm
going to ask, then I better be responsible for it.
5
M. ROY:Thank you. YesterdayÓs testimony presented, Aunty Vicky
Takamine testified to the presence of a site like this and to the nature of our way which
includes dreams and the coming forward of things in the right time, like youÓre speaking
of now. Would you say that thatÓs an example of something that just comes in the right
time or the time you -?
KANAHELE:Well, the timing has to be right. I have to be mature enough to
take on that responsibility. I was mature enough to do the chant and, so, I have to be
mature enough to do, to take on the responsibility. And IÓm not sure if IÓm answering
your question or not. But everything has to do with timing and has to be with timing, has
to do with keeping your mind open, has to do with keeping your m
a desire to do it and having a desire to want to learn. If you donÓt have a desire, it does
not come and it does not lend itself to you. You have to have a desire and, so, desire has
to do with timing.
M. ROY:Thank you. ThatÓs exactly speaking to what I was getting
because she was addressing the nature of our identity which incorporates training new
ones for an element such as that were desired. How would they desire if they donÓt know
of the culture. So this is what she spoke on yesterday and thank you for addressing that
and the depth and the length of time that youÓve been associated here and helping from
those early days.
Also, are you familiar with members that served on that first Commission as appointed
by the State?
KANAHELE:Well, I know that Aunty Maile was on that committee, Ma
Akimseu, and to her connection to that was her aunty; and her aunty also left her a lot of
information, did a recording for her which I learned a lot from. I donÓt know who else -.
I think your father, Mauna, was on the Commission. I donÓt know
M. ROY:Thank you. And for reference, thatÓs made available by,
record, Ms. DavidÓs supplemental exhibits, the report in 1982 of the Kalae O Kamoa
Advisory Commission for our reference.
I refer now, Aunty Pua, to your work in earnest for the design of a consultation plan for
this area prepared in, itÓs dated March 1993 and this is identified as one of our exhibits.
ItÓs a large compilation. Aunty Pua, in the report, did you make recommendations to the
State for the acquisition of neighboring lands to this area?
KANAHELE:Yes. I made, the only way I could see the success of Khihi
was to also acquire the lands around it, Kaumalumalu; and the idea of Kaumalumalu is
that itÓs a buffer, thatÓs what it means, literally. And so, if you understand that, you
understand the purpose, its purpose.
I also made a recommendation for them to acquire the Keakealani
Keakealani area was primary to Keolonhihi. If the Keakealani area did not exisit,
6
Keolonhihi would not exist. And, so, the idea of the ruling chiefess and her
responsibility to the maintaining that particular bloodline brought about the Keolonhihi
area. And, so, both of them went hand-in-hand. One should not exist without the other
or vice-versa or could not exist without the other successfully; and in order for it to be
successful, you have to have all of those components.
M. ROY:For your reference, IÓm going to point out behind you a m
weÓve been using -. Just right behind you, Aunty Pua, is this map of the bay and the
entire area, the subject property right here in terms of the whole ahupuaÒa. Kaumalumalu
here, as you say, means what, Aunty Pua?
KANAHELE:Means to buffer, to protect, to put upon protection.
M. ROY:In earlier testimonies in our Contested Case, elders have talked
about the actual -. Let the record show, IÓm pointing to Exhibit, Klana Huli Honua
Exhibit 9 of the ahupuaÒa maps. There has been earlier testimony about how, thanks to
the recordation of Tutu Naluahine, along with Henry Kekahuna, that this whole area
needs much more study. Did you recommend more study be done in your report?
KANAHELE:I recommended more studies to be done especially for the
Keakealawahine area in its becoming the, and it becoming part of the greater, at that time,
Keolonhihi area. And one thing I strongly recommended is that the place not only be a
part but to have some kind of very fundamental function of maintaining a genealogical -.
What you call the kind of place where they put the stuff at?
M. ROY:Archives.
KANAHELE:Archives, thank you, maintaining a genealogical archives Òcause
thatÓs what its purpose was. And, so, there would be, you know, there would be nothing
more natural than doing that and in its particular place, and not so much the way in
Honolulu or some place like that thatÓs kind of artificial. This would be a more natural
place to have it. That was my recommendation.
M. ROY:In your mind, is there much more to learn about this area?
KANAHELE:Oh, thereÓs much more to learn about the area, thereÓs much more
to learn about the purpose, why they picked that particular area. ItÓs not really clear but
they donÓt just pick any area. The land itself has to have some kind of mana imbued in it
for them to pick the land. So itÓs not so much that you go over
letÓs have this land, and this land, and this land.Ñ ItÓs the land that calls you to it and say,
okay, this is where youÓll have it. And, so, again, it has to do with it being open, being
ready, being mature, being, going through dream states, and things like that to come to
decisions about you and the land coming together. And that was the purpose of kahunas
and to be able to be open to that kind of thing. And, so, you know, you have this land
that has the big Luakini Heiau on, that didnÓt have a Luakini Heiau, that wasnÓt the
purpose of it. Its purpose was to keep the bloodline going. This Luakini area, its purpose
7
was, a male-type purpose was to acquire more lands. And so the purposes were different
but, nevertheless, still very fundamental in the existence of us, in our existence. And so
they had to have a place like that, they have to have a place like this, but itÓs the land that
has certain kinds of mana within it.
M. ROY:ThatÓs stating very much and in line with what testimonie
been given by other elders. You speak about this area thatÓs vitally important, itÓs called
a spiritual connection and the reasons why such places were what they are, and I say
Ðare,Ñ Òcause itÓs in the present.
KANAHELE:Well, it still kind of exists today. If we look at the land and, you
know, we didnÓt have a real good picture of the land today because, you know, other
things have had been replaced what was on the land. So we donÓt have a clear picture.
What we know about the land and its association with its practice is that it had a lae or,
what is lae in English?
M. ROY:A point?
KANAHELE:A point, thank you. It has a point that goes up but the point
envelopes the bay, okay, and the bay is where the surf is. Surf is a sport that attracts aliis
of very high rank and the attracting aliis of very high rank is what you need to maintain
the bloodline, both females aliis and male aliis. So that was o
recreation, or the practice that was needed to attract them there. But it went all the way,
Hlualoa was a great feeder for the whole area. And if you go to the mauka Hlualoa,
you know thatÓs where they did a lot of big planting for the whole area. And, so, you
know, it has to do with the land and what it has to offer.
M. ROY:Would you say in cadence with nature?
KANAHELE:Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, you donÓt make the land, we do
the land; and thatÓs one thing we realized, the land was not, you know, ours to make. The
land was the God and the God meant only that the land is why we live, the land is why
we survive. It fed us, it gave us sustenance, it gave us things to live on; and one of those
things that it gave us was a place like this where we could maintain the bloodline.
M. ROY:In present history books, are we given opportunities adequately to
see the connection of such a place with gardens like you were talking about our eco-
system?
KANEHELE:A lot of the history books were not written by us today. And,
because they have to have a lot of, well, you know, when youÓre in an academic field and
you do a dissertation, one of the most impressive thing about a dissertation is that you
have pages and pages of bibliography, you know. You donÓt have pages and pages of
bibliography when youÓre talking about a place like this. YouÓre talking about a practice
that people actually did and not necessarily putting it down on paper. It wasnÓt a writing
society. And if you have pages and pages of bibliography, your paper is very impressive
8
and youÓre looked at as an expert. And, so, in the area of the Hawaiians, they didnÓt have
pages and pages of bibliography, they were not looked at as an expert. And the whole
thing about expert when you come to books has to do with the western education, not our
education.
M. ROY:Testimony yesterday by Mr. Forman gave reference to, in
actuality, Hawaiian way being. It would be regarded as the term mahaÒoi, to volunteer,
for example, information about land places and the like. So we had a healthy
examination of a difference between western acknowledgment by the way youÓre saying,
bibliography or writing, versus the character of our cultural way which was to be
protective of the wealth of what weÓve been inheriting from our
not apt to volunteer.
KANAHELE:If your conversation didnÓt have a functional objective, you would
not volunteer the information. If it has a functional objective, you would volunteer the
information, talk about it, get into it a little deeper and, in fact that, but -. So you only
would talk about Keolonhihi, make the reference to Keolonhihi and Keakealawahine, if
you talked about the practices that was going there and you were involved in the practices
that were going on there. If youÓre not involved in the practices that were going on, you
donÓt talk about it. For one thing, you donÓt know anything about it and, so, you didnÓt
talk about it. And youÓre mahaoe, if youÓre going to talk about it, you donÓt know
anything about it and you donÓt practice it.
M. ROY:I can remember, Aunty Pua, one of the most memorable moments
from learning from your mom, Aunty Edith, was when she expressed, if you, the
Hawaiians do not express what they do not know, they do not speak on what they do not
know. And when she said, no, the depth of that word was the dep
experienced it.
Has the State followed in any of your recommendations to acquire any of these properties
that you know of?
KANAHELE:No, I donÓt think so. No, it hasnÓt. ItÓs still full of bushes.
M. ROY:And, in fact, is it true that the south portion in Kaumalumalu has
now been developed, purchased by an outside source? Was there -? Thank you. I strike
the question. Since your report, have you known of any activity from the State on this
area since your work with the State in those years?
KANAHELE:I know that they went on to cut some big trees at one time and that
was it.
M. ROY:Aunty Pua, you have a vast background. Can you just give a little
background of your profession, for one thing, at present? You are a very, you are so
highly respected as being the kumuhula and master, really, of that. But can I ask you
about your profession currently?
9
KANAHELE:I teach at Hawaii Community College.
M. ROY:As such, are you involved with this site in your teaching?
KANAHELE:Oh, yeah. And in all my classes, no, not all of them, mostly the
Hawaiian beliefs and practice class, which I actually talk about this practice, talk about
the practice thatÓs here. So I bring my class down every year to go through the two areas.
And their purpose is to go in there and re-map the place and see what has changed from
the last map that was presented by my class, see if anything is overgrown, or the
stonewalls are down, or people are actually living in the site. And so weÓve done that
with both places and every year I go back in it and check; but itÓs been -. For my class
members that go down, it has been an eye-opener for them. And u
places like that that has been in the public eye for a long time, this place has not been in
the public eye for a long time. And, so, theyÓre always pleasantly surprised by what they
find there and they feel like they have given back something, you know, just by going in
there and at that particular time taken some responsibility about trying to maintain
something thatÓs there; but we do that every year.
M. ROY:Would you say that the care and aloha for this place is also felt by
members of beyond your classes that you work with?
KANAHELE:Some of the members of the class continue to go back because they
have some sense of what the place is about and what the place should look like. And, so,
every once in awhile when I see them, they tell me that theyÓve gone back to look at the
place and they saw that somebody was living in the place and, so, they give me reports
like that. And, so, you know, in my small way IÓd like to expose more people to
Keolonhihi and Keakealawahine because that, to me, is a spot that, it goes back to
maybe one of the last times that we were, our culture was pure; and thatÓs what that
represents to me.
M. ROY:Do you prepare your students before they go with you?
KANAHELE:We get a lot of preparation for it, yeah. And, you kno
of my maps, we talk about the practice. First of all, we talk about some of David MaluÓs
things, we talk about the kumulipo and the practices within the kumulipo, about the
priestess lines that weÓre responsible for births and unions and keeping track of different
kinds of birth, whether itÓd be people or things of the ocean, things of the mountain, those
kind of things; and we talk about all of that. And then we come to this place and tell
them that this is where it actually happened here in HawaiÒi and, then, so they can make a
connection from the dim past to this place thatÓs going on in HawaiÒi, down to
Kamehameha that continued that particular practice Òcause heÓs, and then to
KamehamehaÓs children that were products of that particular practice, before inundation
of other cultures to HawaiÒi.
10
M. ROY:So would you say thereÓs a degree of condition thatÓs necessary
but, to have by those who would come on the property and help or seek to help?
KANAHELE:Ask me that question, I had something else in mind.
M. ROY:IÓll re-state the question. You just talked about how you prepare
the students and how it takes some time. I would say by hearing
question is, the people that do come on site, would you agree that they have been given at
least ample information to begin with on the background and what they are doing
consciously before they are engaged even upon the land?
KANAHELE:Well, I think that, though, that the students that go into
Keolonhihi and Keakealani probably know more about that place than anybody else, so
theyÓre getting a lot of information. TheyÓre getting most of the information that I know.
M. ROY:Do you know family members of this land area? Perhaps yo
even have had members in your classes.
KANAHELE:That connect back to Keakealani, yeah, Òcause one of the things
that they do is do their genealogy in class, especially with that class. And, so, a lot of
them can connect back to Keakealani or to Kamehameha, and it bec
meaningful to them.
M. ROY:Is there a prerequisite for that class?
KANAHELE:The prerequisite is that they have to take some other classes before
they get there.
M. ROY:So you wouldnÓt call it an introductory class?
KANAHELE:ItÓs not an introductory class, yes.
M. ROY:How long have you been teaching that particular series?
KANAHELE:Over 10 years.
M. ROY:And that has been just about yearly, then, that class?
KANAHELE:Until IÓm too old, very soon.
M. ROY:I have many more questions. IÓd like to afford an opportunity for
varied discussion, if I may, Madam Chair?
GIFFIN:Thank you. Thank you very much. Why donÓt we begin, the
with the Applicant and then weÓll go along with the various parties, and then, of course,
the Hearings Officers, in that order. Mr. Vitousek.
11
VITOUSEK:I think that the person whoÓs offering the witness should complete
their direct testimony before weÓre asked to cross-examine. I mean, itÓs not -.
GIFFIN:Hang on, I didnÓt know if she was through with her direct
VITOUSEK:I think she said she had several more questions she wanted to ask.
GIFFIN:Right, right.
VITOUSEK:So she should ask those and then we can proceed with the cross-
examination.
GIFFIN:Mikahala, are you through with your direct or did you have some
more that you really wanted to add?
M. ROY:I have some more. Thanks. IÓll finish up, then.
GIFFIN:Okay.
M. ROY:Thank you, Randy. Again, for the reference, IÓm pointing
map, Exhibit 9, Klana Huli Honua. This is the subject property. Keakealaniwahine
Complex is behind and thatÓs listed here on the wall for us. WeÓve been talking about the
Complex -. ThereÓve been questions posed by the public as to the sacredness of this
property. Could you speak to what you feel as to the sacredness of that property, 1.25
acres.
GIFFIN:YouÓre speaking of the subject property?
M. ROY:The subject property.
KANAHELE:I talked earlier about the whole ahupuaÒa of Hlualoa and its
function and unlike the Luakini, which is the one over here and which acquired land and
is very aggressive in its ability to do so. This particular kind of land that weÓre talking
about is not an aggressive land and itÓs not used for that purpose. It is used for the
purpose of inviting and embracing and, but all of that is used for the purpose of
maintaining the bloodline. All of that loving and embracing have to do with maintaining
the bloodline. When you talk about loving and embracing, weÓre talking about the land
itself. And our female diety was Haumea, and she was an epitome of femaleness. This
land is the epitome of the femaleness, the whole idea of loving and embracing to maintain
that bloodline.
I donÓt know to what degree of sacredness I can touch upon to emphasize that particular
point. Haumea was the female that began the practice; and in beginning the practice, she
was also given the honor of being our earthly mother.
12
So if you have the honor of being our earthly mother and you have the reputation of
being conscious of births, whether itÓd be the births of the reef, or the births of the things
of the land, the birth of the things in the mountain, the births of humans -. That place that
have been, that you have come to, or the place that gives back t
female, loving, embracing, giving you that kind of time and that kind of enveloping for
you to be able to do this, to have the births, to go through that cycle of life, you know,
how sacred is that? ItÓs like a femaleÓs womb. ItÓs pretty damn sacred. And IÓm not
talking about the vagina, IÓm talking about the womb. ItÓs what that place represents, the
female womb. ThatÓs what Keakealani was. She was a representative of that female
womb. Keolonhihi was the one that maintained that sacredness for that female
Keakamahana, her mother, was a representative of that female womb. Kaohuikilani was
a representative of that female womb and, you know, itÓs just generations back from
them.
So, you know, thatÓs the sacredness to me. I donÓt know how else I can say that itÓs
sacred, that itÓs a church, but itÓs not a church, itÓs in the womb. And -.
M. ROY:ThatÓs pretty comprehensive in my mind. Aunty Pua, you
mentioned that the land rather calls to the human, to be recognized in time as it would.
Can land, this mana go on, the mana that calls to the human bein
site, for example, this one, does that mana go on in your mind of the land?
KANAHELE:Well, you know, also, like I said earlier, itÓs not the people that
came and said, ÐOkay, letÓs do it on this land.Ñ But there has to be a knowing of the
people of what this land is offering and the land is made, and the calling of the land to
you. Some of us feel closer to one place than we do to another. It has to do with that
kind of connection.
M. ROY:Can mana be fed by human beings?
KANAHELE:Mana can be fed, yes.
M. ROY:Can land, is land helped in its state from antiquity into modern day
by the practicing of spiritual practices?
KANAHELE:You know, a good example of that are the Greeks. And although
all of them are Greek orthodox, thatÓs church they belong to, theyÓre basically Christians.
They still have very, very high respect for their old places; and their old places are just
held in high esteem, even if you only see two rocks that looks like itÓs falling apart. It
belonged at one time to their beginnings and they did everything around it. All of their
new city goes around it, their roads that they have to make do to attract tourists,
everything goes around it because those are the beginnings of who they are; and places
like this is the beginnings of we are. So if you canÓt understand us and where weÓre
coming from? IÓm sure a lot of us understand the Greeks because we had to study them
in school. But nobody had to study Hawaiian where our places were as sacred; and we
understand their sacredness because we understand our sacredness. If you canÓt
13
understand our sacredness, how can you understand your own sacredness, where you
come from. In order for you to understand our sacredness, you have to understand your
own sacredness.
M. ROY:Did the creation of roadways and buildings in this area enhance
what you know to be Keolonhihi-Keakealaniwahine Complex, this general area?
KANAHELE:Did it enhance it? You mean cutting through it?
M. ROY:In your mind -.
KANAHELE:No, it made it look like it was two separate entities where it was
not, it was one. It was part of the whole Hlualoa ahupuaÒa.
M. ROY:Today, we seem to be in part defending the fact that it is one. In
your mind then, and itÓs your testimony, that this is one comple
KANAHELE:No, this is one, yes.
M. ROY:And did you just say that in Greece they build around their sacred
centers?
KANAHALE:Yes.
M. ROY:Madam Chairman, ask for a recess of just three minutes?
GIFFIN:Mikahala, may I ask why?
M. ROY:I would like to discuss with Mrs. Kanahele something on the map
for her understanding before I bring a question to her.
GIFFIN:Sure. IÓm going to ask that all parties stay in the room
that we can -.
M. ROY:We can. Yeah. Thank you.
RECESSEDThe meeting recessed at 12:05 a.m.
RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:10 p.m.
GIFFIN:IÓd like to call the contested case hearing back to order. The
Intervenor, Mikahala Roy, has indicated that she is now ready to reconvene.
M. ROY:Thank you.
VITOUSEK:Madam Chairman?
14
GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek?
VITOUSEK:You know, since we were all asked to remain in our plac
this recess, I think the record should reflect that during the recess, Ms. Roy and Ms. Trask
were conferring with the witness and pointing out various things on the maps, and having
extended discussion with the witness, since weÓre taking a break during her testimony to
further point things out here on the map, which is a little irregular. I mean, usually you
donÓt have the opportunity during a witnessÓ testimony to coach them. And, so, I think
itÓs only appropriate that the record reflect that.
GIFFIN:I agree in its appropriateness. Mikahala?
M. ROY:Thank you, Mrs. Giffin. We refute what Mr. Vitousek has to say
in the idea of the element in inference of coaching. We merely were directing
Mrs. KanaheleÓs attention to the site map, acquainting her with what, catching her up to
speed with what this area is and, also, that Kahala Ann is Mrs. Gibson, for the record.
Thanks.
Aunty Pua, this location, as IÓve talked more about the site plan that we pointed out to
your left, this is actually that red dot on that other map just above you. This is a
schematic representation of what is designed and proposed to be developed there by
Mr. Blasman. As you see that -.
TORIGOE:You need to have her be specific in terms of which map and where
exactly she is referencing -.
GIFFIN:Excuse me, Mr. Torigoe has just stopped me so that we can be
specific in terms of which map and where, for the record.
M. ROY:Thank you, for the record, the first map that IÓm speakin
landscape plan presented by Wayne Blasman, as presented in this Contested Case
yesterday and today. It is the revised map.
GIFFIN:Exhibit -?
M. ROY:Exhibit 17.
The second reference was to Exhibit -.
HAYASHI:ApplicantÓs Exhibit 17.
M. ROY:The other one with the red dot, Norman?
HAYASHI:Oh, thatÓs the staffÓs location map.
15
M. ROY:Staff location map with the red mark. As you look at tha
presentation and in your knowledge of that general area, can you speak about how that
would be, in your mind, a help or hindrance to this area?
KANAHELE:IÓve never seen the map before so I have no idea what that map is
all about. And it was a necessary part of our conversation for her to point the map out
and tell me what that was about and the fact that it was there. And she pointed this out to
me that it was over there; and I know where KeakealaniÓs house is in relationship to the
map itself and not in relationship to Mr. BlasmanÓs project. As I said before that the
whole land of Hlualoa was used for a particular purpose and that the -. And it was not
so much that this is her house and this is this, and this was the heiau, this was the burial
site, and this was Keolonhihi but that whole area was used as or the whole land section
was used for that particular purpose, whether they built their house there or they did not
build their house there and the idea that Kaumalumalu was used as a buffer, the idea of
the buffer for the whole land and not necessarily for spots on that land.
So, you know, and IÓm not sure how Mr. Blasman is going to develop it. But in looking
at the expanse of his development, IÓm sure that heÓs going to have to use some kind of
jackhammers and something to remove rocks or where to dig holes or whatever to get the
foundation done. And all of that, the moving of land will cause some movement on the
KeakealaniwahineÓs hale. One of the walls thatÓs still intact is the wall that is facing
north; and thatÓs facing toward that, this particular property. ThatÓs the wall thatÓs still
intact. ThatÓs the highest wall they have. And to go in there and displace rocks to take
them up or to remove them and to build something will indeed imp
itself, without talking about impacting upon the land itself and the meaning of the land to
all of these little sites around it.
M. ROY:What is the relationship, in your mind, of this land area to the land
across the street and Kiha pakiha behind?
KANAHELE:ItÓs a continuation of that. There was, the section of the land that
was left, KeakealaniÓs hale was perhaps the one with the highest wall and that was to
maintain her mana. And the land on the side, the rest of the structures were all lower, and
all lower, that went eventually went into the, overlooked the bay. And if you go back of
KeakealaniÓs house, hale, and thereÓs people surfing, you could hear them very clearly
and, but you have to experience that. And thatÓs one of the things that was necessary to
maintain that kind of practice.
M. ROY:So are you saying that height does have a relevance to sacredness
in terms of -?
KANAHELE:Well, height does have a relevance to sacredness and, as far as that
place is concerned to her sacredness, and it also has -. Her sacredness and the place
behind it also was in plain view or in tune with the lower area, Keolonhihi. The idea of
the surfing, the idea of the grandstand, that could all be seen. And so that was part and
parcel of what that whole place was all about.
16
M. ROY:So would you say then that the viewplane that you just spoke of
and that is protected in the coastal zone management was important then as it is to be
protected now in the law?
KANAHELE:I think that her hale should be protected, thatÓs what I think. I
think that the area above it should also be protected. To be able to, that, one of my
recommendations that I didnÓt mention before is that the State also acquire those houses
thatÓs there, four houses thatÓs there, because thatÓs part of the Keolonhihi-Keakealani
Complex.
But, as I was saying, all of that was part of their complex, Keakealani. Whether there
was a structure on it or whether it was not, that whole ahupuaÒa was part of their
complex. The fact that they just lived in, they did a particular function in this place, in
this place, and in this place didnÓt mean that the places around it had no function. It had a
function.
M. ROY:Would you also speak to its function with relevance to, was this
just land void of the mana associated with those neighboring areas?
KANAHELE:No.
M. ROY:Would you say then that these lands contain mana as do th
residences?
KANAHELE:The land has mana.
M. ROY:This land in question and the development plan that you see before
you slates a plan for the height at its final, at something like 78 feet above sea level?
KANAHELE:Your previous question is like asking me what is important, the
child that is in the womb, or the child that you gave birth to, or after the child grew up
and becomes the man or the woman that becomes the ruling chief?
child is important, what part of the child is the most mana? I donÓt know. They are all
one and the same.
M. ROY:Thank you. Thank you, Aunty Pua. IÓve completed my time
GIFFIN:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek?
VITOUSEK:Thank you. Ms. Kanahele, IÓm Randy Vitousek and I repr
th
Wayne Blasman. In the ahupuaÒa of Hlualoa 4 there, and particularly the reference to
the area just in the vicinity of Alii Drive, could I direct your attention to the map thatÓs on
the wall behind you that I think was -.
KANAHELE:This map?
17
VITOUSEK:Yes, I believe thatÓs Klana Huli HonuaÓs Exhibit 9. Is that
correct?
GIFFIN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:Now, it appears that there are several parcels on the mauka side of
Alii Drive there that up, theyÓre Land Commission award numbers. IsnÓt that correct?
And thatÓs usually indicative that those were kuleana which were awarded to a native
tenant during the Mahele and to the Land Commission process, isnÓt that correct?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And so how would you interpret the presence of so many kuleana
in the, along the road there in that ahupuaÒa in light of what you were saying about the
fact that the complex is all one complex and -?
