Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0372.212 2024-2026From: Logan Brown Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:41 PM To: Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Hustace, James; Inaba, Holeka; Villegas, Rebecca; Galimba, Michelle M.; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Onishi, Dennis; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather Cc: Mayor's Office Executive Subject: Support GP 2026; Oppose GP 2045 Dear Council Members, I'm writing to express my support for General Plan 2026 and my opposition to General Plan 2045. GP 2026 is clear, practical, and reflects what Hawaii County residents have actually been asking for — a straightforward plan that protects our ability to live and work here without unnecessary government interference. GP 2045, by contrast, is bloated with vague language and seems out of touch with the feedback residents provided during the public input process. That disconnect raises real questions about transparency and whether community voices were genuinely considered. Beyond that, GP 2045 contains policies that could threaten private property rights, burden local farmers, and make it harder for families to stay on their land. These aren't hypothetical concerns — they're real consequences for real people. A responsible general plan should protect private property rights, support local agriculture and food security, respect families and parental rights, and hold government accountable to the people it serves. GP 2026 does that. GP 2045 does not. I respectfully ask that you vote to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045. Mahalo for your service to our community. Sincerely, Logan Brown District VIII Comm. No. 372•212 Ref. To: P knCl L— Ref. Date rl"A Y 2 0 20 From: Deborah Chang Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 7:46 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Support for Bill 66 Draft 2 Aloha Chairperson Inaba and Hawai'i County Council Members: I ask for your support of Bill 66, Draft 2. It's been 21 years since the last General Plan was adopted and 11 years since the General Plan Comprehensive Review process began in 2015. Innumerable hours have been spent over the past 11 years, trying to compile a comprehensive plan with community input, consensus, and involvement. No doubt there are areas that could be improved but the longer the planning process drags on, the more perceived flaws will be identified. It amounts to "planning to plan" and never getting to the action! No doubt improvements could be made with further scrutiny, but in the meanwhile our County will have only an outdated General Plan from 21 years ago serving as our guide. Let's move forward and build on what has been accomplished to date, leaving the process open to future interim amendments. Mahalo nui for your consideration, Deborah Chang Resident of Pa'auilo mauka 1 From: Roger Christie Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:54 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Fwd: I OPPOSE General Plan 2045. A lot. Hello County Council, aloha! Please accept my strong OPPOSITION to General Plan 2045 and all other General Plans. Thank you. Hawai'i County does many great, kind and useful things and provides many helpful services to the people here. F—Alre Hawai'i County has an unconscious extinction and depopulation agenda that I've witnessed, archived and testified about since arriving here in 1986. It's beyond sad and disappointing and it continues to this day. You are not to be trusted. Our health, wealth and safety is in danger with you and others in office. 1. Marijuana eradication / prohibition caused meth, poverty, horrible crime and punishment and worse for decades 2. COVID-19 Plandemic based on globalist fraud, Operation Lockstep, Trusted News Initiative and Event 201 poisons people daily and has a very nefarious design. 3. General Plans being discussed now are another layer of incremental globalist, tyranny 1.). The marijuana eradication program was and remains based on fraud, fear, unconstitutional "laws" and wicked propaganda. It continued its evil ways for decades. On the local level it was much worse than malfeasance. The county supported the funding of an actual Witch Hunt of tyranny for decades against all reason, logic and individual rights. Farms were unconstitutionally surveilled, poison was sprayed on gardens from helicopters, property was confiscated, children removed from families, harsh prison sentences were given commonly. And this ignorant, counter productive program hurt their very own families, friends, communities and constituents. It evolved into opioids, Fentanyl and worse. I stopped the D.E.A. grants in September 2000, and then again with the success of the Peaceful Sky vote in November 2008. Where were all those sworn in and well paid to prevent this? They all became part of the criminal program The marijuana eradication program was proven to have caused the meth, poverty and crime epidemics here ... and when the landmark study came in and showed the provable evidence of the extreme harm being done ... the County Council and Mayors kept funding it. This County Council has obviously gone rogue as it refuses - repeatedly - to even discuss the harm of Cannabis hemp prohibition and the remedy of Cannabis hemp acceptance as a safe, natural, constitutional economic agricultural engine for health, harm reduction, wealth, happiness, holiness, sustainability, tourism and yes, even climate change. You won't even allow a public hearing? What are you afraid of? People having some power? That's not governing, that's ruling and abusing your authority. Malfeasance. Tyranny. Every time I request via emails with evidence to support my claims to be added to the agenda for a committee presentation 'you' deny me and the constituents you are sworn in and paid well to represent. The majority of voters here want Cannabis and hemp. We proved that in public opinion polls and in the election of 2008. You ignore the will of the people. I n this specific area you are shown to be a "danger to the community" in a way that shocks the conscience. Up until now you've also refused to use the Precautionary Principle and the Scientific Method in this life and death matter of extreme importance. It's as if you've been hypnotized by a psy op, or maybe its the result of a COVID "vaccination" you've had. Just one of the "adverse events of special interest" in the Pfizer shots is 1 p36 Deletion Syndrome". You don't want that! There are remedies for it and the 1290 other dangerous harms listed by Pfizer. You are paid well to look at this and to remember, "Public safety is number 1 " according to our Mayor and Chief of Police. So where is it? Please schedule it now and I'll gladly recant my testimony opposing you. 2.). The COVID-19 hoax, fraud and crimes against humanity continues to this day right here in Hawaii County with your assistance and promotion. Up until now you've also refused to use the Precautionary Principle and the Scientific Method in this life and death matter of extreme importance. Once again, this council constantly denies my simple request for a public hearing, an agenda item at an appropriate council meeting to discuss the harm and the available remedies. The COVID injections are reported to be self -assembling, fluid "Operating Systems" by Moderna. The PCR 2 tests are designed to be frauds and to generate fear so innocent people would be easily coerced into taking a 'shot' and encouraging their unsuspecting children to do the same. That is worse than shameful; it's a crime and a glaring ethical and moral failure. 3.). The General Plans are frauds designed with globalist influence and slight of hand vagueness to reduce the value of other people's private property! Some nerve you have. It's worth repeating to you that the first element of the Communist Manifesto is to reduce private property in favor of the state, or county in this case. Hello. Does it matter to you? So far, you don't give a rip about the local people who you seem to willingly reduce in opportunity often. Sustainability? Seems the only sustainable thing here is crime which your many Resolutions and Bills unconsciously or consciously favor to support the depopulation agenda ongoing. Someone or something wants this epic island but with most of the local people gone, or disabled. That's absolutely clear. The depopulation is well underway and almost complete. Passing any of the General Plans is the next destructive nail in the coffin of the people here. I OPPOSE all the General Plans. A lot. Fortaleza, Brazil. Remember that fiasco? A 2 million population SMART CITY all wired up for digital tyranny and invisible prison that Mitch Roth and crew made contracts with to be our 'partner'. Right. Not because Fortaleza wanted to be like meth addicted, homeless, and poverty stricken Hawai'i island. But because the secret insiders here wanted Hawai'i island and especially Hilo to become like Fortaleza. High rise condos all along the bayfront, thousands of newcomers, face recognition cameras everywhere, license plate trackers, and a digital, invisible prison. When we caught Mitch Roth and Frecia Cavellos lying to the public about it at the Volcano Community meeting and signing contracts on that very thing a few days later, they first denied the plan and then deleted and destroyed the evidence. a. CATO Institute rates Hawai'i 49th in economic freedom as part of your report card: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/overall/hawaii b. The Holomua Collective public opinion survey of well employed families reported that up to 75% are plan to move away: https•//holomuacollective.org/survey-25/ c. Too many families here can't afford groceries: 3 https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/local-news/2025-11-18/food-insecurity-in-hawaii- trending-upward-new-study-shows On the other hand: We could be: The Edible island. The Private Island. The Cannabis Hemp Island. "SOLUTION 120". In 120 days we can have a world famous, multi -million dollar Cannabis hemp harvest for health, wealth, happiness, holiness, sustainability, tourism revival, climate change and more. We want it, need it and deserve it. I demand it. Let's get that party started and chart our course towards more personal freedom and individual rights. OPPOSE General Plan 2045 and all other General plans. A lot. Thank you. Roger Christie P. O. Box 163 Pepeekeo, hawai'i 96783 From: Dave Cuthbert Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:53 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: General Plan 2045 written testimony Council Chair Inaba and Members of the Hawai'i County Council: Please pass Bill 66, Draft 2, the "2045 General Plan." The proposed plan has many excellent features. It sets out comprehensive objectives, policies, and actions describing how we can live on this island in harmony with our environment. Although the plan frames these concepts as "sustainability," they also express m5lama `aina in the context of the 21 st century. These policies should not be controversial. If they read through the sustainability objectives and policies one by one, most residents would likely agree with almost all of them, and with a great majority of the proposed actions as well. One criticism has been that the plan contains too many actions. That concern is understandable. But most of the actions are framed in advisory, not mandatory, language: "strive to," "support," "partner with," and similar terms. In that sense, much of General Plan 2045 is aspirational. That has also been true of the 1971, 1989, and 2005 General Plans. Providing long-term vision and direction is one of the important functions of a General Plan. Several councilmembers have proposed relatively limited amendments to the 2045 Plan. I am not referring here to the "2026 Plan," which is effectively a complete rewrite and which I have criticized in earlier testimony. All of the proposed limited amendments could be considered as interim amendments after enactment of the 2045 Plan. To do so, the Council would first need to adopt Bill 181, or another revision to the amendment process. That should not be difficult or time-consuming. And then the members could introduce interim amendments. These would go through the process much more efficiently if they were considered on their own merits rather than being debated along with the much larger plan. None of the proposed councilmember amendments so far — other than the 2026 rewrite — would fundamentally alter the 2045 Plan. Most simply strengthen or clarify language already contained within it. Councilmember Hustace has identified certain mapping issues, including the omission of Waimea Nature Park and Kamakoa Nui Park from the "Recreation" category. But those issues should not delay adoption of the overall plan. The parks will remain parks regardless of the maps. The Council is on the verge of a major accomplishment: adoption of the County's first new General Plan in more than 20 years. It should seize that opportunity. David Cuthbert Pahoa, Hawai'i From: Dea Rackley Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 9:02 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Strong Support for Plan 2026. No to GP 2045 County 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, Dea Rackley Rocky Ishibashi Jennifer Jackson Rhea Davis Keegan Mcgreger HOME OWNERS IN Puna District Sent from my iPhone From: Lorn Douglas Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 6:38 AM To: Council Testimony, Clerk -Council; Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James; Onishi, Dennis Subject: Support for the Adoption of General Plan 2045 (Bill 66; Comm 372.30 Testimony, May 20, 2026 County Council Hearing Aloha Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi, and Members of the Council, My name is Lorn DOuglas. I have lived in Hilo for the past 43 years. I served many years on several local nonprofits, including sustainable transportation I'm writing in support of General Plan 2045 (GP2045). Why Targets and Accountability Matter In 2012, KIUC was 92% dependent on oil. They set a target of 50% renewable by 2023. They met it in 2018, so they raised it to 70% by 2030. It is targeting 100% by 2033. KIUC is now over 70%. Importantly, while the Iran war has raised energy prices, Kauai's electricity rates rose 13%, while HECO customers can expect a 20% to 30% increase over the next few months. Targets influence decisions, drive action, and reduce risk. I've said it before - a plan without targets is a promise with no deadline. The General Plan 2045 sets 12 measurable targets with dates. The proposed GP 2026 has no targets and no deadlines. I, respectfully, ask 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, requires hazard mapping integration with land use decisions, and brings the plan into compliance with HRS §226-18 and §226-109. 4. Reject the GP 2026 and any amendments that remove measurable targets, eliminate standalone chapters, or restructure the document in ways that weaken its effectiveness. If the GP 2026 is to be considered as a standalone plan, require that it complete the same community review process the GP 2045 underwent: public workshops, community presentations, and Planning Commission review with adequate deliberation time. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated... Lorn DOuglas Lower Puna From: Scott Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 5:32 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Re: Oppose Hawaii General Plan 2045 Here is my same testimony again, but with a couple typos fixed: "There are two principles that govern sustainability, in the natural sense of the word: local and organic. That is, in order for people to live on the same land sustainably (for an indefinite amount of time), they need to not only produce their own food on land local to them, but they also need to not destroy the usability of that land. When food must be imported, we see the toll that it creates on a global level, through fuel and vehicles and trade networks, etc., but also through displacement of resources. This creates a dependency on supermarkets for food, instead of local farmer's markets. Commercial farming practices such as monocropping and the use of GMOs and chemical pesticides are unsustainable in the fact that they strip minerals from soil, cause pest populations to overpopulate, and also destroy the land with chemicals, making it no longer farmable. We have all seen the reality of these things. Currently, Hawaii's land is sold to the highest bidder, making it uneconomical for the local, organic farmer in almost all aspects, to earn enough money on the sale of their crops to pay for the land itself, due to the prized location that Hawaii is for tourism and retirement, etc., and how that has driven up the cost of land. This is the real problem facing Hawaii. The rising price of land and the lack of local and organic food production, which allows for sovereignty and sustainability. The current model is therefore unsustainable. Any plan that does not encourage the local development of organic agriculture on homestead -like units to house communities and extended families (ohanas), furthers us awayfrom this goal of true, natural sustainability. Therefore, any stakeholder input from someone far and away, whose intentions are not aligned with these simple principles (local and organic food production), are suspicious of misrepresentation, and likely driven by capitalist motives to make as much money off of Hawaii as possible. Smart cities, like those improperly dubbed'sustainable', are little more than containment centers for growing populations of people to live in separation from the land, dependent on imports and exports to feed themselves, and monitored by a technological security apparatus that limits their participation in society. A system that has to have a digital record, such as carbon credits, for every apple consumed, makes no sense and has a huge carbon footprint itself (as if carbon were a bad thing, which is also a highly erroneous assumption). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (of the UN) themselves recently admitted they have highly estimated global warming, as we see Florida still sits exactly 2 meters above sea level, and the "hole" in the ozone has not changed. These are simply scare tactics that were used to force top -down security measures, similar to a social credit system of China, in the guise of carbon credits. An apple from China is deemed to have a lower carbon footprint than one grown in my own yard, which is utterly ridiculous. They have reverse engineered these numbers from their desired result - and we will not see a change in the school lunches for our keiki, who should be eating tropical fruit which grows so abundantly and easily in our region. Real climate damage can be seen and felt, as in reference to pollution that visibly kills native populations, and unarable land leftover from chemical use in agriculture. Are we to continue spam culture, importing all of our food, despite the lack of nutritional value and the presence of chemicals in it that harm our bodies? Or do we return to cultivating the local land organically ourselves for our own sustinence? Sustinence comes from the word 'to sustain', and that is what sustainability is all about, sustaining ourselves and our futures. If there is no departure from the system which led us down this road, there should be no step forward with a General Plan at all. There is some fairy-tale dream that we can live in a digital realm and never know the aina, and that is what made these Smart Cities. It is based on fostering lifestyles that do not appreciate connection with their earth, nor the appreciation that comes through the struggles of maintaining ordinary life, and leads to mental illness and depression due to a lack of meaningful acts of service for fellow humanity. I see General Plan 2045 as a step further in the direction of this illusion, when we should be putting limits on the influences of money upon these lands, or at the very least requiring subsidization of local and organic food production from the wealthy that want to buy up Hawaii, and I urge you to oppose it. It is also of utmost concern that these wealthy, overseas individuals and their ability to influence local politicians and council members be stopped. There is a correct path forward, and a corrupt path forward, and we will all know which one is being followed, since we all live on a very small island together. Mahalo for your consideration of my input in this process. Aloha." Scott Erickson, M.A., CCC-SLP Speech -Language Pathologist t: (808) 731-6227 e: erickson.scott.andrew0-grnail.com On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 11:26 AM Scott <erickson.scott.andrew(o-)gmail.com> wrote: Please include my testimony in the discussion regarding Hawaii General Plan 2045: "There are two principles that govern sustainability, in the natural sense of the word: local and organic. That is, in order for people to live on the same land sustainably (for an indefinite amount of time), they need to not only produce their own food on land local to them, but they also need to not destroy the usability of that land. When food must be imported, we see the toll that it creates on a global level, through fuel and vehicles and trade networks, etc., but also through displacement of resources. This creates a dependency on supermarkets for food, instead of local farmer's markets. Commercial farming practices such as monocropping and the use of GMOs and chemical pesticides are unsustainable in the fact that they minerals from soil, cause pest populations to overpopulate, and also destroy the land with chemicals, making it no longer farmable. We have all seen the reality of these things. Currently, Hawaii's land is sold to the highest bidder, making it uneconomical for the local, organic farmer in almost all aspects, to earn enough money on the sale of their crops to pay for the land itself, due to the prized location that Hawaii is for tourism and retirement, etc., and how that has driven up the cost of land. This is the real problem facing Hawaii. The rising price of land and the lack of local and organic food production, which allows for sovereignty and sustainability. The current model is therefore unsustainable. Any plan that does not encourage the local development of organic agriculture on homestead -like units to house communities and extended families (ohanas), furthers us away from this goal of true, natural sustainability. Therefore, any stakeholder input from someone far and away, whose intentions are not aligned with these simple principles (local and organic food production), are suspicious of misrepresentation, and likely driven by capitalist motives to make as much money off of Hawaii as possible. Smart cities, like those improperly dubbed 'sustainable', are little more than containment centers for growing populations of people to live in separation from the land, dependent on imports and exports to feed themselves, and monitored by a technological security apparatus that limits their participation in society. A system that has to have a digital record, such as carbon credits, for every apple consumed, makes no sense and has a huge carbon footprint itself (as if carbon were a 2 bad thing, which is also a highly erroneous assumption). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (of the UN) themselves recently admitted they have highly estimated global warming, as we see Florida still sits exactly 2 meters above sea level, and the "hole" in the ozone has not changed. These are simply scare tactics that were used to force top -down security measures, similar to a social credit system of China, in the guise of carbon credits. An apple from China is deemed to have a lower carbon footprint than one grown in my own yard, which is utterly ridiculous. They have reverse engineered these numbers from their desired result - and we will not see a change in the school lunches for our keiki, who should be eating tropical fruit which grows so abundantly and easily in our region. Real climate damage can be seen and felt, as in reference to pollution that visibly kills native populations, and unarable land leftover from chemical use in agriculture. Are we to continue spam culture, importing all of our food, despite the lack of nutritional value and the presence of chemicals in it that harm our bodies? Or do we return to cultivating the local land orgnically ourselves for our own sustinence? Sustinence comes from the word 'to sustain', and that is what sustainability is all about, sustaining ourselves and our futures. If there is no departure from the system which led us down this road, there should be no step forward with a General Plan at all. There is some fairy-tale dream that we can live in a digital realm and never know the aina, and that is what made these Smart Cities. It is based on fostering lifestyles that do not appreciate connection with their earth, nor the appreciation that comes through the struggles of maintaining ordinary life, and leads to mental illness and depression due to a lack of meaningful acts of service for fellow humanity. I see General Plan 2045 as a step further in the direction of this illusion, when we should be putting limits on the influences of money upon these lands, or at the very least requiring subsidization of local and organic food production from the wealthy that want to buy up Hawaii, and I urge you to oppose it. It is also of utmost concern that these wealthy, overseas individuals and their ability to influence local politicians and council members be stopped. There is a correct path forward, and a corrupt path forward, and we will all know which one is being followed, since we all live on a very small island together. Mahalo for your consideration of my input in this process. Aloha." Scott Erickson, M.A., CCC-SLP Speech -Language Pathologist t: (808) 731-6227 e: erickson.scott.andrewO-amail.com 3 From: Spider Woman Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 8:27 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: GP 20245 Aloha, My testimony is late but I hope it can still be entered into the public record. Thank you for allowing the public to weigh in on this very important document to guide the future of County progress towards a healthy and sustainable community for all. I am writing in support of adopting GP 2045, but only after creating a path to an amendment process, such as adopting Bill 181. The issues brought up by many testifiers regarding the density and clunkiness of the GP45 as written should be listened to. However, I am strongly against reconsidering GP2026, which is a total rewrite of the GP with zero public input that favors developers' interests rather than the sustainability of the island and the complex needs of her residents. I understand outgoing members would like to leave office with a new GP in place, but streamlining and addressing the issues raised by the community regarding its granularity should not be ignored or sidelined. The years of public input and staff hours should be properly reflected in the document without weighing it down with micromanagement style detail. I don't think we need to go back to Square One. However, making thoughtful amendments and corrections, such as the mapping issues raised by Member Hustace are called for without rushing. Our island and her residents deserve this. Thank you for your hard work and thoughtful consideration of this pivotal document that will guide our island for years to come. Respectfully, Vanessa Floyd Kea'au "It's hell being a visionary." --Hope Springs From: DonnaGrabow Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:09 PM To: Council Testimony; Kierkiewicz, Ashley, Hustace, James; Villegas, Rebecca Cc: Kagiwada, Jennifer, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Onishi, Dennis; Inaba, Holeka Subject: Aloha Hawaii County Council - Bill 66 Aloha Hawaii County Council, Last week the first vote was taken, but too quickly because the the two plans still need more to time for examination, especially for the proposed rezoned map in GP2045, which I strongly oppose. The votes were almost a tie. Thank you to the four council members who are voting for the reasonable plan Hawaii 2026, which I support. GP 2045 broad language, such as new industrial uses for business parks, research and development centers, laboratories, distribution centers, and innovation -oriented uses. While the plan does not specifically mention data centers, these categories appear broad enough that future proposals could be discreetly amended into GP2024 Heather Kimball's proposed amendment 372.199 contains too many loopholes that developers can work around and poses HIGH risk to the community. There is concern that some land in other states, that data centers is being developed thru EMINENT DOMAIN and grabs in other states. Data centers have no place on Hawaii Island.. This is scandalous! Proposed AMENDMENT 372.199: says; "the use of eminent domain for data center projects, requiring all land to be acquired through voluntary sale or lease. Landowner Consent: Current Law: "Landowners may be compelled to sell their property if the project is deemed a public use. NO, Landowners cannot be compelled to sell for data center development. Permitted Uses: Current Law: Data centers could potentially qualify as public infrastructure and be eligible for eminent dom ain Absolutely not. Data centers need to be specifically excluded from eminent domain eligibility. GP 2045 is full of language which is vague and gives room for new INDUSTRIAL USE and EMINENT DOMAIN, which is very contrary to buzz words such as sustainability and resilience. In Hawaii 2026 Plan does NOT insert new industrial use language. Hawaii 2026 reflects more for what the people want for the next 20 years, which is no cluster housing, rezoning and DATA CENTERs. In conclusion, I see a false narrative of climate change. I see Climate psychosis, There is a national pandemic going on within many city and councils, and some members are voting vote to support the non -local United Nations Agenda 30. Why? But it's so obvious, and the majority of councils are able to see through the game, and ditch the UN's plans. Please for for Hawaii 2026 Sincerely, Donna Grabow, Hilo Sent with Proton Mail secure email. From: Jeannette Gurung Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:09 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: I'm writing in support of General Plan 2045 (GP2045). Aloha Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi, and Members of the Council, My name is Jeannette Gurung. I have lived in Kona for the past 10 years, and served on local nonprofits and hui's focused on sustainable agriculture, clean energy, green building, sustainable transportation, workforce development, and community resilience. I'm writing in support of General Plan 2045 (GP2045). Why Targets and Accountability Matter In 2012, KIUC was 92% dependent on oil. They set a target of 50% renewable by 2023. They met it in 2018, so they raised it to 70% by 2030. It is targeting 100% by 2033. KIUC is now over 70%. Importantly, while the Iran war has raised energy prices, Kauai's electricity rates rose 13%, while HECO customers can expect a 20% to 30% increase over the next few months. Targets influence decisions, drive action, and reduce risk. I've said it before - a plan without targets is a promise with no deadline. The General Plan 2045 sets 12 measurable targets with dates. The proposed GP 2026 has no targets and no deadlines. I, respectfully, ask 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, requires hazard mapping integration with land use decisions, and brings the plan into compliance with HRS §226-18 and §226-109. 