Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-14 KCDP Meeting Packet County of Hawai‘i KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 C. Kimo Alameda, Ph.D. Mayor John Pelletier, Chair Raymond Kirchner Vacant Shane Palacat-Nelsen Charles Young Nancy Pisicchio, Vice Chair Charla Thompson Vacant Roselyn Molina NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the following matters to be considered by the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) Action Committee (AC) in accordance with the provisions of Sections 92-3.7 and 92-7, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS). This meeting will be held in person at the location listed in this notice and by Interactive Conference Technology (ICT) through Zoom. DATE: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 TIME: 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. LOCATION: West Hawaiʻi Civic Center, Building G (Community Meeting Hale) 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 ZOOM: https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/v2QZv267SAOLYOBfYvlKIA INTERACTIVE CONFERENCE TECHNOLOGY (ICT): A meeting held by ICT shall be automatically recessed for up to 30 minutes to restore communication when audiovisual communication cannot be maintained with all members participating in the meeting or with the in-person location identified in this notice. The meeting may reconvene when either audiovisual communication is restored, or audio-only communication is established after an unsuccessful attempt to restore audiovisual communication. If it is not possible to reconvene the meeting as provided in this subsection within 30 minutes after an interruption to communication, the meeting will be automatically terminated. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: The public may provide oral testimony at the meeting by joining Zoom or attending in-person at the physical location listed above. Although not required, to register in advance for oral testimony please contact staff at CDP@hawaiicounty.gov or (808) 961-8288. Pursuant to Section 92-3, HRS, interested persons who want to provide oral testimony may do so either at the time the committee takes public statements on the agenda, or at the time the specific agenda item is called. Please note that public testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes in length per agenda item. In addition, although not required, to ensure timely delivery of written testimony to committee members, it is requested that written testimony be submitted by 4:30 p.m. at least two business days prior to the meeting via email to CDP@hawaiicounty.gov. When submitting written testimony, please specify for which agenda item written testimony is being submitted. All written testimony will be a part of the public record. 2 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The AC will consider approving the draft minutes from the March 10, 2026 meeting. III. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AGENDA ITEMS: Pursuant to Section 92-3, HRS, interested persons may provide oral testimony either at this time or when the applicable agenda item is called. Public testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per agenda item. IV. THIRD-PARTY REPORTS; GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS: Pursuant to Act 72 (Senate Bill 405), the AC may receive and discuss information from third-party reports by any government official not included in a publicly noticed agenda. The AC may only make decisions on matters originally raised by third-party reports from any government official at a later meeting, where the agenda provides notice of decision-making on the matter. V. BUSINESS 1. Tree City USA Designation: Committee Member Charla Thompson will provide an update on the County’s designation as a Tree City USA community. Discussion on next steps and potential action to follow. 2. Hawaiʻi County Council Bill 66 (Draft 2): The AC will discuss Bill 66 (Draft 2), including its potential implications for the Kona CDP and any relevant developments arising from the April 7, 2026 meeting of the County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development. The AC will consider submitting testimony to the Council on this matter. Supporting materials are included in the meeting packet: • Communication No. 2026-05 Testimony of Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow – Bill 66, Draft 2 • Communication No. 2026-06 Documents and Supporting Information – Bill 66, Draft 2 VI. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA: Pursuant to Act 53 (Senate Bill 869), the AC may receive public testimony on matters not listed on this agenda. Testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. VII. PROPOSED NEW BUSINESS: The AC will discuss potential agenda items for future meetings. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS • Update on Senate Bill 2372, Relating to Trees • The Planning Department is seeking applicants for the Kona CDP Action Committee. The application can be found on the Mayor’s office website at: https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-county/boards-and-commissions • The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2026. 3 IX. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: This agenda and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public Documents Repository: https://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/1/fol/9059/Row1.aspx. These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing CDP@hawaiicounty.gov. The recorded video of this meeting will be uploaded to the Planning Department’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@cohplanningdepartment The purpose of the public hearings is to afford all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the above items. A person desiring to submit oral or written testimony shall indicate their name and whether the testimony is on their behalf or as a representative of an organization or individual. Written testimony can be submitted via email or hard copy. Hard copies should include an original and nine copies and be submitted no later than 4:30 p.m. two business days prior to the meeting. Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service, other reasonable modification, or language interpretation to access this meeting please contact the Planning Department at (808) 961-8288 or CDP@hawaiicounty.gov as soon as possible, but no later than five business days prior to the meeting date, to arrange for accommodations. If a response is received after the five-business days deadline, we will try to obtain the auxiliary aid/service or accommodation, but we cannot guarantee that the request will be fulfilled. “Other reasonable modification” refers to communication methods or devices for people with disabilities who are mentally and/or physically challenged. Upon request, this notice is available in alternate formats such as large print, Braille, or electronic copy. If you are a lobbyist, you must register with the Hawai‘i County Clerk within five days of becoming a lobbyist. (Article 15, Section 2-91.3(b), Hawai‘i County Code). A lobbyist means, “any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six-month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials.” (Article 15, Section 2-91.3(a)(6), Hawai‘i County Code). Registration forms and expenditure report documents are available at the Office of the County Clerk-Council, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720. Meeting Packet QR Code: KONA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE JOHN PELLETIER, Chair KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 ACTION COMMITTEE 2 COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI 3 DRAFT MINUTES 4 March 10, 2026 5 Call to Order 6 Chair John Pelletier called the meeting of the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) 7 Action Committee (AC) to order at 12:03 p.m. The meeting was held in person at the West 8 Hawaiʻi Civic Center, B2 Conference Room, and online via the Zoom platform. 9 The full YouTube video of this meeting can be found here: 10 https://youtu.be/3KOEKOH8GR4?si=FXeGeyZP_tsNAQpB 11 Roll Call 12 Members Present (in person): 13 • John Pelletier, Chair 14 • Nancy Pisicchio, Vice Chair 15 • Raymond “RJ” Kirchner 16 • Charla Thompson 17 • Shane Palacat-Nelsen 18 Members Present (via Zoom): Charles Young 19 Members Absent: Roselyn Molina 20 Planning Department Staff Present (in person): 21 • Janice Hata 22 • Maryam Palma 23 Other County Staff Present (via Zoom): 24 • Jeffrey Darrow, Planning Director 25 • Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel 26 • Elizabeth August, Zoom Host 27 There were approximately eight members of the public in attendance (two in person and 28 six via Zoom). 29 Approval of Minutes 30 Chair Pelletier requested approval of the February 10, 2026 draft meeting minutes. Vice 31 Chair Pisicchio moved to approve the minutes, and Committee Member Thompson 32 seconded the motion. There being no discussion or corrections, the Committee voted 33 KONA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 10, 2026 2 unanimously to approve the February 10, 2026 draft meeting minutes. [SEE YOUTUBE 34 TIMESTAMP 02:55] 35 Public Testimony on Agenda Items 36 Chair Pelletier called for public testimony on agenda items at approximately 12:06 p.m. 37 No public testimony was provided at this time. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 03:47] 38 Third-Party Reports; Government Officials 39 Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Senate Bill 405 (2025), signed into law as Act 72, the AC may receive 40 and discuss information from third-party reports by any government official not included 41 in the publicly noticed agenda, but may not make decisions on matters raised through 42 such reports until a later meeting with proper notice. No third-party reports were 43 presented. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 05:44] 44 Business 45 1. Report from Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow about: 46 • The status of legislation regulating bed and breakfast (B&B) operations; 47 • The Planning Department’s process for reviewing Transit-Oriented Development 48 (TOD) proposals; 49 • Opportunities for enhanced communication and collaboration between the 50 Planning Department and the AC; and 51 • General discussion regarding Concurrency Zone Proposed Roads, identified on 52 the Concurrency Map (Figure 4-3) of the Kona CDP 53 This item was called to order at approximately 12:09 p.m. [SEE YOUTUBE 54 TIMESTAMP 06:19] 55 Director Darrow reported that the County Council is working on draft legislation to 56 regulate hosted vacation rentals as B&B establishments while maintaining treatment 57 of unhosted short-term vacation rentals (STVR) in the Code. He also explained that 58 the Chapter 6 registration process is expected to become effective July 1, 2026, and 59 that future implementation is intended to direct operators to any additional permitting 60 required for compliance. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 07:34] 61 Committee Member Young raised a question regarding public notification procedures 62 for B&B establishments and STVRs. He expressed concern about unpermitted 63 operations, particularly in rural areas. Director Darrow explained that, under the 64 current Code, the only way an operation in a Rural or Agricultural zone may be 65 considered legal is through issuance of a Nonconforming Use Certificate (NUC); 66 otherwise, such operations are illegal. He further clarified that B&B establishments, 67 where the operator resides on-site, must obtain a Special Permit if located in 68 Agricultural or Rural districts. The Special Permit process includes both public 69 KONA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 10, 2026 3 notification and a public hearing. Director Darrow noted that the Code does not 70 currently define “hosted rentals,” with B&B establishments serving as the closest 71 equivalent. B&Bs require Use Permits in Residential zones and Special Permits in 72 Agricultural and Rural areas. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 18:30] 73 Regarding TOD review, Director Darrow explained that projects within designated 74 TOD areas of the Kona CDP are generally required to undergo Project District 75 rezoning and Design Center review. He cited recent examples in Kona, including 76 Pālamanui and Makalapua. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 23:03] 77 Director Darrow noted that a 2019 amendment to the Kona CDP modified Policy LU-78 2.4 (TOD Floating Zones), revising the minimum land area requirement for new 79 communities. The policy now aligns with the Zoning Code’s requirements for Project 80 Districts, rather than the previous 80-acre minimum. He added that the Planning 81 Department is currently considering potential amendments to further reduce the 82 minimum acreage required for Project Districts. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 34:07] 83 In discussing opportunities to enhance communication and collaboration between the 84 Planning Department and the Action Committee (AC), Director Darrow stated that the 85 Department continuously monitors incoming applications and evaluates their 86 consistency with the CDP. The Department aims to ensure compliance and 87 transparency throughout the review process. He also noted that the AC may utilize the 88 Planning Department’s website to track current applications and raise questions with 89 staff as needed. Committee Member Kirchner commented on the challenges posed 90 by outdated technical studies (e.g., water and traffic) in supporting effective planning. 91 Director Darrow responded that the Department is open to working with CDP staff and 92 the AC to pursue additional funding to address these issues. [SEE YOUTUBE 93 TIMESTAMP 38:00] 94 On the topic of communication, Committee Member Young emphasized the 95 importance of coordination among AC chairs and vice chairs, as well as maintaining 96 communication with other boards and commissions under the Planning Department. 97 Director Darrow agreed and indicated that he would confer with staff to explore ways 98 to improve communication and information sharing while maintaining legal 99 compliance. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 42:55] 100 Director Darrow also discussed the Department’s review of applications in relation to 101 Concurrency Zone Proposed Roads identified in the Kona CDP. He referenced a 102 recent subdivision application that aligned with one of the planned roadway corridors, 103 noting that such alignment presents a critical opportunity for the Department to 104 implement CDP objectives. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 46:24] 105 KONA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 10, 2026 4 Director Darrow concluded by thanking the Action Committee and expressed his 106 willingness to continue attending future meetings to answer questions and discuss 107 CDP-related planning matters. 108 Public Testimony: 109 • Janice Palma Glennie addressed owner-hosted versus managed rentals, TOD 110 implementation, concurrency, and cluster-zoning concepts. [SEE YOUTUBE 111 TIMESTAMP 56:58] 112 • Josephine Keliʻipio addressed traffic concerns and cultural changes to the Kona 113 region. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:12:51] 114 No formal action was taken. This item concluded at approximately 1:17 p.m. 115 2. Proposed Testimony on Senate Bills 2336 and 2372: The Committee will discuss 116 Senate Bill 2336 and Senate Bill 2372, both relating to trees, and consider whether to 117 submit testimony. Discussion and potential action. 118 This item was called to order at approximately 1:17 p.m. [SEE YOUTUBE 119 TIMESTAMP 01:15:16] 120 Chair Pelletier called for public testimony on this item. No public testimony was 121 provided. 122 Committee Member Thompson provided an overview of two State measures relating 123 to trees. The Committee noted that Senate Bill 2336, relating to an arborist advisory 124 committee and tree planning, had missed its deadline for the 2026 session. The 125 Committee then focused its discussion on Senate Bill 2372, which relates to 126 exceptional trees and statewide criteria for tree designation and advisory oversight. 127 The Committee discussed the potential value of submitting testimony in support of 128 Senate Bill 2372 after crossover to the House and of contacting the committee chair 129 and vice chair, as well as West Hawaiʻi House members, to encourage scheduling of 130 the bill for hearing. 131 Committee Member Thompson moved, and Vice Chair Pisicchio seconded, to 132 authorize: (1) communication to the chair and vice chair of the House committee to 133 which Senate Bill 2372 is referred requesting that the measure be heard; and (2) 134 submission of written testimony in support of Senate Bill 2372 when it is scheduled for 135 hearing. The motion passed unanimously. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:27:39] 136 Public Testimony: 137 • Janice Palma Glennie commented on the importance of incentives as it relates 138 to Senate Bill 2372. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:30:00] 139 This item concluded at approximately 1:33 p.m. 140 KONA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 10, 2026 5 Public Testimony on Matters Not on the Agenda 141 Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Senate Bill 869 (2025), signed into law as Act 53, testimony on 142 matters not on the agenda may be limited to three minutes per speaker. Chair Pelletier 143 called for testimony at approximately 1:33 p.m. No testimony was provided. [SEE 144 YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:30:41] 145 Proposed New Business 146 This item was called to order at 1:34 p.m. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:31:18] 147 • 2026 General Plan discussion 148 • Status update on Senate Bill 2372 149 Announcements 150 Hawaiʻi County Council Bill 63, Relating to Dwellings – Chair Pelletier reported that 151 Bill 63, Draft 3, passed second and final reading on February 18, 2026. He noted the 152 Committee’s prior testimony helped prompt broader discussion of the measure. 153 The Environmental Notice (February 23, 2026) – The Committee noted the publication 154 of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands North Kona Wells – Keauhou Well Site and 155 Kahaluʻu Storage Tanks Project final environmental assessment and finding of no 156 significant impact. This final environmental assessment can be accessed using the 157 following link: 158 https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/Doc_Library/2026-02-23-HA-FEA-North-Kona-159 Keauhou-Well-Site-and-Kahaluu-Storage-Tanks.pdf 160 Board and Commission Vacancies – The Planning Department is continuing to seek 161 applicants for the Kona CDP Action Committee and requested assistance in spreading 162 the word to interested community members. Applications are available on the Mayor’s 163 Boards and Commissions webpage: 164 https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-county/boards-and-commissions 165 Next Meeting – The next Kona CDP Action Committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 166 April 14, 2026. [SEE YOUTUBE TIMESTAMP 01:37:39] 167 Adjournment 168 Chair Pelletier adjourned this meeting at 1:43 p.m. 169 These minutes and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s 170 Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi 171 Public Documents Repository. These documents may also be requested from the 172 Planning Department by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing CDP@hawaiicounty.gov. 173 C. Kimo Alameda, Ph.D. Mayor William V. Brilhanle, Jr. Managing Director West Hawaii Office 745044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawai'I 96740 Phone (808) 323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 April 6, 2026 Chair Ashley Kierkiewicz Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI, 96720 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jeffrey W. Darrow Director Michelle S. Ahn Deputy Director East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawari 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (8(i 961-EFJ2 o CDnC acz -1z a o-< nc; rT Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and Members of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development: Subject: Testimony from March 10, 2026, Related to Draft General Plan 2026 — Communication No. 372-192 My name is Jeffrey Darrow, and I am the current Planning Director for the County of Hawaii. Under Chapter 7 of the Hawaii County Charter, part of my responsibility as the Planning Director is to advise the Mayor, the Planning Commissions, and the Hawaii County Council on all planning and land use matters. Another part of my responsibility as Planning Director is to prepare a general plan, implementation plans, and any other amendments thereto in accordance with Section 3-15 of the Charter. Planning Director Duane Kanuha initiated the Comprehensive General Plan review process on February 6, 2015. This process has continued since then, through four (4) Administrations, four (4) Mayors, and four (4) Planning Directors. As required by law, there has been tremendous public participation and input from the state and county agencies, which is meticulously documented on our website. The proposed Draft General Plan 2026 was submitted at