|
<br />I think if we expanded the thought process on that a little more, if rezonings were be to, were to
<br />be considered using catchment systems, then what we would do is analyze the rezoning, very
<br />similarly, very similar to that of how we would analyze a subdivision, okay? We look at how
<br />much rainfall there is, what the minimum catchment requirements would be, you know, provided
<br />they, they meet those kind of criteria. But then, we would also look at the land use implications
<br />of this particular, of the particular application, and in this particular case, you know, if, if it looks
<br />like by supporting a rezoning in an area that abuts the kind of zoning they’re asking for, five
<br />acres, but nevertheless is still in a, a substantial block of Ag-20 zoning, with you know lots that
<br />are big enough that could create additional requests for these kinds of zonings, then we would
<br />make our recommendation to the Commission based on those kinds of variables, okay. That’s
<br />not to say that because the concurrency requirement is a, is legislative, you know, it was enacted
<br />by the Council. That’s not to say that at the end of the day, the Council should be the one to
<br />determine whether or not particular areas like this should be opened up through the use of
<br />catchment systems for the rezoning aspect of it.
<br />
<br />You know, again, staff has indicated, and I think you all know that if it was a straight
<br />subdivision, without water, you know then catch, private catchment systems would be, would be
<br />the way, you know that’s what we’ve been approving, therefore—so that’s, you know just some
<br />commentary on that.
<br />
<br />With regard to the Puna CDP, I know the action committee has provided a recommendation but
<br />that recommendation in, in my mind, was more in regards to consistency with agricult—the
<br />agricultural component, rather than you know the land use aspects.
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Thank you.
<br />
<br />HENKEL: Mr. Chair?
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Commissioner Henkel.
<br />
<br />HENKEL: I don’t have a problem other than that, you know, that catchment system is a private
<br />system, and, and you know I don’t have a problem with concurrency, but it’s the requirements of
<br />Department of Water Supply that I think are unfeasible because with filtration technology these
<br />days, a catchment system can actually deliver higher quality water than the County system. I
<br />don’t drink County water. I run it through a filtration system before I drink it because it’s got
<br />chlorine in it. You know, with ultraviolet and sediment filtration and stuff, the catchment can be
<br />very high. I, I think that, you know, they’re meeting concurrency. They have a private system
<br />of catchment, but it’s the requirements that are unreasonable set by the Department of Water
<br />Supply. That’s my feeling.
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Thank you, Commissioner. Any further comments?
<br />
<br />HONG: Mr. Chairman, if I could jump in. I mean, I agree with Mr. Henkel’s statement, and I
<br />think that, and even the Planning Director’s concerns, and I think this is an opportunity for some
<br />clarification of the concurrency law. And, I think that, I see this happening in terms of my
<br />
<br />9
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
<br />
|