HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0372.205 2024-2026From:
Alika Aloha
Sent:
Monday, April 27, 2026 1:11 PM
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
GP 2026
Please support GP2026. It is a better plan.
Mahalo,
Alice Abellanida
Oahu
Comm. No. Z • 7t 5
Ref. To: P I PUA A.
Ref. Date %INY 0 4 2026
From: Jim Albertini
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 8:42 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: reject amendments to allow Data Centers on Hawaii island
Aloha Hawaii County Council members,
I just learned that on Monday, May 4th the Hawaii Council will be considering amendments to
the General plan to allow large scale high tech data centers on Hawaii island. Please reject
such amendments. Data centers use massive amounts of water and energy, and is behind
the big push for nuclear power plants. Prohibit large scale data centers on our island.
Mahalo.
Jim Albertini, President of Malu 'Aina
May 2, 2026
Jim Albertini Malu 'Aina Center For Non-violent Education & Action P.O. Box 489 Ola'a
(Kurtistown) Hawai'i 96760
Phone 808-966-7622 Email ja@malu-aina.org Visit us on the web at www.malu-aina.org
1
From: Hilary Alexander
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:01 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Opposed to plan 2045
To whom it may concern,
I oppose any Al data centers on the island of Hawaii, Hawaii County. I am in opposition to the whole 2045 plan. This will
not support the people of this island!! This will only create bigger problems.
Hilary Alexander
92-9033 Hawaii Blvd
Ocean View, HI 96737
From: Roberta Baker
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 1:30 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Bill 66 -Support the General Plan 2045
Aloha Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council,
My name is Roberta Baker. I live in Hilo.
I'm writing to ask the Council to adopt the General Plan 2045 with its targets and accountability
structures intact and to reject amendments that remove quantitative benchmarks, the energy and
resilience framework, or the biocultural stewardship provisions.
I care about this because low-income and rural communities on Hawaii Island pay the highest energy
costs and have the least access to infrastructure. The 2045 General Plan's equity provisions direct
County investments to the communities that need them the most. Stripping those provisions removes
the accountability for equitable outcomes.
Mahalo,
Roberta Baker, Hilo
From: Krista Barker
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 9:04 AM
To: Galimba, Michelle M.; Onishi, Dennis; Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada,
Jennifer, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James;
Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045. 1 have, read fully
both documents and it is very clear that the 2045 plan is not in the interest of local people. This is a
critical decision that will effect the people of this island forever into the future and you have an
opportunity to do something that serves the people or just follow along with the status quo of
bureaucracy and colonization.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many
local residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our
families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected
from the actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final
product does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency,
accountability, and whether community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights,
local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these
are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Krista L. Barker, Ph.D., LCSW
Kailua Kona 96740
Cell: 706-244-4832
From: NorthwestLinda
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:18 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Hawaii General Plan
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
This plan reflects the real needs of the local population in how they live, work and recreate using clear
and concise language. It's goal are written with accountability and most importantly the plan respects
private property rights.
The GP 2045 plan does not reflect local needs. It is a plan written by template given by globalists using
abstract goals that prioritizes their agenda not Hawaii's unique local population.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning
grounded, practical, and accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
Linda Bassett
From: Jennifer Benner
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 8:09 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: GENERAL PLAN 2045
To enter into testimony Monday may 4th 2026:
I oppose amendments to the county general plan that would allow Al data centers which create a burden
on the infrastructure of the island.
NO large-scale Al data centers on Hawaii Island protect our water
protect our ability to live here
protect the future of this island
J. Benner
Kailua-Kona resident
From: Eric B
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Supporting
I am in support of GP 2026 and in opposition to GP 2045. GP 2026.
Mahalo
Eric Bjerke
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
Jane Brahm
Friday, May 1, 2026 7:34 PM
Council Testimony
Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
I have lived in Hawaii since 1979. Although I was not born here I have lived here more than
half my life. In 20161 moved to the Big Island after a long career as a Registered Nurse at the
Queens Medical Center. I love Hawaii and I feel blessed to live here. I respect the local
culture and the rich history of the Hawaiian people. The General Plan 2045 is confusing to
me and unknown to many residents of the Big Island. It will affect several areas in Puna and I
live in one of the areas. 1 want to live my retirement without wondering if my property will be
affected. This is not clear in the General Plan 2045 and I wonder who wrote this 300 page
Plan? Did they bother to consult the affected people? You say we were asked but it certainly
doesn't reflect the residents wants and needs.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County,
our communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned
with what many local residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to
live, work, and care for our families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears
disconnected from the actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in
good faith, yet the final product does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious
concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether community input was
meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private
property rights, local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not
abstract concerns —these are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Jane Brahm
Hawaiian Acres, Puna, Big Island
From: Kanoe Case
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 7:23 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: RE: Support Hawai'i County General Plan 2026
Aloha Honorable members of the Hawaii County Council,
My name is Kanoeutuwehianuhea Case and this is my testimony in support of GP 2026 and my
opposition to GP 2045.
GP 2026 better reflects what many locals have been asking for —clearer protections, respect for our
communities, and a more grounded approach.
GP 2045, on the other hand, raises serious concerns about property rights, land use, and I question
whether local input was truly honored as we have not seen public meetings over the period which this
draft was being worked on. Therefore I do not support this plan as it has not been properly shared with
our communities for public input.
Mahalo,
Kanoeuluwehianhea Case
Moku O Keawe
From:
Bill Chemnick
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony on Bill 66
Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and Committee Members,
11:27 PM
General Plan 2045 Transportation Target
The General Plan's transportation goals make sense. One of its measurable targets does not: a 50 percent increase in
mass transit ridership by 2045 commits Kona, in advance, to one delivery model — fixed -route buses — for the next 20
years.
Kona's low -density corridors are poorly suited to frequent fixed -route service. Running 40-foot buses up roads like
Kaiminani is rarely cost-effective for the County or for federal grant dollars.
Other communities have already adapted:
Wilson, North Carolina (pop. 50,000) replaced its fixed -route buses with on -demand microtransit in 2020. Coverage
went from 40 percent of the city to 100 percent, paid for with standard federal rural transit grants.
e Arlington, Texas replaced fixed -route with on -demand microtransit and later launched one of the country's first on -
demand autonomous vehicle services, funded by an FTA grant.
e Wayne County, Ohio runs countywide microtransit across 555 square miles of farmland and small towns — a setting
much closer to North Kona than to a dense urban core.
These options barely existed when the 2045 Plan was first drafted. They may become more common over the next
twenty years. Future Councils should not be locked into approaches that no longer make sense when better ones
become available.
The fix is straightforward. Replace the mode -specific target with an outcome -based one. For example: "Ensure that
residents without a private vehicle can reach essential destinations within a reasonable travel time and at reasonable
cost." That measures what actually matters — serving Kona residents — and leaves the Mass Transit Agency free to
choose the right combination of buses, on -demand vans, autonomous shuttles, or rideshare partnerships for each
corridor.
Fixed -route service still has its place. Queen Ka'ahumanu and Mamalahoa highways are obvious candidates. The point is
to keep Kona's options open everywhere else.
Mahalo for your consideration.
William Chemnick
Kona Acres Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Cathy
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 5:00 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: RE: Bill 66, Draft 2: General Plan 2045
BILL 66, DRAFT 2
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development I May 4, 2026
RE: Bill 66, Draft 2: General Plan 2045
Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the Committee,
I am writing to oppose any amendment to Bill 66 that would open the door to Al data centers
on Hawaii Island. I urge the Committee to adopt language that permanently prohibits them
instead. We live on an island. Our water is not replaceable. Our electricity is already the most
expensive in the country. A single large Al data center can consume millions of gallons of
water a day and as much electricity as tens of thousands of homes and most of that water
evaporates. It never comes back. It never reaches our streams, our aquifers, or our lo`i. That is
not a trade our island can make.
The promise of jobs does not hold up. The entire U.S. data center industry employs fewer
people nationwide than live in Hilo. Even a report funded by Amazon and Google admits these
facilities produce mostly short-term construction jobs and very little long-term employment.
The companies building them are burning through billions of dollars a year. When the money
runs out and the facility goes dark, we are left holding the bag: a drained aquifer, a grid built
around a tenant that left, and a building full of toxic materials. We have seen this story before
on this island. We know how it ends.
Our General Plan 2045, built from over a decade of community input, commits us to net -zero
carbon, 100% renewable energy, watershed protection, and a regenerative economy. Data
centers violate every one of those commitments. Communities across the country are banning
them right now because they have seen what happens when they say yes. We have the legal
authority to say no. We have a General Plan that requires us to say no. And we have a
community that is asking us to say no. Please work to prohibit large-scale Al data centers in
all zoning districts and reject any amendment that creates a pathway for them instead.
Mahalo for your time and your service.
Sincerely,
Cathy Cohen
Kailua-Kona, Hi
321-806-8140
From: Dave Cuthbert
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 7:24 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Bill 66 Testimony for May 4
Aloha County Council members.
I am submitting testimony on General Plan 2045 as modified by Council member Kierkiewicz as Plan
2026. As far as I can tell the same version of Plan 2026 submitted on April 7 is being voted on. This highly
abbreviated version of General Plan 2045 has no maps and has quite a bit of written material removed.
However, General Plan 2045 may be overly detailed and promise more than a county with finite
resources can realistically deliver. Also, in this day and age of rapid changes a 20-year plan would try to
control the 2040s with 2020s knowledge. I ask that the new plan's time period by limited to an end date
of 2035. So, I would like to see a General Plan that is more detailed than Plan 2026 yet not as detailed at
Plan 2045.
Some select quotes from Mayor C. Kimo Alameda's letter to the County Council dated June 25, 2025:
"After several months of reviewing the draft, my primary concern is that it attempts to do too much."
"By being too specific and prescriptive, I believe this draft tries to take on more kuleana than it should.'
"Moreover, to stay relevant, the Plan should adhere to a 10-year outlook (2035) with revisions every five 5
years."
Mahalo for your consideration
David Cuthbert
Pahoa, Hawai'i
From:
Dea Rackley
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 8:08 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
SUPPORT GP 2026
My Ohana supports GP 2026 and in opposition to GP 2045.
GP 2026 better reflects what many locals have been asking for —clearer protections, respect for our
communities, and a more grounded approach. GP 2045, on the other hand, raises serious concerns
about property rights, land use, and whether local input was truly honored.
Dea Rackley
Rocky Ishibashi
Rhea Davis
Keegan Mcgreger
Jennifer Jackson
Sent from my Phone
From: Thomas J Delaney
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 4:20 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony Against Amendments to GP 2045
I am Thomas Delaney, retired from the U.S. Foreign Service and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and now living
at Waikoloa Beach.
We stand by General Plan 2045 as written. Our precious water must be shared by all in our local community — ethically
and justly.
Mahalo.
Sent from my iPhone
From: bluejourny
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 8:29 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support Bill 66 Draft 2
and OPPOSE Com 372-192 Appendix A.
As many of us are aware thousands and thousands of people hours went into creating the Bill 66
Draft 2 General Plan which should be the focus of discussion. The arguments, conflicting
perspectives and possibilities of what may happen to affect and be affected by Hawaii County in the
next 20 years have occurred. A clear record of those discussions, research and directions that didn't
pan out needs to be preserved and referred to frequently when changes, planned for or not, occur.
After all this for a Council Member to suddenly produce, what council person says is a
summarized/streamlined version of the County General plan that she hopes will be adopted instead
of the Bill 66 Draft2 which is under discussion. As a former long time government/economic and
history teacher I am shocked,but maybe not surprised by the assumption/expectation that a
shortened (what got left out or ignored?) version created under the direction of one person , will be
acceptable. We all have perspectives, opinions and deeply held beliefs and our own personal
backgrounds that come into play when we make decisions - decisions such as "what to include and
what to put in the TBD later category". I'm with the Democracy group which says this is what the
people have decided not with the group who feels they have a better interpretation of the General
Plan materials and their opinion should be followed. I can't think of a better way to disabuse people of
participating in their local government than to say, 'well thanks for your input but we have a better
idea and will be choosing it'.
Sincerely,
Stefanie Delmont
April 30, 2026
To: Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development
Re: SUPPORT for General Plan 2026, Comm.372.192
Aloha, PCPLUED Chair, Vice Chair and members of the Committee:
I am in strong support of Comm. 372.192 or GP 2026.
GP 2026, is much easier for your constituents to read and understand. GP2026 removes
operational programs and defers project -level actions to CIP and work programs. These
specific types of directives do not belong in the General Plan. The GP is a guiding
document, not a policy directive. Just because the Planning Dept spent years developing
the overwhelming 310 page document does not mean that we should keep it. The
intelligent 2026 plan that trims down the overwhelming, repetitive and unnecessary
Language of GP 2025 gives us the guidance that is needed without directing social and
economic programs. In particular, the 14 land use designations and parcel level mapping,
now being trimmed to 4 broad categories, will alleviate the concerns of so many
constituents who did not understand the many new categories and were fearful about the
possible status changes in the properties that they own. For those who protest that
specific climate targets are not in GP 2026, these do not belong in a General Plan and are
incorporated within the County's authority in GP2026. Our newlyformed Department,
OSCER, will provide all the guidance and oversight necessary to adhere to climate goats.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
t r 71M
Joy Dillon, private citizen
Hilo resident
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 7:57 AM
To: Lorn Douglas
Cc: Council Testimony
Subject: RE: Against proposed changes to Bill 66
From: Lorn Douglas
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:21 PM
To: Council Remote Testimony<councilremotetestimony@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: Against proposed changes to Bill 66
Aloha,
this is why I don not support these amendments and encourage you also to vote these
down:
• The amendment removes the plan's standalone chapter on energy, sustainability, and
resilience.
• It removes every measurable target, including the commitment to eliminate fossil -fuel electricity
generation, the County fleet electrification timeline, the transit ridership goal, and the zero -
waste target.
• It removes the "just transition" equity framework.
• It removes the biocultural stewardship structure that took years of community input to build. It
removes accountability.
The proposed changes would undermine the general plan, leaving it filled with promises
rather than solid targets and deadlines.
Lorn DOuglas
Lower Puna resident for 40 years
1
From: Betsy Duerr
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:05 PM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace,
James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Support the new 2026 General Plan - Oppose UN modeled GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawai'i County, our communities, and our
private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many local residents have consistently
asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected from the actual
input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final product does not reflect what we
shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether community inputwas
meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights, local farmers,
and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these are real issues affecting real
people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I am 72 years old and my husband and I have lived and raised a family in our Honolii Pali home for over 41 years. In
October of 2023 at the dog and pony show being put on by the county to promote the new general plan, I noticed that
the future land use of our property had been changed from low density urban to natural and recreational. Our own
family home we are hoping to leave to our ohana has been re-disignated without compensation or consent, negating our
rights of private property ownership. This drastically lowers our future propertyvalue and opens the door to unsolicited
rezoning.
I have studied the original General Plan 2045 and found it a UN road map to smart city. Throughout the plan (pgs. 66, 78,
86, 88, 225) there are references to "smart growth strategies" and "smart growth development' and "smart growth
principles" which suggest direct reference to Smart Cities aka UN Agenda 21, now UN Agenda 30. If you aren't educated
on Smart or 15 Minute Cities, I invite you to do your own research into its restrictive and surveilled implementations and
ask yourselves if this global agenda is pono for the Big Island of Hawaii.
On page 188 (40.8), there is the requirement that "All County departments collaborate with the County Office of
Sustainability, Climate, Equity, and Resilience (OSCER) as the lead agency to ensure the integration of the County's
goals of sustainability, climate resilience, and equity in all county operations and planning initiatives." This is an
appointed, not elected, agency that is now responsible for the implementation of the regulations of the smart growth
principles we will be subjected to. I am disturbed this new overseeing entity will null and void all public input and leave
crucial decisions for our island to unelected officials.
Finally, the plan, on page 29, claims to be "based on community driven values, goals, and objectives". Yet, the District
of Hilo, where I reside as well as over 22% of the Big Island, has no Community Development Plan. Hilo has never been
represented in CDP process. Why is that? We too are entitled to our voice and input into our future.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Adriana E. Duerr
99 Honolii Pali
Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 987-0824
betsyduerr@gmail.com
2
From: Betsy Duerr
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:05 PM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace,
James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Support the new 2026 General Plan - Oppose UN modeled GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our communities, and our
private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many local residents have consistently
asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected from the actual
input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final product does not reflect what we
shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether community input was
meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights, local farmers,
and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these are real issues affecting real
people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I am 72 years old and my husband and I have lived and raised a family in our Honolii Pali home for over 41 years. In
October of 2023 at the dog and pony show being put on by the county to promote the new general plan, I noticed that
the future land use of our property had been changed from low density urban to natural and recreational. Our own
family home we are hoping to leave to our ohana has been re-disignated without compensation or consent, negating our
rights of private property ownership. This drastically lowers our future property value and opens the door to unsolicited
rezoning.
I have studied the original General Plan 2045 and found it a UN road map to smart city. Throughout the plan (pgs. 66, 78,
86, 88, 225) there are references to "smart growth strategies" and "smart growth development' and "smart growth
principles" which suggest direct reference to Smart Cities aka UN Agenda 21, now UN Agenda 30. If you aren't educated
on Smart or 15 Minute Cities, I invite you to do your own research into its restrictive and surveilled implementations and
ask yourselves if this global agenda is pono for the Big Island of Hawaii.
On page 188 (40.8), there is the requirement that "All County departments collaborate with the County Office of
Sustainability, Climate, Equity, and Resilience (OSCER) as the lead agency to ensure the integration of the County's
goals of sustainability, climate resilience, and equity in all county operations and planning initiatives." This is an
appointed, not elected, agency that is now responsible for the implementation of the regulations of the smart growth
principles we will be subjected to. I am disturbed this new overseeing entitywill null and void all public input and leave
crucial decisions for our island to unelected officials.
Finally, the plan, on page 29, claims to be "based on community driven values, goals, and objectives". Yet, the District
of Hilo, where I reside as well as over 22% of the Big Island, has no Community Development Plan. Hilo has never been
represented in CDP process. Why is that? We too are entitled to our voice and input into our future.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Adriana E. Duerr
99 Honolii Pali
Hilo, HI 96720
(808) 987-0824
betsyduerr@gmail.com
From: Tina Marie Even
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 12:01 PM
To: Hustace, James; Council Testimony
Subject: Oppose Bill 66, Draft 2: General Plan 2045
BILL 66, DRAFT 2
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development I May 4, 2026
RE: Bill 66, Draft 2: General Plan 2045
Aloha„
I am writing to oppose any amendment to Bill 66 that would open the door to Al data centers on
Hawaii Island. I urge the Committee to adopt language that permanently prohibits them instead. We
live on an island. Our water is not replaceable. Our electricity is already the most expensive in the
country. A single large Al data center can consume millions of gallons of water a day and as much
electricity as tens of thousands of homes and most of that water evaporates. It never comes back. It
never reaches our streams, our aquifers, or our lo`i. That is not a trade our island can make.
The promise of jobs does not hold up. The entire U.S. data center industry employs fewer people
nationwide than live in Hilo. Even a report funded by Amazon and Google admits these facilities
produce mostly short-term construction jobs and very little long-term employment. The companies
building them are burning through billions of dollars a year. When the money runs out and the facility
goes dark, we are left holding the bag: a drained aquifer, a grid built around a tenant that left, and a
building full of toxic materials. We have seen this story before on this island. We know how it ends.
Our General Plan 2045, built from over a decade of community input, commits us to net -zero carbon,
100% renewable energy, watershed protection, and a regenerative economy. Data centers violate
every one of those commitments. Communities across the country are banning them right now
because they have seen what happens when they say yes. We have the legal authority to say no. We
have a General Plan that requires us to say no. And we have a community that is asking us to say no.
Please work to prohibit large-scale Al data centers in all zoning districts and reject any amendment
that creates a pathway for them instead.
Mahalo for your time and your service.
