|
VITOUSEK: And does that fit with the 80 percent, the language in here about 80 percent
<br /> retention forest?
<br /> HINCHCLIFF: I would have to refer it to Mr. Fuke.
<br /> FUKE: Yeah, it kind of reads right now like 80 percent, well, the way it reads right now, "If
<br /> more than 20 percent of the [subject] property has been cleared or grubbed prior to the submittal
<br /> of the Forest Management Plan"—but at this point in time that's really not applicable because
<br /> the property has never been cleared or grubbed, but anyways—"or the recording of the restrictive
<br /> covenant(s), the reforestation program for any cleared or grubbed area(s) in excess of the 20
<br /> percent within the subject property shall be substantially implemented prior to the issuance of
<br /> Final Subdivision Approval." Bottom line is that that condition is fine, and it's really like
<br /> immaterial because there is no activity on the property. So, retaining 80 percent pretty much like
<br /> allows you, you know, the applicant more than half an acre for a building site and the driveway
<br /> area, which would be more than enough. I think what Mr., the applicant, you know, Hinchcliff
<br /> has mentioned is that if you clear the `ohi`a forested area, you know, there is a potential that you
<br /> could have other type of, ag related type of products, you know, under the, understory, you
<br /> know, whether it's going to be plants, you know, maybe such as like anthuriums or whatever;
<br /> however, with that 80-percent restriction I think intensive agricultural activity on the property
<br /> would be very difficult to achieve, and hence the reason why is that if you look at the request of
<br /> the zoning, the requested zoning is FA, you know, Family Agriculture which is the intent, you
<br /> know, anytime you have properties that are less than five acres, then the desired zoning is FA for
<br /> Family Agriculture rather than pure Ag zoning. And in this case here, as Mr. Hinchcliff, you
<br /> know, he can attest, you know, he has two children, his father, and one of his nephews that they
<br /> are pretty much like, the project is cared for, you know, towards that. I don't know if I have
<br /> answered your question directly, Mr. Chairman, but it's as best as I can right now.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Commissioner Knowles.
<br /> KNOWLES: Thank you. I guess this is for the Planning Commission. Just following up on
<br /> what you are saying, Chair, is, you know, it talks about a forest management pian submitted for
<br /> review and approval by the Planning Director in consultation with State DLNR. And it looks to
<br /> me like the State DLNR has some very specific criteria for what is included in a forest
<br /> management plan. So I'm just wondering, Planning Director Kern or Ms. Jackson, what did you
<br /> envision with respect to this condition? I mean, is it, is this actually as the Chair is saying, which
<br /> is a sort of—I mean one of the DLNR criteria is native reforestation—so is that the plan with
<br /> respect to this condition that you will work with the applicant and the State DLNR to configure
<br /> this?
<br /> JACKSON: Yes. So we've reviewed many forest management plans for the Kaloko Mauka
<br /> area, and all of them are reviewed by the DLNR Forestry Division. They are supposed to be
<br /> prepared kind of following their stewardship guidelines for retaining as much native forest as
<br /> possible. And so, as Mr. Fuke mentioned, I think the intent of the condition was to retain at least
<br /> 80 percent of the native forest or improve the existing forest to remove invasives. So doing
<br /> something like anthuriums under the native canopy could be some viable ag, but to actually
<br /> 17
<br /> EXHIBIT C (DRAFT)
<br />
|