The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0677.049 2022-2024September 16, 2024 County of Hawai'i County Council 25 Aupuni St Hilo HI 96720 Re: Opposition to Bill 123 D5, Recommended amendments Aloha Chair Inaba and committee members, The Sierra Club of Hawai'i, Hawai'i Island Group (HIG) opposes the passage of Bill 123 D5 at this time for the following reasons: 1. Bill 123 should be tabled for this council council session because the impacts of Bill 123 corrupts the General Plan Comprehensive Review process and the assumptions upon which the draft General Plan 2045 are based. The reports prepared by consultants to assist in General Plan Comprehensive Review process would effectively be rendered inaccurate, irrelevant, and/or useless if Bill 123 passes. For instance, the "Scenario Planning Technical Report" just released by the Planning Dept. as part of the General Plan Comprehensive Review process showed that over 200,000 housing units could be built with already approved zonings, subdivisions, and building permits. Council member Kimball has admitted neither the technical report nor Bill 123 includes an assessment of the number of additional dwellings that would be effectively approved nor the potential impact of those additional dwellings on infrastructure and the quality of life in neighborhoods and communities. 2. Bill 123 should be tabled for this council council session because State Act 39 gives the county until Dec. 31, 2026 to pass legislation related to accessory dwelling units. State Act 39, passed in May 2024, requires a minimum of 2 ADUs on residentially -zoned lots in the state Urban Land Use District, but gives the counties over two years to pass this legislation related to ADUs. However, Act 39 was one of the most controversial bills considered by the state legislature in its last session because of the huge potential and unknown impact on neighborhood density, parking, traffic congestion, water use, property values, sewage treatment, etc. Many people believe Act 39 will be repealed in next year's state legislative session. However, if the council is going to strike out into the unknown and pass Bill 123 D5, theregy potentially causing irreparable harm to local communities, taxpayers, public resources and the public trust, HIG requests Bill 123 D5 be amended as follows: 3. Bill 123 D5 should be amended to restrict Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to the state Urban Land Use District (LUC) only. The state Agriculture and Rural LUD should be specifically excluded to reduce the as -yet -unknown potentially negative impacts of Bill 123. Bill 123 should follow the intention of state Act 39 and limit the requirement for ADUs to the state Urban LUD. Act 39 barely passed the state legislature and continues to be highly controversial. Therefore, it is reckless to be "going above and beyond" Act 39 when the county is already dealing with insufficient infrastructure in COMM. I P 0 Box I 13 7 1 hki [-II 96721 1137 heyya i i is la ndsierrad 1.1 b@gryla i I'm ITI Ref. To: Ref, Date 772T 77T Urban and Rural areas. For instance, Bill 123 ignores the fact the county is now operating under an island -wide U.S. EPA Administrative Order on Consent because it is out of compliance with laws governing wastewater treatment and disposal. Areas of the county are often under water use restrictions and experience rolling power outages due to unanticipated power grid problems. In addition, the draft General Plan 2045 Land Use Map is proposing to designate an additional 25,000 acres to Rural and to remove over 400,000 acres from Agriculture (see attached Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024, Focused Planning Solutions, 818124) . This creates even more uncertainty and concern about the impacts of allowing ADUs in the state Rural LUD. The uncertainty and concern have increased given Resolution 630-24 indicates the council is considering support of state legislation "to allow each of the counties a temporary opportunity to petition for the redistricting of land from the agricultural district to the rural district through the land use commission's declaratory ruling