November 2, 2016 FINAL SC Minutes

Home

and 6, which is redirecting future settlement toward where there's existing infrastructure with creating walkable, connected communities. So, what we have in mind, this is a professional map which gives you a basic idea. Our idea is to create an agricultural village, an agricultural community. This is a trend that's happening worldwide. I had an opportunity to visit one of these sites back in the mainland. The idea is to concentrate affordable housing and some commercial development as well as senior assisted living and anticipate community gardens that basically support these communities [inaudible] community. Alternatively — if this property is left to agriculture, it's safe to assume that as the owner of the property, I can tell you that I'm leasing it now for 3 or 4 or $500 per acre per year. It doesn't — I can't support it financially on agriculture alone. So, one of my goals for the property would be to sell it and if you — if any of you can guess what will happen at that point, what's happening is what's already happening up and down this coast. There's a property that sold just very nearby recently — a 48 acre parcel of land that sold for $4M. You go there now, you have —you have gates, you have windbreaks, you have the —the owner's initials on the front gate. So, I guess I ask you a question. How does — how does the community benefit from locking lands up in agriculture where there's — where there's one buyer and again, this is happening all up and down the coast. You see large — large agricultural oceanfront parcels being gated off, fenced off as private estates. So, I just want you to think about that. I'm — what I think is a community win — lateral trails, ocean — you know, ocean access — Community — community gardens, parking for coastal access, bringing back (inaudible) services in the community. This kind of vision, I think, is — is written all through this Community Development Plan and I think this is a more appropriate direction we should be heading with this — with the long range planning. Thank you. *Please note that Mr. Shropshire left immediately following his testimony. Mr. Moniz asked if the Steering Committee wanted to consider the information presented in Mr. Shropshire's testimony. Ms. Gomes opened up the floor for Steering Committee discussion. Mr. Moniz asked for clarification on the request that was being made by Mr. Shropshire. Ms. Gloor clarified that Mr. Shropshire was asking for his Agricultural Coastal parcel to be left as Low Density Urban (LDU). Ms. Gomes' thought was that if there is someone in the group who supports the idea, then another meeting should be scheduled Mr. Moniz asked if this could be agendized at the beginning of the next meeting on December 2. Ms. Gloor thought that an additional meeting would need to be scheduled, as the issue of Pdpa'ikou Point and this specific parcel has been the source of considerable community controversy, and there would most likely be a considerable amount of public testimony. Mr. Neff felt that Pdpa'ikou Point had already been addressed at the previous meeting where the Steering Committee voted on the issue, and his hope is that the Point will be left in Agriculture. Mr. Carvalho expressed his concern that the Steering Committees job could be endless if they continued to reconsider prior decisions at every meeting. He felt that the last discussion about Pdpa'ikou Point was detailed and the decision that was made was the right one. Ms. Gomes agreed that there was no new information presented that warranted an additional meeting. She also reminded the Steering Committee that there would be multiple opportunities for Mr. Shropshire to continue to present his requests during the remaining CDP adoption process. Ms. Gomes thought the preliminary decision made on Pdpa'ikou Point was consistent with other decisions that were made in coastal agricultural areas throughout the planning area. Mr. Moniz conceded that another meeting did not need to Page 110