the end of COB on March 4, 2026. This draft is referred to as "Draft General Plan 2026" and is intended to substitute "Appendix A" which is the current Draft General Plan 2045. After my review of the Draft General Plan 2026, 1 do not consider this as an amendment to the proposed Draft General Plan 2045, but a complete rewrite and consider it as a new draft plan. Based on Section 226-58 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, "the county general plans and development plans shall be formulated with input from the state and county agencies as well as the general public." This new draft plan did not receive input ifrbYn either 1JU0 to jyst beforb the March 10th hearing, I did not see any public commentsongthisproposednewdraftsubmittedtotheCountyCouncil. Comm. No. Gil.1 qLF www.olanning.hawaiicountv.gov Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ref. To. Ref. Date APR - 7 2026 Communication No. 2026-05 Hawai'i County Council April 6, 2026 Page 2 Communication 372.194 states that this policy direction reflected in the Draft General Plan 2026 draws heavily on the decade -long community engagement process that informed the Draft General Plan 2045. This reliance on the inputfrom the proposed Draft General Plan 2045 does not substitute the requirements to provide opportunities for input from the general public and state and county agencies on this newly proposed Draft General Plan 2026. The comments previously received were specific to the Draft General Plan 2045 and the public and government agencies were reviewing this particular draft and. not the Draft General Plan 2026. There is tremendous documentation of the efforts and outreach that has been done by planning staff and consultants, including but not limited to 125 public meetings, which included 67 CDP Action Committee meetings. There were also 37 public agency meetings, 37 landowner meetings, and 26 County Council updates. The Planning Department has received over 8,600 public comments on the Draft General Plan 2045. Planning Department staff also met with each Council Member to provide an opportunity for suggestions on the Draft General Plan 2045 for their specific districts. We received excellent comments. We did not receive any indication that this plan should be vacated or replaced. My main concern moving forward with this newly proposed Draft General Plan 2026 is that we are not allowing the general public and government agencies the opportunity to provide input on this new draft. I have read both the Draft General Plan 2045 and Draft General Plan 2026 from cover to cover. I offer the following advice to the County Council regarding decision options on this matter: Option No. 1. Do not approve the proposed Draft General Plan 2026 that was recently submitted and continue to make amendments to the proposed Draft General Plan 2045. These amendments will be voted on and if they are substantial, they should be forwarded to the Planning Director. The Planning Director will provide recommendations on the amendments to the Planning Commissions that will in turn provide recommendations back to the County Council. Option No. 2. Approve the Draft General Plan 2026. This will completely replace the Draft General Plan 2045, including all of the General Plan Land Use and Policy maps located at the back of the plan and any additional information that is not included in the Draft General Plan 2026. If you choose this option, I recommend the following steps be considered. a. Do not forward this draft to the Planning Director and the Planning Commissions until all additional information is added to the plan, including any definitions, additional objectives, policies, standards, and land use and policy maps, etc. so that there is a complete document for review. Hawai'i County Council April 6, 2026 Page 3 b. Before this draft is forwarded to the Planning Director, I recommend holding public hearings around the island to provide an opportunity for public comments on this newly proposed draft. Additionally, I would suggest sending a copy of this draft to state and county agencies to include their comments. Option No. 3. Incorporate portions of the Draft General Plan 2026 into the Draft General Plan 2045 as an amendment. These amendments will be voted on and if substantial, should be forwarded to the Planning Director. The Planning Director will provide recommendations on the amendments to the Planning Commissions that will in turn provide recommendations back to the County Council. My last bit of advice is that we do not rush into a decision on this important matter. We have been working through this process for over ten years. Let's take our time and make sure we do this right. Thank you, t7ef l, K pgwo / Jeffrey Dw (Apr 6, 202611:57:05 HST) JEFFREY W. DARROW Planning Director 1 KONA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Draft General Plan Resources Purpose: This resource document provides links to materials and documentation related to Hawaiʻi County Council Bill 66 (Draft 2), an ordinance adopting the County of Hawaiʻi General Plan 2045 and repealing Ordinance No. 05-025, as amended. Bill 66 (Draft 2) – Council Documents and Supporting Resources Document/Resource Category Description Link Bill 66 (Draft 2) 2024-2026 Council record Official Laserfiche bill file for Bill 66 (Draft 2), including ordinance text and action history. Open Communication 372.192 2024-2026 Council record Proposed amendments to Bill 66 (Draft 2), including: (1) an amendment in Ramseyer format to Bill 66 (Draft 2); and (2) an amendment replacing “Appendix A” with the attached appendix. Open Communication 372.195 2024-2026 Council record Communication from Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz regarding the 2026 General Plan. Open Communication 372.196 2024-2026 Council record Planning Director’s testimony from March 10, 2026 related to the Draft General Plan 2026 Communication No. 372.192. Open Bill 66 Testimony Council record Public testimony folders associated with the 2026 PCPLUED meetings. Open Communication 372.000 2024-2026 Council record Communication transmitted by the Mayor to the Council, including the recommendation letters and enclosures from the Windward and Leeward Planning Open Communication No. 2026-06 2 Commissions regarding the General Plan 2045 Final Recommended Draft. Communication 372.001 2024-2026 Council record Planning Department transmittal of the General Plan 2045 Final Recommended Draft (Draft 2) to the Council. Draft 2 incorporates the majority of the final recommendations from both the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions. Open County Council Record System Council record The Laserfiche-based Council Records System is the primary portal for communications, bills, resolutions, ordinances, and other Council-related documents, with subject and full-text search tools and current status information for pending legislation. Open Council Meeting Agendas and Actions Council record Legislative items to be considered at council meetings are listed on agendas. Agendas labeled “Actions” show how council members voted on each item on the agenda. Open Planning Department – Information on the General Plan Comprehensive Review Process Document/Resource Category Description Link General Plan page General Plan Main General Plan page with general information, FAQs, and links to the Konveio platform, Open 3 2005 General Plan and comprehensive review process. General Plan Comprehensive Review page Comprehensive review Overview of the review history, process, and community engagement. Open General Plan 2005 page Reference document Current adopted 2005 General Plan. Open Leeward/Windward Planning Commission Meetings folder Public documents Repository for presentations, Planning Commission actions and minutes, public testimony, and other documents related to the General Plan 2045, Final Recommended Draft. Open Trends and Forecasts – Key Findings Report Supporting study Background report prepared for the comprehensive review process addressing trends, forecasts, and planning implications. Open Scenario Planning – Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use Report Supporting study Background report to provide information on the methodology used to determine appropriate future land uses for existing urban, rural, agricultural, and open space areas of the County. Open Note This document is provided as a resource for members of the Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee and is included in the meeting packet for reference. It provides background materials and relevant links associated with the General Plan. If you have questions, need additional information, or if any links are not functioning properly, please contact the Planning Department for assistance. Email: CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Phone: (808) 961-8288 KCDP AC Input GP 2026 draft testimony to the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development The Kona Community Development Plan’s Action Committee recommends that the Council not support the substitution requested through COMM 372.192, but instead work collaboratively to make further improvements and then adopt Bill 66, draft 2, the 2045 General Plan. The Action Committee believes the Bill 66 draft 2 includes visions, objectives, policies, actions, and implementation tools that are compatible with the Kona Community Development Plan, thereby providing opportunities for ongoing collaboration. The review of the 2005 General Plan began in 2015. As pointed out by Director Darrow, this “process has continued since then, through four (4) Administrations, four (4) Mayors, and four (4) Planning Directors. As required by law, there has been tremendous public participation and input from the state and county agencies”. The Kona CDP Action Committee, as well as individual members, has, in the past, participated in this process. In March 2026, a new Draft General Plan 2026 was introduced to the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Economic Development, in COMM 372.192. This draft includes “Appendix A” referred to as "Draft General Plan 2026" and is intended to substitute the current Draft General Plan 2045 attached to Bill 66 draft 2. The Kona CDP Action Committee agrees with Director Darrow that “Appendix A” does not qualify as an amendment to the proposed Draft General Plan 2045, but is a complete rewrite and therefore constitutes a new draft plan. Communication No. 2026-07 1 Hata, Janice From:Michelle Melendez Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2026 8:22 AM To:Planning CDP Subject:Support for General Plan 2026 – Clear, Practical, and Protective of Local Needs Aloha Kona Community Development Commission, I’m writing to respectfully express my strong