HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-25 PL-INT-2024-008750 GP 2045 Draft Comments - C. Flaherty DeVera, Ashley
From: Chuck Flaherty <
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 7:59 AM
To: Planning General Plan; Planning Internet Mail
Cc: Cory Harden;janice glennie; Claudia Rohr; Tawn Keeney
Subject: Question re: interactive document searches between GP2045 document and land use
map.
Attachments: Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-24), 8-23-24.pdf
Aloha April,
I got the following language from the "Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024),
County of Hawaii General Plan", Prepared by: Amy DeBay, Focused Planning Solutions LLC, August 8,
2024"
"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."
I have never seen the process described above ever demonstrated in a GP comprehensive review public
and/or community meeting and am unable to use the platform to accomplish what this process alleges it
can do, that is, "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."
Can you please demonstrate how this is done?
Also, why did the report not include which "few considerations were identified and reviewed" and what
was the result of those reviews?
Mahalo,
Chuck
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.
1 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:
,00 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 kipuka 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.
,00 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, 01 01). Carbon Assessment of Hawaii Habitat Status. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/592dee75e4b092b266efeb6e
SDAV. (2015). 2015 Hawaii Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline layer.
Focused Planning Solutions LLC
0)03
Page 7 of 18
Appendix B: General Plan Land Use Changes by District
wie
10 Focused Planning Solutions LLC
4"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,{381,120 acres) (372,235 acres) (345,290 acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
80% Pastoral,(298,512 acres) (247,627 acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
70% (641,299 acres)
Natural Area,(328,831 acres) Natural,(384,893 acres)
60% Recreation,(17,873 acres) Recreation,(4,631 acres)
Open,(36,250 acres)
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- 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,36,19
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,Resort,6,267 University,1,212
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,(78,226 acres) (73,910 acres)
(79,034 acres}
80%
Extensive Agriculture,
Extensive Agriculture, (56,543 acres)
70% (83,021 acres) Pastoral,(77,900 acres)
Natural Area,(4,930 acres} Natural,(31,735 acres
60% Open,(1,272 acres) Recreation,(74 acres)
Recreation,(7,671 acres)
50%
40%
Conservation,
3090
(239,054 acres) Conservation, Conservation,
(228,512 acres) (240,361 acres)
20%
10%
Od9gr,(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,2,
2,500
2,000
Medium Density Urban,199
1,500
Medium Density Urban,195
Low Density Urber.
2,292
1,000
Low Density Urban,1424—
Low Density Urban,1,123
500 Heavy Industrial,15
Heavy Industrial,15 Light Industrial,27
Light Industrial,28
Industrial,132
Rural,241MIN
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,(1,389 acres) 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,
(120,052 acres) (116,767 acres)
30%
20%
10%
Otivr,(breakdown below) Other,(breakdown below) ilk 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
MI
Medium Density Urban,
800 71
700
Me:Lrr
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 '{ Light IrJu,tr': 0
Light Industrial,11
100 0
Industrial,29 y Heavylndustrial,18 Heav Ir L to 29
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 Agricultural Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
Land,(37,020 acres) (37,491 acres) (36,981 acres)
90% Extensive Agriculture,
Extensive Agriculture, Pastoral,(579 acres) (1,293 acres)
80% (26,785 acres) Natural Area,(25,580 acres) Natural,(1S,114 acres)
Open,(1,811 acres) Recreation, (1,612 acre Recreation,(1,273 acres)
70%
60%
50%
Conservation, Conservation,
(169,585 acres) Conservation, (176,570 acres)
40% (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,849111 High Density Urban,831 Medium Density Urban,1,451
-
Medium Density Urban,1,t72
Medium Density Urban,1,'
15,000
Low Density Urban,8,51-
Low Density Urban,6,175
Low Density Urbar
11,2 %/ � ���i� „ Urban Expansion,64
10,000 Light Industrial,2,093 //%�/�, i
O 4° 4/H' Light Industrial,1,779
Heavy Industrial,2,039 MI
Urban Expansior University,665 Heavy Industrial,2,399
125 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 Agricultural Productive Agriculture, Productive Agriculture,
90% Land,(47,645 acres) (48,473 acres) (50,600 acres)
Pastoral,(4,241 acres)—
80% Extensive Agriculture,
(24,628 acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
70% (89,314 acres) Natural Area,(78,890 acres)
Natural,(66,354 acres
60% Recreation,(1,093 acres)
Open,(3,170 acres) Recreation, (141 acres)
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 Density Urban,1,327
50000 Light Irdustrial,120
Heavy Irdustrial,502
Medium Density
Urban,1,275
40000 Low Density Unbar, Medium Density Urban,1,348
7,392 Low Density Urban,3,157
Urban Expansion, ( Rural,32,662 Urban Expansion,1,669 7 �
5,345 Light Industrial,1, 69
.3°°°C) Industrial,668 Heavy Industrial,649 `
20000
Rural,29,174 Rural,32,126
10000
Pending,18,387
10 4
•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,(47,308 acres) (35,877 acres} (55,953 acres)
90% Pastoral,(49,319 acres) Extensive Agriculture,
Extensive Agriculture, (43,615 acres)
80% {144,869 acres) Natural Area,(65,969 acres) Natural,(44,500 acres
Recreation,(1,969 acres) Recreation, (426 acres)
70% Open,(4,758 acres)
60%
50%
40%
Conservation, Conservation, Conservation,
(449,166 acres) (485,515 acres) [494,368 acres}
30%
20%
10%
O6lr,(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 Median r Dersity Urban,407
Lo�,�Dersity Urban,1,160
Low Density Urban,1,106 Resort,L1
Resort,28 Urbar Exparsior,0
Light Industrial,92 Light Irdustridl,92
20,000 Heavy Industrial,0 Heavy Irdustriel,0
Medium Density...
