2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

as they affected important Hawaiian cultural concerns. Dec. of Alan T. Murakami, Para. 44. Furthermore,they clarified for the first time the importance of following prescribed processes mandated by legislative action,which were previously being ignored by both government bodies and private developers without restraint. Id. 6. Prior to judgment in this action,the County reviewed development proposals without considering the proposed project in its entirety for purposes of determining whether it had jurisdiction to approve uses on lands classified as Agricultural based on the size of the project involved, contrary to HRS Chapter 205. Dec. of Alan T. Murakami, Para. 33. 10. Generally, the State and the County abandoned their trust duties to protect the Alaloa and the burial sites on the Hokulia property, and the traditional and customary rights associated with those historic and cultural properties. Id. at Paras. 7-12. 11. In Phase III of the trial,the court found that the County abdicated its responsibility to enforce the land use laws. The court recognized that, "absent a court order, Oceanside will proceed with construction of its agricultural subdivision contrary to state land use requirements,making a prohibitory inunction necessary,"and"the County Planning Director will continue to grant approvals pursuant to the Development Agreement and contrary to state land use requirements." 19. All three phases of the litigation resulted in decisions that benefit the general public and future generations. Hawai`i's residents,both present and future,benefitted directly and indirectly by the protection of the natural resources, as well as the protection of historic and cultural properties established by the court. Exh"-I to Dec. of A. Murakami, Dec. ofDavianna Pomaika'i McGregor. Furthermore, the people statewide benefit when the state constitution and laws pertaining to the state's natural resources are enforced by the state and county governments. 7. . . . Plaintiffs actions in all three phases of trial vindicated important public policies of a constitutional nature sufficient to meet the first prong under the PAG doctrine. Id. at 1315 n. 8 8. The second prong of the test for application of the PAG doctrine looks at whether it was necessary for Plaintiffs to bring the action at issue, and the magnitude of the burden placed on Plaintiffs for bringing that action. . . .Plaintiffs in this case were the sole representatives of the vindicated public interest. The government in the instant case completely abdicated its duty to protect the Alaloa, the burial sites, as well as its duty to enforce the state land use laws. The court therefore finds that the second prong of the PAG doctrine has been met. 9. The"significant benefit"or the third prong under the PAG doctrine, need not be tangible or concrete but may be recognized from the effectuation of a fundamental constitutional or statutory policy. . . . Similar to the Whole case, 25