4. Reject the GP 2026 and any amendments that remove measurable targets, eliminate standalone chapters, or restructure the document in ways that weaken its effectiveness. If the GP 2026 is to be considered as a standalone plan, require that it complete the some community review process the GP 2045 underwent: public workshops, community presentations, and Planning Commission review with adequate deliberation time. I also want to address the specific objections raised against the GP 2045, including those recently published in Civil Beat(https://www.civitbeat.orti/2026/05/concerns-over-general-pla.n splits- hawaii-county-council/) and explain why these objections don't justify adopting a plan without targets, a climate chapter, and accountability structures. "The plan asks too much of our county." GP 2045 is a 20-year planning document. It is not asking the County to do everything in a year or the next few years. The targets create a framework that guides the sequencing of actions. Departments prioritize based on timelines. Regarding enforcement burden: no one is cited for violating a general plan. People are cited for violating the zoning codes, regardless of what the plan says. (Former Planning Director Chris Yuen testified on this in detail and I concur.) "The plan is unorganized." Our Planning Commissions spent months reviewing this document. Both voted to recommend adoption. They proposed 49 combined amendments to improve specific provisions. None of the amendments suggests that the organizational structure of GP 2045 was a problem. "There's no way to know if the policies and goals are being met." This is a key reason to support GP 2045. GP 2045 contains 12 measurable targets with dates and includes a climate change dashboard and portal for public tracking. That's the needed accountability mechanism to ensure goals are met. On the other hand, GP 2026 removes every target and the dashboard. If the concern is tracking whether we are making progress, the answer is to adopt GP 2045 "The plan is too prescriptive. By planning too far into the future, we reduce our ability to respond to an ever -evolving world." A plan with targets creates tension to move us towards a desired end state. Hawaii passed its 100% RPS by 2045 back in 2015, along with interim targets to help keep us on track. We met the interim 2020 target and are tracking toward the 2030 benchmark. Long-range targets with interim benchmarks work. Is it too long? GP 2045 has 306 pages. Kauai's plan is over 500 pages. Kauai is making excellent progress in its energy independence objectives. Length isn't the issue. What matters is content. GP 2045 contains the evidence and findings that provide legal defensibility for zoning decisions and capital improvement decisions. "If every concept is treated as a priority, nothing is." The GP 2045 has 12 measurable targets. 12. This is hardly "everything." It's a defined set of benchmarks, each with a target date. Importantly, the GP 2045 targets actually help with prioritization. It addresses the "too many priorities" concern. Without targets, we make it impossible to prioritize. "The 2005 plan hasn't been operationalized, so why would this one be different?" Someone cited the example of the Waik6loa Village second access road, an action in the 2005 plan that was not built. That community still has one evacuation route, and it is identified as high wildfire risk. Civil Beat reported on this in April under the headline "Not a Priority." (httpa:"www.civiIbea.t.org/2026/04/not-a priority-frustrations-.mou_nt-over-missing-fire- evacuation-route-hawaii-island/) The failure was that nobody tracked the implementation. There was no accountability mechanism. GP 2045 addresses this directly with the creation of a public dashboard. The answer 2 is a plan with tracking and accountability, not one without it. "The GP 2026 is an amendment, not a rewrite." The County's own Planning Director called GP 2026 a complete rewrite, not an amendment. It is a `gut and replace,' not an amendment, and should be subject to proper public and commission review. "GP 2045 would take away private property rights." The General Plan is a policy direction document. It does not create regulations, fees, or fines. Zoning does. That's a different legislative process with public hearings. "We need to pass something before the election." So, adopt GP 2045. It went through 11 years of professional planning, 2 Planning Commission reviews, which recommended adoption with 49 amendments. It's ready. The GP 2026 hasn't gone through the required community or commission reviews. If the urgency is to pass something before November, pass the plan that's ready. "GP 2045 is ideologically driven." Houston, TX, set a carbon neutrality target of 2050 and a 100% electrified municipal fleet by 2030, as a disaster cost -avoidance strategy after Hurricane Harvey. Jacksonville, FL, adopted a 50-year resilience strategy with 45 measurable actions under Governor DeSantis; the plan won a 2024 APA National Planning Award. Oklahoma City, OK, adopted a sustainability plan as a comprehensive plan amendment. Phoenix, AZ, set net -zero municipal operations by 2030 and a 50% community -wide emissions reduction by 2030. These cities acted to mitigate the cost of potential disasters by introducing plans with measurable targets. This is not a partisan issue — it's a cost -of -living, resilience, and well-being issue. We need urgent action Hawai'i's dependence on imported fuels contributes to supply chain risks and price shocks that are creating economic hardships. Per DBEDT, Hawai'i Island spent over $960 million on fossil fuel in 2024. This month, HECO announced that customers might see 20-30% higher electric bills because of the Iran conflict. Increasingly frequent and stronger rain events, flooding, wildfires, and hurricanes create hazards for people, property, and the economy. The GP 2026 eliminates the standalone climate and resilience chapter that connects hazard mapping to land use decisions. GP 2045 raises visibility of these emergent risks and calls for actions with targets to mitigate them. High electricity and gasoline prices are telling us that oil dependence is the problem. Natural disasters are telling us that planning for hazards is urgent. The General Plan sets the County's direction on both these issues. The Council should adopt GP 2045, a plan that includes targets, acknowledges climate risks, and accountability mechanisms. Mahalo for your service and your consideration. Jeannette Gurung Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:31 AM To: Stephanie Hall -Morin Cc: Council Testimony Subject: RE: adopt GP 2045 with accountability structures intact From: Stephanie Hall -Morin Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 5:57 PM To: Council Remote Testimony <councilremotetestimony@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Fwd: 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: heyhew Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:46 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 GP 2026 — Oppose GP 2045 Dear Council members: I am writing, yet again, to express support of the General Plan for 2026 and to oppose General Plan 2045. Why? Because as a Big Island homeowner, I believe it is important to respect the people of Hawai'i County, including property rights and efforts to strengthen our communities. GP 2026 contains clear, concise language that reflects what local residents have been asking for all along. We require a plan that enshrines our rights to live, work and nurture our families and community without foreign or corporate influence dictating overreaching policies that harm the people. Unfortunately, GP 2045 reflects quite the opposite. This is apparently deliberate. It contains NO clear goals, has too many moving parts, and leaves too much up to interpretation, as if it is intended to exhaust and/or bankrupt the local population from pursuing legal means to uphold the desires of the community. I was on Moloka'i last year and it's horrific to see the government has gone behind closed doors to take punitive steps against their constituents who want to protect their way of life. Nobody who lives here —none of the actual workers —want the Big Island to be turned into a PARKING LOT! And GP 2045 has the potential to do just that. County officials love to discuss food sovereignty, care for our keiki, and homeownership, however, as it is written now, GP 2045 undermines all of it! Honestly, how hard is it to clear up the language to ensure it respects and protects homeowners, honors parental rights and our keiki, supports local farmers and food sustainability, and ensures government transparency and accountability? Unless, of course, your intention is only to represent those with the deepest pockets. If you stand with the people who showed up with the votes that got you into office in good faith that you'd stand by the community, I urge you to reject GP 2045, and support GP 2026. Mahalo for your attention. Sincerely, Adrienne Hew Kamuela 96743 From: Akuakea Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 9:55 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Kevin Hill Testimony on Bill 66 - GP 2045/26 Greetings! Top of the morning to all. I may not be able to give zoom testimony this morning so just in case here are my thoughts to our elected representatives who are tasked with both upholding our Constitution and serving and speaking for the people of your districts - thank you all for your service. My input today is brief on this very long debated conversations but these I believe are truths related to what I have observed and experienced over the almost two years. 1. An analysis of what I'm told is over 8,000 testimonies collected on this topic I believe will strongly affirm one refrain from the people of this county... 95% or more of what I have hear and read - WE DON"T WANT GP2045! What we DO WANT is a plan WRITTEN BY US AND FOR US where those who care's input is taken seriously, debated and included. The public input portion of this before going before the Planning commission and the County Council was a token only. It was labeled FINAL DRAFT from the beginning and even though virtually EVERYONE in the room signed a petition and testified in opposition to the plan no change was made to the plan... same through each of the commissions, what changers were made were minor - none of the real issues were resolved. The process has been insulting and demeaning to the informed substantive, amazing people of this County. We are capable of crafting a future that serves us and our children! If my opening contention proves true and the vast majority of the public testimony is in opposition to GP2045 why on earth would you vote for it? Who does it serve exactly and who do YOU serve? 2. The lack of a current CDP for Hilo is inexcusable. The largest community on Island is being denied its voice when at least ostensibly the CDP's inform the General Plan. We can function on the last GP 2005 until this is resolved and a GP OF AND BY THE PEOPLE is agreed upon. 3. 1 take issue with Council Member Michelle Galimba made about opposition to GGP 2045 that was divisive, arrogant, dismissive and ignorant when she declared people who disagreed with her position to be "conspiracy theories" and subject to "Al psychosis." If this applies to everyone who has a different view of a very important conversation then from those I know she is dismissing - at least one structural aviation engineer, one multi year instructor in Hawaiian law and a Kanaka Maoli, Life -time medical practioners - nurses and doctors, at least one pastor with 3 college degrees, successful entrepreneurs, people who have had careers in County and State positions, including with our own Civil Defense. Dismissed are people who have lost family members immediately after receiving an experimental injection, people who have lost jobs and livelihoods due to government shut downs. Dismissed are people who have read every page of 2045 and every page of GP2026 - have you all read every page of what we are voting on today? She is free to speak her mind - but as an elected official her obligation is to speak on behalf of her constituents not DISMISS them. She should be reprimanded by the Council as she is being now by me. 4. 1 have heard testimony that is in DIRECT opposition to stated facts in the GP2045 especially on the topic of climate change and about the amount of influence the UN has had on our plan. I gave each council member a copy of a document entitled 'Understanding Agenda 21' - It is available online for any who have not read it - please do. Both positions can't be true! Either climate change is the quintessential threat to humanity it is promoted as and therefore justifies being referenced in EVERY SINGLE chapter of the GP2045 as a driving influence or its not. Either man can and does cause earthquakes, direct the air stream and cause flooding, create earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis, create and steer hurricanes, create super fires as evidenced by observation and by checking out he hundreds of patents that can be researched by searching 'weather modification patents' or not; public/private partnerships have dangers that need to be protected against and discussed or perhaps wealthy people are automatically pure in all their motives when investing in our hospitals and influencing our elections, policies and purchasing land. I'm willing to be wrong about what I have studied and learned, but these are important. IF a plan is based on a 'fact' that is false - and if it systemic in the plan - then the whole plan is build on falsehood. Why would you not debate it, choose truth wherever it leads then vote accordingly? 5. 1 want a plan BY US AND FOR US. I want Council members BY US AND FOR US. I want truth seekers willing to stand for truth no matter how disruptive. 6. 1 honor every servant of the people who honors their oath of office and listens and serves. I pray for you and believe in the good future for our County. I urge strongly to vote NO on moving forward with GP2045 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. Hawaii County Council General Plan Bill 66. May 20, 2026 Oppose Bill 66 (GP2045) Aloha County Council Members, General Plan 2045 continues to be null and void because it does not, and cannot pass The test to ascertain its constitutionality. We The People of Hawaii County, have on many occasions pointed out the fact that General Plan 2045 is at its core, a document that is infused with the Sustainable goals and objectives as defined by the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Both of these agencies are not part of the republic of United States of America or Hawaii County. These are foreign organizations with no legal authority to put anything into our Hawaii County Bills. The people of Hawaii County and the County Council did not vote for the UN and WEF to represent us. It is therefore ironic that the County Council ignores the people's concern about this treasonous insertion of UN and WEF ideologies into Bill 66, while at the same time, uses minor county rules, regulations and procedures in order to denigrate GP2026. It's also ironic because GP2026 explicitly removed the sustainability language from the plan, which complied with exactly what many testifiers want. Apparently doing what the people want is exactly what the majority of our "representatives" don't want. Furthermore, there was no public discussion about the origination of including UN Sustainability Goals in our general plan, or how they got there, why they are there, and what are the future implications of them being there. As a matter of fact, none of the major concerns brought to the Council by testifiers were publicly discussed. Yet these stated concerns are at the foundation of goals and actions in GP2045. Additional concerns: 1) Carbon emissions causes global warming: This theory is still not proven. In fact CO2 has been shown to actually be a trailing indicator i.e. warming occurs first, then CO2 rises in response. In other words there are differing theories on this. 2) Weather modification engineered by man: Kalei Kailikini has provided you each with a binder full of scientific information and patents, and real world demonstrations of past and ongoing climate modifications also called "geoengineering". This is in the public record. You are responsible for accepting or rebutting this body of information. The County Plan cannot be approved without first addressing this discrepancy. 3) Stakeholders: This catchall phrase is a broad designation that includes anyone with an interest in any County planning issue. It is obvious to anyone that wealthy stakeholders, anywhere in the world, offering financial "help" to Hawaii County, in the form of public -private -partnerships or other arrangements as envisioned and proposed in GP2045, will have an overwhelming financial advantage. GP2045 will be the mechanism by which the wealthy will get a "leg up" on the inhabitants of Hawaii County, leaving them at great disadvantage in land use planning. 4) Data centers: Zoning allowances for data centers were never given a chance to be reviewed by the public during the public review sessions, because they were only revealed in May 2026, at the last GP2045 hearing by Representative Kimball. This alarming new development of Rep. Kimball's recently proposed amendment, appears that zoning codes already allow data centers under existing zoning codes. The Council needs to have a public discussion on all of the ramifications of data centers, especially in its relationship to both GP2045 and GP2026. The concern is the negative impacts of data centers on our land, water, power infrastructure, emissions and waste water, on the environment and people have not been addressed. General Plan 2026 appears to better support protection from the collective impacts of "data centers". 