Kawit project under further scrutiny
AMONG the developments to be introduced at the Kawit property by the Universal Hotels and Resorts Inc. (UHRI) are the construction of three hotels, a 20-storey viewing tower and multi-level parking.
This was revealed by UHRI official Maybelle Gobio during the hearing of the ad hoc committee of the Cebu City council looking into the proposed project, amounting to P18 billion.
Gobio said each hotel will have a bed capacity of 400 to 500, and they are aiming to have them classified as four or five star hotels.
However, concerns were raised by some members of the ad hoc committee, particularly on fire safety, traffic, and environmental compliance.
Cebu City Councilor Raymond Alvin Garcia asked UHRI if the design also had its corresponding measures to protect the environment.
Gobio assured the councilor that they would put up safety measures to protect and preserve the environment.
“We had major learnings in developing properties in the past. We would be very careful in designing and creating this project.”
She also said that they will come up with a comprehensive study on traffic management.
She also assured that they would put in advanced fire-prevention measures, particularly in high-rise buildings.
“We can assure you that we’re here not only to comply safety measures but also to make sure they work,” Gobio stated.
Councilor Jose Daluz III on the other hand asked whether the proposal to develop Kawit island needed the approval of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
But Joel Yu, the economic and business development consultant of Mayor Tomas Osmeña, was quick to respond, saying the Neda guidelines do not cover transactions by the Local Governments.
”It does not need the approval of NEDA. But it (the proposal) has to follow their guidelines, and we did.”
Subscribe to our regional newsletter
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.