The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0372.101 2024-2026From: Rebecca Melendez Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:12 AM To: Council Testimony Y o� c� Subject: Oppose Bill 66 Please HEAR ME! ---I� co ( —C I honestly CAN'T believe you are opposing Amendments of this CORRUPT GENERAL PLAN 204�3!!! =r- err The General Plan 2045 needs to be redone for the safety of the land and the community! F-_ — :- Go You have ALL heard many, many reasons why this General Plan is NOT safe for the people or the Big Island. You were elected by the people! NOT my Jeff Darrow or the Hawai'i Planning Department. It is your JOB TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITYM What's going wrong with the Hawaii County General Plan 2045 (GP 2045)—and why many argue it's not serving the safety or well-being of the community: Key Concerns Undermining Safety & Community Welfare 1. Threat to Sacred and Cultural Sites The GP 2045 land -use map still allows the Hokuli'a development to build homes and roads on Pu'u 'Ohau, a sacred burial site. This violates both the Hawaii State Constitution (Article XII, Section 7) and established Supreme Court precedent, especially given that developers previously agreed such construction would not occur there sierra Clubof Hawai9. 2. Lack of Transparency & Accessibility in Public Review The plan is published on a proprietary, Al -assisted platform (Konveio and ArcGIS), which makes it extremely difficult for everyday residents —especially rural or less tech -savvy community members —to access and comment Comm. I �• lO I Ref. To: Ref. Date AUG 2 0 moo A i meaningfully 5lerra Club of Haw,11+1. There's no easy way 3. Ambiguous Language That Erodes Local Control Critics have flagged that sections of the plan use vague terms like "appropriate areas," "complete streets," and "stakeholders" without clear definitions. Such ambiguity could enable sweeping land -use changes without proper community input or oversight Citizen Portal. 4. Errors in Critical Mapping of Hazards The lava hazard overlays in the plan are reportedly misaligned by up to a quarter -mile, raising serious concerns about the safety, reliability, and legal accuracy of the zoning maps. This mismatch puts residents at risk and undermines land -use decisions Citizen Portal. 5. Potential for Property Rights Violations Landowners worry about forced reclassification —a change from residential to conservation or recreation use can significantly devalue property, especially if restrictions prevent development. This could lead to uncompensated control over private lands Change, orgBig Island Support. 6. Top -Down Planning & Global Agenda Influence Some opponents argue the plan centralizes power among a few unelected planners and alignswith global initiatives like UN Agenda 2030, potentially undermining local sovereignty and traditional economic systems libertarianhawaii. 7. Infrastructure Gains that May Increase Costs Proposals for advanced infrastructure like smart grids and broadband worry residents, who fear these may drive up utility costs and strain an already fragile electric grid Change.or2+1. Why These Issues Don't Align with Community Safety From a public -safety perspective, GP 2045 raises red flags on multiple fronts: Cultural Safety is compromised when sacred burial sites are threatened or development disregards indigenous protocols. Physical Safety is jeopardized by inaccurate hazard maps, especially in volcanic areas. Democratic Safety is at risk when residents cannot meaningfully engage due to inaccessible platforms or vague policy language. Economic Safety is undermined when property values and rights are eroded or when costly infrastructure is imposed without transparent cost -benefit justification. Voices from the Community "The Draft General Plan 2045 is NOT a plan we can use. It has no clear vision, no destination, no clear implementation path." —Comment from public testimony County of Hawaii Planning_Denartment 100% of the Community has been AGAINST this General Plan at the in person meetings.... This General Plan... IS very SHADY and CORRUPT! SummaryTable Issue Sacred/Cultural Site Development Inaccessible Review Platform Ambiguous Policy Language Mapping Inaccuracies Property Rights Overreach Impact on Community Safety Violates cultural protections and erodes trust Blocks informed participation and accountability Opens door to unchecked development Increases physical risk in hazard zones Threatens landowner economic stability Centralized Authority & Global Alignment Undermines local governance and context High -Cost Infrastructure May burden residents without proven benefit Rebecca Melendez From: Rebecca Melendez Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:23 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Oppose Bill 66 The Mayor is against this General Plan 2045, and there are almost 800 signatures who oppose this General Plan, and are asking for a new Hawaii Planning Director https•//www, change org/ /n we-oppose-hawai-i- lap aning-department-s-2045-genera l-plan-we-stand-for- a-new-director Please, listen to the people and the mayor! Rebecca Melendez From: Noel Morin Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 8:27 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Support for and comments