5) Data centers are notorious for their immense thirst for water. Hawaii island's 5 aquifers must be protected. We want to have these aquifers included and discussed in the GP2045. We do not want GP2045 to allow for an eventual tax on rainwater or water catchment. 6) Water is very important and billionaires who do not live in the county, are buying up land with access to our public water resources - our aquifers. We want GP2045 or GP2026 to give the inhabitants of Hawaii County more ability to control and protect our water resources from the wealthy opportunists. 7) Conspiracy theorists: The ridicule that was foisted upon our local testifiers by labelling them as Conspiracy Theorists, with false narratives and other personal attacks is unacceptable and dishonorable coming from an elected official of our County Council. 8) Representation: No other council member or county official stepped up to stop the attack. When we make the effort to participate in our county governance, which is our right and our duty, we expect to be treated with the same respect that we show to those representing us. Where are the honorable men and women who should be safeguarding that respect that we deserve? Is there any wonder why the people do not want to testify in front of their own representatives? The inhabitants are beginning to view their representatives as an enemy of "we the people". And you know what the Declaration of Independence says about that issue! The path to restoration of our County Representative's credibility is to honor your oath of office. Remember, you have your position because of both the State and federal Constitutions. "I, (your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as Hawaii County Council member, to the best of my ability." "We the People" hold you to your pledge. Sincerely, Ken Honma From: HULI Hawai'i Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:23 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: GP Testimony Aloha Chair and members of the County Council, My name is Maki Morinoue, and I represent HULI PAC. Our position: © Conditional support for Bill 66, Draft 2 ("draft General Plan 2045") with commitment to future interim amendments X Opposition to COM 372.192 ("draft General Plan 2026") and any subsequent version of "draft General Plan 2026" The community process must be honored. Gutting and replacing the General Plan through COM 372.192 undermines 11 years of community participation. Yes, the General Plan process was flawed, it was inequitable, and initially ignored input from planning commissioners until community pressure forced accountability. But despite those flaws, planning committees, grassroots organizations, and community leaders spent years shaping this document through testimony, meetings, and persistent engagement. Introducing a "gut and replace" version at the last hour creates deeper distrust in our system and leadership. When communities invest years of good -faith participation, only to see their work discarded at the final stage, it sends a clear message: your time doesn't matter, your testimony doesn't matter, the process was theater. We've raised concerns throughout this process. We've shown up. We've testified. We've engaged in good faith. If this Council rejects 11 years of community input by adopting COM 372.192, you teach our community that participation is futile, and that lesson will last far beyond this General Plan. Honor the process. Reject COM 372.192. Move forward with Bill 66, Draft 2, with interim amendments as needed with the community. Mahalo, Maki Morinoue HULI PAC Holualoa, Hawai'i 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 18, 2026 9:47 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Bill 66 draft 2 Aloha Council, Com 372.199 from council member Kimball, dated April 2,2026, should omit any language or references to data centers. Hawai'i Island has extremely limited resources left and most are stretched financially and cant afford any more spikes in our already high electricity costs. Also, Sierra Club HIG believes that COM 372,192, "draft GP2026" is invalid because it directly conflicts with the state Constitution, Hawai'i state Supreme Court rulings, and existing state laws. Specifically, draft GP2026 violates the state Constitution's Article XI, "Public Health and Welfare": • Section 8, "Preservation of a Healthful Environment: The State shall have the power to promote and maintain a healthful environment, including the prevention of any excessive demands upon the environment and the State's resources." and • Section 9, "Cultural Resources: The State shall have the power to preserve and develop the cultural, creative and traditional arts of its various ethnic groups." Draft GP2026 also violates Hawai'i Revised Statutes 255P, the "Hawai'i Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Initiative" and HRS 226, the "Hawaii State Planning Act". Finally, draft GP2026 is invalid as a result of the state Supreme Court ruling in March 2023, In re Application of Hawai'i Electric Light Company, Inc." "HRS Chapter 269 defines the Hawaii Constitution's article XI, section 9 right to a clean and healthful environment, which encompasses the right to a life -sustaining climate system. Paeahu, 150 Hawaii at 538 n.15, 506 P.3d at 202 n.15.The right to a life - sustaining climate system is not just affirmative; it is constantly evolving. The people of Hawaii have declared 'a climate emergency.' Hawaii faces immediate threats to our cultural and economic survival:sea level rise, eroding the coast and flooding the land; 1 ocean warming and acidification, bleaching coral reefs and devastating marine life; more frequent and more extreme droughts and storms. Id. For the human race as a whole, the threat is no less existential. With each year, the impacts of climate change amplify and the chances to mitigate dwindle. "The Closing Window: Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies," Emissions Gap Report 2022, https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report- 2022 [https://perma.cc/63AR-RFZEJ. "A stepwise approach is no longer an option." Id. at page xv. The reality is that yesterday's good enough has become today's unacceptable." Bottom line COM 372.192 and draft GP2026 do not comply with state law regarding planning and climate change. It is not a valid threat to the General Plan Comprehensive Review process, despite any political support it may have. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify. Christine Inserra 2 From: Michael Tivana Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 2:05 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: I OPPOSE General Plan 2045 There are still new things in the plan that have not been discussed, mainly around the maps of the proposed zoning changes. Are there really subdivisions being turned into Natural Land? Is the county going to tax rain water being saved for use out of a storage tank? Is the county going to rezone Hawaiian Home Land? Where are we now? Vote NO on the plan until these and other things are ironed out. Michael Johnson From: kalei purdy Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 11:36 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Bill 66/GP 2045 Testimony by Fay Kalei Kailikini Aloha, my name is Fay Kalei Kailikini, or Kalei Kailikini I represent myself and my Ohana. I strongly OPPOSE Bill66, General Plan 2045, in short will use GP2045. These are some of my reasons I oppose GP2045: 1. GP 2045 was written by the United Nations called Agenda 21 for the year 2021 after 2021 the UN's name was changed to Agenda 2030. 178 Governments met at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil June 3 to 14, 1992. Representing the United States of America, President George W.H. Bush, Sr. signed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests. President Bush stated "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance." addressingthe U.N. General Assembly, on February 1, 1992 3 months before signingthe "Rio Declaration.." Did Americans know what President Bush said and that he signed a document that may replace the U.S. Constitution? Biblical quote: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." 2. Stakeholders - As defined in GP 2045: "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 ensure that diverse perspectives and interests are considered." Where are Hawaii Island residents mentioned or identified? Ok - community members, employees, customers, suppliers, non -governmental organizations.... My point is Hawaii Island residents are not important enough to name them in GP2045. Community members can be residents, transients, part-time living and this term is not specific, but broad that it can be easily challenged in a court of law. Do Hawaii Island resident want to go to court to prove who they are? The answer is "No" - we don't have the money to litigate. Also, Stakeholders can be billionaires who have more money than residents, creating disadvantages for residents. Stakeholders can be any foreign country e.g. China, Russia, Germany 3. Climate Change - I produced, compiled, and hand delivered a 3-ring binder with over 100 pages titled: "GEOENGINEERING - Weather Modification" to all Hawaii Island County Council members, the Mayor, Fire Chief, Police Chief and the Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Health in October 2025. The over 100 pages of facts, government memorandums & reports, articles are printed evidence that the U.S. government & military tested, improved, perfected, utilized in military operations from the late 1940s to the present date e.g. Operation Popeye Viet Nam conflict 1967-1972, approved by President Lyndon B. Johnson. We researchers are well aware that climate changes - naturally and man made; the scientific term is Geoengineering that includes " Cloud Seeding, nicknamed Chem -Trails. Why doesn't the GP2045 include Geoengineering? Man can manipulate the weather, but it's being kept a secret from the people, which is why Geoengineering is NOT included in GP2045. This is malfeasance and is defined as - "Evil doing; ill conduct. The commission of some act which is positively unlawful; the doing of an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all or unjust performance of some act which the party had no right or which he had contracted not to do." Definition from Black's Law Dictionary Abridged Sixth Edition, page 659. In closing -these 3 points will create dangerous, destructive, life -threatening, unhealthy, loss of privately owned lands and personal rights. Hawaii Island residents NEED to discuss the dangers of GP2045, especially Geoengineering. The GP2045 must not be rushed. Residents must be respected, given advantages, not disadvantages, must be involved and their rights protected. From: jlkinkona Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 11:56 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Bill 66 Dear Council Members, Just because GP 2045 has been an ongoing "work in progress" for the past many years is not a good reason, IMO, to pass it. There are way too many red flags that have come up in the testimonies on May 4 for you to ignore and pass this document. David Webb, from Kapoho ponted out a total of 1,000 actions, which to me indicates an unrealistic goal to achieve. Mr. Hustace found 7 errors and omissions on the maps for his district which made me question how many more undiscovered errors and omissions are there in the other 8 districts? Mr. Hustace also said that GP 2045 did not have an amendment process. Was that an intentional trap to stop anyone from making amendments after GP 2045 is passed? Very strange how something so crucial as an amendment process was left out of the plan and not caught and corrected by our Planning Director. Ms. Kimball has submitted many amendments calling for stronger language in the plan and preparing Hawaii County for data centers. If Mr Hustace is telling us that the GP 2045 does not have an amendment process, then why is Ms Kimball submitting so many amendments? Please scrutinize Ms Kimball's amendments. Ask many questions. We will be listening to her answers. Or better yet, do not vote on any amendments until a clear amendment process is in place. Mahalo, Josephine Keliipio Kailua Kona Sent from Proton Mail for Android. From: jlkinkona Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:45 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Bill 66 Dear Council Members, https://aidatacentermap.org/?ref=takebackourtech.org The US Military has already poisoned our water supply on Oahu (Red Hill). Do we want a Data Center contaminating our acquifers here in Hawaii County? Mahalo, Josephine Keliipio Kailua Kona Sent from Proton Mail for Android. From: Lisa Kerman Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 5:12 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: Oppose General Plan 2025 To Council Members and The Mayor, I am opposed to General Plan 2025. Your job is to represent the residents of Hawaii and it's very clear that the residents do not want General Plan 2025. If you pass this GP you are not representing the wishes of the people of this island. Please respect the people of this island who want their rights taken into account. They worked hard to obtain their property and to secure their property rights for themselves and for future generations to enjoy. The farmers who through their hard work are feeding the people of Hawaii and want the right to continue doing so, but will be threatened by this plan. We expect transparency from our government which will also become threatened beyond what we already are experiencing if this plan goes into effect. No good will come to the people of Hawaii if you pass General Plan 2025. Vote with the people and reject this "Plan"! Lisa Kerman Kauai Sent from my iPad From: Marianna Kovalev Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:20 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: Support GP 2026. Opposition to GP 2045 To whom it may concern. Hello, I am opposing General Plan 2045. Reasons: Overwhelming goals with not enough resources- set up for failure. Maps contain too many errors and omissions. Wordage requires to be more specific and clear from possibly of reinterpretation of land use. Sent from my iPhone From: Omra Kubby Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 8:45 AM To: Council Testimony, Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii- Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James; Kierkiewicz, Ashley 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 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, Omra and Sky Kubby Orchidland/Keaau residents From: Carolyn Lawpaugh Lachance Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:28 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: Opposition to Bill 66, Draft 2 — Constitutional, Emergency Governance, and Land Rights Concerns To: counciltestimony(a)hawaiicounty.gov CC: heather kimball(@hawaiicount ov; Jennifer kagiwada(_ hawaiicountygov: dennis.onishiCa)hawaiicounty.gov; ash Ley. kierkiewicz@hawaiicounty.gov; matt.kanealii- kleinfelder(a)hawaiicounty.gov; michelle.galimba@hawaiicounty.gov; rebecca.villega�hawaiicounty.gov; holeka.inaba@hawaiicounty.gov; lames hustacePhawaiicounty.gov Aloha Chair Inaba and Members of the Hawaii County Council, I submit this testimony in strong opposition to Bill 66, Draft 2, adopting the County of Hawaii General Plan 2045. I respectfully ask the Council to vote NO, postpone, or remand Bill 66 for further public review, constitutional analysis, and explicit protections for private property, agricultural land, rural communities, water independence, food production, and the rights of the people. My objection is not to responsible planning. My objection is to adopting a broad land -use framework that may later be used to justify restrictions on private land, rural living, agricultural operations, mobility, housing choices, water/catchment systems, infrastructure access, and permit approvals without clear constitutional safeguards. The County's General Plan 2045 includes objectives to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase mass transit ridership, expand sewer service to Urban Growth Areas, use Smart Growth principles to focus development within designated urban centers, maximize rural designated lands to preserve rural character, and support productive agricultural lands. Some of these goals may sound beneficial on paper, but without firm constitutional guardrails, they can become tools for coercive land -use control. Hawaii has already seen the danger of broad emergency and planning authority being used faster than the people can meaningfully respond. Lahaina remains a moral warning to every island. After the Maui wildfires, families lost homes, land, community, stability, and generational security. Many people remain displaced or unable to rebuild while government systems, permitting systems, emergency proclamations, housing policies, and outside interests continue moving around them. That should not happen on Hawaii Island. This Council should not pass any planning document that could become a future excuse for a land grab, forced density, managed retreat, compulsory infrastructure burdens, public -private development pressure, "smart growth" coercion, or permit conditioning that effectively strips people of lawful use of their land. The Fifth Amendment protects private property from being taken for public use without just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment protects due process. The Hawai'i Constitution likewise protects life, liberty, property, due process, equal protection, privacy, and property rights. Therefore, before any vote on Bill 66, 1 respectfully demand that the Council require clear language stating: 1. No private property shall be taken, damaged, restricted, burdened, devalued, or functionally controlled without due process and just compensation. 