HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1051.022 1996-1998
P K 0 '@' P,0&?2 x6322 X11117/98 10 09 AM ' 1'3
THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL'S COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
PUBLIC HEARING ON BILL 332 AND BILL 332 DRAFT 2
RE: KA'UPULEHU DEVELOPMENT'S CHANGE OF ZONE
TESTIMONY OF KA PA'AKAI 0 KA `AINA
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the above. As
prior testimony has stated, Ka Pa akai O Ka 'Aina is a coalition initially comprised of
three organizations. They are Ka Lahui Hawaii The Kona Hawaiian Civic Club and
Protect Kohanaiki 'Ghana.
These three organizations came together for the first time when each submitted
Amicus Curiae Briefs to the Supreme Court to support Angel Pilago in his appeal of
the County Planning Commission's denial of standing with respect to access and
gathering rights. It was our joint position that these rights are guaranteed by the laws
of this state and our state Constitution and that impacts proposed developments would
have upon these rights must be considered. While the Kohanaiki PASH/PILAGO case
was pending in the Supreme Court, Ka upulehu Developments filed a petition for
boundary amendment at Ka'upulehu further north of Kohanaiki.
After being granted intervenor standing at the LUC proceedings, the three
organizations launched an extensive evidentiary case and introduced testimonies of
various cultural expert witnesses focused primarily upon the following:
1 That native Hawaiian rights to access, gather and engage in
traditional/customary practices are guaranteed and protected by state law and the
Constitution of our state,
2. That prior to the Kohanaiki PASH/PILAGO case these rights were never
considered in the land use decision-making process when by law, agencies are
required to consider impacts proposed development may have upon these rights',
3 Intervenor witnesses and cultural experts during the LUC hearings proved that
Applicant's Final EIS did not satisfy Applicant's duty and obligation to adequately
identify all cultural /historical resources and thus could not possibly address impacts its
proposed development would have upon yet unidentified cultural and historical
resources- The FEIS merely listed items which were archaeological in nature.
4 Applicants IRMP on file with the Council although very comprehensive, it is not
an "assessment' document and by Applicants own testimony at the Planning
Commission contested case hearing the IRMP is a catalog of data without a judgment
as to significance. /05-/,22
File No. ZN G 44
W. TO, Pre fir.
-
1
P K 0. ZY 402-925-5.22 7[11/17/98 10 09 AM
5 That cultural resources and traditional practices described in the IRMP were
"selective It excluded cultural resources and traditional practices that were testified to
exist but which Ka'upulehu Developments have chosen not to include. The cultural
resources and traditional practices have been limited to the predetermined
"subzones' . None of the cultural resources and traditional practices occurring or
located outside of these "subzones' have been mentioned or acknowledged.
Absent methods or criteria by which potential impacts upon cultural resources
can be measured and assessed, the cumulative impacts of a development of this
magnitude upon cultural /historic resources will have a devastating effect upon the
cultural geography, history and traditions of the people of Hawai'I island to the further
deterioration of the true Spirit of Aloha which lives and can only survive through the
culture of the Hawaiian people and their association and connection with things
"Hawaiian and practices which are Hawaiian"
Until such mechanisms are in place, to go forward on a case-by-case basis will
further complicate and create an obstruction in processing future Applications before
governmental agencies, to the detriment of the native Hawaiian community, the
general public, landowners and developers.
However, at the council level, a zoning ordinance can actually be the driving
force on the subject, as the requisite SMA permit must implement and be consistent
with the General Plan and zonino ordinances, all of which are the product of the
council's legislative powers. The current bill allows the executive agency to be the
driving force instead. If the council take the initiative, it may need to spend more time
and effort to develop its own approach, whether it be by an IRMP or other device or
mechanism Additionally, if the council does take the lead to definie the extent of
cultural/historic resources, traditional practices and values that exist in the area and
the requisite protective and mitigative measures by legislation, it may very well satisfy
the statutory and constitutional demands.
In the interest of fairness, and to be certain that all relevant issues are properly
addressed prior to granting a change of zone it would seem appropriate, since the
council is the final decision-making body in this case, that the matter be deferred to
allow committee members the time to assess in their own minds the critical issues now
before them.
Vahalo for your consideration of our concerns with regard to this very important
and highly sensitive issue.
KA PA'AKAI O KA'AINA
Valle P David (322-9146)
Karen Eoff (325-6175)