HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0677.040 2022-2024From: taws
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:05 AM
To: Council Testimony
Subject: Testimony for Bill 123 - Sept. 4 Council meeting
Testimony from Tawn Keeney on Bill 123 Draft 4 or 5
The testimony which follows is offered from several vantage points, but reflects an overall position that E411'123 is of
such consequence to the natural and built societal environment of the Island that it must be more fully understood by the
Public, with availability and encouragement of comment, prior to decision- making. Among my associates, whom I
consider to be well educated and attentive to social issues, there is no awareness of this Bill's implications or even
existence. It is important that legislation with ramifications so pervasive as Bill 123 might introduce upon our living
environment, there must be presentation to the public which goes beyond what has been achieved thus far with Bill 123. 1
therefore will conclude that progression of this Bill to final decision -making must be delayed until the Public has a more full
understanding of its impact. If you have doubt about this, then please call your cousins and ask what they know about Bill
123, then explain the Bills contents to them, and then ask if they think the Public should have a more full understanding
with subsequent opportunity to comment before the County Council makes its decision.
I will comment from 3 perspectives.
First will be as recent chair and continuing member of the Hamakua Community Development Plan Action
Committee. My understanding would suggest that passage of Bill 123 would have potential to lead to a pronounced
change in the housing character, population and density in each of our districts. I will propose that the desirable
mechanism to bring awareness, interaction and response from the Public regarding this Bill and its implications, before
passage by the Council, would be its presentation by Chair Kimball to a meeting of the Combined CDP Action
Committees. This would be consistent with County Code statement of the Duties and Responsibilities of the Community
Development Plan Action Committees. Chapter 16-6 states: "The duties and responsibilities of the CDP Action
Committee are: (1) Provide ongoing guidance ad advocacy to advance implementation of the CDP goals, objectives,
policies, and actions; (3) Take into consideration statewide objectives and legislation for long-term and sustainable plans
for the island as a whole." Bill 123 is certainly important legislation for long-term and sustainable plans for the island, and
thus should, by Code, be accessible to consideration to the District Action Committees prior to passage into ordinance. It
is important to understand that any response to such a presentation must come from the individual District Committees
rather than from the combined group. However, allowance of one month after such presentation before Council decision
making would give time for each Committee to consider, discuss and respond if desired. During this period, efforts to
bring Public awareness to this measure should be encouraged both on a District and Countywide scale.
Allowing this period of consideration, by presentation to and perhaps response from the CDP Action Committees and
the greater public would not only be consistent with County Code, but it would also encourage participation in government
policy formation at a local level, which would be a desirable outcome. At the very least, it would advance the cause of
transparency from the Council toward the Public. This Bill has such profound implications for our 'lived-in' environment
that this furtherance of public presentation is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, sentiment was expressed at the last
Council meeting that this Bill was moving more quickly than was felt comfortable for a measure with such important
consequences for our natural and built environment. This pause for consideration by the Public in the form of
presentation and (perhaps) response by the Community Development Plan Action Committees should serve to ease the
sense that this Bill is being rushed forward without public understanding. It is my impression that if the Public were aware
of this Bill, that Public would be highly 'interested' in its progress and outcome.
I would thus request that Chair Kimball coordinate with the Planning Department to make presentation to a meeting of
the Combined Action Committees.
Second, I will comment from the perspective of my'climate activism'. This bill appears to offer encouragement to
tourism on the Big Island, perhaps at the expense of the hotels and resort areas, which is where I would propose any
tourism, if desired, should be centered. The temptation to build an accessory dwelling unit as a transient accommodation
rental, probably the most lucrative form of ADU for many property owners, could be pronounced. I would anticipate that
the outcome would be toward an increase of tourism here.
So what is wrong with encouraging tourism? Let's remember that, since the advent of Air B&B and other community
accommodation access sites, the number of visitors has gone way up but the amount spent per visitor has decreased,
and the amount of money entering the economy from tourism has at least leveled off, if not gone down. Direction of
visitors into hotels and resorts is more desirable than into private residences, for a multitude of reasons. There is
frustration with visitor congestion, which will only be encouraged by this Bill. However, that is not my concern.