2. No General Plan policy, climate policy, Smart Growth policy, Urban Growth Area, transportation policy, housing policy, infrastructure plan, agricultural designation, conservation designation, hazard designation, or public -private partnership shall be used to coerce landowners into surrendering lawful use, access, title, water systems, agricultural use, or development rights. 3. No permit condition, infrastructure burden, dedication, fee, easement, zoning concession, or exaction shall be imposed unless it has a direct essential nexus and rough proportionality to the actual impact of the specific proposed use. 4. No rural or agricultural community shall be pressured into urban -density planning, transit -oriented development, centralized control, or outside development models that do not fit Hawai'i Island's geography, culture, farming needs, roads, water systems, and rural life. 5. No future implementing ordinance shall proceed without plain -language public notice, fiscal impact review, constitutional review, and meaningful public testimony. 6. No emergency proclamation, state housing policy, disaster recovery policy, climate policy, or public - private partnership shall be allowed to override the rights of Hawai'i Island landowners through this General Plan. The people are tired of government declaring emergencies while ordinary families remain unsafe, displaced, overtaxed, overregulated, and unheard. If government has time to pass a 20-year planning document, government has time to write constitutional protections directly into it. If government has power to plan land use, government has the duty to protect the people's land first. I respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Bill 66, Draft 2, or postpone it until the document includes clear, enforceable protections for private property, agricultural land, rural communities, water independence, due process, and just compensation. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Marie Lawpaugh Lachance Kealakekua, Hawaii From: Stan Lee Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 12:18 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: GP 2045 Please vote to implement the plan for a better Hawaii! Mahalo. Signed Stan Lee, resident of Pahoa. Sent from my iPad From: Noelle Lindenmann Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:22 PM To: Council Testimony; Villegas, Rebecca Subject: Testimony on Bill 66 Aloha County Council - I am writing in STRONG support of Bill 66, the General Plan 2045• A general plan is a guiding document that is useful for an entity to have in front of them, as direction for which way to go. It should be a thorough document and Bill 66 is a very thorough document that has had lots of review by the public and experts. We should adopt this plan and move forward, trying to meet each of the milestones put in front of us. Using the UN Sustainability goals as guides is a way to try to alleviate the impacts of climate change, even knowing that there are things we, as a small island, cannot prevent. Thank you for your work. Please adopt Bill 66, the General Plan 2045, for our county and people. We deserve to have clear sightlines to to our plan and goals. Mahalo for your work. Noelle Lindenmann, Kailua-Kona Noelle Lindenmann (she/her/hers) e. noe11e.royerCggmai1.com // tallgirlC«?uw.edu � SIERRACLUB HAWAI`I ISLAND GROUP May 18, 2026 Hawai'i County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo HI 96720 74-677 Kealakehe Parkway, Bldg A Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Re: Conditional Support for Bill 66, Draft 2; Continued Opposition to COM 372.192 Aloha Chair Inaba and council members, Since September 2023 when draft GP2045 was first released to the public, HIG has been asking a simple question: "Why was draft General Plan 2040 released in 2019 gutted -and -replaced by GP20457 Until now, it remained unanswered. Now ... and mahalos to community volunteer researchers... it appears that draft GP2045 is the county Planning Department's effort to comply with Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 225P, the "Hawai'i Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Initiative", as amended in 2022, as well as a state Supreme Court ruling in March 2023. The relevance of these is explained at the end of this testimony. The political reality before us today is: 1) Draft GP2040, despite being superior to either drafts GP2045 or GP2026 in possessing the qualities the county council desires, such as brevity, simplicity, relevance, clear paths to implementation, and budgeting guidelines, was never brought back by amendment, nor were the sections recommended by the Hawai'i Island Na Ala Hele Advisory Council, county Game Management Commission, and the Leeward Planning Commission, all supported by HIG, as well. 2) Draft GP2045 cannot be substantially amended without the amendments going back to the separate Planning Commission, thereby greatly reducing the chance this council, which is in its sixth month of public hearings and discussion, will have an opportunity to pass a final draft 2045 before this council session ends in December, and 3) Draft GP2026, the worst of all drafts, is being hung overhead like the Sword of Damocles, despite not being in compliance with the state Constitution, law, and state Supreme Court precedent. But after 11 years and thousands of hours of public and private interest inputs and comments, after nearly $2 million in county taxpayer funds being expended, it is time to make tough decisions. P 0 Box 1137 Hilo, HI 96721-1137 1 hawaiiislandsierraclub@gmail.com sierraclubhig.org Conditional Support for Bill 66, Draft 2 HIG will support Bill 66, Draft 2 (" GP2045, draft 2"), if council members make public statements that they will agree to submit and introduce interim amendments to GP2045 immediately subsequent to passage and enactment into law. Examples of subsequent interim amendments HIG would support are the following Communications that have been submitted to the Chair: • COM 372.197 from council member Galimba, dated April 6, 2026 • COM 372.198 from council member Kimball, dated April 6, 2026 • COM 372.199 from council member Kimball, dated April 2, 2026 (with the exception of the language referencing "data centers") • COM 372.200 from council member Kimball, dated April 7, 2026 • COM 372.204 from council member Hustace, dated May 4, 2026 • Use of draft 2040 as a source for amendments, including recommended amendments from the Hawai'i Island Na Ala Hele Advisory Council, county Game Management Commission Continued Opposition to COM 372.192 HIG believes that COM 372,192, "draft GP2026" is invalid because it directly conflicts with the state Constitution, Hawai'i state Supreme Court rulings, and existing state laws. Specifically, draft GP2026 violates the state Constitution's Article XI, "Public Health and Welfare": • Section 8, "Preservation of a Healthful Environment: The State shall have the power to promote and maintain a healthful environment, including the prevention of any excessive demands upon the environment and the State's resources." and • Section 9, "Cultural Resources: The State shall have the power to preserve and develop the cultural, creative and traditional arts of its various ethnic groups." Draft GP2026 also violates Hawai'i Revised Statutes 255P, the "Hawai'i Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Initiative" and HRS 226, the "Hawaii State Planning Act". Finally, draft GP2026 is invalid as a result of the state Supreme Court ruling in March 2023, "In re Application of Hawai'i Electric Light Company, Inc." Here is an excerpt: "HRS Chapter 269 defines the Hawaii Constitution's article XI, section 9 right to a clean and healthful environment, which encompasses the right to a life -sustaining climate system. Paeahu, 150 Hawaii at 538 n.15, 506 P.3d at 202 n.15.The right to a life -sustaining climate system is not just affirmative; it is constantly evolving. The people of Hawaii have declared'a climate emergency.' Hawaii faces immediate threats to our cultural and economic survival:sea level rise, eroding the coast and flooding the land; ocean warming and acidification, bleaching coral reefs 2 and devastating marine life; more frequent and more extreme droughts and storms. Id. For the human race as a whole, the threat is no less existential. With each year, the impacts of climate change amplify and the chances to mitigate dwindle. "The Closing Window: Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies," Emissions Gap Report 2022, https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022 [https://perma.cc/6JAR-RFZE]. "A stepwise approach is no longer an option." Id. at page xv. The reality is that yesterday's good enough has become today's unacceptable." [end quote] Bottom line, COM 372.192 and draft GP2026 do not comply with state law regarding planning and climate change. It should not have been introduced as part of the General Plan Comprehensive Review process and council members should stop considering it as a valid proposed amendment, despite any political support it may have. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify. 3 � SIERRACLUB HAWAII ISLAND GROUP April 7, 2026 Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, Economic Development c/o Hawai'i County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo HI 96720 Re: Recommending amendments to Bill 66, Draft 2 Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and committee members, The Sierra Club of Hawai'i, Hawai'i Island Group ("HIG") believes that the current Bill 66, Draft 2 ("B66D2") should be further amended. In particular, HIG supports the Leeward Planning Commission's recommendation that the draft General Plan include the Hawai'i Island Na Ala Hele Advisory Council's recommended amendments. HIG also supports the recommended amendments from the county Game Management Advisory Commission. With regard to Section 4.3.4, "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse" supports B66D2 being amended to include Actions to assure compliance with over $1 billion in current federal wastewater requirements, such as the County -wide Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Safe Drinking Water Act AOC for Pahala and Naalehu, the Pretreatment AOC, and the federal court settlement on the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plan. B66D2 should be amended to include an Action to implement of the county's Integrated Wastewater Management Plan that will be released soon. It should be further amended to address the wastewater treatment plants that are currently illegally discharging to groundwater without legally required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, such as Ulu Wini, Honoka'a, and Kapehu. Wastewater amendments should also address the current crisis with solids handling. Wet solids are being trucked over Saddle to the West Hawaii Landfill and the Department of Environmental Management struggles to keep them running. A Policy amendment could provide for cogeneration and recycling of sludge much as Honolulu is doing through a public private partnership with Synagro. P 0 Box 1137 Hilo, HI 96721-1137 1 hawaiiislandsierraclubC@gmail.com sierraclubhig.org With regard to financing, in addition to the community facilities districts, a Wastewater Action amendment could also promote the adoption of a wastewater enterprise fund to meet the Countywide AOC as was done in Honolulu. With regard to flooding, Map 41 in B66132 does not identify all Federal Emergency Management Agency identified floodways for which the county Flood Control manager is responsible. A profound example of the necessity of identifying these floodways is the recent massive damage to the Konawaena School complex, Greenwell Farms, Highway 11, and other mauka-makai properties in and around the FEMA floodway that flooded during the mid -March Kona low rainfall event. Most importantly, there is no Objective, Policy, and/or Action that requires reforestation of watersheds being drained by FEMA floodways that have histories of catastrophic flood events. West Hawai'i is a geologically immature landscape and with FEMA floodways with a history of flowing outside of recognized channels. Reforestation of the watersheds to these floodways is an essential means to reduce the impact of future climate change -fuelled rainfall events. HIG appreciates the work being done by this Committee and strongly urges this Committee to continue its work to improve Bill 66, Draft 2. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify. From: Keith Neal Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:10 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: Conditional Support for Bill 66, Draft 2; - Opposition to COM 372.192 Aloha Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi, and Members of the Council, My name is Keith Neal. I have been a Hawaii County resident for more than 10 years. My testimony is in conditional support of Bill 66, Draft 2 "draft General Plan 2045" with a commitment to future amendments. Deliverables and timelines influence decisions, drive action, reduce risk, focus attention and precious public funds. A plan without targets is merely a promise. The General Plan 2045 sets 12 measurable targets with dates. The proposed GP 2026 does not. Defined Deliverables and Accountability Do Matter I urge the Council to: • Adopt the General Plan 2045 as recommended by both Planning Commissions. • Incorporate the Planning Director's amendments and both Commissions' recommended amendments. • Incorporate elements for Energy Self -Sufficiency, Resilience, and Equity as a targeted amendment that establishes geothermal as a strategic resource, sets imported fuel reduction targets, hazard mapping integrated with land use decisions, more comprehensive water management planning, while bringing the General Plan into compliance with HRS §226-18 and §226-109. • Reject GP 2026. GP 2026 has not had public workshops, community presentations, and Planning Commission review allowing adequate deliberation. Respectfully submitted, Keith Neal Waimea 7A"8!'+1MAMWAW ;; m. _ilAi! �.