HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0372.047 2024-2026� SIERRACLUB
HAWAII ISLAND GROUP
July 29, 2025
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development
o
e-7
C=CD
c/o Hawai'i County Council
L
25 Aupuni St
r�
Hilo HI 96720
co
C:3-<
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole HighwayZE
Kailua Kona HI 96740
C
a
Re: BM 66
Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and Committee members,
The Hawai'i Island Group of the Sierra Club of Hawai'i ("HIG") requests the Policy Committee
on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development ("Committee") consider the following
comments on Bill 66.
Disenfranchisement of general public
Disenfranchisement broadly signifies depriving someone of any of a number of legal rights, as
well as the diminishment or marginalization of the political status of a group. In this case,
members of the public who've made good faith efforts to participate in the General Plan
Comprehensive Review ("GPCR") process have been disenfranchised.
In the latest instance, the stated intent of the proposed schedule of special meetings and process
for the Committee's consideration of the draft General Plan 2045 ("GP2045") was to enable
informed public testimony.
However, the practical impact was to disable and disenfranchise public involvement through a
number of ill-advised actions.
The first of these actions was to move the initial special meeting to an earlier date with only a
six -day notice to the public. This action also disenfranchised the public because there was no
clear communication, recommendation, or guidance that the public should focus testimony on
Communication 372.001 (COM 372.1), which contained the GP2045, Final Recommended
Draft, July 2024, Draft 2 ("Draft 2")., which the Committee introduced and approved by floor
amendment on July 9th.
Second, even if Draft 2 had been duly noticed, the changes between GP2045, Final
Recommended Draft, July 2024 (`Bill 66") and Draft 2 were not clearly identified in Draft 2.
P O Box 1137 Hilo, HI 96721-1137 1 hawaiiislandsierraclub@gmail.com sierradubhig.org
Comm.
Ref.Th.
Ref. Dale J ,
This placed an undue and unnecessary burden on the public, when the Planning Department
could have easily used the Ramseyer formatting to which the public is accustomed.
Third, it was only at the beginning of public testimony that testifiers became aware that their
testimony would be limited to 3 minutes on Bill 66 alone, despite the enormous amount of
information contained within the Communications also listed on the agenda of which six -day
notice have been given.
Finally, it only became clear to the public during the discussion at the Committee's July 91h
meeting that the special meeting was being recessed and that public testimony was not to be
taken at the Committee's July 29th meeting. The public now questions whether or not the
Committee intends to recess the special meeting and prevent public testimony for the next few
months.
Commitment to Inform GPCR -participants
Even after HIG's testimony to this Committee on July 9th, the Planning Department has
continued its pattern and practice of breaking its promise to participants in the GPCR process
that informational update a -mails would be sent to keep participants informed.
And over the past two months, HIG is not aware of e-mail blasts or updates sent by members of
this Committee to their distribution lists any information or notice of these special meetings,
much less any references to the General Plan Comprehensive Review process, draft GP2045, Bill
66, or the fact that the initial Committee special meetings were for discussion and decision -
making on the "Collaborative Biocultural Stewardship" ("CBS") section.
In fact, there has been little attempt by this Committee, the County Council, or the county
administration to do public outreach to engage and inform the public about the GPCR process.
There has been no documentation to show that related themes in public comments have been
identified and included in the GPCR. Simply displaying all comments is sufficient to show the
public their input has or has not been considered and included.
This has been a theme of almost every public meeting for the past two years. Not surprisingly,
this has caused the public to believe that the GPCR process has been nothing more than a
"check -the -box" process for special interests.
Amendment of Bill 66 at July 9th special meeting
During its July 9th special meeting, the Committee made a motion to amend Bill 66 with COM
372. HIG does not understand how this was possible given that, in addition to Draft 2, COM
372.1 included a letter from the Planning Director listing Leeward and Windward Planning
Commission recommendations not included in Draft 2 and another letter from the Na Ala Hele
Advisory Council.
Recommendations HIG supports in initial review of meeting agenda's external documents
HIG supports the recommendations for changes to the GP2045 submitted by the Na Ala Hele
Hawai'i Island Advisory Council contained within COM 372.001, recommended by the Leeward
2
Planning Commission, and sent to the county council on July 19th. Please note that, for whatever
reasons, this written testimony was not listed online under "Testimony" until today, July 28th.
i
HIG supports the recommendations for Bill 66 submitted by the county Game Management
Advisory Commission in a letter dated July 3, 2025.
HIG supports Draft 2 Actions 5.d, 5.e. and 51. to establish a Scenic Resources Protection
Program and utilize this program to designate Ali'i Highway and Akoni Pule Highways as scenic
corridors.
Request to schedule additional Committee special meeting on CBS section
The state Office of Information Practices has provided guidance that "When creating an agenda,
a board should not assume that the public will be familiar with its issues and areas of concern
beyond what could reasonably be expected of a member of the general community, and it, should
not assume familiarity with ongoing board issues or specialized jargon. Nor can a board expect
members of the public to read an external document, such as a legislative bill or a report or letter
available at the board's office, in order to understand what a board plans to discuss at its
meeting."
COM 326.003 has scheduled a Planning Department presentation of the CBS section on July
29th. It is not clear if this will be a presentation cover Bill 66 D1, Draft 2, or both and whether it
will include a presentation of Planning Commission recommendations not incorporated in Draft
2. Regardless, requiring public testimony before the Planning Department presentation makes no
sense because it assumes the public is familiar with the areas -of concern and expects members of
the public have read the external documents. And even, if members of the public have read the
external documents, HIG has pointed out that they have conflicting information that is confusing.
Therefore, HIG requests the Committee schedule an additional special meeting on CBS to allow
the public to have the same information that will be presented to the Committee in order for the
public to be familiar with the issues and areas of concern and have a clear basis upon which to
provide informed testimony to the Committee.
Mahalo for the Committee's due consideration.
3