2003-07-28 TBLASMAN (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and infrastructures, it is always, emphasis in the original, inconsistent to permit the practice of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights on such property. IsnÓt that correct? YUEN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And yet you are limiting Mr. BlasmanÓs use of his property to protect exercise of customary and traditional rights on an adjoining property, isnÓt that correct? YUEN:Well, yes. And, because Chapter 205A specifically talks about protection of cultural resources; and in the SMA process, we always have to consider impacts on neighboring properties in granting or denying particular SMA permits. So in the interest of native Hawaiians and others who may come to the Keakealaniwahine site in having a view of the site thatÓs free from the obtrusion of a modern building is a consideration that is properly before us in this, in this application. And the Planning Commission can impose conditions intended to safeguard that interest. VITOUSEK:Do you feel that the terms, relative to preservation of cultural rights in the SMA, are in any way affected by the definition and delineation of those rights in PASH, and Ka PaÒakai, and Hanapi? YUEN:Well, I think that those cases are useful in knowing, in providing some guide to analyzing what native, what are native Hawaiian practices that may be protected because of specifics that are brought up in those cases, and recognized or not recognized by the court or by the government agency involved. So I think that -. VITOUSEK:So if thereÓs a, if thereÓs a claim of a native Hawaiian traditional and customary right to, as part of, practice at a historical site, to not be upset by activities on an adjoining property, and if that adjoining property is a fully developed property and is not burden by the requirement of protecting native Hawaiian rights, then wouldnÓt that pose a limitation on what the Planning Commission could do in its interpretation and application of the protection of cultural rights provisions under 205A? YUEN:No. VITOUSEK:So you feel that, itÓs your position that, that even if PASH and Ka PaÒakai and Hanapi say that there is no right of the government to limit the use of the Blasman property to preserve and protect the native Hawaiian customary and tradition, that you could require that under, you could nonetheless require limitations on the property to preserve native Hawaiian rights under Chapter 205A? YUEN:Absolutely, absolutely. Where there is a historic site under, on BlasmanÓs property, and there were already houses there as it stands and he wanted to develop a condominium, under Chapter 205A, we could require the protection and preservation of that historic site. ThatÓs routinely done based on, based on Chapter 205A. 21