2024-10-30 Tawn Keeney MD Testimony GP 2045

Home

Comment: All public support for short term visitor rental accommodation should be removed other than in designated resort areas. P. 98 - “Provide flexibility in discretionary permit applications to maintain health and safety for rural small scale visitor accommodations not serviced by public infrastructure.” Comment: All public support for short term visitor rental accommodations outside of resort areas should be removed. P. 98 - “Support the State Land Use reclassification to Rural in alignment with the General Plan Rural designation.” Comment: This proposal would be especially impactful in light of the recent passage of Bill 123 by the Hawaii County Council. Bill 123 has now mandated that all properties in the Agricultural, as well as Family Ag and Residential Ag and Residential Zones will be available to addition of three Accessory Dwelling Units, one of which may be a Transient Accommodations Rental. The Authors of Bill 123 have taken the position that Rural ‘Sprawl’ or Suburban ‘Sprawl’ will not be accelerated because of the State Land Use requirement that any dwelling, principal or accessory, on State Agricultural Zoned Land must be a ‘farm dwelling’ which is supportive of an agricultural use of that property. However, the reclassification of State Agricultural Lands, as is being proposed here, to the designation of ‘Rural’ will open these broad areas to the unhindered effect of ‘Rural Sprawl’. Bill 123’s directives should not have included the Agricultural Zone, as the Agricultural Zone was specifically excluded from the State Legislation passed this year which required County Allowance of at least 2 ADU’s per property. However, now, on the Big Island, after Bill 123’s passage, if the State Agricultural Zone guardrail against Rural Sprawl is abandoned by ‘Rural’ rezoning then these rural zones will be transformed in the direction of ‘Sprawl’. This controversial directive should be removed from the General Plan. P. 129 - “Be a net power producer with Hydrogen and Waste Management.” P. 162 - “Implement waste stream technology, such as recycling and up cycling and waste-to- energy to reduce the flow of refuse deposited in landfills. Comment: This directive should not be included in the General Plan. It is understood by the administration and much of the Public that the intent to use Hydrogen pervasively as energy storage mechanism, and various waste to energy strategies, whether by burning or a pyrolysis mechanism, are controversial and thus are of questionable propriety in such a ‘foundational level’ policy document as the General Plan. In evidence of this controversy I cite a recent Tribune Herald headline, “National Expert Questions County Energy Policy”. The expert’s comments were directed toward countering proposals for extensive use of hydrogen for energy storage and waste to energy proposals. The County has presented no response of which I am aware to the issues raised in that presentation. Until clarity is given as to how Hydrogen will add to our net power production or storage, and what technology will be