Laserfiche WebLink
and had to leave. She, I have read, Im a member of the Kona Council and Ive read the Kona <br />Councils testimony. She asked me to testify on her behalf. Shes received and read all of my <br />information and she said she and the Kona Councilagree with me. The only point that she <br />wanted to make in addition and I hope youll accept this from me on her behalf is that she <br />wanted to try to persuade you to relieve some of the restrictions that were built into the proposed <br />bill. That they were too restrictive and what the bill needed was accommodation rather than <br />restriction. That was her main point. Looking at the bill as its written, I was absolutely <br />delighted that the Planning Department had taken on this issue. It was an issue that was, that has <br />been needed for a long, long time and has been not addressed. And I think theyve done a good <br />job. I personally if I had my choice would like to turn it upside down in a couple of ways and <br />Ive mapped out some of those ways but this is just the summary of ideas that Ive had on that. I <br />think one of the most important things that can be achieved with this bill is to create a spirit. A <br />spirit of the Ag tourism bill which would be reflected in a preamble; a preamble which is <br />positive, supportive of agriculture, recognizes that the State Constitution and the County Charter, <br />specificallyadmonishustofavoragriculture.Thosearespecificadmonitions.Imnotan <br />attorney but I have a itchy feeling that if this is a highly restrictive bill that creates a lack of <br />opportunity and/or a loss of opportunity which now exists it could be challenged in the Court as <br />being contrary to the State Constitution Admonition, thats mandate to favor agriculture and the <br />County Charters admonition, mandate to favor agriculture. So I view that as a fairly important <br />issue. Also I think its important because this bill could and should live for 50 years beyond <br />when were all dead and gone. But the only way it can live is if the spirit of the bill is <br />accommodative to agriculture and it recognizes that agriculture is a way of life on this island. <br />Its one of the things that sets this island and our lifestyle apart. Its one of the things that needs <br />to be preserved. I spoke with a member of staff at the Planning Department while I was <br />investigating this bill, Larry Brown, and we had a wonderful conversation. And he said to me, <br />what we want to avoid is a Knotts Berry Farm and I agree wholeheartedly. But what we need is <br />regulation not strangulation and I view these numbers that are in the bill as strangulation because <br />they dont work for 90% of the farms that theyll apply to. My colleagues have already talked <br />about the $10,000.00 limit and I think maybe youre persuaded already that thats not going to <br />work. But the crop that comes to mind for me is Jaboticaba, that wonderful tropical fruit that <br />takes 10 years to produce. So, the Jaboticaba farmer is a farmer nevertheless and he deserves the <br />same benefits and rights that the lettuce farmer deserves who can get a crop in 5 or 6 weeks. <br />Regarding the other restrictions, I would really like to see no number inserted in the bill as a <br />number of annual visitors. First of all I think its unenforceable. I think theres nobody who is <br />going to sit there and count and so its an arbitrary and artificial guideline or standard that cant <br />be measured and cant be enforced. And there are other ways to do the same thing. Whoever <br />drafted, Larry I guess and the Planning Director drafted this bill and they drafted a clause in it <br />that said no more than 50% of the gross volume of this operation shall be in Ag tourism and I <br />think thats an excellent way to regulate how much tourism takes place. So if you have a 90,000 <br />acre cattle farm doing millions and millions of dollars you have the space and you have the <br />venue to support a fairly large Ag tourism operation. Whereas if you have three quarters of an <br />acre growing lettuce you obviously cant even provide your on site parking which is also another <br />excellent measure of whether the site, the farm can support this Ag tourism operation. Definitely <br />all parking should be on site. I think thats really clear. The turnarounds the parking should all <br />be on site. That will help alleviate the constructive possible nuisance to neighbors. And that is <br />the reason I believe for the 40,000 number or 6,000 number as Mr. Yamasaki suggests. What <br />youre trying to do is make sure that your neighbors are not unnecessarily impacted by this <br />8 <br />EXHIBIT E <br /> <br />