HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-21 Moku Loa Hawaii Island Sierra Club Testimony (1) From: otano1<12Cslomail.com on behalf of Moku Loa Hawaii Island Sierra Club
To: LPCtestimonv
Date: Thursday,November 21,2024 9:30:31 AM
Attachments: GP2040.Aua. 2019 draft.Public Access thru Cultural&Historic Preservation.odf
Scenario Plannina -Trend Scenario Land Use Allocation Technical Report-Placeways(2016).odf
Technical Methodoloav for General Plan Land Use(2020-24).8-23-24.odf
Aloha Madame Chair and members of the Commission,
Mahalo nui loa for your volunteer service to our community on one of the most important,
consequential boards and commission in our county.
Kala mai for not providing this testimony earlier.
HIG asks that the Commission determine the manner in which it will conduct its review and
communicate that to the general public so that testimony can be prepared prior to future
meetings. For instance, will it be by section?
The Commissioners have not doubt gone online to review the draft GP2045, then we all now
have had a shared experience of attempting to compare it to the current General Plan.
For a year now,public testimony has consistently stated that it is an impossible task to
compare draft GP2045 to the current GP. because GP2045 is a gut-and-replacement of the
current GP.
Also,placing the GP2045 online in two different software platforms has disenfranchised a
large number of the general public who have made sincere efforts to make informed
comments, but are technologically-challenged.
As a general statement, the draft GP2045 does not contain sufficient imperative and directive
language to provide reasonable assurance that it will be implemented.
For instance, the Section 3-15 of the county Charter states, in part, "The general plan shall
contain a statement of development objectives, standards
and principles with respect to the most desirable use of land within the county..."
This is because Standards are the "legs" upon which the plan stand. Standards are essential to
the implementation of any plan's objectives,policies, and actions.
There are additional documents that are relevant to the draft General Plan that were not
provided to the Commission in its board packet. .
Documents attached to this e-mail:
• Draft General Plan 2040,pages 102-125
• Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report
• Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024)
• Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs
and Strategies(attached in follow-up e-mail testimony)
The most important of the documents not provided to the Commission is the draft General
Plan 2040 that was released in August 2019 by then-Planning Director Michael Yee.
One reason GP2040 is so important is because it shows the extent to which public access and
cultural, historic, and scenic resource preservation policies and actions contained within
GP2040 were removed and not included in GP2045. For instance, the Sustainability Objective
on page 108 states,
"Native Hawaiian language, values, and practices are integrated into all County processes."
This objective has been cleansed from the draft GP now before the Commission.
Another document is a report titled"Hawai'i County Scenic Resources Inventory and
Mapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies"prepared for the
Planning Department in August 2016. The Policies and Actions in GP2040 included the
programs and strategies recommended by this report. However, GP2045 removed these
policies and actions and now GP2045 only contains a reference to the report.
Another report not in the Commission's initial board packet is the Trend Scenario and Land
Use Allocation Technical Report,published in April 2016. This report contains important
information, such as how many dwellings can be built with existing zoning, subdivision
approvals, and building permits.
Another critical report not included in the Commission's initial board packet is the Technical
Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024). This report was not released until
August 2024. It should have been released a year earlier because it contains information that
the public has been requesting since last September 2023, such as explanations of how the
GP2045 land use maps were developed.
In June 2024, HIG submitted a Request for Government Records asking the Planning
Department to provide a lists of specific changes between the current GP LUPAG map and the
draft GP2045 land use, together with the reasons for each change and those who were
consulted in developing the reasons for each changes.
For instance, why has the entire Hokuli'a project been moved from Agriculture to Rural when
there is an outstanding petition to the state Land Use Commission to amend the state land use
Agriculture district to Rural and Conservation? This explanation is especially important given
that the change proposed in GP2045 would enable construction of homes on Pu'u Ohau, the
entirety of which the Hawai'i Island Burial Council designated as a royal mausoleum. Given
the massive protests in the early 2000s against this proposal by kanaka maoli, why is the
Planning Director proposing to reopen this wound?
Presently, the Request is on appeal with the state Office of Information Practices because the
Planning Department has refused to provide the reasons for the specific changes between
maps and those who were consulted in making those decisions.
Mahalo for this opportunity to testify and provide additional information to assist in this most
important task any Planning Commission can undertake, the comprehensive review of the
General Plan.
Moku Loa (Hawaii Island) Group, Sierra Club
We work hard to advance Sierra Club's mission to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild
places of the earth, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's
ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the
quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out
these objectives.
PROMOTING ACTIVE LIVING THROUGH RECREATION, TRAILS, &
PUBLIC ACCESS
Public Access & Trails
SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE
Number of public access sites created through acquisition or easement or enhanced with
assistance from CZM funding or staff.
POLICY
404. The County of Hawai'i shall establish: public access to and along the shoreline to
significant historic sites, public transit along the top of cliff, streams and other natural
water courses, mauka trails, facilities, and access to sites for gathering, hunting, and
other recreational purposes and in accordance with Hawai'i County Code Chapter 34.
[Rationale: Based on existing County Code 34, General Plan Policy 12.3 (I, m), Ka'u CDP
Policy 81, and Hamakua CDP Policy 48]
405. Subdividers of six or more lots, parcels, units, or interests shall be required to dedicate
land for public access for pedestrian travel from a public highway or street to the land
below the high-water mark on any coastal shoreline or to areas in the mountains where
there are existing facilities for hiking, hunting, fruit-picking, ti leaf sliding, and other
recreational purposes, and where there are existing mountain trails.
[Rationale: Based on existing HRS 46-6.5 and HCC 34-4(c)).]
406. Prior to disposing of, leasing, or transferring public lands, including public roads or trails,
public access potentials shall be assessed, documented and protected if public access
use is in the public's interest.
[Rationale: Based on existing HRS Section 46-1.5, Hamakua CDP Policy 50, and General
Plan 12.3 (n).]
407. Ensure that publicly owned historic trails and roads are properly identified, and
consultation occurs to protect the public's interests.
[Rationale: Based on the Highways Act of 1892, Hamakua CDP Policy 50, and the General
Plan 12.3 (n).]
408. Alignment of coastal trails shall consider flexibility for realignment for sea level rise and
other dynamic shoreline changes. [Climate Change]
[Rationale: Based on current status of some impacted coastal areas and research relating
102 Section 4: Community Placemaking
to projected sea level rise impacts on coastal assets. See also California Coastal
Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance.]
409. Determine the location and ownership of historic trails and roads as early as possible in
the land use application process.
[Rationale: Based on identified challenges with ownership of historic trails and roads and
the subsequent legal implications. See also General Plan Policy 13.2.3 (q)]
410. Where a subdivision is traversed by a natural water course, drainage way, channel, or
stream, the Planning Director should require a pedestrian, equestrian, and/or bicycle
path when the opportunity exists to connect to existing or future drainage or trail
corridors.
411. Trails may also be used as emergency access routes, where appropriate.
412. Support the development of a Rails to Trails type program to facilitate the conversion of
old railway segments to a public trail network.
413. Seek private-public partnerships to manage and maintain public access to the shoreline,
public trails, hunting areas, scenic places and vistas, and significant historic sites,
buildings, and objects of public interest. [Public Access]
414. Explore options and collaborate with community groups to increase access to former
sugar cane roads to be used as non-motorized trails where feasible and appropriate.
ACTION
4.49 Amend code to require bicycle and walking path easements be developed in urban
areas to increase walkability and multimodal transportation options. [Code]
4.50 Work with the State and adjacent landowners in establishing old railroad right-of-
ways as pedestrian and bicycle trails.
4.51 Identify by GPS coordinates all existing historic trail alignments that (a) have been
recommended for preservation by SHPD, (b) appear on historic maps and/or are
known by oral tradition, and incorporate these into the County GIS database.
4.52 Actively implement the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Memorandum of
Understanding.
4.53 Appropriate,finance, allot, and encumber Capital Improvement Projects in support
of trail development as part of a regional trail system.
4.54 Add public access requirements as listed in Hawai'i County Code Chapter 34 Public
Access to apply to Chapter 23 Subdivision Code, SMA review, zoning code, special
permits, etc. [Code]
Section 4: Community Placemaking 103
4.55 Develop and implement a public-private program to establish and manage specific
access points and trails.
SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE
Develop and maintain a public access program that integrates recreation, subsistence, and cultural
access priorities.
POLICY
415. Integrate Public Access into County department priorities in the following ways:
a) Incorporate public access and development into a program overseen by the
Planning Department as per Chapter 34.
b) Integrate PONC property management and maintenance into the Parks and
Recreation code in Chapter 2: Article 11 and Chapter 15: Parks and Recreation.
c) Develop adequate staff to carry out the provisions of Chapter 2 Article 42, relating
to the PONC maintenance fund (as per: Section 2-214.2 (b). Pursuant to section
10-16(c) of the Charter, the maintenance fund shall be administered and managed
by the department of parks and recreation. Adequate staff to carry out the
provisions of this article and section 10-16 of the Charter shall be provided in the
department of parks and recreation.
[Rationale: Based on identified gaps in addressing or applying public access regulations
and procedures consistently between the various County Departments. The County
lacks capacity to fulfill its existing public access objectives without increasing staff
capacity, maintenance capacity, and without having clearer directives between the
various departments to implement a cohesive public access program.]
416. Integrate County public access priorities in all aspects of land use decisions and permit
reviews.
417. Consistently integrate public access development and maintenance into Parks and
Recreation department priorities.
418. Support facility development for access management at access points and along trail
corridors.
ACTION
4.56 Establish a County of Hawai'i Public Access and Trail Program with sufficient staff
and resources. Staff will be required to consult/consider recommendations of this
program in all permit reviews. Elements of this program may include:
104 Section 4: Community Placemaking
aRs<i ll
a) A comprehensive access inventory;
b) A public access rating system to help with prioritization;
c) Comprehensive reviews of projects (on public or private lands) that will
affect public accesses and trails;
d) Inventory of ancient trails, cart roads, and old government roads in
coordination with appropriate State agencies.
e) Public outreach and coordination element.
f) Identify agencies/groups to develop, administer, and maintain public
accesses, including developing County capacity for this purpose;
g) Identify funding sources to purchase and manage public access easement
to priority areas;
h) When public access goals will involve several landowners, acquire the public
access incrementally as opportunities arise to do so;
i) Public accesses that cross private land will be acquired and held until
appropriate management of the accesses is in place;
j) Collaborate with State and Federal agencies on public accesses that require
multi-agency involvement;
k) Develop a standardized template to promote consistency and
comprehensiveness in the public access plans required by landowners;
1) Partner with community organizations capable of assisting with public
access management;
m) Work with State agencies (particularly with DOFAW) to coordinate, survey,
develop, and manage public trails and roads leading to forest reserves;
n) In co-sponsorship with the State when possible, acquire land for public
access to historic sites and objects and to the shoreline where safe transit
does not already exist;
o) Reinstitute a Public Access Wayfinding program managed by the Planning
Department to assist interested community groups in maintaining
appropriate signage at public access points;
p) Provide cultural and safety information at trailheads;
q) Provide for substantive community input to the County Planning
Department and the County Council in order to finalize and accept priority
access. Include community input in program policy.
r) Whenever the County assumes the responsibility for posting and
maintaining signage and maintaining public accesses and other public
infrastructure, a specific County agency will be identified and assigned the
aforementioned responsibilities. [Code, Public Access]
Section 4: Community Placemaking 105
'i_a
4.57 Amend the subdivision code to better address public access issues in the following
ways:
a) Revise/Develop enforcement protocols for public access violations,
including fines for noncompliance and mechanisms to remove private
obstructions from public accesses;
b) Review Hawai'i County Code Chapter 34 requirements for public access
standards, including design that fits into surrounding community,
environment, and conditions. Establish parameters for requiring
appropriate right-of-way, parking, and comfort stations for various types of
public accesses/trails and incorporate these into Chapter 34;
c) Amend Hawai'i County Code Chapter 34 to develop a clear methodology to
modify public access routes in order to adapt to sea level rise, landslides
and erosion, and other impacts related to environmental impacts and
climate change;
d) Amend Hawai'i County Code Chapter 34, Rule 21, Chapter 23, and
Chapter25 CA 1.1.1 to ensure access and trail rights-of-way during
subdivision. [Code]
4.58 Complete an inventory and database of significant natural resource areas with
recreational and trail connectivity value.
