Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Policy committee postpones action on Hawaii County general‑plan amendment amid mapping and legal questions
Summary
Hawaii County's planning committee postponed consideration of Bill 66 (draft 2), a proposed general‑plan substitution/amendment, until April 7 after members raised concerns about missing maps, public input on the new draft plan and unclear amendment procedures; the committee consulted corporation counsel in executive session.
The Hawaii County Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development postponed consideration of Bill 66 (draft 2) on March 10, 2026, sending the item to the committee’s April 7 meeting after members raised questions about maps, public outreach and how to treat the newly submitted draft plan.
Chair Ashley Kerkwitz, who introduced a package of amendments she described as focused on “implementation, economy, malama aina and community resources, public services and facilities, public utilities, housing, transportation, and land use,” told the committee the general plan is “our community’s long range policy document” and should be a concise policy framework rather than a replacement for code, maps or department authority.
The Planning Department’s director, Jeff Darrow, told the committee that the draft titled “General Plan 2026” was submitted on March 4 and is intended to substitute the draft General Plan 2045. Darrow cautioned that "this new draft plan did not receive input from either" state and county agencies or public commenters before submission and advised members not to rush a decision. He said the department has documented outreach on the 2045 draft (the transcript records more than 8,600 public comments on that earlier draft) and suggested three options: delay forwarding the 2026 draft for commission review until it is a complete document; hold island public hearings and solicit agency review; or incorporate portions of 2026 into 2045 via formal amendments.
Committee members focused much of their attention on the absence of mapping in the package and on who would prepare simplified maps the amendment envisions. Chair Kerkowitz said she has asked the Planning Department to build simpler, gradient‑based maps (for example combining medium and high density urban into a single urban designation) and to work with staff so the planning commission receives a complete package. Director Darrow said the county had hired a consultant to produce the 2045 maps and that staff would need to coordinate with that consultant to prepare new maps; the consultant named in committee discussion was Focus Planning Solutions. Darrow also said the Planning Department has only two GIS staff and that capacity constraints are a factor.
Assistant corporation counsel Jay Yoshimoto recommended the committee see a complete package (narrative plus maps) before transmission "so that this body and the public know what is being transmitted to the department and to the commission." To clarify legal procedure, the committee moved into executive session to consult with attorneys; the motion to enter executive session (moved by Councilmember Heather Kimball and seconded by Councilmember Jennifer Kagiwada) carried with seven ayes and two members excused.
After the executive‑session consultation, Councilmember Kimball summarized that attorneys had reviewed the committee’s liabilities and the legal aspects of amendment procedures. Members debated whether the 2026 submission is a full substitution or an amendment to the 2045 draft; Chair Kerkowitz said she will prepare and deliver a tool showing the nexus between the two drafts and offered to provide maps and that tool to corporation counsel for review. The chair committed to deliver that tool within one week; corporation counsel agreed that their review of the tool by March 27 would be a reasonable schedule.
Procedurally, Councilmember James Eustace withdrew an earlier motion to refer communication 372.192 to the Planning Department and Planning Commissions. The committee then approved, by voice vote, a motion to postpone Bill 66 (draft 2) to the April 7 committee meeting (motion by Councilmember Heather Kimball, second by Councilmember James Eustace). Chair Kerkowitz announced the postponement and adjourned the meeting at 11:27 a.m.
What happens next: the committee asked for written guidance from corporation counsel on the amendment procedure and requested maps and the chair’s nexus tool prior to the April 7 meeting. The Planning Department said it would follow up on contract status with the mapping consultant and on the extent to which council members can propose visual map amendments.
