HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2, 2016 DRAFT with mapWilliam P. Kenoi
Mayor
Duane Kanuha
Director
Joaquin Gainiao-Kunkle
Deputy Director
County of Hawaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742
Wednesday, November z, M6
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
All documents referred to in the minutes are available on the CDP Website
cd p/steering-committee/steering-committee-meetings/2016/november-2-
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairperson Farrah -Marie Gomes called the Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP)
Steering Committee to order at 6:12p.m. at the Kula'imano Community Center— Pepe'ekeo.
ROLL CALL: X 7
Members Present: Brad Kurokawa, Farrah -Marie Gomes, Glenn Carvalho, Lorraine Mendoza, Jason
Moniz, Craig Neff, and Ka'iulani Pahi'o.
%
Members Absent: Scott Enright.1%6�A,
Staff: LeAna Gloor— Hamakua CDP Planner, Ron Whitmore — COH Senior Planner, Keiko Mercado —
Hamakua CDP Planning Assistant, Bob Agres — Hawai'i Alliance for Community -Based Economic
Development (HACBED).
Members of the public:
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Nor
MEETING OVERVIEW:
Ms. Gomes provided a brief overview of the purpose and scope of the CDP, Steering Committee roles
and responsibilities, meeting overview, Aloha Etiquette, and Public Testimony protocol.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: Yr
One person submitted written testimony.
1. Marissa 112fman, Kamehameha Schools— 11.2.16
Written testimony submitted to Steering Committee members can be viewed and downloaded in its entirety from the
following website: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/1/doc/82374/Pagel.aspx.
Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Page I 1
There were three people who signed up to testify.
[Please note that all testimony has been recorded exactly as presented.]
Marissa Harman, representing Kamehameha Schools, providing testimony on agenda item 1a —
Pauka'a Mauka: Aloha, good evening. On behalf of Kamehameha Schools, I'm submitting
testimony again on the Pauka'a map as a follow up to your last Steering Committee meeting. I
won't be reiterating any points made earlier in testimony. However, I'd like to provide some
new information for your consideration. I'd like to address the concerns of the Steering
Committee that KS could potentially develop these lands and sell them. Our lands at Pdhoehoe
— are legacy lands for our trust — they were originally bequeathed to Prin ss Pauahi by Victoria
Kamdmalu. It is our practice to keep our legacy lands in perpetuity for the future benefit of our
ldhui. If KS were to pilot an affordable farm worker housing project, the units would be for rent
or lease and not for sale in fee. Also, at your last meeting, some of your Steering Committee
members as well as staff planners asserted that there are existing tools that would allow KS to
accomplish its agriculture and support infrastructure goals such as affordable farm worker
housing. In a follow up meeting with the Coury Planning Department last week, we were able
to determine the following problems with the existing tools. For agriculture project districts,
State Land Use Law limits and basically dictates the density to no more than one residence per
one acre. So essentially kind of supporting that, the larger gentleman type ag estates. The
same goes for planned unit development, limited by State Land Use Law and also, we looked at
additional farm dwelling units but the current ordinance was vague around whether or not the
labor that justifies an additional farm dwelling unit needs to come from that parcel or if they
can be tied to a nearby farm. Additionally, there's no clear definition of employee housing
which is further complicated by the fact that KS itself would not be the employers of these
farmers — our lessees would, V kinda not applicable to us. And also, the additional farm
dwelling unit does not support clustered model. It's basically one unit per number of hours of
labor and ag rm lot subdivisions residential use is strictly prohibited. So, those are the existing
tools in County Ordinance now. So, based on information above, it's clear that there are no
existing tools that would allow KS or any other landowner the ability to provide clustered
affordable farm worker housing which enables a larger landscape to be preserved. In
conclusion, we ask that you consider our intentions, our track record and the lack of existing
tools. For these reasons, I ask that you support the Planning Department's Option 2 that will be
presented to you this evening. Mahalo.
2. Albert Nakaji, represen " himself, providing testimony on Pauka'a Mauka: Good evening
ladies and gentlemen. ssume you can hear me. I wish to comment on the agenda item
relating to Pauka'a Mouka. The Pauka'a community, I saw on the map, Pauka'a park. Pauka'a
community is — if you look from Kaiwiki to Hakalau, the only community that does not have a
park, a recreational facility. All other communities, Kaiwiki, Pepe'ekeo, Pdpa'ikou, Honomu — all
have a park. Pauka'a is the only one that does not have a park. I do not reside in Pauka'a. I
reside in Pdpa'ikou but I would strongly — strongly support the creation of a park there.