regarding Bill 66, Adopting the County of Ha%PJA Ge@raj Plan 2045, and Communication 326 o Aloha, County of Hawaii Councilmembars, �C My name is Noel Morin, a resident of Hilo and a strong advocate for climate action, community resilience, and su`Rstainl. I have the followingto share regardingthe Hawai'i County General Plan 2045. v The plan covers objectives and policies that cover critical areas of concern for residents and our keiki and future generations - cultural stewardship, climate change mitigation and resilience, Land use, transportation, utilities and services, housing, and economic development. This plan emphasizes sustainability (balancing economic, social, and environmental considerations), resilience, cultural preservation, fair and equitable growth, and community well-being. There are many meaningful (and positive) areas in the plan. Here are a few that 1'd Like to highlight: • (Objective 1) Emphasis on biodiversity, native habitat restoration, and invasive species control —This helps to sustain our cultural practices, preserve our natural environment, and ensure environmental resilience. • (Objective 6) Emphasis on mitigation of the impact of hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, with a focus on assistance'to disadvantaged communities. This objective helps to ensure that all residents can withstand inevitable disasters, offers concrete adaptation actions, reiterates renewable energy goals, addresses overall energy and materials efficiency, and integrates cultural knowledge. • (Objective 10) —Consideration of our natural systems in land -use strategies. This objective promotes the protection of our shorelines, open space, water resources, and cultural sites. (Objective 11)— Equitable planning and decision -making. Requiring adequacy of critical water, wastewater, and other essential infrastructure as part of development approvals will ensure growth is managed. • (Objective 16) —There is a strong emphasis on a sustainable and multi -modal transportation system. There is a call out for the deployment of low-cost, efficient transportation, investments in VMT-reducing strategies, the transition of the County fLeet to zero emission vehicles (Leading by example), and the support of public EV charging infrastructure. • (Objective 37)— Diversification and expansion of housing. By encouraging housing diversity (small homes, mixed - income communities, higher density projects), we can allow for more choice and affordability. By allowing experimental housing, emphasizing efficiency, and more compact communities (37.4 and 38.3), we can encourage needed innovation and reduction of total costs to the community. • (Objective 38) —Prioritizing data -driven housing inventory management and adaptive reuse of non-residential spaces will help manage housing inventory and create more housing in existing spaces. • (Objective 43)— Educational opportunities and workforce development. Policies that support telecommuting, entrepreneurship, and skills development in trades and STEM fields will help diversify our economy and create opportunities for Hawaii's youth. • (Objectives 48 and 49) — Regenerative tourism emphasis will spur small business development, protect cultural and sacred sites, and diversify this economic sector. Some policies can lead to undesirable consequences. These are items to look out for and to mitigate proactively. I've included suggestions. • 9.4 and 9.5 -This requires extensive visual -impact analysis for discretionary permits. This can extend permittingtime and increase costs, which could deter the development of needed housing. It could also negatively impact the deployment of critical infrastructure, e.g., energy and telecom. We can mitigate by offering expedited reviews, clear upfront expectation setting, and allowing some flexibility for essential infrastructure. • 9.6 and 9.7- Land use compatibility assessments and requirements for underground utilities can result in delays in the delivery of affordable housing. Mitigation: Make the assessments less subjective with clear criteria and objective standards. Offer cost -share or incentives to offset the infrastructure costs. Make an exception for underground utilities where geographically unwise or cost -prohibitive. • 9.8 -Transmission setback requirements and corridors for energy might result in delayed energy projects and grid enhancements. This can delay our transition. Mitigate with corridors that balance environmental, grid, and visual (community) concerns. • 10.3- Water neutral design requirements for large projects can add to cost and render projects unfeasible. Mitigate with financial incentives or grants. Allow phased compliances. Make it a goal vs a mandate. • 1.4- VMT-based concurrency reviews. While this is essential, there is a need to ensure that improvements like mass transit are considered. This is outside of the control of developers. An idea is to provide incentives for developments near transit. • 39.3- Long retention periods for affordable housing. The 20-year requirement may disincentivize development. Consider multiple retention tiers tied to the level of public subsidy. I appreciate your consideration. Noel Noel Morin Climate, Sustainability, and Resilience Advocate Hilo, Hawaii (808) 987-7428 1 noelgmorin@gmail.com Save my contact