Hawaii County Policy Committee Hearing on General Plan 2045 & Bill 66 – May 4, 2026

The Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development convened on May 4, 2026 at the West Hawaii Civic Center in Kona, with a Hilo video link. The meeting began at 9:08 a.m. after technical delays and adjourned at 12:08 p.m. The primary agenda items were Bill 66 (regarding the adoption of the County's General Plan 2045 and a competing substitute draft, GP 2026) and Bill 154 (removing commercial paid parking lots from specific zoning districts). Public testimony was heard from over two dozen individuals, and the committee ultimately voted to forward Bill 66 (GP 2045) to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, and to refer Bill 154 to the Planning Director and planning commissions for review.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Martha Stevens (Kona) opposed GP 2045, alleging it was tied to United Nations sustainable development goals and would benefit corporations and data centers at the expense of local governance. She supported GP 2026.
• Sheree Griffore (Kona) read the state public trust doctrine and emphasized the obligation to protect natural resources for present and future generations.
• Shannon Fisher (Volcano) supported GP 2026 and opposed GP 2045, arguing it promotes climate change hoaxes, reduces food self-sufficiency, and erodes property rights.
• Corey Harden (Hilo) urged council to listen to experienced community members (Nancy Pushico, Chris Hewan, Chuck Flaherty) and recommended a subtitle of "Stewardship of Hawaii Island" for the general plan.
• Kenneth Honma (Puna) strongly supported GP 2026, calling GP 2045 "illegal, insidious and treasonous" for containing UN/World Economic Forum language that would cede local control to foreign entities.
• Christina Holt (Hilo) focused on data centers, arguing they are resource-intensive and should be banned or strictly regulated. She noted a unique opportunity to prohibit them before they arrive.
• Michelle Melendez (Captain Cook) opposed GP 2045, stating it was not written by local people and that 80% of the map would become conservation, threatening food security. She supported GP 2026.
• Donna Grabo supported GP 2026 for including community input and opposed GP 2045 as vague, unprofessional, and not reflective of the county.
• Chris Ewan (former Planning Director) supported GP 2045, arguing it does not change existing zoning or property rights. He stated the natural designation allows residential and agricultural uses, and that GP 2026 is too limited.
• Chris Hirose (Hilo) opposed GP 2045, claiming it is based on UN/World Economic Forum Agenda 2030 and that climate change is a hoax used for control. He supported a different plan.
• Kaleika Ili Kini (Hilo) supported GP 2026 and opposed GP 2045, arguing that new zonings (natural/recreation) could take private land and that the term "stakeholders" allows foreign influence.
• Joy Dylan (Hilo) supported GP 2026, stating it is easier to read, removes operational programs not suited for a general plan, and trims overly complex language from GP 2045.
• Chuck Flaherty (Sierra Club) opposed GP 2026, calling it the third “gut and replace” amendment since 2015. He submitted a records request and argued the public process had been undermined.
• Millicent Cummings (Hilo) opposed both plans on procedural grounds, citing failure to create a Hilo community development plan and concerns over data center amendments introduced at the last minute.
• Aaron Geman (Hilo) claimed to be a plaintiff in two active court cases to stop the vote. He questioned which version of Bill 66 was being voted on, noted that the Planning Director called GP 2026 a complete rewrite, and suggested that last-minute data center provisions could be corrupt.
• Megan Isaac (Hilo) criticized the lack of a Hilo community development plan and called it unacceptable that Hilo was left out of the general plan process.
• Noelle Morin (Hilo) supported GP 2045, arguing that measurable targets with deadlines are necessary to achieve hard goals like energy independence and climate resilience.
• Donna Thompson (Waimea) supported GP 2026, stating GP 2045 was based on UN Agenda 2030, which the U.S. rejected in 2025. She emphasized protecting agricultural land and opposing data centers.
• Janice Paul McGlenny (Kailua Kona) opposed GP 2026, calling it a “developer's dream” that removes public input and protective zoning. She supported continued work on GP 2045.
• Jewel Rain (South Kona) opposed GP 2045, arguing that vague terms like "natural land" open the door to future zoning changes and that “stakeholders” could include foreign elites. She supported GP 2026.
• Dwight Vicente represented a Hawaiian kingdom perspective, asserting that state and county jurisdiction is limited to ceded lands and that leased agricultural lands were never legally sold.
• John Pelletier (Kona CDP Action Committee) opposed GP 2026, stating it is a complete rewrite that bypasses the public process and is not compatible with the Kona community development plan.
• Alison Shiyozaki (Olaa) urged a ban on data centers, citing their water consumption, pollution, and climate impacts. She argued that water is a sacred resource.
• Lawrence Bidlack (Kukui) opposed GP 2045, stating he has developed his land but cannot get water meters. He did not support GP 2026 either, wanting more farmer input.
• David Webb (Kapoho) supported GP 2026 as a better starting point, noting GP 2045 had over 1,000 items compared to 279 in the 2005 plan. He called for a more thorough amendment process.
• Noelle Lindenman supported GP 2045 and opposed GP 2026, arguing the 2026 plan undermines years of community input and favors developers. She also opposed data centers.
• Josephine Kili EPO (Kona) opposed GP 2045, claiming it pushes a climate change agenda and that recent disasters are caused by geoengineering. She supported GP 2026 or returning to the 2005 plan.
• Jane Brahm (Puna) supported GP 2026, stating GP 2045 is confusing and disconnected from residents. She grew food and wanted to encourage farming.
• Robert Patrici (Puna) opposed GP 2026, citing concerns about geothermal regulation, lack of monitoring, and water access. He supported more time and transparency.
• Ruth Robison (Hilo) strongly supported GP 2045, noting it took 11 years to develop and includes measurable targets for energy, transportation, and waste. She opposed GP 2026 for removing those targets.
• Pete Walker (Kona) said both plans have flaws but GP 2026 is smaller. He urged more public input and focus on farming and self-sufficiency.
• Mike Cabral (Kona) opposed GP 2045, fearing property rights loss and outside stakeholders. He is considering leaving Hawaii due to government overreach.
• Eugene Elmer (Kona) opposed GP 2045 and supported GP 2026, asking council to do the right thing by respecting the people.

