Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-10 Windward Transcript Paradise WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 10, 2013 PARADISE HELICOPTERS (SPP 12-143) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Pro Tem Dean Au presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au, Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Raylene Moses and Stephen Ono STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) And approximately 24 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PARADISE HELICOPTERS (SPP 12-143) Application for a Special Permit to allow the construction and establishment of a helicopter landing area on a 10,000 square-foot portion of a 1.003-acre parcel situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located at the southwestern corner of Plumeria Street and Hoku Avenue in Royal Gardens Subdivision, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-1-114:022. AU: Agenda Item No. 2, Paradise Helicopters coming in for a Special Permit 12-143. Mr. Darrow, staff presentation, please. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our presentation. Our first applicant this morning is Paradise Helicopters. They’re requesting a special permit. The location of this application is within the Puna district of Hawai‘i. More specifically we’re looking in the area near the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park. And this particular area in lighter green is Royal Gardens Subdivision. You’ll see on the right side of the map we have the Pahoa-Kalapana Road coming down to Kaimu; and this is the area where usually you would access this particular area. But, unfortunately, with the lava flows that have occurred, access to this area is not able to get anywhere in this particular area to the Royal Gardens Subdivision. So what happens is helicopters fly in this area. The area of the subject property is identified with a black outline; and we’ll zoom in more closely. Again, we have the National Park on the left side. The Royal Gardens Subdivision which is zoned Agricultural 1-acre in the light green and the subject property identified in green. The State Land Use Boundary Map identifies this particular property within the State Land Use Agricultural District, and the property to the left being in Conservation District. This is the General Plan LUPAG Map, which shows that the subdivision is within the Extensive Agricultural designation, and the National Park is indicated in the Conservation District. 1 EXHIBIT A This is an aerial that was taken previously. It identifies the keopuka in the area. Again, National Park on your left. Royal Gardens Subdivision on your right, and the particular subject property identified in the back outline. This was a house that was on the property owned by Jack Thompson. Since this application has been submitted there has been a recent lava flow that has taken away the house. This is a little closer picture. This is more accurate now. So you can see the recent flow that’s coming through the Royal Gardens Subdivision. Again, the portion of the National Park. This is the location of the former Thompson home. This is just above the property in a helicopter. It identifies the remains of what was on the property. So you have a water tank and I believe there was a portion of a satellite dish. So you can see the satellite dish and the water tank, but no more home. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the establishment of a helicopter landing area on a 10,000-square foot portion of a 1.003-acre parcel of land. This will include a helicopter landing platform on a 225-square foot, or 15-foot by 15-foot, portion of land within the helicopter landing area. The normal flight pattern, which may vary with weather and eruption activity, is from the Hilo airport to the Pu‛u O‛o vent, to the subject property, and then returning to the Hilo airport. The applicant anticipates that they will be on the ground for approximately thirty minutes each trip to allow the visitors an opportunity to view the lava, flora, and natural terrain up close. This is the submitted site plan with the application. And, again, since this was submitted the lava has taken away the home. The water tank still exists. The landing area is to the right of the residence, and identified with a blue outline. The actual platform is in the middle of the landing area identified with a dark blue shade. This is an example of one of these landing areas, along with the helicopter. This was a map that was submitted both within the final environmental assessment report as well as the special permit application. It is not to be, it is a daft map and it is not official, it is not final. But, again, it gives you an idea of what the National Park is looking at as far as restricting certain flight patterns and above ground levels for these helicopters. That’s all this is, it’s just for reference purposes. The area of the Thompson residence is in this general location here. This is a typical Paradise Helicopter flight path. You’ll see here on the bottom of the map where it mentions Jack’s place, that’s Jack Thompson. And, again, as they were mentioning you’d come from Hilo airport, you would go up to Pu‛u O‛o vent to the