4.59 Adopt an on-going program of identification, designation, and acquisition of areas
with existing or potential recreational resources, such as land with sandy beaches
and other prime areas for shoreline recreation in cooperation with appropriate
governmental agencies.
4.60 Develop procedural rules and templates for public access agreements and Grant of
Easement (GOE) to facilitate consistency and to provide mechanisms for tracking,
follow-through, and geographic information system (GIS) identification in County
of Hawai'i systems, etc.
4.61 Develop procedural guidelines for renegotiating access agreements.
4.62 Renegotiate public accesses that were developed prior to Chapter 34 to be
consistent with Chapter 34.
4.63 Evaluate and initiate Charter & code amendments related to Public Access, Open
Space and Natural Resource Preservation (PONC). These may include:
a) Clearly distinguish categories of PONC property, such as active or passive
use, conservation, restoration, natural buffer areas, access uses, etc. (for
106 Section 4: Community Placemaking
S 111
instance, lands acquired to provide access versus lands acquired to
preserve from development that may not be appropriate for public access).
b) Amend Charter Section 10-5 c & f to allow PONC funds to be used for the
planning, design, development of new buildings, facilities, (including
comfort stations) or infrastructure such as roads, paths, bridges, culverts,
ramps, or drainage features if such improvements are necessary to meet
the objectives of public safety and to meet the purposes outlined in Hawai'i
County Code 2-214.1. [Code]
c) Interpret or amend Charter Section 10-15 (c) 3 and County Code Section 2-
214.1 c) 3 referring to natural resource buffer zones to include buffer zones
for natural hazard areas, such as properties facing sea level rise, lava
inundation, steep slopes, or identified priority viewsheds. [Code]
d) Include assessments of tax revenue implications for lands nominated for
PONC consideration.
e) Amend Charter section 10-15 (c) and County Code Section 2-214.1 (c) to be
consistent with each other. For example, the County Code allows PONC
funds to be used for "significant habitat or ecosystems" but the Charter
does not include those terms. [Code]
4.64 Amend Chapter 15 to include PONC and trail development as part of the Parks and
Recreation Department's priorities to be consistent with Chapter 34 in partnership
with the Planning Department.[Code]
4.65 Conduct a performance review of the PONC Maintenance Fund and Stewardship
Grant program to identify and implement ways to improve PONC management
system.
4.66 Amend Hawai'i County Code Section 2-218 Prioritized list of qualifying lands worthy
of preservation to establish a means to evaluate the socio-environmental equity of
the lands nominated by district. Such as:
a) When there are multiple lands under consideration at any one time, priority
shall be given to coastal lands and lands where matching funding is available
to leverage the County contribution;
b) Consideration should be given to lands within districts under-represented
by PONC preservation program. [Code]
Section 4: Community Placemaking 107
AGENCY ACTION
4.67 Coordinate with State agencies to improve access and access/trail management
resources (including policies, conditions, identification, cataloguing, enforcement,
maintenance, etc.).
4.68 Consider establishing a working group with surrounding land owners and the user-
community to educate users and manage ATV use to ensure that non-pedestrian
allowances are not permitted within sections of modern trails that overlap, are
congruent, or correspond to ancient or historic trails and its associated features.
4.69 Coordinate with hunting associations and other land stewards, to establish clear
hunting policies and disseminate education regarding these policies.
4.70 To facilitate greater public access to and along the shoreline and elsewhere, amend
Hawai'i Revised Statutes 520, Hawai'i's Recreational Use Statute (RUS), to make it
less ambiguous and to discourage frivolous lawsuits.
PRESERVING OUR CULTURAL & HISTORIC LEGACIES
Na tive Ha waiian Values & Practices
SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE
Native Hawaiian language, values and practices are integrated into all County processes.
POLICY
419. Ensure Native Hawaiian access rights are clearly expressed in County code, policies, and
procedures.
[Rationale: Based on identified gaps in County code and an over-reliance on State
statutes to address Native Hawaiian rights. See HRS Section 1-1, 7-1 and Article 12
Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i.]
420. Protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and
religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of Native
Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the
State to regulate such rights. [Public Access, Natural Resources, Health]
[Rationale: Based on identified gaps in County code and an over-reliance on State
statutes to address Native Hawaiian rights. See HRS Section 1-1, 7-1 and Article 12
Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i.]
108 Section 4: Community Placemaking
aRS<�ii
421. Prioritize and maintain an education and awareness program for County employees
regarding Native Hawaiian culture, values, and resource management.
[Rationale: Based on identified gaps in County capacity to sensitively address Native
Hawaiian issues.]
422. County shall staff include qualified personnel versed in Hawaiian language, Hawaiian
history, and historic preservation to provide dedicated expertise in support of the
objectives, polices, and actions stated in this plan.
[Rationale: Based on identified gaps in County capacity to sensitively address native
Hawaiian issues.]
423. Ensure access for cultural practitioners in areas that may not be appropriate for public
access (e.g. Burial sites, specific heiau).
[Rationale: Based on examples of sensitive areas that may need special treatment based
on cultural protocol.]
424. Support festivals and events that promote Native Hawaiian history and culture.
425. Support the development a multi-sector public education program regarding historic
sites that target the hospitality industry, real estate agents, site developers, consultants,
schools, youth groups, civic organizations, etc.
ACTION
4.71 Codify protections of Native Hawaiian customs and gathering rights related to
access and cultural preservation.
4.72 Identify and inventory important Native Hawaiian cultural and historic places,
traditional cultural properties, traditions, and practices, through the use of
architectural, archaeological, ethnographic surveys, and oral histories. [Mapping]
4.73 Develop an inventory of Native Hawaiian cultural resources and practices with
potential to be impacted by sea level rise. Work with Native Hawaiian communities
to determine steps they want to take regarding climate impacts. [Climate Change]
4.74 Amend the County building code to add standards for structures utilizing traditional
Hawaiian building design and construction methods. There may be certain
limitations placed on the occupancy or use of these structures, such as for cultural
purposes, accessory uses and/or occasional gatherings only. [Code]
Section 4: Community Placemaking 109
'i_a
PRESERVING OUR CULTURAL & HISTORIC LEGACIES
Multi-Cultural Heritage
SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE
At least one yearly cultural event is supported by the County in each district.
POLICY
426. Support festivals and events that promote the island's multi-cultural heritage.
427. Represent Hawai'i as a place that embraces not only its own multi-cultural heritage, but
all world cultures in inclusive and celebratory ways.
428. Promote educational and celebratory opportunities for cultural exchanges with other
world cultures.
429. Promote opportunities for 'sister city' and other types of place-based cultural
enrichment opportunities with international communities.
ACTION
4.75 Establish and maintain a County Program (including grants)to support festivals and
events that promote history and culture.
PRESERVING OUR CULTURAL & HISTORIC LEGACIES
Historic Preservation
SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE
Achieve 100% preservation of sites identified for preservation by State Historic Preservation
Division.
POLICY
430. Historic Preservation shall represent the full range and diversity of the multi-cultural
heritage of Hawai'i Island.
[Rationale: Based on General Plan Goals 6.2, and Policies 6.3 (a-o).]
110 Section 4: Community Placemaking
aRs<i ll
431. The County shall maintain an inventory of significant cultural and historic sites and
districts compatible with that of the State Historic Preservation Division. The inventory
shall identify the location of sites on the Hawai'i and National Register, the State
Inventory of Historic Places, and may also include sites of community significance
identified as being:
a) Important in the life or activities of a major historic person;
b) Associated with a major group or organization in the history of the island or
community;
c) Associated with a major historic event (cultural, economic, military, social, or
political),
d) Associated with a past or continuing institution that has contributed substantially
to the life of the community;
e) Unique example of a particular style or period;
f) One of the few of its age remaining;
g) Original materials and/or workmanship that can be valued in themselves,
h) Sites with a preponderance of original materials in context and complexes rather
than single isolated sites unless they are of great significance; and
i) Sites of traditional and cultural significance.
[Rationale: General Plan 6.3 (a-o).]
432. Preservation plans shall be completed for all subdivisions with cultural or historical
properties (sites, buildings, objects, landscapes) identified for preservation prior to
approval of the final plat map or any site work.
[Rationale: Based on identified issues where development commences prior to County
permit approvals,thereby possibly damaging historic sites or areas. See also General Plan
6.3 (a-o).]
433. The County shall develop a comprehensive management plan for historic and cultural
resources that are on County owned properties or on properties managed by the County.
[Rationale: General Plan 6.3 (a-o).]
434. Require completion of preservation plans for all significant sites identified for
preservation.
[Rationale: Based on identified issues where development commences prior to County
permit approvals,thereby possibly damaging historic sites or areas. See also General Plan
6.3 (a-o).]
435. Require completion of mitigation plans for identified sites, or resources that have been
identified as historic but will not be preserved.
[Rationale: Based on identified issues where development commences prior to
Section 4: Community Placemaking 111
completion of mitigation plans, thereby possibly damaging historic sites or areas. See
also General Plan 6.3 (a-o).]
436. Require stewardship and/or protection of sites, buildings, objects, and landscapes of
significant cultural and historical importance to the County.
[Rationale: Based on General Plan 6.3 (b).]
437. Partner with DLNR-SHPD to outline how each agency will cooperate to ensure historic
and cultural protections,verify that approved Preservation Plans are being implemented,
and promote appropriate restoration of historic sites and cultural landscapes.
[Rationale: Based on identified needs for further collaboration between State and County
agencies and on General Plan 6.3 (a).]
438. Through the Hawai'i County Cultural Resources Commission, the County shall engage in
consultation with Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and shall use this
opportunity to engage the community, especially those with generational and traditional
environmental knowledge, in the consultation process.
[Rationale: Based on Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act and the HCC Chapter
2 Article 44.]
439. Subdivisions subject to cultural or historic surveys shall have all sites approved for
preservation, including any required buffers or access easements, identified on the plat
maps of the subdivision prior to granting of final subdivision approval. The metes and
bounds descriptions of the preservation easements and all applicable covenants and
restriction pertaining to the preservation easements, shall be added to applicable deeds
prior to the transfer of subdivided properties. [code/mapping]
[Rationale: Based on consultation with Administrative Permit Division of Planning
Department and identified gaps in comprehensive recordkeeping in subdivision files. See
also General Plan 6.3 (g).]
440. Outstanding natural or cultural features, such as scenic resources, water courses, fine
groves of trees, heiau, and historical sites and structures, shall be identified and
preserved during subdivision.
[Rationale: Based on preserving public trust, and Hawai'i County Code Section 23-26, and
General Plan Goals of 6.2, 6.3 (g).] [Mapping]
441. The County shall use and promote the use of interpretive signage and/or other
appropriate methods to recognize landscapes, sites, buildings, and objects of significant
historical and cultural importance.
112 Section 4: Community Placemaking
S 111
442. Partner with Community Development Plan Action Committees and the Cultural
Resource Commission to develop design guidelines for designated communities
containing significant historic buildings, sites, or landscapes.
443. Partner with DLNR's State Historic Preservation Division to increase, maintain, and
regularly update the State inventory of Historic Places database with significant historical
and culturally important sites, buildings, objectives, and landscapes on Hawai'i Island.
444. Seek private-public partnerships to maintain and steward the preservation of sites,
buildings, objects, and landscapes of significant cultural and historical importance.
445. For new County community facilities, incorporate and consider cultural design elements
appropriate for the region.
446. Establish Historic Districts, Heritage Landscapes, Corridors, Areas, and Centers as land
use designations for purposes of preserving, conserving, or restoring historic properties
for the benefit of communities' sense of place and appropriate adaptive reuse for future
generations.
ACTION
4.76 Identify and map valued cultural and historic places, structures, traditions, and
practices, and HawaiTs multi-cultural heritage through the use of architectural,
archaeological, ethnographic surveys, and oral histories. [Mapping]
4.77 Compile and maintain a list of cultural/historic experts by island districts who may
be consulted, as needed.
4.78 Complete community-level historic surveys.
4.79 Amend the subdivision code, Section 23-69 to include a requirement that the final
plat map reflect information from the preservation plan, including any required
buffers or access easements. [Code]
4.80 Down-zone identified State and County-owned parcels that have special cultural
and/or scenic value.
4.81 Amend the zoning code to include criteria for requiring cultural preservation plans
prior to development. [Code]
4.82 Adopt rules that establish when ethnographic Surveys or Cultural Impact
Assessments will be required and what standards should be followed.
