Although the Sierra Club usually supports the development of business like renewable energy or affordable housing, we've steadfastly opposed automatic approvals.  I thought it would beneficial to put out testimony we're submitting on SB 2110 to explain why.  While we generally support the concept of affordable housing, we think it would hurt everyone to rubberstamp a project simply because a city or state official takes a vacation and fails to review a project in time. 

Without further ado, here is our testimony:

Aloha Chair Sakamoto, Chair English, and Members of the Committees:

The Hawai`i Chapter of the Sierra Club is in opposition to SB 2110, which automatically approves ministerial permits for affordable housing after 45 days.  We strongly support the intent of encouraging affordable housing, but are concerned that the incentives in the measure may undermine the desired goals of the policy and run counter to the concept of a democratically administered society. Our comments and concerns with the current draft, are as follows:

First, the simplest way to increase affordable housing in Hawai`i is to follow the lead of the County of Maui, which recently required fifty percent of all proposed housing projects to meet affordability requirements.  See, e.g., SB 758.  This solution, assuming it was enforced, would directly solve the needs of Hawai`i’s homelessness without engaging in poor community planning.

Second, the “automatic approval” of any permit is simply poor policy.  Permits should be granted on their merits, not by mistake or governmental inefficiency.  No community should suffer because government failed to perform.  Consider:

• What happens when a building is automatically approved that doesn’t meet health and safety standards?  Is the State liable for any resulting injuries?
• What happens when additional information is required by the department or agency and the deadline passes?
• What happen when a county, rightly or wrongly, construes complex issues like subdivision approval -- that directly impact traffic, public access, and smart growth -- as a ministerial action?
• What happens when there are complex environmental assessments and the like that need to be completed pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 343 and the deadline passes?
• What happens when a contested case hearing is requested pursuant to chapter 91, HRS, and for any other period for administrative appeals and review and the deadline passes?
• Is it ever appropriate to automatically approve a permit that will irreparably damage the environment or native Hawaiian rights?  Doesn't that violate protections provided by the State Constitution?

Again, we understand and appreciate the intent of SB 2110.  If the legislature prefers not to require the environmental features in the measure be mandatory for all developments, perhaps other incentives besides “automatic approval” could be incorporated to make such developments more attractive to builders.  For example, perhaps an ombudsman program could be developed to shepherd projects of this nature through the review process.  Or an “expedited fee” could be charged to pay for additional review staff and resources that would automatically be refunded if the project is not approved within a set period of time?

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony.