HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-05 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Hanna Taum Opposition Testimony From: Hanna Taum
To: WPCtestimony
Subject: Agenda Item 3-Black Sand Beach,LLC SMA-Comments
Date: Tuesday,March 5,2024 11:43:03 PM
Attachments: Windward Planning Commission Testimony Hanna Taum 03-05-24.odf
To Whom it May Concern,
Please see attached my written testimony providing comments ahead of the March 7, 2024
Windward Planning Commission meeting.
Thank you,
Hanna Taum
Hanna Taum
P.O. Box 5218,
Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744
hanna.taum@gmail.com
March 5, 2024
Re: Windward Planning Commission Meeting (Thursday,March 7, 2024), Agenda Item 3
(PL-SMA-2023-000046)
Dear Chair Lin, Vice Chair Louis Daniele III, and Commission Members,
I am a third-year student at the William S. Richardson School of Law. I am currently enrolled in
Administrative Law and am submitting testimony as part of a required course project. I am
writing to respectfully provide comments regarding the Black Sand Beach, LLC Special
Management Area Permit application ("Application"), with an emphasis on the agency's
required Ka Pa`akai analysis and the importance of the purpose of the Special Management Area
("SMA")permitting system.
Ka Pa`akai Analysis
The Ka Pa`akai analytical framework, articulated by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Ka Pa`akai
o ka `Aina v. Land Use Commission, "effectuate[s] the State's [constitutional] obligation to
protect native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices while reasonably accommodating
competing private interests."' When considering proposed actions, agencies are required to
assess:
(1)the identity and scope of"valued cultural, historical, or natural resources" in
the petition area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native
Hawaiian rights are exercised in the petition area; (2) the extent to which those
resources—including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights—will be
affected or impaired by the proposed action; and (3) the feasible action, if any, to
be taken by the agency to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are
found to exi St.2
The agency is then responsible for articulating findings and conclusions that demonstrate
fulfillment of this constitutional obligation.3
The Application does not specifically identify the Ka Pa`akai analysis in its submitted
documentation nor does it describe with any specificity how its findings or proposed mitigation
efforts might potentially fit within this required analysis. Given the agency's constitutional
obligation to protect the continued exercise of Native Hawaiian traditional and customary
'Ka Pa`akai O Ka`Aina v.Land Use Comm'n(Ka Pa`akai),7 P.3d 1068, 1083-84(Haw.2000).
2Id. at 1084.
3 Id.
1
practices, I would urge the Commission to carefully apply and articulate its Ka Pa`akai analysis
in its assessment of this Application.
Purpose of the SMA Permitting System
The underlying purpose of the SMA permit process, established by the Shoreline Protection
Act,'is to develop controls to"avoid permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure
of management options" and ensure "adequate access, by dedication or other means, to public
owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves."' The clear state policy to
"preserve,protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of
Hawaii," guides the overarching analysis of these SMA permit applications.
Just as the Ka Pa`akai analysis aims to reconcile private interests with Native Hawaiian
traditonal and customary rights, the purpose of the SMA permitting system also appears to weigh
economic or development interests against the protection our state's invaluable shoreline
resources. In recognizing the importance of the long-term protection of these resources to the
state and our local communities, I urge the Commission to consider the underlying purpose of
the statute in its assessment of this SMA application.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Hanna Taum
a Hawaii Revised Statutes §205A-21.
51a.
2