1
Ccsrn n
Ref. To: _
Ref. Dape
The scale of the 'global warming footprint' from tourism to Hawaii must be understood before decision -making which
could support anincrease ofvisitation here.
(1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2019 from visitor air transport to Hawaii amounted to somewhere between an
amount equal to and 2xthe total of Hawaii's net state domestic GHG emissions.
(2) The weighted average round trip tourist travel distance was 7OOOmiles. With 1Dmillion visitors in2D1Q.that
calculates to 70 billion passenger miles traveled to Hawaii.
(3) The average passenger is responsible for emission of 1.8 tons CO2(equivalent) emissions intheir round trip flight.
(4) Tan million visitors contributed 18 million tons CO2(e)tothe atmosphere in 2019through air travel hero. Hawaii's
total stationary combustion (electricity generation, petroleum rnfinery, etc) onni8od 7.8 million tons in 2018. Ground
transportation emitted 4million tons. I ask if it is of any real importance that we convert our electricity generation to solar
or wind energy or convert our automobiles to Electric vehicles if we continue to encourage tourism here?
(5) The IPCC has calculated the world citizen equitable 'yearly carbon budget' (to keep global warming below 1.75C
and reach Zero net emissions by2O5O)tobe2.7tons CD2(e). Thus the average visitor has expended 2/3oftheir
equitable yearly carbon o||otrnont in their travel here.
(G) As 'beneficiaries' nfHowoi'i'a tourisnm, the residents ofHavvai'i must accept responsibility for the environmental
consequences of promoting tourism here. These 18 million tons CO2(e) 'belong' to the 1.4 million resident as our
government representatives have encouraged this tourism. Thus, each Hawai'i resident has responsibility for 13 tons
CO2(e) emitted yearly by air travel of visitors, in addition to their 2.7 ton equitable allotment. This translates to the yearly
carbon budget of five world citizens appropriated for each Hawai'i resident's benefit through encouragement of visitation
here.
The following paragraphs in_italics are onexplanation and confirmation ofthe conclusion (1)above. |fthe reader is
comfortable in acknowledging the above conclusions one could skip the several italic paragraphs below
In202O/wrote apaper which was presented tothe Honolulu Climate Change Commission onGreenhouse Gas
emissions from Air Transport of Visitors to Hawaii. The Chair nfthe Commission, Charles (Chip) Fletcher, Hawaii's
eminent climate scientist, used the phrase 'incredibly important data'in commenting on the paper and suggested its
presentation to the State Climate Cunn/niya/nn. That paper, which concludes that GHG emissions from visitor air
transportation to Hawaii in 2019 approximates 1-112x the total of Hawaii's net domestic GHG emissions, is here:
The method used for calculation of the GHG emissions of visitors'air travel was through use of the 'Greehouse Gas
Calculator' found k7produce aresult closest to the average of eight Aviation GHG Calculators found on 'Carbon Offset'
websiteoonthe /nbe/nat. This calculator tool was then applied to Hawaii Tourism Authority's data on visitor air travel from
eight global 'Regions ofOrigin'
Subsequently, Makena Coffman PhD., researcher at University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization and an
author of the Hawaii State Greenhouse Gas Inventory, presented a critique of my paper before the Commission. Dr.
Coffnmn'oexmp8ont presentation buthe HCCC/nhere starting atYhc 10m/n.30oeu:
Her conclusion using computations derived from the State Greenhouse Gas Inventory was that GHG emissions from
air transport of visitors here was approximately equal to the total State net domestic emissions for 2019 (13.4MMT vs.
Y3.5MMT)
A likely explanation for the difference in computation outcomes was that Dr. Coffman's use of the State Inventory
precluded any inclusion oydata from connecting flights, either prior boorafter the Hawaii leg ofany flight itinerary. The
data which / used was from the Hawaii Tourism Authority's eight global 'Regions ofOrigin'ofvisitors here, selecting an
airport which would be reasonably representative of flights from that region.