KANAHELE:Well, the time of the kuleana is the time that weÓve already been
inundated by other cultures and other values. And so they went in to satisfy that
particular time; and the other cultures, they went into the idea of dividing the land. ItÓs, a
different time, different group of people do not take away from sacredness of that land.
And the kuleanas also went to aliis of, that was, resided on that land; also, aliis that had
some kind of kuleana for that land, or in association with the land.
VITOUSEK:But does it suggest that at least at the time of the Mahele and the
subsequent Land Commission that individual native Hawaiians felt they owned separate
or, you know, felt they were entitled to separate defined parcels in that area?
KANAHELE:I donÓt think they thought that they were entitled to it. I think that
the land was afforded them because they lived there for awhile.
coming down as far as the law is concerned that the land be divided; and so it was
divided according to who was there. And a lot of times in the Mahele, they didnÓt feel
like they were entitled to the land. They were just going along with what was there with
the alii; and a lot of them gave their land back because they didnÓt know what to do with
the land. So as far as entitlement is concerned, at that point of the Mahele, there was no
idea of entitlement.
VITOUSEK:I may have mis-spoke. I didnÓt intend to impute more to
entitlement than I meant. All I was trying to get at was that there were individual land
claims which were made and found valid in the Land Commission pr
resulted in -.
KANAHELE:It was found valid according to -.
VITOUSEK:The Land Commission?
18
KANAHELE:The language of that law which was a new law in Hawai'i, which
law came from another culture.
VITOUSEK:Fair enough. And those Land Commission awards, several
those were built on. IsnÓt that correct? I mean, isnÓt that where some of the homes,
which are now in that area, are built on those awards. IsnÓt that correct?
KANAHELE:Right.
VITOUSEK:I did note and I think you testified in your direct examination that
one of your recommendations was that the State acquire the four private residences on the
makai side of Alii Drive. IsnÓt that correct?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:To your knowledge, has the State done anything to acquire those
properties?
KANAHELE:(Shaking head negatively.)
VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry, youÓll have to answer out loud because itÓs Î.
KANAHELE:No, they didnÓt.
VITOUSEK:Okay. Thank you. And, to your knowledge, has the Stat
anything to acquire any of the other private residences in that area?
KANAHELE:No.
VITOUSEK:Okay. Now, Ms. Kanahele, your proposals for the develo
the Keolonhihi Cultural Park made several recommendations to the State as the
custodian of that land. To your knowledge, have any of those recommendations been
implemented?
KANAHELE:No.
VITOUSEK:And that was in, your study was 1992 or 93, was it?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:So in the last decade, is it your testimony that of the various
recommendations and proposals that youÓve made to the State they didnÓt, none of those
have been implemented? IsnÓt that correct?
KANAHELE:No.
19
VITOUSEK:And the areas still are characterized by keawe, and banyan, and
haole koa, and other types of -?
KANAHELE:They still live there, yes.
VITOUSEK:Yeah. And they still are having adverse impact, I assume, on the
cultural sites themselves, is that correct?
KANAHELE:Everything that grows there whether itÓd be mauka or makai and,
will always have an adverse effect on the land, whether itÓd be the buildings or the
foreign trees, adverse.
VITOUSEK:Now, when you bring your students to this land, how do you get
access -? You know, what do you do, I mean, just when you come
what do you do when you get there?
KANAHELE:Well, we, for the makai area, we go around towards the lualoa
Bay area and walk on the coastline, and then we go in. And for the mauka area, we go
straight in from the, where the cars park across the road from the surfing spot.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So, if youÓre going into the makai portion, you walk along
the coastline of Hlualoa Bay -?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:Essentially makai of those four homes that are there, m
KANAHELE:Just north and makai, yeah.
VITOUSEK:North, yeah. Okay. And then if youÓre going in the ma
of the property, you would park in that wide area in the road where the surfers park,
which is also just north of the Casa del Sol, that big house? Is that right? ThereÓs a big
private home there thatÓs like a Mediterranean kind of looking house -?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:Do you remember that? And so you park just north of th
then walk in -?
KANAHELE:North of that, yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And by using those means are you able to get access into
the two sites or your group is able to get there?
KANAHELEWell, we go in there from the north to the Keakealani area because
I want them to see the north wall and -.
20
VITOUSEK:Okay. And can you show me where that north wall is located on in
any of the maps. Is it shown? Just so we can get an understanding of -.
KANAHELE:ItÓs that wall over there.
M. ROY:Exhibit 3B.
VITOUSEK:Okay. Is that Klana Huli HonuaÓs Exhibit 3B?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. Thank you.
KANAHELE:No, this is the one that opens to that house, this wall on this side.
This is the north wall. Can you put your finger over there. Yeah, thatÓs the north wall.
And this is where the little puka is in the wall. ThatÓs where the little puka is in the wall,
is the west wall, and thatÓs where the houses are; and thatÓs the north wall that you just
went down. And they go and look at that wall Òcause thatÓs the most impressive wall, and
thatÓs the wall thatÓs still intact.
VITOUSEK:So, Ms. Kanahele, Ms. Roy is putting a yellow post it o
on Exhibit 3B where, is that the correct location?
KANAHELE:ItÓs the wall, yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. You say that wall is intact?
KANAHELE:Pretty much, yeah, compared to the rest of it.
GIFFIN:Excuse me, Mr. Vitousek -. Mikahala, we need to be able
where, you know, the indicators are and, so far, I have not seen what was indicated as
that north wall.
KANAHELE:ThatÓs the north wall.
GIFFIN:Okay.
VITOUSEK:Excuse me, I think itÓs still not turned -.
GIFFIN:It is. So, at this point in time, Mikahala, IÓm going to ask that you
indicate the wall one more time so that Mr. Togashi, Hannah Springer and myself can see
which one youÓre indicating. And then, if you could, would you please sit down so we
can have Mr. Vitousek continue.
21
M. ROY:I have marked in yellow this wall here on the map presentation of,
done by Kekahuna and Naluahine Kaopua, marking this wall as she
GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Mr. Vitousek, you can go ahead and
continue.
VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry, I think I had asked you the question in terms of, say that
that section of the wall is relatively intact. Is that correct?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And what do you do with your students when you g
that wall?
KANAHELE:Well, initially we talk about, prior to our being there, we talk about
her sacredness and looking at the wall as a protection of her personal sacredness of her
house where she resides. We also go, eventually go around that wall. And then weÓll
talk about all of the other sites thatÓs around there and how they aid in, as part of her
living quarters.
VITOUSEK:And, so, you walk through, walk around through the bala
site, is that correct?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And youÓre able to, by doing that, are you able to give the students
the understanding of the relationship of the different sites to each other and to their
function?
KANAHELE:For as much as we can see it, yes.
VITOUSEK:Yeah. And what is it that would, that interferes with your ability to
see it?
KANAHELE:Most of it has to do with the overgrowth; and then after we get up
above her house, the other houses thatÓs in front of it. And we can still hear the waves
and we still hear the people thatÓs there. And being able to go around it to come back
down we cannot do that because thereÓs people living in front of it. But being able to go
around it and coming back down would give them a fuller view of
VITOUSEK:And so that, but thatÓs, itÓs restricted by the houses that are there
already, isnÓt that correct, the houses that have been there for the, at least the 10 years that
youÓve been going there with the students? IsnÓt that correct?
KANAHELE:Yes.
22
VITOUSEK:Now are you familiar with the property that is the subject of this
application? ItÓs the property where the Snug Harbor Motel used to be located. Are you
familiar with this Snug Harbor Motel at all?
KANAHELE:No. IÓm not familiar with Snug Harbor.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So youÓre not familiar with the fact that in the
hotel or motel was developed on the subject property? Is that correct?
KANAHELE:No, IÓm not.
VITOUSEK:Okay. Now when you were talking about the sacredness of the
land, I heard you, I thought I heard you saying that the Hlualoa section had this
sacredness, the sacredness that related to the different uses and functions that the land
was, land gave rise to. Is that correct?
KANAHELE:What is your question?
VITOUSEK:My question, I was trying to go back to your testimony about the
sacredness of the land. And my recollection was that your testimony said the sacredness
of the land related to all the Hlualoa section. Is that correct?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:As opposed to one particular part of it or another part?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:In other words, it was more of a general sense that came from the
land based on its history and uses and functions. Is that correct?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:Is that same, true of other ahupuaÒa or other sections that adjoin
thrdnd
Hlualoa 4? Like Kaumalumalu, or Hlualoa 3, or Hlualoa 2?
rdth
KANAHELE:ThereÓs only one Hlualoa. They didnÓt have a 3 or 4, so -.
VITOUSEK:Oh, okay. Well, I guess, on the wall, recent maps, I g
show a different Hlualoa ahupuaÒa. Is that, so do you think -?
KANAHELE:IÓm just talking about Hlualoa -.
VITOUSEK:Generally?
KAHAHELE:In its original, I guess, form.
23
VITOUSEK:Okay, okay. And, so, the same will be true for all of lualoa,
then. Is that correct?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, I think when you were testifying after our break
there, you said, I think you said, ÐIÓd never seen the map before, so I didnÓt know what
the map was about.Ñ
KANAHELE:IÓve never seen that before, or the placement of the dot, or this.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So before you came to testify today you had not
KANAHELE:IÓve not seen where it was, the project, the project in question was
going to be.
VITOUSEK:Okay, not seen where it was or what was proposed?
KANAHELE:Yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. ThatÓs all the questions I have.
GIFFIN:Thank you, Mr. Vitousek. Maile?
DAVID:Aloha, Aunty Pua.
M. ROY:IÓm sorry, Ms. Giffin, IÓm sorry, Maile. For the record, I donÓt
think that was identified. Ms. Kanahele, that map, for Mr. VitousekÓs clarity, was the
first map that she referred to, was the developmentÓs map -.
GIFFIN:Exhibit 17.
M. ROY:Exhibit 17; the second is the department staff; and the t
Klana Huli HonuaÓs 9. Thank you.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Maile?
DAVID:Archaeologist, the archaeologist in this case had claimed that there
are no archeological sites on the property because whatever existed there -.
KANAHELE:On this property?
DAVID:On this subject property, with Mr. BlasmanÓs property?
KANAHELE:Okay.
24
DAVID:Because whatever existed prior, whether it was historic sites or
burials as I understand, have been removed. So it is their posi
things no longer exist, thereÓs no impact. Does the removal of or destruction diminish the
cultural significance or sacredness of this land and, if not, why?
KANAHELE:So what is your question?
DAVID:The question is, theyÓre saying that thereÓs no historic sites or
anything that culturally will be impacted on this property because it has been removed. Is
the fact that theyÓve removed it, does this make it less important, this piece of property, in
its relationship to the whole complex?
VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry, I have to object to the form of the question. I think she
said that they said that there is nothing significant on the site because they removed it;
and that implies that the Applicant removed something from the site which is not true.
DAVID:Okay. IÓm sorry. Because it has been prior, it has been bulldozed
previously, so whatever was there does not exist and so thereÓs no impact. Does that
lessen the significance of this area because thereÓs nothing physical there?
KANAHELE:It doesnÓt lessen the, you know, I just want to come up and say that
it doesnÓt lessen the significance of the area. The fact that there was, something was
there prior to this and it doesnÓt exist anymore, they represent the old, there originally
was there, the place that had to do with Keakealani and Keolonhihi, for the Hawaiian,
that still exists there. That land was there for that particular purpose and was there in
conjunction with a lot of the other things around it, that still exists; and the idea that all of
the things around it is still there, the significance of that land, still exists as well.
DAVID:Okay. Thank you. In your recommendations you mentioned t
the redignification of the entire complex offers a chance to revive the cultural and
spiritual, some of the degradation that weÓve suffered in the past. Were, in your opinion,
what impacts would a condo, condominium that adjoins Keakealani,
impacts would that pose upon the sacred site?
KANAHELE:Well, it doesnÓt have the same impact as if you were to look at the
genealogical archives that had to do with that particular area and, I donÓt know, you have
a lot of condos up and down that road, they donÓt add to Kona site to begin with. ThatÓs
my opinion anyway. So what IÓm saying, it does not add to the site.
DAVID:It does not add to the site -?
KANAHELE:To the cultural site.
DAVID:The cultural site. I see. WeÓve been here in this procee
because of things that have happened in the past with regard to our cultural sites being
25
destroyed; and, historically, there have been a lot of cumulative impacts to this site
already, the homes that youÓve talked about, Kaumalumalu. Would you say that your
recommendations that this particular property be acquired for the eventual park, would
that still be your recommendation?
KANAHELE:Oh, yeah.
DAVID:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek mentioned the fact that the State hasnÓt
done anything to do to further the development of this historic place for lack of money or
whatever reason, yeah. Does that diminish the StateÓs responsibility or the responsibility
of this body to protect these places?
KANAHELE:Well, the only reason I know them not doing anything about it is
because of lack of money and, but it doesnÓt diminish their responsibility. They acquired
the land, they asked for the study, they did other kinds of study on it as well and theyÓre
the legal owners of the land, so it doesnÓt acquire, I mean, it doesnÓt diminish their
responsibility to the land. They acquired it because of the purpose of the structures there
and because of the significance of the structures there. So, in acquiring it, it might have
been, it must have been significant to them and, so, their responsibility still abides.
DAVID:And do you feel also that it is our responsibility as native
Hawaiians to assert our rights to protect this place?
KANAHELE:You know, as far as Hawaiians are concerned, itÓs always our
responsibility to be watchful, to be aware of certain lands, certain kinds of mana that
came from the lands and the kind of practices that came from the land, what makes us
Hawaiians and why being Hawaiian is valuable to us. And, so, all of that has to do with
certain places around the island and certain cultural sites, as well as other significant sites
that were used.
DAVID:All right. Thank you very much, Aunty Pua.
KANAHELE:Am I pau?
GIFFIN:Almost. Ms. OÓToole?
OÓTOOLE:Thank you. Good morning. IÓd like to ask you if you
recommended that the State buy any private house lots mauka of A
KANAHELE:Who are you?
OÓTOOLE:Oh, Pat OÓToole, IÓm representing the Planning Director.
KANAHELE:Okay. Thank you. No, my recommendation was for the fo
houses over there because my immediate concern was Keolonhihi. But in
recommending the acquisition of Keakealani and Kaumalumalu, it had to do for the
26
health of Keolonhihi. But I did not look at the houses that was mauka, I did not
recommend that. But I can if itÓs not too late.
OÓTOOLE:Well, IÓm kind of going to ask you that next. If you we
be making priorities for the State to acquire land in the area, how would you set that
priority? What would you recommend?
KANAHELE:The houses mauka first.
OÓTOOLE: Mauka of Alii Drive?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
OÓTOOLE:And why is that?
KANAHELE:Because KeakealaniÓs residence and that place up there is, as far as
hierarchy is concerned, is first and foremost, and then the plac
And Kaumalumalu will follow that because you need the buffer to protect both of them.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Thank you.
KANAHELE:Now IÓm pau?
GIFFIN:Not quite. Hang on, I just want to record what you just said.
Hearings officers, questions of Ms. Kanahele? Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I know it has been a sort of a
morning for you so IÓll make my questioning brief. I was curious as to, well, you
mentioned that youÓre an instructor at Hawaii Community College. And as part of your
course, the teaching of your course, I was curious if you impart any kind of philosophy in
the instruction of your course and would that philosophy be, I guess, rooted in western
laws that, you know, for example, maybe development has to or, IÓm not sure not how to
say it, but that in your philosophy of native Hawaiian teachings
to co-exist with western philosophy and western laws? Do you impart any of that in your
teaching? Which I gather, it seems to be maybe a little bit dis
philosophy.
KANAHELE:You cannot say anything about my personal philosophy, y
cannot gather that. What I teach in, IÓm very fortunate, to me, IÓm very fortunate Òcause
IÓm pure Hawaiian, I was born and raised on this land, I love the land, I love who I am
and I love teaching it. And, so, I think that IÓm fortunate to be able to do that. And, so,
thatÓs the way I teach. I teach with that passion. IÓm also a product of this time. I was
born and raised in Hawaiian Homes but I was also born and raised with the value of
being educated in a western system and, so, weÓre all educated. My mother and father
sent all of us to college. They also taught us how important it is to know that weÓre
Hawaiians and that we come from this land, and this land is, the whole land is sacred to
27
us, and how to treat the land. And, so, in the western education, thatÓs the way I teach it.
I teach the way my mother and father taught us, but I teach in that school in a western
style. And I also say IÓm a product of today which means that IÓm not against
development. IÓm just against where development sometimes is an
certain parts of the island. Mauna Kea is maybe my biggest problem and, you know, and
IÓm not against astronomy. I think thatÓs a wonderful study. I just donÓt like them
putting the telescopes on the mountain. They need to put it somewhere else to continue
that study.
TOGASHI:I think -. Thank you.
KANAHELE:So thatÓs, you know, thatÓs my thing with -. Certain places on the
island does not need development or should not have development; and it has to do with
the place, it has to do with our longevity. My philosophy is the whole idea of Hloa.
Hloa is from the time of Wkea, the birth of the child was Hloa. Hloa in its
metaphorical sense means long breath. Long breath is our existence and our existence
especially on this land, we have to exist. And our existence go back to places that, to that
womb, that metaphorical womb, that that land is. Our existence go back to the purity of
that mountain and its connection with the whole atmosphere, and its connection to the
idea that it grabs water for us, and it feeds this land, gives this land water. So itÓs very,
very basic things like that that helps us to survive. It doesnÓt only help us Hawaiians but
helps everybody else that come on this land to survive. But wha
about it is the fact that our kupunas taught us that, how to survive on this land and to
survive on this land by keeping certain places the way it is, because thatÓs whatÓs going to
make us live. ItÓs very basic, doesnÓt have to do with metaphor, has to do with longevity
of life. And, so, thatÓs my philosophy.
TOGASHI:IÓm glad that you reminded me during your testimony that
Hawaiian way was not to, and there was this concept of mahaÒoi. And IÓm glad that you
reminded me that the Hawaiian way was not to leave a lot of written documentation,
unlike western taught where you spoke of bibliography. You know, thereÓs not much
which has been recorded in written form. Am I correct and is that what you said during
your testimony, that there was not a whole lot of written documentation left by the
ancient Hawaiians, unlike the western way?
KANAHELE:A lot of the teachings were not written out in its full understanding.
They were repeated over and over in chants; and those who understood the chants
understood it well enough so that they knew what the person was talking about, but not
everybody understood the chants.
TOGASHI:And so, you know, with this thought that maybe there was not a
whole lot in documentation, and you spoke of, and when Ms. Roy questioned you as to
whether is there a lot to be learned, is there further learning
question, the proposed site of the development, is there much that we can still learn from
this site as well as the Keakealaniwahine Complex and Keolonhihi -? And I guess my
question, and the way I look at it is if there isnÓt a whole lot of written documentation, the
28
learning will come from restoration, yeah, restoration. And my question is, do you think
that there is some learning to be gained from having this property restored, even if there
are I guess, maybe, little left in, you know -?
KANAHELE:And I appreciate the question. ThereÓs a lot of things that, thereÓs
some things we know about, that they had a heiau that they called Puuhonua, and
Keakealani herself was a Puuhonua. And, so, we know that kind of thing about, we know
specifics about Keakealani, what her genealogy was, we know that Òcause her genealogy
was repeated over and over. We donÓt know why. The why is not, is what is not written
down. And, so, the why is that kind of information we need to, is why a lot of places get
built, because people donÓt know why; and thatÓs the kind of inf
learn from, the why.
TOGASHI:And I guess my question, again, do you think we can gain anything
from having the proposed site in question?
KANAHELE:We can gain a lot -.
TOGASHI:Restoring the proposed site?
KANAHELE:From restoration of both sites.
TOGASHI:And the proposed site in question?
KANAHELE:And the proposed site.
TOGASHI:Okay. Thank you very much.
KANAHELE:And the lower site.
SPRINGER:Madam Chair?
KANAHELE:Thank you.
GIFFIN:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:Aloha, kaua.
KANAHELE:Aloha, kaua. Paka pakiki pakaheaanu (phonetic).
SPRINGER:Based on your most recent comments that it is not only the PoÒe
HawaiÒi, the people of HawaiÒi, that benefit from maintaining se
attentiveness to the land, is it your opinion that there is a compelling public interest that is
served by the re-dignification, by restoring the functionality of the site called
Kaluaokalani in its entirety?
29
KANAHELE:There is definite education that can be gained deeper into the
Hawaiian psyche as to why the land is important and the whole land which is something
that weÓve not revealed before. And weÓve not revealed it because, like we talked about,
sometimes when you reveal something people donÓt understand it,
enough to understand it, or having been initially educated to come to that point of
understanding it. And, so, in not understanding, it erodes itÓs purpose; and, so, those that
understand it just kept it within a very tight group of people. But weÓre in this time of our
life when, you know, weÓre running around trying to save all of our sacred places. And
the sacredness of certain places needs to be extolled, need to be answered. The questions
why, the questions who and what needs to be told. And I think the education of it would
help us a great deal.
SPRINGER:And thereÓs that kako pau, is that all of us including those who are
not of the koko HawaiÒi, of the Hawaiian blood?
KANAHELE:Yeah, I think it has to be all of us because we all live here in these
islands now.
SPRINGER:And one last question. Does this translate to the public interest, in
your opinion?
KANAHELE:Yeah.
SPRINGER:Thank you.
GIFFIN:Any more questions? Mr. Vitousek?
VITOUSEK:I just had one question. Ms. Kanahele, in talking about restoration
of the site, are you aware of anything, you know, any specific structure that was on this
site that would be restored?
KANAHELE:On your particular site?
VITOUSEK:ThatÓs right.
KANAHELE:I donÓt know any that was there on that particular site.
VITOUSEK:I said IÓd only ask one question, so IÓll only ask one question.
Thank you.
KANAHELE:And the other thing about that question, it does have another part
to it. The other part of it is that they didnÓt look at specific things like that, they looked at
things as a whole. And so itÓs not like, you know, like theyÓre cutting up the land for
kuleanas and living in apartments, things like that. Everything wasnÓt so separated; and
so they had to look at it as a whole, which is inclusive of your site. And so when you
30
donÓt look at something as a whole, you donÓt get a full picture of it, what the whole
purpose and the idea was for that, the sacredness of the whole s
VITOUSEK:Okay. Just to follow-up on that then, so what youÓre saying by
restoring it, are you saying that the site should be acquired and no longer be a separate
parcel and just be made part of the greater complex there? Is that correct?
KANAHELE:I think the whole place should be acquired, yes. And if itÓs not
acquired, which is probably not in my lifetime but hopefully in the future, it should be
restored back to the purpose that it was there for. And, certainly, the public as a whole
should know about its purpose, Òcause the purpose didnÓt exist at that time, sacredness of
land. And the more crowded we become, the more we should be cognizant of births and
births of creatures of the reef that give us life, births of things of the upland that give us
life. And, so, we all should be cognizant of that by restoring womb sites. Okay. Am I
pau?
GIFFIN:Any more questions? Then, indeed, you are pau; and thank you
very much for coming this morning. We all appreciate it.
When Ms. Roy is through accompanying her witness out, we will co
witness, which -. I think what we decided yesterday was to fill in with her father,
Mr. Roy, and we do have time. According to our watches, itÓs about 11:15; and so since
Mr. Roy is here, I think that thatÓs the next person that we should hear from.
VITOUSEK:Can everybody have a bathroom break?
GIFFIN:Yes. Five.
RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 11:15 a.m.
RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:22 a.m.
GIFFIN:Good morning, once again. IÓd like to call this Contested Case
Hearing back to order. The application is for a Special Management Area Use Permit to
allow the development of a 13-unit condominium project and related improvements. The
Applicant is Wayne Blasman and the SMA No. is 02-03.
As per our agreement yesterday before we recessed at the end of the day, we agreed that,
with some extra time this morning, we would fill in with Mr. David Roy. So without any
further ado, Mikahala?
M. ROY:Thank you, Madam Chair.
GIFFIN:YouÓre welcome.
31
M. ROY:Commissioners, thank you for allowing the changes that weÓve
gone through today. And, so, my father will present, at this time, up through the lunch
hour -.
D. ROY:Excuse me. I -.
GIFFIN:Are you okay?
D. ROY:If youÓll excuse me, I have an excruciating pain in my shoulder
that comes up every so often and so you might understand what happens if something
takes place like that. Thank you.
M. ROY:Dad, in the, with regard to the subject matter being the application
for Mr. Blasman, the design for which is behind you, at this -. On the land now, were
you aware of, what are you aware of in terms of what is upon the land and when did you
become aware of that?
D. ROY:I always heard of Snug Harbor being the only other operating
motel next to ours. Now, we had been in operation in 1950 and just about before then -.
I had actually heard about this, Snug Harbor place, but IÓve never seen the arrangement,
or the buildings, or anything. IÓve never noticed it as I passed by. All I knew was that it
was in there.
And my impression of that area was brought back to me real forcefully when I was asked
by the State to be the chairman of this advisory committee to undertake the study of
Keolonhihi. And this is after we had been actively involved as a community in
protecting the development of this area known as Kalae O Kamoa, the promontory of the
young warriors. It became more and more interesting to me because of what it seemed to
indicate as a promontory of the young warriors. It fascinated me to think that this would
be a staging area for the preparation for battles of the alii of old. And, then, all of a
sudden I was brought up short, whereas, it was also told to me that there were areas of
extreme sacredness in this area, and it had to do with the religious beliefs of the people in
the kapu system of the Hawaiian people.