process." Suggested amendment: Section 25-6-32. Prohibited Areas. [Oh -an ] Accessory dwelling units shall be prohibited in the following areas: [(a)] W Any building site within the State land use conservation, agriculture, and rural district; 4. Bill 123 should be amended so that if a lot owner is giM the right to build ADUs on a lot, that right shall limit the use of approved ADUs to being the primary residences of occupants and/or long-term rentals, thereby creating an inherent socio-economic competitive advantage to local residents' critical need for housing versus non-residents' demand for housing units. Market demand for housing in Hawaii county is not just local. It is global. This is proved by the fact that 1/2 of homes in our county are owned by outside investors. It is the outside demand for residential dwellings by wealthy interests that has created the affordable housing crisis for local residents. The political "hook" that Act 39 and county Bill 123 somehow "creates more affordable housing" for local residents does not reflect economic reality. As is, Bill 123 D5 contains no conditions or restrictions that actually accomplish this stated goal. This amendment would create a restrictions would provide local residents with a legal competitive advantage over non-residents by giving property owners the right to build ADUs in exchange for the requirement that ADUs be used strictly as primary residences or long-term rentals. Suggested amendment: Section 25- 6- 38. [ V.,,.ianees „fehibite .] Permitted uses. The only permitted use of accessory dwelling units shall be for use as the primary residence of occupants and/or long-term rental by occupants. 5. Bill 123 D5 should be amended to prohibit any future subdivision of a building site if a property owner is given the right to build ADUs on the building site. Bill 123 D5 has the potential to have the opposite effect of the intended outcome, that is, to increase housing opportunities for residents in the hope that increasing the housing inventory will somehow increase affordability. Without additional restrictions, Bill 123 D5 could actually result in an increase in average home prices, rental costs, and property taxes that would make the housing market even less affordable. That is because Bill 123 D5, as currently written, creates real estate speculation opportunities. In order to reduce the potential for harmful real estate speculation by non-resident property owners, the Bill 123 D5 should be amended to disallow future subdivision of building sites upon which the right to build ADUs is given. Suggested amendment: Section 25-6-36. [Gtiest hous ] Density limit. Building sites upon which the right build ADUs have been granted shall forego the right to subdivide the building site in the future. 6. Bill 123 should be amended to reinstate the prohibition against ADUs on building sites with a transient accommodation rental because this has been county law since 1999 and is the recommendation of the state Land Use Commission. The county code has had a prohibition on transient accommodation rentals on building sites with "obana dwellings", i.e.-ADUs, since 1999. Few issues have such universal support as the public's loud and long opposition to additional transient accommodation rentals in our county. Suggested amendment: Section 25- 6- 38. [ Variances prohibited.] Permitted uses. [NE) inefe than one aeeessoi-y dwelling unit shall be pefmitted fef use as a tfafisient aeeemmodation fental, pfavided thefe afe no othef tfansient aeeamfRodation fet#als o.n. the btii1ding -sitted HIG continues to question why council members Kimball and Kierkiewicz introduced Bill 121, 122, and 123, a complex legislative package, in the middle of the General Plan Comprehensive Review (GPCR) process. The public was already struggling to understand and comment on the draft General Plan 2045, a complex, completely re -written document, during a review process that only occurs once every 15 years or so. Many citizen advocates and other members of the public who had been trying to be involved with the GPCR and/or the legislative package have been disenfranchised. They have just thrown up