Tina Marie Even Waikoloa Village
Mahalo,
From: Dan and Shannon Fisher
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 12:00 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt;
Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz,
Ashley; Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Support the new General Plan 2026 and oppose the General Plan 2045
Aloha Council members and Mayor of Hawaii Island,
Thank you in advance to you and your positions to uphold our natural, essential and unalienable rights;
among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending our lives and liberties; that of
acquiring, possessing and protecting in fine, that of seeking and obtaining our safety and happiness. In
other words, our sovereign rights (individual rights) on our Hawaii island and in our state of Hawaii.
Rights that allow us to enjoy voting people into positions that will seek to do the above mentioned.
With that said I humbly ask that you support the new and revised General plan 2026 and oppose the
previous General Plan 2045 because of the inadequacies that GP 2045 offers, climate change/crisis
(hoax), land rezoning from open available land for farming/housing to green space and a general sense of
Less empowerment for Hawaiians native people and the general public to be able to prosper under a
more encouraged self sufficient model. As I have stated prior in other testimonials, the state of Hawaii
used to import about 20% of items needed about 50 years ago and now imports 80%.
Hawaii island and the state of Hawaii should be able to produce nearly 100% of its food for its people as
well as be a future exporter. If we truly look at sustainability we need to encourage farming and residents
implementing their own self-sustaining abilities instead of looking to the government to provide
everything.
In conclusion, we ask that you vote accordingly to a future plan that can truly provide building blocks to
return to a food stable island, one that supports property owners rights and ensures land for common
sense development for our future, keiki to prosper. Vote yes for the GP 2026 and no on GP 2045.
Mahalo,
Dan and Shannon Fisher
From: Spider Woman
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:09 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, dennish.onishi@hawaiicounty.gov; Kierkiewicz,
Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca;
holeka.inaba@hjawaiicounty.gov; Hustace, James
Subject: BILL 66, DRAFT 2
BILL 66, DRAFT 2
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development I May 4, 2026
RE: Bill 66, Draft 2: General Plan 2045
Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the Committee,
I am writing to oppose any amendment to Bill 66 that would open the door to Al data centers on
Hawai'i Island. I urge the Committee to adopt language that permanently prohibits them instead. We
live on an island. Our water is not replaceable. Our electricity is already the most expensive in the
country. A single large Al data center can consume millions of gallons of water a day and as much
electricity as tens of thousands of homes and most of that water evaporates. It never comes back. It
never reaches our streams, our aquifers, or our lo'i. That is not a trade our island can make.
The promise of jobs does not hold up. The entire U.S. data center industry employs fewer people
nationwide than live in Hilo. Even a report funded by Amazon and Google admits these facilities
produce mostly short-term construction jobs and very little long-term employment. The companies
building them are burning through billions of dollars a year. When the money runs out and the facility
goes dark, we are left holding the bag: a drained aquifer, a grid built around a tenant that left, and a
building full of toxic materials. We have seen this story before on this island. We know how it ends.
Al data centers are invading unprepared communities nationwide, extracting resources, raising
residential utility bills, making sweetheart tax deals that don't account for increased infrastructure
needs, and influencing local governments to put the needs and desires of these tech companies over
the residents and taxpayers who live there. It is a form of digital colonialism, and anathema to our
shared Hawaii island values.
General Plan 2045, built from over a decade of community input, commits us to net -zero carbon,
100% renewable energy, watershed protection, and a regenerative economy. Data centers violate
every one of those commitments. Communities across the country are banning them right now
because they have seen what happens when they say yes. We have the legal authority to say no. We
have a General Plan that requires us to say no. And we have a community that is asking us to say no.
Please work to prohibit large-scale Al data centers in all zoning districts and reject any
amendment that creates a pathway for them instead.
Mahalo for your time and your service.
Vanessa Floyd
From: Barbara Garcia
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 12:14 PM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace,
James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Encouraging you to Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 204S
Aloha to all you wonderfully dedicated people who are doing your best to make our County a better
place!
Some of us know each other personally or through business, others, we haven't had a chance to
meet yet. I don't get involved in politics much... and this one is important.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your service to our community.
Aloha, Barbara Garcia
Waiakahi'ula (Hawaiian Shores), Puna
From: Randee Golden
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: NO Al DATA CENTERS ON HAWAII ISLAND,... EVER!
Please think about the people as there is:
1. Already a county plan the people created. There are no plans for Al centers to cost us and
use us.
2. Water is already an issue. We have very sketchy infrastructure you want to tap? Water is
life. Think Hawaiian. It is for the people and must be protected!
Do not approve any amendment to allow ai data centers. I trust you will do what is right for
us
Randee Golden
PO Box 1450
Kapaau Hawaii
96755-1439
Resident of North Kohala since 1995
Resident of Hawaii Island since 1975
1
From: DonnaGrabow
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:21 PM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer
Subject: Please OPPOSE GP 2045
Aloha Hawaii County Council,
My reasons for opposing GP2045, is the the plan states 300+ new actions for Hawaii County. The suggestion is
too board and would require extra million$ for each year to implement and manage for each new action aimed at
guiding land use, housing, transportation, and environmental policies in each district..
It was recently discovered that record keeping of GP reports since 2005, were either scarce or non-existent. How
then, could the county manage to follow through with 300 proposed actions?
Words like 'sustainable and resilience' are attached to the new actions. They sound good on paper, but where
would the funding come from to pay for 300 new actions for the next 20 years?
The U.N. solution is "Stakeholders" will pay for them, and idea is written into GP2045 which states Stakeholders or/
partnerships will somehow cover the all finances.
We don't want Stakeholders or partnerships running the county and we oppose GP 2045.
The county general plans of the past worked well, and the community want it to continue that way.
"Nothing is free" so what is the trade-off for the Stakeholder/Partnerships?
GP2045 implies that the stakeholders/partnerships would gradually replace the need for elected people.
We don't want non -elected people to decide 'what is best' for us.
To see a short video of a similar council meeting in Glastonbury, England.
https:Hrumble.com/v2e6ns4-agenda-2030-sandy-adams-speech-at-glastonbury-town-council-meeting html?start-10
Another video from Australia speaking in opposition to their proposed plan: https:Hrumble.com/v33ulof-a-former-
member-of-the-western-australian-legislative-council html
Mahalo for listening,
Donna Grabow, Hilo
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From:
DonnaGrabow
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:58 PM
To:
Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer
Subject:
PLEASE SUPPORT HAWAII 2026 Plan
I support Ashely's shortened General Plan because she listened to the public during testimonies, and took it upon
herself to rewrite and amend a county general plan for the next twenty year.
Hawaii 2026 doesn't mention stakeholders, or electric -vehicles -only, or 300 new actions or reducing property rights
of the people.
The plan is a result of working together with the sentiments of other council members to produce a new improved
general plan which omits the vague, broad new plans mentioned in GP2045.
Hawaii 2026 more closely reflects the guidelines for County General Plans, and I thank Ashley for skillfully stitching
together a new plan which is agreeable to both council members and with the community.
Mahalo for listening.
Donna Grabow, Hilo
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From: sandy2feet
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 10:05 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what
many local residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and
care for our families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected
from the actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final
product does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency,
accountability, and whether community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights,
local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —
these are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Deborah Guanzon - Big Island resident
From: Stephanie Hall -Morin
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:30 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: adopt GP 2045 with accountability structures intact
Aloha County Council members,
I'm writing to ask the Council to adopt the General Plan 2045 with its targets and accountability
structures intact, and to reject a proposed amendment that seeks to remove quantitative benchmarks
and replace these with generalizations that have little or no measurable accountability.
State law requires county plans to work toward eliminating dependence on imported fossil fuels.
The General Plan 2045 includes targets that align with the state mandate. Removing these target via
the proposed amendment puts the County out of step with state law and out of step with efforts to
mitigate the escalating climate crisis.
Today, Hawaii is experiencing the adverse effects of extreme weather with damage estimates
topping over $2 Billion from the Kona -low events of March 2026. These weather extremes, with help
from climate change, are currently being replicated elsewhere around the Pacific rim, with severe
floods in Aotearoa New Zealand and northern Australia, and an unprecedented spring heat wave in
the southwestern US. A warmer world exacerbates extreme weather events; floods, droughts and
heat waves.
The General Plan 2045 has a chapter (Chapter 3) devoted to climate change while the proposed
amendment fails to even include the words "climate change' or even "climate" except in a brief
reference to the Office of Sustainability, Climate, Equity, and Resilience (OSCAR).
I respectfully urge Hawaii County to approve Draft 2 of the General Plan 2045 in its present form
and vote down the proposed amendment that removes key energy targets, equity benchmarks, and
entire sections developed over years of planning commissions' work and broad community
involvement.
Mahalo for your consideration.
Stephanie Hall -Morin
From: Random Fandoms
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 4:43 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support GP 2026 - Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many
local residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our
families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected
from the actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final
product does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency,
accountability, and whether community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights,
local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these
are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
Respects and protects private property rights
Supports local farmers and food sustainability
Honors parental rights and our keiki
Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Janette L. Haslett
Kona District
From: heyhew,
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:06 AM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace,
James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: ATTN: Support GP 2026 — OPPOSE GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
Local residents have been asking for a plan that protects our ability to live, work and care for our
families IN PEACE. That is why I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026.
In contrast to General Plan 2045 (which I hope you oppose), GP 2026 reflects a clear, grounded
vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our communities, and our private property rights. It
is concise, understandable, and aligned with the values of our communities.
GP 2045 is overly complex. It includes too many broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected
from the actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final
product does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency,
accountability, and whether community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights,
local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —
these are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Adrienne Hew
Kamuela 96743
From: Dave
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 12:47 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Amendments to General Plan
1 oppose both proposed amendments to the General Plan 2045. The County's infrastructure is unable to handle our
current population needs, it certainly can't handle Al Data Centers.
David Hill
Captain Cook
From: Rebecca Hoch
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 5:30 AM
To:
Subject: Re: 2045 Plan Vote
To whom it may concern,
I oppose any Al data centers on the island of Hawaii, Hawaii County. I am in opposition to the whole 2045
plan. This will not support the people of this island!!
Sincerely,
Rebecca Hoch
PO Box 6544
Ocean View HI 96737
412-576-6523
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development
May 4, 9am
Agenda Item: Bill 66, Draft 2
Aloha, my name is Cristina Holt, and I am submitting this testimony in opposition to both
the Kierkiewicz amendment (Comm. 372.192) and the Kimball amendment (Comm.
372.199) to Bill 66, Draft 2.
1 urge the Committee to reject both amendments and instead adopt language that
permanently prohibits large-scale digital infrastructure facilities (Al data centers) in all
zoning districts, consistent with the legal authority granted by HRS § 46-4 and required
by the General Plan 2045 itself because permitting an Al data center while adopting the
General Plan 2045 is not a compromise, it's a contradiction.
Al data centers conflict with the GP 2045 across five of its six major elements.
Climate: Chapter 3
GP 2045 Objective 7 commits the County to net -zero carbon emissions by 2045 and
100% renewable energy. The GP 2045's own climate change section explicitly identifies
data servers as a threat, noting that "technology such as data servers require immense
amounts of cooling, which will increase energy demand as temperatures and
technology use rise" and that this "further increases GHG emissions." (GP 2045,
Chapter 3, p. 57.) The plan authors identified this as a challenge to be addressed, not a
use to be invited in.
Water: Chapters 2 and 4.3
GP 2045 Objective 2 applies the ahupua'a framework to preserve watershed health.
Policy 1.1 requires minimizing threats to Native Hawaiian habitats and public trust
resources. Policy 26.5 reserves the highest quality water for the most valuable end -use.
Policy 1.15 requires that development not adversely impact naturally flowing water
bodies.
A hyperscale Al data center can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day — the
estimated daily needs of a city of 50,000. (Note: this figure comes from preliminary
legislative estimates cited in the NJ model ordinance record; see Pinelands Alliance
Model Ordinance, 2026.) Google's own 2025 Environmental Report confirms that in
2024, 74% of the water Google withdrew was consumed and never returned to the
environment. On an island with a closed water system, that water does not recharge
aquifers. It does not flow to lo'i. It is gone.
Energy: Chapter 4.3
GP 2045 Objective 29 commits the County to energy self-sufficiency. Policy 29.3 calls
for decentralized, community -owned energy systems. Policy 29.7 encourages off -grid
and distributed power sources. A single corporate -owned facility consuming the
equivalent of tens of thousands of homes continuously is the opposite of what the plan
envisions. Every major data center market in the country has seen residential electricity
bills rise, not fall. We already pay approximately $0.40/kWh — the highest rate in the
nation. (Hawaiian Electric Power Facts, 2026.)
Land Use: Chapter 4.1
GP 2045 Policy 13.36 permits industrial uses outside Urban Growth Areas only when
there is a clear community benefit or consistency with sustainability objectives. Al data
centers fail both tests: they produce few permanent jobs, extract water the community
cannot spare, and directly contradict the plan's climate and renewable energy goals.
Economy: Chapter 5
GP 2045 Policy 45.6 names the target economic sectors: regenerative agriculture,
green technologies, creative industries, and regenerative tourism. The Economy
Introduction at p. 192 explicitly warns against over -reliance on a single
outside -controlled industry, citing "the risks and detriment that an over -reliance on a
single industry has on our island's communities and natural resources." Al data centers
are the modern plantation economy: a large outside corporation extracting local
resources while exporting profits. The plan does not envision this use. The county
should not permit what the plan does not envision.
The County Has Full Legal Authority to Prohibit
HRS § 46-4 grants county zoning authority and instructs courts to liberally construe
those powers in favor of the county. The statute explicitly grants power to designate
areas where particular uses are prohibited. There is no Hawaii law that prohibits
banning a land use category.
Critically, there are no operating hyperscale Al data centers in Hawaii County. The
nonconforming use limitation, which prevents eliminating a use already lawfully
operating, does not apply. A prohibition applies cleanly and immediately to all future
proposals.
The existing definition in Hawaii County Code § 25-1-5 (Supplement 13, January 2023)
defines "data processing facility" as "an establishment primarily involved in the
compiling, storage and maintenance of documents, records and other types of
information in digital form utilizing a mainframe computer." An Al hyperscale data center
running hundreds of thousands of GPUs for model training and real-time inference is
not a mainframe computer by any reasonable legal, technical, or common-sense
construction. It is not covered by this definition. A use that is not listed as a permitted
use is not permitted. Al data centers are therefore already not permitted anywhere in
Hawaii County under the current code. The Council must codify this clearly before any
developer forces a legal test.
I believe the Kimball Amendment (Comm. 372.199): Well -Intentioned, But It
Opens the Door to Hyperscale Data Centers.
Council Member Kimball's amendment correctly diagnoses the problem. Its Table 33
addition accurately identifies high electricity demand, high water demand, low
employment, and potential to displace productive land uses as challenges posed by
data centers. That -diagnosis is right.
The problem is Action 30A.a, which directs the county to "amend the zoning code to
define data centers as a distinct use and adopt conditional use permit requirements and
findings." Right now, Al data centers have no permitted pathway in Hawaii County.
They cannot get in. The moment the county follows through on Action 30A.a, data
centers become a permitted use with conditions. That is a fundamental legal shift in the
developer's favor. A conditional use permit is a process. Processes can be navigated by
well-resourced applicants. Conditions can be challenged, watered down on appeal, or
satisfied on paper while being violated in practice.
General Plan policies are guidance. The zoning code is law. When a developer arrives
with a CUP application, the planning department processes it against the zoning code,
not the General Plan's aspirations. The Council should honor Council Member Kimball's
work by going further: replace Action 30A.a's conditional use permit directive with a
directive to establish a prohibition.
This Has Been Done. The Precedent Exists.
The council would not be setting new precedent. Every option I am urging has an
adopted model in another jurisdiction:
• Pemberton Township, NJ: Ordinance 10-2026 (February 20, 2026): Permanent
ban on construction and operation of data centers. Rationale: irreplaceable
natural resources and groundwater. Our island has a closed water system. The
analogy is stronger, not weaker. (Pinelands Alliance, March 2026.)
• Marshall County, Indiana: Ordinance 2026-11 (April 21, 2026): Permanent ban,
passed unanimously. Planner's stated rationale: "too many unknowns" and "does
not provide benefit locally with jobs or revenue." (WNDU News, April 21, 2026.)
• Maine LD 307 (April 14, 2026): First statewide moratorium on data centers 20
MW or larger, passed by both chambers of the Maine Legislature. The Governor
vetoed it on April 24, 2026, but stated she supports a moratorium in principle.
(Maine Governor's Office, April 24, 2026.)
• South Dakota SB 135 (Signed March 24, 2026): Prohibits the state from
overruling local governments' authority to regulate or ban data centers. Local
prohibition authority is legally sound.
More than 100 counties and cities have passed moratoriums, zoning limits, or new
environmental rules since 2023. (Carbon Credits, December 2025; Good Jobs First,
April 2026.) The time to act is before a project is proposed, not after. Once a developer
receives a zoning certification letter (as happened in Monroe Township, NJ) the legal
landscape shifts in the developer's favor.
respectfully urge the Committee to:
• Reject the Kierkiewicz amendment (Comm. 372.192), which replaces the GP
2045 with a document that has not completed the required public process.
• Reject Action 30A.a of the Kimball amendment (Comm. 372.199) as currently
written, which would convert Al data centers from non -permitted to
permitted -with -conditions.
Pass language adding a permanent prohibition on large-scale digital
infrastructure facilities (20 MW or more) to Hawaii County Code Chapter 25,
modeled on Pemberton Township Ordinance 10-2026 and the Pinelands Alliance
Model Ordinance (2026); OR pass a 15-year moratorium as an interim measure
so we can see where this technology goes before investing our land and water
and resources to them.
Pass a financial assurance bond requirement for all major developments meeting
two or more resource intensity thresholds, modeled on West Virginia Code §
22-32-4, Montana MCA § 75-26-304, and Tennessee Code § 66-9-207. This
applies broadly, not just to data centers, and ensures the County is never left with
the cleanup costs when a large operator abandons a site.
Hawaii is the most isolated land on Earth. We have a closed water system, the highest
electricity rates in the nation, and a General Plan built on a decade of community work.
We do not need to negotiate the terms under which we allow in the most
resource -intensive land use on the planet. We need to say no, clearly and now, before a
developer forces us to say it in court.
Respectfully submitted,
Cristina (Tina) Holt
Hilo, CD3
Sources Cited
Hawai'i County General Plan 2045, Final Draft 2 (June 2025).
Provisions cited: Objective 2, 7, 26, 29; Policies 1.1, 1.15, 6.9, 7.9, 13.36, 26.5, 26.6, 29.3, 29.7,
45.6; Economy Introduction p. 192; Climate data server threat, Chapter 3, p. 57.
https://cohplanning.konveio.com/draft-2-general-plan-2045
Kimball, H.L. Proposed Amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2, Comm. No. 372.199 (April 2, 2026).
Hawaii County Council, District 1.
https:Hrecords.hawaiicounty.gov
Hawaii Revised Statutes § 46-4 — County Zoning Authority.
Official Hawaii Legislature text.
https://www.ca pitol.hawaii.gov/hrseurrentNo102_Ch0046-0115/HRS0046/HRS_0046-0004.htm
Hawaii County Code § 25-1-5 (Definitions), Supplement 13 (January 2023).
Definition of "data processing facility." Official version is a print publication.
https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/i-want-to/read/county-code
Google. 2025 Environmental Report (covering 2024 data).
Water withdrawal: 11,011 million gallons. Water consumed, not returned: 8,135 million gallons
(74%).
https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2025-environme nta I -report. pdf
Pinelands Alliance. 'Data Center Victories: Local Actions Drive Regional Change.' March
2026.
Pemberton Township, NJ Ordinance 10-2026. Pinelands Alliance Model Ordinance for Data
Center Prohibition.
https:Hpinelandsalliance.org/data-center-victories-local-actions-drive-regional-change/
Maine LD 307: An Act to Establish the Maine Data Center Coordination Council.
Passed both chambers April 14, 2026. Vetoed by Governor Mills April 24, 2026.
https:Hlegislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0207&item=2&snum=132
Maine Governor Mills. Veto letter, April 24, 2026.
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-decision-Id-307-2026-04-24
South Dakota SB 135. Signed March 24, 2026.
