The Honolulu City Council is tapping the brakes on an omnibus bill that would overhaul Oahu’s land use ordinances.

The move was prompted, in part, by upward of 100 pages of testimony submitted in connection with a Zoning and Planning Committee special hearing held Monday to discuss Bill 10 and its significant impacts on agricultural land uses, sustainable energy and housing. While the committee made various amendments, action on the overall measure was postponed.

The loudest objections to the 240-page bill came from members of the farming community who maintained that more public outreach is needed in regard to proposed changes and their possible effects on the industry.

“There is simply too much in this bill for potential stakeholders to review, for extensive public comment to be made, and for the City Council to ponder in the amount of time allotted for Bill 10’s consideration,” wrote Frederick M. Mencher in his testimony for the East Oahu County Farm Bureau.

Among Bill 10’s provisions: designating a percentage of ag land that must be dedicated to active farming. The original bill stipulated that farmers had to use 75% of their land for active farming of crops or livestock-­keeping. The Planning and Zoning Committee in August lowered that bar to 50%. On Monday it was amended to specify that this percentage applies only to land suitable for farming. That action aimed to address concerns from farmers that portions of their land might not be usable for farming due to challenges such as rocky terrain or gullies.

Bill 10 also includes restrictions on structures tailored for agritourism, specifying that they cannot take up more than 10% of the property. During Monday’s meeting, restrictions were eased for weddings and other destination events held on agricultural land. The bill’s latest draft limits such events to twice a week, with a land-use capacity of 50%. The previous version of the bill allowed the events to happen once a week.

Another significant change made to measure was deletion of proposed expanded uses on agricultural land that included allowing meeting facilities, schools and day care centers for children and adults.

Micah Munekata, director of government affairs at Ulupono Initiative, a local investment firm with a goal of social improvement and achieving Hawaii’s sustainability goals, has been coordinating with farmers on Bill 10. He maintained that given the scope of the bill, more time is needed to inform often hard-to-reach members of the farming community.

“It’s hard to get any producer to look at this stuff. It’s difficult for them to even come off their farm, or even open an email, or to look on their phone for a phone call. So, in order to get them to first pay attention to this, and then to truly understand it, it’s been a process,” Munekata told Council members Monday. He added, “They’re just digesting this thing, and since sort of taking that first breath in of Bill 10, I think they’re wanting to come out and to talk to it.”

Another controversial piece of Bill 10 pertains to adjusting setback limits for wind farms. Currently, city ordinance requires wind turbines to be a distance of at least equal to the height of the structure away from property lines. In apparent response to testimony pushback on Bill 10’s initial provision to impose a 1-mile setback, the latest draft bumps up the distance to a 1.25-mile setback.

Additionally, the committee increased the area where commercial property could build mutlifamily dwelling add-ons.

The previous version of the bill would have allowed such construction only in Transit-Oriented Development areas along the city’s rail line. The limit aimed to prevent overdevelopment of residential neighborhood areas. The latest draft allows construction throughout urban Honolulu, from Pearl Harbor to Kahala and within the Ewa Development Plan. The city’s Department of Planning and Permitting wanted to see this area expanded further to include the entire island.

Also cut was a provision for “transfer of development” for properties in special management areas — in this case, areas near the ocean. DPP had hoped to use the provision to incentivize people to move away from the shoreline as the city begins to address the consequences of sea level rise. The provision would have allowed the city to begin identifying properties that would be most affected by the next 6 feet of sea level rise, and identify areas inland with the same amount of acreage. The city envisioned allowing property owners to relocate to designated inland areas — and holding onto shoreline zoning rights to establish themselves on inland properties.

Although the provision was removed from Bill 10, City Council Zoning Committee Chair Brandon Elefante said he intends to propose transfer of development in a separate bill.

The committee granted a request submitted by DPP, which had framed the measure’s initial draft, for a 120-day extension to assess its current provisions. However, further complicating matters, DPP’s Land Use Permits Division Chief Katia Balassiano, who has been the point person on Bill 10, will be departing the city Friday. Her departure leaves another hole in the department’s leadership as former Director Dean Uchida resigned earlier this month.