their hands in frustration and walked away as a result of what has become an apparent pattern -and -practice of top -down decision -making by the county administration and this council. This has not been an example of good government. Act 39 gives the counties until December 31, 2026, over two years from today to pass county ADU legislation. HIG urges the county council to table Bill 123 D5, just as the Planning Department paused the subdivision and zoning codes process in order to prevent interference and corruption of the GPCR process. However, if the county council is determined to pass Bill 123, HIG urges the county council to introduce the amendments suggested above as floor amendments for discussion and decision - making in order to reduce the degree and extent of unintended consequences that will otherwise result. Malialo for this opportunity to testify. �echD'ca| Methodology for General P}BD |z[lr| Use/7O7O-2O74\ County ofHawai'iGeneral Plan Prepared by: AmyDe8ay Focused Planning So|ubonaLU[ August 8,2OZ4 |ntD]dUrhOD 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 [ounty. 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. 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. Development ofthe GPLUfor the update began with work inJ01S.Atthat 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 3017to explore community choices ofhow 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,Z824. I Future Land Use System Technical Report, Ian Varley, City Explained, Inc., March 10, 2020. Focused Planning Solutions ULC 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 Lobeexplored 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 tosupport 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 bfrom anexisting plan document. • Earlier versions ofLUPAGshow aspecific land use, not Urban Expansion. • Comments from public review propose land uses and County concurs with consistency. ° Area iswithin aTODurCenter from CDPs. m Property isunder public ownership with intended future use ° Privately owned property has aknown 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 totransition to Natural Areas. About 25% of LUPAG is currently classified as Extensive Agriculture. In the 2019 plan, 4S% of that land area changed to the Pastoral land use designation based on 2015 UH-Hilo agriculture study of pasture lands and 47% of LUPA6 Extensive Agriculture was re-designatedto Natural Areas. In current LUPA6, only about 1.496 of the County is designated Open. About 36% of that land area was re-clesignated 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 ULC Page 2of1O ^ Carbon Assessment ofHavvail|andcoverandhabitatanaknb(John]acobi2O1S) ° Historic Lava Flows (HVO,AU available years) ° 2O15UH-Hi|oAgricultural Baseline crops and pasture data (SD/VV,2O15) ^ Federal and State Owned Lands from Hawai'\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 bnds—retained Natural ^ Bare Lands in|andcoverand historic lava flows — Classified asNatural ^ Wetlands in|andcovarand Cemetery inCounty Parks — Classified osNatural ° Native dominant use in\andcover—Classified asNatural ° Agriculture dominant use — Classified as Agriculture (includes developed, alien forests) ~ Pastoral dominant use —Classified asPastoral Consideration: 2019 future land use was under review at the same time the 2018 K-ilauea 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 kTipuka 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 asrecreation orconservation. 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 asPONCproperties. 