|
EADIE:No, not at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and
<br />for the Staff report, Mr. Hayashi. If it's appropriate now, I'd like to make a few remarks
<br />about the process. Excuse me, just a minute.
<br />This project -, history on the property, as you know, has been long and controversial. When
<br />we got involved in the property last year with our partners Kennedy Wilson, the name of the -,
<br />how the game is played has changed, I suppose, as far as communication. I'm not sure about
<br />all of the aspects of how Nansay processed their applications. I know it was a much more
<br />intense development. However, from the beginning, Mayor Kim had felt very strongly that we
<br />pursue an avenue of conciliation, collaboration, if you will, and I think the very nature of our
<br />proposed project being certainly not nominal, but compared to the zoning that's allowed, much
<br />less intense to the property. We embarked upon a program of trying to seek out answers
<br />before we got too far into conceptual design of the project, and I'd like to just briefly expand
<br />on the process that took place.
<br />In November, Mayor Kim organized a meeting at the high school just west of here, just north
<br />of here, excuse me. At that meeting, there was I'd say maybe 150 people. It was a very
<br />interesting meeting insofar as having the opportunity to meet people as well as list on various
<br />charts and subgroups what the concerns were about this property. And it was very informative
<br />to us to get a full understanding of what the hot buttons were, if you will, what the
<br />environmental concerns were. And that was very well attended by a very big cross-section of
<br />your community, activists, various advocacy groups, individuals who have followed this
<br />particular very important property for a long time.
<br />And as a result of that meeting that we had, what came out of it was an agreement to have a
<br />smaller group to focus on the design of the property, particularly in light of our inclination
<br />from the beginning to treat the shoreline as a potential public park in some fashion. At that
<br />point, it wasn't fully defined, but the purpose of the committee was largely to focus on the
<br />shoreline acreage and then to, also, of course, consider the merits of the plan and what could
<br />be done to possibly improve it.
<br />Those committee meetings started in earnest and organized in December of last year. There
<br />were six meetings. And in addition to those six meetings, there were one or two other
<br />meetings that were subcommittees of this committee to address specifically cultural issues,
<br />archaeological issues, if you will, respecting the property and how we intended to address
<br />those issues.
<br />As we went through these meetings, the plan evolved, particularly along the coastline, to
<br />address all of the concerns that were made known. At times, there was very lively and spirited
<br />discussions regarding how many hard improvements such as roads should be placed in this area
<br />that is, of course, right now just vacant land, unimproved land, if you will. And as we went
<br />through this process, and the iterations of the plan led to what everybody believed was a sound
<br />plan that could be embraced and would address the aspects of cultural artifacts, anchialine
<br />ponds, the park issue as to how the design of the park might function in collaboration with a
<br />6
<br />
<br />
|