PD Recommendation Report Black Sand Beach (PL-SMA-2023-046)

Home

Preservation Division (SHPD) for a Ch. 6E-42 historic preservation review, and confirmation of reservation and buffer plans. The submittal was done prior to the submittal of the SMA application under the director of SHPD. To date SHPD has not responded to our initial request, and no correspondence from SHPD regarding the status of the review has been submitted to the Planning Department. The Planning Department will require the applicant to confer with SHPD to assure the updated CIA and AIS are reviewed and approved prior to any proposed development related to this SMA application. The applicant has worked diligently towards establishing relationships with Kupuna, residents, and various community organizations to seek their collective guidance on how these lands can be property preserved as a historical, cultural, environmental, and economic resource for the future of this area. The applicant has committed to revitalize Punalu'u in a measured way by focusing on the community-based priorities that can be accomplished prior to engaging in the larger development such as the developing the farmers market, removing overgrown vegetation, and improving existing infrastructure. The valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the area: The 2006 archaeological inventory survey (AIS) of the entire 434-acre project area was completed and it was determined that approximately 90% of the resort area had been mechanically cleared or altered by floods and tsunami. According to the applicant, by 2006 more than 100 cultural sites had been destroyed by development projects in the coastal portion of Punalu'u, Wailau, and Ninole Ahupua'a, and it appears that none of the mitigation recommendations presented in any of the earlier archaeological studies had been followed through on. The 2006 AIS identified a total of 34 extant historic properties within the overall resort property. Twenty-four (24) of the sites were previously identified and nine (9) were thought to be newly identified. The 2006 survey Tulchin et al. (2006) attempted to correlate the sites they identified during their survey with previously recorded sites, but they were hindered by the extent of land disturbance within the resort property and the brevity of the site descriptions presented in the prior reports, as well as the confusion that multiple site numbers were given for the same feature throughout the years. Ultimately, existing SIHP site designations were retained for fifteen -11-