residence or the subject property. It looks like they go to Kalapana and then back up to the airport. The Planning Director is recommending approval with conditions. If I can bring to your attention several correspondence that have been submitted since the background has been submitted to the Planning Commission. No. 1, we’ve received a petition for standing in a contested case hearing. This was submitted by the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park Service. We have, this was received ndth January 2. We’ve also received a letter from John Carse, and this was received January 7. You should have gotten a copy of that. It has several letters included in the correspondence. We have a resubmittal of the response letters from Paradise Helicopters to the National Park, as well as from Bob Ernst. And the reason why I say resubmittal, it’s the same correspondence that is also within your background report under Exhibit 12. We’ve submitted to you the recommendation report, which is in yellow. And lastly, this morning we have received a letter from Corey Harden; and that should be in your possession. 2 EXHIBIT A Just to bring to your attention, some conditions of approval -. Within your background report you’ll see the phrase “Air Tour Management Plan”; and this is a Plan that has been, being worked on by the National Park for a period of time. At this time, it is not finalized. They’re still going through the environmental impact statement, as well as finalizing the Plan. What the Planning Department has put in the conditions under Condition No. 4 is that at such time that an Air Tour Management Plan is adopted by the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park, that the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of that Plan. If the Plan states that there shall be no landing within that half mile buffer area, then at that point it states that the special permit is null and void. If there are restrictions placed on that Plan within that half mile area, then the applicant will need to comply with those restrictions. Additionally, Condition 3, we’ve required the applicant to submit a survey of the landing area, the 10,000-square foot landing area. And the reason for that is because obviously it may be difficult to identify the exact location if there is lava activity in this area. Right now there are certain features that can identify the property but in the future those features may be gone. And we’re asking that each time this area is inundated that they resubmit and remark this area. With that I stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you. AU: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Okay, Fellow Commissioners, what we’re going to be doing at this time is since that letter dated January 2, 2013 we have a request to intervene for the contested case, and we need to see if they have, if they’re going to get, if we’re going to grant them standing. Okay? So right now what I’m going to do is I’m going to call the petitioner to the table. The petitioner? Okay, okay, I’m sorry, first we’ll have the applicant come up to make a brief presentation. And after that we’ll have the petitioner come up. And we do have one person to testify, Ms. Cory Harden. And what we’re going to do is we’re going to go through this first, and then you can testify after. Okay, reminder now for anybody else here who is, does want to testify for the next items that are on the agenda, you have three minutes to testify. And we do have another item, Item No.6 which is Connections. If there is anybody here for Connections, a reminder three minutes. Okay? So go ahead. Please state your name, or maybe I’ll swear both of you guys in at the same time. Do you swear, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. AU: Okay, please state your name and where you reside before you start. MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers. I’m a planning consultant for the applicant, Paradise Helicopters. My address is (PO Box No. given) Kamuela, 96743. PAYESKO: My name is Rob Payesko. I’m the Director of Business Development for Paradise Helicopters; and I reside at (street address given) in Kona, Hawai‘i. 3 EXHIBIT A 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 MOOERS: We would like to reserve the opportunity for Mr. Payesko to respond to any of the comments that may be made in public. Would that be possible if we could come back at that time after public comments are made? AU: If we need, if our Commission feels that we need the applicant to come back then, yes, by all means. Please speak clearly into the microphone. PAYESKO: I’ll just make some brief comments now, if that’s okay? AU: Yeah, that’ll be great. PAYESKO: So I want to thank everyone for their concerns and the letters. And we’ve responded individually, though I just received Cory Harden’s letter this morning. So we will get an official response to her concerns as well. Overwhelmingly the concerns are about increase of tourists, increase of noise, and danger to that immediate environment. We will not be changing any of our flight paths. It will be existing flight paths. So there will be no additional traffic. If anything, helicopters will be on the ground and not in the air, so