Prohibits state from overruling local authority to regulate or ban data centers.
https://www.dakota newsnow.com/2026/03/28/every-bill-governor-rhoden-has-signed-into-law-2026/
WNDU News. 'Marshall County Commissioners Defend Data Center Ban.' April 21, 2026.
https://www.wndu.com/2026/04/21 /marshall-county-commissioners-defend-data-center-ban/
Food & Water Watch. 'The Urgent Case Against Data Centers.' March 2026.
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/RPT2 2602 DataCenterMoratorium.0
Carbon Credits. 'Environmental Groups Urge U.S. Congress to Pause Data Center
Growth.' December 2025.
100+ localities with moratoriums or new environmental rules since 2023.
https //carboncredits.com/environmental-groups-urge-u-s-congress-to-pause-data-center-growth-as-feder
al -a* -rule -looms/
Good Jobs First. 'Data Center Moratorium Bills Are Spreading in 2026.' April 2026.
https://goodiobsfirst.orc data-center-moratorium-bills-are-spreading-in-2026/
West Virginia Code § 22-32-4; Montana MCA § 75-26-304; Tennessee Code § 66-9-207.
Decommissioning bond models for Option C financial assurance language.
https:Hcode.wvlegislature.gov/22-32-4/
From: Ken Honma
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support GP2026, Oppose GP2045
Subject: Support for General Plan 2026— :Oppose General Plan 2045
Good Mornng Hawaii County Council members,
My name is Ken Honma, I am a life-long inhabitant of Puna. I worked at a well -established scientific
institution and have long experience in planning, reporting and project management.
Council member Ashley Kierkiewicz has created General Plan 2026 in response to the critiques by the
people about General Plan 2045. The majority of the testifiers were against GP2045. We are a republic,
and the mandate and the will of the people is clear and General Plan 2026 must be moved forward by the
County Council. Hawaii County inhabitants need a plan that is clear, practical, and provides certainty —
especially when it comes to how we can use our own property. The General Plan 2026 offers a more
focused and understandable framework that supports consistent decision -making and transparency.
General Plan 2026 stripped out the illegal, insidious, and treasonous WEF and United Nations language
that would have given control of Hawaii County land use to outside, foreign institutions through
promoting stakeholders and public -private -partnerships. These wealthy foreign ideologues would have
controlled the priorities within Hawaii County through new zoning and codes; leaving; little recourse for
the generational inhabitants of Hawaii County.
The General Plan 2045 is significantly more complex, with a large number of goals and broad policy
Language that may lead to less predictable outcomes in future land use and permitting decisions. How
can the County Council realistically accomplish what is included in GP2045? The Planning department
cannot even meet its obligations today in producing its required annual reports.
We the People of Hawaii County have done our part by pointing out the evil underlying GP2045 that will
Lead to the economic enslavement and loss of land ownership of present and future generations of
Hawaii County inhabitants.
You must now do your part by voting for and passing gp2026, helping to fulfill for the present and future
inhabitants of Hawaii County the promise "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
posterity" as ordained in the Constitution for the United States of America.
Mahalo for acting on behalf of the Inhabitants of Hawaii County and living up to your sworn pledges to
defend and protect both the Hawaii and the United States constitutions.
Ken Honma
From:
Ronda Hoxsie
Sent:
Saturday, May 2, 2026 4:24 PM
To:
Council Testimony
Cc:
Villegas, Rebecca
Subject:
Testimony
Aloha,
My name is Ronda Hoxsie, I live at 76-707 Hualalai Road.
I am opposed to ALL changes/amendments to the 2045 General Plan. ESPECIALLY any amendments that
are impactful to the limited resources we have on Hawaii Island.
We do NOT need an AI data center
There is already a 2045 general plan that was worked on for over a decade. There were over 22
workshops, community involvement with over 7000 comments and 47 committee members. It has guides
for land use, water protection, development and infrastructure.
WHY are you trying to ram something through that is using a loophole??
Hawaii Island residents already have expensive electric bills. This will just increase our bills and stretch
our grid even more.
This is reckless and'short sighted. It will NOT benefit the community or the ' aina.
Do the pono thing. Do NOT amend the general plan allow a huge AI data center.
with aloha,
Ronda Hoxsie
1
From: HULI Hawai'i
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:01 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Written testimony COM 372.192, General Plan and Bill 66
Aloha Hawai'i County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development,
My name is Maki Morinoue, and I am testifying on behalf of HULI PAC from Holualoa.
I respectfully urge the Committee to:
1. REJECT COM 372.192, "draft General Plan 2026," and any subsequent land use maps introduced into the
Committee.
2. DEFER and/or POSTPONE any other proposed amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2, "draft General Plan
2045" to provide the general public a reasonable time to review, become fully informed, and provide testimony
on amendments transmitted to the Chair and posted under "Communications" in the online Council Records
section.
Regarding Data Centers, I support removing data center language from COM 372.199, but keeping the rest of
Section 372.199 intact.
Data centers are not an appropriate land use for the most isolated island chain on Earth. We have:
• Limited public trust in water resources
• Inadequate wastewater infrastructure
• Substandard drinking water systems
• Electrical grid strained by current demand
• Approved development already doubling our population
Our existing infrastructure cannot support current needs, let alone massive, energy- and water -intensive data
centers.
The community process must be honored. As I have mentioned in prior testimony, gutting and replacing the
General Plan through COM 372.192 undermines years of community participation. Our community invested
time, testimony, and trust in shaping this plan.
Rushing amendments without adequate public review time disrespects that process and the people who
participated in good faith.
Reject COM 372.192. Defer amendments until the public has adequate review time. Remove data center
language while honoring the community process.
Mahalo,
Maki Morinoue
HULI PAC
Holualoa, Hawaii Island
"The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the
new." - Socrates
HULI PAC - P.O. Box 168, Holualoa, HI. 96725 - www.hulihi.com
From: Christine Inserra
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 7:11 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Strongly oppose bill 66
Aloha Kakou
After countless hours of effort by the community over 11 years, the GP now faces a
completely rewritten draft with no apparent relationship to the current GP, much less GP
2045. I hopes this Committee will agree that this is unacceptable.
I strongly agree with Sierra Club HIC's prior written testimony in opposition to COM 372-192
proposing a "gut -and -replace" amendment of Bill 66 Draft 2, the draft GP 2045.
For these and many other reasons, I strongly urge this Committee to vote against COM
372.192.
As an active member of the community, I strongly feel that the Committee defer and/or
postpone any other proposed amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2 in order to provide the general
public with a reasonable time to review and become fully informed of and provide testimony
on those that have been transmitted to the Chair and posted under "Communications" in the
online Council Records section.
Mahalo for the opportunity to voice my grave concerns on the is matter.
Christine Inserra
808 938 5397
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 12:54 PM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Polido, Michelle K; Pactol, Sherry Ann; Tremaine, Sydni K.
Subject: FW: Aloha Council members Hustace Kimball Kagiwada Villegas Kleinfelder Gallimbas
and Chair Inaba
From: Megan Isaac
Sent: Friday, May 1, 202612:38 PM
To: Clerk -Council
Subject: Aloha Council members Hustace Kimball Kagiwada Villegas Kleinfelder Gallimbas and Chair Inaba
RE: POLICY COMMITTEE ON PLANNING LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Aloha
I'm submitting for your attention testimony provided on March 11 2025 before the Windward Planning
Commission by Bridgit Bales a representative of the organization Kupuna for the Mo'opuna. Bridgit Bales
resides in Pana'ewa Farm Lots.
Bridgit Bales testimony concerns actual promises that planning official Bethany Morrison gave to her and
one other party in 2019 and again in 2020 as witnessed by April Suprenant and Jeff Darrow and Mayor
Harry Kim.
The promises given were that Hilo Community Development Committee (CDC) would be created.
She stated that years later these promises were never again referenced and no explanation was provided
why the CDC was never resourced or established. She testified that those same officers of the Planning
Department appear to have back -tracked and given multiple different reasons why Hilo doesn't require a
CDC or to be represented by a Community Development Plan (CDP) .
It seems so obvious that given the central role that Hilo plays in the economy of the island, it is an
extreme oversight to leave Hilo out of the process of consultation.
It seems unacceptable. Further it seems to be action taken 'outside of the law' where Hawaii Revised
Statues Chapter 226 would require community consultation for every General Plan generated by a
County and adopted as law to guide policy going forward.
I'm addressing each of you and asking that you please speak up about this since you are our legislators
and your duty is to protect the island from administrative harm.
I'm submitting testimony that suggests either incompetence or actual ill will toward Hilo played a part in
the decision making.
Whichever of these it is, we need to be probing and asking questions. I'm a property owner in Downtown
Hilo. I can attest to harms and neglect that has occurred in the past and which continues. I make the
case that this is directly attributable to a lack of planning framework for Hilo. This is the reason this
General Plan 2045 should not go forward. Harm is being done to the public while accountability for an
error that would leave Hilo out is being ignored.
Why was Bridgit Bates testimony not taken more seriously ?
How is there not more accountability required of our Planning Department and the staff who work there?
Why don't we hear discussion from this Council about the huge implications for the entire island and our
island economy when we see Hilo is left out of the planning process?
Why aren't the colleagues of Council woman Jenn Kagiwada providing their colleague with support when
her district is excluded from the planning process ?
Jen Kagiwada knows that I continue to bring up with her that this is'wrong' for any of us to accept that
Hilo CDC would never have been formed and a CDP never created. I have asked her to speak up on our
behalf.
This General Plan 2045 should not be moving forward without representation of Hilo in the forms of the
CDC and CDP.
Sending aloha and asking you to please kokua.
Megan Isaac
Hilo, Hawaii
2024-11-20 Kupuna for the Moopuna.pdf
From: Kuouna Moopuna
To: LPCtestirnonv
Subject: Leeward Planning Commission - Nov 21, 2024 General Plan Testimony - STRONG OPPOSITION
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 C39:49 AM
Attachments. PO-24-032 DHHL Comments HI County 2045 General Plan (pail 1) - sianed.odf
PO-24-032 DHHL Comments HI County 2045 General Plan fort 21- signed.ndf
PO-24-032 DHHL Comments HI County 2045 General Plan (part 3) -signed f ij&
Kdpuna for the Mo'opuna
committed to the well-being of Hawai'i for the nextgenerations to come
kupuna4moo ulla ia(ftmail.com
DATE: Thursday, November 21, 2024
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: West Hawaii Civic Center, Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, HI
SUBJECT. County of Hawaii General Plan 2045, Final Recommended Draft -
STRONG OPPOSITION
Aloha to the Hawaii County Leeward Planning Commission,
We, Kiipuna for the Mo`opuna, a hui of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA)
kupuna beneficiary farmers from Pana`ewa, Hawaii, testify in STRONG
OPPOSITION to the County of Hawai"i General Plan 2045 (GP), Final
Recommended Draft and ask that the Leeward Planning Commission NOT
RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendments, in part.
We ask the Leeward Planning Commission to require the following changes to the GP
2045 Draft consistent with the purpose of the General Plan pursuant to Section 3-15 of
the Hawaii County Charter to "... promote the general welfare, health, and prosperity of
its people."
I.The General Plan 2045 Draft must include a South Hilo Community Development
Plan. The General Plan 2045 Draft fails to include all seven of Hawaii County's
Community Development Plans (CDP). The GP 2045 Draft includes only six CDPs, all
but one CDP, intentionally leaving out the South Hilo CDP. This reeks of discriminatory
gobbledegook from the county's planning department, who, when responding to public
questions of why no Hilo CDP in the GP, sidestep the CDP issue and conveniently cite
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) documentsye/ rca rse to include the
same DHHL documents in the actual General Plan 2045 Draft:
County of Hawaii
Final Draft General Plan 2045 Public Comments
Pg. 44 of 569
hops://records.hawaoicounty,goy/weblink/Browse.asnx?dbid=l&startid=1398 t5
From: Susie J.
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 7:13 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP
2045. It functions as a practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy
and diluting accountability. GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and
officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local
communities —rather than abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawaii
residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning
grounded, practical, and accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
C. S. Jenkins
Kailua Kona
From: kalei purdy
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 8:54 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Written Testimony I Support the new General Plan 2026. 1 strongly Oppose General
Plan2045
Aloha, my name is Kalei Kailikini, a resident of Hilo, Hawaii representing myself & my Ohana. I'm born Moloka'i,
graduated from Moloka'i High School, attended Alaska Methodist University and the University of Alaska, in
Secondary Education, History major. I worked 11 yrs. in the Hawaii Savings & Loan industry and 38 yrs. in
Marketing & Sales for the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star -Bulletin. The last 10 yrs. at the Hawaii Tribune -
Herald, Hilo.
I support General Plan 2026. 1 oppose General Plan 2045; a consistent testifier with written and oral facts to
substantiate my opposition.
Thank you, Ashley Kierkiewicz, Council member for listening to testifiers. We appreciate that you continued by
reviewing previous General Plans (1971, 1989, 2005) making comparisons, changes, and communicating with all of
us. I am disappointed that other Council members did not reach out to testifiers for questions or concerns from our
testimonies. General Plan 2026 is concise, not redundant, easier to comprehend, approx. 70 pages compared to GP
2045 that contain 255 pages of Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions; 8 pages of References, which contain
websites from government agencies/departments, private corporations & companies, associations, and the
University of Hawaii; 'and 43 pages of maps. Overwhelming, overloaded with Actions, and suspicious maps, which
all of us should be asking - how will Hawaii County accomplish everything in GP 2045? Hawaii County does not
have the resources - both financially and workers. Again, why would the Planning Department and/or any other
Council member want to keep GP 2045. 1 demand to see their reasons for supporting GP 2045 in writing before any
voting takes place.
I oppose General Plan 2045 for the following reasons:
1. GP 2045 was written by the United Nations. I provided Mayor Alameda with written proof of this
statement. Foreign countries have no right to make decisions for Hawaii Island residents. They do not represent us,
they do not live in our communities, they are not obligated to pay taxes, our laws & regulations do not affect
them. Hawaii County elected representatives and Hawaii Island residents should be solely responsible for any
General Plan.
A. Agenda 21 a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and
locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which
human impacts on the environment. Agenda 21, the Rio • Declaration on Environment and Development, and the
Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, June 3 to
14, 1992. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective
follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and
international levels. Ref. United Nations website. See Division for Sustainable Development.
B. President George H. W. Bush, Sr. signs United Nations Agreement in Rio de
Janeiro for the Administrative Implementation of Agenda 21 in 1992.
C. President Bill Clinton's 1993 Executive Order #12852 creates "Council on
Sustainable Development" to imbue federal agencies with Agenda 21 implementation.
D. In 1997 Counties and Mayors create the "Joint Center for Sustainable
Communities".
E. In 2001 National Governors Association endorses "Smart Growth" planning.
2. We must protect private land owners' rights. GP 2045 allows "Stakeholders" defined as - anyone.
Definition: Stakeholder is any individual, group, or organization that has an interest or concern in a particular project,
decision, or activity and can be affected by its outcomes. Stakeholders can include a wide range of entities, such as
employees, customers, suppliers, investors, government agencies, community members, and non -governmental
organizations. They can influence or be influenced by the objectives, policies, and performance of an organization or
project. Effective stakeholder engagement and management are crucial for the success and sustainability of any
initiative, as it helps ensue that diverse perspectives and interests are considered. Our elected representatives or
government should NOT allow Stakeholders to infiltrate Hawaii Island communities by investing in public
projects. This is treasonous, unfair to hardworking residents that do not have extra money and forced to compete
with billionaires. Do not sell "freedom", your jobs are to protect everyone's freedom. Therefore, Stakeholders must
not be allowed in our General Plans and this practice must be stopped.
A. GP 2045 maps are proof that the new zonings: Natural & Recreation in
combination with the current Conservation & Preservation zonings will take lands from private land owners today
and into 2045. See The Final Draft General Plan 2045 page 266, Map 2.
3. Climate change concepts begin on page 61; pages 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 & 71 are Climate
Mitigation Challenges, Climate Adaptation Challenges, Climate Mitigation Opportunities; Climate Adaptation
Opportunities; Climate Change Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions from the Final Draft General Plan 2045.
There is a serious omission about climate change that is NOT mentioned in GP 2045, which is geo-engineering or
climate manipulation by man. Where is the transparency promised by the government? Why is this crucial
information not in General Plan 2045? Geo-engineering is the most important climate information for residents to
survive. I cannot accept our elected representatives not discussing this information for the following common sense
answers:
A. I hand delivered a 3-ring binders with over 100 pages of geo-engineering
evidence of news articles, government de -classified papers, weather modification patents, etc. to all of our Hawaii
County Council members, with 1 Council member declining to receive this binder. I also hand delivered this same
binder to the Mayor, the Fire Chief, the Police Chief. This is written hard copy proof that the US military &
government have weather manipulation technology called geo-engineering. This was many months ago. I did not
receive any reply, no questions, absolutely zero concern by elected representatives. How can they vote on GP
2045?
B. Because of climate change GP 2045 is promoting electric vehicles (EVs) - really?
A news article revealed that Matson Navigation Co. will NOT ship electric vehicles. Why? Because the lithium
batteries are dangerous & highly flammable, not to mention how expensive these batteries cost; where do you
dispose of highly flammable lithium batteries; and who can afford more electrical usage as rates continue to
escalate. Why is the County promoting more electric usage?
C. Many storms have been geo-engineered in Hawaii and throughout the U.S. But,
these man-made storms must be kept hidden, if not, the insurance companies would go bankrupt. This is the major
reason that scientists, few government agencies, few elected representatives were against weather modiflcation-
geo-engineering. Yet, the intent to modify the weather was to stop hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and to create rain in
dry areas or to help mankind.
D. Geo-engineering will eliminate the entire chapter on Climate
Mitigation,& Adaptation, and only 1 page for Climate Change Goal, Objective, Policies, and Actions.
4. The County of Hawaii General Plan 2005 Section 15.3 Annual Report states The Planning
Department shall prepare an annual report to monitor progress towards achieving the General Plan goals,
objectives and policies. To the extent possible, the annual report should develop measurable indicators related to
the policies. The Planning Department shall submit the annual report to the Mayor for review. The Mayor shall
submit the annual report to the Council together with the capital and operational budgets in accordance with the
budget submittal timetable set forth in the Charter. The annual report and CIP shall be the means to reconcile and
prioritize competing community needs from a County -wide perspective. The Planning Department may organize an
interagency committee to provide input for inclusion in the annual report.
I became aware months ago that the Planning Department only produced 3 or 4 Annual Reports from the 2005
General Plan. No one was held accountable for these failures, yet these reports are crucial & necessary to plan for
the future. We are missing not only the 2005 General Plan reports, but other government department reports. My
question is why doesn't the County have meetings & hearings, on these mandated reports before any General Plan
is produced? I theorize that the government tries to disenfranchise its residents from government forming policies,
laws, regulations, General Plans, etc.
Please research my information by going to the UN's website,& for geo-engineering go to:
ZEROENGINEERING.COM. and GeoEngineeringWatch.org - much reputable, reliable information on weather
manipulation from the late 1800s. President John F. Kennedy spoke at the UN Sept. 1961 about eventually getting
into weather control; in 1967 President Lyndon Johnson said "he who controls the weather, controls the world".
President Johnson approved Operation Popeye in the Viet Nam conflict. In closing, please honor your Oaths of
Office to protect, uphold, defend, preserve the state of Hawaii and U.S. Constitutions.
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Kimberly Kekina
Cc: Council Testimony
Subject: RE: GP2026
-----Original Message -----
From: Kimberly Kekina
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 10:38 AM
To: Council Remote Testimony<council remotetestimony@ hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: GP2026
Sent from my Whone. Oppose GP 2045. Support GP 2026
From: jlkinkona
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 11:59 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: GP 2045 vs GP 2026
Dear Council Members,
https://youtu.be/Esmvy-RggGA?si=egioZffQEK_OWrZN
After watching Jimmy Dore's video above on Weather Modification (and there are many more videos on
YT about engineered weather), I could not help but wonder if the Lahaina Fire in 2023, the recent fire in
downtown Hilo, the numerous fires all over Hawaii island, the Kona Low storm that flooded Waialua on Oahu and
also caused some damage here in Kona, and the many flood storms around the island were really attributable to
Weather Modification (engineered weather) and not climate change.
As you know, the General Plan 2045 is using Climate Change as its main focus on how the future of Hawaii island
will be developed. This, in my opinion is very dangerous. First because it fails to address Weather Modification and
second because no one cares to address this issue and is trusting everything that the news media and our officials
are telling us.. If you have children and grandchildren, you need to be VERY concerned with where Hawaii
County's future is heading under the direction of climate change. The Climate Change agenda is destroying our
most vulnerable neighborhhoods and forcingthese families into TODs, 15 minute cities and Work Force housing.
I made a big mistake in my testimony a fewweeks ago of supporting the GP 2045. GP 2045 is dangerous and I wiil
never support it as it now stands with its Climate Change focus. Mahalo.
Josephine Keliipio
Kailua Kona, Hawaii
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.
From: lifeforceenergies
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 9:39 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer; Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt;
Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz,
Ashley; Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Testimonials in Support of GP 2026 and Opposing GP 2045
Please accept my testimony in support of GP 2026 and in opposition to GP 2045. GP 2045 is
outdated and does not have clear direction. There is too much leway for discretion. GP 2045, raises
serious concerns about property rights, land use, and whether local input was truly honored.
GP 2026 better reflects what many locals have been asking for —clearer protections, respect for our
communities, and a more grounded approach.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities. I hope you agree.
Thank you for your time.
Gail Kelly
15-1101 Kiawe Rd
Keaau, HI 96749
575.491.6549
lifeforceenergies@tularosas.net
Aloha County Council members,
This is in support of the proposed Plan 2026 and in opposition to the General Plan 2045. For reference, 1
live in Ainaloa and a have a small orchard in Hawaiian Acres. Because I was'flown here, not grown here'
I very much appreciate the guidance I was given and best summarized by my neighbor- "Live with aloha.
Don't try to change Hawaii, let Hawaii change you." To me, this encapsulates the difference between
the two plans.
Giving significant credit for this massive undertaking, the 2026 plan compiled by chair Kierkiewicz
appears to be a locally informed, manageable document consistent with prior plans and community
feedback. The planning department has not reported on much simpler plans for over a decade nor is
there rationale provided for the divergence from prior plan models. The absence of progress reporting
based on the comparatively simpler goals and objectives of past plans creates a further concern for the
20 year GP 2045.
The feedback collection from 2015-2020 community meetings and charrettes is not consistent with
many of the 2045 plan objectives and is inaccurately being cited as justification for many the proposed
changes. Much of the solicited feedback was given via specific choice selections and the captured
commentary did not request things like zoning redesignations, electric vehicle mandates or increased
density centers. Mandating these types of changes appears highly prescriptive and potentially limiting as
future technology, population shifts and environmental changes for the next 20 years are generally
unknown. A smaller, more flexible plan seems a more appropriate method to navigate future
adjustments.
With regard to much discussed re -designation of certain extensive agriculture land to natural land:
❖ The definition of natural in the 2045 plan relies on topographical description of land and does not
consistently correlate to the areas proposed for re -designation
❖ It appears that the adjustment is boundaried by specific associations and areas with the same
topography adjacent to the 'natural' areas are not being redesignated. For example- Tiki Gardens
but not Ainaloa, Hawaiian Acres but not Orchidland, Fern Forest but not Fern Acres etc.
❖ there are no answers or feedback to questions related to impact (value, future land use, loan and
grant eligibility etc.) or rationale for the proposed changes.
supporting extensive ag landowners in enhancing growing opportunities and land improvement for
food production is beneficial for the community and consistent with food security initiatives
The fiduciary responsibility of the council obligates its action to be in the best interest of the men,
women and children living here. Committing the county for the next 20 years to an unwieldy, opaque
and massively confusing plan- largely generated by a consultant absent from public engagement -
conflicts with this obligation. Support for the proposed 2026 plan is much more consistent with the
responsibility of the council and does not contain the controversial and potentially harmful elements
contained in GP 2045.
Vote yes to move the proposed 2026 plan forward and vote no on GP 2045/bill 66.
Mahalo for your time,
Kate Kennedy
From: Lorraine Kohn
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:18 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: I oppose allowing Al centers on Hawaii Island
Say NO to Al data centers here in Hawaii Island. It is not in the best interests of our citizens.
Mahalo
Aloha from Lorraine Kohn
Paradise Found Realty
808-937-1320
Iorrainekohnagmail.com
From: Ellen LaPenna
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 4:38 PM
To: Council Testimony, Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace,
James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Subject: Please Support General Plan 2026
Aloha Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many local
residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our families
without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected from the
actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final product does not
reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether
community input was meanirigfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights, local
farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these are real
issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
While I support environmental protections, the way they are used in the GP 2045 feels like manipulation and a
clear avenue for overreach and abuse of power. I'm grateful we have an opportunity to support a new and
better plan with this 2026 version.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Ellen LaPenna
Na'alehu, HI
From: Maile Lavea-Malloe
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 3:02 PM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kierkiewicz,
Ashley, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba,
Holeka; Hustace, James; Planning Internet Mail
Subject: TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO DATA CENTERS IN HAWAI'I
Aloha Chair and Members,
am writing in opposition to data centers being developed on Hawaii Island and included in the General
Plan.
These facilities use a huge amount of electricity —sometimes as much as entire neighborhoods. Here on
Hawaii Island, where energy is already expensive and limited, this would put more strain on our system
and likely increase reliance on fossil fuels.
They also use large amounts of water for cooling. On an island with finite water resources, this is not
something we can afford to give away to outside industries.
Beyond that, data centers take up large areas of land and can impact culturally important places and our
natural environment. This kind of industrial development does not align with how many of us here
understand malama `aina and caring for our resources.
At the same time, these projects bring very few long-term jobs. Most of the benefit leaves Hawaii, while
we are left with the impacts.
Hawaii Island should not be used to support global tech infrastructure at the expense of our land, water,
and communities.
I urge you to keep data centers out of the General Plan and instead focus on priorities that support local
people, food production, and the long-term health of this island.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Maile Lavea-Malloe
Pepe`ekeo, Hawaii
From: Carolyn Lawpaugh Lachance
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 12:37 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: General plan
I do not support any plan from this government at this time. I would prefer government focus shift toward
auditing school bond budgets instead of accounting confirmations, full disclosure on weather
manipulation, and the budget and work being done to house my friends in Maui. I want to be notified of
all investigations into the impeachment inquiry sent against Governor Josh Green.
Carolyn Lawpaugh Lachance
From:
Stan Lee
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 2026 10:07 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
Bill 66
I'm writing to ask the Council to adopt GP2045 in whole and reject any amendments. I care about this because I support
our transition to local clean energy to become more self reliant. Mahalo. Stan Lee from Pahoa HI.
Sent from my iPad
From:
Noelle Lindenmann
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2026 11:40 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Cc:
Villegas, Rebecca
Subject:
testimony on BILL 66, DRAFT 2
BILL 66, DRAFT 2
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development I May 4, 2026
RE: Bill 66, Draft 2: General Plan 2045
Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the Committee,
I am writing to oppose any amendment to Bill 66 that would open the door to AI data centers on
Hawaii Island. I urge the Committee to adopt language that permanently prohibits them instead.
We live on an island. Our water is not replaceable. Our electricity is already the most expensive in the
country. A single large AI data center can consume millions of gallons of water a day and as much
electricity as tens of thousands of homes and most of that water evaporates. It never comes back. It
never reaches our streams, our aquifers, or our lo`i. That is not a trade our island can make.
The promise of jobs does not hold up. The entire U.S. data center industry employs fewer people
nationwide than live in Hilo. Even a report funded by Amazon and Google admits these facilities
produce mostly short-term construction jobs and very little long-term employment. The companies
building them are burning through billions of dollars a year. When the money runs out and the facility
goes dark, we are left holding the bag: a drained aquifer, a grid built around a tenant that left, and a
building full of toxic materials. We have seen this story before on this island. We know how it ends.
Our General Plan 2045, built from over a decade of community input, commits us to net -zero carbon,
i00% renewable energy, watershed protection, and a regenerative economy. Data centers violate
every one of those commitments. Communities across the country are banning them right now
because they have seen what happens when they say yes. We have the legal authority to say no. We
have a General Plan that requires us to say no. And we have a community that is asking us to say no.
Please work to prohibit large-scale AI data centers in all zoning districts and reject any amendment
that creates a pathway for them instead.
Mahalo for your time and your service.
Noelle Lindenmann
Kailua-Kona
Noelle Lindenmann (she/her/hers)
e. noelle.royerC?gmail.com // tallgirWa?uw.edu
P: 310.729.6627
From: Michelle Melendez
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 1:19 PM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt
Subject: Support Big Island: Vote for GP 2026! (10-reasons here)
Aloha County Council,
First, mahalo to Council Member Kierkiewicz, who has listened to local residents who have been
persistently showing up and speaking out for over a year and a half. She has taken steps to amend
aspects of the GP 2045 proposal in response to those community concerns. That matters, and it shows
public testimony is having an impact, which is what this country stands for.
GP 2026 remains the stronger plan for protecting local families, private property, and accountable
planning for Hawaii Island.
Here are ten strong reasons to support GP 2026 over GP 2045:
1. GP 2026 Better Protects Local Control and Property Rights
GP 2026 is clearer and more limited in scope, serving as a practical general plan rather than a broad
policy framework open to expansive interpretation. It provides guidance without inviting unnecessary
overreach and offers greater certainty for property owners and local families.
2. GP 2026 Is Simpler, Clearer, and More Accountable
A general plan should guide, not overwhelm. GP 2045's hundreds of goals and extensive policy layers risk
creating confusion and bureaucratic growth. GP 2026 is concise, understandable, and easier for
residents and decision -makers to follow and hold accountable.
3. GP 2026 Focuses on Practical Needs, Not Abstract Agendas
GP 2026 prioritizes housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and community stability —real issues affecting
residents today. It reads like a planning document grounded in place, rather than a sweeping social
blueprint.
4. GP 2026 Better Supports Local Residents, Agriculture, and
Community Self -Determination
This plan gives stronger emphasis to supporting local agriculture, local enterprise, and the long-term
well-being of island communities. It reflects a vision rooted in residents, not outside models, whereas
GP 2045 too often appears driven by broader external frameworks —especially through repeated
language calling for partnerships among government, private and nonprofit agencies, communities,
and other stakeholders across numerous sections of the plan.
5. GP 2026 Reduces the Risk of Bureaucratic or "Stakeholder"
Overreach
The definition of "stakeholder" in GP 2045 is so broad it can literally include anyone in the world with an
interest in influencing Hawaii Island's future. That invites outside influence into decisions that should
remain with local residents, does not benefit locals, and represents major bureaucratic overreach. GP
2026 is more straightforward and keeps planning closer to the people.
6. GP 2026 Better Protects Farmers
GP 2026 removes the noose of converting Important Agricultural Lands into "natural land"
classifications that could have subjected farmers to added regulations and made farming more
difficult. Instead, it better protects agricultural use, food security, and the ability of local farmers to
stay on the land.
7. GP 2026 Restores the General Plan to What a General Plan Should Be
GP 2026 returns the General Plan to its proper role —clear guidance for land use, infrastructure, and
community priorities —rather than turning it into an overly expansive social and policy framework.
8. GP 2026 Is More Implementable
A plan with hundreds of goals can become unmanageable. GP 2026 is more practical, measurable, and
realistic to implement.
9. GP 2026 Better Respects Community -Based Planning
GP 2026 better respects community voices and the role of Community Development Plans, keeping
decisions grounded in place -based local priorities rather than top -down frameworks. By contrast, GP
2045's broader policy architecture and stakeholder -driven approach can dilute local voices and risk
subordinating community -based priorities to wider planning agendas and outside influences.
10. GP 2026 Protects Food Security and Local Resilience
GP 2026 strengthens local resilience through support for agriculture, water, housing, and locally rooted enterprise —critical
for island self-reliance.
GP 2026 is not just the better alternative to GP 2045 — it is the better path for protecting local control,
property rights, agriculture, and a future shaped by Hawaii residents themselves.
Council Member Kierkiewicz has shown leadership in supporting the culture of Hawaii Island,
protecting local residents, and respecting private property rights.
respectfully urge you to show the same leadership by supporting GP 2026.
Mahalo,
Michelle Melendez
From: Mary Metcalf
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:39 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Oppose COM 372.192, Conditionally Support Bill 66, Draft 2
Aloha Hawaii County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development Members,
I strongly urge you to oppose COM 372.192 and the recently drafted "General Plan 2026" Appendix A. This simplification
effort loses too much of the important background, vision, intent, strategic direction and content of the draft General
Plan 2045, which was thoughtfully constructed by professional planners over many years incorporating feedback and
comments provided by hundreds of community members.
Please bear in mind that the purpose of the General Plan is visionary and strategic in nature looking twenty years into
the future, as opposed to being an operational "tick the box" action plan. I sense there is confusion in this committee
regarding this distinction.
Instead, I strongly urge you to conditionally support Bill 66, Draft 2 of the General Plan 2045. This long term strategic plan
can be improved, such as the maps which are causing confusion and concern with some community members. I would
much rather see this Committee focusing its efforts on improving this plan, which so many of us spent countless hours
providing input to, reviewing and publicly commenting on over the last ten years.
Mahalo for considering this input.
Mary Metcalf
Kailua Kona, Hawaii
� SIERRACLUB
HAWAII ISLAND GROUP
May 3, 2026
Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, Economic Development
c/o Hawai'i County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo HI 96720
Re: Opposition to Communication 372.192, "draft General Plan 2026"
Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and Committee members,
The Sierra Club of Hawai'i, Hawai'i Island Group (HIG) continues to remain in strong
opposition to Communication 372.192 (the Communication), now commonly known as the
"draft General Plan 2026".
It is shocking to realize COM 372.192 is the third proposed gut -and -replace amendment since
the General Plan Comprehensive Review (GPCR) process was first announced by Planning
Director (PD) Duane Kanuha in 2015. The first gut -and -replace amendment was draft General
Plan 2040 released to the public in 2019 by PD Michael Yee. The second was draft General Plan
2045 released in September 2023 by PD Zendo Kern. The third was introduced into this
Committee on March 4th by the Committee Chair.
This latest proposed amendment is profoundly disappointing and does nothing but further
complicate the legal and other confusing issues already surrounding the GPCR process.
Because there were so many outstanding questions related to the who's, how's, when's, etc.
involved in the drafting of COM 372.192, HIG sent a Request for Government Record to the
county clerk's office on March 23rd.
The documents released to date by the clerk's office have been sent to each of this Committee's
members, as well as members of the general public.
While there remain some questions about whether all records have been provided, those records
that have been sent indicate that a small number of private individuals and special land use
interests were involved in the drafting of the Communication. There is no indication that the PD
Jeffrey Darrow was involved until this Communication was officially released and posted on
March 4th, six days prior to this Committee's March loth meeting.
Section 16.1 of the current General Plan clearly defines the GPCR process. It does not appear
that the development and introduction of the Communication complies with this process.
HIG asks this Committee to note that, on July 1, 2020, the PD Yee made an online post titled,
"Hawai'i County General Plan 2040 Update, Summary of Public Comment and Revised
P 0 Box 1137 Hilo, HI 96721-1137 1 hawaiiislandsierraclub@gmail.com sierraclubhig.org
Timeline". He provided 4 reasons as to why the expected completion date in 2020 was being
extended. PD Yee also explained that another draft of General Plan 2040 would be forthcoming
and that another round of public workshops would be conducted, followed by submission to the
planning commissions and finally the county council. The update included the following:
"The following target dates are set for the remaining steps of the formal adoption process:
• Public Workshops: December 2020/January 2021
• Planning Commission Hearings: June 2021
• County Council Hearings: September 2021"
Despite the fact that public meetings in Hawai'i were allowed to resume without physical
presence restrictions starting December 1, 2021, PD Kern did not recommence the formal
adoption process after being confirmed in early 2021. If fact, he only provided an update to the
council's Planning Committee one year later and only after then Planning Committee Chair
Kierkiewicz agendized a request for an update at its February 8, 2022 meeting. That update did
not in any way infer that PD Kern would be submitting a gut -and -replace of GP2040. Nor did
PD Kern's update advise, warn, or otherwise prepare the general public for the technology and
software that would subsequent be used in releasing draft GP2045 and imposed on the GPCR
process. The conversion to and introduction of this technology and software at this late stage of
the GPCR process confused and overwhelmed countless county constituents and those who had
been participating in the GPCR process. This substantial change effectively disenfranchising
them by undermining their ability to be fully informed of and effectively participate in it.
And now after all that has been described, after countless hours of effort by the community over
11 years, it now faces a completely rewritten draft General Plan with no apparent relationship to
the current GP, much less GP 2045. HIG hopes this Committee will agree that this is
unacceptable.
HIG reiterates its prior written testimony in opposition to COM 372-192 proposing a "gut -and -
replace" amendment of Bill 66 Draft 2, the draft GP 2045.
For these and many other reasons, HIG strongly urges this Committee to vote against COM
372.192.
In addition, until such time as a decision has been made by this Committee on the
Communication, HIG requests that that Committee defer and/or postpone any other proposed
amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2 in order to provide the general public with a reasonable time to
review, become fully informed of, and provide testimony on those that have been transmitted to
the Chair and posted under "Communications" in the online Council Records section.
Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.
May 1, 2026
Dear Chair and Hawaii County Council members,
My name is Noel Morin. I live in Hilo. I am the President of the Hawaii EV Association, the Board
Chair of Sustainable Energy Hawaii, a co-founder of Think BIG, a Hawaii Red Cross Board
Member, and a state coordinator of Citizens' Climate Lobby. I truly care about our resilience,
energy self-sufficiency, and intergenerational well-being.
I'm writing again in support of adopting the General Plan 2045 (GP 2045) and against
amendments that remove quantifiable performance targets, restructure the plan in ways that
weaken it and remove accountability for actions, and remove energy and resilience provisions.
Recent events emphasize the need for a concrete plan, one with goals and deadlines.
The Energy Affordability Crisis
The impact of our dependence on energy imports is undeniable. The energy supply disruption
in the Middle East is painfully reflected in the high prices of gas and diesel. This is affecting
households in many ways. Increased transportation costs, high food prices, and general strain
on family budgets are directly related to our dependence on energy imports. Local businesses
are also stressed as transportation and supply costs eat into margins. Electricity prices, while
less volatile, are also expected to increase over the next few months. Hawaiian Electric uses
over 786,000 barrels of oil each month to generate electricity.
Importantly, we have experienced similar disruptions in 2008, 2011-2014, and 2022, after the
start of the war in Ukraine. Our energy dependence presents an ongoing economic risk. Our
General Plan must move us away from this energy dependency. GP 2045 includes measurable
targets and deadlines that will reduce our exposure to this avoidable risk.
• A 100% renewable County fleet by 2035 (which would reduce fleet operating costs by
40%)
• A 50% increase in transit ridership (which would increase transportation access, reduce
congestion, and reduce pollution)
• Net -zero emissions by 2045 (which would eliminate our dependence on energy imports)
These (and other targets) are all critical to facilitating a transition to an energy -secure, efficient,
and healthy Hawaii Island.
Hazard Risks Are Here
The recent Kona Lows caused widespread flooding across Hawaii. It damaged roads, homes, and
infrastructure in communities across our island. These storms are becoming too familiar. We
should prepare for more.
GP 2045 dedicates an entire chapter (Chapter 3) to climate change, covering topics such as
sectoral emissions, energy costs, dependence on energy imports, critical projections of hazards
related to wildfires, flooding, and shoreline inundation, as well as impacts on underserved
communities. Having a dedicated chapter for this area provides us with an integrated system
that allows for energy, land use, transportation, and hazards to be assessed systematically. This
allows us to create synergies across solutions and, importantly, avoid unexpected and undesired
consequences. GP 2026 removes every reference to the County's energy and climate hazard
exposure.
Hazard mapping determines where we build, where we invest in critical infrastructure
hardening, and which communities need enhanced evacuation routes. The LPC recognized the
importance of this. They recommended that we prioritize mapping evacuation routes and
secondary access roads, and added "wildfire" throughout the hazard sections.
