2024-03-04 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Elsa Dedman Opposition Testimony

Home

1. The SMA are utilizing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from 1988 and Draft EIS from 2006 which are respectively 35 and 17 years old. The existing application needs to be withdrawn in its entirety and a new Supplemental EIS (SEIS) that includes current conditions as they exist should be completed. The Draft EIS dated 2006 was never incorporated; therefore, does not legally exist. These are the critical issues that require further evaluation prior to a new SEIS. • Exhibit#1: Unite Here v. City and County of Honolulu dated 2010: Unite Here!, 120 Hawaii at 472, 209 P.3d at 1286 (Nakamura, J ., dissenting) (emphasis added). Indeed, ignoring the implicit time condition dictated by the anticipated life of the project upon which an original EIS has been based would allow unlimited delays and, in turn, permit possible resulting negative impacts on the environment to go unchecked. In other words, allowing an outdated EIS to "remain valid in perpetuity" directly undermines HEPA's purpose. HRS § 343-1 (setting forth the findings and purpose for HEPA) states that [t]he legislature finds that the quality of humanity's environment is critical to humanity's well being, that humanity's activities have broad and profound effects upon the interrelations of all components of the environment, and that an environmental review process will integrate the review of environmental concerns with existing planning processes of the State and counties and alert decision makers to significant environmental effects which may result from the implementation of certain actions. It is the purpose of this chapter to establish a system of environmental review which will ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making[.] (Emphases added). Indeed, this court has repeatedly recognized the public purpose served by HEPA to "ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making" such that "environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and society as a whole." See, e.g., Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. County of Maui, 86 Hawai'i 66, 70, 947 P.2d 378, 382 (1997) (citing HRS § 343-1)23 ; Citizens for the Protection of the N. Kohala Coastline v. County of Hawai'i, 91 Hawai'i 94, 104 n. 11, 979 P.2d 1120, 1130 n. 11 (1999) (also citing HRS § 343-1); Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp., 115 Hawaii 299, 327 & 342, 167 P.3d 292, 320 & 335 (2007) (referring to HRS § 343-1). • SMAA, Pg.4: While the overall project site abuts the shoreline, the Applicant is requesting that the need for a certified shoreline survey to support this application be waived since no new improvements or uses are contemplated anywhere near the shoreline or within those areas identified as Conservation by the State Land Use Commission. Per Department Land Natural Resources (DLNR) the last Shoreline survey of Punalu'u Beach Park was done in 1976 by Surveyor Nobuchika Santo (1935-2016). Therefore, another 2