4.83 Develop County-wide Cultural Resource Commission processes for reviewing
permit applications that relate to identified cultural or historic resources.
Section 4: Community Placemaking 113
4.84 Develop protocols for receiving community input during capital project siting and
design. Consult with and solicit input from community members with generational
knowledge to minimize the impact of proposed changes to the use of land on
cultural practices, cultural sites, and culturally significant areas, including burials.
4.85 Adopt design guidelines for designated communities containing significant historic
buildings, sites, or landscapes.
4.86 Prepare Cultural Landscape Reports, prioritizing Historic Districts to articulate
preservation goals, objectives, and policies that provide the basis for making sound
decisions about management, treatment, and use of historic and cultural
resources. [Report]
4.87 Promote the real-property tax incentives for preservation of historic properties.
PROTECTING SCENIC RESOURCES
SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE
Increase participation in scenic preservation programs (Heritage Corridors, Scenic Byways, Scenic
Corridors and Exceptional Trees)
POLICY
447. Hawai'i County shall use the following place types as guidelines for designating sites and
viewsheds that shall be protected:
a) Distinctive and identifiable landforms distinguished as landmarks and/or cultural
landscapes, e.g. Mauna Kea, Waipi'o Valley.
b) Coastline areas of striking contrast, e.g. Laupahoehoe Point
c) Vistas of distinctive features
d) Natural or native vegetation attractive to a particular area.
e) Landscapes that are harmoniously developed, enhanced by man while maintaining
their natural appearance, e.g. Pu'ukohola, 'Akaka Falls.
f) Lands with a general slope of 20 percent or more that provide open space
amenities or possess unusual scenic qualities.
[Rationale: Based on the Standards from General Plan 7.4 (a-e) and 8.4 (c).]
448. Visual impact assessments shall include photo simulations or balloon tests with views
from various vantage points to show visual impact of a proposed project.
[Rationale: Creating visual modeling through photo simulations or balloon tests are
114 Section 4: Community Placemaking
aRS<�ii
common strategies used in visual impact assessments in other municipalities. These
visual impact assessment tools would help achieve General Plan 7.2 Goals and policies
7.3 (b, e, h, i).]
449. Prioritize maintaining the views at scenic overlooks with a frequently maintained
vegetation management program which includes eradication of invasive species.
Coordinate this work with regular roadway vegetation management maintenance
program.
[Rationale: Based on identified challenges with vegetative management of existing scenic
overlook and the prevalence of the views being obstructed by invasive species or other
vegetation. See also Hamakua CDP 38, Kokua Action 9, and General Plan 7.2 (b), 7.3 (a,
b, c, f).]
450. Maintain a continuing program to identify and inventory exceptional trees, forest areas,
or groves/stands of trees.
[Rationale: Based on Standards from General Plan 7.3 (g) and policies 7.4 (a-e) 8.3 (j, k,
m.]
451. Maintain the Exceptional Tree Program for the recognition and protection of trees with
significant or unique historical, ecological, cultural and/or aesthetic significance.
[Rationale: Based on General Plan policy 7.3 (g).]
452. No variance shall be granted unless appropriate conditions are imposed to minimize
adverse impacts on public views to, from, and along the shoreline.
[Rationale: Based on Hamakua CDP Policy 17, General Plan goals 7.2 (a-c), and policies
7.3 (b), 8.3 (c, d). See also HRS 205A.
453. Do not allow incompatible development in areas of natural beauty that have been
identified through the Scenic Resources Protection Program.
[Rationale: Based on an identified need to identify natural beauty areas through a scenic
resource protection program and restrict development appropriately to ensure scenic
resources are not lost to development. Based also on General Plan policies 7.3 (h, i).]
[Mapping]
454. Applications for Special Permits and environmental assessment reports for proposed
changes of zone on property that may impact open space, viewsheds, and areas of
natural beauty shall include visual impact assessments and propose conditions to
mitigate scenic impacts.
[Rationale: Based on identified needs to protect scenic resources, open space and
natural beauty in the special permit process. Also based on Hamakua CDP policy 33 and
Ka'u CDP policy 57.]
Section 4: Community Placemaking 115
'i_a
455. Hawai'i County shall seek to minimize, any development which would substantially
interfere with or detract from the line of site toward the sea from the State highway
nearest the coast.
[Rationale: Based on Hamakua CDP Policy 35, Ka'u CDP Policy 54, General Plan policy 7.2
(b) and 7.3 (f).]
456. Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by
designing and locating such developments to minimize the alteration of natural
landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline.
[Rationale: Based on an identified need to ensure that development is managed
appropriately to protect natural landforms and viewplanes. Based also on General Plan
policies 7.3 (h, i).] [Land Use]
457. Preserve roadway corridors that have historic, scenic, or unique physical attributes that
enhance the character and scenic resources of communities.
458. Support the development and promotion of Heritage Corridors and Scenic Byways where
appropriate.
459. Support the designation of scenic byways through the State Scenic Byway Program.
460. In reviewing Special Permit applications, rezoning, and other land use changes in the
Agricultural District, appropriate conditions should be determined to preserve existing
viewsheds to and along the coastline. [Land Use]
ACTION
4.88 Develop and establish viewshed regulations to preserve and protect from
obstruction scenic resources, vistas, viewsheds, open space, prominent
landscapes, and areas of natural beauty identified in the General Plan.
4.89 Develop and maintain a program to identify, inventory, preserve, acquire, and
develop (where appropriate) viewing sites on the island. [Transportation]
4.90 Collaborate with the State to modify zoning on publicly-owned parcels that have
been identified as having special cultural and/or scenic value. [Land Use]
4.91 Identify valued scenic resources in the Coastal Zone Management area. [Land Use,
Mapping]
4.92 Identify and develop scenic lookouts along highways to ensure important views
(coastal, mountain, and waterfall) are preserved from development, create various
opportunities to view these scenic resources, and develop a vegetation
maintenance program.
116 Section 4: Community Placemaking
aRS 111
4.93 Establish a Scenic Resources Protection Program to identify, inventory, and protect
areas of significant beauty. The program would include:
a) Rate viewsheds and roadway corridors documented in the Scenic Resources
Inventory and Mapping Project (June, 2016)
b) Develop scenic resource and viewshed corridor maps
c) Develop administrative rules to implement Hawai'i County Code section 25-
6-60
d) Develop Scenic Corridor Management Plan(s) for specific corridors
identified. Scenic Corridor Management Plan(s) should include permit
conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural
setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual
impacts from development.
e) Prepare Urban Design and Scenic Resource Protection Guidelines
f) Staff and Planning Commission Training;
g) Set Guidelines for Development Compatibility Standards. [Program]
4.94 Develop, maintain, and implement design standards to protect important
viewsheds and ensure structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways.
4.95 Develop Scenic Corridor Management Plans.
4.96 Adopt administrative rules to implement Hawai'i County Code for Scenic Corridors.
4.97 Perform a feasibility study on developing a scenic route from Waipi'o Valley
Lookout extending mauka to connect Mud Lane at the entrance of Waimea and a
scenic park with a viewing area of Hi'ilawe Falls.
4.98 Coordinate with the State to upgrade the viewing site from the rim of Pololu Valley.
AGENCY ACTION
4.99 Encourage the State to develop and maintain scenic lookouts along highways
where appropriate to ensure ocean, mountain, pastoral, and waterfall views are
preserved from development, and coordinate a regular roadway vegetation
maintenance program.
4.100 Consider adding/improving viewing locations and interpretive signage near the
scenic bridges for safe parking and views of the areas' waterfalls and coastline and
along Saddle Road (Route 200) for views of the summit.
Section 4: Community Placemaking 117
'i_a
place
County of Hawaii General Plan Comprehensive Review
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report
Date: April 18, 2016
Authors: Amy DeBay, Ian Varley, Doug Walker
Introduction
Task S2 (Land Use Allocation)sets up a framework for estimating future development patterns
(amounts and location) based on a set of rules. Task E (Trend Scenario) uses an initial, calibrated run of
the allocation model to estimate future development patterns based on historical trends. These tasks
go hand-in-hand and are combined in this technical report.
Allocation Concepts and Approach
Future development patterns(amounts and location)are estimated using an algorithm-driven process
called allocation. Allocation models the interplay between market demand for development in certain
locations("desirability")and amount of development allowed according to current regulations or by
future land use patterns suggested by alternate scenarios("capacity"). Given a pre-determined amount
of growth expected in the given time frame (here, new growth between 2015 and 2040),the allocation
process estimates where each incremental unit of new development will go,following the basic
presumption that the most desirable areas will be developed first, capacity allowing. Thus highly
desirable areas are assigned growth first, and then slightly less desirable areas get developed next, etc.,
until all the estimated growth amount has been accommodated. Numerous refinements to the basic
principle are used to produce the final estimates. For example, parcels aren't always filled all the way to
capacity, a certain amount of controlled"randomness"is often applied to the growth pattern, etc. For
mixed use areas, both residential and non-residential growth can be assigned.
In this study, a CommunityViz tool called Allocatorg is used. The methods combined with the
algorithms in Allocator 5 provide a well-reasoned analysis that will be helpful for this and myriad other
planning studies, but it is recognized that the results have limitations in terms of modelling precision
and confidence. The CommunityViz allocation method is sometimes described as"light-weight"to
"medium-weight,"differentiating it from the"heavy-weight"algorithms such as UrbanSim or PECAS
that are considerably more sophisticated but are more difficult and expensive to implement. In
contrast, the Allocator 5 method is easier to use and lends itself well to"what-if"type scenario
planning.
At the highest level,the allocation algorithm takes 3 inputs—growth amount, capacity, and
desirability—and generates i output—a pattern of future development. Our methods for each of these
are described next.
Growth Amount
As a 201.5 baseline for housing unit data, Placeways used data from the County's Real Property Tax
(RPT)office to identify the number of housing units and non-residential square feet. The procedure
began with a database file from RPT that, unfortunately, lacked metadata, so the fields were
interpreted manually. For each TMK, buildings were converted to housing units where appropriate
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 1
Vce
(buildings and dwelling units were tracked separately). Single family homes and `ohana units were
readily identified in the RPT data. Multifamily housing required some additional steps. In cases where
there were multiple records per TMK (as with condos),the records required consolidation to identify
the total number of dwelling units per TMK. Separate analyses were performed for single family,
multifamily, and commercial properties. In RPT data, housing units that are treated as commercial
property(e.g., apartments and timeshares)were counted as residential only when the RPT data
showed them as such. Once this basic processing was complete, Placeways used the RPT online tool,
Google Street View, digital air photos and other tools to verify the number of existing units with the
goal of establishing an accurate baseline and using the RPT database to its maximum extent.
For the trend scenario, growth projections are provided by SMS, a Hawaii-based research and
consulting company(see their report"General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends and Forecast
Analysis Final Report(2015)"). These projections are broken out by 13 geographic areas called"forecast
analysis zones"or FAZs(see Figure 1)and by use type(residential dwelling units and non-residential
square feet). In order to add additional land use information to the allocation,the SMS forecasts were
further broken down into four categories: single family dwelling units, multifamily dwelling units,
commercial square feet, and industrial square feet. The ratio of single family to multifamily was found
using the mean of the ratio from three dates in the recent past(2000, 2010, 2015)for which the ratio
was known. This ratio was then applied to the combined residential allocation amounts to produce the
single family/multifamily splits seen in Tables 1, 3, and 6. Similarly, growth amounts for non-residential
development were developed as a single forecast and had to be split into amounts for commercial and
industrial uses. The 2013 ACS Employment by Occupation Type data were used to identify the ratio of
industrial employment to commercial employment and to produce the splits seen in Tables 2, 3, and 7.
While this method assumes no change in the ratio of single family to multifamily units and commercial
to industrial space, it reflects the recent development patterns in the Trend Scenario and can easily be
adjusted for use in alternate scenarios.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 2
place
Figure i.Map of Forecast Analysis Zone(FAZ)Areas(source:SMS)
FAZ NAME
-HPP-Orchidland
-Hilo
-Honoka-Paauilo
_Ka'u
_Knwaihae-Punko-Waikoloa-Waikoloa Resorts
-Keaau-Kurtistown
Lower Puna
-North Hilo-Hamakua Coast Villages
North Kohala
-North Kona
-South Kona Villages
upper Puna
-Waimea
ni
v
In contrast to the RPT-based method for establishing a baseline,the housing forecast data produced by
SMS rely on US Census and Hawaii DBEDT as sources. The methods used to collect Census and
DBEDT data are quite different from RPT, resulting in differing 2015 baseline quantities. In addition,
SMS did not suggest a 2015 baseline, instead using decadal increments for forecasting. In order to
establish an SMS 2015 baseline, Placeways used the average of SMS's 2oio and the first forecast year
Of 2020. This results in a 2015 baseline difference of 11,558 housing units(RPT 2015:75,1001
SMS/Census: 86,658). The reasons that the RPT and Census derived baseline amounts are different are
due to the sources'two distinct methods, and no attempt was made to reconcile them.