there will be less air traffic. What we want to do is to support the Hawaiian tourism here and create an event where people are not only flown over the National Park but get a sense to tie themselves to the land, by getting the land in a spot and giving these unique experiences that drive the tourism business here, which based on Hawai‘i News is a lead cover story for the January issue, is “What is Helping Survive Hawai‘i’s Economy” and also helping distinguish the Big Island, in particular. Obviously we’re concerned about the community. We are part of the community. We employ 60 people here, mostly on the Big Island. We’re very much involved in community aspects, donating to first responders, putting our time in actually performing the rescue for Mr. Thompson. By the way, there is Mr. Thompson who is a resident of that community, whose house has been wiped out; and this is an opportunity to provide for some income for him as well. So I appreciate everyone’s comments and I appreciate the consideration of the Council (sic). Thank you. AU: I have a question. I noticed in Ms. Harden’s letter or her letter is saying she, and it looks to safety. Do you have any safety plans or safety implementation for your clients as well as your employees at the site? PAYESKO: Yeah, obviously we’re going to comply or exceed any regulations that are imposed. But we employ SMS (Safety Management System). Any land or any activity we do goes through GAR Model, a Green, Amber, Red where we identify what are the processes, what are the dangers, what is the level of potential hazards from each of these things. And it’s rated on a green, amber or red. Green obviously means okay, amber is caution and red means action must be taken to correct and make sure that that safety is there. AU: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners, for the applicant? ISHIBASHI: I got one, Brother Chair. AU: Commissioner Ishibashi. 5 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Community outreach, how many community meetings you’ve had in regards to this? PAYESKO: I could probably, our own accounts, we usually attend community meetings in regards to this. We’re certainly open to any contacts from the community whenever we receive letters, concerns, calls about over-flights which, you know, aren’t always ours. We’re happy to respond and have always had an open door in regards to the community. AU: Okay. ONO: Question. AU: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I’m sorry. The concern by John Carse, he has a series of questions that I was not able to comprehend in terms of response by you. His concerns, were they individually addressed? PAYESKO: If you want to reference the response letter, we felt that we addressed -. There were certainly some questions that were outside the scope of this permit, so we didn’t feel the need to respond specifically to those; but we did try to address all his concerns that related to this matter. ONO: I see, thank you. AU: Okay. Fellow Commissioners, we do have a pending contested case. So prior to getting into the application, what we should do is we should take care of the contested case first. So at this point I’ll have the petitioners please come to the table. Okay, can you raise your right hand. I need to swear you in. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? ORLANDO: I do. AU: Okay, please state your name, and where you reside, before you start. ORLANDO: Cindy Orlando. I’m the superintendent -. AU: Please speak into the microphone. ORLANDO: I’m the superintendent of Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park. I reside at (street address given) in Waiohinu. Mahalo for considering our request to be a party for standing in this contested case hearing for Special Permit Application 12-000143. 6 EXHIBIT A As you have heard and as you know, the National Park Service has diligently participated in this particular planning process that would allow the establishment of a helicopter landing adjacent to the park boundary. We have commented on the Environmental Assessment very early on back in November of 2011. We have commented during scoping with a letter dated 11/21/11; and then on the Draft Environmental Assessment itself in a letter dated March 27, 2012. In that letter we also requested that the consultant reach out to the Kalapana Fishing Council and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Most recently you have our comments on the special permit application, and we note specifically that that particular application that was submitted contains outdated and inaccurate information regarding existing conditions and the impacts of the proposed activity. That letter also summarizes yet again our concerns and resource impacts that we believe are relative to this proposal. We believe that we clearly have unique interests that are distinguishable in this matter from that of the general public. The National Park Service is required by law, and I’m not going into all the legal citations but I certainly have those for you if you need them. I think they are in our application. We are required by law under our enabling legislation to encourage adjacent compatible land uses to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects that may occur in national park units. Unlike the general public or even any other federal agency, the National Park Service is responsible for protecting and preventing impacts to natural and cultural resources in park units as well as visitor enjoyment. The National Park Service Organic Act, the law of 1916, requires that we “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Additionally in 2000 Congress determined that noise from commercial air tours can cause significant impacts to national parks and passed the National Parks Air Tour Management Act. That Act was sponsored by Senator Akaka. This statute acts to protect park resources and visitor experience by preventing significant adverse impacts from air tour noise. And as you have heard from the applicant, we are developing, and through an EIS process, an environmental impact statement pursuant to this law, the Air Tour Management Act and the Air Tour Management Plan. And that has already indicated that the current level of air tour noise is already causing impacts to the National Park. The biggest issue is that the proposed landing area will set a precedent that is likely to result in even greater long-term adverse noise and visual impacts to the park. The acoustic environment (or the “soundscape”) has been identified as a natural and cultural resource subject to all the protections under the 1916 Law. Furthermore, the NPATMA or Tour Management Act, under that law we share jurisdiction with the Federal Aviation Administration over all commercial air tour activity within one half mile of national park unit boundaries. Lastly, the 1938 Kalapana Extension Act added 42,000 acres of land to the park and we have specific legislative provisions to direct us to allow Native Hawaiians to practice those rights which are customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural or religious purposes. We manage the Kalapana extension in accordance with federal law. This area includes the eastern portion of the park that is adjacent to the proposed special permit activity. We appreciate the opportunity this morning to comment and we look forward to your favorable consideration of this request. 7 EXHIBIT A AU: Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner? Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: When do you anticipate this Air Tour Management Plan being finished? ORLANDO: You know, we’ve been working, we’ve been working on it now for about six years diligently, and we are a cooperator in that EIS process. The FAA is the lead agency. It’s really being managed out of Washington, D.C. We are developing our draft alternatives as we speak. And I think you saw a map that was presented that is not, as was mentioned, the final map but it was in some of our draft plans. We’ve had a number of public meetings on that planning process, and lots of comments. GONZALES: That’s something that could take years, do you think? Is this -? ORLANDO: It has taken years. We’re proceeding to develop our alternatives. It could take a while but we’re, it’s out of our hands because we are the cooperator, not the lead agency. AU: Okay, any further questions for the petitioner? ONO: Question. AU: Go ahead, Commissioner Ono. ONO: Yes. Could you further elaborate that statement? My understanding is that the condition would be that Paradise Helicopters would be willing to develop the landing pad, and based upon the studies that you’re going to be doing that they’d be willing to comply with it. We don’t have the timetable for that. So my concern is what do you think about allowing them to develop that landing pad now and when that directive is completed then they understand that they have to remove the landing pad if it affects them or it affects the National Park? ORLANDO: We have held public meetings on our planning process and we have not had the public support of any kind of landing pads adjacent to the Park boundary. So -. ONO: No, no. My question is -. With the National Park’s change in possible environmental studies that was addressed earlier, they’d be willing to remove the landing pad based upon the decision of the National Park is my understanding. This is the recommendation by the Planning Director. So would you -? Because I’m concerned about the timetable that was being addressed earlier. If it’s going to take five years, at least they have use of the landing pad for five years. Whatever the timetable may be, or even if it’s six months, they’d be willing to invest that, my understanding. So is there any objection to that? ORLANDO: Yes, there is objection by the National Park Service; and we would look forward to discussing that in a contested case. AU: Okay, reminder to Commissioners, the issue right now is to grant the petitioner standing. It seems like Commissioner Ono is getting into the application. So first let’s see if we can grant them standing. And then we can move on from there. Okay? So any more questions regarding the 8 EXHIBIT A contested case for the petitioner? If not, then any questions for staff? And if there’s no questions for staff, I’m ready to entertain a motion. A motion would be to either grant or deny the petitioner standing for a contested case. Okay, keep in mind, Commissioners, that