2010-02-26 TPARKERSCHOOL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HOUSEL: Could you use the microphone, please? MISSIEN: Okay. I just wanted to point out on this map that gray area there thatÓs tucked into this green, kind of U over the playfields, that gray area, all of the gray area along KapiÒolani, this gray area here, that gray area, those are homes. Those are residences and those are homes. And I understand that this is ParkerÓs plan; itÓs a really nice plan. But I think it is important to remember that that gray is not just gray; those are homes, those are families. HOUSEL: Is that your testimony -? MISSIEN: And IÓm one of -. HOUSEL: That was your testimony? MISSIEN: No, but no one had pointed that out, so -. No, I have my testimony. HOUSEL: Okay. Please use the microphone. MISSIEN: I was present five years ago at the first organized met neighborhood residents and Parker School representatives, held akÒula Road resident. The schoolÓs presentation that evening, presided over the Headmaster Carl Sturges, was for a 3-phase project: Phase 1 to include the elementary school, Phase 2 to include a gym, which was presented as a combination student-facility and revenue-producing asset for the school, which revenue would help them complete Phase 2 and begin Phase 3. The immediate and strongly negative response by the 50 or so residents present, to the proposal of a gym being located on KapiÒolani Road, caught Parker School representatives completely unprepared, and they reluctantly agreed that evening to reconsider a gym, in order to move forward with the rest of their presentation. Skip to the present, and Parker SchoolÓs current Use Permit application which includes, among its proposed amendments, a gym. This application underscores for me the schoolÓs evident intention to stay on-track with their original plans, despite neighborhood concerns, which have been consistent on this one point, while amenable to compromise and consideration on many others (e.g. requiring an interior road system, which Parker School did not want to be bound by; and a Ðcontained campusÑ design, which they argued went against their Ðopen-campusÑ history). This has been a difficult process for the owners and residents, as any objection to any part of Parker SchoolÓs proposal has frequently been met with accusations of Ðnot supporting Parker School,Ñ both in small meetings and in public forums. The burden of proving ourselves supportive while presenting another point of view has been an unfair burden, equivalent to obliging Parker School to repeatedly demonstrate that they are not against neighborhood preservation. In spite of this disparity, residents have repeatedly assured Parker School of our support, asking only that we be respected and remembered as pre-existing owners and residents of the area Parker School has proposed moving into. 23 EXHIBIT A