Well, at that time, I had begun reading the story of the first jetting of the missionaries
around the island with Asa Thurston and his party. It was brought to my attention that
this party had come across an area known as Kaluaokalani. Kaluaokalani was known,
was a village that was thriving at that time; and it was strange to me because I had never
heard of it. No one had ever written about that, that I knew of, except what I saw in this
book about the missionaries going around the island of HawaiÒi. And I thought, after
awhile I thought nothing more of it but I often wondered why it was that such a thriving
and populous place should all of a sudden disappear from history at all, and no further
sound of it about that village was ever made. And so it came to
surprise when all of a sudden a friend of mine described to me the ancient practices that
were located within this area known as Kamoa Point; and that is when I noticed the area.
32
I also noted in my readings that John IÒi had described the area as a place which was most
frequented by the alii of old, back to the time of Umialiloa, wh
grandchildren that seemed to have taken control of the rule of this island. And as a result
of his being the, you might say the father of the people in that dynasty, that is in that
genealogy, he became known in Kona as the one who went to the mountains to live and
to rule. And, so, he commuted to Kailua everyday from Hualalai. And in his rule here in
Kona, he made a major impact by establishing heiaus all over the place. However, it
seemed that in the study of this genealogy, the children in the lineup were brother and
sister, Piliuka, Keakealanikane and Keliiokalani was the sister. They were brothers and
sisters of the same parts; and out of this arrangement, the brother and sister married and a
daughter was born. Now, the daughter that was born was called Keakea, Keakamahana,
and she married another closely-related person named Ilikauikaua. Now this was a big,
old woman who was married to a close relative, and so it became an exulted arrangement
in the Hawaiian Islands. And so Keakealanikane and Keakealaniwahine are father and
daughter and the daughter married Ilikauikaua, again, excuse me. Ilikauikaua went over
to Oahu and married the daughter of Kakuheewa and out of that union was born a son;
and that son ultimately returned to HawaiÒi and married his half
Keakealaniwahine. And through that arrangement, the most exulted rank in Oahu was
brought over and recognized in HawaiÒi, and became a rank that was carried on and
recognized by the HawaiÒi people, and used for the first time in HawaiÒi. And that rank
was known as the Kapuwohi and the Kapuwohi took place right here where KeakealaniÓs
house is. This was the bringing of that kapu and it was given to Keaumokunui, who is
the father of Keua, Keua the father, who was in turn the father of Kamehameha. So
Keaumokunui eventually was conquered and killed in battle with his relative, his half-
brother, Ahupahinui. Now here these people were all descendants of Keakealaniwahine,
which is the woman who occupied the site of this pakiha, which is KeakealaniÓs
residence.
Now I didnÓt find this out right then and there at the first time that I knew about this
place, but I read a lot afterwards and developed this chain of command. And I got to the
point where I know that this was a very, very special place in Hawaiian history and it was
meant to be kept as such. The only trouble is things took a turn when Kamehameha III
initiated his change in land management and handling and created the Great Mahele in
which land was developed, distributed to the people. And when he gave his share back to
the people, that made it possible for fee simple ownership among
This was the time in our history, Hawaiian history, which was a major change in attitude
and so forth; and I guess thatÓs the reason why much of our history had been lost, because
very few people paid attention to anything that is important prior to that. The advent of
the American civilization, in western civilization through America, was catastrophic to
what our Hawaiian people had as unity. And it changed all kinds of ideas about religious
kapus, and rank, and so forth.
You might say that this was a system, a situation that took place where the idea of a
classless assess took hold. And it was even a matter of comment that a queen who had a
certain seat in a show was looked upon by missionary people as a mahaÒoi in our
33
language and not to be sanctioned in any show of preference. My feeling that this, was
this Kaluaokalani being a thriving village at that time would never have passed out of
existence unless the practices of, the practice of the Hawaiian people actually was
relegated to a lesser state. And, so, what became more important was what the
westerners came down to HawaiÒi with after the breaking of the kapu.
This section of Kaluaokalani, as I get it from the description, is a very, very simple walk
from Kailua. If you take a three-hour walk from Kailua, you would end up at about
where the banyan tree used to be down at the bend before you go to Hlualoa Bay. Now,
I wish I could stand up and tell you about this.
M. ROY:I will. Thank you. Dad, may I ask while youÓre on the s
Norman, can I ask for the yellow tags again? This section that youÓre identifying is
Kaluokalani was, in fact, a populated, well-populated area in the time of Ellis. And IÓm
going to refer to Maile DavidÓs supplemental exhibit list addition, which includes the
report, a report of the Advisory Commission in 1982. In that portion, the account that is
labeled, The Statement of the Chairman,Ñ which you were, Dad, of
Were you Chairman of this 1982 Advisory Commission?
D. ROY:Yes, I was.
M. ROY:Okay. In that presentation, I quote, second paragraph, Ð
testimony to their diligence, we now have documented the locations, present
configuration, condition, and overall description of the plans or arrangements of
sacrosanct structures which once saw activities of individuals standing high in the
superstructure of the Hawaiian culture. These forlorn ruins, render a sobering influence
on the inquisitive minds of the descendants of those once grand, regal Alii who animated
them. They are mute reminders of the accuracy of their profits. Hikapaia, Haulelani,
Moipe, Pakiha, Keolonahihi, Kanekaheilani, Hale o ke Kupa, all major sites within the
hearing distance of each other. They once shared major roles in the opera of sacred Alii
exercising the prerogatives of Kapu inherent to their birth.Ñ
If I can ask you, IÓm going now to Klana Huli HonuaÓs Exhibit 9. IÓm going to point
out, by this TMK map, a marking of a heiau that is just listed as the word ÐHeiau.Ñ
Would you guess that this is, in fact, Hikapaia Heiau? This is the subject area, Dad,
Mr. BlasmanÓs applied area. Would you say that, according to this map that the point
that IÓm making here, itÓs labeled ÐHeiau,Ñ would you say thatÓs the approximate area
where Hikapaia is located?
D. ROY:Yes, I think so.
M. ROY:Understanding that this is by far not an archeological, IÓm marking
the exhibit now with this yellow tab, understanding that this is by no means an
archeological map and there is no name here. Nonetheless, in the general area, are there
other sites in this general area that you know of, in Exhibit 9?
34
D. ROY:I take it back now. This type map marked ÐHeiauÑ is strange to me
because I donÓt know about that spot in itself. What I do know seems to come to the
point back here where KeakealaniÓs residence is located. It is up on the hill named PuÒu,
back here. But there are a number of different other heiaus that were supposed to be in,
within the area; and it could very well be one of them. I donÓt say this is KeakealaniÓs.
IÓd say KeakealaniÓs is back here.
M. ROY:Could this be Hikapaia that you make note of in your report?
D. ROY:Yes.
M. ROY:Thank you. When, did you say, Mr. Roy, that, you know,
according to Ellis, as he records a walking distance to Kaluaokalani, in your mind, could
it be designated from the area known to us as ÐBanyans?Ñ
D. ROY:Yes. The banyan tree was located just around the bend in this
location; and marked in ÐResidences of Dr. and Mrs. SeymoreÑ out at the, beyond to the
waterÓs edge, and next to that was the Hind residence, and this huge banyan tree was the
one that covered the area. The whole population, as I gather from reading the account of
Reverend Ellis, the, one of the missionaries with Asa Thurston and the rest, and
Goodrich, when they journeyed around the island was -. The account of Reverend Ellis
was that after a leisurely walk of about three hours they came upon a very thriving
village. Its name was Kaluaokalani; and that would have placed it about here, at this
point. This was a very thickly-populated area which would have been divided by the
Mahele and the Land Commission action in 1852.
So, now, what we see on the tax maps is a collection of different sites that are located
here. However, you might imagine this as not existent in boundary setup at all around
this beach but rather a series of ancient Hawaiian dwellings and compounds around this
whole area. And this would have been the religious center as well as the ruling, the
habitation sites of the alii at that time. And it was, to me, very, very revealing but I found
that anecdote in the State Archives talking about the establishment of a Kapuwohi here in
Hlualoa where KeakealaniÓs residence is located.
M. ROY:Was that a part of your research done by, as being the Ch
Commission?
D. ROY:Actually, it came before then.
M. ROY:Thank you. We discussed earlier how the familial relatio
that we hold are key to our history, our familial relationships that we hold in our key to
knowing our history. Would one such person be in your mind Tutu Naluahine Kaopua
for you? Would such an important person to you be Tutu Naluahin
D. ROY:Oh, excuse me. Yes, absolutely.
35
M. ROY:Mike, mike.
D. ROY:Tutu Naluahine was very important to me because he was a
patriarch in our family; and he was closely related to us and had the privilege of naming
most of my brothers in the family and my sister. And I might know, never have known a
lot of it today if it werenÓt for him.
M. ROY:I present a black velvet painting that my father has spoken of in
earlier times, the picture that IÓve been blessed to be in view of us, IÓve been raised in
front of my eyes. And is this the man that weÓre talking about, Tutu Naluahine Kaopua?
D. ROY:Yes.
M. ROY:And, in fact, kahu of sites in Kahaluu and extremely
knowledgeable about this whole entire area?
D. ROY:That is correct.
M. ROY:Known to be a patriarch, if you will, of Kona -?
D. ROY:ThatÓs right.
M. ROY:Living over 100 years?
D. ROY:ThatÓs correct.
M. ROY:That, in fact, was the informant for Kekahuna as he mappe
coast?
D. ROY:Yes.
M. ROY:One of the informants?
R. ROY:He was the informant.
M. ROY:One of the informants, but major, main informant I should
for the record, IÓve brought a painting that our family has been blessed to have. Is this
the painting I have asked for the future that be shared with you
in an archive for your work for the future? All the information that you have unmasked,
have I not asked that this be presented in health for the generations of the future in Kona?
D. ROY:Yes.
M. ROY:This is an archive that will have this for, available for the people?
36
D. ROY:As it concerns of Kaluaikalani, Kaluaokalani, that site, that village,
that compound was right, excuse me, let me have that, was located right where that
banyan tree was, down there. And I was told that there was a heiau at the waterÓs edge
along the beach in the front, along the shoreline, rather, and it was right in line with the
banyan tree. However, the heiau was no longer existent. But it was a heiau where they
used to finish canoes and it was in direct line with Kealakowaa, which is above, in the
heights, at about where Kuakini Highway is. And that trail came all the way down from
the mountain where the canoes were, canoe trees were cut and shaped roughly, and
hauled down to be finished, stopping at Kealakowaa for consecration before doing so.
That would indicate to me the area where the village actually began, was about to begin
with the settlement of the different people in the population. And being about that
distance would indicate that the area known as Kaluaokalani would have been at that,
where the banyan tree was, roughly.
M. ROY:And are you saying that thatÓs related to Kealakowaa Heiau?
D. ROY:I think it is.
M. ROY:And can I ask you, has there ever been a surveying of our sacred
sites for this area, to your knowledge? Has there ever been an archeological surveying of
Hawaiian history of our sites in this area?
D. ROY:Not to my knowledge. There may have been sites surveyed
marked, such as Kealakowaa, and other sites right nearby like Halehau, which was mis-
located according to the survey map of John Weeks, who is deceased, who originally
pointed it out as being closer to the bend in the road above Napa, the present Napa or
automotive center location. And that was on the Walua Road at t
Halehau was supposed to be situated close to that and not even where the County has
indicated where it is, which is down at Kealakowaa.
M. ROY:Thank you. One last question. In cooperation with
Mrs. KanaheleÓs testimony as to the connectedness of Hlualoa, you were alluding to the
same connectedness. At this time, in your mind, is it important
Kaluaokalani, the fullness of this village?
D. ROY:After all of the studies and my encounters in history on here, it is
absolutely necessary to know that background in order to have a true picture of what
occurred in that area.
M. ROY:Again, what would be your guess at a translation for Kaluaokalani?
D. ROY:The translation of that would be, as the Reverend Ellis indicated,
ÐThe second heaven.Ñ
M. ROY:Would a name like that come easily to an area?
37
D. ROY:Not in the Hawaiian practice.
M. ROY:Thank you. At this time, Madam Chair, no further questio
GIFFIN:I think itÓs very appropriate that we recess now for lunch. I have
instructed our staff that about 12:05 all of us would leave and then thatÓll give us ample
time to be back here for l oÓclock when we convene. So we are now in recess for lunch.
RECESSEDThe Presiding Officer called a recess at 12:05 p.m.
RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:10 p.m.
GIFFIN:IÓd like to call this Contested Case Hearing back to order. This is
an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a
13-unit condominium project and related improvements. The Applicant is Wayne
Blasman, the SMA No. is 02-03.
When we recessed for lunch, Mr. David Roy was a witness and we would like to
continue. Mikahala?
M. ROY:Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a few more questions I have
for my father. Thank you. I had neglected to present you, Dad,
community, just like for Aunty Pua, in thanks to your unending aloha for your people and
for Kona. Thank you.
IÓd like to make reference, again, to the maps that have been provided by exhibits on the
wall, if I may, in particular the exhibit marked ÐExhibit 3B.Ñ This is the rendering of
Mr. KekahunaÓs presentation of Keakealaniwahine Complex, so itÓs known as -.
I bring our attention to a notation of Mr. Kekahuna in the lower right corner. I read for us
all. ÐBurial Heiau Î a Shrine. Holua-loa III, North Kona, HawaiÒi. There are four graves
in this shrine, in two of which more than one body seems to have been deposited. At the
time of the overthrow of the tabu system, however, faithful personal attendants (kahu)
had the bones removed and hidden in secret burial caves. For convenience, the
illustration has been drawn high. The S.E. corner is therefore shown as the S.W. corner.Ñ
Dad, would you like to make comment on that notation of Mr. Keka
should ask, at this point, in an area such as weÓve been discussing and our informants and
witnesses have been bringing forward has great importance of great measure to history
and to the culture of HawaiÒi, would you say that an area such as this would have a
wealth of -? In terms of the remains of these people that occupied these areas, where
would they, would it be a fair assumption to say that they would, the people who have
once lived here, that we could expect that there would be burials in the area?
38
D. ROY:With the size of this population in Kaluaokalani and with the
concentration of these historic sites, there would obviously have to be, obvious there have
been an outlet for the remains of the people who passed away, especially the high ruling
chiefs. And such is not shown in the locality itself, so it must be that the alii were
deposited and situated away somewhere in subterranean channels, as is the general
practice with alii.
M. ROY:Are these part of the makeup of these lands, such subterr
channels? Are such subterranean channels that you just mentioned a part of this land
system that you know?
D. ROY:I would say, off-hand, yes, absolutely.
M. ROY:Is there, in fact, evidence of such areas, subterranean c
have deposits of other burials in other areas in this place?
D. ROY:So IÓve heard, especially in the new subdivision, Komohan
nearby. However, I have not seen any other signs of that or heard of any. And so it
makes me wonder even more where they disappeared to. They must be somewhere in the
vicinity.
M. ROY:Is it not true that in response to a burial council meeting for the
proposed Alii Highway that that meeting brought some of the most numerous in
attendance of kupuna from Kona related to the concern for access to burials?
D. ROY:As I remember, yes.
M. ROY:Were those meetings held in Kailua?
D. ROY:Yes.
M. ROY:Were there two in number? Were there two meetings in num
related to those descendants?
D. ROY:Yes, that I remember.
M. ROY:Thank you. Earlier you testified, Mr. Roy, that, in fact, youÓre not
sure of the area that a village known as Kaluaokalani could extend but that you spoke of
sites, Kealakowaa is one, Hikapaia. Are there any other sites that you know about in this
general area, Hlualoa?
D. ROY:Well, yes. In fact, there was an occasion where a heiau was
located in the Komohana subdivision and which had been placed up
State Tax Department for non-payment of taxes. And this happened to be a heiau that
belonged to, which had not been registered or examined or, that is, it had not been
registered in the archeological survey; and so it does not appear among the sites for the
39
Historic Preservation Office. And this piece was being offered for auction. However, we
made such a big rumpus about that, it should never be put out for public sale, that is a
historic site. And so the man took it off of the auction block by paying for his taxes; and
so that settled down after that point.
M. ROY:And that property was located in the present Komohana -?
D. ROY:It was in Hlualoa 3.
M. ROY:Which is all part of Hlualoa? So, your earlier testimony made it
the case for my understanding that, in fact, these sites in here, because we do not know
about the populations of that time and the extendedness of this area, itÓs hard to say how
large and, in fact, if these sites have continuity, if they have relevance to each other.
Would you say that they could possibly would be related to Kaluaokalani?
D. ROY:I would say in the first thought, and all of these were related to the
function in the area, number one, Kealakowaa continuing down to the shoreline by the
trail there and being related to the Kaluaokalani setup, which must have been a huge
complex of people and a concentration of historic sites, religious sites.
M. ROY:Thank you. I point now to the map by the County provided
staff of the County, and it might be a little bit easier to see -. Royal Poinciana Drive is
here. Would you say then, in proximity to this area, Dad, and if you could take a minute
to look at the map, itÓs marked by colors red, yellow, green; and here you have the
subdivisions of Komohana and Kilohana. Your earlier testimony, I believe, at the first
time you spoke, you spoke of these areas way up here. In your m
the extension of the area of Kaluaokalani would be, what areas would you say are
important to this topic?
D. ROY:From what little we know, the area that probably is relevant to this
site is right where your finger is pointing right now, right down to the shoreline and,
roughly, approximately, right on forward to the Hlualoa Bay.
M. ROY:The record shows my finger is at Royal Poinciana Drive and
Mr. Roy is talking about the area going south from that, along the drive, but this expanse.
D. ROY:It would seem likely to me that a trail would lead straight up to
Kealakowaa or approximately, roughly, straight up to Kealakowaa which is up in the
vicinity of Kuakini Highway and the junction there.
M. ROY:My finger is pointing to near the junction on this map for the
placement of Kealakowaa Heiau.
D. ROY:But the village, I think, in itself, would be concentrated along the
lower portion of the beach, or along the beach road, and leading up to where
KeakealaniÓs house is.
40
M. ROY:Thank you. And, at this time, there is no register, am I correct, for
these Hawaiian sites to be known if, in fact, there is relevance? Is that correct?
D. ROY:Nobody has ever made a study of that that I know of. And the
point is that what I read, I read the account of the trip around the island by the
missionaries. That was done by Asa ThurstonÓs group, that is the first book I had read.
But the second one was the one that was put out by Reverend Ellis referring to the same
trip around the island. And it points out that the information that I gave before, that it
was about a three-hour leisurely walk from Kailua where we began, we came upon this
very popular village, which does not exist anymore.
M. ROY:The care of the iwi of our kupuna with regard to our history, would
you say that itÓs an important matter with regard to this site?
D. ROY:Very important, very important, because it was a complex,
concentration of our religious functions that had to do with our old system, and the alii,
and their habitation sites.
M. ROY:Is it a helpful thing to not see what the continuum was to teach our
Hawaiian children what this complex and land was all about? Is it difficult to teach a
Hawaiian child the complexities, if you will, the college level for this place as the land
goes?
D. ROY:It would be very difficult to produce a continuum after such a long
spell of nothing. From the time that my father was in the Hawaiian military academy to
the time that weÓre at right now, it is virtually impossible to link up with the practices of
old and the realities of today. ItÓs very difficult.
M. ROY:I have one final question. Would subterranean, would excavation
or any drilling to this property have negative effect to what could potentially be sub-
surface features of this land?
D. ROY:I think if such a thing ever took place, it would readily bring forth
evidence to the fact that there were many artifacts that would have been found
underground. And it would relate to probably subterranean channels that are located
there, which would lead on other places where actual deposits were made.
M. ROY:Thank you. No further questions.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek?
VITOUSEK:Mr. Roy, Randy Vitousek. I represent the Applicant, Wayne
Blasman. As you know, Mr. Blasman owns this property and he has proposed to build
this proposed project consistent with the zoning and land use laws. In your opinion, what
should he do with this property, what do you think he should do with his property?
41
D. ROY:I would bring it to a level where it would meet a meaningful point
of study of our young Hawaiian people to maintain the continuum of the features of their
genealogical connections.
VITOUSEK:So is it your position that he should donate his property, either give
it to someone who would put it to that use or decide for himself to simply put the
property to that use?
D. ROY:Excuse me, I didnÓt get your question.
VITOUSEK:So youÓre saying he should just donate his property to
who would put it to the use of educating children?
D. ROY:I donÓt understand what youÓre trying to say.
M. ROY:He canÓt hear you.
VITOUSEK:Okay. What I was asking was whether, I asked you what
thought Mr. Blasman should do with his property, and I think you said that he should use
it for purposes that would further education for youth. IsnÓt that correct?
D. ROY:It would be for the furtherance of the appreciation of th
values of this area and promote education in that line.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, are you saying that he should just give this
property to somebody who would use it for those purposes?
D. ROY:Use it for what? What would we be using for -?
VITOUSEK:For whatever purposes you think it should be used for.
D. ROY:I told you what itÓd be used for, what I thought it shoul
for, to follow-up with the education of, values of the Hawaiian people here. This is an
ancient community and the practices that used to be carried on for some reason stopped
for over 150 years. And itÓs a continuum to educate our people into how these people,
how these practices affect us now and how we can promote our ancient culture.
VITOUSEK:So are you saying that he should, that Mr. Blasman should give
this property to somebody who would use it for educational purposes?
D. ROY:ThatÓs correct.
VITOUSEK:Okay. Is there any use he could make of this property on his own
that would be, that you would reconsider appropriate?
42
D. ROY:I donÓt see anything that would be different from what I was
talking about.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And that is because this property is close to and part of
these cultural sites, is that correct? Is that why he should give his property or use his
property for education?
D. ROY:Yes, because it is in the thick of this particular place of action; and
much had been done to study this area, much of it, to bring us up to this point. But for
that long period, there was a lapse where we lost contact. And so we are discovering
what was there and leading up to what was actually the case at the time. So what we
should do is use this land for a continuance of that kind of thing.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And I think you testified now about the Kaluaokalani
Village. IsnÓt that correct?
D. ROY:Right.
VITOUSEK:And did Kekahuna refer to the Kaluaokalani Village anywhere? I
actually havenÓt seen it in any of the maps.
D. ROY:It bothered me because I never heard of it before.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, IÓm sorry, did Mr. Naluahine ever tell
Kaluokalani?
D. ROY:I got it from Naluahine, at the time when he and his neph
George Pinihaka, were describing the area to Henry Kekahuna, yes.
VITOUSEK:Oh, because I just havenÓt seen any reference in KekahunaÓs work
to Kaluaokalani.
D. ROY:We did not see any reference to the name Kaluaokalani by his
descriptions but we certainly got a good description of KeakealaniÓs residence, Pakiha,
and all those places, and the things that were described by Henry Kekahuna.
VITOUSEK:Okay. What IÓm trying to ask you is whether Naluahine and
Kekahuna also were aware of the Kaluaokalani Village but just didnÓt mention it in their
work.
D. ROY:Absolutely. Without a doubt they were aware of it. But
not call it, I donÓt know why they didnÓt, but they did not call it by its name,
Kaluaokalani. The only thing that makes me feel that it was the true thing is that it was
something mentioned by Hawaiians speaking, let me put it this way, westerner, and he
did it very well. He called it Kaluaokalani, The Seventh, Second Heaven.
43
VITOUSEK:ÒCause youÓre saying that Naluahine and Kekahuna did not use the
term Kaluaokalani but that came from Ellis and Thurston, is that correct?
M. ROY:I object. It was not indicated -.
NOMURA:Microphone, please.
M. ROY:IÓm sorry, I object for the reason that Mr. Vitousek is asking the
same question again which tries to imply that Tutu Naluahine and oral representatives did
not convey the information. My father has answered the question. He said that he did, in
fact, have this knowledge from that source. But, if IÓm not wrong, he also just said that
for some reason it was not recorded, but he did say that they did have that in store from
that source. He is asking the same question.
VITOUSEK:Well, actually, the record speaks for itself as to what was said.
What I heard Mr. Roy say was that Naluahine and Kekahuna did not
thatÓs what I was trying to follow-up on. ÒCause, because before he said they were aware
of it and then he said they didnÓt use it; and, so, I was just trying to find out where, I was
trying to cross-examine relative to that distinction.
GIFFIN:And I think youÓve made your point. So why donÓt you mov
VITOUSEK:Thank you. Mr. Roy, youÓre testifying on both, behalf of Kalani
Huli Honua, isnÓt that correct?
D. ROY:I canÓt hear you.
VITOUSEK:YouÓre testifying on behalf of Kalani Huli Honua, is that correct?
Klana, IÓm sorry.
D. ROY:Right, right.
VITOUSEK:And what type of organization is that?
D. ROY:What?
VITOUSEK:What type of organization is that?
D. ROY:ItÓs a non-profit 501-C-3 organization, which has its objectives in
preservation of Hawaiian artifacts and heiaus, and Hawaiian cultural practices of different
kinds, and the promotion of literature as well as the assistance to students today to clarify
some of the more hidden meanings and being the function that should be carried on as far
as weÓre concerned in the community. It begins from and, actually, it begins from one
end of Kona to the other, as far as we know. It should go right around the island.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And are you an officer of this non-profit entity
44
D. ROY:I am.
VITOUSEK:And who are the other officers?
D. ROY:What are the other officers?
VITOUSEK:Yes.
D. ROY:Jack Kelly and Jerry Nahale, Charlie Nahale, Edith Santos, I mean,
directors; and I believe thatÓs about it.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And has your organization been involved in other contested
case hearings or land use proceedings?
