More than 240 people gathered on March 11 at McCoy Pavilion for a public meeting on Ala Moana park improvements. For many, it was their first time learning about the proposed actions in the Second Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for Ala Moana Regional Park and Magic Island, estimated to cost $144 million in 2016 dollars.

The line of people with questions and concerns snaked out the door. Their impassioned voices shared their love for the park. However, a representative for the city told them they need to write a comment letter by March 25 to be heard. Under the EIS process, only written comments are considered by decision makers, including the mayor.

For Hawaii taxpayers asking for prudent, practical plans for the People’s Park, this is yet another roadblock. The EIS system was never meant to be difficult to maneuver, but the current administration has made it so.

EIS rules say that EISs “are meaningless without the conscientious application of the environmental review process as a whole, and shall not be merely a self-serving recitation of benefits and a rationalization of the proposed action.” The process should “assure an early, open forum for discussion of adverse effects and available alternatives, and that the decision-makers will be enlightened to any environmental consequences of the proposed action prior to decision-making.”

Furthermore, proposing agencies and applicants shall “make every effort to convey the required information succinctly in a form easily understood, both by members of the public and by government decision-makers.”

The SDEIS is 885 pages long, split over two volumes.

The rules say that the document should remain “essentially self-contained, capable of being understood by the reader without the need for undue cross-references.”

Volume 1 summarizes information about the projects. The insufficient studies and references found in Volume 2 are printed two-to-a-page. Tiny print makes it hard to read.

Required consultations should be conducted as “mutual, open and direct, two-way communication, in good faith, to secure the meaningful participation of agencies and the public.”

No city administration meeting had occurred since Jan. 29, 2018, when the comments period had already closed for the first EISPN on Jan. 22, 2018.

The latest SDEIS surprise is where sand replenishment may come from — outside of popular surf spots known as Courts, Concessions and Baby Haleiwa. You need to search for the information in several chapters of Vol. 1, not just Chapter 2, to get a better idea of the scope of work and disruption required. And at what cost?

Messing with the beach has the potential impact of forever changing what makes Ala Moana Regional Park special. Our God-given beach is iconic and beloved by the people. Why are mere mortals trying to “fix it” when there is no certainty of the outcome and lasting impact — just for a temporary fix of more sand on the beach? Was global warming or sea-level rise taken into consideration?

This proposed action and others, like the “world-class” playground, must be thoroughly studied and assumptions tested before any action is taken.

Ala Moana Regional Park is an important treasure for the people of Hawaii. Where is the “good faith” to allow for “meaningful participation” from the people in making decisions about its future? The city must hold informational meetings and extend the deadline for comments beyond March 25.

Shar Chun-Lum is a member of Save Ala Moana Beach Park Hui.