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 ULC Page 3 of 18 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 seethe 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. \n2OZZ,aseries ofworking sessions wereconductedtoreviewthecommeNsandthepnoposed changes. A1this 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 2O19Proposed Plan Urban Land Use High -Density Urban Medium -Density Urban Low -Density Urban Urban Expansion Added back — after discussion, itwas decided torevisit this LUPAG designation Light Idustria| Heavy Industrial University Resort Rural Agricultural Land Use Productive Agriculture Extensive ri| [h in theI019 plan thisreferred to as Pastoral U Natural Name Chanin the 20I9 plan this fe d to as Natural A Open Space Land Use Recreation Conservation Focused Planning Solutions UI Page 4 of 18 The 2U22working sessions were conducted to review land use designations categorically. Using 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 ufLUPAGwithin Urban Expansion. w Look atundeveloped existing land use w Exclude areas that are already atcapacity, map those atthe capacity w Exclude state owned conservation, critical habitat, county parks. • Within TODs,use the appropriate high ormedium 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 inUrban Epandontoidentify areas that are built orat 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 (PON[)should bedesignated asconservation 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 ULC Page 5 of 18 Action: Review coastline for SLUD classification. Convert SLUD Conservation and Agriculture to GPLU Conservation. Confirm SLUD Urban as GPLU Recreation. MOM 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. *4'�" Focused Planning Solutions ULC Page 6 of 18 Appendix &— List OfAdditional Data and Sources HVO, U. (All available years). Past and Present Lava Flows for Hawaii Island. John Jacobi, U. P. (201S, 0101). Carbon Assessment of Hawaii Habitat Status. Retrieved from SDAV. (2015). 2015 Hawaii Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline layer. 4 k 40 Focused Planning Solutions ULC Page 7of0 Appendix B. General Plan Land Use Changes by District ry , Focused Planning Solutions LLC Page 8 of 18 Hawaii County (approximately 2,578,828 acres) 2019 Proposed 2005 LUPAG I ;ind I Irp Important AgricultL 90% Land, (381-;120acr 8 W/O Extensive Agricultu 70% , , ,, (641,29.9. act Conservation, (1,377,101 acres) 30% Hawaii County Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed 2005 LUPAG Land Use (143,033 acres) (146,802 acres) 160,000 High Density Urban, 1,307 140,000 Medium Density Urban, 6,759 120,000 Low Density Urban, 37,928 100,000 80,000 v ua LIP. -- �, 30,789 Industrial, 10,902 60'000 Universityt)se,1,12E Resort, 177 - Resort Node, 5,641 40,000 20,000 0 2024 Proposed I ;inri I I-,p 2024 Proposed Land Use (144,604 acres) 100°l0 90% Important Agricultur: ............. Land, 08,226acre: 80 Extensive Agricultur( 70% (83,022acre 601,1i, Open, (1,272acres) 40% Conservation, 30% (239,054acres) 20% 10% Oar, (breakdown_ below: 2005 LU PAG 0 7F:1 arracl Hamakua (approximately 404,337 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (79,034 acres) Recreation, (7,671 acres) (228,512 acres) 2024 Proposed Land Use Productive Agriculture, Extensive Agriculture, Natural, (31,735 Hamakua Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed Land Use /,I rnn -----` Conservation, 2024 Proposed Land Use /-1 -74 r -----` North Hilo (approximately 167,230 acres) 2019 Proposed 2005 LUPAG I nnA I 1Cn 2024 Proposed I nntA I 1Cn North Hilo Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed 2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use (853 acres) (659 acres) (681 acres) 900 800 Medium Density Urban, 71 ........... 700 Mediurn Density Urban, 38 600 & "n" xrr . . Medium Density Urban, 40 ... .... . 500 Low Density Urban 619 400 Low Density Urban, 500 Low Density Urban, 546 300 "0 200 Urban Expansion, 62 Light Industrial, 11 Urban Expansion, 0 100 lndusti ial, 29 "Heavy Industrial, 18 Light Industrial, 0 H I e I a I v I y Industrial, I I I I 2 1 9 Rural, 71 Rural, 91 Rural, 68 2005 LUPAG 100% Important Agricultural, 90% Land, (37,020acrcs) Extensive Agriculture 80% (26,785 acree "I s Open, (1,811 acres) 7 0?