The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0045.024 2002-2004 AkWAKA S ASS OCIATUS. LIMITED ALSTON HVNT FLOYD g ING ASHFORD & WRISTON sAlaK of HAwa.n HAWAII LEEWARD PLANNING CONFERENCE aELT COLLINS HAWAII. ~f MITED CADFS SCHUTTE fLE M!fJG & \N RICH I PO BOX 2159 KAMUELA. HAWAII 96~d3$U9 CENTEX HOMES CENTRAL PACIFIC BANK CLARK REALTY CORPORATION EARLS oAKKEN FOUNDATION BAST-WEST CONSTJLTWG>FRVUes, December 10, 2003 0 FIRST HAWAIIAN 6ANK ~ w GREENWELL FARMS, INC O rrAWAll LAND COMPANY C('~ G"7 HAW.All PLANING MILL, LIMITED HAWA? SECT RLC ~7GHf COM PANV ('n HoKUUAioceANSroerso Councilman Leningrad Elarionoff, Chairman ~ • ,;•n MowA~oACOrIPAwes Committee on Planning _ NuA~o~AtaEVESOPMemrcoMPANV Hawaii COUnt Council ~ iMANAKA, KUDO LFUIlMOTO y ~ KAHUA aANCH ~_IMIreD 25 Aupunl Street _ KAl nAWAIi. WC ~c ~ i KAM FHAMEHA :NVESTM [NT CORP HO, HI L- KAMEHAMEHASCHOOLS = d KAU PULeHU DEVELOPMENTS ~ KEALAKEKUA RANCH tiEAUA RANCH Dear Councilman Elarionoff and Committee Members: KEAUNOU KONA CONSTRUCTION CORP KOFAVASflI CROUP. LLC KoHA~A RANCH. arc I am John Ray, President of Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference KOIVA iF1AN5PORTATION CUM PANv KTA SUPeR CTDRes (HLPC), testifying on the current draft of the County of Hawaii _aNIHAU PROPeRnes. ~~c General Plan revision. As an organization we have been L'ORANGE ASSOCIATES Ma~fARMS of MAwau Intimately involved in County and State planning issues for over MARYL GROUP INC. MauNA Kea PROaERnES 30 years and have participated in the current General Plan r,AUNA ~A~,I seRVlce. INC revision process by attending numerous public forums and MCCAN GLESS LAND tL r.ATTLC C,JM PANS MRORP,ISTON HEELER MUKAi M~KINNON $udmtting Verbal and Written testmory. Unfortunately, I Cannot M S e Paaf!c. INC attend our December 18. 2003 General Plan Worksho ,but MEN F,HUNE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY y P MooeRS eNTFRPKISes ~~c wanted to submit written testimony for your consideration. NATURE CONSERVAN Ct OF HAWAII JCEA KVC TIME WARN EA CABLE OF MAW All oKAHaRASASSOaATes In regards to timing of the Council's deliberations I want to offer PACIFIC RESGU RCE PARTNERSHIP PaRKen RANCH. INC several comments. I believe the General Plan still needs vauoA 6AY =ROPeRT,es. ~~c considerable work and consideration by the County Council. As PgR HAWA71 PoNOHO~o RANCH. ~!MITro both the State legislative and the County budget process will ~uEEN enMA fouNDAnoN be in in Januar our lates wi!I ahead be full In the comin ~ueeN ~tuuoKA~Aw rRUST 9 Y Y P Y 9 R M Tow!~~coRCORATION months. Please make sure you commit to a thorough review RIFHM owensav PLANNERS ARCMITECMTS before embarking on the task. Another consideration should be SAM J MROTA. ING ssfr~ :NreRNAnoNA~ ,NC the opportunity to include important State input in regard to SURET~'KOHALA CORPORATION T~TrF AuARANTr [scROaa seRV!c=s we possible Land Use legislation this year. For the past two years TsA ~oRftoRAnoN HLPC and many other public and private organizations, including veRlzoN Mawan me ~,~a Alr~eA warER SeRVICe, !NC. Hawaii County to some degree, have been involved in discussions evasTeMamA~eweNTOFHAwAi, on ro osed Land Use le islation. I'm o timisticthatthis ear wATeR RESOURCS wreRNAr!oNA~ INC P P 9 P Y ,vesTHOMASASSOC;ATFS,,NC- may finally produce some degree of success In serious State wesT HAWAII coNCRFTF Land Use Reform, which ho efull will direct the Counties to 1NI~SDN OkAMO~O CORPORATION P Y wIMaF-R~~A~usoN TON~sGOO identify Important agricultural lands as well as offer a blue print for overall land reclassification. Planning Director Yuen will hopefully update you on this process, Because of the critical timing of our General Plan Review and proposed State Land Use legislation we need to pay great attention to our mapping of Land Use classifications in the General Plan. 5.7.E Cornet. No. 4 We have a number of specific comments: Ref. To: ~raeM~d P~~ Ref. ~ate~_`1_$.ZQ~. P.o. sox use There is a substantial difference n the view between tree KAM UFLA, HAW All 96743 TEL: 808.885.9588 Planning Director and the Planning Commission as set out FAX: BOh. 18~ 590 Page 1 of 3 in the Planning Commission's letter of October 19, 2001. Hopefully the Planning Committee will give attention to those changes suggested by the Planning Commission that were not adopted by the Planning Director in this letter In response dated November 30, 2002. • We have concerns with