|
RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Please go ahead.
<br />NISHIDA: My name is Charlene Nishida, and we own a home at 16 Hale Nani Place which is
<br />adjacent to Mr. Tai, and our property back in 2011 was one of the ones that had one of Mr. Tai's
<br />trees actually hit our property and cause property damage of which State Farm actually paid the
<br />claim, and I find it ironic that Mr. Tai referred to that property damage as being caused to a
<br />"shed" because it was actually my home. It fell on our porch and adjacent to the main bedroom,
<br />so I find offense in the fact that he can't even acknowledge the damage that has already been
<br />done. So, since 2011, we have, my husband and I have put in multiple requests to him in email,
<br />and are documented, requesting that his trees are a hazard and to have them maintained and
<br />removed. This [Ms. Nishida had a wood stump and two branches on the table] was cut, two of
<br />his trees which are monkeypod trees, are overhanging our home, actually over our home, and this
<br />was one of the branches that was removed on Monday. That was over our home. So, these are
<br />not trees that are on his property solely. They are overhanging into the neighboring properties.
<br />This right here weighs about 25 pounds, and this is only one small sliver of a branch that was
<br />hanging over at my home, not my shed. These branches, they show decay. There is worm rot in
<br />them. These are branches that came from the pruning that was done that landed in our yard.
<br />In 2014, we, many of us neighbors, we attended the Planning Commission's recommended
<br />community meeting, and at that time, this is on February 41h, 2014, Mr. Tai states that he will
<br />preserve the already extensive growth of vegetation and trees along the property lines, but this
<br />growth is overgrown weeds and not a planned landscaped design. In fact, that the trees he is
<br />referring have caused previous property damage to our home when one fell on our roof above the
<br />porch and main bedroom. These trees are non-native, they are invasive, rapid growing, which
<br />requires reoccurring trimming, and these concerns are not addressed in Mr. Tai's proposed
<br />development, and if you look on his proposed development, there aren't any trees even on there.
<br />So, these problems have been in existence going back to 2011. We have multiple documentation
<br />that where he had that has been previously presented to the Planning Commission on
<br />November 20'', 2013, in an 8 -page letter to property owners within 300 feet of his. He states,
<br />"As you know, there are existing heavy growth of vegetation and mature trees next to the
<br />existing stone walls at the property lines... Some of these [those] trees and vegetation will be
<br />removed and some will stay .... A landscape plan will be submitted for plan approval in due
<br />course."
<br />I have three pages of testimony that is in writing that he has stated over and over again, another
<br />incident on May 15, 2017, in an email. Mr. Tai states he is not responsible for maintaining his
<br />trees and for us to consult an attorney to address the problem. He goes on to say that we do not
<br />have permission to enter his property. Again, on March 15, 2017, on April 16, 2019, again he
<br />said there was no provision regarding property maintenance particularly tree branches extending
<br />over the fence and into neighboring properties. That is a neighbor's responsibility to remove as
<br />they wish. The Toma's are in their eighties, and they're having to climb up ladders. I don't
<br />understand the insanity of it, but what I do know is that this has been a consistent behavior that
<br />has been going on back to 2011. Thank you.
<br />RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Ms. Nishida. Mr. Toma?
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />22
<br />
|