COM 0110.006 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chairperson James Arakaki February 20, 2003 Page 2 Relative to the LUPAG map, there are two significant points that I would like to make. 1. It has always been my understanding that the LUPAG map was NEVER intended to be used in the same manner as a Zoning Map. What do we mean by that? First of all, it was never designed to be specifically measurable. Unlike the zoning map, it was never intended to give a specific parcel a LUPAG map designation. One of the Standards of the General Plan (page 14) states that °The broad- brush boundaries indicated are graphic expressions of the General Plan policies, particularly relating to land uses. They are long- range ug ides to eg neral location...." (emphasis added}. The second related point is that the LUPAG map was intended to be used as a GUIDE. You will note that all of the narrative references in the General Plan document related to the LUPAG map indicate that the map is a guide. LUPAG is the acronym for Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide, and I emphasize GUIDE. If the LUPAG map were to be used as a zoning map, there would be no way that the Planning Commission could grant Special Permits for commercial and industrial uses and even some minor resort uses (such as B8~B or inns) in the State Land Use Agricultural District. In almost all of those situations, the LUPAG map does not indicate High Density, Medium Density, Industrial or Resort. Instead, most if not all of those areas are noted on the LUPAG map as Orchard, intensive or Extensive Agriculture. So how do we justify these permits if the LUPAG map were not used as a guide? 2. Notwithstanding the question of how the LUPAG map is used, the other major issue deals with the question of WHO makes such an interpretation? Is it the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or County Council? It is my considered opinion that the General Plan is a policy document, and only the County Council is authorized to make such policy determination.