{"id":941,"date":"2014-08-29T00:01:10","date_gmt":"2014-08-29T00:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/EH\/?p=941"},"modified":"2014-08-29T00:01:10","modified_gmt":"2014-08-29T00:01:10","slug":"noise-from-kona-airport-casts-pall-over-proposed-development-at-ooma","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=941","title":{"rendered":"Noise from Kona Airport Casts Pall over Proposed Development at O`oma"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

By almost all accounts, the vision behind the residential and commercial development proposed for about 300 acres on the Kona Coast, in an area known as O`oma, is a model of progressive, state-of-the-art thinking when it comes to urban planning. Pedestrian friendly, with broad ocean setbacks and extensive parks, convenient mixed commercial and residential uses and a variety of housing choices to meet diverse economic needs and lifestyle options, the design has won an award for outstanding planning from the American Planning Association, Hawai`i Chapter, and embodies many of the smart-growth concepts championed by environmentalists.<\/p>\n

At the meeting of the Land Use Commission last month in Waikoloa, praise for the design was not in short supply. Many of the dozens of members of the public who testified were liberal with their compliments. But time and again, witnesses concluded with the same thought: it\u2019s a great project, but in the wrong place.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The site is about seven miles north of the village of Kailua-Kona, but only a mile south of the Keahole airport. And when the noise contours of approaching and departing planes are laid over the development area, the planned residential complexes in the project just barely squeeze under the level of noise deemed acceptable in Hawai`i for dwellings and schools.<\/p>\n

\u2018Nonsensical Development\u2019<\/b><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Kathy McMillen, one of the public witnesses, made an eloquent case for the LUC\u2019s denial of the redistricting petition, which covers 181 acres, or roughly two-thirds of the entire project area. Her objections were not typical of most open-space advocates, but focused instead on the inappropriateness of siting homes so close to the airport.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not anti-development,\u201d she told the commissioners, \u201cbut I\u2019m against nonsensical development.\u201d The operation of the Kona airport was essential, she said, and it was sheer folly to allow residential development in such close proximity to the airport.<\/p>\n

McMillen took issue with the acoustic study done by Y. Ebisu for the landowner, Midland Pacific Homes of Atascadero, California. \u201cI take issue with the logic provided in the noise study,\u201d she said. \u201cThe data may be factually correct, but the focus of the report centers on [Federal Aviation Administration] sound levels.\u201d The study suggests that anything lower than a level of 60 DNL (a measure of the average noise levels over a day and night, or 24-hour period) is acceptable, she said. \u201cIt is not.\u201d<\/p>\n

[For a more detailed discussion of noise measurements and standards, see the sidebar in this issue.]<\/b><\/p>\n

McMillan went on to note that in Hawai`i, because of the mild climate, houses tend to be more open and less sound-proof than houses built elsewhere in the United States. FAA standards were developed for the mainland, while in Hawai`i, the state Department of Transportation suggests that noise-sensitive uses \u2013 schools, houses, churches, and the like \u2013 be restricted to areas where the DNL is 55 or lower.<\/p>\n

If the O`oma development is allowed to be built as proposed, McMillan said, \u201cit is only a matter of time before taxpayers will be bailing out homeowners\u201d there. Under FAA rules, the federal government has to purchase houses or pay for sound mitigation whenever airport activity increases to the point where noise levels are incompatible with residential use. The long-term projections for the Kona airport \u201cwere underestimated in a 1997 study\u201d by the state, she noted. \u201cThe Conservation-zoned O`oma land is the last buffer we have for an airport that is only going to be more active in the future,\u201d she warned.<\/p>\n

McMillen distributed copies of a map, contained in the recent (2009) draft Kona airport master plan, depicting radar flight tracks at Keahole airport for a four-day period in January 2007. The tracks, showing arrivals, departures, and touch-and-go landings, formed a nearly solid pattern over much of the O`oma parcel. Projections for future noise contours show most of the petition area falling within the 55-60 DNL contour by 2013.<\/p>\n

Bryan Yee, deputy attorney general representing the state Office of Planning, asked McMillen what kinds of mitigation measures she might recommend.<\/p>\n

