|
18088859590 P. 02
<br />
<br /> DEC-16-2004 1l :18 AM NLPC
<br /> went d ,200 acres. Oahu ha about 130,000 acr., .ssHkd/Yoned for agrlafttrro.
<br /> • For Mat....ouMy, total acroape in crop waM ham 66,800 in 1907 to 48,100 in 2001- a dscroase
<br /> 017,500 acres, Wlthih this, sugar went down 7,700 sores, pinaspple stayed conshnt, and other
<br /> (dlveroi8ad) apps went up 200 acne. itAaul has about 400,000 acres daasllNdloned for
<br /> a0rkulturo.
<br /> • For KauN, total acroaga in crop went from 28,100 in 1997 to 12,800 in 2001 - a decrease of
<br /> 13 300 acres. Within this, sugar went down 15,000 acres and other (diversified) crops went down
<br /> 300 acres. Kauai has about 140,000 sass daaarrtearroradfor agrlalturo.
<br /> • For the Big Npnd, total acreage M crop stayed constant at 11,900 acres in 1997 and 2001, all
<br /> attributable to other (drvarsified) props. This does not include plantation forestry. Hawaii has
<br /> about 1,200,000 acres dasslRedrzaned for agrialhrre.
<br /> ~ statewide, tota~aereape In sop went from t43,800 in 1'999'7 W 114,700 in 2001- a decrease o/
<br /> 28,900 acros. Within this total, super went down 22,700 acres, PIn~PPIe went up to 200 (same
<br /> ea Oehu), but other (diveroified) crops went down 8,400 acros. Stetewlde, them are about
<br /> 1,930,000 awes daasMlediioned for agrialture. The arrant General Plan proposes pkcinp
<br /> 388,2$3 acres in the IAL category.
<br /> • Speclficapy we disagree with the following proposed IAL designetluna.
<br /> o Hamakua-1: The tAL district should tap bebw the Hamakua Ditch System.
<br /> o North Kohala-1: The IAL district slaultl tall below the Kohale Dttch System
<br /> o S. KOhela•1: The tAl distrct should fap'above the Kohafa Mountain road above the Hawaii Preparatory
<br /> Academy and should folbw the rainfall belt dosar to Welmea town in the Pu'ukapu rogbn.
<br /> a S. Kohala-4: The IAL designation should not inrkrde the Mauka Waikoloa, Keamoku and Wapci'l lands as
<br /> they do not have sufficient rainfall nor could they be ecwrombelly irrigated.
<br /> o N. Kona-2; N. Kons-3; N. Konen; S. Kona•1: Mauka lends atwvs the coffee belt and rat otherwise
<br /> suited for agriculture such as the Kaloko Lands (valuable waterehad) should ba deleted from proposed
<br /> IAL
<br /> o N. Kone•4; S. Kona-1: The makel lands below the coffee belt (rainfall Ilne) enould be eliminated hom the
<br /> Proposed IAL
<br /> In rogard b the process of designating an IAL District, leaf year at the Legislature all of the County Planning Directors,
<br /> Including Mr. Chris Yuen, eatlmeted that tt would take an avenge o/ (2) years at a cost of rouphiy Sb00,000.00 459h to
<br /> axurately assess and map the intlivMual IAL Districts }or each County. Clearly this is an eRoR which needs a mare
<br /> thoughtful analysis.
<br /> Rural DNMct
<br /> In general, we believe the County should utilize the rural district to a greater degrce in General Plan tlesipnations. At the
<br /> State level I bepeve the intent is to make the rural district more'ueer blandly' to agrlalture with right to faun leplelation,
<br /> etc. IYS important to understand that property taxes wig not rice if AO use (dedicatlon) antlnues on rural dass111ed lands.
<br /> The County has the mapping capability to overky all exlatlng 1-3 acre Ag subtlivbbns on the General Plan maps. We
<br /> strongly support redaasifying all of these lends as County General Plan Rural, malntalninptha arroM unina~(,ensity.
<br /> Phase ropuaet the Planning Department to prepare these maps as a poMt of disassion.
<br /> Formattlnp
<br /> W~ support the improvements In formatting adopted In Grafts 2 and 3.
<br /> CommunNy Developmstft plans
<br /> We support the language in Draft 3 which adds language to better assess and prloritixe the varying needs around the
<br /> island to determine the bgical order of developing Community plena.
<br /> Finally, we weM to stress that devebpmant conditions and agreements haw ohenped considerably in many instances
<br /> since the introtluctlon or Draft 1. The areas tlf Knhanaiki and Keopuka are prime examples es well as the Hokupa
<br /> tlevebpment. At the very least, the newly adopted 6ensrol plan must reflect these changes.
<br /> Thank you for the opportunity to comment and wa look forward to working witll you on the timely edoptan of the General
<br /> Plan.
<br /> Regards,
<br /> John B. Ray
<br /> Prosident
<br /> Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference
<br />
<br />
|