Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2017/03/07 (2016-2018)CALL TO ORDER: R(1T T CAT T Present STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: COMMUNI- C A TTnNC Committee on Planning 3rd Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii March 7, 2017 The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at 10:12 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individuals registered to speak in opposition to Bill 227, Draft 2 (Comm. 979.7), and came forward when called by the Chair: Cory Harden, representing the Sierra Club. Deborah Ward. The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Margaret Wille. Bill 227, Draft 2 (Comm. 979.7), comment. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. (There were none.) PC -3 ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS: BILLS FOR ORDINANCES: Bill 227 (Draft 2): (2014-2016) March 7, 2017 The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, AND ARTICLE 4 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL TOURISM The bill would amend Sections 25-1-5(b) (Definitions); 25-2-71(g) (Applicability; plan approval required); and 25-2-75, Plan approval application requirements; as they pertain to Agricultural Tourism. Also would amend Section 25-4-15 (Agricultural Tourism). Reference: Intr. by: Postponed: Referred to Planning Director and Planning Commissions Comm. 979.7 Ms. Wille August 16, September 20, and October 4, 2016 October 18, 2016 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Wille, seconded by Ms. Poindexter, to recommend passage of Bill 227, as amended, on first reading.) ; and Comm. 124: From Mayor Harry Kim, dated February 14, 2017, transmitting the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' unfavorable recommendations. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. So Mr. Clerk, did we need a motion? MR. HENRICKS: No. CHR. EOFF: It's live on the floor? MR. HENRICKS: Yes. CHR. EOFF: Before I open it up to the Council Members for discussion, I'd like to ask Mr. Daryn Arai and Jeff Darrow to please come to the table. I think, if Council Members don't mind, they can provide some valuable background leading up to where we are today, so that our discussion can be a little more fruitful, I think. Page 2 PC -3 March 7, 2017 (Note: At this time, Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director and Jeff Darrow Planning Program Manager came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. EOFF: So, would you introduce yourself, please? MR. ARAI: Hi. Good morning, Chairperson Eoff and members of the committee. My name is Daryn Arai, Deputy Planning Director and to my left is Jeff Darrow who is the Planning Program Manager for the department. CHR. EOFF: So I attended the Planning Commission, the Leeward Planning Commission's hearing on this bill and you folks did a really excellent job, I think, presenting a little bit background, a little bit of understanding about why we are trying to adopt an ordinance and what your proposed changes to the current ordinance would look like, at least some of it. And so that we would be able to know how we can move forward now in the most, as Ms. Wille stated, a simple, maybe going back to what would beat least give us some foundation but not complicate it too much. I think I would like it if you could spend a little bit of time before we open our discussion. MR. ARAI: Sorry, I may have to divert toMr. Darrow spent quite a bit of time, as former Council Member Wille indicated, discussing and identifying the issues and trying to kind of get on the same page. Because I think in the end, we saw where things needed to go, which was ultimately making the process a lot simpler for those who want to be recognized by the County and permitted, so to speak. At the same time, recognizing that if you don't accomplish that, then they would seek other methods and avenues by which to conduct their operations, or simply not—go underground so we simply don't know. And that's part of the process, is knowing—in simply knowing where these operations are, and that would accomplish a lot as far as the department is concerned. We don't have to have them file things annually with the department to maintain their recognition. It's just like registering once, and then we know where they are and should complaints or issues arise, then we know how to best deal with it. I'm not sure if you need anything in greater specificity than what I just provided, but Mr. Darrow here has dealt with it extensively, worked on the suggested language that both the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions provided to the Council. So I stand ready to answer any further questions. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Do you want to contribute to that before we ask questions? MR. DARROW: Sure. Good morning, Madam Chair Eoff and Council Members. As Daryn mentioned, and Margaret Wille, we believe the goal is to try to simplify the process. The difficulty we've had is the process has been a little Page 3 PC -3 March 7, 2017 overwhelming for farmers and ag tourism operators. And what ends up happening is they don't come in to the Planning Department to do the simple requirements that we felt were simple at the time. The information we're getting back is the plan approval process that is required to become approved for ag tourism actually is a difficult process, especially with certain requirements such as the site drainage plan that has to be submitted and go through review. It can be a difficult process. In reviewing Bill 227, draft 2, there were changes to the plan approval section to only require these operations to come in when they propose new structures or to do add-ons that are more than 10 percent. And we thought at this