the applicant is not in -, is not against having a contested case. MOSES: I make a motion to grant standing in this case. AU: Any second? GONZALES: I’ll second. AU: Okay, thank you. Okay, ready for discussion. I’ll start it off. Yeah, I think the petitioner has standing. So, you know, they fit all the criteria; and I just wanted to share that with my Fellow Commissioners. Okay, nobody wants to discuss? Okay, Mr. Darrow, ready to take a vote. DARROW: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to grant standing in a contested case hearing to Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park, National Park Service. With that I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? AU: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. AU: Okay. Thank you very much. So our next item that we need to do is we need to see if we as a Commission will refer to this matter or if we will hear, we will hire a hearings officer, if we’re going to have the Planning Department hire a hearings officer. So I’m ready to entertain a motion whether we as a Commission want to take care of it or we want to hire a hearings officer? GONZALES: I have a question. What kind of history we do have on this? What would usually happen in a case like this? 9 EXHIBIT A AU: That would be a staff question or counsel question. (At this time, the Chair has an off the record discussion with Mr. Torigoe). AU: Okay, Fellow Commissioners, what we have here is we have a lot of issues to deal with. The Planning Department has to see if there’s a timeframe if we do decide to take it upon ourselves. There is a timefame. We have future applications. TORIGOE: May I address something? AU: Yes, yes, please. Thank you. TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, the decision on whether you are going to hear the contested case yourself or whether you farm it out to a hearings officer, as the Chairman was saying, depends on the number of practical considerations. It’s an option for you, you can do that in discretion. Basically if it’s a fairly simple kind of a case and you feel like you can handle it on your regular agenda, then in some ways it’s very efficient to do that. Then you don’t have the extra complication of hiring a hearings officer to then make a report to you, come back report to you, and then you have to pick it up and read all the hearings officer’s records. So if it’s a fairly simple case and you feel you can deal with it, you know, straight up on your own agenda, then that can be very efficient. But if you feel like the case is, you know, had some complexities, is going to take more time than is really practical to deal with on your agenda, if you feel like, and the staff has informed you that you have a fairly heavy calendar coming up and it’ll not be all that practical for you to hear this, you know, all of the evidence on your own, then it may be a good idea to farm it out to a hearings officer. Also, kind of depends upon how much money is available in the Planning Department account. AU: Okay. Yes, staff, if you could please address the money issue as well as time. ARAI: We do have monies available for a contested case hearing. It is budgeted. However, we have basically monies available to hire a hearings officer. I don’t think we need to go into a, normally a hearings officer in the past has formed relatively-. I guess, straight forward issue, it could be in the neighborhood of $20,000. That’s kind of like the benchmark that we use. And we do have that amount available should you decide to hire a hearings officer. AU: Okay. And as far as a time, how is our future agendas in the next three or four months? Pretty heavy? ARAI: Roughly about 4 to 5 items. It really depends. But we’re looking at about 4 or 5 items for the next two Windward meetings. So, you know, it could be accommodated. Again, it depends on the issues that have been put forth by the National Park, which are quite a few issues; and, you know, how those specific issues are going to be argued and addressed. LEITHEAD TODD: My recommendation -. AU: Okay, go ahead, BJ. 10 EXHIBIT A LEITHEAD TODD: My recommendation is you might want to ask the National Park Service how many witnesses they intend to bring and how long their presentation would take. Is this something that they anticipate they’re going to be bringing some testimony in and it’s going to take them half a day to present their case, is it one day to present their case? That really is a consideration. If you’re talking about a few hours, you know, it’s one thing. If you’re talking more than one day then that’s something that I would say needs to go to a hearings officer. AU: Okay. Well, can I have the petitioner come up, please, and maybe answer the Planning Director’s question. ORLANDO: Obviously it’s difficult for us to answer. Contrary to what was stated earlier, we don’t have lawyers at our disposal. I have to get on people’s schedule like everybody else. So we do, we would be bring in subject matter experts from the mainland, acoustical experts, sounds people. There’s a lot going on in that regard. So I would expect it would definitely be more than one day. I couldn’t, I have no idea how long it would be, but I would say it would probably be more