Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu
Written Remarks
Senate Bill 546, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1
Relating to Land Use
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
I rise in support.
Upon careful consideration, Senate Bill 546 was amended. We replaced its contents with the most of the language of House Bill No. 2807, House Draft 2, which contains language providing two incentives for landowners to designate their land as important agricultural land (IAL) and included a number of major amendments. The goal of this measure is to protect our most valuable agricultural lands and encourage landowners to designate a large portion of their land into IALs.
One incentive is for landowners who are required to provide affordable housing as a condition of development. A landowner who designates all or a portion of their land as IAL may satisfy this affordable housing requirement on qualifying rural district lands, rather than in the urban district as typically required.
The other incentive allows for an easier boundary amendment reclassification process for landowners who designate their lands as IAL, by combining the petitions for designation and reclassification, provided that:
(1) The land sought to be reclassified is within the same county as the land to be designated IAL;
(2) Reclassification of the land is consistent with relevant county general and development plans; and
(3) The total acreage of the land sought to be reclassified is less than 20 percent of the land that is the subject of the petition.
We included the following language in House Bill 2807, House Draft 2 that seeks to protect the integrity of the agricultural lands by:
(1) Clarifying that the farm dwellings permitted on prime agricultural lands in the agricultural district must be part of a working farm, or a farming operation necessary to the production and distribution of agricultural commodities, and not merely relating to farming and animal husbandry;
(2) Clarifying that lands in the rural district may be used for agribusiness activities and farm worker housing, which are currently found on agricultural lands; and
(3) Clarifying that areas that are not used for, or not suited to, agricultural and ancillary activities by reason of topography, soils, and other related characteristics, shall be in the rural district, and not the agricultural district.
Regarding the designation of IAL, House Bill 2807, House Draft 2 among other things:
(1) Requires land designated as IAL, in a petition to designate IAL and reclassify other lands, at a minimum be:
(A) Land with sufficient quantities of water to support viable agricultural production; and
(B) Land that contributes to maintaining a critical land mass important to agricultural operating productivity;
(2) Adds as a standard and criteria to be used to identify IALs, land that, although unsuited for agricultural use because of topography, must be kept together as part of the tax map key parcel; and
(3) Requires the Land Use Commission (LUC) to grant or deny a petition to designate IAL and reclassify lands to other uses in its entirety.
Your Committees have further amended House Bill 2807, House Draft 2, by:
(1) Providing that lands in the rural district shall also include:
(A) Low-density residential lots and residential subdivisions existing on agricultural lands before January 1, 2008;
(B) Areas to preserve natural landscapes, open space, and the rural character of the area; and
(C) Clusters of historic plantation settlements that do not function as a suburb of a major urban center;
(2) Removing the requirement that lands designated as IAL remain IAL in perpetuity;
(3) Allowing a landowner seeking reclassification of lands in conjunction with a petition to designate land as IAL, to reclassify to conservation land, as well as rural or urban;
(4) Allowing a landowner who designates IAL to earn up to 20 percent of the IAL acreage in transferrable credits that can be used to reclassify other agricultural lands to other uses, to account for situations where the landowner who designates IALs may not own lands appropriate for reclassification at the time of designation of IALs;
(5) Allowing the LUC to designate IALs in accordance with this Act before the counties submit maps of recommended IALs;
(6) Removing from the minimum requirement of land designated as IAL, in a petition to simultaneously designate IAL and reclassify other lands, land quality based on soil classification:
(7) Removing the requirement that the reclassification of the lands sought to be reclassified in a petition to designate IAL be consistent with relevant community plans, and requiring consistency only with county general and development plans;
(8) Removing county authority to issue special use permits on agricultural lands; and
(9) Making technical, nonsubstantive amendments for style, clarity, and consistency.
Thank you.
JON RIKI KARAMATSU 