HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0820.008 2022-2024P Ck=
C,OPdM, S20
From: janice glennie
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 11:19 AMA-'
To: Council Testimony; Villegas, Rebecca
Subject: Bill 820 carp counsel/GP
Aloha Chair Villegas and committee members,
Mahalo or hearing my testimony today on Communication 820.
I appreciate the hard work county planners do and the positive changes they've suggested for the
new General Plan. At the same time, the current incarnation of the plan has lacked the accessibility
and community input of the 2005 GP and the Kona CDP. From this administration's original
minimizing of the CDPs to a converse burst of activity including updating the zoning code, STVRs,
and Kona Open Space Network, there's been a hyper -push to change land use law during a period
when "lack of staffing" has been the department standard. It's been a whirlwind and blur for the public
who's been trying to take part. It's off the radar for anyone who's not akamai to land use issues, and it
might even keep exhausted planners up at night.
The GP process this round has been labyrinthine and inaccessible to much if not most of the public
including those who've been through similar county processes. The chosen platform only worked on
certain days with certain browsers. I couldn't get the street overlay and maps to coordinate which
meant I could only comment intelligently on areas I knew extremely well. After hours and days of
trying to comment on the maps as requested by planners, I gave up —something I can't remember
having done in my 45 years of land use advocacy. But I've been assured the public would have time
to comment during later council meetings. But will we?
I remember at least one current planner saying years ago that the new GP draft would be nothing like
the one under the Kim administration. Imagine our surprise when the public was told that the present
scoping process wasn't short because it started in 2095! That's always felt far-fetched due to a
disconnect between the public's awareness of GP machination and lack of planning dept
communication with the public on whatever GP draft was supposedly in the works between 2017 and
last year. Frustratingly, public meetings both this round and back in 2015 to '17 felt disturbingly top -
down including one where multiple choice questions were asked. That whole exercise lacked the
welcoming nature and inclusiveness of those mid-2000s charette-style land use gatherings which is
the same feeling the public has about the current process.
How, then, can the public be guaranteed that their feedback is incorporated into the final draft after
such an inaccessible process, especially if upcoming council hearings are just for crossing is and
dotting I's?
To add transparency and the people's voice to the final GP, the law must be interpreted as
democratic process and intent demands. That includes allowing for and incorporating rigorous and
corrective public and council input and changes to the current GP before it becomes law. Otherwise,
it will reflect the goals of an unelected planning body and director instead of those of the public and
will require exhaustive corrective hearings post -adoption which seems wasteful of taxpayer and
government officials time and taxpayer money. Isn't it more logical to dig deep and make whatever
corrections are necessary before a bad document becomes law? Q
comm. ' D
i Ref. To:
Ref. Date t
Our leaders must help insure that "public" is the buzz word in the final draft so that the final General
Plan will map out our shared future in the most inclusive and democratic manner as demanded by
law.
Mahalo again for considering my thoughts on this extremely important legislation.
Best regards,
Janice Palma-glennie
Kail ua-kona