HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-22 Sierra Club Hawai'i Island Group Testimony
--
From: on behalf of Moku Loa Hawaii Island Sierra Club
To: Planning LPC Testimony
Cc: Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Onishi, Dennis; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Galimba,
Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Inaba, Holeka; Hustace, James
Subject: Testimony-Agenda Item #3, Bill 170
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 4:38:55 AM
Attachments: LPC testimony 9-24-26 re Bill 170 data centers (2).docx
Aloha,
Please see attached testimony. Mahalo
Moku Loa (Hawaii Island) Group, Sierra Club
We work hard to advance Sierra Club’s mission to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the
earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and
restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful
means to carry out these objectives.
September 21, 2026
Leeward Planning Commission c/o County of Hawai’i 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo HI 96720
RE: Proposed amendments to Bill 170, Draft 1 Aloha Chair Daniele and Commission Members,
The Sierra Club of Hawai’i, Hawai’i Island Group (HIG) would like to propose amendments to Bill 170 to further define and clarify the intended purpose of Bill 170 as described in Section 1. Section 1 reflects the legislative intent and strong public opposition to data centers expressed during the General Plan Comprehensive Review process and testimony on Bill 170 to date.
The legislative intent of Bill 170 is to effectively discourage the development and approval of large-scale data centers by defining “data center” as separate and distinct from “data processing facilities”.
As a result of public testimony and discussions during the Windward Planning Commission
meeting on September 3rd, HIG would like to propose the following amendments to further the legislative intent of Bill 170: SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 1, section 25-1-5, of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) is amended by amending the definition of "data processing facility"
in subsection(b) to read as follows: “Data processing facility" means an establishment primarily involved in the compiling, processing, storage, transmission, dissemination and/or maintenance of documents, records, and
other types of
information in digital form utilizing a mainframe computer, servers, and networking equipment, including telecommunications facilities, communication network infrastructure, central offices, switching facilities, internet exchange facilities, public safety communications facilities, or facilities where data processing equipment is incidental to the property's primary use . This term does not include data centers,
general business offices, computer-related sales establishments, and business or personal services."
SECTION 3. Chapter 25, article 1, section 25-1-5, of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) is amended by adding a definition in subsection (b) to be
appropriately inserted and to read as follows: "Data center" means a physical asset [facility] used for the [industrial]large-scale operation of computer systems and associated equipment [for the processing, computing,
transmission, or dissemination of digital data] and which utilizes graphic processing units [and]
requir[es]ing supporting infrastructure beyond that typically accessory or incidental to office, commercial, or public and private institutional uses. This term includes a single facility and any campus of multiple facilities on contiguous or adjacent parcels under common ownership or control whose combined electrical demand meets or exceeds 5 megawatts. This term does not include data processing facilities as defined in Section 25-1-5, hospital or government data
systems, and university computing educational and/or research facilities, and those utilitizing artificial intelligence as a support to information systems and business offices in which servers are incidental to the primary use.”
In addition, HIG asks the Leeward Planning Commission members to reject the amendments
proposed in the Planning Director’s Recommendation Report because: 1) there has not been sufficient time to properly vet the proposed regulatory amendment, and 2) the Planning Department is currently working with a consultant to draft a comprehensive revision to both county code Chapter 25, Zoning, and Chapter 23, Subdivisions.
Therefore, it is extremely premature to propose the Planning Director’s recommended amendments.
Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.