|
DRAFT- SUBJECT TO CHANGE
<br /> PISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Thank you for preparing the proposed amendment, or
<br /> proposed conditions. I just want to learn a little bit more about proposed condition H and I—
<br /> why do you feel like that's a good, good amendment?
<br /> PIPAN: I can take a crack at that if you like. Thanks for the question, Commissioner
<br /> Paishon-Duarte. As written, as proposed by the Planning Department, the condition requiring a
<br /> biologist to survey any tree, a qualified biologist to survey any tree prior to cutting, I felt, was
<br /> perhaps a little overly restrictive of the applicant's property rights: Mr. Kahananui does tree
<br /> work as his profession, so, you know, he is well aware of how to do these things in a responsible
<br /> and respectable process. So the, I just feel like there is perhaps a little bit more detail in the
<br /> proposed amended condition that better reflects, okay, what we've got on the property already;
<br /> it's practically fully developed, and as the condition were written, even if the tree were maybe
<br /> 10 feet tall, non-native, you-know, any cutting of any tree would require this additional step of
<br /> having a certified or trained biologist to come out and look at the tree and say that there is no
<br /> hawks, no nests present, when I think, you know, common, common sense can prevail in those
<br /> situations as well. Have nothing against Hawaiian Hawks, obviously, we'd love to protect their
<br /> habitat. Feel like the potential for this property being quality habitat is fairly limited. The trees
<br /> are all pretty small. As I understand, hawks prefer to nest in larger, much larger trees, `ohi`a or
<br /> koa particularly. So, that, that being the rationale for the decision on the hawk condition.
<br /> And for the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth condition, again, this was just maybe a little bit of clarity
<br /> added in that as was written, any vegetation less than one meter was to be removed. And that
<br /> didn't really make much sense because you may have a lot of vegetation less than one meter.
<br /> And I think the host plant of the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth, aside from the native 'aiea, would be
<br /> the tree tobacco, so DOFAW has developed these guidelines to mitigate for potential impacts to
<br /> Blackburn's Sphinx Moth based on their life cycle; if the plants are small, they say it's okay to
<br /> remove them, but if they get big, then, you know, it's more likely that there's eggs or larvae
<br /> present. So we feel like the proposed amendments, you know,better clarify that it's the tree
<br /> tobacco plants that they are talking about, not really any vegetation.
<br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, thank you for the comprehensive response, and it helps me to
<br /> appreciate, right, the expertise of this applicant and the practicality of the matter. May I ask
<br /> another question, Chair?
<br /> •
<br /> VITOUSEK: Of course.
<br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Look, I think this question, I'd like to direct it towards the Planning staff,
<br /> please. My question is if we were to, if we were to approve this application, would this set
<br /> precedent for any other applicant that has, you know, similar conditions? Meaning I guess my
<br /> specific question, would we then now need to apply these conditions to other similar applications
<br /> with similar habitat?
<br /> KAY: Sure, I can address that. If I may step back and further address your question about the
<br /> `Io protection, I did also want to point out that the revised condition that the applicant supplied is
<br /> also more in line with our standard condition that we normally add for those protections. So I
<br /> 6
<br /> EXHIBIT A (DRAFT)
<br />
|