SB2274-Sustainable Living

[kalakoa]

I will grant that the term "Special Use Permit" does not appear (as such) in the bill text.

That said, SB2274 clearly outlines a "sustainable living research permit" process through County Planning, which includes:

- detailed description of the "research", including explanation of all concepts;
- site plan, number of inhabitants
- assessment of all relevant codes, ordinances, rules, permits related to construction
- application fee "if any" (safe to assume that one will be imposed)
- other information "as may be required"
- compliance with "additional rules" adopted by Planning
- copies of all required State permits including approval of wastewater treatment
- affidavit indemnifying the County and State from liability

Additional requirements:

5(4) subject to State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations
6© "nothing ... shall be deemed to exempt permittee from environmental impact assessment"
6(d) employees and agents of State or County may enter the site for compliance inspection
6(e) permittee to submit annual report
6(f) Planning may revoke permit
(7) Planning may include "special rules and conditions"

Opinion 1: County brought this on themselves when they rejected the alternative building code.

Opinion 2: County will impose "additional rules" in order to make the process as complicated as possible and/or will drag their feet to the extent legally allowable. Example: County will likely attach the "public notice" requirements that already exist for SUPs, which includes "notification of any property owner within 300' of any portion of the subject parcel", and they will probably use a larger radius than the 300' required for SUP. Failure to require public notice would create (additional) liability.

Opinion 3: If someone has the time/money/lawyers to shoehorn a geothermal plant into SB2274, they also have sufficient resources to prevail over the objections of their neighbors.

Long story short, permits granted pursuant to SB2274 create narrowly specific exemptions to County codes regarding construction and occupancy. Given how much County hates exemptions (or, for that matter, any kind of "progress" or "development"), I really don't see the threat.

[kalakoa]

Yes, obviously there's a need to end-run County's restrictions on commercial activities; I see this as a problem created by the "development" "plans". That said...

8(15)(A) allows "fruit stand" activities which are already a permitted agricultural use

8(15)(B) seeks to allow "retail activities in an enclosed structure";
8(15)© seeks to allow a "retail food establishment".

However, both 15(B) and 15© constitute "open to the public", which generally means having a restroom, which must then include a permissible waste disposal, for which permits are issued by the State. Additionally, 15© would require a certified kitchen, again under the purview of the State.

Agricultural tourism activities as would be allowed by 8(11) and 8(12) are only applicable if the County has agricultural tourism ordinances.

Section 8(12) seeks to allow "overnight accomodations", but requires that the County include at least three islands.

As pointless as this entire exercise is, it has taught me a valuable lesson:

I have better things to do with my time.

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

My subdivision, for example, sits in between two potential research sites.

---

If you're really concerned about the possible impact of a Bill that has yet to be enacted, I suggest embarking upon one of these two courses of action:

1. Move. HPP is nice, and the lots are small enough that neither SB2274 nor SB2646 apply.

2. Put together a legal team and start filing injunctions. Going against the County will be difficult, but 501©3 nonprofits usually don't have the resources for a prolonged legal battle; they might be happy to enter a consent decree which precludes certain activities otherwise allowed by SB2274.

Never forget that all these subdivisions are on the side of an active volcano, and we're all "allowed" to live here at the whim of Pele. Everything else is just petty bickering.

[Guest]

Unless you can bring life back to the dead I predict that SB2274 is not getting up this time. It will not make it to the floor in this session. May it rest in peace where it's sister HB111 lies. Lets write an honest bill about suitability this time like HB269 the New Mexico bill. Good day everybody I too have better things to do then argue with these gentlemen about BS2274 I mean SB2274!

[Guest]

kalakoa quote "1. Move. HPP is nice..."

This is another example of intolerance that has been created by SB2274. Instead of working together to satisfy the objections of those who will be most affected, Kalakoa say's why don't you move out of your neighborhood that you have been living in for the past 20 years to satisfy a bunch of clowns.

[Rob Tucker]

Yes well, everyone is free to make suggestions, isn't that true?

