COM 1051.022 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

P K 0 '@' P,0&?2 x6322 X11117/98 10 09 AM ' 1'3 THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL'S COMMITTEE ON PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ON BILL 332 AND BILL 332 DRAFT 2 RE: KA'UPULEHU DEVELOPMENT'S CHANGE OF ZONE TESTIMONY OF KA PA'AKAI 0 KA `AINA NOVEMBER 17, 1998 Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the above. As prior testimony has stated, Ka Pa akai O Ka 'Aina is a coalition initially comprised of three organizations. They are Ka Lahui Hawaii The Kona Hawaiian Civic Club and Protect Kohanaiki 'Ghana. These three organizations came together for the first time when each submitted Amicus Curiae Briefs to the Supreme Court to support Angel Pilago in his appeal of the County Planning Commission's denial of standing with respect to access and gathering rights. It was our joint position that these rights are guaranteed by the laws of this state and our state Constitution and that impacts proposed developments would have upon these rights must be considered. While the Kohanaiki PASH/PILAGO case was pending in the Supreme Court, Ka upulehu Developments filed a petition for boundary amendment at Ka'upulehu further north of Kohanaiki. After being granted intervenor standing at the LUC proceedings, the three organizations launched an extensive evidentiary case and introduced testimonies of various cultural expert witnesses focused primarily upon the following: 1 That native Hawaiian rights to access, gather and engage in traditional/customary practices are guaranteed and protected by state law and the Constitution of our state, 2. That prior to the Kohanaiki PASH/PILAGO case these rights were never considered in the land use decision-making process when by law, agencies are required to consider impacts proposed development may have upon these rights', 3 Intervenor witnesses and cultural experts during the LUC hearings proved that Applicant's Final EIS did not satisfy Applicant's duty and obligation to adequately identify all cultural /historical resources and thus could not possibly address impacts its proposed development would have upon yet unidentified cultural and historical resources- The FEIS merely listed items which were archaeological in nature. 4 Applicants IRMP on file with the Council although very comprehensive, it is not an "assessment' document and by Applicants own testimony at the Planning Commission contested case hearing the IRMP is a catalog of data without a judgment as to significance. /05-/,22 File No. ZN G 44 W. TO, Pre fir. - 1