GP 2045 enables a systematic approach to planning. It dedicates a section (Section 4.6) to
Integrated Systems. This is very important, as it ensures that decisions and outcomes take into
account the overall system. Without this, we risk operating in siloes, wasting resources, and
dealing with undesired consequences. Transportation Planning must coordinate with Energy
Planning.
Hazard mapping must connect with land -use decisions. For example, this can lead to our County
approving development in an area at high risk of flooding because land -use rules don't
adequately account for the hazards. An integrated system creates a structure for systemic
decision -making. GP 2026 encourages siloed decision -making.
Targets and Deadlines Are Critical
GP 2045 contains the County's first measurable benchmarks. Here's the list of targets:
• Objective 7: Net -zero County emissions by 2045
• Objective 7: 100% renewable County fleet by 2035
• Objective 7: Mass Transit net zero fleet by 2035
• Objective 7: Support 100% renewable ground transportation statewide by 2045
• Objective 18: Increase mass transit ridership by 50% by 2045
• Objective 19: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Objective 33: Achieve zero waste by 2045
• Objective 35: Park facilities within a 10-minute walk in urban areas, 10-minute drive in
rural communities
• Objective 36: Each community has access to healthcare facilities, programs, or
community -based care
• Objective 34: Each community has access to a wide range of educational opportunities
• Objective 37: Increase housing units addressing a range of AMI
• Action 6.a: Create a climate change dashboard and portal
Each of these is a meaningful target that creates accountability for changes benefiting future
generations. A plan without targets is merely a promise without a deadline. The proposed GP
2026 removes targets.
GP 2045 is also compatible with state law. HRS §226-18, which requires planning toward the
elimination of imported fuel dependence. HRS §226-109 establishes climate adaptation as a
state priority. A county plan without energy targets, climate provisions, or measurable
benchmarks doesn't meet these requirements and would be incompatible with the HRS.
GP 2026 Is Not an Amendment
There are many, many more changes in the proposed amendment (GP 2026). The proposed
amendment either removes entirely or dilutes plan components that are designed to address
other important issues. Here are a couple of notable examples.
GP 2045 includes education as a standalone topic (Section 4.4.5). It establishes the
County's responsibility for educational facility performance and links it to community
well-being. Consider the implications of land -use decisions on where schools are built,
zoning for school sites, and traffic and transportation considerations around schools.
Without this, we risk losing the ability to coordinate land use with future community
educational needs. GP 2026 does not address these important concerns.
GP 2045 prioritizes equity. Its framework (Objective 6) is a policy commitment to ensure
that communities with the highest burdens and the least resources receive the needed
investments. It aims to address the needs of the underserved and poor. Without this, the
plan will have no mechanism to ensure that County programs and resources reach
communities that need them most. GP 2026 removes this much -needed framework.
GP 2045 took over 10 years to define, over countless workshops, meetings, and engagements. I
understand there were over 7000 public comments. Importantly, the Windward and Leeward
Planning Commissions voted to recommend adopting GP 2045 after several public hearings. The
Windward Commission proposed 12 amendments; the Leeward Commission proposed 37.
Every amendment adds to the plan. None of their amendments removes a target or strips a
chapter.
GP 2026 undermines its legal defensibility because the removed sections contain findings that
underpin zoning decisions and investment priorities. It is not an amendment but a substitute
plan. If we head down this path, GP 2026 should be subject to the same community review
process that resulted in GP 2045. This includes community workshops and presentations, as
well as Planning Commission reviews.
GP 2045 Can Be Improved
The proposed GP 2026 includes useful elements, such as Green Fee revenue direction and a
homelessness article.
Additionally, there are areas that GP 2045 should include:
Energy efficiency
Tracking of fuel imports
Geothermal energy as a resource
• Pre -Disaster Recovery Planning
• Community emergency hubs (e.g., specially equipped schools and other public facilities)
These can be handled as true amendments to GP 2045.
I respectfully urge the Council to:
1. Adopt the General Plan 2045 as recommended by both Planning Commissions.
2. Incorporate the Planning Director's amendments and both Commissions' recommended
amendments.
3. Add an element for Energy Self -Sufficiency, Resilience, and Equity as a targeted
amendment that names geothermal as a strategic resource, sets fuel import reduction
targets, and brings the plan into compliance with HRS §226-18.
4. Reject GP 2026 and any amendment that removes measurable targets, eliminates
standalone chapters, or restructures the document in ways that weaken its
effectiveness.
Hawai'i Island communities are experiencing high energy costs due to our reliance on imported
energy. We are increasingly at risk of climate -related disasters — droughts, fires, flooding, rain
bombs, and tropical storms. The General Plan determines whether we keep absorbing those
shocks or start building the infrastructure to reduce them. Let's move forward with GP 2045. It's
long overdue.
Mahalo for your service and consideration.
Sincerely,
Noel Morin
Noel Morin
Climate, Sustainability, and Resilience Advocate
Hilo, Hawaii
(808) 987-7428 1 noelgmorin@gmail.com
Save my contact
From: Bettina Navarro
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 2:39 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Oppose BOTH amendments
Bettina Navarro, resident of Kilauea, HI.
I oppose BOTH amendments
I want NO large-scale Al data centers on Hawaii Island
Mahalo Nui,
Bettina Navarro
From: Bong Bong Ortaleza
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 4:54 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: General Plan 2045- OPPOSITION to TWO AMENDMENTS
Aloha Council Members -
My name is Mar Ortaleza, a resident of Hawai'i Island living in Pahoa, Puna district for 23 years. I am
submitting testimony in opposition to both proposed amendments to the General Plan 2045.
This plan represents over a decade of extensive community input and is intended to guide sustainable
development while protecting our island's limited water resources, watershed systems, and
infrastructure capacity. I am concerned that the proposed amendments could weaken these protections
by allowing large-scale industrial developments, including AI data centers, through conditional use
pathways that may not align with the plan's intent. Hawai'i Island has a finite, closed water system, and
our infrastructure —including water, energy, and housing systems —is already under strain. Introducing
additional high -demand industrial uses risks further stressing these systems and delaying needed
housing development. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject both amendments and
uphold the integrity and intent of the General Plan 2045.
Respectfully submitted,
Mar Ortaleza
Pahoa, Puna
From: robert patey
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 5:29 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawaii County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many
local residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our
families without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected
from the actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final
product does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency,
accountability, and whether community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights,
local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these
are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Robert Patey
Hilo County
Been a resident of Hawaii since 2007
579 Kululoa Rd. Hilo HI 96720
Property owner
From:
Susan Postnikoff
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2026 10:13 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Cc:
Susan Postnikoff
Subject:
Opposition to GP 2045 + my recommendation for General Plan 2026
Importance: High
Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
Please accept this letter from me to clearly inform you that:
• I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026
• I vehemently oppose General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 better represents my values and vision for the people of Hawaii County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what
many of my friends and neighbors have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to
live, work, and care for our families without unnecessary overreach.
GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected from the
actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final product
does not reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability,
and whether community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property
rights, local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract
concerns —these are real issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Susan Postnikoff
77 Hauoli Street, Hilo, Hi 96730
From: Jane Raymond
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 7:43 AM
To: Council Testimony, Planning General Plan
Subject: OPPOSITION to Hawaii General Plan 204S
I oppose Hawaii General Plan 2045. Please consider the issues outlined in the attached letter and the
additional concerns below regarding my opposition to Hawaii General Plan 2045.
Jane Raymond
Hawaii Resident since 2015
Current Resident Ocean View
PO box 377872
Ocean View HI 96737
Letter:
Dear Council Members,
Big Island is a mostly rural County with limited development potential due to topography, expensive
energy supplies, and limited infrastructure including roads, water, sewage, power, and healthcare
In fact, Hilo would only make #28 in size compared to a small State of Washington.
The General Plan for 2045 reads like a UN Agenda 2030 outline with some local flavor. It is my contention
that the UN Agenda applies mostly to metropolitan areas to which Big Island has none. Based on this
premise, the plan for Big Island should not adopt UN Agenda speak but be crafted with local input based
on Big Island's unique needs and challenges.
There is an entire section dealing with climate change. The fact that climate is changing is nothing new to
mankind but the thought of attempting to change climate by any action taken by Big Island residents and
government is an act of wasteful spending and folly. If Big island were to achieve a so-called net zero
target, it would have exactly zero impact on Earth's climate. There are many examples now around the
world where attempts to try and achieve net zero are causing energy prices to soar and electric grids to
become less sustainable. Germany, UK, and even the State of CA are moving toward unsustainable
energy distribution with their current mix of "renewables". The current fire in one of the world's largest
battery plants in California spells out the extreme risk and high cost of using solar with battery backups.
One of the primary goals for Big Island should be viable, sustainable, lower cost alternatives for
electricity production as this alone will open doors for other sustainable development. This means
moving away from misinformation on solar and wind and looking at more reliable modular nuclear and
natural gas options. Without moving in the direction as a first step, there is no such thing as
sustainability. There is no safe way to store solar power at scale and the risks are very high. Please
observe what the tech companies are doing in conjunction with their new data centers
Regards,
John Burdick
92-8470 King Kamehameha Blvd PO Box 7966 Ocean View, HI 96737
------------------------------(end letter) ----------------------------
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS:
Opposition Position to the General Plan 2045
While the General Plan 2045 sets ambitious goals for sustainability, economic growth, and infrastructure
development,
there are critical flaws in its approach that could hinder its success. The plan tacks feasibility,
overestimates resource
availability, and places undue burdens on taxpayers and rural communities.
1. Unrealistic Transportation Goals
The plan prioritizes multi -modal transit and emerging technologies while neglecting practical
infrastructure needs:
•
Mass Transit Limitations: Expanding public transportation is idealistic, but given the tow
population density, mass transit will remain underutilized and costly.
•
Neglect of Rural Needs: Vision Zero and Complete Streets focus on urban centers, but rural roads
remain deteriorating without sufficient funding.
•
Autonomous Vehicles & Smart Roads: Investing in future technology is premature when basic
road maintenance remains underfunded.
2. Housing Policies Worsen Affordability
The plan's zoning changes and affordable housing policies may exacerbate the housing crisis rather than
solve it:
•
Urban Growth Boundaries Increase Prices: Restricting land use in rural areas artificially inflates
property values, making housing even less affordable.
•
Overcrowding Solutions Overlook Economic Realities: Policies ignore that overcrowding results
from low wages and high living costs, not just housing shortages.
•
Regulatory Burdens on Developers: Strict zoning and sustainability mandates deter private
investment, reducing housing supply and increasing costs.
3. Infrastructure and Utility Investments Are Unfunded and Impractical
The plan assumes major infrastructure expansions without realistic funding mechanisms:
•
Green Infrastructure & Energy Transition: Renewable energy projects are costly, and residents
will bear the financial burden of transitioning away from fossil fuels.
•
Broadband Expansion: While beneficial, the cost of rural broadband investment is unsustainable
without private sector buy -in.
•
Water Conservation Mandates: Restrictions and green infrastructure initiatives may increase costs
for consumers without clear efficiency benefits.
4. Economic Development Overlooks Local Challenges
The plan assumes economic diversification will reduce reliance on tourism but fails to address key
barriers:
•
Workforce Shortages in Tech & Healthcare: While the plan emphasizes education and business
services, Hawai'i struggles to retain talent due to the high cost of living.
•
Tourism Mismanagement: Reducing tourism's footprint is economically dangerous, as it remains
Hawai`i's largest industry. Balancing conservation and tourism is unrealistic without clear
incentives.
•
Agricultural Growth Is Not Feasible at Scale: Farming expansion requires land, water, and
workforce, all of which are limited. Dependence on imports will persist.
5. Climate Resilience Efforts Are Costly and Overreaching
Climate change policies in the plan impose expensive regulations without clear economic benefits:
•
Sea Level Rise Restrictions Hurt Property Owners: Over -regulating coastal development
diminishes property rights and land values.
•
Renewable Energy Transition Increases Costs: Shifting rapidly to renewables raises electricity
prices and risks reliability issues.
•
Disaster Preparedness Funding Is Unclear: Climate adaptation measures require significant public
spending without clearly defined funding sources.
Conclusion: A More Balanced Approach Needed
The General Plan 2045 prioritizes idealistic goals over practical solutions. A more balanced approach
should:
1. Focus on essential infrastructure first, ensuring roads, utilities, and housing affordability before
investing in speculative technology.
2. Encourage private -sector solutions rather than increasing government intervention in housing and
economic development.
3. Make climate policies cost-effective, ensuring that taxpayers are not burdened by aggressive
renewable energy mandates.
While the plan's vision is commendable, its execution threatens affordability, economic stability, and
individual property
rights. A more pragmatic approach is necessary to ensure growth without overregulation and excessive
public spending.
Source: Michelle Melendez https://www.facebook.com/share/p/l BgenMn9y3/
Mahalo,
Jane
From: Juhl Rayne
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 2:01 PM
To: Juhl Rayne
Subject: support GP2026
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP
2045. It functions as a practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy
and diluting accountability. GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and
officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local
communities —rather than abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawaii
residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning
grounded, practical, and accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Juhl Rayne
From:
Ron Reilly
Sent:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:23 AM
To:
Council Testimony, Galimba, Michelle M.
Cc:
Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer
Subject:
Bill 66 — Support the 2045 General Plan
Aloha Chair and Members of the Hawai'i County Council,
My name is Ron Reilly. I live in Volcano Village.
I'm writing to ask the Council to adopt the General Plan 2045 with its targets and accountability
structures intact, and to reject amendments that remove quantitative benchmarks, the energy and
resilience framework, or the biocultural stewardship provisions.
would like to remind Council members of the Oct 16, 2019 County of Hawaii Resolution 322-19 ...
"DECLARING A HAWAI'I COUNTY CLIMATE EMERGENCY AND REQUESTING REGIONAL
COLLABORATION TOWARD AN IMMEDIATE JUST TRANSITION AND EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION EFFORT
TO RESTORE A SAFE CLIMATE".
Resolution 322-19 passed with unanimous support from Council members: Chung, David, Eoff,
Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter. Absent: Kaneali'i-Kleindfelder and Richards.
Two of the 2019 Council members sit on today's County Council, and I respectfully urge them (and the
entire Council) to reject amendments to the General Plan 2045 that removes (in addition to the provision
mentioned above) an entire chapter on climate change [1 ] - a chapter that has even more significance
and urgency today, than imagined in 2019.
Mahalo,
Ron Reilly
Volcano Village 96785
[1 ] Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen: "2026 will be the warmest year [on record] in the period of
instrumental temperature measurements".
https://www.columbia.edu/—jehl /mailings/2026/2026GlobalTemperature.2026.04.30.pddf
From: Nan Rhodes
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 6:01 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: No data centers on the Big Island
Please stop data centers on the Big Island as well as everywhere in Hawaii. This takes a huge amount of fresh water
which is something that is already a concern. Focus on building homes where the water is available to support them.
Also, our electric system seems fragile as we have power outages, not only with storms and wind. These data centers use
a huge amount of electricity.
This won't help the Hawaiian people's lives. Please put a stop to data centers in Hawaii.
Natalie Rhodes
73-1221 Kuakapu St
Kailua Kona, HI. 96740
From: Ruth Robison
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 7:32 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: In Strong Support of Bill 66 - the 2045 General Plan
Dear Members of the Hawai'i County Council:
My name is Ruth Robison and I live in Hilo.
I strongly support Bill 66. 1 urge the County Council to adopt the General Plan 2045 with its targets
and accountability structures intact.
The 2045 General Plan took 11 years to develop, through a process that involved the County
government, planning commissioners, and community members across the island. Many public
workshops, draft reviews, and comment periods were held starting in 2015. The final draft was
released in 2024.
There is a proposed amendment to Bill 66, which would significantly change the 2045 General Plan.
The amendment removes the plan's chapter on energy, sustainability, and resilience. It removes
every measurable target, including the commitment to eliminate fossil -fuel electricity generation, the
County fleet electrification timeline, the transit ridership goal, and the zero -waste target. It removes
the "just transition" equity framework. It removes the biocultural stewardship structure that took years
of community input to build. It removes accountability. The proposed amendment would significantly
reduce the value of the general plan.
I support Hawai'i's movement toward energy independence through locally generated clean energy,
including geothermal, solar, and wind. State law requires county plans to work toward eliminating
dependence on imported fuel. The 2045 General Plan includes targets that are aligned with that
mandate. Removing them puts the County out of alignment with state law.
Please approve the 2045 General Plan which was created through an extensive eleven -year, multi-
stage process.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you for your service to the people of Hawai'i
County.
Sincerely,
Ruth Robison
Hawaii County District 02
Ruth E. Robison, Ph D
International Educator (Retired)
743 Kaumana Drive Bldg B * Hilo, HI 96720-1876 * USA
Phone (808) 935.7991
From:
Gabrielle Sanborn
Sent:
Tuesday, April 28, 2026 7:07 PM
To:
Council Testimony
Cc:
Anne-marie Cline
Subject:
Testimony for Bill 66
To: Hawaii County Council
Re: Testimony in Support of Bill 66 (General Plan Update)
Aloha Chair and Council Members,
My name is Gabrielle Sanborn, and I am a resident of Hilo. I am writing in support of Bill 66, which
updates the Hawaii County General Plan.
This bill is important because it helps guide how our island grows, including decisions around housing,
land use, and environmental protection. As someone who plans to continue living and working in
Hawaii, I see firsthand how the cost of living and lack of affordable housing impact individuals and
families in our community.
From a social work perspective, stable housing and access to resources are directly tied to overall well-
being. Thoughtful planning is essential to ensure that development does not come at the expense of
community health, cultural values, or environmental sustainability.
I support Bill 66 because it creates an opportunity to move toward more balanced and intentional
growth. I also encourage continued focus on increasing affordable housing options and protecting our
natural and cultural resources as this plan moves forward.
Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.
Sincerely,
Gabrielle Sanborn
Hilo, Hawaii
From: schausjulie
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 9:49 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support of GP 2026
Dear council.
Please support the will of the people by supporting GP 2026.
GP 2026 better reflects what we as locals asked for; clear protection, respect for our communities and is more grounded.
GP 2045 does NOT reflect the people's will. GP 2045 threatens our property rights and land use and I feel and fear that
our local input will not be heard or honored.
Please listen to the people, not the government or outside foreign interests.
Respectfully,
Julie Schaus
Sent from my Wad
From: Claudia
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 11:44 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Please support GP 2026 and Reject GP 2045
Please support GP 2026 and Reject GP 2045
Dearest County Council Members,
As an active member of the community, I have followed closely and participated in the General Plan
revision process. I first became aware of it approximately a year and a half ago.
I've attended almost all meetings regarding GP at the Hilo County Council Chambers along with our team
of other very concerned citizens. We often also lingered afterwards to help!
All have written once again very extensively and thoroughly regarding their concerns, which I will not
reiterate here.
I commend you for the time taken to read the testimonies from the public. I am very pleased how many
people (into the over 1000) who have responded with written testimonies. The vast majority of these
responses were about concerns regarding the maps and guidelines and the impact on the local flavor
(for lack of a better word) that this UN based, smart city agenda would create.
So thank you very much for "listening" to us and allowing us to be helping you be more educated
regarding that it was not actually created exclusively by "Big Island Residents", as claimed, but was
based on a carefully crafted incorporation of UN based Agendas.
We do need to plan ahead to secure everything without potential outside " investors" with a different
Agenda! ("Stakeholders").
The removal of many references to these possibilities in the 2026 Plan was a great relief.
One aspect of living on the Big Island is that it becoming more and more apparent (whether it be through
local newspaper, social media or the coconut wireless method! ) is the ever increasing military presence.
I'm all about for creating work opportunities here and the technological advances that would be of
benefit; however, the notion that a launching pad that would launch satellites into space being created
around the Hilo airport ( and affecting our community already impacted by air traffic)is most concerning.
Is the new Hotel at the Airport being designed to accommodate workers too?
I see nothing that would prevent that from occurring as well as any other military/industrial constraints.
These are missing in any plan.
Unforeseen consequences in GP 2045 are a concern.