To calculate the amount of new residential growth, Placeways used a method to find the relative
amount of net new amount of growth per FAZ. This method finds the percent change, per SMS,
between 2015 and 204o and applies that to the RPT 2015 baseline. This forecast results in fewer net
new units(35,750)than the SMS forecast(40,16o new units), but its rates of change match SMS.
The SMS non-residential forecasts were already reconciled with the RPT data, and their forecast was
calibrated to closely match the 2015 RPT baseline square footage. Therefore, in the case of non-
residential growth,there was no need to rectify the forecast numbers as was the case with residential
growth. Non-residential square feet were rounded and translated from square feet to 1,00o square feet
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 3
place
for the purposes of allocation. This ensured that allocation amounts are in whole increments and not in
very small portions of square feet.
Table i. Residential Forecast by FAZ
Ili[
Single Multi- Total Single Multi- Single Multi- Total
Family family Family family Family family
• 14,713 1,138 15,851 2,953 833 17,666 1,971 19,636
• 2,822 12 2,834 721 71 3,543 83 3,626
• - 2,399 14 2,413 871 56 3,270 70 3,340
3,212 98 3,310 1,420 158 4,632 256 4,887
North - 2,499 17 2,516 785 59 3,284 76 3,360
• 2,610 3,390 6,000 1,337 1,337 3,947 4,727 8,675
Waik. .- . .-
Resorts
• - 11,181 5,989 17,170 4,418 2,708 15,599 8,697 24,295
South - Villages 3,437 73 3,510 1,129 125 4,566 198 4,765
3,397 76 3,473 2,135 112 5,532 188 5,720
-Kurtistown 1,640 10 1,650 834 35 2,474 45 2,518
• • 4,884 0 4,884 3,373 104 8,257 104 8,361
• - 6,654 0 6,654 7,431 152 14,085 152 14,237
LowerPuna 4,835 0 4,835 2,515 78 7,350 78 7,428
. 64,283 10,817 75,100 29,922 5,828 94,205 16,645 110,850
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 4
place
Table 2. Non-Residential Forecast by FAZ(in i,000 square feet)
m m i
.L N •i f0 •i f6
Gl 'i N 'si Gl 'i
E N E c
N
E 3 'm E 3 3 m
+�
V I-0 0 U = 0
• 9,187 3,762 12,949 3,979 346 13,166 4,108 17,274
North347 30 377 98 8 445 38 483
Coast Villages
• - 438 38 476 130 7 568 45 613
1,303 75 1,379 421 37 1,724 112 11837
North290 255 545 181 12 471 267 738
6 5,406 63 5,470 1,608 85 7,014 148 7,163
Waikoloa-Waikoloa
Resorts
• 6,512 5,135 11,648 3,400 296 9,912 5,431 15,344
South868 16 884 235 18 1,103 34 1,137
303 0 303 110 11 413 11 424
Kea'au-Kurtistown 760 902 1,662 454 51 1,214 953 2,167
201 2 203 54 3 255 5 260
HPP-Orchidiand 120 0 120 57 4 177 4 181
• 413 0 413 114 14 527 14 541
• - 26,150 10,279 36,428 10,841 892 11 36,991 11,171 48,161
Capacity
Capacity values used in this report are based primarily on the results of Task Si, covered in a separate
report. The focus is on net capacity,which is gross(or total)capacity minus existing development.
Numeric capacity is assigned to every parcel on the island for residential dwelling units, and a separate
numeric capacity for non-residential square feet. The majority of visitor units, existing and projected,
are within 3 of the 13 FAZ areas. More information on visitor units and how they are addressed can be
found in the Indicator Modeling technical report(Task G).
During the initial calibration of the allocation model, it was decided to place caps on the capacity of
individual parcels that limited the amount of development that could occur on any single parcel. Caps
for both residential and non-residential development were identified by looking at the County's
subdivision records and the 2004-203.5 building permit data. This information revealed what the recent
historical maximums were for each kind of development: 600 units for residential development and
3o6,000 square feet for non-residential development. (The historical maximums and their place in the
model are also discussed below in the section on additional calibration factors.) The final numbers
below represent capped net capacity. Later in the project,these capacity values may be adjusted to
model different potential planning and policy decisions.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 5
place
Table 3. Net Capacity(Capped)by FAZ
Residential 1111
Multifamily
. e
22,299 1,183 7,037,091 6,766,170
8,721 1,173,273 894,155
50
9,691 39 579,692 133,073
6,807 827 1,242,247 577,334
9,950 231 1,660,320 1,499,805
15,237 1,944,304 310,342
... .. � 3,815
North Kona 21,855 5,376 9,831,956 12,956,188
21,445 190 539,714 0
25,088 1971 768,304 620,075
5,518 1 75 1,481,939 1 4,484,680
- 25,390 1 31 1 135,975 1 0
9,996 1 0 0 1 0
25,928 151 656,727 74,451
207,925 13,939 27,051,542 28,316,273
Desirability
Desirability is a complex topic and represented a large proportion of the effort for this task.
The desirability of a given parcel for a given use (residential or commercial) is represented by a score
from o(least desirable)to ioo(most desirable). A parcel that is not eligible for a given use is assigned a
desirability score of-i. On a map, the pattern of desirability scores is sometimes called a "desirability
surface"because one can picture a lumpy blanket covering the island with high points in areas of high
desirability and low points in areas of low desirability.
Desirability was calculated all at once for the entire island. Given more time and resources, it would be
possible to perform separate calculations for subareas such as east/west or individual FAZs. However,
the additional effort would make little difference because growth amounts are constrained to meet
FAZ-specific totals and thus growth is allocated based on relative desirability scores within a FAZ, not
between FAZs.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 6
Vce
The detailed procedure for creating the initial desirability surface, used to create the Trend Scenario,
follows:
1. Spatial and non-spatial factors affecting location desirability were hypothesized. These factors,
such as proximity to infrastructure or coastline, likely affected development desirability in the
past and could be quantified for all parcels on the island given available information. While a
complete list of factors tested is included at the end of this report, all hypothesized factors
could fit into the following categories:
• Distance to infrastructure, geographical features,town and commercial centers
• Parcel shape/size
• Terrain/climate characteristics
• Neighbor(io ft)and neighborhood (i000 ft) context:the number of nearby parcels and
development proximity(the number of nearby parcels that are built)
• Current land use and build status
• Geographic location (District, FAZ, etc.)
• Property and building valuation.
Using CommunityViz,these factors were calculated for each parcel on the island and exported
to a table for use in SPSS statistical analysis software.
2. Statistical regression analysis in SPSS was used to calculate how well each factor correlates
with new development in a given time frame. Three timeframes were initially considered:
• All development since the beginning of RPT(County of Hawaii Real Property Tax
Office) recordkeeping (188os)
• All development since 1995
• All development between 1975 and 1995.
However, because the goal of this statistical regression was to capture the principal factors
influencing urban growth in the recent past, a cutoff date of 1995 was established. This year
was selected to encompass a full cycle of real estate development and to capture the"highs
and lows"in development activity. Development during this period followed this approximate
pattern:
• Trough: 1996
• Peak: 2005-2006
• Trough: 2009-2011
• Recent uptick: 2015.
The SMS CoH 2016 General Plan Final Report(Figure 1, Resident Population) illustrates this
pattern.
The statistical analysis models the relationship between dependent variables—Commercial
Square Feet(COM_SQFT)and Number of Residential Buildings(NumberOf Residences)—and
the hypothesized list of independent variables(see Appendix 1,Table 12. Factors Tested for
Historical Growth Trends). As a result, a step-wise Multiple Linear Regression model was
chosen to create coefficients associated with each of the variables in order to represent the
independent contributions of each independent variable to the prediction of the dependent
variable after controlling for all other independent variables.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 7
Vce
The initial analysis included an overall view of development, an earlier era of development
(1-975-95), and post-1995 recent development patterns for both of the dependent variables(see
Appendix 1: Comparing Post 1995 Regression Factors with the 1975-1995 Regression Factors for a
discussion of these results). The results show the top io variables—that is,the top io of the
hypothesized desirability factors—that influence each of the analyses, along with the absolute
value of each of the standardized coefficients. The coefficient values allow ranking the
variables from most to least influential. Detailed analysis information is included at the end of
this report.
The standardized regression coefficients with the io highest absolute beta values for the post-
3.995 period were converted into CommunityViz weighting factors normalized to the scale o—
so,where o is no correlation and io is the highest correlation of any factor(though less than 1).
Candidate factors with lower beta coefficients, below the top ten,were ignored for the
desirability score.
A cutoff of io factors was chosen for a few reasons. One was to keep the most significant
factors in the mix. The top io account for the majority of the causal influence of all factors
tested. Additionally, there was a benefit to limiting the number of movable parts for testing.
Even with io, it is challenging to understand the interplay of all inputs and the individual effect
on the overall score. The goal here is to incorporate both sophistication and manageable
interactive parts, and io is a reasonable number for that.
Some factors are negatively correlated, and some factors are inversely correlated. For
instance, distance values that correlate to growth are often inverse: nearer, smaller distance
values are more desirable and further, larger distance values are less desirable. In the table
below, negative and inverse correlations are indicated by a negative beta value score.
Understanding this, many factors below make intuitive sense. The slope factor for example
suggests that as land gets steeper(slope increases),the likelihood of development decreases.
Some results are not always intuitive, however. Statistically,for example, it is found that
parcels that are closerto old lava flows are more desirable for non-residential development than
those far away(i.e. Distance 2 Lava FlOw179O). Some positively correlated cases also benefit
from some explanation. For example,the strongest factor for residential development is
Dlstance2VOIcanOHazard. This is a positively correlated factor meaning that as distance
increases away from volcano hazards,the likelihood of development also increases.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 8
,place
.Wary
Table 4.Residential Factors(Top io)for Growth Desirability Model(Post 1995 Development)
Beta Absolute Normalized
Description Value Beta Value Value
(Weighting)
Distance2VolcanoHazard Distance to high volcano risk area, 0.0808 0.0808 10
defined as areas classified as
category 1 or 2 on the risk layer
Distance to older lava flow, -0.0575 0.0575 7.1
deposited between the year 1250
and the present
•• Mean slope of the parcel in percent -0.0494 0.0494 6.1
rise
ntersections1mi Density Road intersection density:the -0.0439 0.0439 5.4
number of intersections on major
roads within%mi of the parcel
divided by area of the parcel
Rainfall Annual average rainfall, in inches -0.0429 0.0429 5.3
Distance2CenterAdjusted Network distance to commercial -0.0411 0.0411 5.1
center. Commercial center is
defined by RPT land use
"commercial." This adjusted value
uses straight line distance for those
features not picked up by the
patchy network.
