HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0745.009 2010-2012 P ge1of2
PI 0auNCat
Murashige, Laura CC,'Vitl, 745.8
From: Cory (Martha) Harden [mh @interpac.net]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:41 AM
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: hold hearings on agritourism/ Bill 266, draft 3/County Council 9 AM Wed 8-15-12 _?
comments on Bill 266, draft 3 re.agricultural tourism
for Hawai'i County Council 9:00 AM Wednesday, August 15, 2012, West Hawai'i Civic w
Center
by Cory Harden, PO Box 10265, Hilo, Occupied Hawai'i 96721 808-968-8965
mh @interpac.net `'
I'm glad to see this bill tightened up, but I still urge you to hold public hearings. The
Hawai'i Agritourism Association met with the Planning Department on this bill for three
years. Let's give an equal voice to farmers who just farm, and residents who enjoy
peace and quiet. And let's try to get it right, since other counties are looking to us as a
model. Remember that with zip lines, we didn't anticipate all the traffic and other
impacts.
Last year's O'ahu Agritourism Guidebook says "The State of Hawaii has made it clear
that tourism activities on agricultural land must always be secondary to the agricultural
activity itself. Visitor programs that take valuable space and resources away from
agricultural production, or degrade the character of the neighborhood, are
unacceptable. Instead, visitor programs should have a negligible impact on agricultural
operations, add value to the business through increased revenues, encourage superior
farm safety practices and natural resource management, and be good neighbors to the
surrounding community."
[O'ahu Agritourism Guidebook, O'ahu Resource Conservation & Development
Council, 2011, http://www.oahurcd.org/uploads/documents/Agritourism%
20Guidebook.pdf/
In California, there were complaints about "noise, traffic, trespassers, and ... agritourism
activities altering the character of their neighborhood..." according to a 2003 report by
the Agriculture Issues Center at the University of California.
[Obstacles in the Agritourism Regulatory Process: Perspectives of Operators and
Officials in Ten California Counties, AIC Brief, Number 22,September 2003,
Diana Keith, Ellen Rilla, Holly George, Ramiro Lobo, Laura Tourte and Roger
Ingram, Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, ,
http://aic.ucdavis.edu/oa/brief22.pdfj
For us, I still have these concerns:
• What happens if a proposal is still not reviewed after 60 days? p. 5 (e)
• It looks like a quiet rural neighborhood could get 350 visitors in 350 cars, once a
week, for ten months in a row, with no warning and no way to stop them. bottom
of p. 2
• Visitors, farm trucks, tractors, carts, and animals would mix on substandard (/1h
..
I
Comm. No.
Ref.To: l�
Ref. Date A b
8/13/2012
Page 2 of 2
roads with multiple owners, some off-island. Who's liable for injuries, crashes, blocked
traffic, and wear and tear on roads?
• It looks like agritourism revenue could exceed agriculture revenue for minor
operations. p. 6 (d 1)
• Farmers may be priced out the market by people buying up land for agritourism.
• Site inspections should be required p. 5 (e)
Please hold hearings! Mahalo.
P.S. Thank you for these changes to the bill-
• Addition of botanical gardens -- middle of p. 1
• A requirement for plan approval before new development--p. 4 (g)
• 1,000 square foot limit on agritourism facilities --p. 4 (4)
• 60 days review time instead of 30 --p. 5 (e)
• No automatic approval after the review time expires -- p. 5 (e)
• 6 months instead of 12 for agritourism operations to comply with regulations–pp. 8-9 (e,
f, g, i, k)
8/13/2012