Secondly, given that this may be the last meeting, I would like to say that while I've not come to
the meetings very frequently, I have been monitoring the progress from the inception of the CDP
and/ want to extend my sincere thanks to ALL of you— to all of you for such hard work. The
effort, the time that you have taken to put into this effort — bringing together a multitude of
ideas, conflicting and supportive of each other— very difficult, very difficult and you are to be
Page 12
highly commended. And for staying the course even with such conflicts, even with attempted
intimidation of veiled threats, you guys stand strong — you are to be commended. Thank you
very much.
3. David Longacre, representing himself, providing testimony on agenda item 4.5 — Preserving
Viewsheds: So, anyway, I've been attending most of these meetings. I have had specific interest
in Paragraph 4.5 "Preserving Scenic Areas and Viewsheds,"specifically Community Action 6,
which has spoken to the issue of encouraging alternatives to tall vegetative windbreaks that
impact viewsheds and I know you guys have heard me and some oeople go on and on
about this before but/ really do wanna thank you for the efforts y&1vemde to propose a
revision to that, whereby you've changed the language to now suggest educating residents in
residential areas. You've limited the stoke of this paragraph to educating people in residential
areas on alternatives to tall vegetative windbreaks that impact viewsheds and I guess my
question, or the point I wanted to bring up is as a farmer, I still don't see the point of including
this paragraph anyway. So, for example, residential areas are, in my opinion, self-regulating.
So, if you have a residentially zoned community, most of the people in there are probably going
to not be having windbreaks to begin with 'cause it's not agricultural. So, I don't nderstand
why this paragraph remains in there. In my opinion, although I understand it's a community
action, nothing mandatory, it still has the appearance of codifying what I perceive as an anti -
agriculture posture and it — it ends up being just one more of the many factors that throw ag
under the bus. You know, we're already dealing with high costs, foreign competition, possibly
climate change, disease and pests and we have this one little thing — this one little toe in the
door suggesting that maybe we need to have a —a restraint o Tour use of windbreaks. If in fact,
this paragraph is in here ause you're seeking a balance, there's already a balance. You
already have land zone for ag and you have land zone for non-ag and those people can establish
communities in nor-ag areas, put up CCRs and have their unobstructed views. This — this
paragraph reminds me of someone moving to a manufacturing zone and then complaining
about noise and the need for balance. So, that's — that was my concern here is that I still believe
that this paragraph continues to inadvertently suggest an anti -agriculture posture. Thank you
an would like to also echo the other gentlemen — you guys are amazing. I'm totally humbled
by the work you've done here. Thank you.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Draft minutes from the October 22, 2016 meeting will be posted to the HCDP website and reviewed at
the next Steering Committee meeting on December 2, 2016.
BUSINESS: %a
Consideration of Proposed Revisions to Draft CDP Land Use Policies:
Ms. Gloor introduced the CDP team members and their roles. She outlined the remaining steps
toward CDP adoption, reviewed the format for discussion during the meeting, and went over the
role of the Steering Committee during the review of community input. She asked the Steering
Committee to honor the process that has occurred thus far and to maintain the integrity of the
process moving forward.
Mr. Agres outlined the process the Steering Committee would follow while going through
document #3.
Page 13
Working from review document #3, the CDP Planning Team facilitated a discussion by the Steering
Committee geared toward preliminary decisions about the following possible revisions to the Draft
CDP:
Pauka'a Mauka: Using the decision making tool the Steering Committee discussed the possible
extension of the Low Density Urban (LDU) designation to the north on the mauka side of Kulana
Street.
Mr. Carvalho moved to approve Option 2 of the Pauka'a Mauka Land Use Guide Map. Second
by Ms. Mendoza. Motion passed with 6 votes aye and 1 vote nay (Mr. Kurokawa).
"Option 2 of the Pauka'a Mauka Land Use Guide Map is attached to these minutes.
b. At this point, the Steering Committee was asked if there were any other land use guide maps to
reconsider and no additional map revisions were presented.
2. Consideration of Proposed Revisions to Draft CDP Land Use Policies: Mr. Agres reminded the
Steering Committee that they are working from "Review Document #3: Proposed Revisions &
Additions for the February 2016 Draft CDP" and briefly went over the process used at the October
22, 2016 meeting. Following that same process the CDP Planning Team facilitated a discussion by
the Steering Committee geared toward preliminary decisions about the following possible revisions
to the Draft CDP.
a. Section 5: Strengthen Infrastructure, Facilities, and Service%L__,o
s:
Revise County Action Policy 65 (Section 5.2 Expand Affordable Housing Options): Mr.