D. ROY:Not in contested case hearings, no.
VITOUSEK:Do you have any specific knowledge of any subterranean caves or
passages under this, under Mr. BlasmanÓs property?
D. ROY:Do I have any specific knowledge of that?
VITOUSEK:Yes.
D. ROY:No, I was never led to any of the subterranean channels, but IÓve
heard of them. And I know from cultural practices that the remains of the alii was
secreted in their burials usually within underground subterranean channels. But special-
driven treatment was given to alii, whereas the commoners were not given that kind of
thing. So it is obvious that these alli had to be secreted somewhere in channels nearby.
VITOUSEK:Okay, but my question was whether you have any knowledge, I
mean, have you heard of or given information about any caves or any subterranean
channels under this particular property?
D. ROY:IÓve heard of it but I have never physically located any of them.
VITOUSEK:Okay. ThatÓs all the questions I have.
GIFFIN:Thank you very much. Maile?
DAVID:Thank you, Uncle Mauna. I have no questions for you. Mah
GIFFIN:Thank you. Pat OÓToole?
OÓTOOLE:No questions.
45
GIFFIN:Hearings officers? Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI:No questions.
GIFFIN:Hannah?
SPRINGER:None.
GIFFIN:Thank you very much and I appreciate all of the energy th
for you to testify today, Mr. Roy.
D. ROY:Thank you.
GIFFIN:Okay, then, letÓs move right along.
M. ROY:Mrs. Giffin, it appears that Kala Mossman has not moved forward
today. I apologize. I did expect him. At 1 oÓclock I was looking for his arrival. IÓm
very sorry that he did not come.
GIFFIN:And, so, we will strike him as a witness.
M. ROY:We will strike him.
GIFFIN:All right. Then maybe what we should do is take a break and then
weÓll begin with the County. LetÓs make it a 10-minute recess.
RECESSEDThe Hearings Officer called a short recess at 1:45 p.m.
RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:55 p.m.
GIFFIN:Good afternoon. IÓd like to call the hearing of this Contested Case
back to order. The application is for a Special Management Area
development of a 13-unit condominium project and related improve
Applicant is Wayne Blasman. The SMA No. is 02-03.
According to my schedule, the next party to come up is the County and, so, without
further ado, Patricia OÓToole. Please.
OÓTOOLE:Thank you. Calling Chris Yuen. Can you tell us your na
address?
GIFFIN:Excuse me, just a minute. I did not swear him in.
OÓTOOLE:Oh, sorry.
46
GIFFIN:Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or a
tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission?
YUEN:Yes, I do.
GIFFIN:Will you please state your name and your resident address
record?
YUEN:My name is Chris Yuen. My resident address is Post Office Box 5,
Ninole, HawaiÒi.
GIFFIN:And your capacity today?
YUEN:IÓm the Planning Director.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Ms. OÓToole?
OÓTOOLE:Thank you. Okay, Mr. Yuen, why are you testifying and giving a
recommendation at this point?
YUEN:ThereÓve been different practices in the Planning Commission
when we have formal contested cases about when the Director would give a
recommendation. At times, the DirectorÓs recommendation has com
close of the contested case hearing. That does not give the parties a chance to question
the Director about what the recommendation is and it also doesnÓt give the Planning
Commission or the hearing officers a chance to question. I think that itÓs fairer to do it
this way. I wanted to wait until after all the testimony because, naturally, some of the
testimony that comes in at the contested case might affect the u
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Can you describe the basic framework for the Planning
CommissionÓs decision on this permit?
YUEN:I think itÓs useful to bring the discussion to the legal requirements
for making a decision under, for an SMA Permit under Chapter 205
statement in the statutes about granting an SMA Permit is that if there is a substantial
adverse environmental or ecological effect, the permit should not be granted unless
mitigated to the greatest extent possible and clearly, and the n
outweighed by, let me read the exact language, Ðpublic health, safety or compelling
public interests,Ñ and thatÓs in Chapter 205A-26.
And then when we talk about concerns or issues such as historic sites, we, I wanted to
discuss the framework in Chapter 205A for dealing with those that -. Specifically, when
the Commission makes a decision, there are certain guidelines and objectives that have to
be considered in 205-A; and some of those are particularly important and particularly
relevant to the issues that have come up here.
47
OÓTOOLE:Can you describe which objectives you feel are particularly
important or applicable?
YUEN:In Section 205A-2, there are the objectives of the Coastal Zone
Management Program. And these objectives are, thereÓs another section of law that says
when youÓre making your final decision on a permit, you consider how consistent it is
with these objectives and, specifically, the objectives in 205A-2, that really tie into these.
ThereÓs a series of objectives on historic resources. One of them is to identify and
analyze significant historic resources. Another one that I think that is particularly
applicable here is to support State goals for the protection, restoration, interpretation and
display of historic resources. And this is particularly important because of the
Keakealaniwahine site being under State ownership and eventually becoming a part of a
State park. So, and we have comments from State Parks Division about their goals and
their concerns about the development, possible future development of the site.
Another, IÓm sorry, and the other objective, up in Section 205A-2(B) one of the
objectives with respect to historic resources is to protect, preserve and where desirable
restore those natural and man-made historic and prehistoric resources in the Coastal Zone
Management Area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture.
And then, finally, IÓd like to mention that although this is not perhaps the most, the best
descriptive term for what weÓre talking about here, there are a couple of goals in the
SMA CZM Program objectives and policies that talk about recreational resources. The
reason I say that recreational is maybe not the best word but cultural enjoyment, study of
aspects of culture does sometimes come under recreation. ThatÓs
of these things are in the State Parks Division.
But thatÓs, those are some of the major objectives that are relevant to the CommissionÓs
consideration here.
OÓTOOLE:And besides objectives, are there any guidelines that you feel are
particularly applicable?
YUEN:Well, in Section 205A-26, you have the guidelines for reviewing
development. And the key ones in Section 2(A), and thatÓs the one I read earlier that the
development should not be approved unless the authority finds it would not have a
substantial environmental or ecological effect. Then (B) just says that itÓs consistent with
the objectives, policies and guidelines, those being the objectives and policies being the
ones that I mentioned earlier. And finally (C) that the development is consistent with the
County General Plan and Zoning.
OÓTOOLE:Is this project consistent with the General Plan?
48
YUEN:As far as the LUPAG, in a broad case, itÓs consistent. You
General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map that shows the area for a Medium
Density Use, which would allow condominiums such as this. ItÓs
In terms of the verbal policies in the General Plan, there are policies with respect to
historic sites that would, that I would be concerned about the consistency. There are
policies that you can point to about providing housing that would be consistent, where the
project would be consistent in. Typically in any project, or especially any controversial
project that may impact on a natural resource like a, or a historic site, youÓll find things in
the General Plan in the verbal policies that sound consistent and that donÓt sound
consistent.
OÓTOOLE:In your view, what are the key issues in this particular application?
YUEN:Well, the key issue is what weÓve heard a great deal about, is the
effect on the integrity of surrounding historical sites, particularly whatÓs now called the
Keakealaniwahine Complex and the effect on the possible future u
of the surrounding area.
OÓTOOLE:The PASH case they mentioned, do you believe itÓs applic
YUEN:Not directly. Ordinarily in an SMA permit, the Planning
Commission would have to make certain findings that are called for in the Ka PaÒakai
case. They would have to make a decision of what are the valued cultural resources on
the property, what would the effects be and to try to mitigate those to the maximum
extent possible. The Ka PaÒakai was the follow-up of the PASH case; and the PASH case
said that native Hawaiians retain the right of access to private property to practice
gathering and other traditional or cultural, traditional cultural activities.
There was a follow-up case called State v. Hanapi. It was a criminal trespassing case in
which the HawaiÒi Supreme Court interpreted PASH to say that these gathering rights no
longer exist on property that has been developed for, zoned and fully developed for
residential use. This property is zoned for Residential use and has been in Residential use
for, the records that IÓve seen, there was a house on it either built about 1935 and the
buildings that people later called Snug Harbor were apparently built in 1960, two
buildings with four units each, small buildings. The building record show 1,100, each
building was about 40x28, not counting lanais. But, nonetheless, the area has been in
Residential use for sometime. And following State v. Hanapi, I would have to conclude
that there arenÓt, there are no longer gathering rights on the property following the
gathering rights under the PASH case.
This doesnÓt mean, though, that historic sites concerns and cultural concerns are not to be
looked at by the Planning Commission because those are also, those are already a part of
the SMA law, apart from the applicability of the PASH and Ka PaÒ
49
OÓTOOLE:So your position is there is a legal basis to consider the Hawaiian
cultural issues even if PASH does not apply?
YUEN:Yes.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. And that basis is?
YUEN:In the sections in the SMA law that I just discussed.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Now, how would you analyze the significance of historic
sites?
YUEN:Let me say that IÓm certainly no expert on Hawaiian culture or
archaeology. What I would like to do, though, is talk about the laws that relate to
significance of historic sites and how you analyze it in the planning process. Because as
planners or as a Planning Commission, you have to make a, the Planning Commission
has to make a decision on what, how do you protect sites, what sites are significant, what
sites are not significant; and there is a set framework for doin
In the County General, and there are two main laws that give us the framework for
analyzing the significance of historic sites. One is in the General Plan and the other is a
process used by State Historic Preservation Division and their rules which, have never
been formally adopted but which IÓm told would be signed in the next -. IÓm not sure if
they have them recently signed or theyÓre about to be signed.
But in the County General Plan which is, you know, enacted as an ordinance, so it is a
law of the County, the County General Plan in this Historic Site section under standards
has a framework for evaluating historic sites; and there are a series of points that the
County General Plan raises. This is on page 4 of the General Plan. And the first is,
ÐImportance in the life or activities of a major historic person.Ñ Keakealaniwahine
Complex, the Pakiha, in particular, the Keolonhihi Complex, are all clearly important in
the life or activities of major people that are known by name in history. And this sets it
apart from, there are many, there are other, there are heiau tha
but donÓt have any associated moolelo that say, as weÓve heard, had descriptions here or
testimony here of a particular ceremony involving Kamehameha the Great at the
Keakealaniwahine Complex, or the particular things that happened at Keolonhihi or, in
fact, the association of the complex itself with individuals who, although theyÓre part of
Hawaiian genealogy -. I think no one would question that Keakealaniwahine is a person
in history, in actual personal history, and not just a legendary figure.
The second criteria is ÐAssociated with a major group or organization in the history of the
island or community,Ñ that would also apply.
Third is ÐAssociated with a major historic event (cultural, economic, military, social or
political).Ñ WeÓve had testimony about major events that happened at Keakealaniwahine
50
from David Roy and, also, recorded in other historical sources. So it would be significant
from that criteria.
The next is ÐAssociated with a major recurring event in the history of the community.Ñ
IÓm not sure if that applies.
The next is ÐAssociated with a past or continuing institution which has contributed
substantially to the life of the community.Ñ IÓm not sure, I think what this means or it
refers to is something a little bit different.
The next is a ÐUnique example of a particular style or period.Ñ I think this would be not
the only example but close to it. We, as one of our exhibits, the County presented the
descriptions of Ross Cordy who talks about this as a Hlualoa Royal Center. This is, like
th
the term Keakealaniwahine Complex or Keolonhihi Complex, is a 20 Century
th
archaeologistÓs term or 20 Century cultural historianÓs term. But what heÓs trying to say
is that this is a complex of buildings that was used by the high alii where they chose to
gather at a particular point in history in HawaiÒi. There are other royal centers. Waipio,
for example. But this Hlualoa Royal Center we are fortunate in it being very well
preserved to the present day. Many of the features still exist in relatively good condition,
compared to, for example, Waipio Valley where thereÓs very little thatÓs left of the royal
center that was once there. So it would be a unique example of a particular style or
period.
The next criteria, ÐOne of the few of its age remaining,Ñ also significant for that criteria.
The next criteria, ÐOriginal materials and/or workmanship which can be valued in
themselves.Ñ The hearings officers didnÓt get to see the full site. What Pua Kanahele
described on the north wall, the north wall is probably the most impressive part of the
Pakiha. ThereÓs a huge wall there, maybe 11 feet high, very thick, in good condition for
that. And, so, maybe itÓs a very western way of looking at things to be impressed by size
and of a structure, but it is one of the most impressive stonewalls remaining of the
Hawaiian period.
The next criteria is really, actually, a very important one. ItÓs ÐSites with a
preponderance of original materials in context and complexes rather than single isolated
sites, unless they are of great significance.Ñ And this site would definitely, these areas
would definitely qualify under that.
And, finally, ÐSites of traditional and cultural significance,Ñ and, clearly, this would also
qualify under that.
So by the standards of the General Plan, Keakealaniwahine and Kehihi area would
be, by those standards, extremely important historic sites.
I donÓt have the SHPD criteria with me. There are only five; and theyÓre basically
similar. One of the criteria is not one of these, and itÓs important for information content.
51
That generally means that if you study it, take it apart, that thatÓs what is important. Once
youÓve done that, but thatÓs, youÓve, thereÓs no importance after that.
But the remaining criteria of SHPD are also, I know that one is associated with an
important person in history. Another one IÓm sure is associated with an important event
in history. And, obviously, this would, these sites would be considered extremely
important under those criteria as well.
OÓTOOLE:Are you done?
YUEN:Yes.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. What about the significance of the Blasman property itself?
YUEN:Well, we donÓt know, I really donÓt have anything to add to
has been testified to. We donÓt know what was physically on the property in the old
Hawaiian days. We donÓt really know much of what was physically on the property
before the 1950s. The map that we have here that was done by Kekahuna in the early
1950s does not extend into the Blasman property. It also, and I donÓt know what the
criteria were in his mind from mapping a particular area because there are features,
archeological features, certainly to the south of what is mapped here, to the right-hand
side on the map that youÓre looking at, and to the north of this map. But for whatever
reason, he mapped this particular area in great detail and did not go toward Alii Drive
into what we are now calling the Blasman property.
I reviewed the file of the previous SMA application. There was an SMA application for a
32-unit condominium that was approved in 1980. There was an archeological report
done in connection with that application. That was probably done in 1977 and I donÓt
believe itÓs referenced by Mr. Rechtman in his report. This was done by Tom Dye, and
Mr. Dye says, writing in 1977, that Julian Silva told him that they bulldozed
approximately 92 percent of the property around the late 1950s in order to build the two
structures that were later called Snug Harbor, and the driveway; and that, you know, they
bulldozed the whole 92 percent at that time. The area they didnÓt bulldoze was the
cemetery that weÓve also had testimony about; and according to that report the, I believe
they said there were two burials in that cemetery that were, two burials that were
disinterred in the late 70s and moved somewhere else. So when that report was done in
Ó77, there were already no old Hawaiian features on the site. He reports finding one
artifact, the coral grader, and nothing else on the site at that time.
I tried to do some research on, weÓve had a great deal of testimony about olden days up to
William Ellis, and then we have this big gap until modern. And I tried to do some
research on what was going on in the general area, between those timeframes, because
sometimes I can tell you of how people looked at the area certainly in those time periods.
We know from the Mahele records and weÓve had testimony, and I think itÓs in Dr.
RechtmanÓs report, that there were five kuleana awarded on the mauka side of Alii Drive
52
th
in this general area, Hlualoa 4. And from that fact we know that there were native
Hawaiians who were living on those particular properties. ThereÓs, there would be
testimony in the archives that, where these people would describe the boundaries of their
house lots. I havenÓt seen that testimony but I know what they described as Ðhouse lotsÑ
at the time.
I did find a map quite by accident and I wasnÓt looking for this; and thatÓs one of our
exhibits. IÓm not sure which letter it is but itÓs the Cordy map; and it has some writings
on it. I thought that that map told of something else, but I misinterpreted the map. If you
look at that map, it shows more house lots than five, mauka of Alii Drive. It shows, I
think, eight or nine house lots and one of them looks like the Blasman property. And
when I saw that I misinterpreted that and thought that it meant that thereÓd been a house
lot at the Blasman property back when, whenever this map was don
misinterpretation on my part. I talked with Holly McEldowney, whoÓs the source for this
information in CordyÓs map, and she says that the reason it looks like that is that this map
was, this map shows the Alaloa before Alii Drive was realigned a
shows is that the Alaloa -. Alii Drive later followed the Alaloa. The Alaloa did go
through the area, the Alaloa being the Hawaiian pathway. The Alaloa went through there
in the 1850s; and that there was a continuous group of kuleana awarded on the mauka
side of the Alaloa.
Then, but the Blasman property at that time, what we call now, we call the Blasman
property, was not along the Alaloa. It was mauka of those kuleana. Then when Alii
Drive was realigned then, what we know, this Blasman property then had frontage on the
Alii Drive. And some of these kuleanas are now the lots that ar
houselots that are makai of the present Alii Drive are some of those eight or nine kuleana
there. TheyÓre shown on that old map.
I was not able to determine when Blasman property became a separ
the larger awards. As Pua Kanahele testified, and itÓs in the records, there was a larger
award of, Land Commission Award 7228 to Loe. At some point between the 1880s and
1936, an acre-and-a-quarter got cut off out of this and became the Blasman property. The
reason I say 1936 is that itÓs shown as a separate lot in our oldest tax maps that we have
on file and it was a separate lot by 1936; but I donÓt know when it was made a separate
lot before that.
OÓTOOLE:Is there more reason to think of the site as PuÒu?
YUEN:David Roy had testified that, well, this goes back to John Papa IÒi,
who is the important historian whoÓs a kahu of Kamehameha the Great, had talked about
Kamehameha the Great living at a place called PuÒu in Hlualoa as a young man, as a
boy, I think. And Mr. Roy identifies PuÒu as being here because of a PuÒu that has since
been cut up by the realignment of Alii Drive. Dr. Rechtman also said that a member of
the Mueller family had told him that the site was known as PuÒu. In going through the
material on the 1980 application, I came across a reference by Violet Hansen, who was a
kamaaina historian on the island years ago; and Violet Hansen said that an informant of
53
hers who actually lived at Snug Harbor, a Hawaiian man, referred to that areas as
PuÒunui. ThatÓs what the name that he called. So I think that there is, you know, with all
those is considerable reason to identify the site, PuÒu, PuÒunui, and that this is well
identified with the area mentioned by John Papa IÒi.
OÓTOOLE:How are historic sites concerns usually handled?
YUEN:Well, in a typical application where preservation is required,
thereÓs usually a buffer around the particular site, the site itself be physically preserved.
ThereÓll be, State Historic Preservation Division which is consulted as to how to handle
the site will recommend some kind of permanent buffer around the site. They may
include, the buffer may be a no-do anything buffer, or they may allow landscaping or
maintenance within the buffer; but thatÓs typically how historic sites are handled.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Can you talk about the challenge of dealing with historic
sites on this particular property?
YUEN:This application is different than the ones that IÓve seen in the past
in that usually youÓre dealing with sites that are on somebodyÓs property and youÓre
coming up with a condition of them preserving the site on their own property. On this
case, and IÓm not discounting the testimony of the area being, the Blasman property as
being significant or important, but there are no historic sites in the sense of a human-built
artifact remaining on the property. ThatÓs, we are entirely talking about sites that are off
of his property boundary. WeÓre also talking, when we talk about buffers, we are talking
about a rather small piece of property. The property is about, on the north side I think
about 200 feet front to back. So itÓs difficult to incorporate, itÓs difficult to buffer simply
by distance on the property without taking up the whole property.
OÓTOOLE:How should the Planning Commission handle statements that this
site is sacred?
YUEN:I want to start by saying that I have the greatest respect for the
point of view of many native Hawaiians about the sacredness of land and the connection
of human beings, the direct spiritual connection of human beings to land. As I
understand it, the concept of what we call sacredness or spiritual force in the old
Hawaiian way of looking at things permeated every aspect of life and it was, you do not
have a separation of the spiritual dimension from other dimensions of life. This is unlike
st
the typical world view in the 21 century western world. We, just to give an example, in
the western world we may have a blessing when we make, when we have a building. But
I think most people, for many people at the blessing, itÓs sort of something thatÓs done,
youÓre going through the motion, itÓs not essential for the correct construction of a
building that you have a blessing. Whereas, if I understand correctly, in old HawaiÒi
something like a blessing or something like having the building set right in the spiritual
dimension was essential for the building to be correct in the modern, to be correct in any
way. And the issue that this raises in how a government agency, like the Planning
Commission, like the Planning Department, how does a government agency handle this
54
in a land use process? The difficulty is that we, that in the United States you operate
from an overall legal perspective that the code word is separation of church and State.
The immediate, one way of putting this is that you donÓt, the government doesnÓt make
decisions that force people to do things because of religious beliefs. Yet, there is no, yet,
you, at the same time, were trying to respect Hawaiian culture where there isnÓt a
separation between the cultural and the spiritual.
I think the way that the law handles this is that the respect for spiritual beliefs is brought
under the framework of a culture. The law says that we are to consider protection of
cultural resources. And, so, if a native Hawaiian says that this land is important because
itÓs sacred, I think the Planning Commission canÓt put in a decision that the land should
not be built on because itÓs sacred, because Hawaiians believe that itÓs sacred. The
Planning Commission can say the land should not be built on or where there should be
conditions placed on building on the land because itÓs extremely important in Hawaiian
culture.
If I could give an example. If someone came in for a SMA permit
destroying a natural rock formation and Hawaiians came in and testified that this rock
formation is an amakua, has spiritual significance, the Planning Commission could refuse
to allow the destruction of that rock formation on the grounds of it being a cultural
resource. That is permitted in the law. It should not say because it violates peopleÓs
religious beliefs to destroy the rock formation. I think thatÓs the difference or the
distinction that I make here in how do you accommodate or how do
for peopleÓs spiritual beliefs in a way that conforms with the laws that we have.
OÓTOOLE:Do you have any comment on this property as an addition to a
park?
YUEN:Well, I think it would be highly desirable if the property were
eventually incorporated into the park. But if you take a, if you have a piece of property
where, like this, where the proposal is essentially that nothing be built on it because of
cultural significance and there arenÓt any historic sites actually on the property, there are
not actual physical constraints to building on the property, then the fair thing to do is for
the government to buy, if thatÓs the decision.
OÓTOOLE:Should the Planning Commission be concerned about efforts to
acquire the property for the public?
YUEN:No, itÓs not -. We talked about this earlier, itÓs really a separate
track. The landowner has a right to come in and apply for an SMA permit and have that
considered by the Planning Commission, and judged by the standar
The fact that there were naturally people who came to the first public hearing and
testified on this point, I think itÓs legitimate to say that th
this out and that they didnÓt. But beyond that I donÓt think, itÓs not a concern, it should
not be a concern of the Planning Commission.
55
OÓTOOLE:What do you see as possible negative effects of the proposed
project?
YUEN:Well, the major negative is a visual effect on people that may come
to the Keakealaniwahine site in the future and, also, there is an effect of, the effect of
people that come to the site and their experience of the site as a example of the past is,
their experience is compromised or marred by looking out and see
building very close by. ThereÓs also the effect of if, that was mentioned by Vicky
Takamine, that if people are making cultural practices, they may feel ashamed or
inhibited if they feel that, if they see people staring at them out of a building nearby.
OÓTOOLE:Is it possible to have viewplanes between the two complexes?
YUEN:IÓm sorry, say that again?
OÓTOOLE:Is it possible to have viewplanes between the two complexes?
YUEN:Not without getting rid of the existing homes along Alii Drive,
which I donÓt think is at all likely. There was testimony earlier about the desirability of
establishing a visual connection between Keakealaniwahine residence and Keolonhihi.
The analysis, I credit the analysis done by Ron Terry, the viewplane analysis, where he
shows that the existing houses are in the way. Even if you took everything off of the
Blasman property, you would look across the Blasman property at the row of houses on
Alii Drive and not look, and not have this visual connection between the two, between
the two properties.
OÓTOOLE:Can the visual effect be reduced?
YUEN:The negative visual effect of the condominium construction that I
talked about can be greatly reduced by proper planting.
OÓTOOLE:Proper planting?
YUEN:Yes.
OÓTOOLE:And can you describe where the concern is about the visuals?
What areas of the site are affected?
YUEN:If you look at the Blasman site plan, and the Hearings Officers are
aware from being out there, the Pakiha starts, is along the eastern or mauka edge of the
Blasman property. It starts, it doesnÓt start all the way at the southern corner. It starts
roughly half way and runs then to the north. In other words, look now, turning to the
Kekahuna map, the Blasman property is here to the lower, off to
the right of Pakiha. And, so, the visual, the negative visual effect that somebody might
experience will be primarily someone who is standing along the west wall of the Pakiha,
also, perhaps to some extent along the southern wall, although the walls themselves will
56
start to block any views into the Blasman property. As you go to the north wall, again,
now youÓre starting to get away from the Blasman property a little bit because it doesnÓt
go as far as that, as the northwest corner of the Pakiha. And, again, as youÓre along the
north wall, the wall itself will block your views over toward the Blasman property to go
mauka or east along that wall.
And this area in here by the northwest corner of Pakiha is State property. ThereÓs some
vegetation in there now that does also block views to some extent.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Do you believe itÓs possible to have complete blockage or
complete visual screen?
YUEN:Well, I think you could have a complete blockage. A person at the
area that IÓve indicated, say, at the northern, IÓm sorry, at the west wall of the Pakiha, I
think it would be difficult to have the buildings there. And a perceptive person would be
able to figure out that there were some buildings there no matter how thick the planting
would be. ItÓs clear that anybody that visits Keakealaniwahine area that there would be,
that theyÓre in a built area. You have Alii Drive, you have buildings along Alii Drive.