�'!""' .. :�4NM�'. k*. , z lw-:� Nancy Pisicchio 74-5576 Pawai Place, Suite J, Box 695 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 (808) 987-9195 npisicchio1 c@gmail.com Page 1 of 2 May 16, 2026 Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chair, and Members of the Hawai'i County Council County of Hawai'i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Email: counciltestimony@hawaiicounty.gov Dear Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba and Members of the Hawai'i County Council: Subject: Please support Bill 66, draft 2, General Plan 2045 Nancy Pisicchio 74-5576 Pawai Place, Suite J, Box 695 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 (808) 987-9195 npisicchio1 c@gmail.com May 16, 2026 Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chair, and Members of the Hawai'i County Council County of Hawai'i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Email: counciltestimony@hawaiicounty.gov Dear Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba and Members of the Hawaii County Council: Subject: Please support Bill 66, draft 2, General Plan 2045 The General Plan 2045 provides a framework for our community and decision -makers to look beyond immediate concerns and identify opportunities to proceed towards a better future. Key contributions provided by the County of Hawai'i General Plan 2045: • Long -Term Vision: Defines the county's physical, social, and economic evolution over 20-30 years. • Policy Guidance: Establishes official policies and programs that direct public and private development together with infrastructure and services, ensuring consistent and coordinated decision -making. • Implementation Priorities: Provides a structure for future action, such as legislative decisions, funding priorities, community participation, and program development. • Regulatory Consistency: Ensures compliance with the Hawai'i State Planning Act, which requires a General Plan to guide local planning decisions, including county zoning. • And the General Plan also serves to guide responsible development while protecting our Island's unique natural and cultural resources. Collective Kuleana Please help this community forward by approving the General Plan 2045. After the General Plan has been adopted, individual amendments can be proposed and thoughtfully considered on a case -by -case basis as part of the Interim Amendment process. Thank you for your consideration. Respectively, Nancy Pisicchio From: Ruth Robison Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 10:44 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Testimony in Strong Support of Bill 66, General Plan 2045, Agenda item on May 20, 2026 Aloha, Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Onishi and Council Members, My name is Ruth Robison and I live in Hilo. I strongly support Bill 66, the General Plan 2045. 1 attended the committee meeting on Bill 66. 1 understood the Planning Director and Corp Council to say that the legal way to make substantive changes to the Plan is to pass the Plan as it is, then have proposed amendments go through the same review and input process as the original plan. The legal procedure is NOT to entertain substantive changes before the original Plan is approved. Therefore, I strongly urge the County Council to adopt the General Plan 2045 as written, especially with its targets 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 substantively 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. I support HawaiTs 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 Hawaii County. Sincerely, Ruth Robison Hawaii County District 02 Claudia Rohr 369 Nene St. Hilo, HI 96720 808-640-5976 crohr4kgmail.com. May 19, 2026 Testimony on Bill 66, draft 2 Re: AMEND BILL 66, DRAFT 2 TO REMOVE THE 58 PAGES OF SUBSTANTIAL MAP CHANGES Aloha Chair Dr. Holeka Inaba and council members, In order to move forward, the council must correct a fatal procedural error now, by making a motion to amend the Motion to approve Bill 66 draft 2 to remove 58 pages of substantial GPLU Map changes in the "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025." At the LPL's February 20, 2025 continued Special General Plan Meeting and the WPC's March 10, 2025 continued Special General Plan Meeting, Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow verbally admitted facts that the "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025" were introduced without following the due process procedures required by our democratic society and the rule of law found in Ordinance No. 05- 25's (2005 General Plan, as amended), AMENDMENT PROCEDURES. Specifically, the "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025" were introduced without following 16.1, Comprehensive Review steps (4) thru (6): 4) The Planning Director shall conduct public workshops on amendments proposed by the Planning Director and by the County Council. (5) The public shall be afforded 21 days from the date of the last public workshop to provide comments to the Planning Director. (6) The Planning Director shall then submit the amendments proposed by the Planning Director and by the County Council to the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions for their independent review and separate recommendations within 30 days after the public deadline to submit comments to the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall make a recommendation on any Council -initiated amendments. Under AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, section 16.1 (10), the "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025", which contain 58 pages of substantial GPLU Map changes, must be processed as an interim amendment, as follows: (10) The County Council may make modifications, deletions, or additions to the proposed amendments as it may deem necessary, within the general intent and subject matter of the proposed amendments, in accordance with its rules of procedure. However, any County Council change to a proposed amendment which substantially changes the general intent or subject matter of the proposed amendment, such as newly adding or deleting a goal, policy, or course of action, or standard, or a map amendment which changes a land use designation of a parcel, shall be considered an entirely new proposed amendment. Such a new amendment proposed at this stage shall not be processed as part of the ongoing comprehensive review, but shall be processed as a new interim amendment pursuant to Section 16.2. (emphasis added) The introduction of the "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025" in the middle of the Comprehensive Review violates Ordinance No. 05-25 (2005 General Plan, as amended), AMENDMENT PROCEDURES 16.2; and Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (PC Rules), Rule 5-5, in pertinent part as follows: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES 16.2 INTERIM AMENDMENTS (2) Planning Director 2 (a) The Planning Director may initiate an interim amendment to the General Plan at any time other than during the comprehensive review. (emphasis added) (b) The Planning Director shall conduct a workshop on the proposed amendment prior to submitting it to the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. (c) The Planning Director shall submit the proposed amendment to the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions for their independent review and separate recommendations. Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 5 General Plan also provides: 5-5 Interim Amendments (b) Director -initiated (1) The Director may initiate an interim amendment to the General Plan at any time other than during the comprehensive review. The Director shall submit the proposed amendment to the Commission for its review and recommendation. (emphasis added) THE 58 PAGES OF SUBSTANTIAL MAP CHANGES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE Beyond the fatal procedural error explained above, the 58 pages of substantial Map changes are constitutionally vague. A person does not have enough information to look them up on a TMK map to review the Planning Director's recommendations. Some of the reasons given to make the changes are patently false. There is risk of an abuse of power eroding our democratic society. Public participation in the general plan review process must be protected by our council members. 3 CONCLUSION: This Council can correct this fatal procedural error now, by making a motion to amend the Motion to approve Bill 66 draft 2 to remove 58 pages of substantial GPLU Map changes in the "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025." The "Director's Recommended Amendments 2025" are 58 pages of substantial GPLU Map changes required to undergo the due process procedures enumerated in AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, 16.2 (2), as a matter of law. Thank you. bk"i,,, R).,- H From: Tracy Sawada Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 3:45 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: Support for General Plan 2026-Protect Local Property Rights Dear Council Members, I am a resident living in Holualoa born and raised in Hawaii. I love these islands and am very concerned about the two General Plans being presented. Please support the General Plan 2026. Residents 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. In contrast, 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. This Level. of complexity can create uncertainty for property owners and make it more difficult for residents to plan for the future. A general plan should provide clear guidance —not confusion —and should support the people who live and invest in this island. Please support the General Plan 2026 as a balanced, workable approach that provides greater clarity and confidence for our community. Mahalo for your time and service. Sent from my Pad From: Steve Shropshire Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 10:17 AM To: Council Testimony; Steve Shropshire; Darrow, Jeffrey W. Subject: Fwd: Opposition To Proposed Change of LUPG Designation- TMK: (3)-2-7-004:025 May 19, 2026 To: Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba and Members of the Hawaii County Council RE: Bill 66, Draft 2 — General Plan LUPAG Map -TMK: (3)-2-7-004:025 My name is Steve Shropshire. I am the owner of property in Papaikou directly affected by the proposed General Plan LUPAG changes, and I appear today to oppose them. My son Dylan and I participated in the Hamakua Community Development Plan process for more than four years, attending over 40 public meetings. That experience taught me something important: CDPs are vulnerable to capture by organized local opposition. Well-meaning regional planning can quickly become a vehicle for "NIMBY" interests to suppress development, restrict property rights, and shift public burdens onto private landowners which is precisely what occurred with my Hakalau property during that process. The General Plan exists, in part, to correct for exactly this dynamic. It must retain clear authority to supersede CDP recommendations when broader public interests - affordable housing, infrastructure investment, economic development, and constitutional property rights are at stake. Countywide needs cannot be held hostage to localized opposition. During the Hamakua CDP process, steering committee members attempted to downzone my Hakalau property from a mixed Industrial -Residential designation to Open. My attorney, Terrence Lee, submitted a formal letter warning that the proposed change would substantially limit permitted uses and expose the County to claims of an unconstitutional regulatory taking, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that a property owner cannot be compelled to bear public burdens that, in fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. The letter also identified a conflict of interest involving the CDP chairman. The Planning Department overturned the proposed change. The system worked but only because someone pushed back forcefully. I am pushing back again today. My Papaikou property has carried a Low Density Urban designation on the LUPAG map for more than 60 years. That is not a technicality — it represents decades of reasonable, investment -backed expectations that my family has relied upon. Stripping that designation now, without compelling justification, is the definition of arbitrary downzoning. It invites legal challenge and exposes the County to liability. The Council should not approve these changes. The legal and constitutional concerns are real. The procedural record is inadequate. And the policy rationale, if there is one beyond localized opposition has not been clearly articulated or weighed against the County's own housing and development obligations. Hawaii Island is in a housing crisis. This Council should be facilitating thoughtful development near existing infrastructure, not rewarding organized opposition with map changes that diminish private property rights and foreclose housing solutions. I urge the Council to reject Bill 66 as it applies to the Papaikou property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mahalo, Steve Shropshire OK'AlokaGreen rr.r�r rrr•.i Steve Shropshire P.O. Box 1146 Hilo, HI 96721 steve(abalohagreen. com 808-895-0372 2 SULLIVAN I MEHEULk I LEE A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP September 28, 2016 VIA: Upload through Hamakua CDP Feedback Form at http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info County of Hawaii Planning Department Hamakua Community Development Plan Steering Committee Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Comment for Consideration at Hamakua Community Development Steering Committee Meeting on 9/28/16, Business Agenda Item No. 1(a)(ii)(1) Dear Hamakua Community Development Plan Steering Committee Members: We represent Steve Shropshire and Shropshire Group, LLC and write to provide input on behalf of our clients regarding Business Agenda item no. I(a)(ii)(1). As you are aware, Shropshire Group, LLC owns the two parcels in question, bearing TMK Nos. (2) 9-002:079 and (2) 9- 002:081. We understand that the Steering Committee is considering changing the designation of our client's parcels from General Industrial (MG 5A) to Open, as defined by Chapter 25 of the Hawai'i County Code, in the Steering Committee's final draft Community Development Plan recommendation. The Open District designation of our client's parcels has the potential to substantially limit the available permitted uses, notwithstanding the fact that the parcels are within the State Urban Land Use District and the adjoining parcels are designated Low Density Urban according to the LUPAG Maps. We understand that some community members support the Open designation so that the parcels may be preserved and potentially become a park. In furtherance of some community members' agenda to preserve the parcels, the County Council passed Resolution No. 535.16 in June 2016, authorizing the Director of Financial to enter into negotiations to acquire the parcels pursuant to the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund. Candidly, it is my client's position that there has been no meaningful discussion of the County's potential acquisition of the parcels. In the meantime, he would like to pursue development consistent with the current permitted uses, as would any other landowner. While we can appreciate the sentiment behind preserving the parcels for open space and public benefit, the proposed Open designation of our client's parcels under this guise would require our clients alone to "bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 618, 121 S.Ct. 2448, 2458, 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001) (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960)) (explaining the rationale behind the Takings Clause). Topa Financial Center • Fort Street Tower • 745 Fort Street, Suite 800 • Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813 Phone: 808.599.9555 • Fax: 808.533.2467 • www.SMLhawaii.com County of Hawaii Planning Department September 28, 2016 Page 2 Indeed, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has acknowledged that in some instances, land use regulations can go "too far" and thus reduce the use of property to such an extent that it constitutes a "regulatory taking" requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Leone v. County of Maui, 128 Hawai'i 183, 190,284 P.3d 956, 963 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922)). On behalf of our client, we urge the Steering Committee not recommend our client's parcels be designated as Open in the draft Community Development Plan recommendation. We further request that Brad Kurokawa withdraw from further discussion and voting on the matter, as we understand he likely has a conflict of interest as a potential architect for the proposed Hakalau Point Memorial Park, a park the parcels have theoretically been slated for despite being privately owned. See Hamakua Community Development Plan, Steering Committee Review of Community Input PowerPoint, Steering Committee Meeting #27 at Slide 5 "Reminder of Conflict of Interest" (Sept. 10, 2016). Very truly yours, SULLIVAN MEHEULA LEE, LLLP 7 Terrence M. Lee Dorothy P.H. Meisner SULLIVAN I MEHEULA I LEE A IIHIII,I) LIABILITY LAN PABINEli SIM Topa