I was pleased to see a forwarded email stating that the vote will not take place until later this month and
that both revised Maps and General Plan 2026 are still being developed.
Please take the time to carefully note all the bullet points being noted by others, several are
on my team that have met to help.
We thank you for all the great effort being taken to try and ensure the future of the Big (land is safe sound
and adequate to meet our needs in the future.
Of course many of these needs are as of yet unknown, but the guidelines provided by the 2046 plan I am
seeing and hoping will be open and flexible enough to provide the guidance necessary.
The earlier plan 2045 has so many concerning components that I fear it would lead to an extensive
amount of litigation, which would only serve as a future hole in the pocket for the County.
Again thank you for what you're doing to safeguard our Ohanas and the future of all families here.
Claudia Schimmer-Keawe, RN
From: Deborah Sevy
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 3:50 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP
2045. It functions as a practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy and
diluting accountability. GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and officials
to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local
communities —rather than abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawaii
residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning
grounded, practical, and accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
Deborah Sevy
From: Shannon S
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 4:43 AM
To: Kimball, Heather, Council Testimony; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Hustace, James; Inaba,
Holeka; Villegas, Rebecca; Galimba, Michelle M.; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kagiwada,
Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis
Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP 2045. It functions as a
practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy and diluting accountability.
GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local communities —rather than
abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawai'i residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning grounded, practical, and
accountable. I was born and raised in the Hawaiian Islands, and have been paying property taxes for over the last decade,
please help the local residents of Hawaii protect their private property rights.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
Jason Shively
From: LaDonna Shively
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 4:37 AM
To: Kierkiewicz, Ashley, Hustace, James; Inaba, Holeka; Villegas, Rebecca; Galimba,
Michelle M.; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Onishi, Dennis; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Council
Testimony; Kimball, Heather
Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2046.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP 2045. It functions as a
practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy and diluting accountability.
GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local communities —rather than
abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawai'i residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning grounded, practical, and
accountable. It is extremely important to my husband and I who have resided full-time and paid property taxes in Hawaii for
many decades now, that our private property rights are protected.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026, and thank you for your attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,
LaDonna Shively
From: Tuberose
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 4:39 AM
To: Council Testimony, Kierkiewicz, Ashley, Hustace, James; Inaba, Holeka; Villegas,
Rebecca; Galimba, Michelle M.; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi,
Dennis; Kimball, Heather
Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP 2045. It functions as a
practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy and diluting accountability.
GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local communities —rather than
abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawai'i residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning grounded, practical, and
accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
Shannon Shively
From: Cheri Stange
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 2:06 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Large scale Al Data centers in Hawaii
Our name is Brent & Cheryl Stange and we live in Kailua Kona. Our neighbors are talking about pending
amendments to allow data centers on the Big Island! No way! We vehemently oppose any amendments
that open up Hawaii to Data Centers. In my home town (in Wisconsin) wells are drying up all around an Al
Data Center. The town is in a state of collapse & electricity & water bills are skyrocketing! How can you
even THINK about building Data Centers on an island? Take care of our infrastructure instead. Roads,
septic, power grid. Do what the people of Hawaii want, preserve our Island. Don't let greed cloud your
judgment.
From: Martha Stephens
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 8:49 AM
To: Council Remote Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis;
Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka;
Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Support GP 2026 - Oppose UN Agenda Global Governance GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in desperation for your support of General Plan 2026 and
complete opposition to General Plan 2045 which you will vote on Monday.
I am also writing this for the community that has been intentionally kept in
the dark and/or too busy surviving to have the time to testify all these
months. This literally is a matter of life and death for the Hawaiian living,
sovereign beings on this island.
In this life we are either service to self or service to others. I beg you to be
of service to the men, women and children that are here now and for all the
future generations. PLEASE protect our god given rights, resources and
boundaries.
GP 2026 is for the men, women and children living with nature in a healthy,
natural human environment as a community and focuses on our private
property and resource rights and keeping our local boundaries. It is concise,
understandable, and aligns with what all local residents have consistently
asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our
families without unnecessary outside overreaching unknown
conglomerates. We all know how beautiful and abundant this island is and
what a privilege it is to live here.
GP 2045 on the other hand, sells the island to the highest bidders of global
governance and communitarianism through corporations and unknown
organizations and IS the plan for the UN Agenda for the 21 st Century. The
below analysis was written in 2013.
1
A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations
Program of Action
To some people, Agenda 21 is an evil plan for the further creation,
and control, of a world government, by the non -elected bureaucrats
at the United Nations. To other people, Agenda 21 is a just well-
meaning, harmless, non -binding set of recommendations, created
by a group of men, and women, at the United Nations, that care
about the preservation of the world's environment.
Before debating the true intentions, or effects, of Agenda 21, we
must first understand the details of this document.
In can be difficult, and confusing, for the average person who hears
about Agenda 21, to really understand it, through a simple
search. The program is hundreds of pages, and not too many
people will take the time to read all of it. An internet search of UN
Agenda 21 will lead to a lot of information, but much of it is without
reference to the actual document, thus seemingly just an opinion. I
have took the time to read the document myself, and will chronicle
my findings, and thoughts, here.
(It should be noted that I am not going into this examination
completely ignorant of Agenda 21. 1 have, in the past, written
critically about events taking place in my local community, that are
connected to United Nations Agenda 21.)
The full document is 351 pages, however Agenda 21 is much more
complex than just what is written in this action plan, due to the fact
that there are numerous other resolutions referenced, and
recommended, for further implementation, such as the Healthy
Cities Programme of WHO, the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, and many more. I have yet to read all of these other
resolutions, conventions, and programs, but as I do, I will
2
document, and update, my research,
at TheGoodmanChronicle.com. For now, I will just examine the
text of this specific document, which can be viewed, in full, online
here.
Let us start with the front cover of the hard copy version of Agenda
21 which reads:
"EARTH SUMMIT - AGENDA 21 - THE UNITED NATIONS
PROGRAMME OF ACTION FROM RIO".
By using the words "programme of action", the creators of this
document are informing the reader that this is a plan, or program,
that they intend to have performed, or put into action, and not just
some ideas that they hope for people to consider.
Agenda 21 is broken up into forty chapters, divided into three
sections, and nearly every part of this document revolves around
the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership
for sustainable development." (Chapter 1, Section 1). Though the
adjective "sustainable" is used numerous times, and in conjunction
with various other pleasant sounding nouns, to create ideas like
"sustainable livelihood" (Ch. 3, Sec. 4-a), and "sustainable city
networks" (Ch. 7, Sec. 20-d), throughout Agenda 21, what is meant
by "sustainable" is never really made clear, or specifically defined.
The opening preamble of Agenda 21 alludes to the idea that the
term "sustainable development" means an "integration of
environment and development concerns", which, according to the
United Nations, will lead to "the fulfilment of basic needs, improved
living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems
and a safer, more prosperous future." (Ch. 1, Sec. 1) This sounds
nice, but again, is not specific, and could mean anything.
3
As the reader progresses through the document, a more sinister,
controlling, agenda seems to emerge, that is ingrained in this plan,
but it is masked with nice sounding phrases, and friendly
language. The United Nations claims to want to create a sort -of
utopia, where the environment is clean, nobody is hungry, everyone
has a home, etc., but to do this, they need to have the power to
create laws, or recommendations, that effect changes in your local
community.
Overcoming Confrontation
The United Nations appears to view elected, local, public
representatives, as a threat, because these representatives have
the power to make, or change, laws, thus having the power to
interrupt the Agenda. In Chapter 2, it is made clear "for the
success of this new partnership, it is important to
overcome confrontation and to foster a climate of genuine
cooperation and solidarity." [emphasis added]. In other words, for
this plan to work, there can't be any conflict of opposing ideas, or
confrontation, and everyone must be in a state of undivided
opinion, or solidarity. A critical thinker, at this point, may question
why there ever would be "confrontation", to such a wonderful plan
to save the world. Who would oppose it, and why? Let's move on.
The main goal of Agenda 21 is to completely change the way your
local government operates, or in the words of the Agenda:
"The overall objective is to ... restructure the decision -making
process..." (Ch. 8, Sec. 3)
To further show the contempt that the authors of Agenda 21 have
for local, elected government, they make the claim that "unilateral
policy actions continue to endanger the functioning of an open
multilateral trading system" (Ch 2. Sec. 8), which means that
countries that make their own decisions, unilaterally, about trade,
4
are dangerous, and interfere with the Agenda. Democracy, where
people debate things back and forth, and get to vote, is too much of
a hassle, and inefficient, when it comes to implementing a plan for
world government. That is why Agenda 21 wants countries to
"remove the barriers to progress caused by bureaucratic
inefficiencies." (Ch. 2, Sec. 37-a)
Erasing Borders
One way the Agenda plans on overriding, or limiting, the
sovereignty of local democratic government, is to blur, or even
erase, the existing boundaries that separate cities, municipalities,
states, countries, etc., and create new, or strengthen existing,
regional boundaries. These regions will have their own regional
government, whose power will supersede that of your elected
governments. And, of course, these regional governments are not,
and will not be, democratically elected.
The reason given for creating, and empowering, these regional
governments is explained in Chapter 7, Section 14:
"Some metropolitan areas extend over the boundaries of
several political and/or administrative entities (counties and
municipalities) even though they conform to a continuous urban
system. In many cases this political heterogeneity hinders the
implementation of comprehensive environmental management
programmes"
Again, the creators of Agenda 21 emphasize their contempt for the
differences of opinion, or "political heterogeneity", functioning within
the current forms of democratically elected "political entities". They
are looking to have regional governments make the decisions, to
implement Agenda 21, without interference.
5
Encouraging the validity of these regional governments will be
brought about through seminars, put on in your local community,
sponsored by supporters of Agenda 21.
"Encouraging regional seminars and, possibly, the development
of regional centres of expertise." (Ch. 8, Sec. 34-b)
Already existing city, county, state, and country borders, will be
ignored, and transcended, while new "transboundary areas" will be
created:
"Adopting integrated approaches to sustainable development at
the regional level, including transboundary areas" (Ch. 8, Sec.
5-e)
Having no threatening opposition to Agenda 21 in your local,
democratically controlled, governments is the goal, and it is referred
to, in the Agenda, as having a "predictable public administration' .
(Ch 2., Sec. 6)
As witnessed in every form of democratic government, at every
level, from local, state, to federal, to achieve full solidarity,
democratically, where everyone gets a vote, is
impossible. Naturally, every individual has their own idea of how
things should work. This is why the United Nations is not a
democratic organization, and does not plan on bringing in their plan
for the 21 st century, Agenda 21, democratically.
Decrease In Living Standard
Another idea that seems to emerge from this document is that the
cause of the majority of the earth's current economic, and
environmental, problems is the high standard of living, referred to
as an "unsustainable pattern of consumption and production",
currently enjoyed by the inhabitants of developed countries, such
as America:
6
"the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global
environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and
production, particularly in industrialized countries, which is a
matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances."
(Ch. 4, Sec. 3)
"The current decline in biodiversity is largely the result of human
activity and represents a serious threat to human development.
" (Ch. 15, Sec. 2)
To fix these problems, the United Nations plans to reduce the
standard of living in the industrialized countries, by forcing a
change in lifestyles of people living in these areas, through
"environmental taxation" (Ch. 8, Sec. 36-a), and regulations, and by
transferring wealth, resources, and technology, from these
developed countries, to developing countries. In the agenda's own
words, the plan is to ensure the "building up of
economic... capabilities for the efficient use and further development
of
transferred technology" to developing countries." (Ch. 34, Sec.
4) This build up of wealth will be taken from industrialized
countries, lowering our standard of living, which will create, what
the planners refer to as a "reorientation of existing... consumption
patterns that have developed in industrial societies." (Ch. 4, Sec.
15)
To ensure this reorientation of production, and consumption,
Agenda 21 wants to control all trade barriers, and remove any
restrictions, to give an advantage to poor countries exporting their
goods. This "removal of existing distortions in international trade",
as it is referred to in the Agenda, as well as the strict environmental
regulations that are to be placed on developed countries, will cause
a decrease in wages, as well as a vast increase in prices, and thus
a lower standard of living, on the inhabitants of these industrialized
nations.
The Agenda's planners make it clear that they are fully aware that
there will be price increases, as a result of this plan being
implemented, and are worried that individual democratically elected
governments might try to protect themselves, and their
constituents, from this increase in prices.
"Seek to avoid the use of trade restrictions or distortions as a
means to offset differences in cost arising from differences in
environmental standards and regulations" (Ch. 2, Sec. 22-e)
Important to note, the rules, and regulations, will be selectively
enforced, and be used to bring about this lowering of the standard
of living of industrialized countries. The same environmental
regulations that the United Nations wants placed on industrialized
nations, will not be placed on developing countries:
"...account should be taken of the fact that environmental
standards valid for developed countries may have unwarranted
social and economic costs in developing countries." (Ch 2, Sec.
20)
The planners know that local elected politicians may feel pressure
from their constituents to do something about the rising cost of
living, as a result of compliance with Agenda 21's new standards
and regulations This is why, as previously discussed, the decision
making power, or sovereignty, has to be removed from your local
elected representatives, and given to governments, such as
regional boards, that are selected by an elite group, instead of
elected by the people, thus being "predictable", and will, ultimately,
move in "solidarity"with Agenda 21.
Changed Lifestyles
One goal of those implementing Agenda 21 is to convince you that
these changes, including the lowering of your standard of living, is a
great thing, and is being done for the benefit of the world.
As they lower your standard of living, the planners intend to sell you
on the idea that a decrease in your standard of living is good for
you, by a clever technique of re -defining what it means to be
wealthy, or prosperous:
"Consideration should also be given to the present concepts of
economic growth and the need for new concepts of wealth and
prosperity which allow higher standards of living
through changed lifestyles and are less dependent on the
Earth's finite resources and more in harmony with
the Earth's carrying capacity." [emphasis added] (Ch. 4, Sec.
11)
Governments will team up with corporations to propagandize these
new concepts of wealth and prosperity, and environmentally -
friendly lifestyle changes, through various forms of media.
"Governments, in cooperation with industry and other relevant
groups, should encourage expansion of ... environmentally
related product information programmes designed to assist
consumers to make informed choices." (Ch. 4, Sec. 21)
The propaganda will also makes its way into schools, and
universities:
"Emphasizing interdisciplinary and integrative approaches in the
curricula of schools and
technical, vocational and university training" (Ch. 10, Sec. 16-a)
Rational Water Use
Propaganda, in the form of "public awareness" campaigns, and
"educational programmes", will be used to persuade people that
having access to less of a resource, that they are normally used to
having in abundance, like water, is good for the Earth. The
planners believe that industrialized nations use too much water,
9
and want government to work out "schemes" that will force people
to use less water, like an increase in the cost of water use:
"Promotion of schemes for rational water use through public
awareness -raising,
educational programmes and levying of water tariffs and other
economic instruments" (Ch. 18, Sec. 12-g)
The endorsers of this plan believe that water should only be used in
the "satisfaction of basic needs", and "beyond these
requirements ... water users should be charged appropriately." (Ch.
18, Sec. 8)
What does Agenda 21 consider to be the "satisfaction of basic
needs"?
It is difficult to really understand, because, as typical with this
document, specific details are not included. However, we may
draw a conclusion about how much water the United Nations
believes is adequate for a person to live on, by a goal that is
detailed in Chapter 18, Section 58-a, that would ensure that "all
urban residents have access to at least 40 litres per capita per day
of safe water..."
40 Liters of water is equal to about 10.5 gallons. The average
American uses more than this in a quick shower, never mind the
water to run the toilet, to cook, to drink, wash clothes, etc. This
type of thing is important to remember, when the United Nations
throws around nice phrases like the "satisfaction of basic needs."
For this plan of water regulation to be effective, there must be
complete control over the world's water supply. This is why the
Agenda looks to "identify all potential sources of water -supply and
prepared outlines for their... rational use." (Ch. 18, Sec. 39-
10
b) Exactly what "rational use", in regards to water, is, of course, in
true Agenda 21 fashion, unclear.
This "inventorying of water resources" will "effectively plan and
manage water -supply" at every level, including "national, provincial,
district, and community". (Ch 18, Sec. 53)
Earth's Carrying Capacity
By using the phrase "Earth's carrying capacity", in Chapter Four,
Section Eleven, the planners reveal their belief that there is a
certain number of humans that this Earth can sustain, and express
how they want to change society to be more in "harmony" with this
arbitrary number they they have come up with, but do not actually
reveal, in this particular document.
The Agenda also proclaims that there is a specific number of
people, that can live on a specific size of land, to be in accordance
with sustainable development. This theory is referred to as having
a "sustainable man/land ratio", in the Agenda. (Ch. 14, Sec.
3) Specific numbers, in regards to what a proper man to land ratio
would entail, are not mentioned in Agenda 21.
All of Chapter Five, "Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability", is
about how the large number of humans, or "the growth of world
population", is effecting the planet, and what they think needs to be
done about it. The planners want governments to include an
agenda for human population control in all policies related to
sustainable development, or a "full integration of population
concerns into national planning, policy and decision -making
processes" (Ch 5, Sec. 17):
"The human dimensions are key elements to consider in this
intricate set of relationships and they should be adequately
taken into consideration in comprehensive policies for
11
sustainable development... Population policy should also
recognize the role played by human beings in environmental
and development concerns" (Ch. 5, Sec. 3)
If people could just pick up and leave the areas that are being
effected by Agenda 21, it would hinder the ultimate plan, because
of this, the United Nations sees the control of human movement, as
an essential part of carrying out Agenda 21. The document urges
countries to consider "population policies and programmes" (Ch. 5,
Sec. 17) which should "address the consequences of population
growth built into population momentum." The United Nations feels
that population momentum, or people having the ability to move, is
hurting the earth, therefore they feel the need to create regulations
to control this.
Transportation
Agenda 21 wants to make us "less dependent on the Earth's finite
resources". They will do this not by persuading us to buy hybrid
vehicles, use less heat, or to walk more, but to increase the cost of
energy, through fines and regulations, which will force us to
change our lifestyles.
The planners believe that cars are hurting the Earth, and want to
use propaganda techniques, similar to the ones previously
discussed in the "Changed Lifestyles" section, to sell you on the
idea that driving is bad, and taking public transportation is good:
"Raise public awareness of the environmental impacts of
transport and travel behaviour through mass media campaigns
and support for non -governmental and community initiatives
promoting the use of non -motorized transport, shared driving
and improved traffic safety measures;" (Ch. 7, Sec. 54-b)
Agenda 21 encourages countries to change laws, and regulations,
in zoning, and development, to encourage public transportation
12
use, thus discouraging private vehicle use. Walking, and bicycling
will also be encouraged, through zoning, and development,
changes, by the addition of special lanes on roadways. The
Agenda uses pleasant sounding language to tell us how they would
like to get us out of our vehicles, and into public
transportation. Here are a few examples, all from Chapter 7,
Section 52:
• "Integrate land -use and transportation planning to encourage
development patterns that reduce transport demand;"
• "Adopt urban -transport programmes favouring high -occupancy
public transport"
• "Encourage non -motorized modes of transport by providing
safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in
countries, as appropriate; "
All of this sounds nice, but you have to think about it
logically. What will make someone give up the convenience of
using their own vehicle, and use public transportation? This
decision will surely entail a sacrifice of some sort. If taking a bus
was better than taking a car, there would be much more people on
the bus, and a lot less people in their cars, on the road, than there
are now. Giving up your personal vehicle, and relying on public
transportation, requires much inconvenience, and not many people
are willing to make that sacrifice. This is why the Agenda plans to
use laws, and regulations, that will force you out of your vehicle.
When the cost of owning a vehicle is too high, you are forced to use
public transportation, which will limit you in your options of work,
thus lowering your standard of living. This is just one example, of
many that can be provided, of how regulations, and laws, that result
from Agenda 21, will impact your everyday life.
Human Settlements
13
Any movement of population that takes place will be highly
controlled, and directed, by government regulations. These so-
called population policies, and programs, encouraged by the United
Nations, will be used "to bring about demographic transition" (Ch. 51
Sec. 16), as it is referred to in Agenda 21, to reflect more of what
the planners have envisioned.
