Hawai‘i County’s 2045 general plan about long-range development moves closer to adoption

The Hawai‘i County 2045 general plan, a 313-page policy document detailing the long-range comprehensive development of the island and more than a decade in the making, is nearing the finish line.

At its Wednesday meeting, despite some community opposition, the Hawai‘i County Council passed the first reading of Bill 66 Draft 2 with a 6-3 vote. Council members Holeka Inaba, Ashley Kierkiewicz and Dennis “Fresh” Onishi opposed the measure.

The proposed plan is the culmination of work that started in February 2015 and cost the county approximately $1.7 million. It is a comprehensive review of the 2005 general plan that included collecting community feedback, examining the effectiveness of the previous plan, and researching and analyzing existing conditions and trends.

This document serves as a blueprint to guide land use, infrastructure, environmental protection and sustainable community development islandwide for the next 20 to 25 years. It guides development of all areas: residential, recreational, commercial, industrial and agricultural. It also encompasses climate change, culture and renewable energy.

“It envisions a future that balances growth with the preservation of the County’s unique natural and cultural resources,” the plan said. “A sustainable future is not a distant dream but an attainable reality. A reality that can only be achieved through the powerful combination of government and community collaboration.”

While there has been support voiced publicly for the plan, the majority of recent public testimony was in opposition, with some testifiers saying it doesn’t have the interest of the people at heart.

One of the biggest sticking points for testifiers was the plan for land use. The document looked at population density, housing affordability, infrastructure, land use compatibility and building regulations.

To address some of these issues, the plan allows for amending the county zoning code to create a category for lands that should mostly be kept in a natural state.

Testifiers fear their properties could potentially be rezoned under this plan, if adopted.

Sarah Steiner, a Pāhoa resident, told the council the plan would dictate how the “county is going to steal our land” by taking it out of agriculture and putting it into a natural designation, which would limit what they can do on their property.

Council Member Matt Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder said he appreciated the testimony provided at all stages of the 2045 general plan. But after reviewing the document, and taking into consideration the money spent and work done on it by the Planning Department that was in line with the community, he said: “It’s important that we move forward a plan for the community.”

He added: “It’s called a general plan for a reason. It’s not a mandatory document. It creates a guideline by which we can function as a county and grow as a county. It provides a backbone for land use decisions and for different decisions, but not a shall-be-done requirement schedule for how it’s going to get done.”

Kierkiewicz said during the meeting that the county is attempting to do too much without the proper resources and support.

“My opposition to the general plan is going to continue to be rooted in the fact that I don’t know how we implement this,” she said. “The governance piece for me is not strong enough.”

After the meeting, Kierkiewicz told Big Island Now that after 10 years and nearly $2 million to draft this plan, “you’d think they (county) would’ve gotten it right with broad community support. We just didn’t get there. Time and money should not be the only driving factors to pass the document.”

Kierkiewicz said there are no benchmarks laid out for the broad, sweeping ideas for the county’s future development across the board.

Council Member Michelle Galimba said she wasn’t a fan of every single word and every single policy, however, “the overall vision and direction, I am very much a fan of, especially the Biocultural Stewardship section.”

The plan outlines biocultural stewardship opportunities in native habitats, watersheds, cultural and historical assets and scenic character.

A few of the objectives outlined include minimizing and mitigating impacts to these areas by protecting them from degradation, incompatible uses or threats. The goal would also be to improve the health of the island’s forests, rangelands, watersheds, nearshore areas environments, riparian areas and reefs.

The document provides a lengthy list of the native areas that should be protected, including Coconut Island, the viewplane from Pāhoa-Kalapana Highway looking makai (toward the ocean) and Kalōpā State Park.

Galimba pointed out that the general plan provides a number of tools and each policy and action is a potential tool.

“This general plan is structured as a collaboration between government and the public at large,” Galimba said, adding that businesses, nonprofits, other players may take an interest in any particular policy.

Rebecca Villegas said her heart breaks for some testifiers who held a belief that the general plan was “some kind of conspiracy document related to a global world order.”

Several people testified that they thought the general plan was created by the United Nations, which Villegas said is untrue.

“Our intention sitting here as imperfect, humble public servants is not a grand scheme for global takeover, smart cities, weather change patterns…” Villegas said.

She said she’s witnessed years of community advocates, environmentalists, cultural practitioners and the county working together in the planning process.

“Our prior general plans have been aspirational and vague,” Villegas said. “It didn’t necessarily specify things to consider.”

Villegas said this plan is different than prior plans, which were “aspirational and vague,” because it does include specific things to consider, including climate change as it relates to land management, changes in weather patterns and erosion impacts.

Logan Brown provided written testimony against Bill 66, saying the 2045 general plan is “bloated with vague language and seems out of touch with the feedback residents provided during the public input process.”

Brown said: “That disconnect raises real questions about transparency and whether community voices were genuinely considered. Beyond that, GP 2045 contains policies that could threaten private property rights, burden local farmers, and make it harder for families to stay on their land. These aren’t hypothetical concerns — they’re real consequences for real people.”

The plan has a goal to move toward eliminating fossil fuels on Hawai‘i Island and transition to renewable energy. Kierkiewicz said decisions about this are made at the state level and out of the county’s control.

Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder said it was important to him that the general plan is passed before the County Council sees changes in leadership. He is terming out of office at the end of the year.

“You’re not being ignored, but there’s a balance between public, future planning, government officials, planning department, and all the input, and what is best for Hawai’i Island with everything taken into account,” Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder said. “And in this moment, the 2045 general plan is that document that I want to bring forward to the community.”