RESpost1995ProximitySum1OOOft Total number of dwelling units on -0.0394 0.0394 4.9
parcels within 1000 ft of a parcel
built after 1995
RESpostl995ProximitySumlOftTotal number of dwelling units on -0.0321 0.0321 4
parcels within 10 ft of a parcel built
after 1995
Parcel Perimeter2DivArea Lot shape: perimeter squared 0.0305 0.0305 3.8
divided by area
Distance2Coastline Distance to the island's coastline -0.0301 -0.0301 3.73
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 9
place
Table 5.Non-Residential Factors(Top io)for Growth Desirability Model(Post 1995 Development)
Beta Absol ute Normalized
Factor Description Value Beta Value
Value
Distance2LavaFlow1790 Distance to recent lava flow, -0.3410 0.3410 10
deposited since 1790
IntersectionslmiDensity Road intersection density:the -0.2560 0.2560 7.5
number of intersections on major
roads within%mi of the parcel
divided by area of the parcel
Distance2Airports Distance to nearest major airport 0.2246 0.2246 6.6
Proximity1000ftParceIDensity The number of parcels within 1000ft 0.1723 0.1723 5
divided by the area of the parcel
Distance2ExistingMFl Distance to nearest multifamily -0.1380 0.1380 4
residential development
Distance2SewerService Distance to nearest wastewater -0.1207 0.1207 3.6
service line
Distance2WaterService Distance to nearest potable water 0.1089 0.1089 3.2
service line
ProximitylOftParcelDensity The number of parcels within 10 ft -0.1006 0.1006 3
divided by the area of the parcel
Parcel Perimeter2DivArea Lot shape: perimeter squared -0.0935 0.0935 2.7
divided by area
Distance2VolcanoHazard Distance to high volcano risk area, 0.0885 0.0885 2.6
defined as areas classified as
category 1 or 2 on the risk layer
3. The CommunityViz Suitability Wizard was then used to create a suitability analysis using the
parcels' normalized factor values(such as distance to roads)as inputs. Since these values were
pre-calculated for the statistical analysis, Suitability Wizard was pointed directly at the numeric
values, improving processing performance. The wizard default is set to 5(on a scale of o to so)
for each factor weighting. After the suitability analysis is run with defaults,the weighting
assumption defaults are set for each factor according to the values calculated in the previous
step to calibrate the score to historical trends.
4. The suitability(desirability)score for each parcel is displayed using the parcels layer symbolized
by the suitability scores. The factor weightings are adjustable, so each factor that contributes
to the overall score can be given a level of priority appropriate to the goals of the scenario.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 10
Vce
Trend Scenario Allocation
The allocation of forecasted development in the"Trend Scenario"is based on the desirability surface
representing historic development trends. Later in the project, it will be possible to develop alternate
desirability surfaces for scenario planning in which planners test planning strategies that could
encourage growth to evolve in particular ways.
Allocation is performed using Allocator 5 with the inputs above. Again, allocation distributes
predetermined growth amounts for each FAZ to parcels within that FAZ, developing the most desirable
parcels first and proceeding until all growth has been accommodated. No parcel receives more
development than it has capacity for, and many parcels receive little or no development even though
they have capacity available. For the initial run, used to develop the Trend Scenario, randomness is set
at i out of io. Results for each FAZ are as follows:
Table 6.Allocated Residential Growth by FAZ
Residential Remaining Residential Remaining
FAZ Name Single Family Single Family Multifamily Multifamily
Dwelling Units Capacity Dwelling Units Capacity
Hilo 2,952 19,347 833 350
North Hilo-Hamakua Coast Villages 721 8,000 50 0
Honoka'a-Pa'au ilo 871 8,820 39 0
Waimea 1,419 5,388 158 669
North Kohala 785 9,165 59 172
Kawaihae-Puako-Waikoloa- 1,338 13,899 1,338 2,477
Waikoloa Resorts
North Kona 4,418 17,437 2,708 2,668
South Kona Villages 1,130 20,315 126 64
Ka'u 2,135 22,953 112 1,859
Kea'au-Kurtistown 833 4,685 35 40
Upper Puna 3,373 22,017 31 0
HPP-Orchidland 7,431 2,565 0 0
Lower Puna 2,515 23,413 78 73
Total 29,921 178,004 5,567 8,372
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 11
place
a9
Table 7.Allocated Non-Residential Growth by FAZ in i,000 square feet
Remaining Remaining
Commercial Industrial
FAZ Name Allocated Commercial Allocated Industrial
Capacity Capacity
Hilo 3,979 3,039 346 6,424
North Hilo-Hamakua Coast Villages 98 1,074 8 887
Honoka'a-Pa'auilo 130 450 7 125
Waimea 421 814 37 541
North Kohala 181 1,479 12 1,487
Kawaihae-Puak6-Waikoloa- 1,608 336 85 224
Waikoloa Resorts
North Kona 3,400 6,411 296 12,656
South Kona Villages 235 303 0 0
Ka'u 110 655 11 609
Kea'au-Kurtistown 454 1,023 51 4,434
Upper Puna 54 80 0 0
HPP-Orchidland 0 0 0 0
Lower Puna 114 542 14 60
Total 10,784 16,206 867 27,447
Trend Calibration Factors
In order to better replicate the patterns of the previous 20 years, additional calibration factors were
developed to supplement the factors used in the statistical analysis. The objective of the Trend
Scenario is to reflect a continuation of recent patterns, and these factors help reflect the recent
development characteristics. While the statistical analysis provides an impartial and"data-driven"
perspective on the patterns of recent development, its results cannot provide a complete picture
because of a number of limitations:
• Data limitations. Data were not available on all factors and across all historic time scales. In
particular,the model lacked in-depth real estate market data, including market conditions and
consumer preferences for both residential and non-residential development. In addition,
historic building data were not available in appropriate forms.
• Geographic biases that resulted from using parcel data as the unit of analysis. For example,
large parcels tended to score very well in the statistical analysis. These features tend to show
advantages that small parcels do not:they have more capacity, they have more neighboring
parcels, and they can be closer to more desirable locations simply because of their size. A grid-
based analysis would reduce these issues, but it would introduce many other issues(e.g.,
mismatch between the grids and the available parcel data) in their place.
• Difficulty reflecting all patterns and preferences for all the island at a local scale (e.g.,what
drives growth in North Kona is somewhat different from what drives growth in Lower Puna). It
was outside the scope of this project to run individual analyses for smaller areas(e.g., FAZs).
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 12
Vce
• No forecast model is perfect, and it is expected that any algorithmic results will require some
degree of adjustment to match observed results.
Because of these limitations on factors derived solely from statistical analysis, additional calibration
factors based on expert human knowledge were included in the analysis as well. The combination
resulted in a hybrid system that carefully combines both statistical modeling and expertjudgement.
Each calibration factor works in a different way to help fine-tune the model by what is believed as
common knowledge by County of Hawaii planners and by comparing values observed in the recent
development data to the results of the draft versions of the Trend Scenario allocation.
Some of these factors(Redevelopment Friction, Residential Subdivision Friction and Non-residential
Size Friction) help steer growth towards areas that have received consistent development pressure in
the previous 20 years. The Pipeline Projects Factor prioritizes parcels that currently have development
proposals pending. While these factors help calibrate the Trend Scenario to reflect recent patterns, it is
difficult—and not necessarily desirable—to exactly replicate rates and patterns of the recent past with
what occurs in the Trend Scenario's modeled future. The future is unknown and many external factors
and unforeseeable conditions will affect how growth actually occurs. The goal of the Trend Scenario is
to provide a plausible and useful reference for comparing alternative scenarios to help inform policy
and the contents of the General Plan; it is not intended as a detailed forecast.
Recent Lava Factor
While a significant amount of development in the County of Hawaii occurs on geologically recent lava
flow(often on lava less than a few hundred years old), lava that has been deposited very recently is a
significant obstacle to development. Lava flows that are more recent than iggo were identified, and
desirability of parcels that overlapped post-sggo lava flows was reduced.
Pipeline Projects Factor
This factor adds a bonus to the desirability of parcels that are currently under development or that
County planning staff assume are likely to develop in the near future. The pipeline projects are divided
into two groups. Group one consists of two projects, Kamakana Villages and Kealakehe Homesteads,
which are very likely to develop or are in the process of development. The second group includes five
projects that are less advanced in the planning process but have greater than average chances of
developing. The project pipeline projects are mostly located in North Kona and primarily entail
residential development. Table 8 identifies the pipeline projects and the number of units allocated to
them.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 13
Vce
Table 8.Pipeline projects
Project Name Approximate Location Allocated
Residential Units
Kamakana Villages Ane Keohokalole Highway, North of
600
Kailua Kona
Kealakehe Homesteads North of Kailua-Kona, Corner of
184
Keanalehu & Manawalea
UH Palamanui UH West Hawaii campus,just east of
airport 300
Pualani South of Kailua-Kona along Queen 2.78
Ka'ahumanu highway
Keahuolu Queen Lili`uokalani Various parcels, north of Kailua-Kona
48
Trust downtown
Redevelopment Friction
The uncalibrated allocation model orients development towards areas of greater desirability and
available capacity. Many parcels already have existing residential or non-residential structures on them
but according to the capacity analysis have some additional capacity(these parcels are considered
"underbuilt"for purposes of the model). The Redevelopment Friction factor considers redevelopment
in the sense of any new development on a parcel that has an existing residential or non-residential
structure (according to RPT). The uncalibrated model does not distinguish the nature of this new
development:whether it is a physical addition to a structure, a new structure on an undeveloped
portion of the parcel, or the wholesale redevelopment of an existing structure. Redevelopment areas
can sometimes be more difficult and costly to develop but they may be highly desirable because of
their location or other amenities. The 2004-203.5 building permit data reveal that 34%of residential
development occurred on parcels that already had a residential or non-residential structure. This figure
is lower for commercial development,where 2.5%of growth occurred on parcels with existing
structures. The Redevelopment Friction factor applies a penalty to the desirability score for both
residential and non-residential development to parcels that already have some development.
Residential Subdivision Friction
An analysis of residential growth since 3.995 revealed that over 75%of new dwelling units were built on
parcels that were subdivided to sizes of less than 5 acres. Subdivisions yielding parcels larger than 25
acres were not as common and did not contain large amounts of residential development in the recent
past. The County's subdivision data revealed that in the last fifteen years,the largest subdivision to be
approved was 590 parcels. During initial runs of the allocation model, it was observed that the tool
tended to select larger parcels over smaller parcels, a pattern that was not consistent with the recent
development patterns. The County's subdivisions layer depicts all of the island's major subdivisions and
using this data as a guide, subdivided parcels were flagged and received higher desirability scores than
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 14
place
non-subdivided parcels. This factor actually consists of two factors, one factor that penalizes large
parcels by size and another that caps residential development at 600 units, similar to the historic
maximum.
Non-residential Footprint Friction
Similar to residential subdivision friction, recent non-residential development had certain
characteristics related to building footprint size (i.e.,the square footage of the non-residential
development)that were not well captured by the regression analysis. Early runs of the model revealed
some extremely large non-residential developments that seemed uncharacteristic with the recent
development patterns. According to RPT records,the largest commercial development since 1995 was
3o6,000 square feet and the median size 6,510 square feet. For the Trend Scenario, non-residential
capacity was capped at 300,000 and desirability was boosted for smaller capacity parcels.
Comparing Recent Development Trends and the Trend Scenario
After calibration,the Trend Scenario matches recent development patterns fairly well, as shown in the
table below.
Table 9.Comparing recent development with the trend scenario
Recent Development*2004-
Trend Scenario
2015
Residential Redevelopment i1%of recent growth occurred 4%of growth occurs on built
on built parcels parcels
Commercial Redevelopment 15%of recent growth occurred 16%of growth occurs on built
on built parcels parcels
Residential Subdivision 75%of recent growth occurred 73%of recent growth occurs in
Development in existing subdivisions; median existing subdivisions; median
parcel size is 0.7 acres parcel size is o.9 acres
Non-residential Footprint Median development size was Median development size is
Friction 6,510 square feet 5,000 square feet
* Recent redevelopment is based on RPT and building permit data; subdivision and parcel size factors
use RPT data.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 15
Vce
Appendix i. Comparing Post 1995 Regression Factors with the 1975-1995 Regression
Factors
The regression analysis conducted for all development and development post-1995 was also run for
development that occurred between 3.975 and 1.995. Development in this era appeared to manifest
some similar patterns(Distance to Volcano Hazards, Lava Flow, and Intersection Density)as the post
3.995 development. Distance to centralized services such as water and sewer systems was more
strongly correlated in the 1.975-95 development, perhaps reflecting the closer proximity of
development in that era to those services. In a more extreme case,the correlation for Distance2Airport
reverses: it is negative for 1975-95 development and positive for post 3.995 development. In other
words, as distance to airports diminishes the likelihood of development increases in the 3.975-95 era.
The opposite is true for development in the post 3.995 era.
Valuation factors(building, land values)were poorly correlated in the 2.975-95 era for residential
development. Valuation factors were more strongly correlated with non-residential square footage.