ItÓs a little hard to predict this, what the experience would be because you donÓt know
what the ultimate plan is or how public movement through Keakaealaniwahine is going
to be handled.
The easiest way to do it now is do it, as Pua Kanahele described, go from a little parking
lot thatÓs right at Hlualoa Bay. Then you end up, that parking lot, if you walk straight
through the bushes, it takes you into the area thatÓs a little bit of a hollow and very
overgrown, a little bit to the north of the Pakiha. But you can also go to the north wall
quite easily from that parking lot.
Over on the south side of the Blasman property is another, is part of a larger private
parcel. ThatÓs TMK 7-7-4:43; and this property is currently zoned Agricultural. ThereÓs,
some day a landowner will come in with a development scenario for that property. The
area thatÓs right alongside the south boundary of the Blasman property is going to be very
difficult for them to develop because of a lot of, there are burials in -. IÓve seen
archeological studies for that area, there are burials in there and there are some
archeological features. So I think itÓs quite likely that that would eventually be set aside
as some kind of archaeological easement and itÓs possible that people would come on that
side, eventually. But thatÓs a little, what IÓm saying is a little bit speculative, but itÓs
another possibility.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Have you finished describing how the visual screen could
be accomplished?
YUEN:No. Let me describe what you need to do to have a visual screen.
I donÓt think that that has been presented. I donÓt think an adequate landscaping plan that
would create a thorough visual screen has been presented. The c
as proposed, would be about 35 feet high. If you, and I havenÓt done, what IÓm telling
57
you more is a common sense analysis. You can do this more scientifically and I havenÓt
done it. But if youÓre shielding, if you try to shield that with trees that are roughly half-
way between the building and the person, the line of sight, the person is at a slightly
higher ground than the condominium is because the ground rises u
the back. You need a tree thatÓs 25 to 30 feet high to block that line of sight, maybe a
little bit less, not much more. You also need to block the direct view at eye level and
down a little bit.
If youÓre going to do this, first of all, you need, you donÓt need big trees, you need sort of
medium-sized trees, and you need really a double row of trees. And the reason I say this
is IÓve gone, you know, IÓve been thinking about this project, IÓve gone around quite a bit
and looked at examples of landscaping, examples of rows of trees and how they block
views. And if you have a single row of trees, you inevitably, you have gaps between the
trees; and you have to have a double row both to create a thickness and the second row is
staggered, then you block the view between the rows of trees. But you definitely, with
two rows of trees like milo trees or koa trees, you can effectively block views of a
building so that you canÓt see them.
If you, now, getting to the Richard MooreÓs site plan, heÓs trying to, first of all he wasnÓt
trying to create a visual screen with the site plan. That wasnÓt what he was trying to do.
HeÓs trying to create a screen but heÓs not trying to create a solid block where you canÓt
see through. HeÓs trying to create a transition rather than something that is really meant
to block your view. And he has two rows but theyÓre separated by the road. This gets,
this is a trickier way to do it because he has, you would then have to prune, you have to
prune the trees so that the cars can pass underneath on the, underneath the trees on the
road; and then he has to do something underneath that level. And if look at his site plan,
referring to the new exhibit, which is behind you on the colored wall, his second row of
trees is, you notice the canopies go over the buildings. The canopies extend to the
building. What he has is some big trees that are actually taller than the buildings and the
canopies, the branches go over the buildings; and that doesnÓt really block the view if itÓs
over the building. It has to be, the tree has to be in front of the building and then you
need more room, you need to move the tree farther away from the
need, you have more room. The branches canÓt go into somebodyÓs
has to be planted farther away.
If you try to do this, if they move the buildings and you try to do it in a single row, itÓs
easier. I mean, IÓm not trying to, and as youÓll see more from my recommendation, I
canÓt sit here and re-plan the project for them. But they need to have, they do not,
although I understand Mr. MooreÓs testimony that he thinks that you can accomplish this
with the present site plan, IÓm not, IÓm far from convinced of that. They only have about
five to ten feet of planting around the perimeter of the project. If you put the two rows of
trees and you plant them together, itÓs easier to do this because the row that faces the
State property, you can let the tree be bushy; and then the row that faces the road, you can
prune that row and you can have that same effect. And you can b
block the lower views by even having a fence along the road. And the fence itself, if you
didnÓt have a bushy row of trees between the State property and the road, the fence itself
58
would be obtrusive. But if you have a thick planting of trees along the State property,
then you donÓt see, you could hide them, you can hide the fence
whatever remaining views might filter through at a lower level.
M. ROY:ThereÓs an objection here for the fact that, are you saying,
Mr. Yuen, you have made a recommendation and you have it in writ
YUEN:IÓm making the recommendation orally now.
GIFFIN:But we do not have it in writing yet. None of us do.
M. ROY:You know, IÓm puzzled because this material that you brin
forward, there are many questions I have and, yet, youÓve not produced any witnesses to
bring forward the information.
GIFFIN:Oh, you will have a chance to cross-examine like, you kno
what weÓve done for you people. You will have a chance to cross
we do not have a copy of that and -.
M. ROY:And, also, to be clear what his recommendation is, will w
that in writing today?
GIFFIN:Not today. I mean, Chris, unless IÓm mistaken -.
YUEN:IÓm sorry, I donÓt have a written recommendation. I wanted
hear what the Applicant had in the way of a landscaping plan before I did a
recommendation and an analysis.
M. ROY:The material that youÓve sent us to consider, we have questions of
the County before you even go to that place, Chris, the question
materials for one that you include in your exhibits and to question further the permits that
have been, not been presented with regard to this. So the facts that youÓre laying out, I
contest because I could never find permits for this area or anyt
Department -.
GIFFIN:Mikahala, youÓll have that opportunity to express that as soon as
heÓs pau and then he will have a chance. You can cross-examine. He will then be
compelled to answer. All right? Go ahead.
OÓTOOLE:Have you finished describing what your thoughts on what the
planting should be? What type of plants do you think or are the types of plants used
important?
YUEN:Based on some of the testimony or comments that IÓve heard
actually, including -. You know, I had a private conversation with Mr. Roy, we talked
about planting. This was sometime back; and he felt that, you know, exotic plants
59
themselves would be obtrusive. IÓm not saying that he agrees with my recommendation
at all but that the exotic plants themselves would be obtrusive. I think that it would best
if they were plants of the type found in HawaiÒi in 1778. Particularly, Ellis mentions that
after leaving Kaluaokalani, they went through an area where koa plants were, it was
thickly wooded with koa plants, koa trees, I think. I donÓt remember exactly what he
says but he does talk about koa trees being common in the general area. Other milos and
other trees found in low land beach areas around Hawaiian communities would also be a
thick kind of, would also make a thick visual barrier.
OÓTOOLE:In making your decision, does the Planning Commission have to
use the plans submitted by the Applicant?
YUEN:Well, I think that because we operate in a private property
we try to work with applicants or work with their concept. But if it, the Planning
Commission, itÓs not so much a question at this point of the number of units but the
location of the buildings. My recommendation is that the application should be denied
because they donÓt have a plan for an adequate visual screen. If it turns out they can
make an adequate visual screen but have to change the design or the number of units, itÓs
within the Planning CommissionÓs power to approve a scaled down plan, approve a plan
with conditions. It doesnÓt have to take the application as a given.
OÓTOOLE:Is there a significant adverse effect in your view if the buildings
are not shielded?
YUEN:If they are not shielded, yes.
OÓTOOLE:And what is your analysis, then, if there is this significant adverse
effect?
YUEN:Under the SMA law, the Planning Commission is not supposed
approve a development that has a substantial environmental or ecological, adverse
environmental or ecological effect. And then it says, Ðexcept as such adverse effect is
minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety or
compelling public interest.Ñ If the building is not shielded, I
substantial adverse environmental effect, and I donÓt just pluck this out of the air. If you
look at Rule 9 of the Planning Commission rules, it has guidelines for determining
substantial adverse environmental effect, loss or destruction of a cultural resource is one
of those thatÓs mentioned. And if you did have this substantial adverse effect, this project
which is essentially a project for a private economic benefit, would not meet this, Ðexcept
as clearly outweighed by public health, safety or compelling public interest.Ñ And, so,
my conclusion would be that without a visual screening, an effective visual screening,
that the permit should be denied; and as I say, it has not, we have not seen that submitted.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. If the permit were to be granted, do you have any
recommendations on special conditions regarding land disturbance?
60
YUEN:The concern about ground shaking, disturbing the walls, is
certainly one that should be dealt with in any permit thatÓs granted. There is, this is a
matter of engineering analysis, so we would recommend a permit that required an
engineering analysis before, that would validate that they would not cause harm to the
walls of the neighboring historic sites before doing anything like dynamiting, pile-
driving, hoe-ramming that might be necessary in the construction.
OÓTOOLE:What about sub-surface testing recommended?
YUEN:We would also, and IÓve lost track of what the exact
recommendation was, we would also recommend the condition on the following State
Historic PreservationÓs latest comment on the archaeology that has been done so far. I
donÓt remember what exactly that was.
OÓTOOLE:Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
GIFFIN:Randy?
VITOUSEK:May we have a short recess?
GIFFIN:Yes. LetÓs make it 10 minutes?
VITOUSEK:Thank you.
GIFFIN:Welcome.
RECESSEDThe meeting recessed at 2:56 p.m.
RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 3:10 p.m.
GIFFIN:IÓd like to call this contested case hearing back to order. This is an
application for a Special Management Area Use Permit. The Applicant is Wayne
Blasman. The SMA No. is 02-03. And I had, when we recessed, last asked the Applicant
if he was ready to cross-examine.
VITOUSEK:Thank you. Mr. Yuen, you talked about the usual contex
historical site is located on a particular party, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:ThatÓs a much more typical situation.
VITOUSEK:And in those situations, have you required that the project be
completely invisible from the historical site?
YUEN:No. But while IÓve been Planning Director, I donÓt think that
thereÓve been any applications with historical sites of any comparable significance.
61
VITOUSEK:Okay, but sometimes if the historical site is actually
property and surrounded by the site, you donÓt require the project to be invisible from the
site? Is that correct?
YUEN:I havenÓt done that in any application that IÓve reviewed as
Planning Director.
VITOUSEK:Okay. But if the site is located off the property 50 feet, then, but in
this particular circumstance here, requirement seems to be that that project has to be
completely invisible from the site.
YUEN:Because of the significance of the site in question.
VITOUSEK:Have you made a similar requirement in any other SMA permit or
any other permit that the Planning Department has granted, that is that the project has to
be completely invisible from a site located on an adjoining property which the owner
doesnÓt, which is either State-owned or owned by someone other than the project
developer?
YUEN:Not for a historic site. We have required landscaping and
screening for things like cell towers for aesthetic reasons.
VITOUSEK:IÓm not aware of any cell tower that has been made completely
invisible by planting. Is that correct?
YUEN:Not completely. We havenÓt required a complete screen, but
have required planting screens for cell towers.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So, then, your testimony then would be that this
condition in terms of a recommendation that has been made by your Department?
YUEN:As much as IÓm aware, yes. And I canÓt, I think that there
probably have been landscaping or planting conditions for historic sites before but I donÓt
know, I canÓt remember any while I was, during my administration. But as I say, we
havenÓt dealt with a site of such a significance.
VITOUSEK:What do you consider to be sites of comparable significance? Is
the PuÒuhonua o Honaunau, is that a site of comparable significance?
YUEN:That would be comparable.
VITOUSEK:And do you know if there are -?
YUEN:I mean, in terms of it being in a very high category of significance,
yes, sure, PuÒuhonua o Honaunau would be an example.
62
VITOUSEK:How about the AhuÓena Heiau in Kailua, is that a similar
significance?
YUEN:That would be an example, yeah.
VITOUSEK:And thatÓs located immediately adjacent to the Hotel King
Kamehameha. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:You were present yesterday when Mr. Richard Moore testified.
IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And as I recalled, Mr. Moore was asked the question of whether it
would be feasible to create a landscape plan which would result in the complete visual
screening, as I recall, and his answer was yes. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:That was his answer, yes.
VITOUSEK:And he said that the plan could be accommodated based o
plan as currently depicted in Exhibit 17. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:That was his answer, yes.
VITOUSEK:And, so, Mr. Moore is a fellow in the American Academy
Landscape Architects. IsnÓt that correct? You recall that portion of his testimony?
YUEN:That was his testimony, yes.
VITOUSEK:And your conclusion is that, did you find that his testimony was
not credible when he said that he could create a complete visual screening based on the
existing site plan?
YUEN:He didnÓt show us how he would do it.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, is your testimony that if he, even though he said he
could do it because he didnÓt show you how he could do it, thatÓs the reason for your
recommended denial?
YUEN:This is a matter of considerable importance. I do not feel
comfortable in recommending that the project be approved and Mr. Moore then figure out
how to achieve the result.
63
VITOUSEK:Okay, I am just trying to get it in context. Mr. Moore said that he,
it was his opinion, based on his profession that he could accomplish a complete visual
screening based on his existing site plan, and that you questioned. You said he has not
demonstrated the ability to do that, and you questioned whether that is an accurate
statement that he made. Is that correct?
YUEN:In order to recommend approval of something like this, given the
significance of the issue, I would want to see how the person is going to do it, rather than
have them simply say, yes, we can do it and put it in, say, as a condition that youÓre going
to do it. ThereÓs great deal of difficulty in following up and enforcing vague conditions.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So what, are you contemplating then a condition, if, so, in
other words the Applicant would have to demonstrate how this com
could be accomplished before you would make a favorable recommen
based on your testimony?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And how would that be incorporated in a recommended decision
by the, in other words, how would the Planning Department incorporate a condition in the
proposed decision to accomplish that?
YUEN:I had, as a matter of timing, I donÓt know the answer to that. I
mean, because weÓre, here we are and I donÓt like being in such a situation, but weÓre at
the final day of our scheduled Contested Case Hearing. I did indicate quite sometime ago
of the importance of the landscaping plan and that I would recommend denial if there
were not an adequate landscaping plan.
VITOUSEK:Right. And did you make any statement that there had to be a
complete visual buffer?
YUEN:I think thatÓs been, I think IÓve made that statement to the
Applicant.
VITOUSEK:Well, itÓs not, well -. Okay. So, would a wall be an effective
visual buffer? I mean, itÓd certainly be capable of building a 25-foot high wall which
would effectuate a complete visual buffer. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:I think a wall itself would be obtrusive unless the wall were
screened, and IÓm not talking about a 25-foot high wall. I think you could use a wall as
the last layer of the visual screen if there were a planting between the wall and the State
property. But just to build a 25-foot high wall on the property line would itself be
visually obtrusive.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So itÓs not just a matter of creating a visual screening. ItÓs
that it has to be a particular type of visual screening, is that correct?
64
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:Do you have any training as a landscape architect, Mr. Yuen?
Have you ever designed landscape architecture for a project or development?
YUEN:Aside from my own home, no.
VITOUSEK:So if a project receives a Special Management Use Permi
still be required to obtain plan approval, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:ThatÓs right, yes.
VITOUSEK:And does the Planning Director have discretion at the plan
approval phase of approving or disapproving of the landscape plan with respect to a
proposed project?
YUEN:Yes. But when there is a discretionary permit before plan
approval, I much prefer to have the issues, the key issues settled at the discretionary
permit stage, rather than wait for plan approval if -.
VITOUSEK:Well, there could be conditions imposed at the discretionary
approval stage that are enforced at plan approval, isnÓt that correct? And a condition can
be put in place which is a requirement of the project and the specific statement that a
particular aspect of the project has to be approved at Plan Approval, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:That is correct.
VITOUSEK:And is that a means of enforcing a condition like a specific
landscape condition?
YUEN:I think that if we pass an SMA permit based on a particular site
plan without their being other, without their being a clear indication of how the
landscaping would be done, then weÓre in a situation of negotiating the landscaping
versus the approved site plan.
VITOUSEK:But the SMA permit can impose conditions to mitigate po
adverse impacts; and those conditions can be to a certain degree of specificity that thereÓs
not really a lot of negotiation, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes. But then, what I have in mind as a difficulty here is if the
SMA permit allows construction of 13 units and then the Planning DirectorÓs idea of a
visual screen requires space that would not allow the construction of 13 units, then you
have a conflict between the SMA permit as approved and what is going to be done at
Plan Approval.
65
VITOUSEK:So itÓs your testimony that when youÓre saying that you
concerns as to the landscape plan, youÓre really saying you have concerns as to the
number of units as well, is that correct?
YUEN:No. ItÓs not an issue so much of the number of units but i
issue of can you have an adequate landscaping plan and have all those, and have the same
number of buildings. And then IÓm not, no one has really testified and I donÓt, itÓs not
that having 11 units or 13 units that bothers me. What IÓm concerned about is if you
approve 13 units, they come in with a landscaping plan that only works if the units are in
a certain location and that it doesnÓt leave enough room to accomplish the visual buffer,
you have conflict between the condition that has been approved and what are the
conditions.
VITOUSEK:ThereÓs testimony from the Mayor that the County of HawaiÒi
intends to move to acquire this property. IsnÓt that correct? Were you present during that
testimony?
YUEN:Well, I think the MayorÓs testimony speaks for itself.
VITOUSEK:Well, the question was were you present during the testimony?
YUEN:I was present, yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And you have reviewed the evidence submitted that when it
was the, earlier attempted acquisition was delayed because of the pendency of this
Contested Case Hearing? In other words, that The Trust for Public Lands suspended the
negotiation of the acquisition of the property because they felt that the value of the
property was impacted by the outcome of the Contested Case Hearing?
YUEN:No, I donÓt think thatÓs a correct statement at all. What I gathered
from what was testified to and what you submitted into evidence and The Trust for Public
Lands letter, is that they, that you, that your client and The Trust for Public Lands had a
dispute over the proper way to value the property, and The Trust for Public Lands wanted
to build in a discount from the value of the property based upon, let me back up a minute.
There was an appraisal done, if IÓm reading and understanding the material correctly.
Your client requested that an appraisal be done based on the development potential of the
property, that is, what he expected as a profit if he ultimately
That appraisal was done. Then in the context of negotiating over what would be a fair
price, The Trust for Public Lands presented an analysis that there should be a discount
built into that figure due to the time it might take to get the approvals to do the project. I
think your question, your statement was that they suspended negotiations over this based
upon the Contested Case Hearing. I think, I donÓt think that thatÓs an accurate statement.
VITOUSEK:Well, let me try to be more accurate. That Trust for P
suspended negotiations because they felt that the property was worth less than
66
Mr. Blasman felt it was worth because of the pendency of the Con
In other words, they felt that the pendency of the Contested Case Hearing reduced the
value of the property below what Mr. Blasman thought it was worth?
YUEN:I donÓt know, you know, youÓre asking, the way youÓre frami
question is a question of what was psychologically on their mind. All I know from the
outside is that you, your client and The Trust for Public Lands were in a negotiation and
as part of that negotiation, they presented an analysis that includes the rationale for
lowering the value of the property. Whether thatÓs what they think or not, I donÓt know.
As you know, people in a negotiation present rationales for, if theyÓre talking about the
price of property, for raising or lowering the price of property. It is my experience in
reviewing appraisals, and IÓve read hundreds of appraisals, that appraisers very often,
when youÓre dealing with property that needs a land use approval to be developed, weÓll
include a time factor and discount the value of the property by a time factor of what it
would take to get the approvals to do the development. So, and I think thatÓs what was
going on. As far as what was, what was in somebodyÓs mind, I do
VITOUSEK:Right. But I guess the concern IÓm getting at here, Mr. Yuen, is
that while that process was going on that the representatives of The Trust for Public
Lands were meeting with the Mayor about the County acquiring the subject property.
IsnÓt that correct? IsnÓt that the testimony that we heard?
YUEN:Well, I think there was testimony that there was a meeting
between The Trust for Public Lands and the Mayor.
VITOUSEK:And the Mayor, as we stated, has indicated an interest in acquiring
the property for public purposes during that same time period. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And the, putting or placing of conditions on the development of the
property or denying an SMA permit for being able to develop the property will have an
impact on its value. IsnÓt that correct? I mean, youÓve read a lot of appraisals. DonÓt
you think itÓll be correct that your recommendation will result in a loss of market value
for the subject property?
YUEN:It depends on what youÓre talking about and when. IÓm not sure,
first of all, I donÓt think my recommendation itself does anything. The ultimate decision
of the Planning Commission may have bearing on the, may have a big bearing on the
value of the property in the marketplace. IÓm not sure if that decision would be
admissible in a condemnation action.
VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry. What action?
YUEN:If the County, for example, were to make a condemnation, IÓ
sure that the decision to deny the SMA permit would be admissibl
67
VITOUSEK:Well, the fact that it didnÓt have an SMA permit would be both
admissible and argued by the County in seeking to advocate a particular value of the
property, wouldnÓt it?
YUEN:IÓm not sure that that could be.
VITOUSEK:What development alternatives would remain for the Applicant of
this property?
YUEN:If the 13-unit condominium were denied by the Planning
Commission?
VITOUSEK:Yes. In other words, I was just trying to see what imp
if the Planning Commission adopted the rationale that no SMA permit could be granted
for this property unless thereÓs a complete visual screening between the property and,
whatever is developed on the property and the Pakiha, then what development
alternatives would be left for the owner of the property?
YUEN:It may be that a 13-unit condominium can be developed with that
condition. It may be that another residential project with fewer units or perhaps even
more units can be developed with that condition, depending on the size or location of the
units. ThereÓs a range of things that are possible.
VITOUSEK:Did the, the Planning Director was asked to submit a st
issues at the outset of the case, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:ThatÓs right.
VITOUSEK:Did you raise this as an issue, the requirement of a complete visual
screen?
YUEN:We raised the visual effect of the property as an issue, the visual
effects on surrounding properties as an issue. It was the last item in our list of issues.
VITOUSEK:Okay. But did you give any disclosure that the Planning
Department may take the position that a complete visual screen would be required in
order to obtain the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation of approval?
YUEN:You mean in that document, no.
VITOUSEK:No. So the first time that you made that statement is
testimony today. Is that correct? I mean, in the proceeding, on the record in this -?
YUEN:On the record in the proceeding, yes.
68
VITOUSEK:Is in your testimony today?
YUEN:ThatÓs right.
VITOUSEK:Okay. I donÓt have any more questions right now.
GIFFIN:Okay. Maile?
DAVID:Hi. In your assessment of the significance of a visual bu
noise issues have not been addressed. Is that another or is that the issue that is also to be
considered in this case considering the significance in the loca
YUEN:ItÓs a concern and a consideration but the site, the Pakiha, the west
wall, is only 250 feet from Alii Drive. ItÓs not a site that can be shielded from outside
noise. And I know enough about noise to say that the planting IÓm talking about would
not greatly reduce noise of ordinary daily activity at the proposed condominium site,
noise and any feasible way to do that and still, without preventing construction on the
proposed condominium site.
DAVID:LetÓs see, I was thinking in terms of what Ms. Takamine ha
testified about, as far as practices that would take place at night, the noise of the drums
and the impact on either, on the condo and vice versa. Has that been a consideration that
was brought forward?
YUEN:I think if itÓs a concern, if my understanding is correct, itÓs a
concern that there might be ceremonies at, that people wanted to hold at Keakealawahine,
that the people who live in the condominium might not like it and that this might result in
the ceremonies being banned or restricted to certain hours. I donÓt, I canÓt really see that
as being a big problem because I canÓt think of, in other heiau, other historic sites that
IÓm aware of, I think noisy ceremonies are quite, ceremonies of any type, in any large
ceremonies of any type are quite unusual, I think, at most Hawaiian shrines and noisy
night-time ceremonies are very, very unusual. So I donÓt think that thereÓs likely to be
much of a use like that of the site. If they were an occasional use like that, I would say
that itÓs something that, I think that people in the condominium and the others would
have to live with; if there were occasional use, theyÓd have to live with that. There are
lots of State parks that have night-time activity and sometimes they do bother the
neighbors. ItÓs a trade-off, you know. Wailoa State Park in Hilo, they have parties at
night, they have bands that play, thereÓs, itÓs quite near a residential neighborhood. ItÓs
noisy and they canÓt, they donÓt let it go all night but they do allow night-time use; and
sometimes itÓs noisy and does bother the neighbors.
DAVID:I see. I was thinking in the context of the types of activities that
would be conducted at Keakealawahine. The types of ceremonies would not necessarily
entail things that would necessarily go on at the park that you are referring to in Hilo. Is
that where you just referred to?
69
YUEN:Well, IÓm sure itÓs not the type of things but what IÓm say
that you do have State parks where they allow noisy night-time gatherings and State
Parks does stick by the fact that you have a State park and that you can use, there are
some uses that are reasonable and they can make -. I just donÓt think that this is, that the
scenario thatÓs being presented of people being stopped from having ceremonies is that
big an issue or that big a problem, a potential problem.
DAVID:Thank you. In your opinion if the SMA permit is denied fo
condo project, could Mr. Blasman build a single-family residence without an SMA
permit?
YUEN:Under the SMA rules, a single-family dwelling is not define
development and is normally exempt from getting an SMA permit.
dwelling has a significant environmental or ecological effect, the Director can. If the
Director, the Planning Director decides that that has a significant environmental or
ecological effect, then the Planning Director can make the individual apply for a SMA
major permit for that single-family dwelling.
DAVID:And with that, in your opinion, would that single-family dwelling
have less than a negative impact on the surrounding historical sites?
