2007-05-04 THICDC ORI - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SIRACUSA:I can do it if it will make you feel more comfortable. I was planning on stating my reasons anyway. ALAMEDA:All right. Either way. TORIGOE:Thats fine. GRAHAM:As you wish. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:For me the bottom line is that this is prime Ag land. When we were out there today I picked up some soil and felt it -- I have gardened and farmed since I was five years old when I grew my first plot of radishes -- and I saw healthy soil, I saw a field with really healthy sweet potatoes growing. Mike over there was telling me about how deep the soil is. And itseemstomethatifwerelookingatawholelotofpopulationgrowthwithalltheneeds, infrastructure and everything else that goes with that, including affordable housing by the way, and were looking to make our island self-sustainable, and there is a 2050 Sustainability Plan thats in progress right now, then among other things were going to need prime Ag land no matter how much there is now. With the population growing, were going to need prime Ag land for food for these increased populations. Were going to need productive Ag land. And I feel that if these two things were separated out I might be talking differently, you know. And I do support affordable housing, especially self-help housing. I dont think thats the right place for it. And since were stuck with looking at both of them together I dont feel that its the proper thing for us to do to take prime Ag land out of potential production. We have seen so many issues come before us in the past where there was Ag land but it wasnt prime. It was, you know, silty rocky loam or something else, you know, shallow soil, what not. This is deep rich soil; and I dont think we should cover it over. I think they should find another location for their affordable housing. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Yeah. I have several concerns with this project. One is I think it has been unfortunately fairly poorly thought out. You know, we went out there today and we were told there were going to be 30 lots, and now were told there are 19. The flood management question was never really well addressed and I think thats why a good number of the lots are where it is. The 1,000-foot radius from the waterwell was not really well thought out. That lost a few more lots. So were down to 19. If in fact they have to be 10,000-foot lots, were going to be down to about 15 or 16. But the real problem I have with it, and a number of the people who have testified brought this up, is the concern about groundwater and waterwell contamination. You know, the Department of Health has a reason for a 10,000-foot lot size; and that is to reduce groundwater contamination. And, in fact, we have a letter from Mr. Pavao. He says In order for us to be good stewards of our precious drinking water sources, we typically comment that there is a potential for adverse impacts when asked to comment on individual wastewater systems that are uphill of our sources. There is no way to absolutely eliminate the potential for contamination.Sothereisapotential,andthatisaconcern.Also,obviously,whenwegot the original documentation it said well this is in FEMA zone X, which either means its not in 29EXHIBIT A