2007-05-04 THICDC ORI - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

INOUYE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to address myself to a couple of points that were brought up to make sure the record is correct. One of the gentlemen mentioned that, he suggested that we offer Parcel A-3 to HICDC but that we didnt do that because it was more expensive. Well, the truth of the matter is that was the first parcel that we offered to HICDC. But in that most of the property is within the 1000-foot radius it would have imposed a very significant additional cost to the affordable homes, making them unaffordable. And so basically we turned the parcel, the entire 20-acre parcel, over to HICDC and said where could you develop your affordable homes? And, of course, the proposal you see before is what they proposed, which we agreed to and agreed to provide as a contribution to the project. The issue of affordable meant that the cost of developing that parcel closest to the stream and the sewer system would have driven up the infrastructure cost significantly and would not have been affordable to the clients of HICDC. I, again, readdress myself to the question that Mr. Domingo had given to Mr. Meek and, again, at thistimeheaddressedhimselftothatsamequestionbutdeclinedtoanswer.Soitsclearin terms of where the positions are and, again, any further discussion that we could -. And, again, hes a friend of mine, I coached his son, I love Lucille and Steve, Ive known them for years. You know, we differ on this issue. I dont think that any further discussion, as much as we might try to mitigate the circumstances, will change their positions on this matter. And so, again, my response to Mr. Iwashita is that I certainly am a diplomat, I would seek to forge consensus. Weve attempted to do this by discussions weve had with the community association. We respect the association. We have worked with the association in dealing with a number of issues where it impacts a community and hopefully have been good neighbors to the PCA, and will continue to do that in the future and will continue to seek dialogue with them. But I dont think on this matter that we can reach a consensus, but we will continue to work in that direction. On Mr. Chens comment about the locks, I think as you drove down Sugar Mill Road and turned to your right, I think you may have seen some of the vandalism that occurred to some of the land where people came in and did wheelies and things along that line. And it was right after that, which was coincidental to the time after our last meeting, but we put locks on the gate to prevent access like that. As soon as we found out that the farmer needed access, of course, we were able to get him to use the right access that accesses Lot B; and thats off the Sugar Mill Road. And we met him and had him put his lock on the chain of the gate there. So he has free access to the property. It was never our intention to prohibit the farmer access to the property. And the comment about since the development that there has been less farm usage of our properties, I beg to differ. Of the original seven parcels that we sold, I believe there is one parcel that is not actively farmed at the present time; and thats the second one next to Mr. Johnsons farm. Mr. Johnson has the tropical fruit farm there. Below that is used for grazing. Theres a tropical fruit nursery in the back. Below that theres grazing. Across the street theres a sweet potato farmer. And I think below that Mr. Wohlschlagelis in cattle right now. Below that theres sweet potato being farmed. Lot X which is in escrow is being planned for, again, more sweet potato farming, thats why the grass has been poisoned there. But, you know, weve done the best we could to groom the land, put it back into good agricultural use. And were actually very proud of the utilization and what we have done with the land and putting it into good agricultural use. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Inouye. Mr. Nishimura? 24EXHIBIT A