Subsequent to Dr. Coffnen's analysis the KzCC Obh Assessment Report ('Code Red for Humanity) was released. /n
the Aviation Section of the 4000 page report, the /PCC seems to endorse a method of calculation of CO2(equivalent)
emissions proposed by the international Aviation and Climate research group in their seminal paper, "The Contribution of
Global Aviation hrAthnopogen/cClimate Forcing, 200Dto20/8"0D�3Lee, eta0. Using that method and the HTA
'Regions of Origin' database, one calculates the greenhouse gas emissions in terms of CO2(e) for air transport ofvisitors
toHawaii brbeapproximately 2xthe total ofthe net domestic GHGnfthe State ofHawaii. If using the State GHG
Inventory, the visitors air transport GHG emissions would be 1-112x Hawaii's net domestic emissions using the /PCC
endorsed method VfLee, etal.
| would propose that westop encouraging tourism here, and ifthe visitors are tocome anyway, otleast wmshould be
making them stay inour resorts and hotels. Please remove from this Bill the proposal that one of the Accessory Dwelling
Units may be a Transient Accommodations Rental Unit. Allowing TARs does not contribute to the purpose of this Bill
(which | presume is to increase affordable housing availability). Allowing one ofthe /\OU's (in many cases likely the first
ADU built) to be oTAR will only reduce the accomplishment nfthe intent ofthis Bill.
My third concern is expressed by questioning why Accessory Dwelling Units are being allowed on agriculturally zoned
zoning is encompassed by The State Agriculture District with its Statutes regulating use of Agricultural land and
residences.
That Statute is here:
https://casetext.com/statute/hawaii-revised-statutes/division-1-govern ment/title-13-planning-and-economic-
development/chapter-205-land-use-commission/part-i-genera lly/section-205-45-permissible-uses-within-the-aQricultural-
districts I question why the Agriculture District is included in the proposal? Accessory farm dwellings are currently
allowed so long as they comply with those same statutes. I do not understand the rationale for including the Agriculture
district in the Bill 123 proposal.
I have friends who live in the A-5a zoning district- 5 acre Ag land. It seems to stretch my imagination to think that they
are agriculturalists, farmers or ranchers. With this Bill's passage would they be able to build three dwellings for individuals
or families who, like themselves, are engaged in similar activities or vocations, questionably representing agriculture. If
there is a problem here, I suppose that it is with the challenge of enforcement. Please address the solution of the
enforcement challenge of the State Statutes on 'farm dwellings' and 'ranch houses' in the agricultural district. Will this
enforcement prevent increasing housing density in our rural and pastureland areas?
What now is a property with one residential dwelling on a 5 acre lot, in Bill 123 will become available to 3 more
residences. What previously had been a rural, nicely wooded, somewhat secluded area, mostly only driveways visible
from the road, will now start taking the character of suburban sprawl as trees are cleared for new housing.
Or, perhaps even more disturbing is the likely change in character of the beautiful, rolling pasturelands. Probably more
than 90% of Agricultural zoned land is pasture land. With this Bill's passage someone's 40 acre ranch operation is now
available to, not just one ranch- house, but to four ranch -houses, available to ranch hands, perhaps even part time ranch
hands. It is likely that these will be scattered across the landscape rather than clustered. This could potentially be
transformative of the experience that we all highly value of the scenic vistas present throughout the island as
pasturelands. Again, the simple solution would be to eliminate the Agriculture district from this Bill.
It should be apparent to everyone that building more houses is not the key to solving the housing crisis. The problem
does not lie in the number of houses, clearly. The number of houses being built has gone up and up over the many
years. Yet the housing crisis leading to resident exodus has become worse and worse. This Bill is to be commended in
that it encourages housing in a different direction, to concentrate more housing in the urban centers, of course until it
includes the Agricultural District within its reach.
It seems inappropriate to include the Agriculture district in the areas available to construction of 3 ADUs per property
unless those dwelling units are clustered with the main residence. My impression is that including the Agricultural
district will have undesirable consequences and does not further the intent of the Bill.
What further or alternative steps might be taken to solve the housing problem that is at the heart of this Bill's
intention. I would propose the following for your consideration. Please introduce and pass a Bill which requires that the
Building Department would place Permit Applications Review for housing that meets the qualification for'Affordable
Housing' ahead of review of all other permit applications for housing construction. And then, if necessary to accomplish
the goal of creating a greater proportion of the housing that is being built as affordable, reduce the number of permit
reviewers in the Building Department until the construction of 'affordable housing' dominates the building picture on the
Big Island. I think that would be the most effective solution to the problem.
Tawn Keeney MD