Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> BOBBY JEAN LEIfHI AD-TODD ,,.vo•x~w ~fel: (808) 961-8261 <br /> C'nuned Member ~~,u-~n... p. <br /> lee, Fax: (808)961-8912 <br /> ,.;r <br /> .s <br /> OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL <br /> ('ounty ojHawai'r <br /> //au~ui'i C'ounry Building O <br /> 25 Anpuni Sh~ee~ j7 W <br /> Hdo. Hmvai'i 967?0 r <br /> Z L C.J <br /> ~ i F-+ n, <br /> July 31, 2003 <br /> ~ <br /> r,- <br /> MEMORANDUM ~ - ~ <br /> e <br /> - ti <br /> To: .lames Y. Arakaki, Council Chair <br /> And Members of the Hawaii County Council <br /> From: Bobby Jean I~eithead-Todd. Chair <br /> Planning Committee <br /> Re: General Plan <br /> Before I leave 1 would like to sum up some observations and recommendations on dte General Plan. <br /> 1. `The amendments [o reclassify subdivisions of less than 3 acre parcels to I2ura1 from Agriculture. <br /> [ believe that this is a good idea but needs to be applied equally to all such subdivisions. As one <br /> example, the Hokulia, I-acre subdivision in Kona needs a proposed amendment to reclassify the area <br /> to Rural. It makes no sense to treat this subdivision differently than similar 1-acre subdivisions in <br /> Ka'u, Puna and Hilo. Similarly the maps need to be reviewed to see if any other similar areas <br /> including, those curremly under rezoning consideration, for example R.M. Towill's request, should <br /> also be amended to Rural. <br /> 2 Kohanaiki, Keopuka, O'oma and other coastal conservation proposals. While I am still not sure if <br /> the County should hate a "Conservation" classification, the current proposals do not reflect recent <br /> negotiations between the County and some property owners. In particular, the County has been <br /> negotiating with the Kohanaiki owners to acquire a beachfront park. The Planning Dept. is supposed <br /> to be drafting an amendment to reflect this change. Keopuka has similar changes, which need to he <br /> proposed. In exchange for dedication of coastal areas as conservation, the upper areas of Keopuka <br /> should be considered for reclassification as Rural to allow for [he same density the property would <br /> have been allowed under 5-acre Ag. Subdivision. If the proposed conservation amendments are <br /> changed for Kohanaiki and Keopuka, similar changes in the proposals for other coastal properties <br /> should also he proposed to treat them equally. <br /> 3. Additional Urban Expansion/Industrial/Commercial areas for Puna and Kau. The rate of <br /> population growth in the areas of Ka'u and Puna indicate that these areas will continue to increase <br /> signiticantly in population over the next ten to twenty years. Reducing or eliminating current areas <br /> designated for urban expansion and industrial/commercial use do not make sense in light of this <br /> Comm. Nv. ~ O <br /> Ref. Tos <br /> Ref. Date <br /> <br />