2005-01-21 TIMMING - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SIRACUSA:Well, Im not sure if this is the point of which I should say anything. You know, I know that we have a housing shortage here. I also know that we have massive traffic problems. And the more we permit development, the more traffic problems were going to have. But this doesnt look to melike, I mean, what our housing needs are, are low and middle income. And Im looking at the transcript, page 29, where Mr. Imming stated that the, it would be someplace between $30,000- $300,000 and half a million for a unit; and so I dont see that as helping our housing problem, and I do see it as exacerbating our traffic problems. Im wondering if you would like to address that apparent conflict. JUNG:I would-, Madam Chairman? SPRINGER: Mr. Jung. JUNG:MadamCommissioner,Ifullyunderstandwhatyouresaying.Asidefrom being a practicing attorney Im the Big Island Director for the Housing Community Development Corporation of Hawaii. Youve addressed a very, very serious problem that should be addressed. The inventory- present inventory on the Big Island with respect to houses below, 250,000 and below- I believe is now zero. The inventory for housing between 250,000 and 500,000 is less than a hundred. We have a problem in both areas. Anytime you increase the density or the number of residence in a fixed community that will also exacerbate traffic to the extent that you have a- one more car on the road. My understanding is this, though, that pursuant to the Topliss case and the recommendations of the Planning Department, that the traffic for fourteen units will be insignificant with respect to the standards required for approval of the project. If I could say to you that it would not at all increase traffic that would not be true. Taking that into consideration though and the insubstantial insignificant difference for fourteen units and the need also for housing between $250,000 and $500,000 bracket, I would say that this is a project that is necessary and not one under the circumstances in which you can both have reduced traffic and affordable housing, and that is truly regrettable. Your concerns are well taken and thats a straight answer. Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa, have you had the benefit of a discussion on the Topliss decision? SIRACUSA:No, cause I was not at the last Kona meeting. SPRINGER:I didnt think so. Mr. Torigoe, can you just summarize Topliss decision for us. TORIGOE:Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ill try. The Topliss decision basically dealt with an SMA permit application in which the Supreme Court or the Intermediate Court of Appeals stated that for SMA permits an increase in traffic is normally not something that is relevant to the SMA factors. Its only if the traffic increase rises to the level where it affects the environment as defined in the SMA statute. For instance, if it ends up basically preventing access to the ocean environment or some other very weighty impact that would affect the