the proposed County Conservation Designation in regard to Regulatory Taking Issues, particularly H-1, South Kona-1, proposed to be changed from Extensive Ag to County Conservation. • In regard to the designation of Important Ag Lands (IAL) we have two comments. In general we believe these designations should reflect either current agricultural activity or realistic future agricultural activity. To the degree that we designate IAL for other purposes such as open space, conservation, etc., it only dilutes the category. It also dilutes the category when we overly designated IAL to virtually render the classification meaningless, as is the current state today. To put these Ag designations in some perspective, the following State Department of Agriculture data is lnteresung At the height of both sugar and pineapple production in the State, their combined acreage totaled about 325,000 acres. More recently..- • For Oahu, total acreage in crop went from 23,300 in 1997 to 19,300 in 2001 - a decrease of 4,000 acres. Within this, pineapple went up 200, but other (diversified) crops went down 4,200 acres. Oahu has about 130,000 acres classified/zoned for agnculture. • For Maui County, total acreage in crop went from 55,600 in 1997 to 48,100 in 2001 - a decrease of 7,500 acres. Within this, sugar went down 7,700 acres, pineapple stayed constant, and other (diversified) crops went up 200 acres. Maui has about 400,000 acres classified/zoned for agriculture. • For Kauai, total acreage in crop went from 28,100 in 1997 to 12,800 in 2001 - a decrease of 15,300 acres. Within this, sugar went down 15,000 acres and other (diversified) crops went dawn 300 acres. Kauai has about 140,000 acres classified/zoned for agriculture. • For the Big Island, total acreage in crop stayed constant at 11,900 acres in 1997 and 2001, all attributable to other (diversified) crops. This does not include plantation forestry. Hawaii has about 1,200,000 acres classified/zoned for agriculture. • Statewide, total acreage in crop went from 143,600 in 19997 to 114,700 in 2001 - a decrease of 28,900 acres. Within this total, sugar went down 22,700 acres, pineapple went up to 200 [same as Oahu], but other (diversified) crops went down 6,400 acres. Statewide, there are about 1,930,000 acres classified/zoned for agriculture. The current General Plan proposes placing 386,283 acres in the IAL category. • Specifically we disagree with the following proposed IAL designations. Hamakua-1: The IAL district should fall below the Hamakua Ditch System. North Kohala-1: The IAL district should fall below the Kohala Ditch System S. Kohala-1: The IAL district should fall above the Kohala Mountain road above the Hawaii Preparatory Academy and should follow the rainfall belt closer to Waimea town in the Pu'ukapu region. S. Kohala-4: The IAL designation should not include the Mauka Waikoloa, Keamoku and Waiki'i lands as they do not have sufficient rainfall nor could they be economically irrigated. N. Kona Z; N. Kona-3; N. Kona-4; 5. Kona-1: Mauka lands above the coffee belt and not otherwise suited for agriculture such as the Kaloko Lands (valuable watershed) should be deleted from proposed IAL N. Kona-4; S. Kona-1: The makai lands below the coffee belt (rainfall Ime) should be eliminated from the proposed IAL Page 2 of Rural District In general, we believe the County should utilize the rural district to a greater degree in General Plan designations. At the State level I believe the intent is to make the rural district more "user friendly" to agriculture with right to farm legislation, etc. It's important to understand that property taxes will not rise if Ag use (dedication) continues on rural classified lands. The County has the mapping capability to overlay all existing 1-3 acre Ag subdivisions on the General Plan maps. We strongly support reclassifying all of these lands as County General Plan Rural, maintainin the current zonin~densi~. Please request the Planning Department to prepare these maps as a point of discussion. Ag Workin~c Group The attached Standards and Cntena - Ag Working Group Recommendations will give you a sense of the discussion taking place at the State level. This is, a work in pro ress and on>~ a draft at this point. I also included comments from Bob Wagner with the American Farmland Trust who reviewed and commented on the draft Standards and Criteria. The Ag Working Group website has a lot of useful