Kurokawa suggested adding additional language to CA Policy 65 requesting revisions to the
building code where it relates to the renovation of older houses.
Ms. Mendoza moved to approve County Action Policy 65 revisions as presented including
language to incorporate Mr. Kurokawa's suggestions.
The amended Policy 65 reads:
"Develop and implement a County -wide, cross -agency affordable housing plan.
■ ERee .r^ge Develop affordable housing options within existing towns and villages, near
services, and critical infrastructure.
Propose and support amendments to the County's taxing powers as a means to
increase the supply of affordable housing.
Revise the Zoning Code. Chanter 25. relating to 'Ohana Dwellings and develoo an
Accessory Dwelling Unit policy aimed at facilitating affordable housing and aging -in-
place opportunities. Evaluate and incorporate applicable policy criteria from City and
County of Honolulu's Chapter 21 ADU policy; see also www.accessorydwellings.org as
a resource for how other municiaalities are handling accessory dwelling unit
regulations.
■ Revise the building code requirements for renovating older houses to facilitate the
redevelopment of affordable housing."
Second by Mr. Kurokawa. Motion passed with 6 votes aye and 1 votes nay (Mr. Carvalho).
Page 14
Revise County Action Policy 72 (Section 5.3 Improve the Roadway Network): Ms. Gomes
suggested adding additional language to CA Policy 72 to avoid naming specific entities as
those entities could change in the future.
Mr. Kurokawa moved to approve County Action Policy 72 as presented including the addition
of "..and/or other evidence -based.."
The amended Policy 72 reads:
"To improve safe pedestrian access and increase 04eFiOl ^r^, tt ' ORd connectivity in
Honoka'a:
• Make safety improvements to downtown Honoka'a based on Complete Streets and/or
other evidence -based planning principles.
• Improvements to include: additional pedestrian crosswalks on Mamane Street,
additional sidewalk development (such as along Lehua Street), and safe, marked
walkways to parking areas servicing downtown.
• Complete the extension linking Pfkake and Pakalana Street to provide arterial
redundancy
• Explore alternatives in the management of Pakalana Street, such as its conveyance to
the State Department of Education or its conversion to a one-way traffic pattern. (GP
13.2.5.4.2 (e))
■ Provide a cross-town connection to Plumerio Street by extending Kamani Street. GP
13.2.5.4.2 (f);"
Second by Ms. Pahi'o. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
iii. Revise Community Action 27 (Section 5.3 Improve the Roadway Network): Discussion
ensued about the naming of specific roads. Steering Committee members suggested adding
"...as examples of roads..." to avoid being limited to the three roads that are listed. Changing
the word "determine" to "identify and develop" was also suggested.
Mr. Kurokawa moved to approve Community Action 27 as presented with the suggested
amendments, so it reads:
Community Action 27:
"Work with the owners of private roads and local community groups/associations to help
identify and dot develop road management agreements that mitigate road closures
and access disagreements for public access and/or resident use. The following private
roads have been identified as examples of roads a -s needing improvements in their road
management/access strategies:
• Mill Road in Papa'ikou
• Beach Road to Honoka'a Landing
• Blair Road in Laupahoehoe"
Second by Mr. Neff. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
Page 15
iv. Two New County Action Policies (Section 5.7 Improve Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure):
Mr. Kurokowo moved to approve New County Action Policy listed os 13 on page 9 in Revision
Document #3 as presented:
New County Action:
"Develop on infrastructure prioritization designation such as Infrastructure Priority Areo
(IPA) within the Hamakuo CDP and designate Honomu, Loupahoehoe, Po'ouilo, and
sections of Honoko'o os priority areas in need of wastewater service.
Infrastructure prioritization designations should be based on the following criteria:
• The area contains o mix of residential and commercial zoning;
• The area lacks o core infrastructure component (municipal or community water,
wastewater, or roadways);
• Redevelopment options (including the renovation of historic structures) and/or
projected commercial and residential growth (including affordable, multi-family
housing) is hindered by the lock of core infrastructure;
• Highest priority should be given to areas that contain existing built-out parcels facing
regulatory constraints relating to parcel size, areas with historic buildings and
structures in need of renovation, and areas where affordable housing is locking and
development is impeded by the lock of necessary infrastructure."
New County Action Policy listed os 14 on page 10 in Revision Document #3 os presented:
New County Action:
"Develop wastewater systems of o cost-effective scale for small communities. Use
infrastructure priority area criteria in prioritizing communities for critical infrastructure
improvements." i
Second by Ms. Pohi'o. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
New Community Action (Section 5.8 Improve Environmental Management Facilities): Ms.