YUEN:Well, it really depends. People are building huge single-family
dwellings, much larger than the condo -, there are single-family dwellings that are being
built on this island that are much larger than the condominium that Mr. Blasman is
proposing. As far as the visual effect, I think a visual effect of a large home located up
near his property line would be similar to the proposed condominiums. For that matter,
depending on, if you handled the driveway by having it in front, you could even build a,
IÓm not sure what the setback is but I think you could build it closer to the back property
line than is shown on his site plan.
DAVID:Thank you. Would another option be going back to Trust for
Public Lands to renegotiate at this point?
YUEN:You know, my testimony has been and I responded to
Mr. VitousekÓs question about valuation and Trust for Public Lands and so forth, my
testimony has been to the Planning Commission that they have a d
SMA permit. And itÓs not part of the permit, the issue of public acquisition is not part of
what we, of their responsibility in looking at this permit. I could make an obvious answer
to your question that thereÓs always more possibilities. I have no idea where either The
Trust for Public Lands or Mr. Blasman is at with respect to interest in negotiating a
purchase of the property. So I think thatÓs probably the best answer that I can make to
your question. As I say, I donÓt think that itÓs relevant. I responded to questions that
have been asked about it.
70
DAVID:And what is your opinion with respect to the Commission
weighing the economic gain? Could you explain that part of the rules regarding
economic gains, balancing the economic gains? What does that me
YUEN:Just a moment. What are youÓre referring to, what part of the rules?
DAVID:Just a minute. IÓm trying to figure out what rule.
GIFFIN:Are you -. Planning Commission rules?
DAVID:Wait. IÓm going to look for it. Okay. 205A-4 and The
Implementation of Objectives and Policies and Guidelines, paragr
give full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, aesthetic, recreational, scenic and
open space values and coastal hazards as well as to the needs for economic
development.Ñ How does that apply here?
YUEN:You start with the fact that you have a private individual that owns,
has bought and owned, and owns the property. They have a particular zoning that creates
a potential level of development. They are doing the project for private economic gain;
also, Mr. Blasman has testified that he wants to have a home site there. Their desire for
this is entitled to a great deal of respect. This is an attribute, and this is a right of the
property owner to seek the development of their property for economic gain within the
context of the law. The SMA and absent any strong reason in the SMA law to deny the
landowner what they want, we would go ahead and recommend approval of the
application. Essentially, he wants to build condominium units, sell them to people,
people live in them. This is part of the economic activity of life. This is how people get
places to live. And if weÓre going to say, we have to have a reason to say, no, you also
have a reason to put conditions on. There has to be a purpose behind those conditions
and the purpose has to be tied in with powers or, has to be tied in with objectives that are
contained in the SMA law.
In this particular case, and all of these applications involve some degree or typically
involve some degree of balancing. And, in this case, the balancing between the concerns
that have been expressed in the testimony here by opponents of the project and what
Mr. Blasman would like to do with his property, my recommendation is based on that
view balanced by a landscaping screen.
DAVID:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. I have no more questions.
GIFFIN:Thank you. Mikahala? Now is the time for you to ask al
questions.
M. ROY:Thank you. Just for the record, the CountyÓs list of exhibits and
the amended list, Klana takes issue with the citings for credit, Exalted Sits the C
Ross Cordy. In addition, a research, Exhibit G, these are done by persons who are not of
the lineages of the area and theyÓre, further, not Hawaiian. While they may allude and
71
move to be based, based their findings on record, facts that are on record, they are not
connected to this culture. And, so, I just want to, for the record, bring that objection to
these exhibits, Exhibit G and Exhibit D as in Delta. Also, yeah
in the, having to look at our prospective witnesses as some have not been able to be
presented for Klana, we did consider, actually, asking the parties at this late time to have
people from the Ala Kahakai Section come in from National Parks to actually speak with
credibility on the subject matter of the road and the original Alaloa. So we raise issue to
Dr., Mr. CordyÓs representation here based on Holly McEldowneyÓs reports.
The importance of todayÓs testimony, especially in your testimony, Mr. Yuen reaffirms
for me the need for the transcripts of todayÓs proceedings. To understand the statements
that you are recommending is an exercise for me today and, again, I reiterate the request
for transcripts to be able to come to final levels for this proceedings for our part.
As a part of a Special Management Use Permit application and in the case of
Mr. BlasmanÓs, Chris, is it, why is there not an element here, a need in the SMA
application for the presentation of items like permits and deeds to the property? Is that a
part of the Special Management application for the County? Does the Applicant have to
procure these things for your application?
YUEN:The Applicant, letÓs start with deeds. Normally, we do not require
the Applicant to show a deed if theyÓre shown on the property tax records as being the
property owner. So we would not normally say, ÐBring a deed;Ñ and if he had concern
over whether we were dealing with the right property owner, we would follow up and
request some kind of proof of title. And the reason, and the only reason for this is you
donÓt want to have, the Applicant is supposed to be the property owner. You donÓt want
to approve an application from somebody who doesnÓt actually own the property.
M. ROY:Thank you. The reason we bring this issue up is because
for our record-keeping, we seek out the established banks for the information for the
public regarding permits and the like; and when I went to the Planning Department, the
following documentation was made available. No way does it show
ever being rendered for these properties. And, so, also, in Mr. VitousekÓs list of exhibits,
I note that, and this is something for me to ask Mr. Vitousek, but the deed, the place for
the exhibit for the deed, in the place of the deed, itÓs the word written, ÐWithdrawn.Ñ On
a deed, is it not the case that other information of vital importance like early tenants and
so forth, native records, are a part of a deed?
YUEN:Well, youÓre asking, let me, you asked me two different questions.
Let me deal with the questions separately. The first question you asked is, deals with
permits for the property. And, this, I heard Ms. Gibson complaining about a lack of
building permits for the property a day or so ago. Independently of that, I had been
interested in trying to figure out when, what the people call Snug Harbor, was built, so I
had staff look at the real property tax records. And the, because weÓve had this testimony
about when it had been built, there was a little, thereÓs not clear, there was some
discrepancy with testimony, wasnÓt clear whether what we, what you go and see there
72
today is the same as Snug Harbor. It seems the buildings that are there seem awfully
small to be a commercial establishment like a motel, so I was curious about this. And,
so, staff did find me our real property tax records; and what I testified, too, about the
dates of construction comes from those real property tax records
As far as whether we would ask for a building permit itself, when the Planning
Commission has applications that involve use of existing buildings, like, take it, if you
had an existing building and they want to make a bed and breakfast out of it, the
Planning, as a matter of course we always send the applications over to the, to the
Department of Public Works, which includes the Building Department. The Building
Department, if there are some problems with the building permits
usually report that to us. Example, somebody applies for, they have a house, they want to
make a bed and breakfast, they need a permit from the Planning C
bed and breakfast. We send that application to the Department of Public Works, the
Department of Public Works will often write back and say somethi
permit taken out 1977, never closed;Ñ or, and I think it has happened, ÐNo building
permit on file,Ñ or ÐBuilding was permitted as agricultural storage building, would need
to be repermitted if used for a residence.Ñ So we get those kinds of comments. I donÓt
think we got any comment like that about this project and I donÓt know if itÓs because
thereÓs no problem with the building permits or if because the project does not involve
the use of these buildings. In fact, they plan to tear them down, that, they simply would
not report it.
I have to say, though, that in the real property tax records, they do have a notation that
gives the building permit number and the name of the construction company and two
building permits that are appeared before these 1,120 square foot buildings that were built
around 1960 and became Snug Harbor. So I donÓt think that there
building permits. But thatÓs what we require.
You know, youÓre trying to get information thatÓs relevant to the application. So if you
are taking a building and youÓre going to use that building, as I say, we will, we get
information from the Department of Public Works about the building permit records. I
donÓt know that thereÓs any great relevance to a building thatÓs going to be, we know itÓs
there. There is significance that the building is there and it has been used for many years
for residential purpose. But I donÓt know that itÓs significant or not, but that has a
building permit.
And then the second part of your question was to deal with what information do you get
in a deed?
M. ROY:In your, either in the Special Management application, wh
presentation of a deed is not necessary. And, in your mind, would you agree that a deed
contains information or your title report, information, contains important information for,
as to the history of that land? Mr. Vitousek has not presented Mr. Silva. We do not
know what was conveyed in, no evidence of what was conveyed to M
of his knowledge of the encumbrances or history on this land, etc.
73
YUEN:Well, we normally would not require a deed because the only, as I
said, the only thing weÓre interested in is, in a normal application, is whether the person
owns the property and if they appear on the tax records - and I know that Mr. Blasman
does appear on the tax records, that there is an entry of a deed in those records to
Mr. Blasman - then that takes care of the key issue for the Planning Department. Now, as
far as, if you want to make a point about his, what he got from, what was in his deed or
what information, what warnings he received, you could question him in this hearing or
you can obtain, itÓs not difficult to obtain a copy of someoneÓs deed from the Bureau of
Conveyances.
M. ROY:If you look at the papers I have in front of you, youÓll see that in
your Planning Department you donÓt have any record of permits granted here, and I bring
this up as relevant because I understand that in order for a property to be called, to be
designated developed or undeveloped, one needs to procure these verifying documents.
YUEN:What I have from you is a printout of real property tax records. I
think this was taken from the CountyÓs web page. They show a description of the
building as ÐSalvaged Dwelling.Ñ The CountyÓs, the records on the CountyÓs web site are
not complete with respect to things like building permits. ThereÓs a field on that web site
for permits. If you click on that field for almost all properties, and IÓve done this for
many properties, it will say, ÐNo record.Ñ And I think that they have not put in all, IÓm
sure they have not put in building permit records into that field on the County web site.
The other thing that you have here is a, that you gave me, is a printout called, ÐParcel
History;Ñ and IÓm not sure what this is from. I think itÓs the real property description of
their, what it looks like to me, is a Real Property TaxÓs printout where they have
valuations and they have some deed information they enter in deed records. Again, this
would not have building permit records.
Finally, what I have here is a portion of field books, copies of a real property tax field
books. Now, these are books that are kept by the Property Tax Division where the
assessors actually put in information. They include year-by-year valuations and they
include sketches of buildings. The four pages that youÓve given me donÓt have
information about building permits but the full record that my staff found does have
entries which give building permit numbers and a construction co
M. ROY:Then, Mr. Yuen, if this is whatÓs tendered by your staff to us on
request for information on permits on this property, I suggest that either the staff in Kona
is not up to procuring what is requested or I donÓt know what, but that is what is found
upon research. And this is what a person like myself is left to when documents are not
before me, and when I find that a deed is one thing but the title for the company, for a
title company search, and this is quite another -. And I ask these questions because this
has relevance to the publicÓs compelling interest. Our public compelling interest brings
us before this body in this, and this is information thatÓs relevant; and IÓm just, I think,
74
telling you at this time of the dilemma that we face you. ThatÓs the information we were
given with the request I made, and itÓs problematic and -.
For the record, we still donÓt have a copy of the deed, as promised, for the record.
Because in this case, weÓre, I only have verbal, you know, testimony, talks about Violet
Hansen. I happened to meet her husband, quite a distinguished woman. But I donÓt see
any records of any of these things in file and, so, we, in public, tries to defend these
places -. This testimony that you give now, I wish we had had an opportunity to have
more time with because I most certainly need to examine it and understand more closely
what youÓre speaking on and talking about.
For example, one question is, before your recommendation for, to the Planning
Commission, is there a category that you talked about, you and Mr. Vitousek just today, a
category somehow pre-approval, you know, a condition that you wo
changing your -? Well, in other words, IÓm uneasy with the entire presentation by the
County. IÓm sorry, I feel like weÓve, I have many gaping questi
answer that, Chris?
YUEN: Well, let me say that I understand the awkwardness of testifying at
the end of a Contested Case Hearing. On the other hand, if we were to sit down and give
our recommendation in advance of hearing all the testimony, I think we would be open to
the criticism that we donÓt care what people have to say, like people like your father, for
example, or the other witnesses, or Mr. VitousekÓs landscape architect. And, so, this is a
bit of a dilemma. IÓm happy to explain any questions or answer any questions that you
have, or explain anything that I testified to. The question you asked about Violet Hansen
or Violet HansenÓs comment on the site being PuÒunui, I offer that only as additional
support for your fatherÓs statement that the name of the area ar
property, historically, was PuÒu.
As far as Plan Approval, Plan Approval is a step that comes after an SMA permit. Plan
Approval is a review of plans thatÓs done within the Planning Department of
construction, except for things like single-family residences and agricultural buildings,
but any multi-family building comes in for Plan Approval. It do
hearing like this. It doesnÓt come before the Planning Commission. ItÓs done, there are a
couple of staff members in the Planning Department who are assigned to do Plan
Approvals, and they get a set of plans and they review it against, if thereÓs been an SMA
permit, they review it against the SMA permit to see that all the conditions of the permit
are met. If thereÓs not a SMA permit, there are still some thin
things that typically they are looking for in a Plan Approval, number of parking spaces
being correct, setbacks or the buildings being correct, thereÓs landscaping by CountyÓs
Rule 17, they look for that being correct. So thatÓs the stage that he was asking me
questions about.
M. ROY:I appreciated your statement in that case of the Violet Hansen. I
understood what you were doing. My problem is with not being able to find the date of
that public researches and trying to understand for our benefit. No further questions.
75
GIFFIN:Thank you. Members of this body, the hearings officers, starting
with you, Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I know this has been a concern
Commissioner Springer and she has voiced this concern a few times during our hearing
and it is also a concern of mine. And during your, I guess, opening comments, you talked
about various elements in the General Plan, and two of the eleme
the historical sites and the housing element, I believe, yeah. And the dilemma that, I
guess, I face and perhaps Commissioner Springer does is, how do
elements in arriving at a decision? And from your recommendation, it appears that
landowner rights or the housing element, economic element, trump
element or is given more weight in this application. Can you, I guess, maybe expound on
this?
YUEN:Well, I wouldnÓt say that. What I would say is this, that
the testimony has been to the effect that the site itself is so culturally significant that it
should not be built upon at all. And I think that if that is the direction that the
government is going, then, if the government agrees with that, a
Commission being part of the government, then itÓs really, in a situation like this, as I
said, where the site is being seen as a buffer for other State land as a use as a park. There
arenÓt any historic sites on it, on the site itself. If youÓre going to a completely no-build
alternative, and under the facts of this application, that the fair thing to do is for the
government to buy it rather than it being an absolute permit denial, and just walking away
from it like that.
As far as there being some balance within the context of doing something on the
property, this is the best balance that I can come up with.
TOGASHI:There would have been no, I guess, maybe factors and the
reasoning for a, which would have led to a no-build alternative in your mind? Was that a,
what factors would have given rise to perhaps an absolute denial of the application, in
your judgment? Rather than, it seems like itÓs a denial but, you know, but -. But would
there have been factors that would have led you to issue a recommendation for absolute
denial?
YUEN:If there hadnÓt been a way to screen off the property, then I would
have recommended a denial. You know, I mean, there are circumst
thereÓs definitely circumstances where IÓd recommend a denial. But, I mean, the
hypotheticals I would have would be a different application, I mean, a different site. If
somebody were applying to build on the, where the Keakealaniwahine, where the remains
of the complex are, for example, to build over those sites, I would recommend a denial.
ThereÓd be no way to avoid the destruction of those sites and then it would clearly, I think
the decision, the recommendation would at least clearly be for a denial. I think weÓre
trying, we are trying to work in the context of their being a private landowner whose
76
desires we would also respect, as well as the desires of people who want to preserve or
create an integrity to the overall site as far as the historic n
TOGASHI:So the fact that, you know, the proposed site was, I guess, in your
mind and given the testimony, part of the Hlualoa Royal Center, it was part and parcel
of this, you know, this big complex in question, yeah? It was a unifying, it was a
unifying parcel for the Keolonhihi and that was not an important part, I guess, in your
recommendation, as far as -?
YUEN:It would be different if this were the first, if, say, this were the only
piece of private property in the middle of this historic complex, and they were talking
about the first application to build something in it. However, we have Alii Drive, we
have a number of existing residences. I donÓt think, the prospects of those ever being
purchased, I think, are extremely poor. When you talk about buying property that has
been developed with peopleÓs houses on it, the likelihood of it ever being bought by the
State becomes very expensive, for one thing. And itÓs just very unlikely whether these
are, I think some of them are owner-occupied, others may be investor-occupied, but
youÓre dealing with entirely different calculations when you talk about buying out
peopleÓs houses, rather than raw land. So youÓre not dealing with an undisturbed area
that is just historic sites. YouÓre dealing with an area that is already, there is already
construction that is, that compromises the siteÓs integrity. On the Blasman site, youÓre
dealing with a place that has, that had a house from at least fr
a number, has had these other structures on it from about 1960.
TOGASHI:And the last question I have was with regard to your statement on
issues and itÓs really a follow-up question to what Ms. David asked regarding the noise
impact. And, basically, your statement of issue, No. 4, reads, the impact, Ðthe noise
impact from the adjacent Keakealaniwahine Complex.Ñ I was wondering that, if you
could address the impact created from the site in question, the proposed site in question,
on the neighboring Keakealaniwahine Complex. And I know this wa
some testimony about concerns from the condo, proposed condo its
YUEN:If the condo is built on the present configuration or anything like it,
there will be some noise heard by people who may be at Keakealaniwahine, things like
cars driving up to the condos, people getting out of cars, doors slamming, noises typical
of a residential area. As I testified a little bit earlier, I donÓt think that the idea of trying
to keep this, I donÓt think we can place much stress on trying to make this a very quiet
area because itÓs not that far from Alii Drive. You can certainly hear vehicles going
back-and-forth on Alii Drive. There are houses, you know, right now, thereÓs houses
right across the property line that, but even discounting those, there are other homes
along Alii Drive where they are a little bit farther away, but they may be 100 to 150 feet
away, and undoubtedly thereÓs some residential noise that comes out of those houses. ItÓs
just, itÓs a fact of life with the site.
77
And as far as, backing up on the, your other question on the significance of the site, these
kinds, these things are not going to go away. Other houses that are there on Alii Drive
are not going to go away.
TOGASHI:Right. But I guess there is, I guess, a criterion in the SMA permit
about cumulative adverse effects. And while, I guess, you canÓt change whatÓs presently
there, additional developments do create, you know, youÓre creating, youÓre adding to the
present impacts that are being produced currently.
YUEN:That will happen, yes.
TOGASHI:One last question, yeah. Can you speak about this Ðcompelling
public interestÑ in the SMA permit? ThereÓs this terminology used Ðcompelling public
interest.Ñ Can you expound on that as used in the SMA permit?
YUEN:I think that was, thatÓs in there to allow for construction of public
facilities such as wastewater treatment plants, harbors, airports and the like that may have
significant adverse environmental effects that are essential. In other words, you may
have a facility like a harbor, a place where when they pump the gas out of the ship itÓs
pumped into tanks. Those maybe in the SMA. There may be a sign
environmental effect from having a facility like that. But the SMA laws says that you
must mitigate it to the highest extent practical and then you can allow it if the adverse
effect of having that facility there is clearly outweighed by a compelling public interest.
TOGASHI:I see. Thank you for clarifying that. So the fact that there was
substantial public participation at our hearings and there was compelling public interest
on the part of the, on the public, that is not how itÓs used as defined in this permit, the fact
that there was ample compelling public interest?
YUEN:Yeah, it doesnÓt mean that the public is interested or there are lots
of people that come and testify. It means that the project itself can be allowed because
itÓs in the compelling public interest to have it; and that, IÓm not, thatÓs not an exhaustive
list of examples. But, I think, the kinds of things that they had in mind are shoreline
dependent, public or quasi-public facilities that have them. You know, you canÓt get
around the fact that they may have an adverse environmental effect, but there is a strong
reason for locating them within the SMA.
TOGASHI:Thank you very much.
SPRINGER:IÓd like to thank my fellow Commissioner for two of my few
questions.
GIFFIN:Please go ahead, Mrs. Springer.
SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Director, might you have had the discretion to
require an environmental impact statement for this project?
78
YUEN:Is this an open book test?
SPRINGER:It is an open book test.
YUEN:Give me a moment.
SPRINGER:IÓm looking at 9-7 of our rules.
YUEN:Give me a moment.
SPRINGER:Nine-10-B.
YUEN:Yes.
SPRINGER:Why did you not exercise that discretion?
YUEN:I think that the information in the application was roughly what
one would get out of an EIS.
SPRINGER:You mentioned, I think, earlier that PASH might not have been the
most applicable of the cases to cite, that Ka PaÒakai O Ka ÒAina may have been more in
play here. This is exactly the concern I think that was raised at Ka PaÒakai O Ka ÒAina
that a board, or a commission, in that case, was being asked to make a decision affecting
a property or practice without sufficient information having been brought forward to
them and, of course, circumstances were particularly different there. But I have that
same sense, that weÓve arrived at this place without being provided with sufficient
information for decision-making. I donÓt know that the information brought forward in
the format of this case constitutes a fully-developed and prepared environmental impact
statement, although tremendous amount of information has been br
large part due to the Intervenors. IÓm not sure about the propriety or the fairness of the
general public having to bear that burden of information before a body such as this. So
IÓm not sure that I agree that the information that was presented to us when we came into
this room was roughly what would have been in an EIS, particularly with regard to the
historic and cultural elements, given the proximity of this property to Kaluaokalani or its
inclusion in it. Certainly, there are any number of properties up and down Alii Drive
where those triggers would not have been raised. I think that the uniqueness of this
property by virtue of its placement inside of the Kaluaokalani property begs for greater
attention with regard to historic resources including archaeology and ethnography.
WeÓve had, Mr. Rechtman has come to speak with us, weÓve had tes
Roy, Kumu Takamine and Kanahele but we havenÓt had, thatÓs certainly not exhaustive
of ethnography. Can you respond to any of those concerns?
YUEN:IÓm not sure how you get any exhaustive ethnography review. If
they had done an EIS, it would have been circulated to many of the same people that got
the SMA application for comment, like SHPD and State Parks. And
79
they would make, they would make similar comments to what the co
ultimately made. As far as any other parties, that really depen
forward with it. So itÓs something that could have been done. I donÓt know how much
more we would have gotten. I understand, you know, the Commissioners or hearings
officers are dependent on people bringing things forward to them; the Department, we try
to bring forward information thatÓs relevant to your decision. I mean, we try to bring
things like the excerpts of the Ross Cordy book or other kinds of written information that
weÓre aware of. And, but there isnÓt, I know thereÓs not a perfect way of doing it or
giving more information.
IÓm also not sure whether, is there some information that tells you what is the right
decision here -. IÓm not sure, I think itÓs ultimately a matter of judgment, of valued
choices and not really, I donÓt think that weÓre going to find a map from 1861 or some
other piece of information that is going to tell us how we should decide this, we should
decide this matter.
SPRINGER:Thank you. I understand your last comment. With regard to, you
commented earlier on taking into consideration State Historic Preservation Office
comments. And so youÓd be expecting something further, something additional from
what has been submitted to us for our perusal?
YUEN:IÓm sorry IÓm not up to speed on the exact details of this but I think
what happened was Dr. Rechman did a survey, SHPD wrote back sayi
ought to look at testing certain areas.Ñ He did that and wrote them and told them that.
And then theyÓve written back something else saying, ÐWe think you need to do
something further.Ñ And I canÓt remember what exactly it was but we would put that in
as a condition, whatever it was in their latest letter. If this were going forward as a
recommendation for approval, we would put that in as a condition.
SPRINGER:Thank you. And then I understand that what they submitted and
whatÓs included in Exhibit E of the application is a recommendation or things for the
County to consider. And weÓve had some discussion about a greater setback from the
property line and the Applicant has made some adjustments in that regard. And thereÓs a
requirement of a landscaping plan, and we spent some time on tha
the restriction of any development to single-story construction that does not disallow
economic speculation on the part of the Applicant but it does reduce or conform with the
suggestions that come from SHPD. Can you make a comment on that
YUEN:My view is that if you can screen the property with vegetation, that
handles the reasons for wanting a lower profile to the buildings.
SPRINGER:Thank you. I donÓt have any more questions. Thank you
GIFFIN:Chris, I have a few questions. In your presentation, you referred to
that northwest wall that Pua Kanahele spoke of this morning. I was a little confused.
Because you said that and, see, you need to correct me, because I think you said, as you,
80
the wall really goes further north of the subject property and the further north you are and
if, in fact, you are on that northwest corner, the view of the project as proposed by the
Applicant will be blocked. Did I understand you correctly?
YUEN:More or less. I think if youÓre at the northwest corner of the
Pakiha, the wall at that corner, the wall does not block the view, but there is some
existing vegetation. The landscaping plan would have to incorporate a blockage of the
view in that direction. There is some existing, itÓs farther from that corner than it is from
the part of the wall that the hearings officers saw when they went on site. The part of the
wall that you saw is only 50 feet from the Blasman property line. But as you go to that
northwest corner, because the Blasman property doesnÓt extend that far, youÓre moving
away from the property. So youÓre starting to put some distance between you and the
Blasman property.
The wall in, the wall going toward, not all the way to the northwest corner, I think, but
going toward the northwest corner, the wall is currently overgrown with a bunch of night-
blooming cereus cactus and there is some other vegetation in that area. So, anyway,
directly makai of that northwest corner, itÓs State property, itÓs not Mr. BlasmanÓs
anymore. Then if you go, if youÓre at the northwest corner, IÓm going to point to that
here, thatÓs the Kailua side, makai corner, in this area, the north wall is quite high; and
somebody walking around the north wall, you donÓt see anything except the wall, itÓs so
big.
