Scenario A

Development was distributed by using current zoning densities. The amount of land needed to accommodate future growth was 9,265 acres.

Strengths: No specific strengths were cited for Scenario A.

Weaknesses / Concerns: The groups that reviewed this scenario found that it offered inadequate parks and openspace, as well as insufficient connectivity. They noted that such development was unsustainable due to the limited land available. Lack of affordable housing and infrastructure expense were also cited as concerns. One groupmentioned that this type of development limits flexibility for managing long-term future growth.

Recommendations: Participants offered a range of recommendations for Scenario A. These include: saving the coastline from becoming private, developing a new highway, building at higher densities in the downtown core, promoting mixed use villages, and addressing community health needs.

Scenario B

Development was distributed at the average density of current trends. (1,492 acres needed)

Strengths: No specific strengths were cited for Scenario B.

Weaknesses / Concerns: The groups that examined this scenario expressed concerns similar to those mentioned for Scenario A. They noted that affordable housing and infrastructure needs are at a crisis level, and are not adequately dealt with in Scenario B. The destruction of Native Hawaiian burial and cultural sites was another concern.

Recommendations: Several recommendations for this scenario dealt with infrastructure needs. Groups noted that roads, water, electricity, and sewage must be provided concurrently with development, and that developers should bear some responsibility for ensuring adequate infrastructure. Participants would like to see this scenario provide for affordable housing. They recommended the elimination of gated communities. Participants also noted the importance of long-term planning (up to 100 years out), and mentioned that action must be taken today to preserve large areas of parkland and open space.

Scenario C

Development was distributed at a density of 5 dwelling units per acre which represents approximately the maximum density (for RS-7.5 lots), under current zoning. (990 acres needed)

Strengths: Participants expressed support for the village development concept. They noted that absence of strip malls as a strength. Some participants liked the higher densities, and noted that the scenario still maintained a rural flavor.

Weaknesses / Concerns: Appropriate density was a key concern, and groups expressed a variety of opinions about what the intensity of development should be. Some groups found Scenario C to be too dense, and felt that it would detract from quality of life and a Kona sense of place. They were concerned about the provision of sufficient services (police, schools, etc) for higher density settlements, and also noted that higher densities may come at the expense of environmental health. Other groups found that the densities shown in this scenario might be insufficient for supporting infrastructure, services, housing, etc. in a cost-effective, economically viable manner. They noted that without somewhat higher densities, such development might be unable to support affordable housing and small businesses. A lack of parks was a common concern, and groups were uncertain that open space buffer zones would be adequately protected from future development.

Recommendations: Participants provided numerous recommendations about how development should occur under Scenario C. They approved of the village development concept, and are interested in seeing self-sustaining communities that are socioeconomically diverse, walkable, offer a mix of uses and services, provide for affordable housing and senior housing, and are well-connected to neighboring villages.

Participants emphasized that development should be tailored to specific places, and should maintain a sense of place rather than being "one size fits all." Cultural and historic resources should be protected. Open space and parks should be accessible to all, and "people places" like community gardens, civic spaces and plazas should be designed to promote neighborhood interaction. The groups emphasized aesthetics, and noted that efforts should be made to ensure that new developments have quality architecture, landscaping, and adequate trees.

Participants would like to see that infrastructure is in place before more development occurs. They expressed a preference for underground utility lines, underground parking, and sufficient connector roads, sidewalks, trails, and public transit. In terms of public transportation, participants would like to see diverse options including buses and rail.

Natural resource protection was important for these groups. They would like to update existing environmental laws, protect the watershed, and define all valuable lands so that these can be preserved immediately. Native plant and animal species should be closely studied and evaluated so that there are no more extinctions.

On the matter of density, participants would prefer to keep higher densities in the urban core and near employment, with a transition to lower density to the south and mauka. Some groups are interested in seeing taller buildings and multi-family units. They noted that it is important to maintain a healthy ratio of density to open space, so that environmental, recreational, cultural, and agricultural needs can be met.

The groups also provided a number of recommendations related to the government’s role in planning and development. They suggested that the government should be more supportive of the development process, and play a bigger role in providing for affordable housing. Other recommendations included: modifying existing zoning to accommodate village / cluster developments, keeping development within growth areas, and collecting impact fees from developers.

Scenario D

Development was distributed at 8 dwelling units per acre. (611 acres needed).

Strengths: As mentioned in Scenario C, participants were supportive of the village development concept and felt that higher densities could help to preserve rural character, open space, and agricultural lands. Participants also expressed support for the transportation provisions outlined in Scenario D.

Weaknesses: Participants felt that Scenario D would be too dense, and spark development that is too rapid. They expressed concerned about noise and other social infractions that might be associated with more intensive developments. They were also concerned about the provision of infrastructure and services to support a denser population. Some groups expressed opposition to high-rise housing, and felt that this scenario did not maintain the Kona lifestyle. One group mentioned that while Scenario D may be suitable for North Kona, it is not appropriate for South Kona. Participants also noted that this high-density approach has the potential for eventual unwanted infill development in open spaces. As mentioned for each of the other scenarios, inadequate park space and affordable housing continues to be a concern.

Recommendations: The recommendations provided for Scenario D were very similar to those discussed for Scenario C. Participants supported the development of mixed use neighborhoods and villages that offer diverse housing choices, local shopping and services, employment opportunities, parks, schools, community centers, medical facilities, and public transportation options. Socioeconomic diversity is important, as is walkability and interconnectivity between villages. Participants mentioned that housing affordability must be a priority, and that strict laws should be in place to ensure provision of affordable housing. Loopholes should be eliminated and resale restrictions should be implemented. Particular attention should be paid to the needs of seniors.

Again, participants emphasized that development should be tailored to specific places, and should maintain a sense of place rather than being "one size fits all." Environmentally-friendly architecture was encouraged, as was the preservation of cultural and historic resources. While groups had differing opinions on whether or not high rises would be suitable, for the most part they agreed that the look of new development should have an island character rather than being too "mainland". Some groups suggested a height limit on buildings – typically at about 3 stories.

Infrastructure was again a key concern, and groups emphasized that all infrastructure must be provided in concert with development. Participants noted that at the densities recommended for Scenario D, provision of a county sewer system would be mandatory. Utilities should be placed underground. Diverse transportation options should also be provided, including sidewalks, bikeways, and public transit (bus and rail).

Groups emphasized the protection of natural and cultural resources. Participants would like to see permanent protection of watershed and flood channels, and they recommended that all development should occur with respect for cultural sites and the local ecology. They would like to see measures for prohibiting infill of open space, greenways, and agricultural lands, so that the open spaces achieved through higher density development may be preserved in perpetuity. Participants also noted that parks and open space must be accessible for all residents.

Regarding density, participants suggested that higher densities should be reserved for urban areas, employment centers, and commercial centers. They suggested the use of green buffers to lessen noise.

In terms of planning and development, participants emphasized the need for accountability in the county government and planning department. They want to trust that open space will remain as open space; they support adherence to the general plan and oppose the use of variances. Groups noted that planning efforts must account for second homes and part-time residents. Other recommendations touched upon a variety of topics, including: smart growth, keeping development within the growth area, and incorporating settlements as cities in order to gain more local control.