than one day, just getting people here from the mainland. All of our subject matter experts and solicitors are on the mainland. AU: Okay. Can I have the applicant come forward and maybe just give me your opinion. MOOERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Realistically, I’ve been involved in a number of these, is that I think this case, it has several elements, noise, cultural impacts, impacts on native species, impacts on relic forest. I suspect this would be a rather lengthy contested case. AU: Okay, Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, I’m ready to entertain a motion. We need a motion to refer this matter to a hearings officer or to us. MOSES: I make a motion to refer to a hearings officer. AU: Any second? ONO: Second. AU: Okay, thank you. Discussion? Yeah, this is something that’s going to take more than a day and, you know, for one of us Commissioners to act as a hearings officer I think it would be time consuming on all of our schedules; and we do have future items to cover. So any other discussion? Okay, Mr. Darrow, ready for a vote. DARROW: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I did not hear who seconded the motion. AU: It was Commissioner Ono. DARROW: Okay. So the motion before us is to hire a hearings officer. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Moses? 11 EXHIBIT A MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? AU: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. AU: Okay, thank you. Both parties will be notified in writing. So, thank you very much. I’m sorry, Ms. Harden please come forward, Ms. Cory Harden. Can you raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? HARDEN: Yes. AU: Please state your name, where you reside, and please speak into the microphone. HARDEN: Okay, Cory Harden, Box (PO Box No. given) in Hilo. AU: You have three minutes. Go ahead, thank you. HARDEN: Okay. So I’m speaking about the Paradise Helicopters. First one, I thank all you Commissioners for your service on the Commission; and I’m glad that you have granted standing to the Volcano Park. I hope when the permit comes up that you will deny it. If you grant a permit - for this culturally sensitive, remote, quiet area that borders protected land – will there be a rush for similar permits, in case the pending Air Tour Management Plan does not allow them? Should a permit be given to a company that has a history of unpermitted landings on this site? And how many unpermitted lands were there and by who? The Start-Advertiser says six helicopters parked at the site one day. And three weddings were held, with guests maybe brought in by helicopters. There are other reports, some conflicting. And I hope you can get at the truth. 12 EXHIBIT A Specific impacts, Cultural Impacts - The proposed land site is a new lava landscape. In Hawaiian culture such landscapes are “some of the most sacred places.” The general area is “associated with the birth of Pelehonuamea and the creation of Hawaiian culture…Kupuna have stated that they feel the sight and presence of low-flying aircraft is culturally inappropriate.” The site is only 300 feet from the Volcano Park’s Kalapana Extension, which has been mentioned, where Native Hawaiians have legal rights to ”subsistence, cultural, and religious” activities. Noise Impacts – Natural impact, quiet has been said is one of the resources of Volcano Park, according to law and park policy. And helicopters shatter this quiet that can be heard for 10 to 15 minutes, for 5 to 10 miles on either side of their flight path in the Pu‛u O‛o area. And if they land and take off, of course, it’s a whole lot noisier. Helicopter noise already impacts volcano safety by masking speech and volcanic sounds, and interferes with data collection and radio use. We all know that helicopter noise has severely impacted people in their homes and in the wilderness for years, with little relief in sight. Helicopter noise at the proposed site could also disturb birds, like the endangered i‛o, in the remaining forest. Safety – Will the new lava safely support a landing platform? Paradise Helicopters says yes, but there’s no details in the environmental assessment how they arrived at that conclusion. Economics – Helicopter tours provide jobs, but so do quiet, unspoiled places that attract visitors. Existing Plans, the landing site does not follow County and community plans. The County General Plan calls for protecting, preserving, and enhancing the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty. The Puna Community Development Plan calls for keeping “areas of scenic and cultural interest…accessible to the public in a manner that does not detract from their aesthetic, natural and cultural value.” Data errors – Because of errors, the final Environmental Assessment and permit application do not provide an adequate basis for decision-making. There are errors regarding areas closed to visitors and air tour planning. And some of the maps and photos are from before the lava came in, they’re out of date. So I hope you will deny this permit. Thank you. AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? No? Okay, thank you. The discussion ended at 9:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 13 EXHIBIT A