HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-07 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Debbie Ward Response to Chuck Flaherty 3.7.24 Opposition Testimony From: Debbie Ward
To: Chuck Flaherty
Cc: WPCtestimonv
Subject: Re: Opposition to SMA permit, PL-SMA-2023-000046
Date: Thursday,March 7,2024 8:13:20 PM
Excellent, Chuck!!!
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Chuck Flaherty<oneheaat&,,aloha.net>wrote:
March 7, 2024
County of Hawaii
Windward Planning Commission
Dennis Lin, Chair
Louis Daniele III, Vice Chair
Lauren Balog
Wayne De Luz
Matthias Kusch
Chantel Perrin
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Opposition to Black Sand Beach LLC SMA permit application, PL-SMA-2023-000046.
Aloha Chair Lin and Members of the Windward Planning Commission,
This testimony is dedicated to my kumu and good friends, Auntie Pele Hanoa, Auntie
Keola Hanoa, Uncle Abel, and Uncle Moses, who worked tirelessly for decades to protect
Ka'u and shared their knowledge and wisdom about this special place with so many.
My opposition is based upon the following:
Established state Supreme Court legal precedent makes it clear the applicant and Planning
Director cannot use the 1988 FEIS to satisfy the requirements of HRS 343.
The 2006 Draft EIS is not just a draft. It is a Draft for another project, Sea Mountain.
There is no nexus to the current SMA permit application for Punalu'u Village.
Because the DEIS has not been accepted, there is no FEIS. The DEIS remains subject to
public review and comment, but is moot because the Sea Mountain project proposal has
been withdrawn. The 2006 Sea Mountain DEIS would not be admissible in a court of law
as a document representing the completion of the requirements of Chapter 343 for the
Punalu'u Village project.
The Addendum AIS and the Biological Update cannot be supporting the 2006 DEIS
because, it is a completed document posted on the OEQC website. Therefore the AIS
cannot be an addendum to the DEIS. If anything, it is a proposed supplement, which is
further evidence a Supplemental EIS is required for the Punalu'u Village project. The
same is true of the Botanical Survey and Vertebrate Fauna Assessment Update. It can
only be considered as a proposed supplement. Be since the 1988 FEIS is already
accepted and published and the 2006 DEIS is a draft document for another project
proposal, the Addendum and Update stand alone without legal context within the
requirements of Chapter 343.
Chapter 343 states that a FEIS "shall be a condition precedent to approval of the request
and commencement of the proposed action." There is no FEIS for the proposed action
contained with the SMA permit application.
Finally, there are statements by engineers in prior document submitted to the Planning
Department that a new wastewater treatment system and plant are required. This
triggers the requirement for a SEIS.
Further, there are statements by archaeologists that rec
The SMA permit application and Planning Department Background and Recommendation
Reports contain material errors and omissions. In addition, the Planning Department has
not completed prerequisite consultation with other agencies, such as the State Historic
Preservation Division.
Therefore, the SMA permit application is incomplete and should not have been accepted
by the Planning Department. I urge the WPC to consult with the applicant and reach an
agreement to withdraw the application. Otherwise, I urge the WPC so deny this fatally-
flawed SMA permit application.
Mahalo nui loa for your volunteer service,
Chuck Flaherty