HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.016 2002-2004 C~i00DS1LL ANDERSON QUINN ~ S?IFEL
A LIMITED LIABILITY LAw PARTNERFHti LLF
LEICIiTON YVEN ALIT PLACE, $LIITE IBOU • 1099 AL,4KEn $TRFET DIRECT DIAL:
I-0ONOLULU, HAmN19G317 (flOfl) 547.5605
MAIL ADDRESS: F.O. BOx 3196 INTERNET:
HONOLULU, HAwnn 96301 I~I,~n~uodstl.com
TELEYFIONE (808) 547.5600 • Fnx (808) 547.58$0
infO~goodslll.com - www.goodsilLcom
AEQN'tTy
April 17, 2003 mne_--- - eY-----
04ro ~ ~-PC G~o~sl«~
Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair VIA FAX (808) 961-8912
Hawaii County Council
Committee on Planning
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Bill 163, Proposed County o£Hawaii General Plan
Revision of Aericulrit>•al La d Use Sections
Dear Chair Leithead-Todd and Members of the Committee:
We are the attorneys for Waikoloa Land Company, Inc. ("WLCI") and its
various affiliates and subsidiaries, including Waikoloa Development Co. (herein *Af`erred
to as "WDC") and Waikoloa Land & Cattle Co. (herein referred to as "'WLCC"). We
understand that the Hawaii County Council, Committee on Planning, is reviewing
recommendations for amendments to the Hawaii County General Plan, based on the
10-year comprehensive review of the plan. We also understand that in connection with
this review, the Committee on Planning (the "Committee") will be holding a workshop
on April 21, 2003 to discuss the agricultural land use sections. We submit this testimony
for consideration at the upcoming workshop.
This testimony relates to the criteria for designation of Important
.^.gricultural Land on the General Plan in general, and in particular, as such proposed
designation affects Hawaii County Tax Map Key Parcels (3) 6-8-2-1, 2, 7 and 8. WLCC
is the owner of TMK (3) 6-8-2 parcels 1, 7 and 8, consisting of approximately 1169.682
acres, 400.041 acres, and 342.634 acres, respectively. WDC is the owner of TMK
(3) 6-8-2 parcel 2, consisting of approximately 651.831 acres. In this letter we refer to
these four parcels collectively as the "Properties". gy way of backgrouud, the Properties
are located in Waikoloa just below and abutting the Queen Mamalahoa Highway. All or
portions of each of these parcels currently bear a designation of "Intensive Agriculture"
under the 1989 Hawaii County General Plan, and all or portions of each of these parcels
are shown in the proposed General Plan as "Important Agricultural Land".
Comm. No. I _
Ref. To:'~
d7GG53 2 Ref. Uate
4i 16/U3 e: W YM
610-d 90/d9 d 910-1 0885lY5808+ NOSa311NV 11150009-mo~j El 9l EO-ll-1dV
GooDSUt ANDERSON QuuvN ~ STIFEL
A UM:rp Un6n,~n Lnw PA R71`1ERSHm LLP
Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair
April 17, 2003
Page 2
General Discussion regarding the Criteria for Izr~,ortant A~icultural Land
We understand that the proposed revisions to the General Plan would
eliminate the "Intensive Agriculture" classification and in its place create a designation of
"Important Agricultural Land". Under the proposed revisions, "lmportant Agricultural
Lands" are defined as those lands with "better potential for sustained high agricultural
yields because of soil type, climate, topography, or other factors." The proposed
revisions state that Important Agricultural Lands will be determined by including the
following lands:
1. Lands identified as "Lntensive Agriculture" on the 1989 General Plan
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide maps.
2. Lands identified in the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of
Hawaii (ALISH) classification system as "Prime" or "Unique".
3. Lands classified by the Land Study Bureau's Soil Survey Report as
Class B "Good" soils. (There are no Class A lands on the island of
Hawaii).
4. Lands classified as at least "fair" for two or more crops, on an irrigated
basis, by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's study of
suitability for various crops.
5. In North and South Kona, the "coffee belt", a continuous band defined
by elevation, according to input from area farmers. '
6. State agricultural parks (These Six items are hereafter referred to as
"Criteria").
For the following reasons, (1) WLCI and its affiliates oppose the automatic
inclusion of lands as Important Agricultural Land merely because it meets Criteria 1, and.
(2) WLCI and its affiliates oppose the use of Criteria 2, 3, and 4 as the sole basis for
classifying Lands as Important Agricultural Land without also considering additional
factors, such as water availability, topography and climate.
1. With respect to Criteria 1, rather than assuming that all lands
currently identified as "Intensive Agriculture" on the 1989 Genera] Plan should be
included under "Important Agricultural Land", those lands should be evaluated to
810-d 90/80 d 910-1 0895!95908+ N05830Ntl 11150007-WO~d E1~91 EO-ll-~dtl
GOODSJiL ANDERSON QUWN & S'fIFEL
A LIMITED LABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP
Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair
April ] 7, 2003
Page 3
determine if they demonstrate a better potential for sustained high agricultural yields,
taking into account soil type, climate, topography, or other factors. Under the existing
General Plan, the Intensive Agriculture designation includes lands that have fertile soil
and lands that have less fertile soils. The current General Plan draws a distinction
between Intensive Agriculture lands that have high agriculhual potential and Intensive
Agriculture land that has a lower agricultural potential in the current definition of
Important Agricultural Land. In the current General Plan, the term "Important
Agricultural Land" is defined as including Intensive Agricultural land "which (a) possess
certain physical properties or setting capable of producing sustained high agricultural
yields when treated and managed according to modern farming methods and technology;
(b) contributes to the County's economic base and produce commodities for export and
for local consumption; and (c) are not characterized by the above categories but are
considered and designated by public policy as important agricultural lands because of
some unique quality, setting or use." Not all of the lands currently designated as
Intensive Agriculture have the potential for sustained high agricultural yields, and it
would be a mistake to assume that all of the land which are currently classified as
Intensive Agriculture lands satisfy the definition for Important Agricultural Land.
