HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-14 Testimony from Cindy FreitasFrom:cindy Freitas
To:Planning LPC Testimony
Subject:Leeward Planning commission Meeting Nov 20, 2025
Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 6:11:31 PM
Attachments:nov 20 25 leeward planning oppose.docx
Aloha,Can I please testify on this Old Business 1 and 2.
Mahalo
November 14, 2025
Cindy Freitas
makainanqi@gmail.com
County of HI
Leeward Planning Commission
Meeting Date: Nov. 20, 2025
Time: 9:30 a.m.
LPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov
RE: Testimony for Old Business 1 & 2
He Mele komo a he mele aloha no na kupuna o ke au i hala Aloha mai kakou.
Aloha,
My name is Cindy Freitas and I’m a Native Hawaiian descended of the native inhabitants of Hawai’i
prior to 1778 and born and raised in Hawai’i.
I am also a practitioner who still practice the cultural traditional customary practices that was instill in
me by my grandparents at a young age from mauka (MOUNTAIN TO SEA) to makai in many areas.
I submit this testimony in stron opposition to Items 1 and 2 for the following reasons:
1. FAILURE TO ANALYZE SEA LEVEL RISE — HRS 205A Violation
The Recommendation Report omits mandatory evaluation of sea level rise, despite the parcel’s
oceanfront location.
Under HRS §205A-2(c)(1)(B), the Commission must:
“Reduce exposure to coastal hazards, including sea level rise.”
The report does not mention:
SLR Exposure Area (SLR-XA)
3.2 ft SLR planning benchmark
Increased storm surge or run-up
Structural erosion risks
Case Law
Umberger (2014) – Agencies must consider scientific evidence and future impacts.
Kauaʻi Springs (2012) – Agency decisions must be supported by substantial evidence.
There is zero evidence in the report.
2. NO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS — HAR §11-200.1 VIOLATION
HAR §11-200.1-13 requires evaluation of:
Cumulative impacts
Secondary impacts
Long-term impacts
The Recommendation Report merely asserts that the neighborhood is “developed.”
Case Law
Sierra Club v. DOT (2007) – Cumulative impacts must be examined.
Waikiki Malia (1993) – SMA approvals require complete environmental review.
The lack of cumulative analysis is a legal flaw requiring denial or deferral.
3. NO KA PAʻAKAI ANALYSIS — Constitutional Violation
The Recommendation Report fails the mandatory three-part Ka Paʻakai test, offering only
conclusory statements:
“It is not known whether cultural practices occur.”
This violates:
Case Law
Ka Paʻakai o Ka ʻĀina (2000) – Agencies must:
1. Identify cultural resources & practices,
2. Assess impacts,
3. Mitigate with specific measures.
PASH (1995) – Native Hawaiian rights must be actively protected.
The report does not:
Identify cultural practices
Consult lineal descendants
Evaluate impacts
Provide mitigation
This is a constitutional defect.
4. INCOMPLETE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW — Kaleikini Violation
SHPD required archaeological monitoring because of potential historic properties.
But construction is allowed before the study is complete.
Case Law
Kaleikini v. Yoshioka (2012) – Cannot approve construction first and study later.
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou (2015) – Agencies must complete cultural review before approval.
Approving now violates both decisions.
5. NO WATER QUALITY OR MARINE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Despite proximity to coral reef, the report:
Provides no turbidity study
No reef impact study
No runoff modeling
No cumulative nearshore pollution analysis
Violates:
HRS §205A-2(c)(4) – Protect coastal ecosystems
Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui – Agencies must assess pollution pathways.
6. NO VISUAL IMPACT OR VIEWPLANE ANALYSIS
Claiming scenic resources are protected without:
• Photo simulations
• View plane analysis
• Height impact visuals
Violates:
• HRS §205A-2(3)(A) – Protect scenic open space.
7. NO CERTIFIED SHORELINE STUDY
Report references a 40-ft setback but:
No certified shoreline date is included
No erosion study
No proof of compliance with HRS §205A-42
This is legally insufficient to justify approval.
REQUEST
For these reasons, I respectfully request the Commission to:
1. DENY Item 1 (PL-SMA-2025-000080)
2. DENY OR DEFER Item 2 (SMA 03-000007) until:
SLR analysis is completed
Ka Paʻakai findings are conducted
Cumulative, cultural, historic, and marine impact studies are done
Certified shoreline and erosion studies are submitted
Mahalo,
_____/s/_____
Cindy Freitas