support for the General Plan 2026 and to encourage you to move forward with this version over the General Plan 2045. After reviewing both plans, it’s clear that the 2026 plan offers a more practical, balanced, and community-aligned approach—especially for the residents and property owners who live and work here every day. Here are a few key reasons why GP 2026 is the better choice: • Clarity and usability – The 2026 plan is clear, concise, and accessible. This makes it far more effective for both the public and decision-makers to understand and apply. The 2045 plan has a ton of vague language which leaves it open for interpretation by whoever reads it. • Reduces overreach and ambiguity – Unlike the 2045 plan, which contains hundreds of broad and open-ended policies, the 2026 plan minimizes vague language that can lead to inconsistent interpretation or unintended expansion of regulations. • Supports local residents and property owners – The 2026 plan better respects the ability of residents to use and steward their land without excessive layers of policy that can complicate permitting and land use. • Focuses on what truly matters – Instead of attempting to address every possible issue, the 2026 plan prioritizes core needs and avoids the “everything is a priority” problem that can dilute effectiveness. • Improves accountability – With fewer, clearer policies, it becomes easier for the community to understand what is being implemented and to hold agencies accountable. • Encourages flexibility and resilience at the local level – The 2026 plan allows for more adaptive, community-based decision-making rather than relying on a highly centralized and prescriptive framework. The GP 2026 is also the same length as every past plan since 1979. It written to reflect how the past plans have supported the island. The people of Hawaiʻi Island deserve a General Plan that is not only visionary, but also grounded, understandable, and respectful of local realities. The 2026 plan achieves this in a way that the 2045 plan does not. 2 Mahalo for your time, your service, and your commitment to our community. Respectfully, Michelle Melendez Freedom Activist | 5x Award-Winning Author Books: End Dieting Hell: How to find peace in your body and release the weight Order here (Won 4-awards) Great Maui Land Grab: What caused the Maui fire and is your home next? Available here (Finalist in American Book Fest: True Crime) NEW: The Death Of Freedom: What happened to America and how to save it! (#1 New Release) Get it here Aloha Chair and Members of the Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee, My name is Melvin G. Mason Jr, and I am testifying on Bill 66, Draft 2, and the proposed Draft General Plan 2026. I want to begin by grounding this discussion in kuleana, our shared responsibility to this ʻāina, to our ohana our communities, and to the generations who will live with the decisions we make today. The General Plan is not just a policy document. It is the foundation that guides land use, infrastructure, economic development, and the protection of cultural and natural resources across Hawaiʻi Island. Over the past decade, the Draft General Plan 2045 has been shaped by extensive public engagement, including input from community members, cultural practitioners, and Native Hawaiian voices. That process carries weight. It reflects not only participation, but legitimacy. The introduction of the Draft General Plan 2026, as a substantial rewrite, raises serious concerns. Advancing a new plan without the same level of public process risks undermining trust, transparency, and the integrity of community-based planning. This is especially important when we consider Native Hawaiian rights in the 1978 Constitution of the State of Hawaii. Land use decisions directly affect traditional and customary practices, access to resources, and the ability to maintain cultural relationships with ʻāina. These are not abstract concerns, they are protected under the Hawaiʻi State Constitution and must be meaningfully considered through proper consultation and engagement. I also want to highlight that while Hawaiʻi County does not directly control lands owned by the United States of America, including areas such as Pōhakuloa Training Area and Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park, the General Plan still plays a critical role. It establishes the policy framework that federal agencies must respond to through environmental review, cultural consultation, and infrastructure coordination. In that sense, weakening the integrity of the General Plan weakens the County’s ability; and the community’s ability; to influence decisions that affect even federal lands. For these reasons, I respectfully urge this Committee to take a strong and principled position: * Support a path that builds upon the Draft General Plan 2045 rather than replacing it without due process; * Require robust, island-wide public engagement for any substantial revisions; * Ensure meaningful consultation with Native Hawaiian communities and cultural practitioners; * And uphold the role of community-based planning as central to land use decision-making. This is not about stopping progress. It is about ensuring that progress is pono, inclusive, and grounded in the values of this place. The decisions made here will shape not just development, but the future relationship between people and ʻāina on this island. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Fifth Printing! Updates and Additions New Section on Regionalism Understanding Sustainable Development For the People and their Public Officials Prepared by Freedom Advocates Recognize Unalienable Rights www.FreedomAdvocates.org – Agenda 21 – SM Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Table of Contents: Introduction .................................................................... 1 What is Sustainable Development? ................................. 2 Historical Development and Origins ........................................................ 2 The Antithetical Foundations of Liberty and Sustainable Development ................................................................... 4 Implementing Sustainable Development ......................... 6 Equity: Using the Law to Restructure Human Nature ......................... 7 Economy: The Redistribution of Wealth and the Creation of Public Private Partnerships ................................................... 8 Environment: Nature Above Man ............................................................ 9 Educating Youth: Molding the Minds of Tomorrow ........................... 10 Stakeholder Councils: Restructuring American Government ........... 11 ICLEI .......................................................................................................... 13 Regionalism ............................................................................................... 15 Funding Sources ........................................................................................ 19 Political Support ........................................................................................ 19 Sustainable Development Land Use Programs ............. 21 The Wildlands Network ........................................................................... 21 Smart Growth ............................................................................................ 23 NAFTA Superhighway Trade Corridor and Toll Road System .......... 25 What You Can Do .......................................................... 26 Six Practical Steps to Restore and Protect Liberty .............................. 27 Freedom Advocates • P.O. Box 3330 • Freedom, CA 95019 831.684.2232 Fifth Printing (Updated) - 2004, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012 Freedom Advocates is a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation. Your tax deductible contribution is valuable for the continuation of our work. © Copyright 2012. FreedomAdvocates.org SM Introduction You may have heard people talking about Sustainable Development – in public meetings, on television and on the radio. Consultants talk about it, university professors lecture on it, and at all levels of government, it is now being mandated. But what is Sustainable Development? That is precisely the question this guide is intended to address. In the following pages, you will read of the origins of Sustainable Development, its theoretical underpinnings, its major programs, and how it is implemented. When you have finished reading this document, you will have the knowledge necessary to begin identifying the vast array of Sustainable Development programs that exist and continue to arise. Please recognize this document for what it is: a unique opportunity to learn more about Sustainable Development. Then you can make a difference in your town by supporting present and future actions that restore and protect the rights and well-being of you, your family, and your neighbors. More information on the nature and consequences of Sustainable Development is available from Freedom Advocates. http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org – 1 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 What is SustainableDevelopment? The most common definition of Sustainable Development given by its proponents is a statement found in the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, released during the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” – Gro Harlem Brundtland Historical Development and Origins Even the term “sustainable” must be defined, since on the surface it appears to be inherently positive. In reality, Sustainable Development has become a “buzz” term that refers to a political agenda, rather than an objectively sustainable form of development. Specifically, it refers to an initiative of the United Nations (U.N.) called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is a comprehensive statement of a political ideology that is being progressively infused into every level of government in America. Known around the world simply as Agenda 21, this initiative is “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment.”1 Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), commonly 1. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ – 2 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 2. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RioEarthSum 3. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submitted a resolution (H.J. Res. 166) to the 103rd Congress on March 29, 1993 urging the President and Congress to “assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit agreements....” Though that bill stalled in the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment, its recommendations have been implemented through various actions by the President, and Congress. 