information: htt~://ctahr.hawaii,edu/ctahr200~ww~ Plan Sim lification We support Council Chair Elarionoff's suggestion of separating the current text (supporting material) from the ordinance to create a more simplified document. The current text is outdated, often inconsistent in the depth of treatment between districts, and would require a major effort to revisit and revise. We believe concentrating on community development plans to implement more detailed and comprehensive planning in the future would be a better use of County resources. Additional Research We have also helped support a review of the General Plan by Professor David Callles who will submit his comments directly to the County. At this point we take no position on these comments other than to regard them as helpful input for consideration. Thank you for the opportunity [o comments and we look forward to working with you on this important task. Regards, ~`a ~ John B. Ray President Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Page 3 of 3 DR.-aF~=~11190~1 I STANDARDS ~'~D CRITFRL~- 1C. NC)RKING GROUP RECOh1MFNDATIC)NS To lulhll die constinitional mandate chat d~c Staie conserve and protect aericuhural lands of importance to die State_ promote a_riculturc. increase aeri~ulrurel pelf-,ufflcienc~ and a;;ure [he a~uilabilit~ of a~~rieulturall~ ,uitalile land, for present and future senerations_ it is recommended that the Swte Le«i,la[ure establish the follo~~ ine smndards and criteria to guide the Counties and the State Land l_ se Commission in the idcntihcation of agriculnm.~l lands of importancr to the stute- In apph ing the follo~~ ing criteria to lamb ithm iti jurisdiction. each county shall consider and balance said criteria in such c ~sas as [u achic~c the coals ?rticulated b~ the eonstiuitional mandate. Lands identified as important agriculau,il land, need not meet c~ en criteria listed helo~~: rather lands meerins each of the criteria brlo~~ shall be _~i~ en initial and prime consideration. but the desienation of important a~~riculun~al lands ,hall lie made b~ balancin~~ d~c ~ arious criteria ith raeh other in the contest oY [hc constiaitionalh mandated ~n~al. L land cunend~ in aericultural production. Land ith ;oil quali[ies and gro~~ m~~ conditions that support a~~ricuhurel pmduc[ion. _ Land identified under a~~rieuhural pro~luc[i~ m ratim_ ss[ems such as ~LISH. ~ Lend types associated ~~ith uniyuc. traditonal and non-traditional a~aricultural usz~ (z-~_. c~~ffe<. taro. inr grapes respecti~ eh 1 Land ith ailtlcicnr quantities of af~brdahle ~sater that support. u~lriculturul producton. b Land ~~hosc de~iflnauon us important o_ricultmal lands is amsisteut ith County General and Community Plans Land ~~hich contribute, to maintuuunsa critical land mass important io agricultural operating produc[i~ in S. Land ith. or close to. support inti astnicunr conduci~ ~ to aericuhural producm in tc trsnsportanon to murl.ets. eater. po~~erl Land chat ill prop ide a marlin for (uwre ?,lriculniral nreds and opportunities C~ vh m e n-~5 ~Un'L VJ elf G~c~ Y~l. December 3, 2003 ~ ~l ~ ~ '1'O: JoAnn FROM: Bob RL: Comments on IAL Standards and Criteria (S&C) I do think that regardless of the final list of S&C for identifying IAL, there should be enough flexibility therein for the individual counties to determine what is the most important agricultural land for their needs. The identification of IAL should be as much about memorializing what is in agricultural production as it is looking to the firtw~e to accommodate new agricultural pursuits and operations. More so in Hawaii than other areas of the country, agriculture in the future will likely be defined more by what it can or will be than what it once was. The designation of IAI, therefore, must look forward and anticipate opportunities while avoiding the risk of being too inclusive so as to make the designation process meaningless. My assumption has always been that designation of IAL will not only create a target for incentives but will also establish disincentives and regulations related to any non-agricultural activities. In reviewing the items listed in Draft 2, I have these comments: • If I understand ALISH correctly, then #s 2&3 are essentially the same. Here is where the unique needs of each county and sub-county area can come out. If ALISH can acconunodate such local features and needs, then sticking to one system will make some sense. • #5 