/,, 60% 5 0% Conservation, 40% (169,585 acres) 3 CP/6 20% 1 W/O Other, (breakdown below) 0% 2005 LUPAG (20.292 acres) South Hilo (approximately 255,518 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use Productive Agriculture, 1 1 1 (47,491 acres) Pastoral, (579 acres) Recreation, (1,612 Conservation, 67,924 acres) Other, (breakdown below) — 2024 Proposed Land Use Productive Agriculture, (36,981acres) Extensive Agriculture, (1,293 acres) Natural, (18,114 acres) Recreation, (1,273 acres Conservation, Other, (breakdown below) South Hilo Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed Land Use Q Q:Zr, :irrncl 2024 Proposed Land Use 01 ')5ZQ nrracl 2005 LUPAG 100% Important Agricultural 90%) Land, (47;645 acres) 80% INS 'NO, Extensive Agriculture V.ffin offl, 70% (89,3 acres Open, (3,170 acres) 50% 40% Conservationj (137,620 acres) 30% 20% 10% Other, (breakdown below) 0% 2005 LUPAG (43,854 acres) Puna (approximately 321,604 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use Productive Agricultur (48)473acrE Pastoral, (4,241 acres) (134,341acres) Other, (breakdown below) -1 2024 Proposed Land Use Productive Agriculture, Extensive Agriculture, (24,628 acres) Natural, (66,354 acre Recreation, (141 acres) Conservation, (140,863 acres) Other, (breakdown below) Puna Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed Land Use 1r,:z rn7 nrrazl 2024 Proposed Land Use t:zq n1 7 nrrncl 2005 LUPAG 100% Important Agricultun Land, (47,308 acre! 90% Extensive Agriculture 80% (144,869 acre., 7 W1, Open, (4j758acres; 60% 5WA 40% Conservation, (449,166 acres) 30% 20% 10% ObVr, (breakdown below] 2005 LUPAG (15,360 acres) 25,000 20,COO 15, tYv ow 10'000 5,000 0 Ka'Q (approximately 661,461 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (35,877 Natural Area, (65,969 acres) Recreation, (1,969 acres) Conservation, Other, (breakdown 2024 Proposed Land Use Productive Agriculture, (55,953 acres) Extensive Agnculture 43,615 acres WIN"'fleM)'4018 'Natural,-(44,500 acres Recreation, (426 acres) Other Ka"IJ Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed Land Use (23,103 acres) Conservation, 2024 Proposed Land Use (22,599 acres) Medium Density Urban, 395 Medium Density Urban, 407 9p/ Important-Agric+ Land, (31,924 0 Extensive Agric (66,960 South Kona (approximately 146,964 acres) 2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed 2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use South Kona Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed 2005 LUPAG Land Use (1,994 acres) 11 nnl arrpcl 2024 Proposed Land Use 19 9Fti arrpcl MINIM WAR 100% 1 MportantAgricultural Land, (25,169 acres).. M 90% 8()% Extensive Agriculture (106,207 acres 70% Open, (5,838 acres) 60% 50% 40% Conservation, (199,725 acres) 30% 20% 10% Other, (breakdown below) 0% 2005 LUPAG (28,646 acres) North Kona (approximately 365,585 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use (24,979acre Pastoral, (52,138 acres) Recreation, (3,223 acres) Conservation, (203,613 acres) Other, (breakdown below) 2024 Proposed Land Use (15,301 acres) Extensive Agriculture, (14,477 acres) Natural, (103,380aCrE Recreation, (1,280 acres) Conservation, (205,663 acres) Other, (breakdown below) -, North Kona Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed Land Use 11r, 7qr, nrrncl 2024 Proposed Land Use 111Z AQr, nrrncl 100% 90% Important Agriculturz Land, (51,251 acre_ 80% 70% 60% Extensive Agriculturc 50% (71,213 acres 40% 30% 0066, (14,076 acres� Conservation, 20% -"(1,3;950,acres) 10% Other, (breakdown below) 0% 30,000 2005 LUPAG 2005 LUPAG (25,645 acres) Low Density Urban, 5,105 15'r'00 Urban Expansion, 12,261 10'W0 Industrial, 1,869 S'000 Resort Node., 3,212 Rural, 1,917 0 South Kohala (approximately 176,135 acres) 2019 Proposed Land Use Productive Agrici (51,456 Pastoral, (55,086 acres) M Conservation, f,15,796 acres).,,= Other, (breakdown below) 2024 Proposed Land Use Productive Agriculture, (75,219 acres) Recreation, (779 acres) Conservation,-, (15,520 acres Other, (breakdown below) South Kohala Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2019 Proposed Land Use (15,811 acres) Low Density Urban, 6,078 Light Industrial, 670 Heavy Industrial, 204 Resort, 2,902 Rural, 4,897 2024 Proposed Land Use (23,533 acres) Medium Density Urban, 2,206 Low Density Urban, 5,388 Urban Expansion, 8,083 Light Industrial, 1,261 Heavy Industrial, 244 Resort, 3,484 Rural, 2,867 2005 LU PAG Open, 12,131acres) North Kohala (approximately 79,993 acres) 2019 Proposed North Kohala Breakdown of Other Land Use Types 2024 Proposed I onri I Ico 2019 Proposed 2024 Proposed 2005 LUPAG Land Use Land Use (3,625 acres) (4,267 acres) (7,319 acres)