However,the valuation factors used reflect present-day conditions. In general, care should be taken
when comparing the results of the 3.975-95 era beta values with the post 3.995 beta values because this
analysis relies on data that represents conditions as they are now, not as conditions were during the
3.975-95 phase of the island's development. Some factors rely on data that has remained relatively
consistent through time; for example the location of the island's coastline, slope, rainfall patterns, etc.
are very similar now to how they were 40 years ago. Other factors have changed considerably since the
3.975-95 development occurred (distance to commercial development, development proximity, land
and building valuations, etc.). The 3.975-95 development patterns would be better compared to the
Post 3.995 development by factoring in the conditions as they existed in that 3.975-95 era, not conditions
as they exist in the present day. Unfortunately that level of analysis was not feasible within the scope of
the current project. Below are two tables comparing the 3.975-95 and the post 3.995 beta values for
residential and nonresidential development.
Table io.Comparing post i995 and 3.975-95 non-residential beta values
Factor ComPost956eta Com75-95113eta Difference
Distance2 Lava Flow1790 -.341 .006 -0.3474
IntersectionslmiDensity -.256 -.100 -0.1564
Distance2Airports .225 -.145 0.3700
Proximity1000ftParcelDensity .172 -.042 0.2140
Distance2ExistingMF1 -.138 -.126 -0.0120
Distance2SewerService -.121 .161 -0.2813
Distance2WaterService .109 .013 0.0958
ProximitylOftParcel Density -.101 .019 -0.1196
ParcelPerimeter2DivArea -.093 .077 -0.1703
Distance2VolcanoHazard .088 .090 -0.0016
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 16
Vce
Table ii.Comparing post 3.995 and 3.975-95 residential beta values
ResPost95Beta ResPost75-95Beta Difference
Factor
Distance2VolcanoHazard .081 .079 0.0017
Distance2 Lava FIow1250 -.057 -.173 0.1151
Slope -.049 -.049 0.0000
ValueBuilding .049 .010 0.0389
IntersectionslmiDensity -.044 -.078 0.0338
Rainfall -.043 -.007 -0.0359
Distance24CenterAdjusted -.041 -.028 -0.0132
RESpost1995ProximitySum1000ft* -.039 #N/A -0.0419
RESpost1995ProximitySum10ft** -.032 #N/A -0.0273
ParcelPerimeter2DivArea .031 .037 -0.0067
*The 3.975-95 results used the factor, RESpost7595Proximity5uml000ft instead of the post 3.995
proximity sums,yielding the beta value of 0.002.
**The 3.975-95 results used the factor, RESpost7595Proximity5umsoft instead of the post 3.995
proximity sums,yielding the beta value of-0.005.
Table 3.2.Factors Tested for Historical Growth Trends
Factor Name Description Unit Source
Acres Size of the parcel in acres acres
Distance2Airports Distance to nearest major airport feet County GIS
Distance2Belt10 Distance to the island's belt road feet County GIS
Distance2Coastline Distance to coastline feet County GIS
Network distance to commercial
center. Commercial center is defined
Distance24CenterAdj by RPT land use "commercial,"this
adjusted value used straight line
distance for those features not
picked up by the patchy network. feet RPT and county GIS
Distance to nearest electric utility
Distance2ElectricService pole feet County GIS
Distance2ExistingMF1 Distance to nearest multifamily
residential development feet RPT and county GIS
Distance2ExistingSF1 Distance to nearest single family
residential development feet RPT and county GIS
Distance2Hospitals Distance to hospitals feet County GIS
Distance2 Lava A owl 250 Distance to older lava flow, USGS Hawai'i
deposited since 1250 feet Geologic Map
Distance2 Lava Aow1790 Distance to recent lava flow, USGS Hawai'i
deposited since 1790 feet Geologic Map
Distance2Majorl0 Distance to nearest major,arterial-
type road feet County GIS
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 17
Vce
Factor Name Description Unit Source
Distance2Schools Distance to nearest public school feet County GIS
Distance to nearest wastewater
Distance2SewerService service line feet County GIS
Distance to nearest major town,
Distance2Towns towns defined by county provided
"towns" layer feet County GIS
Distance to high volcano risk area,
Distance2VolcanoHazard defined as areas classified as USGS,via county
category 1 or 2 on the risk layer feet GIS
Distance to nearest potable water
Distance2WaterService service line feet County GIS
Slope Mean slope of the parcel in percent
rise percent rise USGS DEM
ValueLand Land value in dollars per the
County's RPT records dollars RPT
Rainfall University of
Annual average rainfall, in inches inches Hawai'i
District Planning district County GIS
FAZ Forecast analysis zone SMS
Uses 1 or makai (outside the belt)
MaukaMakaiNum and 2 for mauka (inside the belt) Placeways
COM YRBLT YN If built 1, if not 0. RPT
RES YRBLT YN If built 1, if not 0. RPT
iscom If commercial, 1; if not,0 RPT
isSF If single family residential, 1; if not,0 RPT
isMF If multifamily residential, 1; if not, 0 RPT
Total commercial square feet on
parcels within 10ft of any parcel with
COMAIIYearsProximitySumlOft commercial square footage RPT
Total commercial square feet on
parcels within 1000ft of any parcel
COMAIIYearsProximitySum1000ft with commercial square footage RPT
Total commercial square feet on
parcels within 1000ft of any parcel
COMpost1995PS1000ft with a structure built after 1995 RPT
Total commercial square feet on
parcels within 10ft of any parcel with
COMpost1995PS10ft a structure built after 1995 RPT
Total number of dwelling units on
parcels within 10ft of any parcel with
RESAIIYearsProximitySumlOft a residential structure RPT
Total number of dwelling units on
parcels within 1000ft of any parcel
RESAIIYearsProximitySum1000ft with residential structure RPT
Total number of dwelling units on
parcels within 10 ft of any parcel
DUpost1995PS10ft with a structure built after 1995 RPT
DUpost1995PS1000ft Total number of dwelling units on RPT
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 18
place
Factor Name Description Unit Source
parcels within 1000 ft of any parcel
with a structure built after 1995
Lot shape: perimeter squared square
Parcel Perimeter2DivArea divided by area feet/feet County GIS
Road intersection density:the
number of intersections on major
roads within %mi of the parcel intersection
Intersectionsl/2miDensity divided by area of the parcel per acre County GIS
ProximitylOftParcel Density The number of parcels within 10ft Parcels per
divided by the area of the parcel acre County GIS
Proximity1000ftParcelDensity The number of parcels within 1000ft Parcels per
divided by the area of the parcel acre County GIS
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 19
Vce
Appendix 2. Detailed Statistical Methods
Commercial All Data
The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict COM_SQFT for all possible parcels based
on ParcelPerimeter2DWrea, IntersectionszmiDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Majorlo,
Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Dis tance2 Schools, Distance2Coastline,
Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow125o, Distance2LavaFlowz79o,
Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted,
Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Beltzo, COMA((YearsProximitySumzoft,
COMA((YearsProximitySumz000ft, ValueLand, ProximityzoftParcelDensity, Proximityz000ftParcelDensity
with n=132,842. A significant regression equation was found (F(28,132814) =161.888, p <o.001)with
an Rz of 0.033.
After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Commercial square feet are listed below.
Table 3.3.Twelve most influential variables for commercial square feet,all years
Variables Beta Value Coefficient
COMAIIYearsProximitySumlOft .125
COMAIIYearsProximitySum1000ft .056
Distance2VolcanoHazard .054
IntersectionslmiDensity -.051
Distance2Hospitals .037
Distance2 Lava Flow1790 .032
Distance2ExistingSF1 .025
Distance2ElectricService -.023
Distance2ExistingMF1 -.020
Slope -.019
Distance2SewerService -.018
Distance2 Lava Flow1250 -.018
Commercial Post 1ggS
The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict COM_SQFT commercial buildings built on
or after 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DWrea, IntersectionszmiDensity, Slope, Rainfall,
Distance2Majorzo, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools,
Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250,
Distance2LavaFlowz79o, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals,
Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Beltzo,
COMpostz99SProximitySumz000ft, COMpostz995ProximitySumzoft, ValueLand,
ProximityzoftParcelDensity, Proximityz000ftParce(Densitywith n=451. A significant regression
equation was found (F(27,424) = 2.259, p <o.00i)with an Rz of 0.126.
After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Commercial square feet after 1995 are listed below.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 20
Vce
Table 3.4.Twelve most influential variables for commercial square feet,post 1995
Variables Absolute Value Coefficient
Distance2 Lava Flow1790 -.341
IntersectionslmiDensity -.256
Distance2Airports .225
Proximity1000ftParcelDensity .172
Distance2ExistingMF1 -.138
Distance2SewerService -.121
Distance2WaterService .109
ProximitylOftParcel Density -.101
ParcelPerimeter2DivArea -.093
Distance2VolcanoHazard .088
ValueLand .082
Distance2Towns -.067
Commercial Post 1g7S-gS
The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict COM_SQFT commercial buildings built on
or after 3.975 and before 2.995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea, IntersectionslmiDensity, Slope,
Rainfall, Distance2Majorso, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Dis tance2 Schools,
Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250,
Distance2LavaFlowl7go, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals,
Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Beltzo,
COMpostz99SProximitySumz000ft, COMpostz995ProximitySumzoft, ValueLand,
ProximityzoftParcelDensity, Proximityz000ftParce(Densitywith n= 687. A significant regression
equation was found (F(27,66o) =3.634, p <o.00i)with an Rz of 0.129.
After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Commercial square feet between 3.975-95 are listed
below.
Table i5.Twelve most influential variables for Commercial Square Feet>1975 and<1995
Variables Beta Value Coefficient
Distance2SewerService .161
Distance2Airports -.145
ValueLand -.144
Distance2ExistingMF1 -.126
Distance2ExistingSF1 -.126
Distance2Schools .109
IntersectionslmiDensity -.100
Distance2VolcanoHazard .090
ParcelPerimeter2DivArea .077
Distance24CenterAdjusted -.072
Distance2Coastline -.070
Distance2Belt10 -.059
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 21
Vce
Residential All Data
The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict NumberOfResidences for residential
buildings built after 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DWrea, IntersectionszmiDensity, Slope, Rainfall,
Distance2Majorzo, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools,
Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250,
Distance2LavaFlowz79o, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals,
Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Beltzo,
RESA//YearsProximity5umzoft, RESA//YearsProximity5umz000ft, ValueLand, ProximityzoftParcelDensity,
Proximityz000ftParcelDensitywith n=132,842. A significant regression equation was found
(F(27,132,815) =73.875, p <o.00i)with an Rzof 0.015.
After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Number of Residences the most are listed in the
following table.
Table i6.Twelve most influential variables for residential,all years
Variables Beta Value Coefficient
Distance2 Lava Flow1250 -.062
Distance2VolcanoHazard .060
Distance2ExistingMF1 -.050
Distance2SewerService -.048
IntersectionslmiDensity -.043
Distance2WaterService .035
Distance2Coastline -.028
Distance2Airports .028
Rainfall -.025
Distance2Towns -.024
RESAIIYearsProximitySum1000ft .022
Slope -.021
Residential Post 1ggS
The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict NumberOfResidences for residential
buildings built on or after1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DWrea, IntersectionszmiDensity, Slope,
Rainfall, Distance2Majorzo, Distance2WaterService, Distance2SewerService, Dis tance2 Schools,
Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard, Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow1250,
Distance2LavaFlowz79o, Distance2Towns, Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals,
Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1, Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Beltzo,
DUpostz99SProximity5umzoft, DUpostz99SProximity5umz000ft, ValueLand,
ProximityzoftParcelDensity, Proximityz000ftParcelDensitywith n=18,8i9. A significant regression
equation was found (F(27,18,792) =11.549, p <o.00i)with an Rz of o.o16.
After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Number of Residences built after 1995 the most are
found in the table below.
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 22
Vce
Table 3.7.Twelve most influential variables for residential,post 1995
Variables Beta Value Coefficient
Distance2VolcanoHazard .081
Distance2 Lava Flow1250 -.057
Slope -.049
IntersectionslmiDensity -.044
Rainfall -.043
Distance24CenterAdjusted -.041
RESpost1995ProximitySum1000ft -.039
RESpost1995ProximitySumlOft -.032
ParcelPerimeter2DivArea .031
Distance2Coastline -.030
Distance2Schools -.029
Distance2Hospitals 0.23
Residential 1975-95
The first multiple linear regression was calculated to predict NumberOfResidences for residential
buildings built on or after 1975 and before 1995 based on ParcelPerimeter2DivArea,
IntersectionszmiDensity, Slope, Rainfall, Distance2Majorso, Distance2WaterService,
Distance2SewerService, Distance2Schools, Distance2Coastline, Distance2VolcanoHazard,
Distance2Airports, Distance2LavaFlow125o, Distance2LavaFlowl7go, Distance2Towns,
Distance2ElectricService, Distance2Hospitals, Distance24CenterAdjusted, Distance2ExistingSF1,
Distance2ExistingMF1, Distance2Beltzo, DUpostz995ProximitySumzoft,
DUpostz99SProximitySumz000ft, ValueLand, ProximityzoftParcelDensity, Proximityz000ftParcelDensity
with n=23,822. A significant regression equation was found (F(27,23,795) =17-956, p <o.00i)with an Rz
Of 0.020.
