2024-03-03 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Kalena Blakemore Opposition Testimony

Home

From: Kalena Blakemore To: WPCtestimonv Cc: Plannina Internet Mail;Galimba,Michelle M. Subject: Oppose Punalu'u Village Written Testimony 3.7.2024 WPC Meeting Date: Sunday,March 3,2024 5:36:47 PM Kalena K. Blakemore 19-4080 Wright Road PO Box 181 Volcano, Hawaii 96785 Written Testimony for submission- March 7, 2024, 9 am, Windward Planning Commission- I, Kalena K. Blakemore, Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Island Burial Council Commissioner-Vice- Chairperson, Puna, vehemently oppose the County Planning Director, Zendo Kern's, Punalu`u Development SMA permit approval for the proposed Punalu`u Village by Black Sand Beach, LLC. The integrity of our community and the natural and cultural resources of Ka`u will suffer immeasurable loss from the impacts of this shallow shortsighted proposed development. This endeavor of commercial activities and short term residential accommodations will serve only the Black Sand Beach LLC. What few job opportunities afforded from the project will not compensate for the damage to our sacred cultural sites, fragile ecosystems and loss for the Ka`u families right to traditional and cultural practices. Tourist impacts have exceeded appropriate capacity yesterday and today, therefore, why would you approve of the SMA permit for the future of tomorrow? Zendo Kern, you asked to hear from the community regarding this project. We are here voicing our opposition. Please implement the Ka Pa`akai Analysis Framework as a legal tool to uphold our cultural, traditional, and spiritual beliefs and connections to this `aina. On Sept. 11, 2000, the Hawai`i State Supreme Court decided on Ka Pa`akai O Ka `Aina vs. Land Use Commission, State ofHawai`i related to the Ka`upulehu development in North Kona. The court overruled the Land Use Commission's (LUC) decision to grant the developer's petition to reclassify approximately 1,000 acres of land from conservation to urban as it failed to"preserve and protect any gathering and access rights of native Hawaiians." The court established a three-pronged framework for assessing Native Hawaiian constitutionally protected rights and further held that the state has an obligation to protect those rights and may not transfer its duties to a third party. The court concluded that: "1) The state and its agencies are obligated to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of native Hawaiians to the extent feasible; 2) Agencies are obligated to make an assessment, independent of the developer or applicant, of the impacts on customary and traditional practices of Native Hawaiians; and 3) The independent assessment must include three factors known as the `Ka Pa`akai' framework."