2014-02-06HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-VINCENTTAI REZ13-167

Home

housing, and we would require him to do an agreement, um to that level, um to be able go after um some of the financing and things that he’s asked for as well. So we’re anticipating that as well. Um, that’s actually all I have unless you have any questions. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Rudo. RUDO: Sure. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: We can, have any questions Commissioners? For that testifier? Ok, thank you, moving on if we can have Mr. Martins next. MARTINS: I’m David— ISHIBASHI: State your name and address please? Thank you. MARTINS: David Martins. My address is 815 Kūkūau Street. I have a home that I lived in at Hale Nani place since 1974. I stayed there roughly about ten years and I’ve kept the house and used it as a rental and throughout the time, one of the main problems that I saw over there was the problems with water coming in during a heavy rain. There is sufficient drywells in the area, but when we had a heavy rain, the water would be coming out of the drywells. We would have so much rain, it couldn’t handle, and the water coming out of the drywells would flood the street, Hale Nani Street. So now if you’re gonna be taking away more land in the back or building more units, this may still cause more of a problem as far as the flooding in the area. Now, with, I don’t oppose a 2.5. I, I feel that going down to the 1.5 would be even worse for the area. There was another property that was approved to the 1.5, and yet, nothing has been done on that property. It’s still sitting there. So, if this is approved down to 1.5, when will the development begin? Will it just stay at 1.5 and maybe wait several more years before anything is done or maybe it be sold? One of my things is if this is approved to 1.5, there should be something stated that they should start building within a certain time zone, not keep it for the future and make a profit. Traffic in the area will increase dramatically. People coming out from Hale Nani Street will encounter cars coming out from the proposed development. You’re talking 88 units, if it was approved, you’re talking roughly 166 cars or somewhere in that area. And a—that’s not right—putting the people in that subdivision that has been approved down to cramping of the area, and putting more people into the area that was a, was approved in the past. Now, the crime element, what’s going to happen to that with 88 units in the area? Will the police be able to come in, in proper time? Is what kind of people are going to be staying there. We cannot say. But, when you start putting a lot of people in, and you don’t have a control over that, that’s a high possibility that you have the wrong type of element in the area. And basically, that’s my opposition to the 1.5. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you Mr. Martins. Any questions of this testifier? Commissioners? Ok, moving on, Mr. Toma? TOMA (from audience): Before I testify, I’d like to give, sorry I didn’t make the copies, but I’d like to show you what I personally did in my report. (Please see Exhibit 2 attached to this transcript.) 10 EXHIBIT E