point, maybe it might be better to just not even require plan approval and to just focus on the registration process. As Daryn had mentioned, what we'd like to do is just know where they are and know how many we have that are in operation. Right now, as of today, we've had two people over the last eight years come in for plan approval on the east side and six operations on the west side. We know that there's quite a number more than that of ag tourism operations. And again, information we're getting back is they just think that the process is too difficult to come in and go through. We'd like to continue working on making a better bill, this was a good start, as Margaret had mentioned. We had some suggestions, or the Planning Director had some suggestions to alternative language, but even through that and after that, we received more information that we think is valuable that might be added in to the bill, or to a new bill. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Council Members, would you like to comment or question? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Good morning, Mr. Arai and Mr. Darrow. Thank you so much. Just building off of what you just last said, we've got something good, but you guys want more time to work on it. Do you want this body to proffer the next set or next bill? Or will you folks work from the Planning Department up? MR. ARAI: If the Council as a whole sees value in some of the recommendations that were offered by the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions, then I see value in us continuing with that process, to see if the additional comments or suggestions that were offered in the interim period can be incorporated. I think it's quite clear we need to move forward and move forward relatively quickly, so if you feel it's more prudent that we continue with our efforts, then it's something I can definitely raise with the Planning Director and get his concurrence and direction. MS. LEE LOY: A follow up question and this is something Mr. Darrow and I had a conversation about. As we go through a lot of these new types of definitions, I'm wondering about more of an extensive overhaul to not only our Page 4 PC -3 March 7, 2017 Planning Department rules, policies, and procedures, because one of the recommendations, as you mentioned is to not—where they wouldn't need to go through the plan approval process. But sometimes even those things change along the way. How do we dovetail what we're trying to incorporate now, into some further refinement to not only Chapter 25 but our department's policies, rules, and procedures? I feel like it would be a nice time to kind of get all the moving pieces lined up so we have a real great Code, department rules, and then this next piece. MR. ARAI: Rules normally define a process. As currently proposed, there's a point where if it's less than 15,000 visitors annually, and you don't exceed some of the operational parameters that are defined, then a special permit or even plan approval is not required, which means no process is required. So you don't need to define it in any rule, which is why we're looking at just a simple registration process, and I don't think you need to build rules around that. So I'm not clear, why were you focusing on?I can understand amendment to the Code, which is what this is trying to do, but when you're saying the rules, what part of the rules? What process are you looking at? MS. LEE LOY: For me, a lot of times some of the rules, especially in the Code, we have little refinements along the way. What I'd really like to see is like a whole comprehensive rule adopted, and this is something Jeff and I had spoken about over a year ago. But I don't know if this is the time to do it or if we just kind of create this new piece and then slide it into Chapter 25. MR. DARROW: It's funny that you're bringing that up now. Just recently we've had quite a number of staff meetings and one of the main focuses has been an overhaul of our, not just our rules for the Planning Commission and the department, but overall the Zoning Code as well as the subdivision code to be completely overhauled. So that is actually being assigned to one of our staff members currently, and I'm sure it's going to take some time to go through that process, but it appears to be beginning. MS. LEE LOY: I'm good, I yield. CHR. EOFF: Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Arai and Mr. Darrow for coming before us. And I just wanted to echo the conversation that you just had with Ms. Lee Loy because—well I worked with you guys in 2001, 2002, in the Planning Department, and we were batting around ag tourism then and with its first definitions, etc. So it has developed in a rather piece meal type of manner, and I love the thought that you might be doing a comprehensive overhaul of the Zoning Chapter as well as the Subdivision Code. That is so needed and we've all Page 5 PC -3 March 7, 2017 spoken about if for 15, 20 years. So it couldn't be a better time than now. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: I've always felt that this bill is geared more towards tourism than farming. So when we talk about helping farmers or growing more farmers, this bill isn't that. It's more, let's get tourism out here into rural communities, which is sometimes a bit scary because you don't know what the impact on the community is. I know I had something in my community happen that wasn't a good thing, and still the community doesn't feel good about ag tourism in that area. Because the State trumped what the County had. We said we couldn't do a restaurant I think at some point, but the State law says you can, they did it anyway, right? So they trumped us. So I like the idea of putting something in place, whether it's lengthy and a lot of people are not coming because of that. A lot of people may not be coming because maybe they want a farm and they're not into tourism, or they're very conscious of not destroying the community, or they value their community, not to disturb it in that way. Waipi`o Valley, for instance, bad road going down, you want to increase more with tourism? You want them to cross private properties to get to these ag tourism spots? Not a good idea. This bill, right now in this form, protects Waipi`o and protects a lot of the rural communities. For thoseI know Ms. Harden and another testifier stated not to support this bill, but we got to look at what the State can trump us on. I don't know and Jeff, maybe you can answer that, if we put things in place that are more restrictive, can we say you cannot have that restaurant in that area or a school, with what the State allows? Can you answer that? MR. DARROW: My understanding is that the counties can be more restrictive in regards to the State law. They give us certain authorities under Section 46 in the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) that helps us to further define and restrict these types of uses. A good example would be like telecommunication towers. They ended up allowing them within the State Land Use agricultural district whereas previously, we would require special permit. So once that happened, we changed our Code to require a use permit within the County zone, so they still had to come in for public testimony, public hearing, and we were able to place conditions on those uses. So the same process can happen if we find that some of these uses need to be further defined and refined. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. Because we've been through this since I've Council Member Wille brought this forward, and I'm concerned because a lot of people in Hamakua are concerned of how it's impacting our community in a negative way. And we need to start somewhere to start building on this. But the way it is now, we don't have a protection for Waipi`o. Not at all, correct? And Page 6 PC -3 March 7, 2017 other places that may be dangerous as well, I'm not just saying Waipi`o, but this also says any place that is not accessible, because"... where the property is accessible other than four-wheel drive." So the liability, because we have to remember our first responders, they've been going a lot down to Waipi`o, and it's a lot because of tourists. So we open this up now and we don't take care of this, we're going to increase the cost on our first responders as well because we're puttinga lot of these places could become where it's not safe. And I understand what you're saying about having them register. But really, I mean will that happen? I would rather see something in place, a law in place that protects us and we can fine them for it, versus having nothing, and just having them register. But that was just my opinion and I'll yield at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Comments? Ms. Ruggles. Oh, okay. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And thanks for coming in to talk story about this. This has been on the dockets and on the table for at least a decade plus. We've been talking story about this, and I was involved with a lot of conversations early on. I do commend Councilwoman Margaret Wille for bringing this forth and trying to get arms around it because it is something we got to do. And I think whenever I'm puzzled and confused, and this is probably one of the best confusing pieces of legislation that's come through, go back and look at the initial—why was this put forth? And that time, if we go back to early 2000's, even mid 2000's, we have to look at the agricultural entities within our state, within our country and realize that the intent was to have a cash flow for that agricultural entity, to help it through the rough times, because agriculture is up and down, based upon financials. It's also based upon Mother Nature, if she decides to give us rain or not. So, given that circumstance, I know what put this on the table and as we come forth, I'm definitely hearing the concerns for the needs of protections. Also, on the other side of the table, having it so cumbersome and so overwhelmingly difficult, that's why you don't have people registering, because it didn't make sense to register. The idea was to generate a cash flow, not to create a bureaucracy for another agricultural operation. That being said, I am keenly concerned about the testimony that was given, impact on neighbors. It's one thing if we're talking large acreage, very different if we're talking small acreage. And access to that land is very, very important, but also concerning. We have to be very sensitive to the impact of the community around, not just what's going on. And the definition of ag tourism, I think that is an interesting one because I don't think we've even really identified that yet, we're still struggling with that one. But again, I'm very sensitive to what the neighbor's impacts are. Page 7 PC -3 March 7, 2017 That being said, I think we need to do something to get our arms around it, make it not onerous to get it done, but also at the same time, being very careful and seeking the impact and the input from the neighbors. If the neighbors are two miles away, very minimal impact, if they're 200 yards away, huge impact. So we have to be sensitive to that. So, going forward, I can understand why the Leeward and WindwardI did sit through part of the Leeward conversation as well and I can understand why it's unfavorable recommendation because this is so confusing. But I think we need to do something and we need to put something forth. I'm concerned that we're not going to be putting the