The agenda plans to "expand areas under forest and tree cover,"
(Ch. 11, Sec. 12-a) by forcing people out of their quiet rural homes,
and into crowded cities:
"As appropriate, they should also concentrate on activities
aimed at facilitating the transition from rural to urban lifestyles
and settlement patterns" (Ch. 7, Sec. 19)
This forced changed will be brought about by causing an increase
in the cost of water, sanitation, and other essentials, to higher
income neighborhoods, thus making it too expensive to live in these
areas:
"Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of,
environmental and other services of high standard (e.g. water
supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads, telecommunications)
provided to higher income neighbourhoods;" (Ch. 7, Sec. 16-
ci)
People will be forced into, what the Agenda refers to as, "human
settlement" areas, which will help transition these populations to
new living areas, where your "resource needs, waste production,
and ecosystem health" will be controlled by government:
"In formulating human settlements policies, account should be
taken of resource needs, waste production and ecosystem
health." (Ch. 5, Sec. 29)
The eventual goal of this forced population movement into human
settlement areas is to get rid of private property, and have all land
accessible, and owned, collectively, by the community:
14
"ensure access to land to all households and, where
appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively
owned and managed land." (Ch. 7, Sec. 28)
Dependency Burdens
Even with a successful human settlement policy for the world, there
would still be too many people on Earth for the United Nations to
control, or to live under "sustainable development", therefore
Agenda 21 finds it necessary to reduce the world's
population. Reducing the number of people that are "dependency
burdens", or unable to sustain themselves, and no longer useful to
society, such as babies, and the elderly, seems to be the targeted
groups marked for culling, by the planners.
"An assessment should be made of the implications of the age
structure of the population on resource demand and
dependency burdens, ranging from educational expenses for
the young to health care and support for the elderly, and on
household income generation. " (Ch. 5, Sec. 22)
One way that Agenda 21 looks to push their program for de-
population, is under the guise of "women's rights":
"Population policies and programmes should be
considered, with full recognition of women's rights." [emphasis
added] (Ch. 5, Sec. 17)
Convincing women to have less children, or hopefully no children at
all, is part of the grand plan of Agenda 21. Having all nations
recognize a woman's right to birth control, including abortion, is a
main goal of Agenda 21, in terms of population control, though not
explicitly stated in that manner. The terms "birth control", and
"abortion", are not actually used, however these concepts are
alluded to by recommendations that "reproductive health
programmes and services, should... enable women and men to fulfil
15
their personal aspirations in terms of family size", (Ch. 5, Sec. 16)
as well as other recommendations that:
• "ensure that women and men have the same right to decide
freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their
children" (Ch. 3, Sec. 8-j)
• "population/environment programmes must enable women to
mobilize themselves to alleviate their burden." [emphasis
added] (Ch. 5, Sec. 48)
The planners state that many women "lack the means
of ... responsibly controlling their reproductive life" (Ch. 6, Sec. 21),
and want to provide, for women who may not be "responsible" with
the number of children they have, options to "alleviate their
burden'.
As previously stated, the elderly are considered "dependency
burdens", for the "resource demand" they require, due to their need
for "health care and support", according to Chapter 5, Section
22. Keeping the elderly alive requires resources, that the planners
feel could be used for better purposes. The only thing that gets in
the way of just letting the elderly die, and saving these resources, is
the family members, who love their relative, and want everything to
be done to keep them alive. This is why Agenda 21 purposes
"institutional changes" that would strip the family from having the
right to decide on their elderly relative's fate:
"Proposals should be developed for local, national and
international population/environment
programmes in line with specific needs for achieving
sustainability. Where appropriate, institutional changes must
be implemented so that old -age security does not entirely
depend on input from family members." [emphasis
added] (Ch. 5, Sec. 56)
Controlling Disease
16
It will not only be the young, the elderly, and women, that will have
the the United Nations involved with their health care, but Agenda
21 has a goal to achieve "Health For All" (Ch. 6, Sec 8). This is
another pleasant sounding term, that is never really defined, but is
alluded to in Chapter 6, Section 3, as the idea that the United
Nations wants everyone to have:
"a safe water supply —sanitation ... a safe food supply... proper
nutrition... promotion of immunization and provision of essential
drugs... responsible planning of family size"
Keep in mind that this is a group of un-elected politicians, at a
global level, who think they know what the "responsible" number of
people is, that you should have in your family.
Vaccinations, though held as controversial by many, will play a
major role in this plan for "Health For All", as Agenda 21 looks to
"implement to the fullest extent possible the use of vaccines in the
prevention of disease. If (Ch 6., Sec. 12-1) The Agenda also looks
to "develop and make widely available new and improved
vaccines", including "intensifying efforts directed at the vaccines
needed to combat common diseases of children."
Cholera is a disease that the United Nations singles out under their
"control of communicable diseases" section. (Ch. 6, Sec.
10) Ironically, the United Nations is accused of actually bringing
cholera to Haiti, effecting many Haitians, and is currently, at the
time of this report being published, involved in a lawsuit, as a result
of that incident.
The planners have an interesting way of expressing their belief that
your opinion may be heard on matters, such as biotechnology
application, but not necessary. Agenda 21 is being implemented
with your tax money, and you don't get to vote on it, however, to
make you feel good, the planners will allow you to go to their
17
controlled, scripted meetings, where you are able to make an
"informed comment."
"National mechanisms to allow for informed comment by the
public with regard to biotechnology research and application
should be part of the process." (Ch. 16, Sec. 37)
Data Collection
The mass collection of data is an integral part of Agenda 21. The
planners want to collect data on EVERY RESOURCE in the world,
including water, land, forests, soil, energy, food, even humans, and
much more. The reader will find that nearly every chapter of
Agenda 21 has a section in it, that has something to do with data
collection, such as Chapter 14 "Promoting Sustainable Agriculture
and Rural Development", which has a goal to "process, store and
analyse animal genetic data at the global level." (Ch. 14, Sec. 68-b)
Particularly Women
Interestingly, nearly every section focuses on the role that woman
need to play in the implementation of Agenda 21. Chapter 24, titled
"Global Action for Women Towards Sustainable And Equitable
Development", is a whole chapter dedicated towards empowering
women to implement Agenda 21.
The planners want to increase the number of women in positions of
power, in government, and in the private sector. This focus on
women is curiously added to various sections:
"...promote the development of the human resources that are
required to plan and manage land and land resources
sustainably. This should be done by providing incentives for
local initiatives and by enhancing local management
capacity, particularly of women..." (Ch. 10, Sec. 16)
18
"...assist the developing countries in their efforts to develop a
participatory structure by mobilizing the human resources of the
private sector, nongovernmental organizations and the
poor, particularly women and the disadvantaged." (Ch. 7,
Sec. 26)
"Measures to review policies and establish plans to increase
the proportion of women involved as decision makers,
planners, managers, scientists and technical advisers in the
design, development and implementation of policies and
programmes for sustainable development;" (Ch. 24, Sec. 2-b)
The Agenda also wants to have influence in your life at home, by
looking to "promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women
and girl children at home", and, somehow, influence "the sharing of
household tasks by men and women on an equal basis." (Ch. 24,
Sec. 3-d)
As is the same with other sections of the Agenda, the planners will
use propaganda through media to change belief systems:
"Programmes to eliminate persistent negative images,
stereotypes, attitudes and prejudices against women through
changes in socialization patterns, the media, advertising, and
formal and non -formal education; " (Ch. 24, Sec. 3-i)
Implementation
Now that we have established the vision, and goals, of Agenda 21,
we will explore how the United Nations plans on having these
recommendations implemented. We are told that United Nations
lacks any real power to directly effect changes in your country,
therefore we need not worry about what is recommended in this
action plan of Agenda 21. This is partially true. The United Nations
is not passing bills that immediately effect your local community, yet
anyway, however the means by which the UN is implementing
19
Agenda 21, which IS effecting your local community, is by a clever,
fairly -secretive, subversive tactic, which will be discussed here.
First, let us establish that the United Nations finds it "essential" to
change your local laws, and regulations, to implement Agenda 21:
"The enactment and enforcement of laws and regulations (at
the regional, national, state/provincial or local/municipal level)
are also essential for the implementation of most international
agreements in the field of environment and development" (Ch.
8, Sec. 15)
Your local, elected, legislators will receive pressure, as well as
incentives, to push specific laws, and programs, in accordance with
Agenda 21. This push will come from, what are referred to as,
Non -Governmental Organizations (NGOs):
"Competent intergovernmental and non -governmental
organizations could cooperate to provide Governments and
legislators, upon request, with an integrated programme of
environment and development law (sustainable development
law) services, carefully adapted to the specific requirements of
the recipient legal and administrative systems." (Ch. 8, Sec. 19)
The goal of empowering NGOs to influence policy is not hidden, as
a matter of fact, the title of Chapter 27 is "Strenghtening the Role of
Non -Governmental Organizations: Partners for Sustainable
Development."
These NGOs are sent into your local community, and, in
conjunction with the aforementioned regional governments, as well
as other non -democratic organizations that are promoted through
Agenda 21, will look to gain decision making authority, thus taking
away your decision making ability:
"Empower community groups, non -governmental organizations
and individuals to assume the authority and
20
responsibility for managing and enhancing their immediate
environment" [emphasis added] (Ch. 7, Sec. 20-g)
Your local elected legislators will be persuaded to give
nongovernmental organizations decision making power to
implement Agenda 21 at all levels:
"Governments and international bodies should promote and
allow the participation of nongovernmental organizations in the
conception, establishment and evaluation of official
mechanisms and formal procedures designed to review the
implementation of Agenda 21 at all levels" (Ch. 27, Sec. 8)
"Governments ... should develop mechanisms to allow non-
governmental organizations to play their partnership role
responsibly and effectively" (Ch. 27, Sec. 5)
Non -governmental organizations will be used to prepare your local
elected officials, through "practical training programmes", for
Agenda 21 implementation, and the "facilitation of behaviour
change" that will be required:
"Intensive, short, practical training programmes with emphasis
on skills in effective communication, community organization
and facilitation of behaviour change should be developed in
order to prepare the local personnel of all sectors involved in
social development for carrying out their respective roles."
[emphasis added] (Ch. 6, Sec. 8)
To assist in this facilitation of behavior change, there are Agenda
21 associated "workshops", and "seminars", as well as "the
establishment of professional associations" (Ch. 7, Sec. 34-d), to
promote the goals of the Agenda.
There are three major non -governmental organizations specifically
mentioned in Agenda 21, Chapter 7, Section 21:
. "International Union of Local Authorities (IULA)
21
• "International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
(ICLEI)
• "World Federation of Twin Cities"
Though there are more than a million non -governmental
organizations in operation, in America, many of the more active,
and well -funded, NGOs, are associated with, or directly funded by,
one of these three organizations. A more detailed examination of
the influences of an organization like ICLEI, on your local
community, will show the connections more clearly, and should be
undertaken. As far as this particular report, I will try to stick strictly
to the details outlined in Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 is most likely already in your community, as the agenda,
which was drafted in 1992, states:
"By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have
undertaken a consultative process with their populations and
achieved a consensus on "a local Agenda 21 " for the
community;" (Ch. 28, Sec. 2-a)
Private companies will also be used to push this "local Agenda 21"
into your community:
"Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its
citizens, local organizations and private enterprises and adopt
"a local Agenda 21" [emphasis added] (Ch. 28, Sec. 3)
Conclusion
Upon a full detailed examination of United Nations Agenda 21, the
reader comes to find this document to be a plan by the United
Nations to gain more decision making power, or sovereignty, from
countries, and create a world in which every resource, water,
animals, food, etc., even human resources, and population size, is
tracked, and controlled, by a group of non -elected bureaucrats at
22
the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-
governmental organizations (NGO's).
It has been more than twenty years since this Agenda has been
drafted, and as the effects of its implementation have been getting
more obvious, public awareness, and resistance, to the Agenda
has grown. There are probably people in your community, currently
fighting Agenda 21. Many of these people may not even be aware
that it is Agenda 21 they are fighting, when they are protesting the
use of eminent domain to take property, higher taxes, or severe
regulations. When the Agenda 21 orientated NGOs come into your
town, they do not tend to reference Agenda 21 directly, however
many of the terms, as well as the concepts, are an obvious
reflection of Agenda 21. If you look into who is funding these
NGOs that are operating in your community, you will most likely find
these funders to be directly linked to the United Nations, or Agenda
21.
Aside from the outrageous details outlined in the Agenda, the whole
idea of what the United Nations is attempting to do, should be
cause for scrutiny. Why should these people, that we never
elected, or met, be making decisions at a global level, that effect
us, and our community? We have enough problems dealing with
our own, elected, governments, can you imagine having to plead
your case to some UN bureaucrat?
The flame of liberty is dying, as a collectivist world government is
being set-up right in front of our eyes. Only an informed, and
educated, public can prevent this.
Posted by Connecting The Agenda at 1:49 PM
A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action
23
A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations
Program of Action
7o some people, Agenda 21 is an evil plan for the further
creaticsn, and control, of a world government, by the n...
Obviously GP 2045 is a global plan infiltration introducing policies and
frameworks that will negatively impact all private property and resource
rights, local farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their
land. Global Governance for the greater good has fancy lingo but is all
lies. There is no need for this deception here in the middle of the pacific,
please stand up to the perception, pressure and incentives.
We want the plan that protects and respects the Hawaii islands
inhabitants. The plan that aligns with human integrity, private property
rights and resource rights and keeps our boundaries. GP 2026 will keep our
local governance here to protect that.
Please save this island. Understand that education of the biggest threat has
been hidden intentionally from public. I speak for all the ignorant that you
are here and paid for to protect in this time and space.
I thank you out of my deep love for family and humanity. I am crying as I
finish this.
I will see you Monday at 9am in the West Hawaii Civic Center Council
Chambers. Please contact me anytime for any more information I can
provide.
Sincerely,
Martha Stephens
Keaha, HI
24
408-978-0354
25
From: koapuna
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 6:18 AM
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Aloha Big Island County Council,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
The GP 2026 plan reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people on Hawai'i Island, our
communities, and our private land/property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many local
people have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our families without
unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is a 310-page document filled with broad and vague goals that appears disconnected from the
actual input provided by the local people. Thousands of community members participated in good faith — attending
hearings, submitting testimony, and engaging in the public process — yet the final product does not reflect what we
shared. People across the Island areas have raised consistent concerns about land/property rights, agricultural
protections, and government overreach, yet the plan moved in the opposite direction. This raises serious concerns
about transparency, accountability, and whether community input was meaningfully absorbed or merely
acknowledged.
GP 2045 introduces specific policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private land/property rights, local
farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. In particular:
• Open Space Network provisions give the county the ability to incorporate private lands into its Open
Space Network, restricting what landowners can do with their own land without their consent or
compensation.
• "Natural Beauty Sites" preservation policies further restrict landowners' rights to develop or sell,
potentially devaluing land/property without due process.
• Urban growth boundaries and restrictive zoning limit where and how families can build, making it harder
for local people — not outside investors — to put down roots.
• Capital improvements and impact fees (outlined on pages 220 and 251 of the plan) open the door to tax
increases and new financial burdens imposed without community consent.
• Centralized planning authority shifts decision -making power away from local communities and into the
hands of unelected planners, undermining the autonomy that rural and agricultural communities depend on.
These are not abstract concerns — these are real issues affecting real people across our island, from Puna to
Kohala, from Hamakua to Ka'u.
We need a plan that:
Respects and protects private land/property rights — homeowners and landowners deserve certainty
and the freedom to use their land responsibly, not shifting regulatory goalposts that erode what they've
worked for
Supports local farmers and food sustainability — our agricultural traditions and food security depend on
policies that empower producers, not burden them with new fees and restrictions
Honors the rights of fathers and mothers, and the rights of their children — families must remain at the
center of decisions that shape our communities, not be subjected to frameworks that prioritize bureaucratic
control over household wellbeing
Ensures government accountability and transparency — plans should reflect the will of the people who
showed up and spoke, not expand administrative discretion beyond what the local people intended
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities. It provides a framework that is both responsible and responsive — one that
honors the trust placed in this Council by the people it serves.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
By: Virgil -Joel: Stuck
All Rights Reserved - w/o Prejudice
Ka'u area on Hawai'i Island
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
Pasha
Friday, May 1, 2026 10:15 AM
Council Testimony
Support for GP 2026
I am writing to express my strong support for General Plan 2026 and my opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 embodies a more focused and practical vision that upholds the values of Hawai'i County's residents, respects
our communities, and safeguards private property rights. It presents clear, comprehensible objectives that align with the
longstanding desires of local citizens: a plan that enables us to live, work, and care for our families free from undue
interference.
On the other hand, GP 2045 is overly complicated, laden with ambiguous and broad goals, and appears disconnected
from the authentic feedback provided by community members. Many of us participated sincerely in the input process,
but the resulting plan does not reflect the insights we contributed. This raises critical questions about the transparency
and accountability of the process, as well as the extent to which community voices were genuinely considered.
Additionally, GP 2045 proposes policies and frameworks that could threaten private property rights, jeopardize the
livelihoods of local farmers, and make it harder for families to remain on their land. These concerns are not hypothetical;
they represent genuine issues that significantly impact communities throughout the island.
What we need is a plan that:
- Protects and respects private property rights
- Promotes local farming and advances food sustainability
- Defends parental rights while prioritizing our keiki
- Upholds government transparency and accountability
GP 2026 better aligns with these fundamental priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support General Plan 2026 and reject General Plan 2045. Thank you for taking the time to
consider this matter and for your dedication to serving our community.
Mahalo,
Without prejudice and all rights reserved.
Sincerely,
The Yushin Ohana
Think B.I.G.
May 3, 2026
Hawaii County Council
Office of the County Clerk
Hilo, HI 96720
RE: Bill 66 (Kierkiewicz Amendment to General Plan 2045)—Opposition & Alternative Approach
Think B.I.G. Hawai'i respectfully opposes Bill 66 as currently drafted and urges the County Council to
preserve the General Plan 2045 (Final Recommended Draft, July 2024) as the foundational policy
framework for Hawai'i Island's energy, food security, and community resilience.
Local food and local energy are the core aspects of ensuring our island's resilience, and Bill 66 moves in
the opposite direction that we need.
Bill 66 Removes Measurable Accountability
The General Plan 2045 contains 12+ measurable targets with specific dates and numeric standards —
commitments the County Council and both Planning Commissions endorsed:
• Net zero County emissions by 2045
• 100% renewable County fleet by 2035
• Mass Transit net zero fleet by 2035
• 50% mass transit ridership increase by 2045
• Zero waste by 2045
• Climate change dashboard and monitoring
Bill 66 removes every one of these targets. The amended plan contains zero quantitative benchmarks.
Every policy becomes directional language —'should,' 'where feasible,' 'strive to' —with no measurable
standard.
This is not a difference in philosophy. It is a difference in accountability. A plan that says'reduce energy
consumption 20% by 2035' can be measured. A plan that says'promote energy efficiency' cannot.
Without benchmarks, the County can claim progress every year regardless of actual performance.
Bill 66 Dismantles Integrated Planning
The GP 2045 connects energy, hazards, equity, transportation, and land use under one analytical
framework through its standalone Climate Change chapter (Chapter 3, 15+ pages). This integration is not
cosmetic. Think B.I.G.'s advocacy rests on the principle that renewable energy, food security, community
resilience, and sustainable building cannot be planned in isolation. They are inter -locking systems.
Bill 66 reorganizes the plan by functional sector (Energy, Transportation, Land Use, etc.). As a result:
• Energy policy (Element 5) does not reference hazard policy (Element 4), even though energy
resilience and disaster preparedness are inseparable.
Think B.I.G.
• Neither section references equity, even though renewable energy investment must prioritize high -
burden communities to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities, and to avoid glossing over
important historical inequities.
• Agricultural land use is separated from food security policy, fragmenting the local food system.
• The analytical context —emissions data, cost analysis, hazard projections —that justified the policies
is gone.
This is not an improvement. It is a reversion to siloed planning. The Hawai'i County Charter requires the
General Plan to address'the comprehensive physical, economic, environmental, and socio-cultural well-
being of the county.' Comprehensive planning requires integration, not fragmentation.