Financial Center • Fort Street Tower • 745 Fort Street, Suite 800 • Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: 808.599.9555 - Fax: 808.533.24G7 • www.SMLhawaii.com From: Frederick Smith Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 11:05 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Support for Bill 66, Draft 2, General Plan 2045 Aloha Chair Inaba and Members of the Hawaii County Council, I am writing in support of Bill 66, Draft 2, regarding the adoption of the General Plan 2045, while also supporting continued refinement of the document through future amendments and public engagement. After many years of planning work, public meetings, Planning Commission review, and extensive community input, I believe the County should move forward with GP2045 rather than reopen the process. While GP2045 is not perfect, I believe it represents a more responsible and forward -looking foundation for Hawaii Island's future than COM 372.192 and the associated Draft GP2026 proposal. I recognize that reasonable people may disagree on specific planning approaches and policy language. However, I believe COM 372.192 and Draft GP2026 move the County in the wrong direction at this stage of the process and risk undermining years of public engagement and planning work already invested in this comprehensive update. While continued refinement of GP2045 is both appropriate and necessary, I believe we should not dismiss or disrespect the process and local residents by advancing late -stage alternative proposals. In recent years, Hawai`i's legal and policy landscape surrounding climate resilience, environmental stewardship, infrastructure planning, and long-term sustainability has evolved significantly. In my view, GP2045 better reflects the broader direction Hawaii is moving toward regarding resilience and long-range planning responsibilities. At the same time, I also support continued refinement of GP2045 through future interim amendments and ongoing public engagement. In particular, I believe the following submitted Communications contain several constructive improvements that deserve continued consideration: • COM 372.197 submitted by Council Member Galimba on April 6, 2026 • COM 372.198 submitted by Council Member Kimball on April 6, 2026 • COM 372.199 submitted by Council Member Kimball on April 2, 2026, with the exception of the language relating to "data centers." • COM 372.200 submitted by Council Member Kimball on April 7, 2026 • COM 372.204 submitted by Council Member Hustace on May 4, 2026 1 also want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of time, energy, and public participation that have already gone into this General Plan update over many years. Community members, Planning Department staff, commissioners, council members, and many others have invested substantial effort into this process through countless meetings, testimony, and public engagement opportunities. No planning document is ever final or perfect, and I believe future amendments and improvements will continue to be necessary over time. However, after such an extensive and thorough review process, I believe the County should move forward with GP2045 and continue improving it incrementally rather than reopening foundational debates through late -stage alternative proposals. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony. Frederick Smith Ka'awaloa (Captain Cook), HI Frederick Smith Captain Cook, HI 415-717-6833 LinkedlnProfile From: Jasmine Steiner Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 8:37 AM To: Council Testimony Subject: Jasmine Steiner KahuPuna community organization strong Opposition to Bill No. 66 (Hawai'i County General Plan 2045) — Demand Full Rejection This Plan Is Riddled with Loopholes and Fallacies, Not Aloha 'Aina Dear Honorable Members of the Hawaii County Council, I must start this off by making clear that there was no public announcement for this nor easy access to be a part of this process, seemingly a major violation of sunshine Laws. I am writing as a lifelong resident of Lower Puna to strongly oppose and demand the immediate rejection of Bill No. 66 (Draft 2), the proposed ordinance adopting the County of Hawaii General Plan 2045 and repealing the 2005 General Plan. This document must be thrown out entirely. It is not a plan for our island's future —it is a blueprint laced with loopholes and fallacies that will accelerate industrial exploitation under the guise of "sustainability." This is not aloha. It betrays our'aina, our rural communities, and our kuleana to future generations. Your own council member was quoted in the news saying "we just need to pass something already they can fix it later" THAT IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID and LUDACRIS to say while at the same time calling the community members protecting their home "conspiracy theorists" (in same article) . The levels you guys are going to cater to foreign agendas is sickening. The Ran's own language exposes its fatal flaws. In Element 5: Public Utilities, Article 5 (Energy and Electricity), Policy 4, it states: "Renewable and locally generated energy resources, including solar, wind, geothermal, waste -to -energy conversion and other appropriate technologies, should be supported where they make sense for the island and are compatible with community context." This is a glaring loophole. "Where they make sense" and "compatible with community context" are completely subjective. They hand unelected planners and developers a blank checkto approve geothermal expansions or new facilities —exactly like the ongoing harms from Puna Geothermal Venture —while claiming "renewable" virtue. The same section's Policy 10 doubles down: "The County should coordinate land use decisions with the siting and expansion of energy facilities and transmission infrastructure needed to serve planned growth." "Should coordinate" is not protection; it is permission for industrial intrusion into rural and agricultural zones. The fallacies run deeper. The Plan repeatedly claims to "Malama 'Aina," protect Important Agricultural Lands, preserve rural character, and honor cultural resources. Yet every safeguard is gutted by vague qualifiers: "Where feasible" appears throughout (e.g., stormwater reuse, green infrastructure, agricultural water support). Protections "should" be applied instead of "shall." Cultural consultation is required only "as appropriate." Rural lands are to be shielded from "incompatible development," but Element 8 (Land Use), Article 3 allows "agriculture -supporting activities" and "value-added operations" without strict limits on scale or industrial creep. Element 2 (Economy) pushes "diverse industries" and economic growth while Element 3 only "encourages" preservation of connected working landscapes. These are not safeguards —they are escape clauses. The document touts food security and "working landscapes" in one breath, then coordinates land use with energy expansion in the next. It pretends growth can happen "within the limits of the island" while embedding policies that have already desecrated Puna's wahi pana, contaminated our air and water, and threatened off -grid family farms. That is the core fallacy: calling industrial geothermal "renewable" and "compatible" when it has proven incompatible with our health, culture, and true self-reliance. This General Plan does not reflect the voices of Puna, the post-2018 eruption reality, or the public trust duty under the Hawaii State Constitution and County Charter. It is corporate -friendly window dressing that will fragment agricultural lands, greenlight more desecration of Pele's domain, and erode the very rural character it claims to protect. We the people of Hawaii demand you throw Bill No. 66 out completely. Reject it at the earliest opportunity. Send it back to the drawing board for a genuine community -driven plan that includes: Strict, enforceable prohibitions on industrial -scale energy facilities in rural, agricultural, and conservation districts; Mandatory, binding cultural and community veto rights for Native Hawaiian practitioners and lineal descendants; Ironclad protections for Important Agricultural Lands with no "feasible" or "should" loopholes; Removal of all subjective qualifiers that prioritize developer "compatibility" over `aina. Our island deserves a General Plan rooted in true aloha `aina—not this one created by Hastings and pleadwell placed ashley kirka who is a lobbyist for israeli ormat geothermal and who you all have had to reprimand numerous times in council for her allocations if funds into her own bs created entitys. Mahalo nui for your kuleana to protect the public trust. I urge you to stand with the people of Puna and all of Hawaii Island by rejecting this flawed document. Aloha `aina, KIAI HAWAII JASMINE STEINER POHOIKI ROAD WEAREPUNA(@GMAIL COM We Are Puna / KahuPuna wearepuna.wixsite.com/aLoha-activism #ikumaumau #LANDBACK From: Martha Stephens <martha@marthafineart.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:56 AM To: Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Villegas, Rebecca; Galimba, Michelle M. Cc: Mayor's Office Executive Subject: Secret Critical Information - General Plan 2045 Dear Hawaii General Plan 2045 County Council Supporters, Nobody in the America's voted for the vast United Nations plan of complete tokenization and technocracy. The plan has never been about sustainability of nature let alone better human benefits and better future quality of life for the living man on the land. The big secret of technocratic governance is the loss of individual freedoms. This plan concentrates all power to the technical elite. HAWAII GENERAL PLAN 2045 is all about allowing secret Fortune 100 companies to come in and have their way with all resources, public and private with the end goal of totalitarian governance through Bio Digital convergence. Please, please, please look at ALL THE PATENTS. The entire fabric of our society is being changed against the will of the people across the lands. Everything that you have, including your body will be folded into the cloud system that you will not own, control or be able to exit. If you really want to make an informed decision and educate yourself about this critical information look at Canada and it's support of the LIN end goal for the people. https:Hhorizo ns. se rvi ce. canada. ca/e n/2024/1 2/24/bi od ig it-convergence-i m pl i cation/ In closing the technocrats are coming for it all to create a complete control grid and are desperate for the Hawaii General Plan 2045 approval to do this to this precious island and it's inhabitants. If you want technical knowledge follow the documents and patents. It is all there right from their mouths. https://www.lec.chZsystem/files/2024-06/iec tec bio- di-ital convergence en v2 lr.pdf Please stop this UN Agenda from coming here. Please stop the Hawaii General Plan 2045. Mahalo, Martha Stephens Kealia, HI 408-978-0354 1 From: Roy Takemoto Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:20 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: Bill 66, Draft 2 Testimony To: Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba and Members of the Hawai'i County Council RE: Bill 66, Draft 2 General Plan LUPAG Map My name is Roy Takemoto, a retired planner interested in affordable housing solutions. I have been a voluntary advisor to the owner/developer of a property in Papaikou that has been a subject of testimony from the Hamakua CDP Action Committee chairperson. That testimony pointed to a conflict between the draft GP's LUPAG designation affecting the property and the CDP's designation. The current GP's designation is Low Density Urban (see Figure 1); the Hamakua CDP designated it entirely as Important Ag Lands (see Figure 2). The draft GP compromised with a portion of the subject property in Low Density Urban and the remainder in Agricultural (see Figure 3). My testimony is in two parts. In part I, 1 propose that the GP should include policies explaining when a GP may supersede a CDP. In part II, 1 propose findings related to the subject property justifying the merits of the draft GP's designation. Part 1: Suggested GP Policies for GP Preemption of a CDP 1. Hierarchical Authority. Although both the GP and CDP are adopted by ordinance, the GP which is authorized by charter supersedes the CDP and should clearly state so in the GP. 2. Conflict Situations. The reasons the GP should be allowed to conflict and supersede the CDP are as follows: 1. Islandwide vs Regional Perspective. The CDP policies are based on a regional perspective. However, when the burdens and benefits are analyzed from an islandwide perspective, the GP may demand reallocations among regions. 2. Regional NIMBY. Vocal opposition may sway the day on the siting of controversial land uses at the time a CDP is adopted. However, when reevaluated under the GP lens with input from beyond the region, decision makers may come to a different conclusion. 3. Changed Conditions. Conditions prevailing at the time of the CDP adoption may have changed sufficiently to justify a different policy. 4. Exceptional Uses. The GP may stipulate certain exceptional uses, such as affordable housing or siting of major facilities, that may justify a higher scrutiny of CDP determinations. This higher scrutiny may especially be appropriate within the vicinity of urban centers where infrastructure is available or could be made concurrently available. 3. Findings. In all cases where the GP conflicts with a CDP, the Planning Department or decision making body should issue findings explaining their rationale. 4. CDP Addendum. Any GP preemption should be appended to the pertinent CDP to maintain consistency between the GP and CDPs. Part 2. Suggested Findings Supporting the GP Preemption over the Hamakua CDP Relating to the Subject Property 1. Islandwide vs Regional Perspective. Based on the "persistent housing crisis" (see Tribune Herald 5/9/26 citing UHERO's 2026 Housing Fact Book), the GP should reevaluate every region to allocate more affordable housing, especially in the vicinity of urban centers of every region to be closer to work, schools, and shopping. The subject property is the site of a proposed affordable housing project in the vicinity of the Hilo urban center where a sewage system, water, and schools are available. 2. Regional Opposition. The Hamakua CDP policies favoring open space are appropriate for the Hamakua Coast but the presumptions should shift toward reasonable development closer to the urban center. Public input from outside the region should be given the opportunity to weigh in on the suitability of the property for the proposed affordable housing project. 3. Changed Conditions. The housing crisis has only worsened since the adoption of the Hamakua CDP. The concept of the project has evolved since the adoption of the Hamakua CDP-- the owner/developer of the subject property has hired experienced architects to create an innovative site plan that integrates pocket neighborhoods with an agricultural lifestyle that should be given the opportunity for review. 4. Exceptional Use. Where an affordable housing project submits to a 201 H process, the project is bound to a commitment of at least 51 % of the total units to be affordable. The Council will have the opportunity to condition the project through the 201 H approval. Roy Takemoto Figure 1: Current (2005) GP Figure 2: Hamakua CDP North:.....� KWola.. ,4�J South rnhala M 10 Nonfi Nara SO wb '. South HBO . ttA§7 Ifbo , South r+ut_,tWTornTorm Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA, USFWS, Esri, CGIAR, USGS r �r tors, to OpenStreetMap. Microsoft, Esr6 Technologies, Inc, METVNASA. USGS, OA USFWS, Resource Mapping tiawall 3 4 Figure 3: Proposed 2045 m From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council Members, DORIS ANN SANTIAGO Wednesday, May 20, 2026 12:35 AM Council Testimony SUPPORT GP 2026-OPPOSE 2045 We are writing in strong support of General Plan 2026; we are in Opposition to General Plan 2045. General Plan 2026 Respects The People Of Hawaii County, OUR Families, OUR Communities, OUR Private Property Rights! We Believe! General Plan 2026 PROTECTS OUR ABILITY TO LIVE, WORK, AND CARE FOR OUR FAMILIES, SO THAT WE CAN LIVE IN PEACE. WITHOUT EXCESSIVE REGULATIONS THAT 2045 CAN IMPOSE ON OUR RIGHTS AS HOMEOWNERS. GENERAL PLAN 2045 IS EXCESSIVE! 300 Pages that you could continually impose change to control THE LAND THAT WE OWN. 300 Pages is EXCESSIVELY COMPLEX! THIS CREATES SERIOUS CONCERNS! 