Gomes suggested also adding this New Community Action as a New County Action to boost
its strength.
Mr. Moniz moved to approve New Community Action listed os 15 on page 10, in Revision
Document #3 os presented and also adding it os o New County Action:
New Community Action/New County Action:
"Educate neiohborhood watch arouos or other communitv arouos about how to octivel
identify and report littering and illegal dump sites to the Deportment of Environmental
Management. Raise awareness of the issue through the use of outreach and social media
tools to report sites and offenders.
See more on how to report litterina and dumas sites here: httn://www.hawaiizerowoste.ora/info/illegal-dumnina/"
Second by Ms. Pohi'o. Motion passed with 6 votes aye and 1 vote nay (Mr. Carvalho).
Page 16
vi. Two New County Action Policies (Section 5.13 Improve Parks & Recreation Facilities):
Mr. Carvalho moved to approve New County Action Policy listed os 16 on page 10, in Revision
Document #3 os presented:
New County Action:
"Continue to improve parks and recreation outreach efforts for youth and senior progroms
in rural communities to ensure progrom and facility information is odequotely available,
promoted online through accessible websites and through other mediums, and kept up -to -
dote to focilitote maximum community participation."
New County Action Policy listed os 17 on page 11 in Revision Document #3 os presented with
the omission of 'for seniors" to read:
New County Action:
"Develop wolkinq pothsr-s around existing ballparks and other pork grounds, os
feosible. These wolkinq paths should be level, paved footpaths that meet occessibility
requirements whenever possible.
• Refer to existing Policy 103, and Kokuo Actions 23, 38, 50, and 61."
Second by Mr. Neff. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
b. Section 6: Build a Sustainable, Local Economy:
i. Two New County Action Policies (Section 6.2 Strengthening Local Agriculture):
Mr. Kurokowo moved to approve New County Action Policy listed os 18 on page 11 in
Revision Document #3 os presented:
New County Action:
"DeVeloo increased coaocity for Countv-level ooriculturol saeciolists to liaise and
coordinate with State and Federal Agencies in improving and implementing policy,
increasing ogriculturol education, and promoting opportunities for exponding markets for
locolly grown products."
New County Action Policy listed os 19 on page 11 in Revision Document #3 os presented:
New County Action:
"Evaluate County Zoning Code Section 15-5-72(o)(17) reloting to "livestock production of
piggeries, apiaries, and pen feeding of livestock shall be f... j located no closer than one
thousand feet away from any major public street or from any other zoning district."
■ Define what qualifies os o "piggery" or on "apiary";
• Determine if the minimum distance of 1000 feet from any public street or other zone is
appropriate for each use referenced; recommend revision to minimum distance if
research justifies odopting new minimum distances."
Second my Mr. Moniz. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
Page 17
Revise Community Action 44 and New Community Action (Section 6.2 Strengthening Local
Agriculture):
Ms. Mendoza moved to approve Revised Community Action 44 with the suggested
amendment of adding "... and Federal..." to the last bullet, so it reads:
Community Action 44:
"Strengthen #w local agriculture „gin through the following:
■ Develop a marketing brand for Hdmdkua products (Assist in the promotion of products
produced in Hdmdkua (GP 2.3(t)).
■ Support Farm to School/Farm to Table Programs, CSAs, and other local farm -to -
consumer initiatives,
■ Support and develop celebratory events that support agriculture (e.g., festivals,
rodeos, parades, community gathering events of farmers' markets, etc.).
■ Work to effectively manage or eradicate invasive species that impact agricultural
production.
■ Develop agricultural cooperatives to facilitate farming collaborations, cost- and
resource -sharing opportunities, provide a mechanism for marketing assistance and
educational opportunities, and coordinate with County, State, and Federal Agricultural
specialists.
■ Pursue the development of incubator community kitchens for the production of value-
added agricultural products."
New Community Action listed as 21 on page 12 in Revision Document #3 as presented:
New Community Action:
"To better address issues relating to the Lower Hdmdkua Ditch: form a cooperative
community group (for example, a "Friends of the Lower Hdmdkua Ditch" group) composed
of adjacent landowners to the ditch and other affected parties to advocate to and
collaborate with the Department of Agriculture in developing a cooperative management
""Plan that would seek to resolve issues relating to water quality, water efficiency, ditch
maintenance, and to assess ditch trail access opportunities."