right thing forward and we're going to make it onerous again. That's not what we want, we don't want a contentious thing. We want to save, again back to the testimony, very sensitive to use of a road. Who's going to be responsible for maintaining that? If it's a 50150 ownership or access, but the impact of the tourism is very, very high, then we need to be sensitive to that. And we need to have the mechanisms in place that deal with this so we have good neighbors. So that being said, we do need a bill like this, but the way this bill is writtenI really like some of the stuff that the recommended language coming forth. So to that end, though I support the intent, I think we still have more work to do on this bill and I'm very happy to volunteer myself to work on this. So with that, I will be listening very carefully to the recommendations coming out and whether we change the bill, scrap the bill, put a new bill, I'm open to all of that. Thank you, I yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you very much. Anybody else? No? Ms. O'Hara, do you?I just want to make sure nobody else wanted to go on the first round. That was a no from anybody else? So go ahead. MS. O'HARA: I just wanted to follow up. Councilwoman Lee Loy had mentioned where do we go from here? This is an introduced bill coming from the Planning Department, and I totally agree with Councilman Richards in that this is so needed, and I do agree with the points made by the testifiers. I've been places where ag tourism is embraced and works really well, but they have clear rules to the game. And my question is where do we go from here? If this bill is, in this current form, voted down and it has a lot of good content, but there are things that it needs to embrace that it doesn't currently, will we be bringing back a new bill, or how do we proceed from here to get this job done? MR. ARAI: Thank you for those comments. As I mentioned earlier, I will be consulting with the Planning Director because I definitely see value in trying to continue what our initiatives—especially as the Director made his recommendation to the Planning Commission which they both adopted, so I will be speaking with the Director shortly after this meeting and trying to provide—get Page 8 PC -3 March 7, 2017 that guidance from him. But I do definitely see value in the department maybe initiating a bill based on the work that has already been done. CHR. EOFF: Thank you for that. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Just a quick comment again. I think, in keeping in mind and as we go forward with the process, when we talk about agriculture, we have to be respectful of agriculture. And what I mean by that is if it's true ag tourism and showing ag, showcasing ag, we're going to have to get to ag. And what that may mean is some of the language in here and Council Chair, I do appreciate the fact that the four-wheel drive but in all of my agricultural experiences, my truck is usually in four-wheel drive. But the spirit of the intent is to show people we have such a small population that knows anything about agriculture any more. It's beneficial and incumbent upon our society to try and educate more people about agriculture so I think that's the spirit that we need to go forward. So with that, I yield. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. One thing I learned is definitions, definitions, definitions. And with our farmers, defining agriculture is already challenging, whether it be just defining ag, or how it applies to our real property tax laws and then you fold in this piece, which is agricultural tourism. I stand ready for the challenge to work with the department and pull out what Mr. Arai said. There's some valuable stuff here that we can really begin to build upon and really create a definition of agricultural tourism, because that's what everything's going to fall back on. And unfortunately, even the State has a very different view of what agriculture and agricultural tourism is. And I do think it's of value and very important for us as an island to define what agricultural tourism means to this big and best island. So I yield, but I'm willing to do the work. So Mr. Darrow and Mr. Arai, we'll get together. MR. ARAI: We stand ready. No, I do appreciate what you said, and the reason I was not looking at you, I was scribbling notes and taking into account all of the comments you provided. One thing I've learned over the years is legislative intent does not really get conveyed clearly sometimes, especially when institutional knowledge kind of goes out as people retire, and I'm one of them, hopefully soon. But anyway, I'm thinking that it's always good to define purpose. I mean there's a purpose and a reason for everything that's in the Code and if that is not clearly articulated in the Code, then that message doesn't get translated down the road. So anyway, it's something that we may need to think about and see if, based on the comments that were made, maybe we can put a provision in there somewhere to define that purpose. It could be just in the definition, or it could be elsewhere to again, to manage the spirit of agriculture and what agricultural tourism was meant to be. Page 9 PC -3 March 7, 2017 CHR. EOFF: Thank you. I have a couple more comments or questions. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Mahalo, Chair. Aloha, Mr. Arai and Mr. Darrow. I really thank you folks for being here today and giving us a background on this very long- standing issue, and many attempts have been made. But I sense that what you said is valuable because during that whole process and the amount of years it took to get to this place and the testimony from our citizens, I think you have a clear template now on what is important to have in a bill such as this, to just get something on the books. And I like that because sometimes you don't need a whole set of complicated rules and regulations in order to accomplish something that will benefit everybody. So I agree with the Leeward and Planning Departments' recommendations, and I just have one question and that is, what would be your timeline inI know this is complicated, but justit took us several years to get to this point. But because you have all this past information and you know you can kind of focus your attention now, what do you see as the timeline in getting something working with the Council Members? Getting something for us to look at? And you don't have toI know it's on the record, but you can just give an estimated guess. MR. ARAI: I know the words sooner rather than later is not going to work for you, but again, we see the importance of getting—the longer we wait, the more things will just fester. So I think part of it is time well spent if we, not only work with the counselors and addressing their concerns, but with the community and agricultural community as well. Just to make sure that—we cannot satisfy everyone, but at least the majority, hopefully they understand the premise and where we're heading. So that being said, we probably would not—I would like to see something maybe in about a three months' time or so. That's about the best I can offer right now. MS. DAVID: That's refreshing and I think that's a good timeline for you to come back with, especially since we have a new Director and we have fresh minds and stuff Perfect. I think that's all I have and I think—the comments that our Council Members have said about protecting surrounding landowners and encouraging farmers as opposed to not, I think is really important. So having said that and your answer to my timeline question, I yield. And thank you very much again. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. So from what I'm hearing is that this ag bill intention is to bring tourism out into rural communities, that's one of the things that I heard. I see this as a really good potential for helping our economy out there, and our testifiers bring up a lot of really good points. And I think that sort Page 10 PC -3 March 7, 2017 of—one thing that we're missing here is the reality of these rural communities is that we lack the infrastructure we need to handle the capacity of traffic going in and out of our communities. Because a lot of these roads are publically travelled private roads, and they are maintained on the backs of the residents and they're already stretched thin with the maintenance that they require. And so, figuring out a way to balance the need for the impact that this sort of activity will have on our infrastructure and on our roads with what people want to do with their land and supporting farmers, I believe should be the intent of this project. And I understand that the way it is now, we actually have no protections, there are no restrictions and that, from what I'm hearing, the State is going to just permit anything. Is that correct? MR. ARAI: As I understand it, the State law basically is—the applicability of it is based on the counties coming up with their—implementing by their local Codes which the County of Hawaii has done. We're just going through the amendment process right now, so I thinkI mean we do have laws in place right now, so I think we're okay. So it's not going to simply open it up if we do nothing, it's simply going to fall back on the Code as currently constructed. So we do have something in place. The other counties, which do not have local laws in place, basically, statute doesn't allow them to have ag tourism. So because we were the first to implement, we're now just trying to refine. MS. RUGGLES: I see. Is there a time limit on when this needs to be implemented? MR. ARAI: Well the—as far as the CHR. EOFF: I think somebody's mic might be on. Hang on. Got it? Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. MS. RUGGLES: I thought I heard one of the testifiersMs. Wille said that we had six months or something along those lines. Is that true? No? Okay. MR. ARAI: I'm sorry I'm not sure what MS. RUGGLES: I must have misheard her. Thank you. I think that we should stay focused on how this supports farmers and farming, and we need to continue to incorporate the feedback from the community. So I appreciate all of you being willing to keep along with this process. Thank you. MR. ARAI: Thank you. And if I may provide a quick clarification. Council Member, David, I know I said three months, I'm not changing that right now, but I'm just saying that I want to make it clear that it's still a process, which means if Page 11 PC -3 March 7, 2017 an amended bill is crafted, then we will still have to go—it'll be like a Director initiated if the Director is so inclined. So we will have to take it back to the Planning Commissions again and then it will come before the Council. So in the end, it will be longer than three months, but I want to be able to have something in place in about three months. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: We've got testimony from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) and they brought some very, very good points. I just want to make sure that you get a copy of it so when you guys start drafting, that you take into consideration—I'll just read one short piece, "OHA believes that clearer and more enforceable standards may be warranted for tourism uses on lands zoned for agriculture. If not carefully regulated, the proliferation of tourism operations on agricultural lands may result in non -agriculture related tourism activities becoming the primary de facto use for agricultural lots. This in turn could reduce agricultural production and activity, incentivize land speculation and increase agricultural land prices, make it harder for bona fide farmers to begin or continue farming activity, and ultimately reduce the food self-sufficiency of the county." So I just want to make sure—that's just one point, but they have very good points. The other thing is I can appreciate Council Member Tim Richard's statement about farming is done on four-wheel—you got to use four-wheel drive. Definitely, that's a given, especially in Hamakua, yeah? But what I'm talking about is when you move it to ag tourism, then you're looking at whose roads, like Council Member Ruggles brought up. Because Waipi`o is County -owned road and to increase the traffic that is already on that road is going to make it so dangerous, it's an accident waiting to happen. So I ask that you keep those kinds of places in your minds, or when you're crafting this legislation because we don't want to put all this cost onto the backs of our tax payers, and that's where it's going to fall. So, be very mindful of that. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam, Chair. And I agree with everything that everybody's talking about, we've been talking about this forever. And I know we're going to go back again to bringing up something else which I think we need to do. I don't think it's the right—the best way to work off of this and keep on going and working, working, working. No, that's we already know I think we're all in agreement that we need to start fresh from the ideas of the Planning Department, Mr. Richards, and we know the intent. We know where we want to go because we're speaking about generalities, yeah? General sense of where we want to go and how it's just how we get. The devil is in the details, which is why everybody keeps opposing this thing because there's a lot of issues with this bill specifically. I mean Cory brings up every single time, pages of issues with Page 12 PC -3 March 7, 2017 the details and how it's going to affect everybody on this bill, or with this bill. Testifiers after testifiers, specifically with this bill are bringing up the issues with this. So before I ask for a postponement indefinitely, I definitely will give the floor back to Ms. Eoff to say a few words, but that's I think where this bill needs to go. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. That's pretty much where we're heading. But before we do that, I wanted to make sure that I acknowledge everybody for their participation in this and their patience, because I think we've reached a much better level right now at this point than I've seen in all the years that I've been on the Council, and I think the term previous to that when we were also dealing with an ag tourism amendment to the Code. So I think that for me, I would like to recommend that we do postpone Bill 227 to the call of the Chair at this point, while we work on a clean version of a bill that you folks could take a stab at as you kind of suggested that you would. In the meantime, I would urge the Council Members who have ideas to talk with you, and I for one have already offered to do all I can to help promote and facilitate progression of a new bill that would incorporate the good work that's been done. And yet from all of the—knowing all that we know now to be able to come out with something that everybody could understand, comply with, and make it a benefit to those people who wish to have a value-added product to their agricultural endeavor. But making sure that it is an accessory, I think that was one of the things the State also is telling us that the ag tourism operation needs to be accessory to a bona fide ag operation. I think that way we do maintain the sustainability and the reason we have agriculture and want to encourage it for food sustainability or etc. So with that, I wouldI didn't see your light, I'm sorry. I can see it now, but I didn't see it before. So why don't I just yield and let you go ahead and then we'll wrap it up. MR. CHUNG: I don't want to extend this conversation too much longer, I just wanted to offer my thoughts on this. First of all, I think it's a well -intention bill and I don't know where Margaret is, but congratulations and thanks to her. I thought what was very interesting was Mr. Richard's perspectives because he really knows the agricultural industry, inside and out. So I listened intently to what he was saying. Also, what prompted my comments though is the references to Waipi`o Valley. We constantly hear Waipi`o Valley and then my view, and maybe it's not intended that way, but it'sI'm viewing it as being a constraint to having something like this go through. So if that's the case, I would say carve out Waipi`o Valley. Do something to make Waipi`o Valley special. Limit the access Page 13 PC -3 March 7, 2017 over there or whatever so we can take that out of the equation already, because if not, we're never going to get to something that makes sense on this. That's my recommendation and was just prompted by constant references to Waipi`o Valley. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chung, and I'm sorry I didn't see your light. But yeah, I think—and in this current draft, Bill 227, that was part of the bill. So with that, I would like to see if somebody would make a motion to postpone Bill 227 at this point. Vote on Motion to Postpone: Mr. Kanuha moved to postpone Bill 227, Draft 2 (Approved) Indefinitely. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ADJOURN There being no further business, at 11:06 a.m., Mr. Kanuha moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: The meeting's adjourned. Approved: e--�- L V&cam , Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/j m 3.«• 11 (Date) Page 14