4. “Soft law” policy is not binding. This is a common procedure in the U.N.’s policy development strategy. “Soft law” documents are quite often followed by treaties or covenants, which are binding international law; alternately, soft law can find immediate application through local legislation or policy without an internationally binding agreement. known as the Rio Earth Summit, where more than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21, and pledged to evaluate progress made in implementing the plan every five years thereafter. President George H. W. Bush was the signatory for the United States.2 Although Congress never authorized the implementation of Agenda 213 (as a soft-law policy recommendation4 – not a treaty – it needs no ratification), in 1993, President Bill Clinton established, by Executive Order 12852, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development – 3 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Image 1: The United Nations website clearly displays Agenda 21 documents 5. Lawrence, J. Gary, The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium, The Millennium Papers, UNED-UK, Issue 2, (1998), 3. (PCSD) for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the United States. The PCSD operated through 1999, but its actions to promote Sustainable Development have taken root, and now exert an increasing influence across America. International organizations such as the U.N., and its accredited Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs), generally consider Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 to be synonymous. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion and equivocation, Sustainable Development will be the term used throughout this document to refer to both. Agenda 21 will only be used to refer to the actual document from the Rio Earth Summit. At times the political agenda embodied in Sustainable Development is implemented under other names for purposes of political expediency. J. Gary Lawrence, a planner for the City of Seattle and advisor to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development said in 1998, “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many...who would actively work to defeat any elected official...undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as “comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or “smart growth.”5 The Antithetical Foundations of Libertyand Sustainable Development “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” – John Adams It has long been known that liberty is tied to the institution of private property. The Decalogue codified private property in four words: “Thou shalt not steal.” “Private property and freedom are inseparable.” – George Washington – 4 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 6. Soapes, Emily Williams. “The American Experiment: Living with the Constitution.” Prologue: Journal of the National Archives 19, no.3 (Fall 1987): 185-189. 7. See also Machan, Tibor, Private Rights & Public Illusions, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (1995). The institution of private property is understood by those who participate in the American Experiment6 as its principles are included in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.7 The right to property as outlined in those documents are premised on an owner’s determination of its use, provided that such use does not disturb the equal rights of another. “…all Men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” – The Declaration of Independence – 5 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Nature Source Individual Rights U.S. Declaration of Independence Community Rights U.N. Declaration of Human Rights Purpose of government Protect the natural or unalienable rights of each individual “That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...” In short You’re born with rights, government exists to protect them. You and the product of your labor belong to you. Control the individual for the greater good of a global community “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” Government grants, restricts or withdraws your rights according to its needs. You and the product of your labor belong to the community. Which Philosophy of Rights? © 2007 FREEDOMADVOCATES.ORG 8. Nullification of the right to the reasonable use of one’s property affects by extension the right to private action and the freedom of expression. Shaw, Michael, What is Private Property? Liberty Garden (2003). 9. Heywood, V.H. (ed.). Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995): 767, 782. This document likewise condemns “inappropriate social structures” (p 763), golf courses (p 970), and the attitudes toward nature found in “Judeo-Christian- Islamic religions” (pp 766, 838). In contrast to the unalienable rights protected in America’s founding documents, the United Nations’ Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights are based on a very different idea: rights are granted and rescinded by men. The Sustainable Development political agenda originates in the founding documents of the United Nations. This isn’t surprising, since the myriad countries represented in the drafting of Agenda 21 have widely divergent forms of government, and must have a point of agreement (a “least common denominator”) to rally around – and the U.N. Charter provides that point. However, for progress to be made in implementing Sustainable Development in the United States, unalienable rights such as the right to property must be eroded, attacked, and struck down altogether.8, 9 ImplementingSustainable Development The authors of Agenda 21 have said it will affect every area of life, grouped according to three objectives: Equity, Economy, and Environment (known commonly as the “3 Es”). By defining these terms vaguely, a litany of abuses have resulted. Furthermore, by rubber-stamping pre-conceived plans, using manipulative “visioning” sessions to garner the appearance of public buy-in, and acquiring grants from sources with questionable motives, the entire process of implementing Sustainable Development policies is suspect. – 6 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Equity: Using the Law to Restructure Human Nature The authors of the Sustainable Development action plan recognized that their environmental and economic objectives, and the corresponding transformation of the American system of equal justice to a system of “social” justice, are radically divergent from the views and objectives of the average person. Therefore, in order to achieve their objectives, they call for a shift in attitudes that can be seen in the educational programs developed by its proponents. This is the premise of Sustainable Development: That individual human wants, needs and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of the community (Communitarianism). Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and Clerk of the Circuit and County Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida has said, “individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.10 – 7 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 10. Peros, Joan, unpublished report, UNCED Rio+10 Summit – Johannesburg, South Africa (2002). Environment Equity Economy SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Economy:The Redistribution of Wealth and the Creation of Public Private Partnerships “...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 1992. (Also known as the Rio Earth Summit, where Agenda 21 was unveiled.) According to its preamble, “The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries.” Language throughout Agenda 21 erroneously assumes that life is a zero-sum game (the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor, making them even poorer). This critique of economic ills denies the ingenuity of private action, individual determination, and truly free- market innovation, and leads inevitably to the conclusion that if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must be taken from the rich. Sustainable Development embodies this unjust redistribution of wealth both in theory and in implementation, effectively lowering the standard of living for poor and middle class people. The Draft Covenant on Environment and Development states in Article 8: “equity will be achieved through implementation of the international economic order...and through transfers of resources to developing countries....” In fact, such justification covers up the real transfer of power and resources to the elite cabal that drives world government. In addition to its appeal for the international redistribution of wealth, Sustainable Development is actually restructuring the economy, molding it not on private enterprise but on public private partnerships. – 8 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Public Private Partnerships bring businesses desiring the protection offered by government’s legalized force together with government agents that want the power that comes with economic control. The power of economics, and the force of government, must serve as a check and balance on each other; combining the two will ultimately result in tyranny. Free enterprise is lost amid subsidies, incentives, tax-breaks, and insider privilege, and with it goes the notion that the customer is the final determiner of how resources are allocated in production. The Sustainable Development “partnerships” involve some domestic corporations, most multinational, many tax-exempt foundations, select individuals, and collectivist politicians and their administrations. Environment: Nature Above Man Americans support laws and regulations that are designed to effectively prevent pollution of the air, water, or the property of another. Yet, it is increasingly clear that Sustainable Development uses the environment simply as the means to promote a political agenda. For example, Al Gore says that Sustainable Development will bring about “a wrenching transformation” of American society.11 Sustainable Development is ostensibly concerned with the environment; it is more concerned with restructuring the governmental system of the world’s nations so that all the people of the world will be the subjects of a global collective. Many of its proposed implementation strategies require the surrender of unalienable rights. – 9 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 11. “Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” Gore, Al, Earth in the Balance. Plume (1993): 274. This fact alone casts a serious shadow of doubt on the motives of Sustainable Developers who would discard the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property in order to pursue dubious programs.12 When Sustainable Development is implemented, ordinary people will be left unprotected from de facto decrees placing nature above man, while relegating man to the status of a “biological resource.”13 Educating Youth: Molding the Minds of Tomorrow “All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.” – Aristotle To ensure continuing support of their anti-human programs, Sustainable Developers mold the minds of the next generation. Chapter 25 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 calls for the need to “enlist and empower children and youth in reaching for sustainability.” Even a cursory look at the federally-mandated curriculum being taught in classrooms would show that the doctrines of Sustainable Development are finding their way into every subject. French classes teach students to “save the earth;” economics classes feature lectures that discourage individual initiative in the marketplace and decry private ownership; history classes obscure the importance of America’s founding documents; mandatory “service-learning” programs enlist students to work for government-approved Sustainable Development partner organizations. – 10 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 12. cf. Taylor, Jerry, Sustainable Development: A Dubious Solution in Search of a Problem, Cato Institute (2002). 