After the analysis the 12 coefficients that influence Number of Residences built between 1975-95 the
most are found in the table below.
Table i8.Twelve most influential variables for Residential>1975 and<1995
Variables Absolute Value Coefficient
Distance2 Lava Flow1250 -.173
Distance2ExistingMF1 -.137
Distance2Airports .123
Distance2SewerService -.106
Distance2VolcanoHazard .079
IntersectionslmiDensity -.078
Distance2Schools .073
Distance2WaterService .073
ProximitylOftParcel Density .064
Proximity1000ftParcelDensity -.059
Distance2 Lava Flow1790 .051
Slope -.049
Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report 23
Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024)
County of Hawai'i General Plan
Prepared by:
Amy DeBay
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
August 8, 2024
Introduction
Beginning in 2015,the County of Hawai'i Planning Department has been working to update to the
General Plan document adopted in 2005.This update has included reviewing and revising the General
Plan Land Use map which guides the intended future use of land within the County.This document is
intended to provide details on the methodology used to determine appropriate future uses for existing
urban, rural, agricultural, and open space areas of the County.
General Plan Land Use
The General Plan is a policy document with a future horizon of 20 years. To help guide growth and
development,the General Plan includes a map of intended future use of land throughout Hawai'i
County. In the adopted 2005 General Plan,this map is referred to as the Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide (LUPAG). As the County works to adopt the updated plan,the map of proposed future use is being
referred to as the General Plan Land Use (GPLU) map to better tie to the General Plan document. GPLU is
not the same as the zoning code, also refered to as Chapter 25 of the Hawai'i County Code.The intent of
the GPLU is to guide decisions about potential uses of land in a comprehensive way to meet the needs of
a growing population in the coming decades. Decisions about zoning and development should be
informed by the GPLU and be consistent with the intended uses designated in the GPLU.
2019 Proposed Land Use Map and Revisions
Development of the GPLU for the update began with work in 2015. At that time,the County did
extensive analysis to identify existing development, examined the future capacity for development in the
County, explored a number of projected growth scenarios, and compared potential outcomes of
different growth patterns.This analysis was shared with the public in a series of workshops in 2016 and
2017 to explore community choices of how growth occurs and how County services support different
growth scenarios.
The outcomes of that work shaped the policy guidance for establishing a future land use plan designed
to encourage growth in urban centers where services are existing or planned. In 2019, a version of the
land use map'was shared with the public for review and comment.This document provides details on
the methodology used to review public comments and revise the 2019 map resulting in the current
proposed GPLU map as part of the General Plan 2045 under public review from September 18, 2023
through April 1, 2024.
Future Land Use System Technical Report, Ian Varley,City Explained, Inc., March 10,2020.
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
Page 1 of 18
Beginning in the summer 2020, the County and Focused Planning Solutions LLC reviewed the comments
to the 2019 proposed future land use map and recommended several revisions to the map at that time.
Additionally, new sources of data were explored to help guide proposed revisions. From the review,
several considerations were identified to be explored and addressed.
Consideration:The 2019 future land use designations removed Urban Expansion as a designation.
Within Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), LUPAG Urban Expansion areas were defaulted to urban uses,
predominantly Low Density Urban. An unintended consequence of this method was some large shifts to
urban uses in areas of the County with no planned development in the plan horizon and no existing or
planned infrastructure to support such development.
Action: Review all LUPAG Urban Expansion designated areas to determine the criteria for proposed
change in future land use. Properties designated as a specific change due to CDP guidance or other area
plans were accepted as intended. Properties that were assigned the default urban uses were reviewed
for consistency with State Land Use, CDP use, zoning, proposed conservation areas, or other potential
plans. In CDPs with future centers identified, urban uses were assigned based on proximity to centers.
The criteria used for determining appropriate land use designations:
• Assigned future land use is from an existing plan document.
• Earlier versions of LUPAG show a specific land use, not Urban Expansion.
• Comments from public review propose land uses and County concurs with consistency.
• Area is within a TOD or Center from CDPs.
• Property is under public ownership with intended future use
• Privately owned property has a known area plan
• Where no plan is identified, use existing data for agriculture use, SLUD, access to infrastructure,
and/or zoning district to determine appropriate designations.
Following these steps, a determination was made for UE parcels.
Consideration:The 2019 future land use map introduced the Natural Areas designation as a broad
category of open space with no intended agricultural use. LUPAG designations of Open and Extensive
Agriculture were considered as appropriate candidates to transition to Natural Areas. About 25%of
LUPAG is currently classified as Extensive Agriculture. In the 2019 plan,45%of that land area changed to
the Pastoral land use designation based on 2015 UH-Hilo agriculture study of pasture lands and 47%of
LUPAG Extensive Agriculture was re-designated to Natural Areas. In current LUPAG, only about 1.4%of
the County is designated Open. About 36%of that land area was re-designated to Natural Areas. Some
of these resulting Natural Areas were identified during the review as not consistent with existing or
intended property use.
Action: Areas of the LUPAG map currently designated Extensive Agriculture that were proposed to
transition to Natural Areas in the 2019 proposed land use plan were reviewed for their existing and
planned uses.The following additional data sources were explored to better understand existing and
intended future use:
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
Page 2 of 18
• Carbon Assessment of Hawai'i landcover and habitat analysis (John Jacobi, 2015)
• Historic Lava Flows (HVO, All available years)
• 2015 UH-Hilo Agricultural Baseline crops and pasture data (SDAV, 2015)
• Federal and State Owned Lands from Hawai'i County assessor data
Landcover data was used to define more intentional boundaries for natural areas.The following criteria
shaped decisions around the Natural Areas designation:
• State owned lands—retained Natural
• Bare Lands in landcover and historic lava flows—Classified as Natural
• Wetlands in landcover and Cemetery in County Parks—Classified as Natural
• Native dominant use in landcover—Classified as Natural
• Agriculture dominant use—Classified as Agriculture (includes developed, alien forests)
• Pastoral dominant use—Classified as Pastoral
Consideration: 2019 future land use was under review at the same time the 2018 Kilauea Lower East Rift
Zone (2018 LERZ) eruption recovery process was underway.At that time,the area impacted by the
eruption was assigned a land use designation of Pending so as not to conflict with concurrent planning
processes.
Action:The Pending designations in the 2018 LERZ impact area were reviewed to assign appropriate
future uses that would not conflict with the recovery efforts and would appropriately convey the
demonstrated risk of the location.The County land area also increased in this area by approximately 766
acres due to the lava flowing into Kapoho Bay and reshaping the coastline in that area. The lava flows
were assigned Natural. Island areas surrounded by lava or Upuka were assigned agricultural use
designations to match agricultural studies for productive crop use and or pastoral uses.The Kapoho
residential area was also under lava flow.The former urban uses in this area were assigned natural to
match these condtions.
Consideration: Parks were not always showing as recreation or conservation.
Action: Data layers for County, State, and Federal Parks were cross-referenced with the proposed land
use designations. Park areas not designated as recreation or conservation use were adjusted to match
park boundaries. Parks in SLU conservation are noted as GPLU conservation, active parks with active use
areas are noted as recreation, and public lands not in active use are noted as natural or conservation,
such as PONC properties.
Consideration: Industrial land uses in LUPAG and the 2019 proposed future land use plan were often
inconsistent or showed conflicting boundaries with zoning and other plans.
Action: All industrial areas designated in LUPAG,the 2019 proposed land use plan, zoning, CDPs, and
other area plans were identified and reviewed to compare boundaries for consistency.
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
Page 3 of 18
2021 & 2024 Proposed Land Use Map and Revisions
The revisions from the 2019 process were shared in an interactive mapping platform using Esri ArcGIS
Online Story Maps. Story Maps provided a universally accessible location to see the proposed land use
alongside many other relevant data sets for infrastructure, conservation, hazards,facilities, agriculture,
native habitat, and transportation. The Story Map provided an effective way to review proposed changes
and digitize comments directly in the mapping application.The County also began using the interactive
document platform, Konveio,to review draft General Plan document products and gather community
input.
In 2022, a series of working sessions were conducted to review the comments and the proposed
changes. At this time,the name of the map was chosen to be the General Plan Land Use (GPLU) map to
clarify the connection to the guiding document and purpose of the map. Some revisions to the
designations were also made.The final proposed General Plan land uses are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan
Designation Changes from 2019 Proposed Plan
Urban Land Use
High-Density Urban
Medium-Density Urban
Low-Density Urban
Urban Expansion Added back—after discussion, it was decided to revisit this LUPAG
designation
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
University
Resort
Rural Land Use
Rural
Agricultural Land Use
Productive Agriculture
Extensive Agriculture Name Change—in the 2019 plan this was referred to as Pastoral Use
Natural Name Change—in the 2019 plan this was referred to as Natural Areas
Open Space Land Use
Recreation
Conservation
� Focused Planning Solutions LLC
'�'"` Page 4 of 18
The 2022 working sessions were conducted to review land use designations categorically. Using a live
working session format, questions were explored about map designations in real time, identifying areas
to flag for review. Comments from the previous online review platform were also reviewed to determine
appropriate responses and actions.
In sessions exploring urban designations, uses near centers and development plans were considered.
Inclusion of the Urban Expansion designation as a proposed land use provided an opportunity to revisit
appropriate locations for that use:
• Review areas of LUPAG within Urban Expansion.
• Look at undeveloped existing land use
• Exclude areas that are already at capacity, map those at the capacity
• Exclude state owned conservation, critical habitat, county parks.
• Within TODs, use the appropriate high or medium urban designations.
The next sessions explored rural and agriculture uses for consistency with State Land Use, zoning, and
the 2020 UH-Hilo Agriculture data. Conservation and Natural areas were reviewed for consistency with
State Land Use, native habitat landcover data, and area plans for conservation. These review sessions
highlighted areas for potential changes to better align with intended criteria.
After incorporating recommendations to the GPLU map in the spring-summer 2023, an interactive
mapping platform was designed to provide a single location for public users to review the proposed map
and add comments.The mapping platform links to the Konveio General Plan document review platform
directly, allowing users to derive document searches from the map and to query the map based on
questions in the document.The public review process concluded on April 1, 2024. Over 200 comments
were provided on the GPLU maps. From the public review process, a few considerations were identified
and reviewed.
Consideration: Some areas assigned Urban Expansion land use are currently developed as urban.
Action: Review existing development in Urban Epansion to identify areas that are built or at
capacity and assign consistent urban designations.
Consideration:The Kona CDP identified areas at high elevation for consideration of protection to help
with water protection, landslide risk, and native habitat.
Action: Review lands in the County above 2,500 feet elevation for possible Natural designation.
Property in public ownership identified for Natural designation.
Consideration: Lands identified by the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation
Commission (PONC) should be designated as conservation lands.
Action: Map the PONC lands and reclassify to Conservation Land Use.
Consideration:The coastal buffer for the island was initially proposed to have Recreation as the universal
designation. Many coastal areas are in SLUD Conservation areas.
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
Page 5 of 18
Action: Review coastline for SLUD classification. Convert SLUD Conservation and Agriculture to
GPLU Conservation. Confirm SLUD Urban as GPLU Recreation.
Results
Appendix B provides the graphic analysis of changes in land use from adopted LUPAG through the
proposed GPLU.The land use comparisons demonstrate the County policy goals to increase
Conservation and Natural uses, retain Productive Agriculture, reduce or more specifically define urban
footprints, and provide more areas for Rural.
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
Page 6 of 18
Appendix A — List of Additional Data and Sources
HVo, U. (All available years). Past and Present Lava Flows for Hawaii Island.
John Jacobi, U. P. (2015, 0101). Carbon Assessment of Hawaii Habitat Status. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/592dee75e4bO92b266efeb6e
SDAV. (2015). 2015 Hawaii Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline layer.