McMillen discounted the idea of sound insulation. \u201cI\u2019m not an expert in this, but do have some knowledge of it,\u201d she said. \u201cOnce you have an opening, it blows the insulation. You open a window, and the insulation is gone.\u201d The only way to avoid opening windows would be to have air-conditioning, she said \u2013 and she, for one, could simply not afford that.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy concern here,\u201d she said, \u201cis that we taxpayers, with federal taxes, are buying land, people\u2019s houses, because this kind of thing is happening, everywhere in the country.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yee asked if any other kind of mitigation measures might work.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the next development over,\u201d she answered, referring to Kohanaiki, \u201cthey do have \u2026 noise easements.\u201d Such easements, which give the state the right to use airspace, generally protect the state from having to purchase land or pay for sound attenuation where houses are later affected by increasing noise from airport operations.<\/p>\n

But, she added, Kohanaiki is \u201ckind of at the limits, if you look at the maps. In this parcel\u201d \u2013 the O`oma one \u2013 \u201cthis doesn\u2019t work.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYour objection is to residential use, not commercial?\u201d Yee asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cYes,\u201d McMillen replied.<\/p>\n

Noise Concerns<\/i><\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

The following day, the developer\u2019s attorney Jennifer Benck began presenting the case for the project with a series of expert witnesses. The last one to testify was Yoichi Ebisu, who prepared the noise analysis that was used in the environmental impact statement for O`oma Beachside Villages<\/p>\n

\u201cYesterday we heard a lot of discussion about FAA regulations and 65 DNL contour lines versus 50 and 55 DNL lines,\u201d Benck asked Ebisu. \u201cCan you explain what these are?\u201d<\/p>\n

Ebisu responded that the federal Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 required the FAA \u201cto define how to best measure aircraft noise, define an acceptable threshold, and develop a program whereby airports develop noise exposure maps\u2026 In return, these maps get disclosed to the public and the airport receives limited immunity from litigation should anyone move into an unacceptable contour level.\u201d<\/p>\n

The FAA, he continued, \u201cdetermined that as far as a federal regulatory level for aircraft noise is concerned, the 65 DNL line represents the threshold, the line of demarcation between what\u2019s acceptable aircraft noise and unacceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Benck asked whether the O`oma project proposed any \u201cincompatible development\u201d within the 65 DNL area, as the state DOT projects it will exist in 2013.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s a negative,\u201d Ebisu replied. \u201cThere\u2019s no incompatible development proposed\u201d in that area. Hawai`i\u2019s definition of what constitutes \u201cincompatible\u201d development is more stringent than that of the FAA, he went on to say, with the DOT having developed \u201cplanning criteria\u201d \u2013 not standards, but criteria, he emphasized \u2013 that recommend no incompatible uses where noise levels exceed 60 DNL.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe state 60 DNL level, does that take into account the fact that people in Hawai`i do keep their windows open?\u201d Benck asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cYes,\u201d Ebisu answered. \u201cThat\u2019s why it [the incompatible use level] was recommended to drop at least 5 units.\u201d Below 60 DNL there are no incompatible uses, he explained. \u201cAbove 60, more sensitive uses, like residences, schools, et cetera, become incompatible.\u201d The 55 DNL contour line, he said, is recommended for \u201cdisclosure purposes\u2026. The reason for that is in coming up with the 60 DNL recommendation, we were aware \u2026 of the [Environmental Protection Agency] recommendation that the level of 55 DNL is a so-called safe level, the level below which there should be absolutely no adverse impacts from environmental noise. That 55 DNL level is out there in the scientific literature as being the safe level.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSo why didn\u2019t we pick 55 as the recommended level for local construction?\u201d Ebisu asked himself.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe reason,\u201d he answered, \u201cis that, like the federal government [the state] were also aware of the 55 contour, but made the determination that if we use 55 as a regulatory level, the cost of mitigation would be too high, it becomes impractical. So instead of picking 55 as the level for build or no-build, they decided to use 60.\u201d<\/p>\n

As far as the \u201ctwilight zone\u201d \u2013 as Ebisu put it \u2013 between the 55 and 60 DNL contour lines, that\u2019s where the need for disclosure kicks in. State law requires potential buyers be notified if properties for sale fall within this area, similar to tsunami zones, he said.<\/p>\n