15'DCLOW Density Urban,1,156
Urban Expansion,597
Industrial,74 ,l�ffr"f
Resort,29
Rural,20,899
10,000 Rural,21,482
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,(31,924 acres) (32,414 acres)
Extensive Agriculture,
80% (16,056 acres)
70%
Pastoral,(40,451 acres)
60%
Extensive Agriculture,
(66,960 acres) Natural,(61,559 acres
50%
40% Natural Area,(25,731 acres)
30%
Open,(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)
o 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)
3,50
3,000
Medium Density Urban,27?
2,500 Low Density Urban,320
Resort,0
2,000
1,500
Medium Derst, Medium Density Urban,295
Urban,29-
Low Density Urban,298 Rural,2,373
1,000 Resort,25
Low Density Urban,
500 1,076 Rural,983
Resort,25
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,(25,169 acres) (24,978 acres) (15,301 acres)
90% Extensive Agriculture,
Pastoral,(52,138 acres) (14,477 acres)
80% Extensive Agriculture,
(106,207 acres) Natural,(103,3SOacre•
70% Natural Area,(55,098 acres)
Open,(5,838 acres) Recreation,(3,223 acres) Recreation,(1,280 acres)
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,458
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
70,000 (7//7
/%J%!/f//f Low Density Urban,16,515
Low Density Urban,5,893
15,000
Urban Expansion,
12,140 Urban Expansion,753 7,4{/{7,7/7,/6
Light Industrial,687
10,000 Heavy lndustrial,2,135
Light Industrial,453 University,533
Heavy Industrial,1,950 Resort,3,571
Industrial,3,890- University,722
5,000
University Use,461 Resort,3,209
Resort Node,2,423 Rural,5,229
Rural,1,001 Rural,2,188
0 �,,,_�
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,(51,251 acres) (51,456 acres)
80%
70%
60% Extensive Agriculture,
(75,219 acres)
Extensive Agriculture, Pastoral,(55,086 acres)
50% (71,213 acres)
40%
30%Open, (14,076 acres) Natural Area,(38,007 acres) Natural,{28,331 acres
Conservation, Recreation,(779 acres)
20% (13,950 acres) Recreation,(426 acres) Conservation,
Conservation, (15,520 acres)
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
2KINV.im Density Urban,1,281
Low Density Urber, Medium Density Urban,2,206
20,000 5,105
/7/77
Low Density Urban,5,388 ////f//
15,000 Medium Density Urban,1,060 /////
Urban Expansion, y%/�///
12,261 Urban Expansion,8,083/A
Low Density Urban,6,078
10,000
Light Industrial,670
Heavy Industrial,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,2,867
Rural,1,917
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,(40,974 acres) (40,834 acres) (39,434 acres)
60%
50% ^0000000aaa
Extensive Agriculture,
40% Extensive Agriculture, Pastoral,(17,409 acres) (15,009 acres)
(21,863 acres) Natural,(3,137 acres)
30%
Open, *2,131 acres) Natural Area,(4,323 acres) Recreation,(446 acres)
20% Conservation, Recreation,(752 acres) Conservation,
111
(11,401 acres) Conservation, (14,649 acres)
10% (12,713 acres)
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 Expersion,0
Light 1 rd ustrial,3
4,000 6,66666666666. Hea.y IcduStrial,45
Medium Density Urban,138 Resort,0
Medium Density Urban,197
3,000
Low Density Urban,3,075—
2000 Low Density Urban, Rural,4,223
2,65L
Light Industrial,0
1,000 Heavy Industrial,48
Urban Expansion,258, Resort,46
Industrial,51 ������ � Rural,960
Resort,L7
0 Rural,415