GIFFIN:Did you say that at that point itÓs about 11 feet high?
YUEN:In that part of the wall, yes. Yeah, itÓs really high and thick.
GIFFIN:Okay. In your language, when you were speaking of your
recommendation, you used the terms Ðcomplete and adequate,Ñ I thought synonymously.
Did you mean that to be synonymous?
YUEN:IÓd say itÓs not adequate unless itÓs complete. You know, there is
some testimony from Mr. Moore. I think that in any, if you have, what I would consider
an adequate visual screen, a perceptive person may see somewhere
the leaves that thereÓs a building on the other side. In other words, itÓs not 100 percent
opaque. But the screen that IÓm talking about would be one that, if you just casually look
up at the planting, youÓre not going, thatÓs what youÓre going to see, youÓre just going to
see the planting. ThatÓs what I, when I talk about a complete screen, thatÓs what I have in
mind.
GIFFIN:Turning back to the ApplicantÓs landscaping plan, you suggested
that the single row of trees along the boundary line coupled with another row of trees and
I thought you said two rows of trees, and I assumed you meant of the canopy level. Did
you mean that those two rows must be to promote complete blockag
boundary? Did you, were you saying that, were you suggesting that that would be the
81
only kind of landscaping that would be adequate for the kind of plan that you would call
complete?
YUEN:Yeah, the intent of it is to block views from the adjoining
property -.
GIFFIN:The historical site?
YUEN:Into the Blasman property.
GIFFIN:Okay. Then you even said that the current plan calls for another
row of trees but itÓs really right behind the structures, and you didnÓt think that that was
sufficient, that that, in fact, the two rows should be right next to each other along the
boundaries; and that, if they really wanted to they could, in fact, put up a wall or a fence,
I think, is what you said, along the back of the structures. Did I hear you correct?
YUEN:Close. Let me start with Mr. MooreÓs plan which does have, itÓs
not exactly two rows but two layers. He has a row along the boundary and then he has
some trees that are right up against the buildings. You can do it that way but itÓs a little,
you can do it that way but whatÓs hard about doing it that way is that, well, you need to -.
If you have a row, the road in between the two rows of trees, you need to prune that trees
so that they go over the road, and then you have to fill in underneath the trees. If you fill
in underneath trees with a wall, then youÓre looking, or a fence, 8 or 10 feet high, for
example, youÓre looking, then youÓre looking at the site and youÓre seeing this wall or
fence, okay? And, so, but you, and thatÓs a problem with, thatÓs one problem with doing
with one wall being on the property boundary and the other row being up against the
buildings.
The other, the problem with his, what he has drawn there is that you, when you have the
trees right up against, he has these trees that you see the branches are going over the
building, and rather than being in front of the building, because the branches go into the
building, actually. And the only way that works is if heÓs actually drawing something
thatÓs supposed to be going over the building. I think thatÓs what heÓs doing. And if
youÓre having a tree that is, you know, going to block a building, it has got to be a fair
size tree and it has got to be set backed from the building so that -. YouÓre not going to
prune it absolutely flush on the building side and have all of the trees canopy out on the
roadside.
The other way to do it is, you can have your buffer entirely along the property boundary.
It has got to be wider. If you have two rows of trees, if you have two rows of trees, what
I said is that the outside row, which is on the property boundary on the side of the State
side, can be allowed to grow down to the ground, you know, does
up because itÓs not bordering your road anymore, your fire access road. If you do that,
then you can, youÓve got a tree that also functions as a ground level planting. Then you
can block what, the residual view through the tree by having a wall on the makai side of
that planting or on the makai side of your next planting. And these are ways to do it but I
82
donÓt, you know, then you get into all these issues of whereÓs the road and, itÓs -. I canÓt
sit here and re-do the application that way. But thatÓs my concept of what would work
and then -. ThereÓs no question to me, I mean, that two layers of healthy, medium-sized
koa or milo trees would create a complete visual barrier, along with the ground level
planting.
GIFFIN:There was one part, I mean, there was one part of what yo
that I agreed with.
YUEN:Is that all? I had about nine things, I got to hit more th
GIFFIN:Before you spoke, the noise factor really bothered me because like
one of the IntervenorÓs witnesses, that hit home with me. And as you know where we
live in Hilo, we have a lot of plants around us, that aboretum is filled with plants and
trees. And, yet, I cannot see how noise could be mitigated with landscaping and, so, that
I agree with that itÓs a fact of life. I hear all of the activity on Kilauea Avenue, I hear
whatÓs going on at Wailoa State Park. I do hear, of course, airplanes going and coming
in.
YUEN:You need a, you can block sound with planting but you need
very, you need thick, you need like a couple hundred feet of planting.
GIFFIN:Yeah. And I regret that, I really regret that because I agreed with
her. I could go on. Mikahala?
M. ROY:There is an objection, at this time, vehemently. I would like to ask
for the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation again, at this time.
GIFFIN:Sure.
M. ROY:Because I certainly appreciate the members of the Commission
who have spoken this afternoon on the basis of where I stand after hearing his
recommendation to hear your comments, I greatly appreciate it. I am one of the public
who is taking this great effort to show whether we call it compelling interest. We bring
factors as to why, for the benefit of the Hawaiian people and for the carriage of honor to
this. This is why weÓre here. And to make the understanding in myself that after I hear
his argument that this is all all right but for trees to buffer this area when the total
testimony given has been adverse testimony to this application. I certainly appreciate
Commissioner TomichÓs recommendation for an EIS. I agree with h
does this presentation equal what could be derived in that process. Further, you have
people coming forward from, that would definitely come forward, Chris, in that EIS
process, no doubt. But to hear you say that that is not required here by just what is
volunteered before you today, it breaks my heart and it makes me tell you that I am
astounded at the recommendation that could be just based, in this case, denied only for
the effort of trees.
83
Another point that you spoke on, which you cannot even speak on, after all these kumu
come forward today to talk about the element of education and sacred practice, we
acknowledge that this, we do not have a center anywhere really that talks about the open
practice -.
GIFFIN:Mikahala -.
M. ROY:For the entire State.
GIFFIN:Mikahala, with much regret, IÓm going to have to ask you to stop.
The request is certainly well taken and itÓs something that I think we can do. Maybe, do
you want to hear the whole thing in its entirety?
M. ROY:I do want to hear his recommendation.
GIFFIN:And, Chris, are you willing to? I think itÓs a fair one only because
IÓd like to check my notes, too, and thereÓs a process that I would like to go through
before we meet as a body to make sure that my notes are accurate, and I think it would
serve as well. Mr. Togashi, are you in agreement?
TOGASHI:Yes.
GIFFIN:Maybe we donÓt need to have Ms. OÓToole read you the questions
but the content is something that I would appreciate. Mr. Vitousek?
VITOUSEK:A couple of things. One is, is this (microphone) working?
GIFFIN:It is.
VITOUSEK:IÓd like to ask couple more cross-examination questions.
GIFFIN:Yes, before she does that. Sure.
VITOUSEK:And then we have some more to talk about as well becaus
know, the Applicant wants to exercise its right to call rebuttal witnesses and, you know,
because we just got this recommendation and so we -.
GIFFIN:Yeah, I mean, all of us did and that, too, is well taken.
VITOUSEK:Yeah, so I think that we, you know, the Applicant did list the fact
that they may be calling rebuttal witnesses and I think that under Chapter 91 and the
rules, we -.
GIFFIN:Perfectly well taken. You donÓt have to justify it.
84
VITOUSEK:Okay. Thank you. But I still would like to ask, how do I do this?
I mean -.
GIFFIN:I want to go on.
VITOUSEK:Okay, fine.
GIFFIN:And if that is okay with the other parties, I would like to go on. I
think that while itÓs fresh, I would like to honor your request as well, and I seem to have
agreement from the other hearings officers. And I think though, procedurally, we should
hear from Mr. Vitousek first and then go into honoring your request as well.
M. ROY:About how long?
GIFFIN:I donÓt know. I donÓt think Mr. VitousekÓs questions, I donÓt what
they are but I donÓt think that theyÓre very long.
SPRINGER:Madam Chair?
GIFFIN:Ms. Springer?
SPRINGER:Just now while weÓre deciding what weÓre going to do, I, following
your questions, I have some more that IÓd like to ask. So, and so, ask and answer all of
the questions prior to hearing his recommendation?
GIFFIN:Well, had I known that the request was going to be made to have
the Director repeat, maybe some of my questions wouldnÓt have necessarily, you know, I
didnÓt need to ask them. But, do you think that some of your qu
answered by listening to his recommendation again?
SPRINGER:No.
GIFFIN:Okay, then, certainly, you may. Before you ask, I am goi
ask -. No, you, because weÓre in the body, this body, so with your indulgence, IÓm going
to ask Hannah to go first.
SPRINGER:And just for the record, it is Springer.
GIFFIN:Yeah. ThatÓs okay.
SPRINGER:ThatÓs okay. Yesterday, David Forman drew our attention to
National Register Bulletin 38. Does the, would the HawaiÒi County Planning Department
use that register bulletin in analyzing a property such as this given both the acceptance of
the so-called Kealonahihi Complex to the National Register of Hi
similar quality and thus eligibility of the Keakealaniwahine Complex to the National
Register of Historic Sites?
85
YUEN:IÓm not familiar with it. IÓm not familiar with it. It doesnÓt, I can
tell you that it doesnÓt directly apply. It may provide guidance for how one should look
at sites like this in general; but itÓs not a law that covers the decision on this Special
Permit.
SPRINGER:This property, by virtue of the various testimonies that weÓve
heard, is apparently an integral part of the complex in its entirety. IÓm not sure how we
then cannot apply a value to the criteria that are consistent with the National Register of
Historic Places to a parcel of property which is inside of a complex that is whole and that
is either on or eligible to register to the National Register of
YUEN:Well, Keakealaniwahine State property is not now on the National
Register. TheyÓre nominating it for the National Register. We
exhibit.
SPRINGER:But in earlier testimony, Dr. Rechman testified that eligibility was
tantamount to the same, having been accepted.
YUEN:No, I would expect that it will be placed on the National Register.
As a technical matter, though, your property, if your property is not, the Blasman
property is not on the National or State Registers. There are no controls that apply to the
property from the Blasman property from the fact that the State side where the, the
StateÓs property is on the State or National Register. If you have property, say, youÓre a
private owner and you have property thatÓs on, IÓm not familiar with the Federal Register.
I understand the State Register but let me just take the State Register. If you, right now,
okay, you have property thatÓs on the State Register of Historic Places and you decide
that, say itÓs an old, say, itÓs a building and you decide you want to tear it down. The
only thing you have to do is consult with the State, give them an opportunity. ThereÓs a
timeframe, you give them an opportunity to buy it. And once the consultation period is
over and if the State does not decide to buy it, you can tear your property down and do
whatever you want with it. ThereÓs not, thereÓs no more protection, neither of the
Register, thereÓs no more protection than that as a formal matter. Now, this is a, you
know, a State, Keolonhihi and Keakealaniwahine are State properties so thatÓs different.
But as far as it affecting what Blasman can do with his property, the fact that theyÓre on
the Register as a matter of, but, the adjoining, you know, itÓs significant and weÓre
analyzing here on this permit, what should he be allowed to do on the property -. ItÓs
significant to us as we analyze it that there is important property adjacent to it thatÓs on
the Register, but as a formal matter, as to what he can do with his property, the fact that
the adjoining property is on the Register does not make any difference.
SPRINGER:Even though, including by Dr. Rechman, thereÓs an under
that this property was included in an integral part of Kaluaokalani by virtue of it now
having a separate tax map key? Is that sort of what weÓre talking about because it has a
separate tax map key, there are different criteria?
86
YUEN:As a legal matter, itÓs a different piece of property. To put the
property, if somebody wanted to put Mr. BlasmanÓs property on the Register, I donÓt
think on the State Register that you can put it on involuntarily. So you canÓt, again, I
donÓt think you can put either a private or public property on the record, on the Register,
on the State Register, and I believe the Federal Register as well, against the wishes of the
landowner. So to say the adjacent property has the effect, being put on the Register is the
effect of putting his property in the Register is just not correct.
SPRINGER:Yesterday, one of the testifiers drew our attention to the Federal
Religious Freedom Act. Earlier you testified as to the American separation of church and
State. Does that Federal level of Religious Freedom Act, the Am
Freedom Act, have any bearing on your analysis?
YUEN:The interplay between, there are a number of U.S. Supreme C
cases dealing with this very topic and dealing with a topic of typically Native American
Religious Practices versus laws of general applicability. Let me take the case of a Native
American tribe that uses peyote, for example, and the people who prosecuted, the
practitioners were prosecuted by the U.S. Government. ItÓs a hard area of constitutional
law but the point, the only point that IÓm making in regard to this discussion is that I
donÓt think that the law allows a government agency to say to a private property owner
like Mr. Blasman that because people who follow oneÓs spiritual path do not want you,
because of their, because we want to enforce their spiritual beliefs, we will not let you
build on that piece of property. I think that we, I think that you can respect peopleÓs
spiritual expression under the framework of protection of cultural sites and cultural
practices. What the point I was wanting to make is that you canÓt, as a government,
enforce, youÓre going to get into this question of religious freedom and separation of
church and State if you put, if that is the reason, if itÓs someoneÓs essentially religious
beliefs are the reason for denying a permit to a private person that does not share those
beliefs.
SPRINGER:And, again, this is because thereÓs a separate tax map key for the
Blasman property and the properties of significance to Hawaiian religion of which this
property was once a part and which surround the property but they have separate tax map
keys now?
YUEN:What IÓm saying is, the point that I just made I think is not, is not
dependent upon the line thatÓs drawn by the tax map key. I mean, itÓs a fact that under
American Legal System, Mr. Blasman owns that piece of property i
also, a fact that the government has land use regulations that limit what he can do without
him getting certain permission. IÓm just saying that, and the reasons that the government
can use for denying that permission are contained in this case in the SMA law and that
there is a difficulty if you, if itÓs directly based upon someoneÓs religious beliefs, if the
reason for denying is directly based on someoneÓs religious beliefs. And I think if you,
let me give a couple of other examples. At one time in the U.S.
have laws that businesses couldnÓt be open on Sundays. Missionaries did this when they
came to HawaiÒi, you know, law, day of rest. I think most people all understand that
87
these are religiously based and that itÓs, and that say, to say that somebody who wants to
open his shop on Sunday that you canÓt do that because our religion says, itÓs an affront
to our religion for people to do business on Sunday, violates the separation of church and
State.
Now there used to have laws like this all over the country but they were just the -. People
used to justify them on the grounds of, well, we donÓt want people working seven days a
week and the day weÓre going to pick for businesses not to be open is Sunday. That, as a
legal matter that used to work because there was a, there was a State justification for it.
But I think now that people understand that thereÓs a religious motivation for it, itÓs not
right to say to someone who doesnÓt believe that itÓs wrong to work on Sunday, that you
canÓt have your business open on a Sunday because other people believe that. ThatÓs an
example of the kind of point that IÓm getting at. Again, itÓs not to say that the spiritual
beliefs or practices canÓt be respected, but they have to be placed under the framework of
culture, of cultural practices.
SPRINGER:My last I guess question, again, looking back to Ka PaÒakai O Ka
ÒAina, one of the things that was requested there, and was taken up by the Office of
Environmental Quality and their guidelines for environmental imp
preparation was that an analysis of a property and its value, in this case, to Hawaiian
culture and impacts to that cultural value not be limited to the tax map key, the property
bearing that tax map key be considered in the context of the Ahupuaa in which it is
located. Is that used by HawaiÒi County, that guideline?
YUEN:I think we always, in all the land use applications, we look at the
properties in the context of surrounding properties. You donÓt just look at the property
itself. And I think, you know, weÓve heard a great deal of testimony and considered the
surrounding properties and, so, on this application as we do for others, maybe more so for
this one.
SPRINGER:Did the Applicant satisfy that? Did Dr. RechtmanÓs wor
that, in your opinion?
YUEN:IÓd have to really go back and look at his report. But I do think
that he did a report that talked about the surrounding properties. He did not do any
archaeological work himself on any of the surrounding properties nor present any, I donÓt
think there are any maps of archaeological studies. He does reference studies done on
adjacent properties, he does reference Kealonahihi, Keakealaniwahine, land use patterns,
pre-contact Mahele, you know, in a section of his report. So he didnÓt just, certainly, his,
the actual field archaeology that he did, strictly, he went to the four corners of the site and
looked around, but he did discuss it in the context of a larger area.
SPRINGER:And even though that report lacked, it provided archaeological and
some archival information and certainly the references cited were not extensive in
addition to not citing Cordy, also the Kanahele work wasnÓt referred to, that there was,
88
that there were no interviews from either residents or perhaps practitioners, did that in
any way affect the CountyÓs evaluation and acceptance of this report?
YUEN:We, IÓve tried to have a standardized, one of the things I tried to
do is within the Ddepartment standardize what we expect of archaeological reports at the
time of application. One of the things that, one of the ways would be to, one of the ways
to satisfy would be to have an inventory survey. Another way to satisfy are, and this
application I think came in before I had sent out a memo on what we should be looking
for. However, on this application, one of the things that we, one of the things that would
satisfy it would be an archaeologistÓs report and request of a no-effect letter from SHPD.
If, typically a site, in an area that does not have historic sites, has been disturbed in the
past, grubbed, graded and the like, the landowner, either by himself or through the
archaeologist, can request whatÓs called the no-effect letter from SHPD, meaning no
effect on archeological sites. And in this case, he did, he submitted this report and
requested a no-effect letter. They said that you had to do this sub-surface testing before
they could give a no-effect letter. So he didnÓt have, he didnÓt actually have a no-effect
letter but he was close to getting it; and I didnÓt fault staff at all for accepting the
application with this report. You have to understand when applications come through,
theyÓre reviewed by staff on a relatively short timeframe as to whether theyÓre complete
or not. And they hired an archaeologist, he went out, he reported that the site had been
bulldozed in the past, based on his field examination and he wrote a letter to SHPD and,
essentially, they concurred, except that they wanted this limited sub-surface testing.
So, I mean, at the stage of the application, I think that there was enough to continue
processing the application. In terms of making a decision, weÓve, I want to have
presented to the Planning Commission with more information. If
IÓm not sure that we had before the Commission, if this had not gone to a Contested Case
and had gone right to the Commission to decide, I think we had information that the,
about the general significance of the surrounding area but not, nothing as detailed,
certainly, as weÓve received in this Contested Case.
SPRINGER:This is a just a flag for me that goes up, and IÓm looking at the July
5, 2002 letter from Dan Quinn, on page 2. The second paragraph on that page reads,
ÐThe SMA application does not address the significance of the subject parcels as part of
the Hlualoa Royal Center nor does it adequately address the impacts of the proposed
development on the significant cultural resource,Ñ and then it goes on to talk about sub-
surface testing. But as I read this sentence, it, to me it implies something more than sub-
surface testing. But I think IÓm pau for now. Thank you.
YUEN:I think from an archaeological, from an on-site point of view,
thatÓs what they wanted. From a standpoint of a more complete report, youÓre correct,
that they wanted something, they wanted some more analysis about, from, not from the
standpoint of what was on the site but from the cultural significance of the surrounding
area. ThatÓs their critique of the report.
89
SPRINGER:Thank you.
GIFFIN:Mikahala?
M. ROY:Just two points, as itÓs pertinent to what Mr. Yuen had just talked
about. Number one, with reference to these recommendations, the late hour and the
profuse information that has been given in this proceedings, just for awhile stops my
mind, so please forgive me a minute. ThereÓs so much to discuss
your equation of spirituality equating Sunday services to what has been presented today
in testimony, to Hawaiian spirituality, are two different things. And you demonstrate
your inability to render a judgment on the difference of what youÓve been presented with
today in the public arena.
The second thing is when a culture, another culture, in this case a western culture, decides
to give to, it is an exercise of discrimination when titles are given. The Royal Center in
Hlualoa -.
OÓTOOLE:Excuse me, Madam Chairman. Is there a question?
GIFFIN:Ms. OÓToole?
OÓTOOLE:Is there a question or is this testifying?
GIFFIN:No, I think all sheÓs doing is just making a statement. And then
when sheÓs through making her statement, I am going to call on M
promised.
M. ROY:Thank you, and IÓll make it short. In truth, again, for the record,
this goes lengthy; and part of the concern is because IÓm having to discuss with the
strength involved and for being, for trying to come back at, IÓm finding are inadequate
assessments and my frustration at being able to address the County for the materials, etc.
But the other point that I was trying to make is that the nomenclature, Royal Center, is
not the Hawaiian term for this area. And, again, itÓs a demonstration of a, in a form,
discrimination to have from the State Historic Preservation and, again, people who are
not of Hawaiian culture to come forward and put in reports the terms that may or may not
be used later and that are being used by the Planning Director and the -.
GIFFIN:Mikahala.
M. ROY:Profuse demonstration of vital information that -.
GIFFIN:Mikahala.
90
M. ROY:Came from people that fed the State in the first place. It is not the
State that has moved to take care of this place. ItÓs the people, again, they are the ones
that have moved forward here, Chris.
GIFFIN:Mikahala, thank you.
OÓTOOLE:Could I ask a question?
GIFFIN:Excuse me. You know, the glare, I canÓt really see you. IÓm sorry,
Pat. Yes, you may.
OÓTOOLE:Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on the Plan Appro
process. I think thereÓs some suggestion that why isnÓt the Commission just saying,
ÐLook at it in Plan Approval.Ñ One of the purposes of Plan Approval, it says, ÐTo insure
pertinent conditions of previous approvals related to the development have been
implemented.Ñ Would that be, for example, the SMA permit, would be the previous
approval?
YUEN:Yes.
OÓTOOLE:And is the Plan Approval process a process where there i
public input or public hearing?
YUEN:Not normally, no.
OÓTOOLE:As far as the screening condition that you talked about, do you
envision circumstances where it might require significant differences than what has been
brought up or considered here?
YUEN:You mean as far as the site plan?
OÓTOOLE:Yeah.
YUEN:If thatÓs what it takes, then that would be my recommendation that
the site plan be altered. Like I say, I donÓt, I canÓt re-adjust their site plan on my own.
OÓTOOLE:So is it your recommendation that itÓs more appropriate for the
Commission to deal with this issue than to say that it should be taken up in Plan
Approval?
YUEN:Maybe itÓs a good time for me to say, no. My recommendatio
like something requested?
OÓTOOLE:Well -.
YUEN:Because otherwise, itÓs the easiest way answer the question.
91
OÓTOOLE:Okay.
YUEN:My recommendation is a recommendation for denial based on t
ApplicantÓs failure to mitigate the adverse visual effects of their proposed development.
GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek, as I promised awhile ago.
VITOUSEK:So is it your testimony, then, that there is a, that th
currently proposed involves a significant adverse impact?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And what is that impact? Specifically, what is that adverse impact,
and, please, if you wish, you can refer to the definition of Ðsignificant adverse impactÑ
from Rule 9. When I say, specifically, I mean with -.
YUEN:Starting with not referring to Rule 9. Significant adverse impact is
the effect on the, on people using the Keakealaniwahine site and seeing a building that
changes the, that will effect their enjoyment of the site as a r
by having a modern intrusion within view.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So letÓs just take that, for example. Did you hear any
testimony during this hearing from anyone who said that they used the Keakealani site in
a way that they were adversely impacted by any buildings on the Blasman property?
YUEN:Currently?
VITOUSEK:IÓm sorry. The question was, did you hear, you were he
Contested Case. Did anyone testify that they were adversely impacted by the existing
viewplane from the Keakealaniwahine site to the structures on the Blasman property?
YUEN:I think there was testimony to that effect by Pua Kanahele. I donÓt
remember her exact words but I think she said something about not going around to the
front because there are those houses there.
VITOUSEK:Okay, but I donÓt think, I mean, is that the same as saying that
there was an adverse visual impact? Did she, I donÓt think she explained what it was
about the presence of the houses that prevented her from going around the front. Did
she? So youÓre just making an assumption that it was an adverse visual impact?
YUEN:I donÓt think she used the term Ðvisual impactÑ or Ðvisual effect.Ñ I
am assuming that thatÓs part of what she did, part of what she didnÓt like about going
around to the front of the property.
92
VITOUSEK:Okay, so backing up, then, she said that she takes a group of
students once a year to the Keakealaniwahine site. And was there any other testimony
from anyone who said that they went to the site and went to an area where they may
experience an adverse visual impact?
YUEN:Not that I can recall.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So, when you say adverse visual impact, youÒre talking
about a hypothetical potential future adverse impact when someone might go to that site
sometime in the future. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes. For the most part, yes.
VITOUSEK Okay. And, so, on what basis are you assuming that th
change in a way that people will start to go there as opposed to the last, you know, as
opposed to all the previous testimony that has been offered in the hearing that no one
does go there except Ms. KanaheleÓs testimony?
YUEN:Well, as far as Keakealaniwahine, I think the site has been
property for only five years. It has not, neither, and itÓs true that neither it or Keolonhihi
has been developed as a public park or for any kind of, where people can go and visit,
and feel that thereÓs a convenient way for them to do that. But I do expect that there
would be something like that in the future.
VITOUSEK:Yeah, but, you know, this is, youÓre recommending a denial of an
application based on a significant impact. So what my cross-examination is getting at or
hoping to get at is, you know, trying to be specific as to what evidence youÓre using to
base your finding that there is a significant adverse impact. I mean, like on who, you
know, on whom is and is, what evidence is there that there has been a significant adverse
impact on anyone?