Both Planning Commissions Endorsed the GP 2045
The Leeward Planning Commission held 11+ hours of hearings between November 2024 and February
2025. The Windward Planning Commission held six public hearings between November 2024 and March
2025. Both voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the GP 2045.
The Commissions did not remove measurable targets. They did not strip the climate and energy chapter.
They did not eliminate the equity framework. Instead, they proposed 49 combined amendments —all of
which strengthened the plan by adding definitions, clarifying authority, and enhancing hazard
preparedness.
The County Charter charges these commissions with independent review of the General Plan. Bill 66
disregards their judgment.
National Best Practices Support Measurable Targets, Not Their Removal
A common objection to measurable climate and energy targets is that they reflect partisan ideology. The
evidence does not support this. Jacksonville, Florida; Houston, Texas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and
Phoenix, Arizona all adopted comprehensive plans with measurable targets —in Republican -governed
jurisdictions, under Republican governors and legislatures.
Jacksonville's Resilient Jacksonville (adopted 2023 under Ron DeSantis's governorship) received the
American Planning Association's 2024 National Planning Award. Houston's Climate Action Plan (2020)
set measurable targets for emissions reduction and fleet electrification —and Houston is the energy
capital of the United States. The motivation in all these cases was fiscal and economic: energy
independence costs less than energy dependence; disaster resilience saves money.
Hawai'i Island's case is even stronger. The County sends approximately $1 billion per year off -island for
fossil fuel imports. No mainland county has comparable fuel import dependence. The economic
argument for measurable energy independence targets is not ideology. It is basic fiscal management.
Bill 66 Removes the Equity Framework
The GP 2045 includes Objective 6 ('Ensure that climate actions are equitable and uplift marginalized and
disadvantaged communities') with nine policies and three actions. It uses the terms'just transition,' 'LMI
communities,' 'disadvantaged communities,' and 'energy burden.' This framework ensures that
2
Think B.I.G.
renewable energy investments reach the communities most impacted by high energy costs and least
able to access clean energy.
Bill 66 removes all of this language. Equity appears twice in policy context, both referring to
administrative coordination. There is no framework to direct investments toward high -burden
communities. Without it, renewable energy capacity will flow to communities with capital to access it,
not to communities with the greatest need.
Think B.I.G.'s work on community food security, agricultural land preservation, and local renewable
energy development is explicitly directed toward reducing barriers for under-resourced communities. A
General Plan without an equity framework contradicts this mission.
An Alternative: Amend the GP 2045, Don't Replace It
Bill 66 does introduce several constructive items: Green Fee and TAT revenue direction toward tourism
impact mitigation, a Media Code of Conduct, a standalone homelessness section, and more detailed
implementation processes. These are valuable additions.
However, these can be incorporated as amendments to the GP 2045 without removing climate, equity,
measurable targets, education, health, integrated systems, and the evidentiary basis for County
decisions.
A Council motion to refer the GP 2045 to the Planning Director with direction to incorporate
amendments —and to add the tourism impact, homelessness, and administrative process items from Bill
66—would produce a stronger plan than either the original GP 2045 or Bill 66 as drafted.
Recommendation
Think B.I.G. Hawai'i respectfully urges the County Council to:
• Reject Bill 66 as currently drafted.
• Affirm the General Plan 2045 as the foundational policy framework for island energy independence,
food security, and community resilience.
• Amend rather than replace GP 2045
• Establish a timeline for re -presentation of the revised GP 2045 to the Council within 60 days.
The County has an opportunity to adopt a general plan that is simultaneously stronger than the original
GP 2045 and fundamentally different from Bill 66. We urge you to pursue that path.
Sincerely,
Think B.I.G.
On behalf of the Think BIG Board - Jeannette Gurung, Noel Morin, and Tam Hunt
From: sharkgss
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 11:49 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Kimball, Heather, Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt;
Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba,
Holeka; Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Bill 66 - In support of GP 2026 - Strongly Oppose GP 2045
Aloha Council Members,
I have been a Waimea resident for almost 10 years. My professional background spans over 33 years
in National Security and Investigations. I support General Plan 2026 and strongly oppose General
Plan 2045. For over a year and a half, myself and many others of the community have provided
numerous testimonies and documentation on why we oppose GP 2045, which is based on The
United Nations (a foreign entity) Sustainable Development Goals. GP 2045 should be thrown out -
especially since the United States rewiected the UN Sustainable Development Goals on 7 March 2025
and was described by Edward Heartney, Minister Counselor to ECOSOC at the US Mission to the
United Nations "a program of soft global governance inconsistent with US sovereignty and adverse to
the rights and interests of Americans." Furthermore, some states have passed legislation banning
state and local participation in United Nations sustainability initiatives, including Agenda
2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The ONLY council member to take action on the near 100% opposition testimonies against GP 2045
was Chair Ashley Kierkiewicz, and she should be commended for her effort to listen to the
community, research Agenda 2030, review previous General Plans (1971, 1989, 2005) and come up
with a concise 70 page document that offers a more focused and understandable framework. I
encourage you to support GP 2026 because it prioritizes residents, agriculture/food security, housing,
and community stability with locally rooted economic activity with less bureaucratic overreach. GP
2026 is more grounded in core planning functions and easier for officials to follow as a guide.
On the other hand, GP 2045 with its incorporation of foreign planning influence increases regulatory
burdens and undermines constitutional protections and community autonomy. GP 2045
expands bureaucratic/stakeholder-style governance with hundreds of goals and broad
implementation agendas which are not practical or feasible for Hawaii county officials to follow or
implement. The GP 2045 is proposing to reduce important agricultural land designation by 40%
during a worldwide food scarcity event that is getting worse by the day due to supply chain
disruptions. GP 2045 promotes provisions of Net Zero without offering viable solutions and
encourages electric vehicle (EV) adoption even though Matson has ceased EV shipments due to fire
risks from lithium -ion batteries.
Now more than ever, Hawaii county needs a plan that encourages community resilience and
autonomy. The community has shown overwhelming opposition to GP 2045, since it was CLEARLY
not written for or by the people.
Respectfully,
Donna Thompson
From: Jenni Trissel
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:42 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Data centers 2045 plan
Aloha!
Please for the love of the'Aina and the people of this island and future generations, vote against data centers here.
The wai resources are already precious and scarce on the island. It's a finite resource that will be consumed in
unsustainable quantities to support these centers.
This 2045 plan is a poor choice for the future.
Mahalo nui loa,
Jenni Trissel
P.O. Box 471
Honaunau, HI 96726
Sent from my Whone
From: Sheri Wahinekapu
Sent: Thursday,_April 30, 2026 2:09 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: GP 2026 Support
Reject GP 2045
I am submitting testimony in strong support of GP 2026 and in opposition to GP 2045.
GP 2026 reflects what many in our local communities have consistently asked for —
clearer protections, respect for existing communities, and a more balanced, grounded
approach to land use. It demonstrates a willingness to listen and respond to the voices of
residents who are directly impacted.
In contrast, GP 2045 raises serious concerns. There are unresolved issues related to
property rights, land use decisions, and whether meaningful community input was
genuinely considered in its development. Many of us feel that our voices were not fully
heard or reflected in this proposal.
Planning for the future must be rooted in transparency, accountability, and true
community engagement. GP 2026 moves in that direction. GP 2045 does not.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge decision -makers to support GP 2026 and reject GP
2045.
Sincerely
Sherilyn Wahinekapu
��, $ , - . rcma� •
From: Diane Ware
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:04 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Bill 66 in support and Comm 372 oppose
Dear Chairs and Council Members,
The 2045 Plan is not perfect, But it covers the essential elements of a General Plan and
contains many good recommendations. It has been thoroughly vetted by the Planning
Commissions and available to the public for over a year for review and comment. On the
other hand the "2026" plan referenced in the communication has only been available to
residents for a few weeks with no community involvement or opportunity to comment.
COM 372.192 does not comply with Hawai'i Revised Statutes 226-68(b)(2): "Contain
implementation priorities and actions to carry out policies to include but not be limited to
land use maps, programs, projects, regulatory measures, standards and principles, and
interagency coordination provisions."
The 2026 Plan consists of about 71 pages of very general policies and actions. Most of them
are good and often are well stated but they do not offer the comprehensive guidance that a
General Plan should. To take just a few significant omissions:
I'm writing to ask the Council to adopt the General Plan 2045 with its targets and
accountability structures intact, and to reject amendments that remove quantitative
benchmarks, the energy and resilience framework, or the biocultural stewardship provisions
Every General Plan, from the first one in 1971, has had a list of examples of natural beauty in
each district. They aren't complete, but at least they provide some guidance to the Planning
Department and Council in reviewing development that may mar these views. The 2026 Plan
deleted this list.
The 2045 Plan in Bill 66 has an extensive discussion of actions that should be taken to adapt
to climate change. This is already affecting us and things like more intense storms and sea
level rise will be a pervasive part of our future. The 2026 Plan deleted all explicit mention of
climate change, or focus on the Bio Cultural goals, objectives and policies.
Malama pono,
Diane Ware
From: JJ Wassell
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 5:28 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Bill 66 Testimony
I am A Wassell, a 44-year resident of the Big Island, now living in Hilo, HI. I strongly recommend that NO
large-scale Al data centers be built on Hawaii Island. I also reject the Plan 2026 which weakens our ability
to have a safe and beautiful place to live.
Mahalo,
A Wassell
Sent from Earth 1
From:
sharon weber
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 2026 6:03 PM
To:
Council Testimony
Cc:
Mayor's Office Executive
Subject:
Support GP 2026
Dear council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and
in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 PROTECTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OWN PROPERTY and
protects our constitutional rights.
GP 2045 IS GLOBALISTS AGENDA TO ELIMIATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS!!! STEAL OUR PROPERTY!! AND HORRIBLE CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY!
I respectfully urge you to DO WHAT IS RIGHT and support GP 2026 and
reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Sharon Weber
Puna, Hawaii
1
From:
Marcia Wertz
Sent:
Friday, May 1, 2026 6:38 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
Re GP 2045
Hello,
I am writing to state that I am in OPPOSITION to the GP 2045. This plan has serious concerns about Property
Rights, Land Use, and whether Local input from We The People is to be acknowledged and honored. Please do
the right thing and oppose GP 2045. Stand for the People. Stand for Constitutional Rights. Stand for
Hawaiians.
Regards,
Marcia R. Wertz
From: Heidi White
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 12:50 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
Aloha, I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary overreach found in GP
2045. It functions as a practical general plan rather than a sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk growing bureaucracy
and diluting accountability. GP 2026 is more concise, understandable, and easier for residents and
officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and support for local
communities —rather than abstract long-range agendas that may not reflect the priorities of Hawaii
residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps planning
grounded, practical, and accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
Heidi White, Realtor (S)-57643
Direct: 808-895-4304
From: Michael Wong
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 8:51 PM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Please support GP 2026
Aloha Council Members,
Subject: Support GP 2026 / Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members / Planning Commissioners,
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
1 support GP 2026 for three main reasons:
1. GP 2026 better protects local control and private property rights.
It provides clearer guidance without the broad policy layers and discretionary
overreach found in GP 2045. It functions as a practical general plan rather than a
sweeping social framework.
2. GP 2026 is simpler, clearer, and more accountable.
GP 2045 contains hundreds of goals and expansive policy overlays that risk
growing bureaucracy and diluting accountability. GP 2026 is more concise,
understandable, and easier for residents and officials to follow.
3. GP 2026 puts local residents, agriculture, and community stability first.
It focuses on practical planning needs —housing, agriculture, infrastructure, and
support for local communities —rather than abstract tong -range agendas that may not
reflect the priorities of Hawaii residents.
Please support a plan that protects local people, respects private property, and keeps
planning grounded, practical, and accountable.
Mahalo for your service and for supporting GP 2026.
Sincerely,
Michael Wong
From:
Christine Woods
Sent:
Monday, May 4, 2026 8:03 AM
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
Al centers
I strongly oppose any Al centers on the island of Hawai'i, Hawaii county!
I am in oppostion to the entire 2045 plan. This will not support the people of Hawaii. it will be devastating
for residents of the Big Island!!! No one who votes for this plan will ever get another vote from me and i
will do all that I can to see that you are not re-elected!
Sincerely,
Christine Woods
92-988 Maikai Blvd. (PO BOX 6532)
Ocean View, Hi 96737
From: Tanya Anne
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Villegas, Rebecca; Kimball, Heather, Inaba, Holeka;
Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Hustace, James
Subject: Bill 66, Draft 2 - OPPOSE
Aloha Council. Members,
oppose COM 372.192, the Draft General Plan 2026, along with any related land use maps introduced to
this Committee.
I respectfully ask that this item —and any additional amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2 (General Plan 2045)—
be deferred. The public deserves adequate time to review what has already been submitted, become
fully informed, and provide meaningful testimony on the materials posted under "Communications" in
the Council Records.
Mahalo.
Tanya
Tanya Yamanaka Aynessazian
Pahoa, HI
Freedom lies in being bold. Robert Frost
From: Terri Yoshinaga
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 9:25 AM
To: Council Testimony, Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace;
James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Mayor's Office Executive
Subject: Subject: Support GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of General Plan 2026 and in opposition to General Plan 2045.
GP 2026 reflects a clearer, more grounded vision that respects the people of Hawai'i County, our
communities, and our private property rights. It is concise, understandable, and aligned with what many local
residents have consistently asked for: a plan that protects our ability to live, work, and care for our families
without unnecessary overreach.
In contrast, GP 2045 is overly complex, filled with broad and vague goals, and appears disconnected from the
actual input provided by local residents. Many of us participated in good faith, yet the final product does not
reflect what we shared. This raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether
community input was meaningfully incorporated.
GP 2045 also introduces policies and frameworks that could negatively impact private property rights, local
farmers, and the ability of families to remain on their land. These are not abstract concerns —these are real
issues affecting real people across our island.
We need a plan that:
• Respects and protects private property rights
• Supports local farmers and food sustainability
• Honors parental rights and our keiki
• Ensures government accountability and transparency
GP 2026 better reflects these priorities.
I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045.
Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Terri Yoshinaga
Christopher J. Yuen
P.O. Box 5
Ninole, HI 96773
May 1, 2026
email: chrisyuenz@hotmail.com
I support adoption of the 2045 General Plan draft over the "2026" proposal. I'd like to address
one of the most common complaints about the 2045 Plan: that it takes away property rights. It
does not.
What you can do on your property depends on county zoning and state land use law —not by the
General Plan. The Plan, including its maps, does not change zoning or state land use
classifications. As the draft itself states (p. 83), it "is not retroactive and does not change existing
subdivisions or zoning."
No one is cited for violating the General Plan. You can be cited for violating the zoning code, but
that is true no matter what the Plan says.
For the vast majority of property owners, the General Plan will not affect what they can do on
their land, now or in the future. It matters primarily if someone seeks a change —such as a
rezoning or an SMA permit.
That is why the Plan is important: it guides future land use decisions and shapes the kind of
community we will have.
Some testimony has focused on the new "Natural" designation, which includes some agricultural
subdivisions such as Hawaiian Acres, which are home to many people. I understand the concern.
The description on p. 85 does not explicitly mention residential use, even though the Plan clearly
intends to allow it, because it lists RA, FA, A as compatible zoning, again on p. 85, and these
zones allow residential uses.
This can be easily fixed. A short amendment —such as adding "and residential uses to the extent
allowed by zoning" —would make the intent explicit without changing the Plan in any
substantive way.
Another issue raised involves map precision. Because most people look at the maps in digital,
GIS format and they can be enlarged to any extent, they appear exact. They are not. General Plan
maps have always been conceptual and "fuzzy," not parcel -level boundaries. This has been true
since the first Plan in 1971.
A brief clarification to that effect would address this concern without altering the Plan. This
concept is already expressed in the section on the maps, but it could be made stronger.
In short, the 2045 Plan does not take away property rights. It provides needed guidance for future
decisions. Minor clarifications can resolve some concerns that have been raised.
From: aaron zeeman
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:25 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: testimony on Bill 66 and court proceedings
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF AARON ZEEMAN
RE: BILL 66 —GENERAL PLAN 2045
Hawaii County Council Meeting— May 4, 2026
Submitted to: councittestimony@hawaiicount . ov
My name is Aaron Zeeman. I am a 30-year resident of Hawai'i Island,
15 years in Mountain View, Puna. I am the pro se plaintiff in active
litigation in the Third Circuit Court of the State of Hawai'i,
Case No. 3CCV-26-0000139, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
to halt the adoption of Bill 66. 1 have simultaneously filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus before the Hawai'i Supreme Court.
I am submitting this testimony for the permanent record.
TO EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER PREPARING TO VOTE:
You are being asked to vote on a document that is currently under
active litigation in two courts. The Third Circuit has received
an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Hawaii Supreme
Court has received a Mandamus Petition. Six of my filings carry
state court stamps. This vote has not been stayed — but the legal
record is already built. Every vote cast on May 4th becomes part of it.
THE CHARTER VIOLATION
The County's own Planning Director, Jeff Darrow, publicly called
Bill 66 a "complete rewrite" of the General Plan. His words. On
record. Documented in my court filings. Under the Hawaii County
Charter, a complete rewrite of the General Plan requires island -wide
public hearings. Those hearings were never held.
The controlling legal authority is Hall v. City and County of
Honolulu, 56 Haw. 121, 530 P.2d 737 (1975). When a government
body fails to provide required public process, the action that
follows is void. Not voidable. Void.
THE RECORDS PROBLEM
The County's official Laserf iche document management system —the
legal repository for public planning records — displays the General
Plan 2045 at 310 pages. It displays Bill 66 at 313 pages. The
Council Member who introduced Bill 66 publicly states the document
is 72 pages long.
I have screenshots of all of it. They are filed as court exhibits.
Either the County's official records system is wrong, or the
sponsor is wrong. This Council cannot vote to adopt a document
whose official page count it cannot reconcile.
THE AUDIO RECORD
A third records problem has now been documented. An Al transcription
of the official March 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting— using
Otter.ai —flagged the audio as containing missing content at the
precise moment a testifier quoted a senior planning official
regarding prior governmental commitments. The software distinguished
this as "appears to be some audio missing" — not the same language
it uses for ambient noise or unclear speech. Approximately one
minute later, the audience applause concluding that testimony is
also absent from the recording. The Commission Chair's voice
returns to say "please refrain from clapping" — into silence.
The official public record of this process has integrity problems
across multiple independent systems: Laserfiche metadata, document
page counts, and now audio recording. A forensic audit has been
requested in my court filings.
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Council Member who introduced Bill 66 is currently the subject
of a 5-0 Hawai'i County Ethics Board finding —an 11-page order —
concerning a conflict of interest directly related to her conduct
in connection with this legislation. These are not allegations.
This is a finding by the County's own ethics body.
THE IRREPARABLE HARM
The harm from a May 4th vote is not cured by the Mayor's 10-day
sign/veto window under Charter §3-12. The irreparable harm occurs
at the moment of the vote — because that vote permanently forecloses
the public's right to participate in a process that was never
properly completed. You cannot un-ring that bell after the fact.
The people of this island — from Ka'u to Hamakua — showed up for
years of public hearings on a 310-page document. What is before
you today is something else. They were never asked about this
version. That is the record. That is the harm.
MY REQUEST
Do not vote on May 4th.
Order an independent forensic audit of the Laserfiche records,
the document version history, and the official meeting audio
before this bill advances one step further.
If you vote despite active litigation, despite a Planning Director's
own admission that this is a complete rewrite, despite an Ethics
Board finding against the bill's sponsor, and despite documented
anomalies in the official public record —that vote will not end
this proceeding. It will extend it. And it will be part of the
record.
I have been in two courts fighting for the public's right to
participate in their own government. I am not done.
Respectfully submitted for the permanent record,
Aaron Zeeman
Pro Se Plaintiff — Case No. 3CCV-26-0000139
Mandamus Petitioner— Hawai'i Supreme Court
Mountain View, Puna, Hawai'i
(808) 557-3199
aamnzeemanC@gmail.com
April 30, 2026