2013-01-10 Windward Transcript Paradise

Home

MOOERS: We have received the background report and recommendation and appreciate the diligence the Planning Department has taken to review this matter, and appreciate their support not only granting a finding of no significant impact on the environmental assessment but also recommending approval with these stated conditions. The applicant is willing to accept these conditions as stated. After you consider the matter of standing, I would like to make a comment at that time about standing and about the process, unless you’d like to get to that now. AU: Yes, since you’re already up at the table, you can go ahead and do it now. MOOERS: The applicant does not have an objection to granting standing to the petitioner. The, obviously you’ve been advised that the standard to establishing standing in a contested case is interpreted very liberally; and there’s no reason for us not to support this. As you’re aware, contested cases can be very time consuming and extremely expensive. In most cases when a contested case is filed, we try to reach out to the petitioner to see if we can negotiate some sort of agreement as to mitigate any concerns that they may have. Our efforts, in this case, have not been successful. In most cases because contested cases are expensive there’s a motivation -. In the case of the National Park Service, they have no concern about the cost of legal fees because those fees are paid for by our tax dollars. It’s, there is an advantage obviously for a contested case. And one of the things that we look forward to is the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, because often in cases, as you have seen, representations are made or statements are made that may be somewhat outrageous or overstated. But in a contested case you have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses to make sure that they can substantiate any claims that are made. In this case, we’re particularly interested to discuss the proposed impacts to the recreational users of the Park when this is an extremely remote area of the Park; and Mr. Thompson who resided on the property for over 30 years never saw a visitor on the National Park Service side of this area. There have also been some allegations on the impacts to relic forest and endangered species. And I think you’ve seen the recent photographs. There is no forest anymore and there is no habitat for endangered species at this time. It’s a barren lava field. And I’d be particularly interested to see how the National Park Service could justify their statement in their application in their request for a contested case that they are in fact the native Hawaiians, which I don’t know how that could be proven as a group. But, anyway, we do look forward to that opportunity to cross-examine the Park and their witnesses on these issues. Ultimately the applicant will have to determine that the expense and the time involved could be justified to challenge these claims, particularly after the Planning Department has issued a finding of no significant impact on the EA and has recommended approval with conditions. But that would be a decision for the applicant to make. Any questions, Commissioners? AU: Any questions for the applicant? 4 EXHIBIT A