YUEN:I donÓt know that there is, as far as what the use of the property is
right now, I donÓt know that there is a good way of determining how many people go,
where they go, and I donÓt know that weÓve garnered all the people that might go to the
site and enjoy it. There certainly has been, not just, I should say there have certainly been
testimony by others besides Pua Kanahele that having buildings there will in some way
spoil what is there at the Keakealaniwahine site and, specifically, that looking at
buildings from the site would spoil that experience. I think that Mr. Castelli testified to
something similar but I donÓt know that we can, first of all, I donÓt know that we can take
it that because nobody came in here and testified that nobody would have this experience.
I think, generally, if I, I donÓt think IÓm just making this up that, and I think, now that IÓm
recalling other testimony, David Roy and his written testimony talked about that if you,
talked about other cultural sites and if you, that you donÓt want to have intrusions of
buildings, modern buildings, on these cultural sites. I think generally what IÓm trying to
do here is recognize the fact that if you have, you go to a historic site, you go to a site
thatÓs meant, thatÓs a remnant of the distant past, whether youÓre looking at it in its, as a
93
site or whether itÓs restored, the experience that you have in looking at that and
connecting with that aspect of the past is compromised and diminished if you look up
from there at a modern building next to it. That is the, and thatÓs the significant adverse
effect that IÓm, that I see from this project unless we do something about it.
VITOUSEK:Okay, but in terms of the evidence on the record, Mr. Yuen, what
evidence is there on the record that people go to that position where they could see it?
And thatÓs, you know, you did state that, if my recollection is consistent with yours, that
Ms. Kanahele said that once a year she takes the class to the north side of the wall but
doesnÓt go around the other side. So IÓm just wondering what evidence youÓre basing
your conclusion that there would be a significant impact on people who, from seeing a
building.
YUEN:On the present use, weÓre talking about just what has been testified
to and what IÓve stated. As to future use of the site, I think over time as the, I think
people will be interested in going and seeing the site. How much, itÓs a pretty significant
site. There are lot of factors that determine visitation to historic sites. But it is clearly a
very significant historic site. And I think, itÓd be a matter of public interest to, for people
to go see it at times in the future; and I think it will be used that way in the future.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, as I read the criteria for, as it would oppose to
cultural sites, it would be a significant adverse effect, would be Ðan irrevocable
commitment to loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resource, including but not
limited to historic sites,Ñ IÓm quoting from Rule 9-10.H, Significant Criteria. Is that -?
YUEN:ThatÓs right.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And in what way would building a, building on the
Blasman lot involve an irrevocable loss or destruction of a natural or cultural resource?
Because, I mean, irrevocable means you destroy the cultural resource, does it not?
YUEN:Well, I think the cultural resource includes, if youÓre talking about
Keakealaniwahine as a cultural resource, it does include the setting, it doesnÓt just include
the walls itself but it does go beyond that. And the building, although I suppose it could
be torn down some way, I think within the context of irrevocable in Rule 9, building,
having putting the building up is an irrevocable commitment.
VITOUSEK:Oh, isnÓt that really a reference, the irrevocable commitment is the
destruction of the historic site? In other words, if a building is built which destroys the
historic site, thatÓs an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of a natural or
cultural resource, isnÓt that correct? It uses the word Ðirrevocable,Ñ does it not?
YUEN:ThatÓs one example. But I think that the construction of a building
close to a significant historic site that marred the setting, then the context of a site is also
an irrevocable commitment that causes a loss of a cultural resource.
94
VITOUSEK:But didnÓt you testify earlier that if the State felt there was a
compelling State interest in the building not be there, it can condemn the building and the
land and remove it?
YUEN:In, IÓm sorry -.
VITOUSEK:If the State or a governmental authority determined that the
presence of the building caused a significant adverse, sufficiently significant adverse
impact that it impairs the cultural site, it could condemn the land and tear down the
building. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:As a possibility in the future.
VITOUSEK:Yes, it would then revoke the impact on the cultural site?
YUEN:ThatÓs a possibility. But I do think that the construction of a, you
know, the construction of the building thatÓs meant to be there for a long time within the
meaning of this rule is an irrevocable commitment.
VITOUSEK:But I think, I mean, I guess the question is, this section talks about
irrevocable commitment by loss or destruction of a historic site
the General Plan or other adopted plan. Is that correct?
YUEN:ThatÓs what it says.
VITOUSEK:Yeah. And this proposed structure would not adversely impact the
viewplane outlined in the General Plan or another adopted plan. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:I think when you read that to me, you left out the Ðincluding but
not limited toÑ part -.
VITOUSEK:Right.
YUEN:So, and Keolonhihi is in the General Plan. But, at any rate, thatÓs,
the viewplanes listed in the General Plan is just one way of this, of one of the problems
thatÓs described in this section. And, you know, on irrevocable commitment, if you had,
like take a viewplane, you know, if somebody were building, putting up a building in a
scenic viewplane in the SMA thatÓs identified in the General Plan, I would say that thatÓs
a substantial adverse effect. Now you might argue putting up the building is not an
irrevocable commitment because somebody, you can tear down the b
think that thatÓs what this means. I think that tearing up the building is an irrevocable
commitment in a context of this rule.
VITOUSEK:Yeah, I appreciate that. That wasnÓt my point, Mr. Yuen, I
appreciate it. My point was that I think you testified earlier that you were satisfied by
Mr. TerryÓs visual impact assessment that this proposed structure did not pose an adverse
95
visual effect, you know, generally in the SMA, that it was specific to this site, specific to
the view from the Keakealaniwahine site.
YUEN:Right. The problem is the views of the building from
Keakealaniwahine site. The problem is, Mr. TerryÓs analysis of viewplanes, generally, I
think is correct that there isnÓt an open viewplane between the two structures at present,
nor does stopping this building from going up affect that fact.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So, the point is then that that aspect of viewplane is not a
significant adverse effect? What IÓm trying to, that is what IÓm trying to identify is trying
to be as specific as possible as to in what way you consider the proposed structure to be,
to present a significant adverse effect.
YUEN:ItÓs the, the adverse visual effect of a person who is at the structure
and whoÓs at Keakealaniwahine and seeing a modern structure in the context of this
historic site. Secondarily, itÓs the possible effect on people who may be doing some kind
of cultural practice and having people look at them.
VITOUSEK:Okay. So, I guess, what IÓm trying to do is distinguish between the
different objectives and policies in this Special Management Area. Because there are the
cultural aspects, right? And there are the viewplane aspects, right? And, so, is this based
on cultural, or viewplane, or a combination of both, or for what?
YUEN:Well, itÓs cultural.
VITOUSEK:ItÓs cultural.
YUEN:It has affected the views on a cultural experience.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, then, with respect to the objectives, policies and
guidelines, again, of the Special Management Area, specifically, which guidelines are
involved in helping you evaluate whether this is a significant adverse effect?
YUEN:Guidelines in 205A-26 (2)(A), (B) and (C).
VITOUSEK:Okay, so, 2(A), that 2(A) assumes that thereÓs, I mean, is there
substantial adverse environmental and ecological effect. And you have concluded that
there is such an adverse effect, right?
YUEN:If you donÓt do something to screen the buildings from view
VITOUSEK:Okay. So thatÓs, and then -. What, I guess, what I was trying to
get at, Mr. Yuen, in the Objectives, Guidelines and Polices, whi
relate to cultural uses are you relying on to determine that there has a substantial adverse
effect?
96
YUEN:TheyÓre not so specific to say that the construction of a building, of
a modern building next to a historic site is, it doesnÓt say that in so many words in 205A,
that the construction of a modern building next to a historic site compromises the
experience and the integrity of that historic site. But thatÓs, thatÓs both a judgment call,
itÓs based on, I think, the experience that many people have had and experience that
people have testified to, certainly experience that I personally have had. It falls, but that
judgment that that does compromise a site falls within the kind of thing thatÓs in 205A-2
on the Objectives and Policies where the law speaks of supporting State goals for the
protection, restoration, interpretation and display of historic resources. One of the StateÓs
goals for the display of historic resources at Keakealaniwahine, as evidenced by the letter
from the State Parks, is to have a buffer from the buildings and to display, and to have
this historic site in a context that seems more consistent with the old things that are there,
rather than looking up and seeing a big modern building right there.
VITOUSEK:Well, Mr. Yuen, do you have an opinion as to how the State has
been pursuing its goals for the protection, restoration, interpretation and display of the
historic resources at Keakealani or Keolonhihi?
YUEN:Well, I think that there have been a lot of criticism on Keolonhihi.
I havenÓt followed that specifically myself. I just have the in
presented. I think what IÓve heard, there should be work done to, that there are exotic
trees that are de-stabilizing the structures at Keolonhihi and that there should be work
done on that right away.
On Keakealaniwahine, I havenÓt been through the whole site. IÓve been around the
Pakiha. Pakiha, I wouldnÓt say that there are a lot of trees on it. There are a lot of small
bushes around it, but I donÓt think the walls are currently, I donÓt think that thereÓs a big
problem with vegetation de-stabilizing the walls of that structure right now. The night
blooming cereus could be a problem, thatÓs on one end of it. There are obvious places
where the walls have slumped down from whatever, and I donÓt know. There are obvious
places like that but they donÓt, I wouldnÓt say that the vegetation is a primary cause of it.
I mean, a long answer to your question. I donÓt, you know, to critique what someone else
does, you have to walk, try to walk in their moccasins a little bit; and I havenÓt been able,
I canÓt say that I can do that.
VITOUSEK:I appreciate that but the question really is if youÓre going to
recommend that Mr. Blasman, you know, that his application to build a condominium
project on his property which is permitted by zoning and by the General Plan should be
denied because he is not doing enough to support the State goals for restoration of a site
that the State has done absolutely nothing to restore, it sort of sets the scale in terms of
what a reasonable condition might be on an SMA permit. And so t
you evaluate, how did you evaluate the StateÓs own efforts to me
restoration, protection and interpretation when you decide the reasonableness of a
proposed condition on a proposed development in the SMA.
YUEN:What we have before us and, what we have before us is
97
Mr. BlasmanÓs application. We donÓt have the head of State Parks here to grill as to what
theyÓre doing and what theyÓre not doing. We have to deal with this application. And
my, one of the guidelines that I have in dealing with this application is to support the
StateÓs goals for the display and protection of historic sites. But the most appropriate
way to do this, balancing your clientÓs interests against the very significant interest and
very real interest that have been presented here in opposition to it, in my view, is through
a visual screen.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, the legal foundation for your recommendation of
this condition is 205A-2(c)(2)(C), to support the StateÓs goals for protection, etc., etc.?
YUEN:ThatÓs, in addition to the other ones that IÓve mentioned, yes.
VITOUSEK:Is there anything else? Any other aspect to the statute that
provides support for that proposed condition, or provide support
significant adverse effect?
YUEN:ThereÓs 205-A(2)(b)(2)(A), where it talks, Historic Resources.
VITOUSEK:And, so, that would be protecting, preserving or restoring those
natural made-made historic and prehistoric resources? Again, thatÓs a reference to, not
the resources themselves but the view from the resources as it may be back by the
building if someone went there?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:So that, so instead of the matter of like protecting that resource that
the historic structure itself from, you know, being destroyed, itÓs a matter of protecting a
potential future view from that site. Is that right?
YUEN:ThatÓs the objective of the condition, yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, so, then getting back, I think you cited 205A-26, (A),
(B) and (C), was that correct, (2) (A), (B) and (C)?
M. ROY:Madam Chair, with no disrespect and IÓm sorry to interrup
Mr. Vitousek just for a moment. If, IÓm sensing that I have to defend and watch that
Mr. Vitousek is diminishing by any means the claim, you know, in other words, for
diminishing the right, Mr. YuenÓs decision based on culture. IÓm at a loss Òcause of the
hour, and IÓm tired, and I need to listen to everything heÓs talking about. But IÓm missing
a lot, so, IÓm sorry. I donÓt mean to interrupt you because you
hear me. But IÓm just tired and I, itÓs the hour -.
GIFFIN:I understand. Mr. Vitousek, how much longer do you think
questioning of Mr. Yuen will take?
98
VITOUSEK:Sorry, itÓs hard to say. IÓd say itÓs going to be a few minutes,
definitely. I think itÓs going to be a few minutes.
GIFFIN:Okay. I have about twenty minutes to six. Do you think youÓll be
through by six?
VITOUSEK:Probably.
GIFFIN:Okay. With your indulgence, IÓd like to ask that we at least finish
him, I mean, I donÓt mean that, literally, listen to you completely. And then at 6 oÓclock
we can go ahead and make a decision as to what weÓre going to do for tomorrow. And I
understand that, I mean, IÓm tired, too. So why donÓt you go ah
VITOUSEK:Okay. Mr. Yuen, I think I was asking about, you said you relied
on 205A-26 (2)(A). And so what we got to is that based on the provisions that you cited
and the facts you cited, you felt thereÓs a substantial adverse environmental or ecological
effect. Is that correct, or potential?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And there was a proposed, there were proposed measures,
measures proposed by the Applicant to mitigate that effect. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And thereÓs testimony by Mr. Moore, the landscape architect, and
he offered a landscape plan which was intended, among other thin
adverse effect of the visual impact of the project if viewed from the Keakealaniwahine
area. IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:I think that was the purpose, yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And letÓs say this, the proposed plan that Mr. Moore
offered, and itÓs up there on Exhibit 17, and you had the opportunity personally to
question Mr. Moore about, was put into effect. If you were standing at
Keakealaniwahine and at the Pakiha, what do you think you would see of these
buildings? I mean, we understand that Mr. Moore proposed a landscape plan that had
canopy trees at three levels of trees, canopy trees, the secondary level, and a ground level
and in, essentially, two rows from the boundary to the structures themselves. IsnÓt that
correct?
YUEN:ThatÓs really a hard question to answer because I donÓt know what
kinds of plants heÓs going to use, at what level he plans to trim or prune the upper level
plants or what the ultimate heights are that heÓs expecting the plants to reach, although I
do think that the ones, he thinks that the ones along the building itself are going to grow
over the top of the building. I canÓt, IÓm not sure what I would expect to see. I think that
99
most likely with that plan, you would see, you would see a 35-foot high building partially
obscured by trees and vegetation.
VITOUSEK:And, so, I think you did question and I think you did testify as to
the estimates of the heights of some of the trees. I think you said 25 to 35 feet on some of
the trees and I think you estimated the heights of the intermediate trees and some of the
types of trees although -.
GIFFIN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:And, so, do you think that you can testify that you can say what the
visual impact would be after the proposed mitigation measures? ÒCause I think thatÓs
what is required by 205A-26(2)(A), is it not? I mean, donÓt you have to make an
assessment of whether the adverse effect could be minimized to t
YUEN:No. I think that the Applicant has to present a project that does not
have a substantial adverse effect. If the Applicant presents a project that does have a
substantial adverse effect, then you get into this section of the law that says, then, you
must mitigate that to the maximum extent possible; and you can only allow it if the
adverse effect is clearly outweighed by health, safety or compelling public interest. So
because your project, your clientÓs project would not qualify under those clauses, your
client has to present a project that does not have a substantial adverse environmental or
ecological effect.
VITOUSEK:Well, I think, I mean, in order to make the recommendat
did, wouldnÓt you have had to conclude that there was a substantial adverse effect and
that the Applicant did not propose appropriate mitigation measur
have had to made a determination as to the accuracy of the mitig
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And so I was just wondering under what basis you
I mean, I was wondering on what basis in reviewing the plan how you determined that it
did not minimize the adverse effect.
YUEN:Mr. Moore testified that he would not make a complete visual
screen and he wasnÓt trying to, for that matter.
VITOUSEK:I think he testified that he could if, that it could be done based on
the site plan as well, right?
YUEN:But he offered no specifics as to how that would be done.
VITOUSEK:So the substantial adverse effect, as mitigated, would
someone theoretically went to the Keakealawahine complex and looked back at the site at
some point in the future, they would see some portions of the building as opposed, I
100
mean, isnÓt that correct? I mean, thatÓs what youÓre saying, with this proposed mitigation
plan, you still think they might see some portions of the building. Is that correct?
YUEN:Yeah, I think with what heÓs showing as his landscape plan, you
would see; and I think thatÓs what he testified to.
VITOUSEK:And, so, but you said that even if it were done as a complete
screen, you think an observant person could see parts of the building. Is that correct?
YUEN:I think if somebody were, realistically, if someone were really
trying to look through, even a pretty thorough planting screen, they might see something
back there but theyÓd have to be really trying to do that.
VITOUSEK:So IÓm just trying to, what IÓm trying to get at, Mr. Yuen, IÓm
trying to get at what it is about this significant adverse effect and what is it that it boils
down to someone could see parts of the building on a casual glance versus see parts of
the building if they really looked at it. And thatÓs the difference between recommending
approval or disapproval of the SMA permit?
YUEN:The issue is how is the obtrusiveness of the structure to someoneÓs
experience or some of the cultural experience that someone might have in looking at
these ancient historic sites. And that if you look across and you see, oh, thereÓs up, a
building, thereÓs a condominium right there, a modern building, that does detract
significantly from the experience of the site.
VITOUSEK:Okay. And, again, the, just so I am clear, the concern that
someone, a cultural practitioner would be on the site and looking back at this structure
and have an adverse, that would have an adverse impact on, that finding is based on what
evidence, on what evidence on the record?
YUEN:I think thatÓs based on common sense. As IÓm concerned, it
based on my own experience. And I think there is testimony on the record by people like
David Roy and Pua Kanahele about the fact that as a proper way of treating historic sites,
you try to keep the area clear of other construction or more modern construction that
takes away from the experience. This is just, Pua Kanahele talked about you go to Greek
monuments, they build around the, they donÓt build right up to the monuments. They
leave the monuments by themselves where people can enjoy them. David Roy wrote
about you donÓt allow buildings right up to, and he listed some of the classic historic sites
both in HawaiÒi and elsewhere in the world. I do, I think it is a matter of common sense
and common experience that if you go to a historic site, that the experience of that site is
diminished if you turn around and, say, thereÓs a McDonaldÓs 50 feet away or thereÓs a
modern building directly in sight as compared to, in this case, looking up and seeing
some vegetation thatÓs characteristic of Hawaiian, of what would be seen during the time
of Hawaiian occupation.
101
VITOUSEK:And I guess the question, then, is, in terms of proposing a
condition on a development permit, conditions have to be reasona
some reasonable relationship to the governmental objective youÓre trying to accomplish?
IsnÓt that correct?
YUEN:ThatÓs right.
VITOUSEK:And, so, in assessing the reasonableness of the condition, a
condition that would require someone to not build on or to build around the historical site
seems reasonable, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:A condition that would say that a building can only be a certain
distance from a valued historical site also seems to be a reasonable condition, isnÓt that
correct?
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:WouldnÓt there be a question as to whether a condition that says
that a structure has to be built so that it cannot be visible from a historical site
approximately 90 feet away, there would be additional questions as to whether thatÓs
reasonable, isnÓt it?
YUEN:You can -.
VITOUSEK:I mean, isnÓt that a different analysis? IsnÓt that a higher standard,
Mr. Yuen?
YUEN:No, I donÓt know. Your, the economic impact on your client
going to, itÓll be easier to mitigate the visual effects if your client went to a one-story
building. ItÓd be easier to mitigate the effects if your client, if the condition were the
client had to build 100 feet from property line. But the economic impact on your client
would be considerably worse. There is a reasonable relationship between this condition
and the goal that IÓm, that weÓre trying to achieve here; and itÓs also one that has less of
an economic effect on your client than other ways of accomplishi
VITOUSEK:Well, yeah, but Mr. Yuen, youÓre aware that if this SMA permit is
denied, by law, he cannot apply again for two years, isnÓt that correct?
YUEN:With changed circumstances and consent of the Director, you
within the lesser.
VITOUSEK:Right. Consent with, in the DirectorÓs discretion, right, you can
apply again.
102
YUEN:Yes.
VITOUSEK:But you are aware that the law says that if itÓs denied, he cannot
apply again for two years?
YUEN:ThatÓs what it says.
VITOUSEK:And so the issue is that a denial based on a condition that is offered
on the last day of several months of a Contested Case Hearing and where itÓs
extraordinarily difficult to address such a condition and where the, that does have a
severe adverse economic impact on the landowner if he cannot re-apply? If itÓs denied
on that basis and he cannot re-apply for a permit for two years, wouldnÓt you agree that
that is substantial adverse economic impact?
YUEN:That would be it, yes. If youÓre talking, if youÓre making a
complaint about process, IÓve tried to explain the best I can why, both to you and to
Mikahala Roy, why the recommendation is coming at this time. I think if you will look
back at all of the, well, in Contested Cases with hearings officers, the Planning DirectorÓs
recommendation has either arrived, has often arrived after the close of testimony in a
Contested Case Hearing; and weÓre offering it before.
VITOUSEK:But, that may be so, Mr. Yuen. But when the recommenda
based on common sense and on the DirectorÓs personal experience and it is a unique
condition, as you said IÓm not aware of any, I think your testimony is youÓre not aware of
any other permit where such a condition has been proposed, it might be more appropriate
to give notice of that earlier so that it can be addressed by all parties.
YUEN:Well, I do believe I gave notice that the landscaping was extremely
important, that I expected to see some kind of visual screen, and that the landscaping
plans that had been presented were not adequate.
GIFFIN:I donÓt mean to interrupt but I do because both of you have brought
this up as a criticism of what Mr. Yuen has done today. And I have to say that, in all
fairness to him, on the Planning Commission level, I was one of
Commissioners that really told the Director do not come forward with your
recommendation before we have a chance to hear everything. Beca
recommendation would be adversely affecting our decision. And so, in defense of him, I
have to put that on the record because he was doing that on numerous occasions and I did
come out and criticize him for that and asked him to please donÓ
VITOUSEK:Sure. If I may declare my objection -. My objection is that the
DirectorÓs recommendation is a denial unless there is a different landscape plan presented
at a time when there is no opportunity to present a different landscape plan; and, so, it is
essentially saying -. What bothers me about it is itÓs a way for the Planning Director to
appear very reasonable in recommending a denial where the Applicant cannot address the
issue and has to either take a denial or withdraw the application, and then have their
103
property so that it can be acquired by the County for a price thatÓs determined by the fact
that thereÓs, that he doesnÓt have a permit to develop it. And so itÓs a situation where it
looks very nice on the outside, but the actual effect of it is, you know, coming up with a
condition that appears reasonable but itÓs unobtainable, you know. Because this is the
last witness in a long Contested Case, and the implication of it is either heÓs going have to
withdraw or be denied, and withdraw and go through the whole application process or be
denied, because he is not getting an opportunity to submit the proposed, the revision to
the landscape plan. And itÓs just not any landscaping plan. ItÓs saying it has to be very
specific, it has to be just -.
GIFFIN:Yeah.
VITOUSEK:I mean, and the difference between what was submitted a
heÓs talking about is really pretty major and technical, you know. And so it has a huge
impact.
GIFFIN:Well, this is why I questioned it when I did. IÓm sorry to interrupt.
Did you want to say anything more because it is 6 oÓclock.
VITOUSEK:Well, I think we ought to figure out what weÓre going to do here.
We do want to call rebuttal witness.
GIFFIN:Yeah, and I was going to say that in answer to what you were
saying earlier, your request for calling the rebuttal witness, of course, is granted. But
then that brings us to a scheduling situation for tomorrow. And what IÓm going to
suggest, and I need to have consensus from the other hearings officers, is that instead of
starting tomorrow morning at 9 oÓclock with our close and final arguments -. Are you
able to get your rebuttal witness here tomorrow morning by 9 oÓclock?
VITOUSEK:I can try to get a rebuttal witness here but in terms of, itÓs -. Yeah,
I can probably have rebuttal witness here at nine; but itÓs not really an adequate
opportunity to prepare, to address it, the new proposed condition.
GIFFIN:Yeah, I hear you. However, knowing that thatÓs what weÓre going
to be faced with in the morning, and then weÓre going to need the opportunity to cross-
examine, that IÓm going to request that all parties prepare tomorrow to give closing oral
arguments and, as we said earlier, they need to be 30 minutes. You donÓt need to use
30 minutes but they cannot exceed 30 minutes. And if the Applicant chooses to then do a
rebuttal at the end, part of his 30 minutes must be dedicated to that time. But please
come tomorrow prepared; and weÓll start just as soon as we can when weÓre through the
cross of the rebuttal witness presented by the Applicant.
VITOUSEK:Well, I just, are we through with the cross-examining of Mr. Yuen?
104
GIFFIN:No. If you people would still like to continue that tomorrow, we
may; and then perhaps have your witness here by 10; and then thatÓll give the Intervenors
a chance to go ahead and cross Chris Yuen additionally.
And it has been my experience that with, whether itÓs Planning Commission or Contested
Case, that once it gets after
6 oÓclock, the quality diminishes. I mean, I can remember being at Contested Case
Hearings till 2 oÓclock in the morning and the quality significantly diminished.
So, with your indulgence, what I would like to do then is recess until tomorrow morning
at 9 oÓclock. The schedule will be that we will then continue o
Applicant will then have ready his rebuttal witness. You will have the opportunity to
cross, as we will. But please come tomorrow prepared with your oral closing arguments.
All right. With that, we are in recess till tomorrow morning. Thank you very much.
The discussion ended at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
A T T E S T:
Geraldine M. Giffin, Chairperson
Planning Commission
105