HomeMy WebLinkAboutD. Chang 48 hours Testimony 05.31.23 From: Deborah Chang
To: LPCtestimony
Subject: Testimony for June 2 Joint Public Meeting of the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions
Date: Wednesday,May 31,2023 1:23:29 PM
Attachments: Planning Commission Rule 9.pdf
Aloha,
Please distribute the attached testimony to the Leeward Planning Commissioners.
Mahalo,
Deborah
Sent from Mail for Windows
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