Second by Ms. Pohi'o. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
iii. New County Acti Section 6.6 Revitalize Hamakua's Town Centers):
Mr. Carvalh?as
ted to approve New County Action Policy listed as 22 on page 13 in Revision
Doi # presented with the amendment of replacing the word "Identified" with
"Examples of" to read:
New County Action:
"Develop underutilized private and public properties within existing towns to be used as
gathering places, community gardens, open squares and markets, auxiliary parking lots
Page 18
(including pork and ride areas), and parks (including pocket and art parks, and outdoor
amphitheaters), etc.
Examples of underutilized parcels owned by the County ore:
• Honoko'o: TMK 4-5-005:010 on the corner of Momone and Puokolo.
500'oloo: TMK 3-5-003:035 next to the P000'oloo
• 'O'okolo: TMK 3-9-001:026 (Currently zoned Industrial) & TMK: 3-9-001:034 (between
'O'okolo town and Highwoy 19."
New Community Action listed os 23 on page 13 in Revision Document #3 os presented:
New Community Action:
"Promote the collaborative development use, and monogement of community gordens in
towns and neighborhoods."
Second by Mr. Neff. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
No other CDP revisions were considered based on new information presented.
3. Affirmation of Minor Edits to the Draft CDP: Working from "Review Document #2: Proposed Minor
Edits for the January 2016 Draft CDP," the CDP Planning Team facilitated a brief discussion by the
Steering Committee geared toward a preliminary decision to affirm all non -substantive edits to the
Draft CDP. It
Mr. Neff moved to approve Review Document#2 and allow Planning Deportment stoff the ability to
continue making non -substantive edits to the Draft Homokuo CDP. Second by Ms. Mendoza.
Motion passed with 7 votes aye and 0 votes nay.
N EXT STEPS:
Friday, December 2, 2016 was suggested as the next meeting date. All Steering Committee members
in attendance (7) confirmed their availability.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS:
There was one person who signed up to testify.
1. Steve Shropshire, representing himself, speaking on Papa'ikou Makai — Land Use Policy: Thank
you. I know it's lote, I'll try to be brief. I own o parcel of land — Pdpo'ikou, it's parcel 2-7-
004:025. It's o 76 acre oceanfront parcel. The State Use — the State Land Use designation is — is
Agriculture and Conservation. The Generol Plon, the zoning is currently Ag -20 and the LUPAG is
currently Low Density Urban. So, os you may be aware, the current draft of the CDP is
proposing to change the LUPAG designation from Low Density Urban to Importont Agriculture.
So, I wonted to shore with you o different approach that, something I'd like you to consider in
terms of your long range planning. We would like to build on affordable housing project on o
portion of our lond so our request to you is to consider holding bock o portion of that in — in this
current Low Density Urban designation because we — or, os we've heard earlier, one of the
biggest obstacles for affordable housing is wastewater and codes of [inoudiblejour wastewater
facility in Pdpo'ikou is under— underutilized. We understand it's about 30 or 40 percent
capacity. So, there's on opportunity to build affordable housing there on that site and it meets —
meets many of the goals of the Community Development Plon, of the least of which Objectives 5
Page 19
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 prAste estates. S , 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. S ire left immediately following his testimony.
Mr. Moniz asked if the Ste 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 so e of considerable community controversy, and there would most likely
be a considerable amou t of public testimony. Mr. Neff felt that Pdpa'ikou Point had already
been addressed at the vious meeting where the Steering Committee voted on the issue, and
his hope is that the t 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
be scheduled since there was no support for the issue. The Steering Committee agreed that
since no new information was presented, there would be no additional meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Neff moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Ms. Mendoza. Motion passed with 7 votes aye and
0 votes nay. The meeting adjourned at 9:20pm.
Page 111
Pauka'a Map Showing Proposed Revisions, November 2016
F lxwe
Park
Site
1ApPamd kw 2 F -lot
ncidwur&wk wvj
1 {4Y
1 ;
r Rs1l Y? T-01bOCQ W.
Rr�l 7-FA79 iO3 fb+ � I RMSM 7,f-040YW
I.
go
Hamakua CDP
(U � - Rrvised Land Use Guide Map
fur Pauka'a Mauka
LUPAG Designations
OMMM4 Lana
Lar Gva�p 4rora
# 356 d66 4600 +.5w
Pauko'o Mouka Revisions: Designate parcel -7-038:005 and 2-7-038:004 and a portion of parcels 2-7-003:023 and 2-7-038:002 as Low Density
Urban (along mauka side of Kulana Street).
Page 112