Discussion Items

• Opening & Procedural Comments: Vice Chair Galimba opened the meeting and called for public testimony. After testimony, council members discussed Bill 66.
• Stakeholder Definition: Planning Director Jeff Darrow clarified that “stakeholders” in GP 2045 is meant broadly to include all parties involved, not a specific outside group.
• Land Use Maps vs. Zoning: Director Darrow and Corporation Counsel Renae stated that the general plan does not change existing zoning; it guides future zone changes. Natural designation allows agricultural and residential uses.
• Map Errors in District 9: Councilmember Houstis presented a communication (372.204) listing seven map errors or omissions in the proposed 2045 plan, including parcels mislabeled as natural when they are residential or park lands. He expressed concern that correcting errors after adoption would require a lengthy amendment process.
• Data Center Provisions: Councilmember Kimball withdrew her amendment (372.199) on data centers, explaining that she originally thought data processing facilities already covered data centers. She will propose a separate moratorium or prohibition.
• Amendment Process Options: Director Darrow outlined three options: adopt GP 2026, adopt GP 2045, or combine both. He noted that substantive amendments (including map changes) would require referral back to planning commissions. Corporation Counsel confirmed the council could amend an ordinance but substantive changes would trigger additional review.
• Fiscal and Operational Concerns: Councilmember Kirkowitz argued GP 2045 has too many un-operationalizable policies and over-relies on the Office of Sustainability, Climate Equity and Resilience (OSCAR). She said it sets the county up for failure and cannot be enforced.
• Hilo Community Development Plan: Councilmember Kagiwada expressed frustration that Hilo was left out of the planning process and said passing GP 2045 would allow a Hilo redevelopment plan to move forward.
• General Plan as Ordinance: Corporation Counsel noted that the general plan is an ordinance, so the council retains amendment authority even if the plan lacks a specific amendment procedure.
• Bill 154 – Commercial Paid Parking: Councilmember Inaba and Viegas introduced Bill 154 to remove commercial parking lots and garages as permitted uses in various commercial and industrial zones, prohibiting new paid parking lots. Existing lots would be grandfathered. Council members raised concerns about unintended consequences in Hilo (e.g., reducing available parking near county facilities). The committee voted to refer the bill to the Planning Director and planning commissions for review.

Key Outcomes

• Bill 66 (General Plan 2045): The committee voted 5–4 to forward Bill 66 draft two (adopting General Plan 2045) to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Votes in favor: Kagiwada, Connelly Kleinfelter, Campbell (likely Kimball), Viegas, Vice Chair Galimba. Opposed: Houstis, Inaba, Onishi, Kirkowitz.
• Bill 154 (Commercial Parking Lots): The committee voted 6–3 to refer Bill 154 to the Planning Director and planning commissions for review and recommendation. Votes in favor: Houstis, Inaba, Connelly Kleinfelter, Kimball, Viegas, Kirkowitz. Opposed: Kagiwada, Onishi, Vice Chair Galimba.
• Future Steps: For Bill 66, the full Council will consider the bill on first reading. Councilmember Inaba is drafting an ordinance to codify general plan amendment procedures. For Bill 154, the planning commissions will hold hearings and provide recommendations before it returns to the committee.