HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0953.016 2004-2006
RE: Bill 305, Rezoning Request (RS10 to RM 2.5 r
By /van Mochida TMK: 2-2-36:102,103
Victoria Saito Abe
I am testifying against Bill 305, Mr. Mochida's rezoning jp]pftabn QaR§510 to
RM-2.5.
CO IN
I am one of the property owners at both 747 and 757 Laukapu ceet. Both
properties are located directly across the proposed development.
I want to reiterate the following: The General Plan states that it is "geared
toward achievement of a higher quality of life for residents."
Let us not overlook this. What does this mean to the neighborhood that will be
negatively impacted by this rezoning?
It means, to me, that while the landowner like Mr. Mochida has the opportunity to
request a zone change, priority above all must be given to maintaining the "quality
of life" for the people in the area: Like the elderly resident who still takes care of
her half acre property and takes daily morning walks. When I spoke with her a
week ago, she stated "I feel like you folks. I want to keep the neighborhood safe
and quiet and live out my life in a quiet neighborhood." The General Plan has
provided for people like her.
For example, General Plan ordinance Part 14.5.4(a) regarding multiple residential
developments states: "Areas shall be located in such a manner that traffic
generated by high density development will not be required to travel through
areas of lesser density enroute to principal community facilities."
Comment: The proposed rezoning to multi-family use does not comply with this
part of the ordinance and does not meet this criterion since it is in the middle of the
neighborhood of single family dwellings. The one road is extremely narrow and
the development will present a safety hazard for pedestrians and cars.
Comm. No 9 S 3.1
Ref. To: re Voed
Ref. Date KLL 2m
RE: Bill 305, Rezoning Request (RS10 to RM 2.5
By Ivan Mochida TMK: 2-2-36:102,103
The developer's offer to install sidewalks on one side of the 700 block of Laukapu
Street is a red herring to obscure the density problem. Sidewalks on one side will
not lessen the density, nor will it lessen the traffic. It will direct the overflow of
cars from the development to park on the grassy area on our side of the street and
the surrounding blocks which lack sidewalks.
On a more personal level, we've documented through photographs the flooding
that occurs after heavy rainfall that jeopardizes our basement living quarters. We
are fearful that the development will put us at greater risk. We are even more
fearful that putting sidewalks and gutters on one side of the block only will further
direct surface water runoff towards our property.
The General Plan reflects what you, the County Council believed promotes the best
interests of the community as a whole, all communities, including ours on Laukapu
Street. Yes, it has general designations of land use, but the Plan has not forgotten
the people and has clearly provided and ensured that their "quality of life" is
achieved and not taken away.
We ask for your support in denying this application for multiple residential uses.
We feel that any approval at this time would be premature because it would
adversely affect the quality of life of our neighborhood.
October 31, 2006