2006-12-01 tnakamura - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

you’re only going to have this one lot there. And if you do have demand, then it’s still within the General Plan and also adjoins the State’s Land Use. So I don’t really see a real issue with this. I mean it’s not as though this thing is going to sprawl all the way to Kau. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Any other comments before we move forward? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just speaking in favor of the motion, I think we need to think or look at this area as being both useful from an agricultural standpoint and also from a residential standpoint. Its location near Hilo and the center of commerce in the eastern side makes it very valuable for residents. If the land is used for multiple residences this will make it easier for people to, this will help with our housing shortage and make the commuting for people less difficult. If we continue to hold these lands near the center of economic activity where the jobs are, we encourage urban sprawl; and that sprawl is Hawaiian Paradise Park where you have a lot people living on large acreage but only one or two houses. And it doesn’t make sense when we have this land that is near Hilo but it’s not, in terms of soil quality, not the most productive. You know, you can go either way. Either way it should be okay. And we’re not talking about moving this land use into Commercial-Industrial. It’s for Residential use, which I see is just as valuable as using it for Agricultural purposes. And I think that’s my position and reason for moving for a favorable recommendation. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate and share Commissioner Salavea’s concern for our housing shortage, although my view is that this application really doesn’t address the real housing shortage, which is affordable housing. My impression is that if this subdivision goes through and we have these three, essentially, one-acre lots, that’s not going to impact at all on the affordable housing market. I mean, the lots alone probably would be close to, well, between $50,000 and $100,000, if not more, and you’re not going to deal with the impact of the affordable housing market with this kind of a development. I guess one of the suggestions has been that, you know, we’re really not going to set any kind of real precedent in this area, that we can only speculate about whether that’s going to happen; and that if you look historically, you know, nothing has really happened, even within the Urban area as far as subdivisions of these properties. To me that’s besides, it doesn’t really address the point. Because to me this process that we’re involved in and what’s important is that we analyze really what is the need; and as I stated earlier I don’t really see a need for this kind of subdivision right now in our community anywhere, really. And because, you know, if there really was a need for this and if you’re a market kind of person, the owners within the Urban area who can do this without coming before this body would have been doing the subdivisions, well, they would have to come before this body but they wouldn’t have to have a State Land Use change application. And, you know, that really to me is a key point in my process concern, is that if we look at the big picture, the General Plan, the State Land Use designations and all of that, what we’re being asked to do is change these, you know, a bigger picture to include this parcel of land, when essentially what we already have zoned and designated under the State Land Use designation and the General Plan is more than adequate really to address the community needs in EXHIBIT A 8