13. Bureau of Land Management, Internal Working Document for ecosystem management, (March 1994). 14. http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/education_transformation/ aptos_high_school_%22crosses_the_line%22_with_secret_behavior_control_ exercise_20060927321/ The list goes on and on. While taxpayers foot the bill for the increasing costs of government education, parents are increasingly shut out of decisions crucial to the molding of their child’s mind. Controversial programs designed for “values clarification” are being performed in government schools that employ powerful behavior control techniques and peer pressure to make a developing child question his or her individual worth and values, and are designed to disrupt parental oversight in the upbringing of their children.14 Stakeholder Councils:Restructuring American Government “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” – James Madison The way that Sustainable Development is carried out in local communities around the world is particularly alarming, especially to those who seek accountability in government. Operating within a system of stakeholder councils, organized to give third parties a “stake” in the control over property in neighborhoods, proponents of Sustainable Development systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any local opposition, particularly those individuals who advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property. The product of a stakeholder council, often called a “consensus statement” or a “vision statement,” is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the predetermined conclusions of a non-elected regional authority that is not accountable to the voters. – 11 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Why all the effort to gain support for programs few citizens want? The answer to this question lies in the origin of each specific project. Sustainable Development projects are often initiated at the directive of NGOs or non-profit organizations that have – or create – fear over problems that are portrayed as a crisis: development near a riparian corridor, poor water management infrastructure, or too many cars on the freeway are common examples. ICLEI Once a problem has been identified, every NGO, non-profit, and local government body has a vast stock of Sustainable Development solutions at hand, provided by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Indeed, ICLEI has a veritable treasure trove of boilerplate solutions for change agents, enabling them to “identify” problems with the goal of implementing predetermined outcomes that advance Sustainable Development policies.19 – 13 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Stakeholder council meetings are typically arranged under the auspices of soliciting input from community members on a project. This project may be initiated by local public officials, local, regional or national non-profit organizations, NGOs, and/or public private partners.15 Anyone from your next-door neighbor to someone from another town initially promotes the “visioning” plan or process. Realize that these smiling faces are not working in your best interest. They are typically connected politically or through their careers to a group working with an agenda. A typical stakeholder council meeting is run by a trained facilitator.16 It is not the facilitator’s job to make sure that all views are entered into the record. His job instead, is to guide the group to arrive at a consensus on the project. The consensus process uses the Delphi Technique and has no mechanism for recording minority views. Since he is being paid by the organization responsible for the project, it is in his interest to arrive at a consensus sympathetic to the desired outcome of the project. Tactics vary between the facilitators, but consensus generally is reached by using subtle means to marginalize opposition, such as recording only the “good” ideas, and allowing criticism only for the “bad” ideas.17 A Sustainable Development stakeholder meeting in Greenville, South Carolina, was adjourned with a frank admission by the paid facilitator that they had not reached the consensus that he needed to support the predetermined plans.18 – 12 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 15. Recall that civil society actors and many Non-Governmental Organizations are accredited by the U.N., making them international, or multinational in their political purpose. In this sense, they might be more appropriately called “Global Governance Organizations.” 16. Professional facilitators are frequently paid thousands of dollars for only a few hours of work. 17. Eakman, B.K. How to Counter Group Manipulation Tactics: The Techniques of Unethical Consensus-Building Unmasked. Midnight Whistler Publishers, Raleigh, N.C., 2011. 18. Dill, Bob, Land Use Leaders Declare Defeat; Wrong Consensus Reached, Meetings Cancelled, Times-Examiner, Greenville, South Carolina. Steven Lipe, the meeting organizer, announced that “the consensus is that we don’t have enough people to make change. As far as I am concerned, our meeting is done.”19. cf. Taylor, Jerry, op cit. ICLEI was launched in 1990 at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future. ICLEI is headquartered in Bonn, Germany and has offices around the globe, including a U.S. office in Oakland, California. Its stated mission is to provide policy recommendations to assist local governments in the implementation of Sustainable Development. ICLEI was instrumental in the development of Agenda 21, having drafted Chapter 28 in 1991 in preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit. ICLEI reaffirmed its dedication to the U.N. 2002 Earth Summit mandate: “Local Action 21 strategies will ensure the unwavering, systematic implementation of local action plans over the next decade.”20 Essentially, Sustainable Development claims knowledge of all sustainability issues and has stock solutions that can be applied in Stockholm, Boulder, Santa Cruz – indeed, anywhere. Around the world, ICLEI is responsible for communicating with – 14 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 20. Otto-Zimmerman, Konrad, Local Action 21: Motto, Mandate, Movement, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto (2003): 2. See ICLEI’s website for more information: http://www.iclei.org. – 15 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 local special interests to translate international policy objectives into local and regional legislation.21 Every county in America now has Sustainable Development directives guided by federal agencies, NGOs and/or ICLEI. The number of communities with citizens working to remove ICLEI is expanding as people begin to tie the links between ICLEI and Sustainable Development.22 Regionalism23 The political structure of America has been transformed. This has occurred quietly over the last 50 years without public awareness of the mechanisms underlying the change. Today, the effect of a communitarian philosophic approach to government dominates public expectations and legislative agendas. Gone are the days when government was limited, where individuals were politically acknowledged to possess unalienable rights, and where money was honest. At the core of this transformation is the political process of “regionalizing” the country. Political regionalism is the antithesis of representative government. Regionalism restructures or reinvents the operation of government. Regionalism is the “blueprint” for your serfdom. It has infiltrated cities and counties everywhere, affecting transportation, water, farming and land use systems... literally every aspect of your life. Regionalism is being used to destroy traditional political boundaries, such as county lines. Regionalism ushers in a transformed system of Image 2: ICLEI, aka The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability is directing policies that cause: - stack ’em and pack ’em surveilled housing - traffic congestion - inaccessible open space - managed control over our lives - mismanagement of water supplies - prohibition on natural resource management that leads to increased fire hazards and private property restrictions 21. Note that ICLEI’s objectives presuppose the notion that the goal of improving the conditions of the world can only be achieved through legislation, denigrating the intelligence and ingenuity of individuals in facing their particular circumstances, and placing them under the increasing oversight of government planners. 22. http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_ primer%3a_your_town_and_freedom_threatened_20090804364/ 23. From Michael Shaw’s lecture series (Part 1) “The Ultimate War: Globalism vs. America,” available at: http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org. InternationalCouncil forLocalEnvironmentalInitiatives – 16 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 17 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 governance that ultimately abolishes private property. Let’s take a look at an excerpt from the United Nations’ Agenda 21 document concerning transportation planning: Earth Summit – Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action Chapter 7 – Human Settlements Section 7.52: Promoting...urban transport systems...should be a comprehensive approach to urban-transport planning and management. To this end, all countries should: • ...encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand• Adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high- occupancy public transport...• Encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres... Towns across the country are adopting these transport systems. This is because these systems are imposed upon locales by a regional level of government largely unknown and when known, underestimated. Regionalism might sound benign, but the consequences must be understood by freedom loving people or liberty will be trampled. Citizens must know about the following regional planning and development agencies: • Council of Governments (COG) • Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Council of Governments (COG) COGs are region-wide associations of local governments – regional bodies, typically defined to serve an area of several counties to address issues such as regional and municipal planning, economic and community development, cartography and Government Information Systems (GIS), hazard mitigation and emergency planning, aging services, water use, pollution control, transit administration, and transportation planning. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) MPOs are federally mandated and, like COGs, are the instruments for restructuring American government. They are setting up an infrastructure for a new economic system based on public private partnership to replace free enterprise. COGs and MPOs are federalized organizations that break down America’s constitutionally formulated government structure. Their purpose is to control and direct local government from behind the scenes. Today, they propel the federal injection of the globalist agenda into local government policy and thereby negate the protections afforded by our constitutional system of government. In the words of Charlotte Iserbyt, former Department of Education official and author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, “Regionalism is Communism.”24 Regionalism promotes soviet style councils that develop policy that is then rubber-stamped by elected officials, with no meaningful public oversight. It is an extra level of government that operates outside the provisions of the Constitution, thus advancing globalist objectives whilst insulating most elected officials. 24. Iserbyt, Charlotte. “Regionalism is Communism.” NewsWithViews.com, February 4, 2004, http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt13.htm. – 18 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 19 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 In short, regionalism works to advance the globalist goals of political restructure: • To implement a step-by-step approach to the abolition of private property; • To promote the relocation of people from rual areas to Smart Growth urban centers; • To conscript public private partners and mandate community volunteerism. Consequently, government no longer operates the way traditional eighth grade textbooks explained it. Funding Sources The list of money sources for the implementation of Sustainable Development is impressive. American taxes fund the federal agencies’ present focus: implementing Sustainable Development. Thousands of NGOs are accredited by the United Nations for the purpose of implementing Sustainable Development in America, and are given massive tax advantages. Some of these NGOs are the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the American Planning Association, the National Teachers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. After government and non-profit funding schemes, the third “leg” of the Sustainable Development financial insiders is a group of tax- exempt foundations. These include the Rockefeller Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, Community Foundations, and many more. Political Support When President George H. W. Bush signed the Rio Accords at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, he pledged the United States government’s support for Agenda 21. A year later, when President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by Executive Order 12852, he laid the foundation for a proliferation of federal agencies and local “stakeholder” councils that would set out to reinvent government. The same trend continues through both Republican and Democratic leadership, including Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. – 20 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 21 – The Wildlands Network The Wildlands Network (aka Wildlands Project) is the plan to eliminate human presence on “at least” 50 percent of the American landscape,25 and to heavily control human activity on most of the rest of American land. Examples of the piece-by-piece implementation of the Wildlands Network include road closures, the policy of breaching dams and the adoption of United Nations World Heritage Sites – which 25. Reed Noss, who made this assertion in 1992, reiterated his commitment in a recent interview: “Fifty percent is an estimate I made years ago of the proportion of an average region that would need to be managed for conservation in order to meet well-accepted conservation goals ... [It] turns out I was pretty much on the mark ...” (Range Magazine, Fall 2003, p42). Noss has been the Science Editor for Wild Earth, the quarterly publication of the Wildlands Project. Sustainable Development Land Use Programs Sustainable Development is a plan for global control including the restriction of land use and resource extraction. The land use element of Sustainable Development calls for the implementation of two action plans designed to abolish private property: the Wildlands Network and Smart Growth. Upon final implementation of these plans all human action is subject to control. Since all things ultimately come from natural resources on rural lands, the transfer of the landscape from private control to government control will make it easy for government and its partners – NGOs, foundations, businesses, and corporations – to control what we have, what we do, and where we go. The transformation of free societies into collectivized societies through Sustainable Development ensures the dominance of a ruling elite which, by definition, excludes all but a very select few. As Sustainable Development policies permeate every county in America, it has become apparent that the conflict is not a dynamic of Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative, or left vs. right. In fact, the implementation of Sustainable Development is occurring on a bi-partisan basis. © 2005 FREEDOMADVOCATES – 22 –– 23 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 26. “...we call our [U.N. advocated planning] processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.” Lawrence, J. Gary, op cit. Smart Growth The rural land use plan embodied in the Wildlands Network is inextricably tied to its urban counterpart, Smart Growth. As human beings are barred from rural land, there will be a concentration of human activity in urban areas. Through Smart Growth, the infrastructure is being created for a post-private property era in which human action is subject to centralized government control. With the combined implementation of Smart Growth and the Wildlands Network, humans will be herded into urban centers and the animals will run free. Sometimes called “comprehensive planning,” “growth management,”26 “New Urbanism,” or “Sustainable Communities,” Smart Growth is the centralized control of every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population levels and control, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education, toxic technology and waste management, transportation modes and mobility restrictions, business and economic activity including capping and trading energy. Smart Growth policies include: • Transportation plans that reduce freedom of mobility, forcing people to live near where they work, and transforming communities into heavily-regulated but “self-sufficient” feudalistic “transit villages.” are systematically being restricted and closed to use. “Conservation biologists now agree that protecting isolated pockets of habitat isn’t enough to protect our bears, jaguars, beavers, birds and other wildlife – the only way to protect them is to practice conservation on a continental scale,” announced Wildlands Project Executive Director, Leanne Klyza Linck, at the Society of Environmental Journalists Conference on September 12, 2003. The most significant tools of the Wildlands Network is the rapidly expanding imposition of habitat “protection” provisions under the Image 3: Prepared by Dr. Michael Coffman, Environmental Perspectives, Inc. Taken From: The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8a-e; United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 13.4.2.2.3; US Man and the Biosphere Strategic Plan, UN/US Heritage Corridor Program, “The Wildlands Project,” WildEarth, 1992. Also see Science, “The High Cost of Biodiversity,” 25 June, 1993, pp 1968-1871 and the Border 21 Sidebar of NAFTA. The very high percentage of buffer zone in the West is due to the very high percentage of federal land. NOTE: Do not use this map for real estate purposes. Copyright 1997, Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (207) 945-9878 Endangered Species Act, the adoption of “conservation easements” and direct land acquisitions from battered “willing sellers.” The Wildlands Network seeks to collectivize all natural resources (e.g., water) and centralize all use decisions under bureaucratic direction, often implemented through public private partnerships. Smart Growth - Human Settlements Core Reserves & CorridorsLittle to no human use Buffer Zones - Highly Regulated Use Border 21/La Paz Sidebar Agreement of NAFTA-200 Mile Wide International Zone of Cooperation Normal Use Indian Reservations Military Reservations Simulated Reserve and Corridor System to Protect BiodiversityAs Required by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Wildlands Project,UN and US Man and Biosphere Programs and World Heritage Program as a Vital Step in Attaining Sustainable DevelopmentThis map was used in the United States Senate to stop the ratification of theUnited Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 24 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 25 – 27. The lure of paying as little as $150 per year in taxes on properties valued at $1.5 million has led to high occupancy in some developments in Portland, Oregon, for example. 28. The Smart Growth plan for Richland County, South Carolina, for example, distinguishes between “employment-based villages,” and “non- employment-based villages,” with special gated communities set aside for the wealthy individuals responsible for the plan. Most of the “non-employment- based villages” are slated to be built in areas currently populated by the descendants of liberated slaves. 