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
Page 7 of 18
Appendix B: General Plan Land Use Changes by District
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
�"7 Page 8 of 18
Hawaii County
(approximately 2,578,828 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
Important Agricultural Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
90% Land,(381,120acres) (372,238acres) (345,290acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
80% Pastorai,(298,512 acres) (247,627 acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
70% (641,299acres)
Natural Area,(328,831 acres) Natural,(384,893 acres)
60% Open,(36,250 acres)
Recreation,(17,873acres) Recreation,(4,631acres)
50%
40%
Conservation, Conservation,
(1,377,101 acres) Conservation,
30% (1,414,091 acres) (1,451,783 acres)
20%
10%
Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)- Other,(breakdown below)
0%
Hawaii County
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(143,033 acres) (146,802 acres) (144,604 acres)
160,000
High Density Urban,1,307
140,000 High Density Urban,1,413
Medium Density Urban,6,759 Pending,18,387 1 Medium Density Urban,12,392
High Density Urban,1,129
120,000 Medium Density Urban,5,485
Low Density Urban,28,905
Low Density Urban,
37,928
100,000 Low Density Urban,36,15%
Urban Expansion,10,568�
Light Industrial,3,918
Light Industrial,3,496
Heavy Industrial,5,519
80,000 Urban Expansion, Heavy Industrial,4,777
30,789 University,138 University,1,212
Resort, , 7
Resort,7,156
Industrial,10,902
60,000 University Use,1,126
Resort,177
Resort Node,5,641
40,000
Rural,69,678 Rural,73,521
Rural,47,532
20,000
0 Orchards,872
Hamakua
(approximately 404,337 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
Important Agricultural Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
90% Land,(78,226acres) (73,910acres)
(79,034 acres)
80%
Extensive Agriculture,
Extensive Agriculture, (56,543 acres)
7090 (83,021acres)
Pastoral,(77,900acres)
Natural Area,(4,930acres) Natural,(31,735acres
60% Open,(1,272 acres) Recreation,(74 acres)
Recreation,(7,671 acres)
50%
40%
Conservation,
30%
(239,054 acres) Conservation, Conservation,
(228,512 acres) (240,361 acres)
20%
10%
OOgr,(breakdown below} Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)
Hamakua
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(2,763 acres) (1,602 acres) (1,715 acres)
Medium Density Urban,25
2,500
2,000
Medium Density Urban,199
1,500
Medium Density Urban,195
Low Density Urber.
2,292
1,000
Low Density Urban,1,124—
Low Density Urban,1,123
500 Heavy Industrial,15
Heavy Industrial,15 Light Industrial,27
Light I ndustrial,28
I ndustrial,132
Rural,241 Rural,350
0 Rural,47
North Hilo
(approximately 167,230 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
Important Agricultural... Productive Agriculture,... Productive...
90%
Pastoral,(1,389acres) Extensive Agriculture,
(789 acres)
80% Extensive Agriculture,
(31,068 acres) Natural Area,(30,302 acres) Natural,(27,783 acres
70% Open,(447 acres) Recreation,(324 acres) Recreation,(52 acres)
60%
50%
40% Conservation,
(113,260 acres} Conservation, Conservation,
30%
(120,052acres) (116,767acres)
20%
10%
OOgr,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) iffi6i Other,(breakdown below)
North Hilo
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(853 acres) (659 acres) (681 acres)
900
Medium Density Urban,
800 71
700
Me L n'
600 Medium Density Urban,40
500
Low Density Urban,
619
400
Low Density Urban,500 Low Density Urban,546
300
200
Urban Expansion,
Urban Expansion,62 '{ �f Light Ir'r_tr', 0
/� Light Industrial,11
100 Industrial,29 Heavy Industrial,18 HeavyIr L to 0
2y
Rural,71 Rural,91 Rural,68
0
South Hilo
(approximately 255,518 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
Important Agricultura I Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
Land,(37,020acres) (37,491acres) (36,981acres)
90% Extensive Agriculture,
Extensive Agriculture, Pastoral,(579 acres) (1,293 acres)
80% (26,785acres) Natural Area,(25,580acres) Natural,(18,114acres)
Open,(1,811 acres) Recreation, (1,612 acre Recreation,(1,273 acres)
70%
60%
50%
Conservation, Conservation,
(169,585 acres) Conservation, (176,570 acres)
4090 (167,924 acres)
30%
20%
10%
Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)
0%
South Hilo
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(20,292 acres) (19,936 acres) (21,289 acres)
High Density Urban,946 -
20,000
High Density Urban,849 High Density Urban,831 Medium Density Urban,1,461
-
Medium Density Urban,1,-�72
Medium Density Urban,1,3
15,000
Low Density Urban,8,51-L
Low Density Urban,6,175
Low Density Urbar
Urban Expansion,64 ____________
10,000 Light Industrial,2,093
V Light lndustrial,1,779
Heavy Industrial,2,039
Urban Expansion ----------` University,665 Heavy I ndustrial,2,399
126 Resort,55 University,679
5,000 Industrial,4,189 Resort,60
University Use,665 Rural,6,174
Resort,77 Rural,5,386
Resort Node,6
Rural,1,704
0
Puna
(approximately 321,604 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
Important Agricultura I Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
90% Land,(47,645 acres) (48,473acres) (50,600acres)
Pastoral,(4,241 acres)—
809'o Extensive Agriculture,
(24,628 acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
70% (89,314 acres) Natural Area,(78,890 acres)
Natural,(66,354acres
60% Recreation,(1,093 acres)
Open,(3,170acres) Recreation, (141acres)
50%
40% Conservation, Conservation,
(137,620 acres) (134,341 acres) Conservation,
30% (140,863 acres)
20%
10%
Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)J Other,(breakdown below)
0%
Puna
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(43,854 acres) (53,607 acres) (39,017 acres)
60000
Medium Density Urban,610
Low Den5lty Urban,1,32 i
500W Light Irdustrial,120
Heavy IrduStrial,502
Medium Der.lty
Urban,1,275
40000 Low Density Urbar, Medium Density Urban,1,348
7,392 Low Density Urban,3,157
Urban Expansion, Rural,32,662 Urban Expansion,1,669
5,345 � Light Industrial,69
30000 Industrial,668 Heavy Industrial,649
20000
Rural,29,174 Rural,32,126
10000
Pending,18,387
0
Ka`u
(approximately 661,461 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100% Productive Agriculture.
Important Agricultural Productive Agriculture,
Land,(47,308acres) (35,877acres) (55,953acres)
90% Pastoral,(49,319acres) Extensive Agriculture,
Extensive Agriculture, (43,615 acres)
80% (144,869acres) Natural Area,(65,969acres) Natural,(44,500acres
Recreation,(1,969acres) Recreation, (426acres)
70% Open,(4,758 acres)
60%
50%
Conservation, Conservation, Conservation,
40%
(449,166 acres) (485,515 acres) [494,368 acres)
30%
20%
10%
06f pr,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)—
0
Ka`u
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(15,360 acres) (23,103 acres) (22,599 acres)
Medium Density Urban,395 Medium Density Urban,407
Lo�v DerSi Urban,1,160
Low Density Urban,1,106 Restyort,-'1
Resort,28 Urbar ExparSior,0
Light Industrial,92 Light Industrial,92
20,000 Heavy Industrial,0 Heavy IrdustrlaI,0
Medium Density...
15'Ct ow Density Urban,1,156
Urban Expansion,597
I ndustrial,74-
Resort,29
10,000 Rural,21,482 Rural,20,899
Rural,13,08
5,000
0
South Kona
(approximately 146,964 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
Productive Agriculture,
90%Important Agricultural Productive Agriculture, (19,202 acres)
Land,(31,924acres) (32,414acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
80% (16,056 acres)
70%
Pastoral,(40,451acres)
60%
Extensive Agriculture,
(66,960acres) Natural,(61,559acres
50%
40% Natural Area,(25,731acres)
(30% Ope
n, 2,746 acres) Recreation, (803 acres) Recreation, (159 acres)
20% Conservation, Conservation,
(43,341 acres) Conservation, (47,022 acres)
(45,625 acres)
10%
Or,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)
South Kona
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(1,994 acres) (1,601 acres) (2,966 acres)
3,5"]
3,000
Medium Density Urban,271
2,500 Low Density Urban,32,
Resort,0
2,000
1,500
Medium Ders'ty Medium Density Urban,295
Urban,25-'
Low Density Urban,298 Rural,2,373
1,000 Resort,25
Low Density Urban,
500 1,076 Rural,983
Resort,2
0 Rural,116
North Kona
(approximately 365,585 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100% Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
Important Agricultural g
Land,(25,169acres) (24,978acres) (15,301acres)
90% Extensive Agriculture,
Pastoral,(52,138acres) (14,477acres)
80% Extensive Agriculture,
(106,207acres) Natural,(103,380acre
70% Natural Area,(55,098acres)
Open,(5,838acres) Recreation,(3,223acres) Recreation,(1,280acres)
60%
50%
40% Conservation,
(199,725 acres) Conservation, Conservation,
(203,613 acres) (205,663 acres)
30%
20%
10%
Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)—
0%
North Kona
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(28,646 acres) (26,755 acres) (25,485 acres)
30,000
High Density Urban,459
Medium Density Urban,1,155 High Density Urban,298
25,000 Medium Density Urban,1,387 High Density Urban,468
Low Density Urbar,
6,428 Medium Density Urban,6,218
20,000
.1 0
Low Density Urban,16,51"
Low Density Urban,5,893
15,000
Urban Expansion,
12,140 Urban Expansion,753
Light Industrial,6S7
10,000 Heavy lndustrial,2,135 L
Light Industrial,483 University,533-
Heavy Industrial,1,950— Resort,3,571
5,000 Industrial,3,890- University,722
University Use,461 Resort,3,209
Resort Node,2,423 ' Rural,5,229
0
Rural,1,001 Rural,2,188
South Kohala
(approximately 176,135 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
90% Productive Agriculture,
Important Agricultural Productive Agriculture, (32,754 acres)
Land,(51,251acres) (5 1,456 acres)
80%
70%
60% Extensive Agriculture,
(75,219 acres)
Extensive Agriculture, Pastoral,(55,086acres)
50% (71,213 acres)
40%
30%Open, (14,076acres) Natural Area,(38,007acres) Natural,(28,331acres
Conservation, Recreation,(779 acres)
20% (13,950 acres) Recreation,(426 acres) Conservation,
Conservation, (15,520acres)
10% (15,796 acres)
Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below)
Other,(breakdown below)
0%
South Kohala
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(25,645 acres) (15,811 acres) (23,533 acres)
30,000
2�jWqjm Density Urban,1,2a1
Low Density Urbar, Medium Density Urban,2,206
20,000 5,10E
Low Density Urban,5,38&
15,000 Medium Density Urban,1,060
Urban Expansior,
12,261 Low Density Urban,6,078 Urban Expansion,8,083
10,000
Light Industrial,670
Heavy I ndustrial,204
Light Industrial,1,261
Industrial,1,869 Resort,2,902 Heavy Industrial,2aa
5,000
Resort Node,3,212 Resort,3,484
Rural,4,897
Rural,1,917 Rural,0 2,867
0
North Kohala
(approximately 79,993 acres)
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
100%
90%
80%
Important Agricultural Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
70%
Land,(40,974acres) (40,834acres) (39,434acres)
60%
5 0% o00000000000m
Extensive Agriculture,
40% Extensive Agriculture, Pastoral,(17,409acres) (15,009acres)
(21,863acres) Natural,(3,137acres)
30%
Open, *2,131 acres) Natural Area,(4,323 acres) Recreation,(446 acres)
20% Conservation, Recreation,(752 acres) Conservation,
(11,401 acres) Conservation, (14,649 acres)
10% (12,713 acres)
0
Other,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) - Other,(breakdown below)J
0%
North Kohala
Breakdown of Other Land Use Types
2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed
2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use
(3,625 acres) (4,267 acres) (7,319 acres)
8,000
7,000 Medium Density Urban,242
6,000
Low Density Urban,2,802
5,000
Urban Exparsion,0
Light 1 rd ustrial,3
4,000 Hee.,y Industrlal,45
Medium Density Urban,138 J Resort,0
Medium Density Urban,197
3,000
Low Density Urban,3,075—
2000 Low DensityUrbar, Rural,4,223
2 6EL
Light I ndustrial,0
1,000 heavy Industrial,48
Urban Expansion,258 Resort,46
Industrial,51 VIIXIIIXI&, Rural,960
Resort,'7
0 Rural,418