2. With respect to Criteria 2, 3, and 4, we suggest that the Council
reconsider the inclusion of lands based only on soils ratings since other important factors
also affect agricultural productivity, such as the availability of irrigation water and
climactic conditions. For example, the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's
study of suitability fox various crops (Criteria 4), does not consider accessibility of water
supply or wind considerations. Thus, even though the soil on a particular parcel may be
rated "fair" for two or more crops under the USDA study, if there is insufficient water to
support agricultural activity (whether from rainfall or from an economically viable source
of irrigation water), or if conditions on the land are so windy that intensive farming is
unfeasible, the property is incapable of sustaining high agricultural yields. If the Council
decides to retain Criteria 2, 3, and 4 as the basis for designating property as Important
Agricultural Land, we submit that it should also include the availability of adequate
rainfall or irrigation water and climatic conditions as part of its analysis of whether land
satisfies the requirements for Important Agricultural Land.
Discussion Regardine the Particular Designation Assigned to a Properties
With respect to the particular parcels that WDC and WLCC own, none of
the Properties should be designated as Important Agricultural Land as none of these
Properties shows any potential for sustained high agricultural yields. The Properties are
610-d 90/YO d 510-1 0995lY5809+ N05830NV 11150007-woad Et~91 t0-11-~tld
GOODSILL ANDERSON QU1NN St Sr1Fe1.
A Llhlil'[D LIABIllTY LAW PAR"INERSHIP LLP
Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair
April 17, 2003
Page 4
not rated as "Prime" or "Unique" under the ALISH classification system referred to in
Criteria 2; the Properties consist of Class D and E "Poor" and "Very Poor" under the
Land Study Bureau's Soil Survey Report referred to in Criteria 3; and t:he Properties do
not fit within Criteria 5 or 6. In addition, the average rainfall on the Properties is less
than 20 inches annually, and has an average pan evaporation rate of approximately 70 to
80 inches annually, which means that the Properties have a 50 to 60 inch annual motsture
deficit, before taking into account any crop requirements. The nearest public irrigation
system is the State's Waimea Imgation System which is over 6 miles away, and while
Waikoloa Water Co., Inc. provides water to the Waikoloa Village, (a) its nearest
pipelines end 3-4 miles from the bottom of the Properties and 5-G miles from the top of
the Properties, and (b) even if such pipelines existed, Waikoloa Water Co.'s wells do not
have sufficient water capacity, and its pumps do not have sufficient pumping capacity, to
provide irrigation water to the Properties. According to Steve Skipper of the USDA.
Natural Resource Conservation Service field office in Kamuela, the area is fire prone, is
arid, is subject to strong winds and has a savatuta-type ecosystem. In terms of
agricultural use, because of their topography, climate, location and soils and lack of
viable water, the Properties are at best suitable only for grazing purposes. In fact the
?ands in question are subject to a grazing license in favor of Parker Ranch, but because of
the extreme conditions of the Property, in recent years there has been insufficient grass
for cattle grazing, and Parker Ranch's actual use of the Properties has been minimal. For
all of these reasons, we believe drat under both the present and proposed land
classifications, the Properties more properly belong to the Extensive Agriculture
classification, than either the Intensive Agriculture or proposed Important Agricultural
Land classification.
Nonetheless, because the Properties currently are designated Intensive
Agriculture, it appears that they have been earmarked for designation as Important
Agricultural Land. We submit that because the current designation does not take into
account the Properties' potential for sustained agricultural yields (or in this case the lack
thereof), it would be inappropriate and unreasonable to designate the Properties as
Important Agricultural Land.
Finally, the proposed General Plan recognizes that "some areas that meet
the criteria for important agricultural lands on an irrigated basis only [are] included in the
"Extensive Agricultural Land" category due to their remoteness from potential sc;.. ces of
irrigation: ' In addition to the reasons aforesaid, we believe that based on this rationale, it
Ol0-d 90/SO d 910-1 0999lYS809+ NOS830NY 11150009-mo~j Yl~9f t0-ll-~dtl
GooDS1LL ANDERSON QL1rNN & ST[FEL
A UM~TeD LInBiI,ITY 4nw Pnarw~as~gir LLP
Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair
April 17, 2003
Page 5
would be more appropriate to designate the Properties as Extensive Agricultural Land
than Important Agricultural Land.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Eleanor Mirikitani of WLCI
will be attending the workshop being conducted on Apri121, 2003 and will be available
for questions. In the interim, please feel free to contact either Eleanor Mirikitatti at (808}
886-1000 or myself.
Very truly yours,
GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL
A LIMITED L1A8lLITY Law PaRTNER$W!P LLP
Leighton J. eC~G
n
cc: Eleanor Mirikitani
Thos Rohr
Christopher J. Yuen, Director of Hawaii County Planning Department
910-d 90/90 d 510-1 0885!95909+ NOS830Ntl 11150009-w~~d 9191 EO-1l-adtl