|
that’s one of the things we are looking at. The problem I have -, and democracy is not perfect;
<br />you can’t force people to participate, if they don’t want to. No way. But all our talk of inclusion
<br />and diversity kind of rings hollow when you think that 97 percent of the people didn’t
<br />participate. Now, I think it’s a great document; but that is the problem I have. And I think that –
<br />and I’ve talked with the Planning Department – I think in the future we maybe need to do it a
<br />little bit differently. And one of the things we might want to do in the beginning – I think you’ve
<br />done a great job, I know you’ve all done a hell of lot of work – is to start out by sending out a
<br />questionnaire and use that information in addition to the traditional public meeting format. So
<br />that was part of my point.
<br />The other question and the only really – and I have looked over this voluminous document – the
<br />only thing that really got me is Policy LU-1.5: Enhanced Shoreline Setback; and that is
<br />“maintain a minimum 1,000-foot open space no-build setback for undeveloped lands adjacent to
<br />the shoreline, on parcels which currently exceed 1,000 feet in depth ….” Well, okay – and I’ve
<br />talked to Director Yuen about this – there aren’t many of those around, if there are any. But you
<br />know, this is going to become ordinance for the next ten years at least. What if somebody ends
<br />up with a lot that’s 1,010 feet deep?
<br />E. MATSUKAWA: Again, this policy is a priority that we the County will endeavor to try and
<br />establish this. Yes, there might be a property that has less, that’s why we’ve put it at 1,000. So
<br />but if it is just a little more than that, you know, it still negotiable; it’s not an absolute that the
<br />line is drawn at 1,000 and it has to be there. It’s a priority to try and get as much as possible.
<br />And the 1,000-foot, again, this goes back to the public; this was something that came up
<br />numerous times in revisions from the public. This did come from the community.
<br />WOODWARD: It seems to me that it would be more responsible, if we are going to enact
<br />this as ordinance, to say “properties that have over 1,500 feet depth have a 1,000-foot setback” as
<br />opposed to -, see, if you have the same numbers, a 1,000-foot setback for 1,000-foot depth,
<br />you’ve got nothing to work with, if you’ve got a 1,000-foot lot. So why don’t you set the depth
<br />of the lot at a higher number than the setback? You know, pick a number, but it would seem to
<br />me reasonable to say, okay, if you’ve got a 1,500-foot deep lot, then you have a 1,000-foot
<br />setback – not a 1,000-foot lot, you’ve got a 1,000-foot setback.
<br />E. MATSUKAWA: We incubated this a lot. And you know, this again is a draft Plan; if there
<br />is some sense of that, we can consider it definitely.
<br />RHO: Director Yuen.
<br />YUEN: Yeah, I’d like to just make one comment on that. It was – the members of
<br />the Steering Committee all chuckled at that – it was heavily debated as to how to handle this.
<br />And I don’t think we are set up to do this right now, but we could do it, set it up at a break to
<br />show -. Sometimes these things are more of a problem when you debate them than when you
<br />actually look at the map; it turns out that properties along the shoreline are either much narrower
<br />– and this wouldn’t apply to them at all – like a property on Alii Drive for example, or they are
<br />much deeper; they are three or four or five thousand feet deep typically from the highway to the
<br />sea. There are a few properties, the largest property that’s, say, between 1,000 and 2,000 feet
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|