|
YOSHIOKA: Mr. Chairman, I’m scheduled to speak and if you would allow, I would like to
<br />relinquish my time to Mr. Fuke.
<br />AU: Okay, granted. What is your name?
<br />YOSHIOKA: Terence Yoshioka.
<br />AU: Okay, go ahead.
<br />YOSHIOKA: He spoke only - .
<br />AU: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Fuke.
<br />FUKE: Okay. In terms of the unusual conditions, trends, as I mentioned earlier, you know,
<br />we’re saying, the community is saying the boundary amendment process is more appropriate, not
<br />this. And the other thing is that, like the insufficient examination of potential Private Lands or
<br />underutilized Government facilities. And, moving on.
<br />So in terms of the Insufficient Examination of Potential Public Land Alternatives (page 16 of the
<br />
<br />environmental assessment)(Considering the student population base – 50% coming in from Puna
<br />District), there’s like State Land fronting the Puainako Extension, the State Land off of
<br />Kawailani Street, so, you know, like those you can barely see, like where the Puainako Extension
<br />is. But I’ve kind of highlighted, you know, those are the States Lands. And the next sheet, that’s
<br />like properties that directly abut the, would be at the end of Puainako Street on one side and the
<br />other end would be Kawailani Street. So, you know, these are really intended to illustrate that
<br />there are options available. And this is not like an, the site that they’re looking at right now is
<br />not like an imminent domain situation where, you know, if you can’t do it then, you know,
<br />there’s no place else that we can. And I think that we’re suggesting that there are alternatives,
<br />and these alternatives were not seriously investigated by the applicant.
<br />We talked about land not being suited within the agricultural district, well, and we covered about
<br />that.
<br />The change in the character, we’re saying that there’s no question, once you have a use over
<br />there, the character of the land will change, the character of the environment will change. And it
<br />will not be contrary to General Plan or other pertinent documents, well, you know, I took only
<br />selected portions. And so this is clearly, you know, the underscored one, in keeping with the
<br />environmental and aesthetic concerns of the community, who is the community?
<br />And the next element is like there we go again, encourage development in keeping with the
<br />community. So the community in this situation here has clearly, at least 75 percent within 500
<br />feet or 80 percent who use Edita Street, they’re saying that it’s not, it’s not appropriate, it’s not
<br />
<br />appropriate. It’s going to have an impact on us.So, therefore, in conclusion, what were just
<br />saying is that, No. 1, it does not meet the test for a Special Permit. No. 2 is that between 75 to 80
<br />percent, which is the vast majority of the surrounding residential property owners, they’re saying
<br />that the project will have an adverse impact, no matter what everybody else says.
<br /> 18 ATTACHMENT C
<br />
<br />
<br />
|