29. Reasonable access to water in urban areas is defined as “the availability of 20 litres per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres.” Global Water Supply and Assessment Report 2000. • Programs to herd citizens into tax-subsidized, government controlled, mixed-use developments27 called “human settlements.” These settlements are sometimes distinguished from one another by how productive or useful the citizens are for society.28 • Heavy restrictions on development in most areas and the promotion of extremely dense development, constructed and managed by government “partners” in other selected areas, typically focused on transit hubs. • Rations on public services, such as health care, drinking water29 and energy resources (and sources). A typical day in the Orwellian society created by Smart Growth would consist of an individual waking up in her government- provided housing unit, eating a ration of government-subsidized foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery store, walking her children (if she has any) to the government-run child care center, boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to her government job, then returning to her quarters later that evening. NAFTA Superhighway Trade Corridor and Toll Road System Terri Hall, founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TexasTURF.org) prepared the following in her article:30 Some have tried to convince the public that the Trans-Texas Corridor and NAFTA Superhighways are dead, never existed or are even a myth. Yet, Congress recently passed a new, two-year federal highway bill called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) that not only gives priority funding to these “high priority” trade corridors, but also makes it easier to hand them over to private multi- national corporations using controversial public private partnership contract arrangements that promote and enhance the tolling of America at the taxpayer’s expense. Now three intercontinental U.S. corridors are planned by the federal government, as illustrated by this map. 30. Hall, Terri. “MAP-21: Congress-Obama expand NAFTA Superhighway Trade Corridor and Toll Road System,” July 17, 2012, http://216.235.200.227/page.aspx?pid=668. NAFTA TRADE CORRIDORS CANAMEX Ports-to-Plains TTC-69/I-69 Trans-Can Connector Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 26 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 – 27 – What You Can Do “Once again a majority of this court has proved that if enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it. ... But theft is still theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. ... Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.” – Justice Janice Brown, dissenting opinion, San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco 31 Sustainable Development is restructuring our lives and is targeting our children through an educational regime that seeks to develop collectivist attitudes, values and beliefs. Sustainable Development documents call for the abolishment of private property32 and the freedom that private property supports. It supplants long-standing state laws and causes irreparable harm to our economy and our society. If individual members of our society do nothing, the continuing loss of liberty will result in increasing social confusion and discord, rising resource shortages, financial decay and a dimming future for us and our posterity. The looming battle of ideas should be recognized as a classic – and perhaps ultimate – battle between Liberty and Tyranny. The social, economic, and political transformations Sustainable Development requires will mean the suppression of unalienable rights for all people.33 31. No. S091757., SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 27 Cal. 4th 643; 41 P.3d 87, March 8, 2002. 32. Heywood, V.H. (ed.). op cit. 33. For a more comprehensive discussion of this topic, see the Freedom 21 Alternative to the U.N.’s Agenda 21 Program for Sustainable Development. http://www.freedom21.org/un-alternative.htm If Americans, with your help, come to a timely understanding of the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will quickly come to light. Together, we will rise to restore Liberty through a renewal of reason and respect for the dignity of individual determination. The future of the freedom once taken for granted in America depends on us recognizing and countering the threats of Sustainable Development. Six Practical Steps to Restore and Protect Liberty 1. Recognize and resist the trend to replace political boundaries with “regional governance.” Recognize that this form of government leads to a breakdown of accountability to the citizenry. Know, expose and withdraw from your local Council of Governments (COG). Can the COG! 2. Refuse local government receipt of federal or state money for new Sustainable Development programs because they breach the American system of federalism and raid the treasury. Withdraw from established Sustainable Development programs. 3. Avoid local government partnerships with the federal government, NGOs, foundations and corporations that advance the anti-liberty Sustainable Development agenda. Do not surrender your town or county to the insider privilege of Sustainable Developers and their monied interests. 4. Understand and enforce the role of public officials in your community to administer government in a manner that protects individual liberty and ensures equal justice. 5. Know and understand the Constitution, to which elected officials swore an oath with particular attention to Article 1, Section 8, the 9th and 10th Amendments, which address the limitations on federal power, and the 14th Amendment, which limits the states’ police power. 6. Kick ICLEI out of your town and the regional COG organization. Neutralize all ICLEI infected law or “policy.” Learn about your state’s Misprision of Treason statute. See the ICLEI Primer and FAQs at: www.FreedomAdvocates.org. Visit the website for more information. – 28 – Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 Freedom Advocates Store Pamphlets: Understanding Sustainable Development– Agenda 21 – You may have heard people talking about Sustainable Development – in public meetings, on television and on the radio. Consultants talk about it, university professors lecture on it, and government entities are increasingly implementing it. But what is Sustainable Development? That is precisely the question this pamphlet is intended to address. Bulk Pricing: 1 - 100 copies $4.00 each101 - 1000 copies $3.00 each 1001 + copies Call: 831.684.2232 (Add $4.00 shipping for 1-10 copies of either pamphlet, call for shipping costs for orders over 10) Audio:8 Hours of Radio Interviews and Presentations from the Freedom 21 Santa Cruz Radio Show America is being transformed from the land of the free to the land of the controlled via mechanisms that target the middle class. Knowing reality – the threat and the potential – is the foundation for restoring and preserving liberty. Hosted by Michael Shaw, Freedom Advocates, with the following guests and topics: Abolishing Private Property - Dr. Michael Coffman (2 hours) Screening your Child for “Mental Health” – Dismantling the Family - Dr. Karen Effrem Central Banking and Sustainable Tyranny - Dr. Edwin Viera Fabian Socialism, Regionalizing England, and the European Union - Robert Theobald The All Out War on Natural Law - William Roberts (2 hours) Price: $25.00 (plus $5.00 shipping) Yes! I need to know more! Please send me: ___ Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 ___ Sustainable Development: Global to Local Action Plans ___ War on Reason Audio CD sets ___ UNsustainable Cartoons ___ America’s Choice DVDs ___ Total Items $__________ Total Price with Shipping Name: ____________________________ Address: ___________________________ City: _____________________________ State: ________ Zip: _________________ Phone: ____________________________ Email: ____________________________ Enclosed is my check or money order for $________ Please make checks payable to: Freedom Advocates P.O. Box 3330 Freedom, CA 95019 831.684.2232 831.685.1472 (Fax) www.FreedomAdvocates.org The Most Comprehensive Exposé of Sustainable Development to Date! America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development Liberty! A Life of One’s OwnMichael Shaw, Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, CA, now Freedom Advocates Transformational Education:Preparing our Children for Global CitizenshipMichael Chapman, Ed Watch, MN The Smart Growth Fraud Michael Coffman, Sovereignty International, ME Exposing Group Manipulation TacticsBeverly Eakman, National Education Consortium, MD Sustainable Development: The Wrenching Transformation of America Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center, VA The Original Six HourPresentation on DVD Only $49!$19 Special Price with this order form! (Includes shipping) Understanding Sustainable Development – Agenda 21 For more Freedom Advocates products, call: 831.684.2232, or visit our Store at: http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org/store Video: Booklet: SM Sustainable Development:Global to Local Action Plans This thorough exposé is the third in a series of Freedom Advocates pamphlets. It provides an analysis of how sustainable policy invades and directs your county through its global to local action plan. The booklet is designed to provide information that you and others need in order to preserve liberty at the local level. Understand and join in the battle to prevent globalist policies from thwarting natural law. Bulk Pricing: 1 - 100 copies $5.00 each 101 - 1000 copies $3.00 each1001 + copies Call: 831.684.2232 UNsustainable Cartoons By Barry NathanWith Additional Commentary by Rosa Koire and Michael Shaw (c) 2012 UNsustainable Cartoons is a collection of humorous, incisive cartoons and descriptive text. It lampoons the ideology and insidious U.N. agenda behind the activism of the environmental movement and subsequent erosion of property rights. The reader will become informed, through the medium of cartoon humor in a few words and pictures capturing the ironies and seriousness of the threat to freedom in an unconventional manner. The paperback book is comprised of 59 black and white cartoon illustrations, color cover, plus 8 pages of descriptive text. Price: $15.00 (plus $5.00 shipping) Fifth Printing! Updates and AdditionsNew Section on Regionalism For the People and their Public Officials Prepared by Freedom AdvocatesRecognize Unalienable Rightswww.FreedomAdvocates.org Understanding Sustainable Development– Agenda 21 – SM