D. Chang 48 hours Testimony 05.31.23

Home

May 31, 2023 To:Windward and Leeward Planning Commission Members From: Deborah L. Chang, kulaiwi@outlook.com SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Planning Commission Rule 9-11 Special Management Area Use Permit Procedures (b)Application (4)Archaeological Resources I urge the Joint Windward and Leeward Planning Commissioners to oppose this proposed amendment of Commission Rule 9-11(b)(4).These are my reasons: • First, it doesn't appear that this amendment to Commission Rule 9-11(b)(4) is in response to any changes contained in Act 16. It would not be an amendment bringing Commission Rule 9 into conformance with Act 16. • The justification for the amendment seems to be procedural:to clarify a change in practice for submittal of information by the Planning Department to SHPD. However,the amendment goes further to actually change the content of those submittals. • The proposed amendment is to "update and bring clarity"to the SMA Use Permit Application. To accomplish that, the amendment proposes to delete clearly identified requirements in favor of a vague, open-to-interpretation "written description and plot plan showing any known historic, archaeological, and cultural resources on the property." Will this open the way to abbreviated archaeological surveys and cultural impact assessments? • This proposed change gives ample discretion (and the appearance of subjectivity)to the Planning Department to judge the adequacy of archaeological and cultural information submitted with the SMA application.This could be exposing the Department to legal challenges and the applicants to costly delays. • Consider the recent Land Use Commission denial of a request for a time extension by RCFC Kaloko Heights. In contrast,the Planning Department agreed with the time extension request. While there were a number of reasons for the denial, many questions were raised by the LUC regarding the Ka Pa'akai o ka 'Aina Hawai'i Supreme Court decision re:the State and Counties' responsibility toward protection of Native Hawaiian rights and customs. Clearly, adequate archaeological and cultural assessments are essential, legally required, and likely to be key, especially in areas where there is evidence of early Native Hawaiian settlement. In closing,the Special Management Area encompasses coastal areas where the early Native Hawaiians commonly settled. It is prudent to strengthen requirements for archaeological inventory surveys and cultural impact assessments in SMA Permit Applications, rather than relaxing them. Please oppose the proposed amendment to Commission Rule 9-11(b)(4),which does not appear to be needed or justified. Mahalo for your consideration of my concerns. Me ka pono, Deborah