2024-09-26 PL-INT-2024-008840 GP 2045 Draft Comments - E. Dunn

Home

1.4 Sustainability Principles and Practices. "Prosperity" for whom? Please be specific when terms like this are used. Page 24, Footnote 2 referencing HRS, Section 226-2. Please explain and provide an example when a "guideline may be deviated from without penalty or sanction". I've not heard of this, and would like to understand how and when this has been used. To see this used as a footnote without context is alarming. It's like a get out of jail card, without any definition or description or how, when and where it can be used. 1.6 Grounded Vision and Goals I appreciate the General Plan Vision State, as well as the Sustainable Development and Resilient Communities Goals, but this language and the intent behind it is overly ambitious. There is no sustainable development now that is being built. Perhaps the newest development in Waikoloa, and Waikoloa Village, but not in any other development proposal I've seen. If this is going to be a building principle and goal, each and every developer, including those projects that have been approved years ago, and are on the books as "active projects", need to update their plans, and approaches, and incorporate the "one water" principle. If these projects don't then this General Plan will not have achieved its goal. There is so much language in this draft General Plan that speaks to "incorporating indigenous and contemporary knowledge and placed based practices to direct and manage growth for the health and safety of our communities". However, there is no clear discussion on HOW the indigenous communities will be brought into the Planning process. Please expand on how and what that process looks like. Chapter 2 - Collaborative Bicultural Stewardship 2.1 Introduction. I feel I'm going to say the same thing over and over and over again. I appreciate the language about bringing all people into the Planning process, but from what I've seen since I've lived here, that sure hasn't happened. Certainly, there's collection of comments and concerns from the public, but no real listing and hearing of the comments - by staff, the Leeward Planning Commission and several members of the County Council. So when I read the language in the second paragraph which states that, "the policies presented in this section seek to foster partnerships that are based on multi respect, trust, and shared values", I don't believe it. I can't believe it. Why? Because I haven't experienced it personally or seen it in the various public meetings I've attended. I don't know how this County, and Planning Department believe it's going to get over the lack of distrust in the Planning process, and those in the management of the Department, and even the current Mayor, when the decision making process feels rigged and corrupt. Why invite people to participate when the developers are already meeting with the Planning Department and are overheard that the project is a "done deal"? Where is the mutual respect and trust? The Planning Department doesn't conduct its own neutral environmental review (which the developer must pay for); instead, it uses the developer prepared environmental documentation, and agrees with it completely. There is no peer review of this information. There is little to no analysis of a development proposal, and all the staff reports recommend approval. Even with such a controversial project like the one proposed above Black Sands Beach. What are the shared values? This is only place where I can make my concerns known about the Planning Department, how its operates, and the culture within this organization, that may have any consequence. When I continue to read language about