My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Petitioner ʻIewe Hanau O Ka Ainaʻs Reply in Support of its First Amended Petition
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2024
>
2024-05-06 Windward Special Meeting
>
(PL-CCH-2024-024) 'Iewe Hanau O Ka 'Aina
>
Petitioner ʻIewe Hanau O Ka Ainaʻs Reply in Support of its First Amended Petition
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/3/2024 11:26:33 AM
Creation date
5/3/2024 12:00:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Plan Doc Template
Document Date
5/3/2024
Description
ʻIewe Hanau O Ka Ainaʻs Reply Intervention
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Second, it ignores the planning commission's Rule 4-6(b)(5), which explicitly admits as <br /> parties "Persons who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands <br /> prior to 1778, who practice those rights which are customarily and traditionally exercised for <br /> subsistence, cultural or religious purposes." The supreme court specifically held that native <br /> Hawaiians who have exercised traditional and customary practices have an interest in a <br /> proceeding for the approval of an SMA permit that is clearly distinguishable from that of the <br /> general public. Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Com'n, 79 Hawai'i <br /> 425, 434, 903 P.2d 1246, 1255 (1995). Nohea Ka`awa, a member of`Iewe Hanau o Ka `Rina <br /> testified to you back in March about her cultural connection to the area. She, and other members <br /> of `Iewe Hanau o Ka `Rina engage in cultural practices in the area and cares deeply about the <br /> protection of iwi. Iwi and traditional and customary practices would be adversely affected by this <br /> proj ect. <br /> Third, Black Sand Beach LLC ignores the planning commission's Rule 4-6(b)(4), which <br /> allows the intervention of parties who are threatened with injury by the proposed project. In <br /> Cmty. Associations of Hualalai, Inc. v. Leeward Planning Comm'n, 150 Hawaii 241, 249, 500 <br /> P.3d 426, 434 (2021), the supreme court noted that residents who faced injuries, including noise <br /> and negative aesthetic effects from a nearby development had interests that were clearly <br /> distinguishable from that of the general public, and had a right to a contested case hearing. See <br /> also Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383, 388, 652 P.2d 1130, 1134 (1982). The proposed <br /> project jeopardizes water quality. Attached is a document filed with the Public Utilities <br /> Commission that documents that"no new sewer connections [are] allowed until [the] facility is <br /> upgraded or rerated." Exhibit A at 5. While it can sort of handle existing capacity, there is no <br /> evidence that it can deal with any more sewage. The wastewater treatment plant is full of broken <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.