2006-04-21 Tgp-amendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

between, basically between Hokulia or Halekii Street and Keauhou. As a result of that the Council left those landowners who made objections left their properties out of Intensive Ag completely. And the result of that is that you have a line-. But there were other landowners who were actually similarly situated in the area who did not make a presentation to the Council and whos much of his property was also in Important Ag. So, we felt that we had to draw a consistent line and then to change it so that theres a consistent line between the-, that doesnt depend on who had gone to the Council and made a complaint about it. So, we went to a workshop and so we decided that we would make a line thats based on elevation. Rainfall does tend to follow elevation in the area. So the original workshop we proposed a line of 700 feet. Some of the landowners objected to that and wanted it at a higher elevation. And different people had different opinions on that. In the end what we have before you is a line thats at a 1,000 feet elevation. Theres no precise line that you could actually draw and say well this is where it starts that you can grow things and this is where theres not enough rain. But I would note that the original proposal that came to the Council and actually that came to us during the GeneralPlanamendmentprocessbefore2005hadrequesteda1,000-footelevation.Sojustto finish this up here, the net result is that for some of the landowners this will take some of their property that was mauka of the line, that was not important Ag and it will put it in important Ag. All right? For some other landowners it will take property that was makai of this 1,000-foot line that is currently in Important Ag and take it out of Important Ag and make it Extensive Ag. So, thats why if you look at your current General Plan theres the Important Ag versus Extensive Ag line jogs up and down and then after this therell be a consistent line, if this passes thered be a consistent line across the elevation. And that takes us on the northern side of Kealakekua Bay. Theres only one change on the-. I mean on the north of Halekii Street. On the southside of Halekii Street I believe we only made one change and I can show what that is in another slide. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I just on just for all our understanding could you explain to us what is the consequence of the land being Important Ag and not being Important Ag as far as Land Use, future rezonings or developments, whatever so we understand whats involved. YUEN:The General Plan has some policies concerning Important Ag. One of the policies is stated. Probably the most significant for a rezoning is a statement that the Important Ag land should not be rezoned to lot sizes too small to support Commercial Agriculture. The exact wording is a little bit different than what I said but thats the gist of it. Its not, there isnt a statement as to what that acreage is in the General Plan because the farming conditions, the kinds of crops that people grow, the market conditions may change over time. But this is, as a matter of guidance and direction when a property is proposed to be rezoned thats an Important Ag, the Council, the Planning Commission, the Planning Director should look at it and say can you still do Commercial Agriculture and do a range of Commercial Agriculture on the resulting property. So for example, for the most part it would be hard to say that a 1-acre lot to take a easy one is a lot size that would support Commercial Agriculture. Now you can probably do hydroponic tomatoes or some other kind of specialty crop but if you rezone to 1-acre lot sizes youre taking away a whole range of things that might be done on 5 or 10-acres that you can no longer do commercially on a commercial scale on 1-acre. So that would be a strong indication against doing that rezoning in Important Ag. So, it doesnt mean that Extensive Ag is wide open to EXHIBIT D 4