Committee forwards General Plan 2045 to full council after hours of public testimony

The Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development voted to forward Bill 66 draft 2 — the county’s proposed General Plan 2045 — to the full Hawaii County Council with a favorable recommendation, after extended public comment and internal debate.

Dozens of residents and community groups addressed the committee during the public-comment period, sharply divided over whether to keep the 2045 draft, adopt a substantially shortened General Plan 2026, or combine elements of both. Opponents of 2045 frequently argued it was written by outside interests and could reduce property-owner certainty; several speakers urged the council to adopt the shorter GP 2026 instead. Supporters said 2045 contains measurable targets, accountability structures and climate and equity provisions that should be preserved.

Multiple testifiers raised concerns about the inclusion of “data centers” in recent amendments. Christina Holt, a Hilo resident, urged the county to use zoning authority to prevent data centers from locating on the island, saying they would consume large amounts of water and energy. Several speakers described the April amendment that added a data-center category as a late and substantive change that lacked public vetting.

Planning Director Jeff Darrow and the corporation counsel both told the committee that the general plan does not automatically change property zoning. Darrow said land-use pattern maps indicate long-range direction and that zoning changes require separate permit or zone-change procedures. Committee members pressed staff on whether map changes or late amendments would be “substantive” under the county’s amendment rules and whether such changes should return to the planning commissions for review.

The sponsor of the substitute (the communication proposing General Plan 2026) said she would withdraw a specific amendment (referred to as amendment 199) and work with corporation counsel to propose revised language aimed at prohibiting or imposing a moratorium on data centers — an approach she described as preferable to a direct ban that could raise takings concerns.

After deliberation, the committee took a roll-call vote on a motion to forward Bill 66 draft 2 with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried with five votes in favor and four opposed. Committee members who supported forwarding said the comprehensive 2045 draft resulted from a lengthy, multi-year public process and could be amended later; opponents said the draft was too expansive and that some changes should have had additional review.

The committee’s action forwards the ordinance to the full council for first reading; members indicated some interim amendments would be considered subsequently and that questions about map errors and the amendment process might be addressed through further review or referral to the planning commissions.

The meeting record shows broad public engagement on the general plan question, including repeated requests for greater transparency on mapping decisions and for explicit restrictions on large, high-energy uses such as data centers. The committee’s favorable recommendation does not itself adopt the plan; it moves Bill 66 draft 2 to the next step in the council’s legislative process.