|
<br />ROY: And this aspect of regulation of visitations to lands. You are not covering the aspects of
<br />sacred lands. The issues are too large for this bill to encompass basically.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Thank you, Mikahala. Aloha. And at this point I would like to close public testimony on
<br />this agenda item. Commissioners, any discussion after hearing eight different speakers from the
<br />public? Director, as the applicant, would you like to have some sort of summary?
<br />
<br />ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, just to, this is a Council initiated action, so the bill was introduced by
<br />the Council, not the Director.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Sorry. Yes, yes, yes, you are right. But nonetheless, Bobby Jean, would you like to add a
<br />few comments in closing?
<br />
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: I think, one, we have 120 days to move this; I don’t think we can punt it down
<br />the road.
<br />
<br />ARAI: That is correct. We also have this scheduled at the next Windward Planning Commission at
<br />the beginning of June, and that would just give us enough time to consolidate the recommendations
<br />and send it up to Council within the 120-day period. An option is a special meeting, if it needs to be
<br />kicked down, but it has to occur before the, by the first week in June somewhere, I would think; so
<br />that’s going to be somewhat difficult to coordinate.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Director.
<br />
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say that I think you should move this up to Council. If you
<br />have specific concerns or recommendations, not necessarily amendments, but you want to raise
<br />issues, then you could do that in your letter to the Council that you might want them to do some
<br />public outreach or, you know, take a look at certain issues that were raised here, that’s up to you as
<br />Commissioners. I gave a favorable recommendation, and part of it is that, one, we were adding
<br />additional definitions, we were trying to distinguish between major and minor, and this is in the
<br />same vein as the bill that I had originally started with, and so it’s very consistent. It’s more
<br />stringent than the bill that I had started with, because it has 5,000. But it has some of the elements
<br />that I thought were important, which is that for the minor tourism we limit it to passenger vehicles,
<br />you know, up to a 15-passenger vehicle, you can’t take a full-on bus to the smaller operations, and
<br />that was to lessen the impact on the road infrastructure. It has a weekly count, and that’s I think
<br />because it’s difficult, if you say that it’s, you know, 30 people today, what happens, if 31 comes in,
<br />and a weekly count seems to give a little more flexibility, and I like that. And that was a concession
<br />to the fact that on smaller operations you were trying to lessen the impact. And if you wanted to go
<br />bigger, then you needed to come in and do the plan approval and do that. I like the fact that, I think
<br />you want, the biggest concern I had was trying to eliminate having to go hire an engineer to do it,
<br />because part of the problem was that there had been language in the plan approval section of the
<br />County Code that basically said if you were going to do plan approval, you had to do a drainage
<br />study. And so we were trying to tweak this, because if you are not building any additional buildings
<br />besides what you already have, if you are not doing, you are basically inviting people to come in at
<br />your existing farm operation, at your existing barn or storage sheds or whatever, and then just doing
<br />a little bit of tour, why should we force people to go and pay five or six thousand dollars to get an
<br />engineering study that says that they are not generating any more water than they were previously
<br />19
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|