is of course very important. But what of the potential for new water systems? Since water systems can be built on to the landscape, unless there are prohibitively expensive features in the way of new construction (i.e.: mountain range, great distance from source), then a process for acknowledging the potential for new or upgraded water systems may be in order. • #6. It is my understanding that not all the counties have done a good job of taking agriculture into account in their general and community plans. If this is the case, then making consistency with the County plans a standard for IAL could be problematic. • There is some redundancy in #s 7&9. If you identify land to meet #7, you are probably accommodating #9. • On the criterion and its alternative relating to lands for ancillary purposes (i.e.: wastewater use, open space, etc.), I think that one of the issues in Hawaii is there is so much land currently designated for agriculture that some detractors see the designation as meaningless. I can certainly understand the concerns of some that the current Ag designation provides some protection for lands with environmental values besides or beyond agriculture and opening up the designation process may leave some of these lands vulnerable. However in refining the designation of ' IAL I think it is critical to be discriminating and avoid the temptation to include lands that are not agricultural but may indeed be important for some other environmental purpose. 1 AFT regularly promotes the many benefits of agriculwra] land beyond producing food and these multiple benefits may include wastewater recycling, open space and/or renewable energy production. But the main point of our rhetoric is that the land is first and foremost agricultural land. The multiple benefits come along for the ride. If an IAL designation system allows for lands that are otherwise not agricultural in nature but important for other purposes to be identified as Ag, I think it will have the same diluting effect that the current system has had and the impasse between landowners and land preservationists will not be bridged. A system for identifying these non-agricultural, environmentally important lands is probably in order. Perhaps in the process of identifying IAL, with new S&C, there is also now an opportunity to add lands to the Conservation designation to provide protection for those lands that are now recognized as important for environmental values not fully understood or appreciated when the original designations were made. Another thought is that if buffering agricultural areas from more developed land uses is what is at the heart of this criterion, then it should be encouraged that counties do just that, i.e.: in their planning process development zones would become less dense and more rural in nature the closer you got to the ag district boundary (I will be soon forwarding a map to Ruby from Montgomery County, MD that clearly illustrates this type of graduated density). Also, outside of areas designated as Ag, there could be more conservation-development rules (providing for clustering and open space protection) incorporated into zoning designations and subdivision regulations. • The last two criteria that were listed for debate and discussion are really covered by earlier ones. For example, if you achieve #7, you should take care of major nuisance issues. And #s 1, 2/3, 4 and 7 all get at identifying "lands that support agriculture important to that region." As I have listened to the discussions and debates in Hawaii over land use designations, it has seemed That while the main concern is identifying IAL, there is also a companion need to re-visit the other land use designations, especially Rural and Conservation. Like the Rubik's cube puzzle, moving one piece effects the entire outcome. When I look back at criterion #6, I'm reminded that the key to protecting farniland is as much about identifying where to develop, as it is what to protect. So allowing the counties to expand the Rural designation with new standards for development in conjunction with a more refined identification of Ag with stronger protections will get at many of the tensions that currently swirl around the Ag area and development therein. Similarly, refining the designation of the Conservation area may capture some of the land targeted by the criterion proposed to address other environmentally valuable lands. 7