Laserfiche WebLink
In conclusion, and for the reasons set forth <br />above, it seems counter -intuitive and <br />inconsistent with the objectives of the CDP, to <br />revise the LUPAG at this time to change the <br />land use designation at Hakalau Point from its <br />current one of industrial to that of low density <br />urban. [SC Deliberation: see LUPAG <br />revisions] <br />■ Suggested changes to "Figure 12. Hakalau <br />/Wailea" rationale <br />#1 Suggested Change related to rationale for <br />"preferred land use" <br />Current description <br />"...due to the sites proximity to the ocean, this <br />parcel is no longer seen as suitable for heavy <br />industry and therefore the preferred land use <br />would be for it to be consistent with its Ad <br />neighboring land uses, which are designated <br />residential." <br />Suggestion <br />The fact that what was formerly UpCamp <br />Hakalau (mauka of Old Mamalahoa Hwy) is no, <br />a new subdivision seems a weak rationale for <br />determining that the makai land right beside the <br />bluff and the Bay should be valued as residential <br />also. In light of the community's input to the CDP <br />discouraging coastal bluff development, is there <br />room to reconsider that language in the next <br />draft? I understand the requirement to adhere <br />to the GP- dictated LUPAG Map designations but <br />do they have to be rationalized in this way in the <br />CDP when they don't track with the community <br />input to the CDP? <br />#2 Suggested Change regarding the concept of <br />revitalization" in Hakalau <br />Current description in Hakalau/Wailea rationale <br />it is the County's preferred land use for these <br />towns [old plantation towns] to be revitalized..." <br />Suggested change <br />It seems unrealistic that land that was formerly a <br />plantation town should be designated for <br />revitalization" as a town, without regard to what <br />is left of it or to what it has become. Unlike a <br />number of old plantation towns along the coast, <br />Hakalau was torn down, almost in total. A new <br />subdivision does exist above Mamalahoa Hwy, <br />but the place as a whole still has a rural <br />character. My concern is that revitalize" can be <br />used as part of a marketing narrative by <br />developers whether or not there's sufficient <br />reality to base it on. Is it necessary to use this <br />word? I don't see it used for any of the other <br />LUPAG rationale write ups for the other old <br />plantation town locations, save for Laupahoehoe <br />already existing commercial core. <br />#3 Suggested change regarding the presumption <br />of redevelopment" <br />Current description <br />TMK 2- 9- 002: 079 and 2- 9002081) are privately <br />owned and slated for redevelopment." <br />Suggestion <br />The statement "slated for redevelopment" <br />implies an inevitability in regards rezoning <br />approval that does not exist. Does that need to <br />be there? <br />Like "revitalize, the word "redevelopment" <br />implies that there is something present from <br />which to rebuild. That could be the case in such <br />places as Honokaa Town and some others, but <br />not so for Hakalau and its remaining <br />undeveloped land. And, here again, I don't see <br />the word being used in rationale for any of the <br />other old plantation town locations. In the <br />HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP) I Section 3: Preferred Land Use & Settlement <br />Patterns <br />