2024-03-04 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Lillie Makaila Opposition Testimony

Home

Makaila Testimony RE: Black Sand Beach LLC Application for an SMA Windward Planning Commission March 7, 2024 investment, revenue generation.A pathwaythe landowner seems intent on regardless of the potential adverse impacts.The idea that the community should be grateful that the landowner is open to a "more scaled down" resort than previously proposed developments is offensive and inappropriate.A resort is a resort.A resort is vastly different than open space or agricultural uses. Open space and agriculture should be the zoning on these lands as they are the most appropriate uses that would provide benefit for the public interests. • This application document opens crafting a narrative that Ms. Liu, in her part-time residence over all these months/years in Colony I, has established strong connections to this`aina, understands kuleana, and has learned the needs and the desires of the community of Punalu`u, and of Ka`u in general. She even shares three messages that have been made"abundantly clear"to her, messages that supposedly guide her in this application and proposed development.These messages and guidelines are rather INTANGIBLE and IMMEASUREABLE, and how they are implemented in this proposed project is unclear.Their inclusion in this document make the proposed development sound more palatable, but they do nothing to actually lessen the adverse impacts from developing on this valuable, and sensitive land. These guidelines are irrelevant when looking at the long list of adverse impacts disclosed in the technical studies included in this application. If Ms. Liu had heard what the community was telling her, or if she were to read over the Cultural Impact Assessment, she would have understood that any proposed resort development is unwelcome. • The previous development of the Sea Mountain Resort was a huge error from a time when aggressive and environmentally destructive development was prevalent, and that resort was also a huge business failure. It actively displaced native plants and animals, destroyed cultural sites, disturbed iwi kupuna, and caused adverse impacts to the environment. It did not fulfill any of the promises that were made for improved economy and life in Ka`u, and this application follows suit. This application proposes another development in the same location that will likely do the same, adversely impact the place and people. Even in this "scaled-down" proposal,the maps clearly show the abundance of cultural and historic sites located in and around the project area.The maps clearly show the proximity of the proposed development to the shoreline and sensitive coastal resources. The proposed mitigation measures are not enough to fully protect the valuable and abundant cultural and ecological resources of this place. • The biological study clearly shows the presence of native flora and fauna on the property. The study offers some suggested mitigation measures to lessen the impacts on these native plants and animals, but it cannot prevent the adverse effects. It can only hope to lessen them.This study does not take into account the coastal and marine resources, our limu, our sea animals, etc. If we were to look at the cumulative impacts on the land and sea,there would be even more extensive adverse impacts.There will be increased water use, pumping more water from the groundwater wells.This will impact surface water resources,which are prominent along the shoreline of this area of Punalu`u.The USGS Page 3 of 4