Benck raised the idea of possible mitigation measures. \u201cWhen a home is constructed, what sort of interior noise should someone expect to consider in that band\u201d of 60 DNL? she asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor naturally ventilated homes, with no air-conditioning, most sound from outside will come in through open windows and doors, irrespective of how well you build walls and the roof,\u201d he said. Still, there would be a reduction of about 10 points, or DNL units, he added. \u201cIf I\u2019m on 60 contour line, when I go inside my house, the interior noise level should be 50 DNL,\u201d he said. For a typical naturally ventilated house, \u201cif I\u2019m on the 55 contour, my interior level will be 45 DNL,\u201d the level, he said, that the Environmental Protection Agency has found to pose no risk whatsoever of adverse impacts from noise.<\/p>\n

Deputy attorney general Yee asked what it would take to reduce the noise inside houses in a 55 DNL contour down to 45 DNL.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou need to air-condition,\u201d Ebisu answered. \u201cIt requires total enclosure.\u201d<\/p>\n

Who Pays?<\/i><\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

By the time commissioners were able to ask their questions of Ebisu, the time was approaching when the meeting would have to be adjourned if the LUC members and staff were to catch their flights.<\/p>\n

Still, commissioner Lisa Judge was keen to follow up on the issues raised by McMillen in her testimony of the previous day. Judge asked Ebisu what would happen if the noise contour lines \u201cmove mauka\u201d by 2020 \u2013 that is, if noise over the project area increases.<\/p>\n

\u201cAn act was passed by Congress to address those types of situations,\u201d Ebisu replied. \u201cThe act required disclosure of [current] noise plus a five-year period. Once those [noise contour] maps are disclosed, it puts the burden on airports to mitigate\u201d if the noise increases to the point that once-allowed uses are in zones where they are no longer compatible.<\/p>\n

If a developer builds something inside a noise contour zone that is incompatible, \u201cthen triggers for easements and noise mitigation and attenuation should occur,\u201d Ebisu says. \u201cBut if he stays outside that contour, then he shouldn\u2019t have to do anything.\u201d<\/p>\n

All bets are off, however, if the noise contours expand. \u201cIf,\u201d Ebisu said, \u201c20 years from now, things have changed, the [federal act] does not immunize the airport\u2026 If\u2026 the contours grow, where it now encompasses development, there is no immunization for that\u2026. You\u2019re not immunized for any increase that occurs over formerly compatible land that becomes incompatible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge: \u201cWhat happens in 2040 if all houses are now in the 65 DNL contour. Is the airport responsible then to mitigate it?\u201d<\/p>\n

As long as the buildings were constructed without encroaching on the 65 DNL contour when they were built, Ebisu said, \u201cthen, yes.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSo today, somebody buys a house, and it\u2019s in the 60 DNL, and 20 years from now, it\u2019s 65, it\u2019s the federal government\u2019s responsibility to fix that problem?\u201d Judge asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cRight,\u201d Ebisu replied.<\/p>\n

The LUC will continue hearings on the O`oma petition over the next several months. For details on upcoming hearings, check the LUC website:\u00a0http:\/\/luc.state.hi.us<\/a><\/p>\n

For Further Reading<\/b><\/p>\n

Background on past proposals for the O`oma land may be found in an article that appeared in the March 2009 edition of\u00a0Environment Hawai`i:<\/i>\u00a0\u201cResidential Villages Are Proposed for Area near Kona Airport, NELHA.\u201d<\/p>\n

The final environmental impact statement for O`oma Beachside Village and appendices are available online at the website of the Office of Environmental Quality Control. Click on the line to the January 23, 2009, edition of the OEQC \u201cEnvironmental Notice:\u201dwww.oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov<\/a>\u00a0The Y. Ebisu analysis of noise impacts may be found in volume 2, appendices.<\/p>\n

The noise study for the Keahole airport is available at:\u00a0www.kona-airport.com\/resources.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Patricia Tummons<\/b><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Volume 20, Number 10 — April 2010<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By almost all accounts, the vision behind the residential and commercial development proposed for about 300 acres on the Kona Coast, in an area known as O`oma, is a model of progressive, state-of-the-art thinking when it comes to urban planning. … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[71],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-april-2010"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}