For more than four years, growing numbers of local residents have raised objections the City’s plans for Ala Moana Regional Park (AMRP) and Magic Island–the People’s Park, documented by:

• Petitions with more than 1,100 and 1,700 signatures;
• Media coverage of meetings and investigative pieces on TV and in newspapers;
• More than 50 letters to the editor, four opt-ed pieces and hundreds of pages of testimony;
• Editorial comments from the Editorial board and columnists in the Star-Advertiser and Civil Beat, including Lee Cataluna, David Shapiro, Denby Fawcett, Christina Jedra, and Ian Lind; with hundreds of comments to the articles; and
• Ordinance 18-46 and 4 Resolutions adopted by the City Council (Resolutions 18-50,18-92 FD1, 19-160 CD1 and 19-263).
•  

The Administration’s response has been total disregard and disrespect for the Public’s requests to simply fix what’s broken and maintain what’s there– just keep the People’s Park clean and green.

Instead, the Administration added to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) a Dog Park at the Kewalo Basin Entrance, with no informational meetings to discuss this change to existing Park rules that prohibit animals, dogs included. 

Without responding to citizens’ DEIS comment letters, the City published a Second DEIS (SDEIS), adding two new projects and an insufficiently researched Cultural Impact Assessment:

1) a “one-acre world-class playground” to be built by non-profit Paʻani Kākou. The information gleaned from a Star-Advertiser article (Andrew Gomes, Dec. 5) and did not address the environmental impacts of this fenced facility on valuable open green spaces at Zone 8 and 9;  

2) Sand replenishment using a new source near the popular surf spots “Courts,” “Concessions” and “Baby Haleiwa.”  No testing of the soil for contaminates was done.  Furthermore, the indiscriminate distribution of the potentially toxic sand endangers the flora and fauna in the area as well as people lying on the beach or swimming in the ocean.  The “rubble” they plan to cover are fish nurseries, where families teach their keiki about sea life and how to fish: and

3) The Cultural Impact Assessment was insufficiently researched and applied.  To complete the study by the end of December, consultants settled for 6 responses of 134 requested, and interviewed only two individuals.  OHA sent a letter asking for a more complete report.

On August 8, the City Council unanimously passed Resolution 19-160, Urging the City to do a 3^rd DEIS because there were still many questions and concerns about the plans.  After almost a year, the City’s response to the public’s DEIS and SDEIS comments were insufficient, raising more questions.

Rather than respond to Resolution 19-160, the Administration submitted the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for AMRP on August 12, 2019.  No more public comment was allowed.  Instead, taxpayers needed to sue within 60 days of the FEIS being issued, October 22, 2019, to stop the questionable plans from going forward to the next step.  In this twisted scenario, the City would use our taxpayer dollars to defend the unwanted and unnecessary projects.

So that brings us to the Special Management Area (SMA) permitting process.   Here’s an opportunity to again protect the People’s Park.   SMAs require approval by the City Council to start budgeting and working on the details for the projects in the FEIS.

On December 18, at McCoy Pavilion at 10:30 a.m, the Department of Planning and Permitting will hold a Public hearing to gather information for the Council.  Each time the SMA is heard, we need people to pack to room to express our concern or show our support.

Your written and/or oral testimony will be on record as this file goes to the City Council in January 2020.  See the SMA application at:

 http://www.honoluludpp.org/Portals/0/LandUsePermitsDivision/Council/AlaMoanaApp.pdf 

Appendix:http://www.honoluludpp.org/Portals/0/LandUsePermitsDivision/Council/AlaMoanaAppendix.pdf  

Review Guidelines at:

http://www.honolulu.gov/cms-ocs-menu/site-ocs-sitearticles/18275-roh-chapter-25.html

(Article 3, Subsection 2 and Article 5, are most relevant)