Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-04 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Lillie Makaila Opposition Testimony From: Lillie Makaila To: WPCtestimony Subject: Testimony Against the SMA Application by Black Sand Beach LLC Date: Monday,March 4,2024 4:05:39 PM Attachments: Testimony-Black Sand Beach LLC-SMA Application-March 7,2024.pdf Aloha, Please accept the attached PDF document as testimony for this upcoming meeting of the Windward Planning Commission, and please forward the testimony to the Commissioners so that they may view it prior to the meeting on Thursday March 7, 2024. Mahalo nui for your time and assistance! Lillie Makaila Testimony RE: Black Sand Beach LLC Application for an SMA Windward Planning Commission March 7, 2024 Aloha nui Commissioners, I first mahalo each of you for taking on this kuleana as a Planning Commissioner for Windward Hawaii. I know that this is on your personal time, and that you are not compensated for your time at the Planning Commission meetings, nor for your time to prepare for the Planning Commission meetings. I am grateful to you for your service. Secondly, I mahalo you folks for your time and consideration of this testimony that I have prepared and submitted for your review. I submit testimony today as a kanaka Hawaii with kupuna who are buried in Punalu`u, and other ahupua`a throughout Ka`u. By trade, I also am a trained professional planner who received my graduate degree from UH Manoa in urban &regional planning, and am intimately familiar with the preparation of SMA permit applications, environmental disclosure documents, cultural impacts assessments, etc. I have read all491 pages of this application and I base my testimony on my personal and professional knowledge and experience. Your decision today will have huge and long-lasting impacts on the people of Ka`u,the lineal and cultural descendants of Wailau and Punalu`u, and most importantly the pristine `aina which is the subject of this application. I am hopeful that this testimony, and the others you receive,will compel you to see the situation as I do, and to vote against granting an SMA permit.Therefore, I ask that you vote Vole to granting this permit. I will articulate a variety of reasons, but for brevity I would like to begin with one major reason: according to HRS Chapter 205-26(2)(a),this application must demonstrate that the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect,except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interests.This application does not,and therefore you must NOT grant this permit. This application clearly shows that this project will have clear and measurable adverse impacts and that there is no clear public health, safety or otherwise compelling public interest that this project fulfills.You will hear the overwhelming majority of the testimony of the people of Ka`u telling you folks that they do not find this proposed project to be of benefit to the public interests of Ka`u. Retail, a handful of low-level service jobs and more housing for non-residents does not serve the public interest. Because of this, according to the guidelines articulated in HRS Chapter 205 specific to Special Management Areas,you cannot in good conscience grant this permit. On the County of Hawaii Planning Department website, regarding Special Management Areas,the County says this: (https://www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/resources/special-management-area- sma) The Special Management Area, or SMA, is the area of the island that is in close proximity to the shoreline. In establishing the SMA in 1975, the Hawaii state legislature found that Page 1 of 4 Makaila Testimony RE: Black Sand Beach LLC Application for an SMA Windward Planning Commission March 7, 2024 "it is the state policy to preserve,protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawai`i," and,therefore,that "special controls on developments within an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management options, and to ensure that adequate access, by dedication or other means, to public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is provided."(Hawai`i Revised Statutes, Chapter205A, Partll) Please ensure that all of the power that you have on this Commission is utilized to make decisions that take into account the long-term impacts on people and places, and that as a priority,you choose the health of the`aina and that you listen to the voices of the people of the place, not the opinions of those trying to make some more money off the land. I am shocked at the Planning Director's Report which recommends the approval of this application and the granting of the SMA permit.As a planner, I cannot see how the Planning Director or any trained planner could review this application and recommend approval. I especially challenge the request for an exemption from the shoreline survey.The Planning Director's report states that this project does not require an environmental assessment based on the 13 triggers in HRS Chapter 343-5. Trigger#3 is the following: 3)Any proposed use or development within the shoreline area as defined in Section 205A- 41, HRS. The proposed development does include proposed uses along the shoreline.Without an updated shoreline surveyto firmly establish the bounds of the shoreline and the shoreline setback,the applicant cannot claim that the proposed uses are in fact located outside of the shoreline setback area. If some of the proposed uses are in fact found to be within the shoreline area,that would trigger the preparation of an environmental assessment. It is my professional opinion that it is NOT clear that this proposed project does not require an environmental assessment as the bounds of the shoreline are currently outdated and therefore unknown. For this reason as well, I ask that this Planning Commission does not approve this application. I include below a bulleted list of additional reasons whythis application for a permit is inappropriate and should be denied for the record. • This propertywas purchased in the early2000s bythe landowner, Eva Liu,who created Black Sand Beach LLC. I thinkthat the name of her entity clearly articulates her main goal and purpose in Ka`u:to make money off of her investment at Black Sand Beach. This application document is persuasively written to soften this for the ears of the community and decision-makers, but it does not remove the ultimate goal and purpose of Ms. Liu's Page 2 of 4 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 Makaila Testimony RE: Black Sand Beach LLC Application for an SMA Windward Planning Commission March 7, 2024 report titled "Water-chemistry data collected in and near Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Hawaii, 2012-2014" provided scientific evidence of the linkage between groundwater and surface water. Report linked here: https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20l4ll73. Increased facilities and visitors will require additional restrooms, with the corresponding wastewater infrastructure.All of these changes will have adverse effects on the sensitive shoreline environment. • The cultural impact assessment does an excellent job at articulatingthe abundance of cultural and historic sites found throughout the area. These sites will be adversely impacted if this permit is granted by the Commission. The cultural impact assessment also demonstrates that much of this 433-acre parcel was lived on by kupuna historically.Their house lots and garden lots are here. Their burial places are here. Most house lots include burial places for the`ohana on them,which would be disturbed during grading and grubbing. The cultural resources and traditional&customary practices outlined in this report clearly are still practiced by lineal descendants and live on today.This proposed development threatens the future of these cherished resources, and thereby this application should not be granted a permit. • Article XII, section VII of the State Constitution speaks to traditional and customary practices.The State of Hawaii, and its Boards and Commissions are legally responsible to ensure the protection of traditional and customary practices of the native people of Hawaii made actionable by the requirement to complete the Ka Pa`akai Framework analysis. A thorough Ka Pa`akai Framework analysis is needed to identify traditional and customary practices and native rights exercised in the vicinity of the proposed development and to clearly articulate how adverse impacts to these rights will be mitigated.A clear and thorough Ka Pa`akai Framework Analysis has not be included in the submittal of this application for a permit. It has not been referenced in any part of the application or the appendices.And, it likely has not been completed.As a Commission in the State of Hawaii, you have an obligation to ensure the fulfillment of Article XII, Section VII, and this application does not do so. And legally, this Commission can be held liable for approval of development without the fulfillment of the Ka Pa`akai Framework. It is my hope that this testimony is compelling enough to each of the Commissioners that you will not grant a permit for this proposed development. Please stand with the kanaka of Ka`u in your decision-making and do not approve this application. Mahalo a nui! Ola ka `aina, Lillie Makaila lillie.makaila@gmail.com Page 4 of 4