[kalakoa]

Yes, I am intolerant. I find it difficult to abide by NIMBYs who seek to keep all development at bay lest some of it happen nearby. People keep moving here, they bring money and new ideas, things change. Sometimes this is called "gentrification"; it's more-or-less inevitable. (Except, perhaps, in Hawaiian Acres and Kopua Farm Lots.)

The root cause of all these problems was created and endorsed by County: first they allowed subdivisions to be created in the middle of nowhere without infrastructure nor plans for any services, then they turned a blind eye while these "agricultural" subdivisions became de-facto "residential".

People seem to keep forgetting that "agricultural use" does not necessarily require nor enforce "residential" norms, especially when there is also no CC&R.

If the residents of (insert your subdivision here) really really want to prevent any of the "permitted agricultural uses" from happening, the solution is very simple: convince County to rezone the entire subdivision to residential.

Such a rezoning would cause the "X feet from zone change boundary" clause to become enforceable anywhere it appears in the Code.

As an example: if Seaview lots were all RS-7.5, the residents of Belly Acres would be precluded from many otherwise permissible agricultural activities because there is nowhere in Belly Acres that is more than 1000 feet from the RS zoning.

There would be side effects; property values would go up, and the House of Cards might suddenly be too tall, but the residents would also be paying enough in property taxes to demand that County step in and enforce the height restriction.

I actually hope that SB2274 passes, and that someone tries to use it to sink a "sustainable" geothermal well. Sometimes the only way to fix something is by breaking it more.

[kjlpahoa]

Is it not interesting that SB2274, Sec 5(3) states that this Bill only applies to Counties "with a population of at least one hundred thousand and less than five hundred thousand". What this means is that it will apply only to the Big Island and Maui. I must assume that to allow this Bill to be a State wide issue, more than one County needs to be involved.

What is interesting is Russell Ruderman really does not know if Maui really wants it. I am sure that there was method in their madness for the Hawaii Sustainable Living Alliance (HSLA) to include this condition in the Bill.

I am sure that the reason for HSLA to include this condition was to guarantee its passage. It is common knowledge that Bills not effecting certain legislators are not reviewed or studied by those legislators due to no interest and lack of time. They will vote yes just to get it through the system since it does not impact their constituents. They just assume the author knows what he is doing. Of course this is not the case with SB2274.

With this in mind, the strategy being used is that Maui and the Big Island make up only 26% of the State population. This means that 74% of the State legislators are not concerned or interested in this Bill and will let it run its course to appease its author(Sen. Ruderman).

This approach and theory has worked until now in that the Bill has made it to the House with little or no objections from all the other legislators.

The attempt to keep this Bill quiet worked during the Senate hearings. But, now that it has made it to the House and the public becoming more familiar with it, it has become very controversial and objections are being heard. Hopefully this will open the eyes of the House Representatives and they will start seeing the flaws, and special interests that the bill addresses.

Hopefully this strategy will become understood by the House and it will be held in abeyance and not heard in the respective Committees that it is scheduled for hearings.

[kjlpahoa]

Hello Kalakoa, I really enjoy your comments on SB2274. It has become very obvious that you must be a very active participant of HSLA headed by Graham Ellis. As you should be aware, Graham has alternative motives for passing his bill. He could not get his desired Special Use Permit through the County, so he went to the State via his good friend Russell Ruderman in order to side step the County. This bill is meant to legalize Graham's operations and his building intrusions on to State lands. All the other sustainable Living groups such as Kalani Resort are just tagging along knowing that this bill could ultimately allow them to expand in ways the County may object to and to keep their unpermitted construction as Graham is attempting to do.

[Rob Tucker]

As I recall Graham got a permit for the SPACE facility and part of that permit process required that the pre-existing structures at Belly Acres be brought up to code and permitted too. I don't know if other things have been built since then. I do know that Graham Ellis has made some major contributions to the area's children and lifestyle throughout a period where the county of Hawaii did nothing and still does little or nothing.

Almost all these stresses and problems trace back to a county government that is inconsistent and capricious in the enforcement of codes.