300 PAGES NEGATIVELY REFLECTS IMPACTS ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! WE WANT A PLAN THAT; RESPECTS! PROTECTS! PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! SUPPORT FARMERS! HOMEOWNERS! WHO WANT FOOD SUSTAINABILITY! HONOR OUR RIGHTS! AND OUR CHILDREN! FULFILL PROMISES OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUTHFULNESS RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN 2026 AND FULLY REJECT GP 2045 Thank You Kindly, Duane D. Santiago Doris A. Santiago Silas Santiago Tekoa Santiago P.O. Box 808 Pahala, Hawaii 96777 DORIS ANN SANTIAGO santiagod22@aol.com From: sharkgss Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 11:42 AM To: Council Testimony Cc: Kimball, Heather, Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Hustace, James; Villegas, Rebecca; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Onishi, Dennis; Inaba, Holeka Subject: Oppose Amendment 372.199 for Hawaii County General Plan 2045 - Data Centers Aloha Council Members, I am strongly opposed to General Plan 2045 and Heather Kimball's proposed amendment 372.199 as written and I would like to offer some alternative language for consideration. Amendment 372.199 contains vague language with too many loopholes that developers can work around and poses HIGH risk to the community. There is concern that some land for some data centers is being developed thru eminent domain - involuntary land grabs in other states. Data centers have no place on Hawaii Island. All data center proposals need to go through a rigorous permitting process with public involvement and environmental review. Additional protection of agricultural land (productive and non -productive) must be included to residential, natural, conservation, and high hazard areas as off limits for any data center development. All urban areas on Hawaii Island are mixed with residential and the feasibility to add a data center does not seem practical, there is no room for buffer or set -backs that avoids the numerous side effects. The law reads that government has the authority to acquire land using eminent domain to acquire private property for public use, which could include data centers if justified as serving a public purpose. This is very concerning and I would like to propose alternative language/added restrictrictions to amendment 372.199. Proposed Restrictions: Explicitly prohibit the use of eminent domain for data center projects, requiring all land to be acquired through voluntary sale or lease. 1. Landowner Consent: o Current Law: Landowners may be compelled to sell their property if the project is deemed a public u se. o Proposed Restriction: Landowners cannot be compelled to sell for data center development; participation must be voluntary. 2. Permitted Uses: o Current Law: Data centers could potentially qualify as public infrastructure and be eligible for eminen t domain. o Proposed Restriction: Data centers are specifically excluded from eminent domain eligibility. 3. "Development permits for data centers and other intensive land uses shall not be granted on any lands unless a there is a formal public review and comprehensive impact assessment that demonstrates no adverse effects on agricultural productivity, cultural sites, electrical grid, noise/light disturbance, water resources, pollution, or rural character." 4. "Agricultural lands shall also be prioritized for preservation, and any proposed conversion to non- agricultural use must undergo a rigorous public review process, including input from local farmers, agricultur al organizations, and environmental experts. 5. "All applications for development on agricultural land must include a detailed plan for maintaining or enhand ng agricultural viability, and permits shall be denied if the project is found to pose environmental hazard, or compromise the long-term sustainability of agricultural resources." Data centers on islands face unique environmental and infrastructural challenges, primarily centered on water scarcity and grid stability. They require massive amounts of water for cooling and electricity for processing. • Our Island has limited freshwater aquifers. Data centers consume vast quantities of water for cooling and much of this water is lost to evaporation while closed loop data centers are a pollution risk since returned waste water contains concentrated chemical additives that are toxic to aquatic life and promote algal blooms. • Hawaii island has a small, less resilient electrical grid. The surge in demand from data centers would lead to power shortages or necessitate further reliance of geo-thermal, which has numerous issues to include: toxic gas releases and ground water contamination in an area of seismic instability. • Data centers create localized "heat islands," raising surface temperatures by an average of 3.6°F (up to 16.4°F in extreme cases). This can exacerbate local climate conditions, increasing cooling demands for both the facility and nearby residential areas. • The construction and operation of these facilities generate significant electronic waste and, if powered by fossil fuel backup generators, release toxic pollutants like PM2.5 and nitric oxide, which can impact local air and water quality. • The electricity usage of data centers varies dramatically by size, from small facilities to massive hyperscale campuses: • Small Data Centers (e.g., 1,000 - 20,000 sq ft): Typically consume between 10 kW and 5 MW of power. This translates to roughly 1,200 to 36,000 kWh per month, or 4,380 to 17,520 MWh annually. • Medium -Sized Data Centers (e.g., 10,000 - 100,000 sq ft): Generally consume between 500 kW and 20 MW, resulting in an annual consumption of 720,000 to 8.76 million kWh. • Large and Hyperscale Data Centers (100,000+ sq ft): These facilities consume 10 MW or more, with many ranging from 20 MW to over 100 MW. Their annual consumption can exceed 87.6 million kWh (87.6 GWh). The largest facilities under construction are planned to scale into the gigawatt (GW) range, with some individual campuses consuming over 150 MW. • Data centers generate significant noise and light pollution, impacting both workers and nearby communities. • Servers and Cooling Systems in densely packed server racks generate a constant hum. Noise levels in server areas typically range from 85 to 96 dB(A), comparable to heavy traffic or a chainsaw. Prolonged exposure at these levels can cause permanent hearing damage. Rooftop and outdoor units are major noise sources for neighbors: o Cooling towers and air handling units (AHUs): Can produce 85-100 dB(A). o Air-cooled chillers: Compressors can reach 100 dB(A). o Backup diesel generators: Can spike to 110 dB(A) during testing or outages, similar to a live rock concert. • Facilities often "glow at night" like a city, with unshielded lights causing skyglow and spilling onto neighboring properties (light trespass). • This artificial light from data centers disrupts human circadian rhythms, suppressing melatonin (a hormone linked to sleep and cancer prevention). It also interferes with wildlife, affecting the migration patterns of birds and bats, the reproductive cycles of pollinators, and the natural behavior of nocturnal animals. • The lighting can be as intense as a football stadium or large parking lot, eliminating the natural darkness of rural night skies. At the last meeting all testifiers were against data centers and this is an issue we should all be able to come together on. There is exploration of ocean -based and space -based alternatives in development as alternative option for data centers. Proposed Alternative Language: "Prior to any on land data center development, the County shall actively explore and support the feasibility of locating data centers and related infrastructure in off - island environments, including but not limited to ocean -based platforms and space -based facilities. Any such exploration should prioritize environmental stewardship, technological innovation, and alignment with the County's sustainability and resilience goals. Partnerships with public and private entities specializing in oceanic and aerospace solutions are encouraged to redu ce land use pressures on Hawai'i Island and to advance cutting -edge alternatives for data center development." Additionally data centers have become military targets in the middle east, if war escalates data centers both commercial and military operations are at risk for drone strikes: On March 1, 2026 Iran Shahed drones struck two Amazon Web Services data centers in the UAE. A third commercial data center in Bahrain was also hit. As stated in previous testimonies, I have strong opposition to GP 2045. It is not right for our county for the following reasons: The plan has too many goals and there are not enough resources for the county to implement operations. There are too many errors and omissions in the maps (James Hustace found 7 in his district). The public needs to see and approve corrected maps! GP 2045 contains broad and vague policy language modeled from UN sustainability goals that threaten sovereignty and property ownership rights. There is a risk that future administrations may reinterpret land use, development, and community priorities without clear limits or direct voter approval. Mahalo for your consideration in this very important vote, Donna Thompson Kamuela, HI Sent with Proton Mail secure email. � SIERRACLUB HAWAI'I ISLAND GROUP May 18, 2026 Hawai'i County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo HI 96720 Re: Conditional Support for Bill 66, Draft 2; Continued Opposition to COM 372.192 Aloha Chair Inaba and council members, Draft GP2045 reflects the county Planning Department's effort to comply with Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 225P, the "Hawai'i Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Initiative", as amended in 2022, as well as a state Supreme Court ruling in March 2023. In contrast, COM 372,192, "draft GP2026" is invalid because it directly conflicts with the state Constitution, Hawai'i state Supreme Court rulings, and existing state laws. Draft GP2026 does not comply with state law regarding planning and climate change. It should not have been introduced as part of the General Plan Comprehensive Review process My support for Bill 66 Draft 1 is conditional, in that it needs amendments! The amendments include language from Comms 372.197, 372.198, 372.199, 372.200, and 372.204. Please submit and introduce interim amendments to GP2045 immediately, subsequent to passage and enactment into law. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify. Deborah Ward P 0 Box 1137 Hilo. HI 96721-1137 1 hawaiiislandsierraclub@jzmail.com sierraclubhig.org From: JJ Wassell Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 7:32 PM To: Council Testimony Subject: Bill 66 Testimony Council Chair Inaba and Members of the Hawai'i County Council: Please pass Bill 66, Draft 2, the "2045 General Plan." The proposed plan has many excellent features. It sets out comprehensive objectives, policies,and actions describing how we can live on this island in harmony with our environment. Although the plan frames these concepts as "sustainability," they also express malama 'aina inthe context of the 21 st century. These policies should not be controversial. If they read through the sustainability objectives and policies one by one, most residents would likely agree with almost all of them, and with a great majority of the proposed actions as well. One criticism has been that the plan contains too many actions. That concern is understandable. But most of the actions are framed in advisory, not mandatory, language: "strive to," "support," "partner with," and similar terms. In that sense, much of General Plan 2045 is aspirational. That has also been true of the 1971, 1989, and 2005 General Plans. Providing long-term vision and direction is one of the important functions of a General Plan. Several councilmembers have proposed relatively limited amendments to the 2045 Plan. I am not referring here to the "2026 Plan," which is effectively a complete rewrite and which I have criticized in earlier testimony. All of the proposed limited amendments could be considered as interim amendments after enactment of the 2045 Plan. To do so, the Council would first need to adopt a revision to the amendment process. That should not be difficult or time-consuming. And then the members could introduce interim amendments. These would go through the process much more efficiently if they were considered on their own merits rather than being debated along with the much larger plan. None of the proposed councilmember amendments so far— other than the 2026 rewrite — would fundamentally alter the 2045 Plan. Most simply strengthen or clarify language already contained within it. • Council member Hustace has identified certain mapping issues, including the omission of Waimea Nature Park and Kamakoa Nui Park from the "Recreation" category. • Jenn Kagiwada is concerned about the absence of a CDP for Hilo. • Haether Kimball discussed some sort of protection from large scale Al data centers being built here. But those issues should not delay adoption of the overall plan. The Council is on the verge of a major accomplishment: adoption of the County's first new General Plan in more than 20 years. It should seize that opportunity. Mahalo, JJ Wassell, resident of the Big Island for 44 years and member of East Hawaii Indivisible Sent from Earth 1 From: Ny W Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:33 PM 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. We need a govenrmtnt that supports the people of Hawaii and their Families. I respectfully urge you to support GP 2026 and reject GP 2045. Mahalo for your time and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Nykol West Kailua Kona, District 8 1 From: Chris Yuen Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 10:42 AM To: Council Testimony; Kierkiewicz, Ashley Cc: Kimball, Heather, Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James; Darrow, Jeffrey W.; Morrison, Bethany J Subject: Testimony on Bill 66, for May 20 Council Chair Inaba and Members of the Hawai'i County Council: Please pass Bill 66, Draft 2, the "2045 General Plan." The proposed plan has many excellent features. It sets out comprehensive objectives, policies, and actions describing how we can live on this island in harmony with our environment. Although the plan frames these concepts as "sustainability," they also express malama '5ina in the context of the 21st century. These policies should not be controversial. If they read through the sustainability objectives and policies one by one, most residents would likely agree with almost all of them, and with a great majority of the proposed actions as well. One criticism has been that the plan contains too many actions. That concern is understandable. But most of the actions are framed in advisory, not mandatory, language: "strive to," "support," "partner with," and similar terms. In that sense, much of General Plan 2045 is aspirational. That has also been true of the 1971,1989, and 2005 General Plans. Providing long-term vision and direction is one of the important functions of a General Plan. Several councilmembers have proposed relatively limited amendments to the 2045 Plan. I am not referring here to the "2026 Plan," which is effectively a complete rewrite and which I have criticized in earlier testimony. All of the proposed limited amendments could be considered as interim amendments after enactment of the 2045 Plan. To do so, the Council would first need to adopt Bill 181, or another revision to the amendment process. That should not be difficult or time-consuming. And then the members could introduce interim amendments. These would go through the process much more efficiently if they were considered on their own merits rather than being debated along with the much larger plan. None of the proposed councilmember amendments so far — other than the 2026 rewrite — would fundamentally alter the 2045 Plan. Most simply strengthen or clarify language already contained within it. Councilmember Hustace has identified certain mapping issues, including the omission of Waimea Nature Park and Kamakoa Nui Park from the "Recreation" category. But those issues should not delay adoption of the overall plan. The parks will remain parks regardless of the maps. The Council is on the verge of a major accomplishment: adoption of the County's first new General Plan in more than 20 years. It should seize that opportunity.