|
tracking so many of these and what I'm hearing now is there's certain parcels that the
<br /> Department and the State is willing to move forward on and do the RFIs, but that seems to be
<br /> very incremental. And so it actually would be a little bit more helpful, you know, if we proposed
<br /> or got a little bit more guidance that whatever legislative packages we were submitting for our
<br /> revitalization of that area had bigger buy-in and wasn't subject to just a parcel and then two
<br /> blank parcels we'll address that later. I think that becomes the challenge for us at the County
<br /> level because it goes back to the infrastructure. We start planning for, you know, one parcel, we
<br /> don't know the carrying capacity of that parcel so we can't plan for the water, the sewer, or
<br /> whatever goes with that, so it gets little challenging and then the cost of that keeps going up, and
<br /> up, and up. So, I guess I just wanted to hear from the Department is how do we propose a
<br /> legislative package that is all-encompassing where we still can get the incremental development
<br /> but know that, you know, as other parcels get ready it fits into, you know, some legislative
<br /> wiggle. How do we do that?
<br /> CASE: I guess, I guess it depends on what kind of legislative package you want to put together.
<br /> I mean, I think we were; I think we were generally okay with—there were a variety of
<br /> alternatives. I mean, our fundamental obligation is to take the revenue generating parcels and
<br /> support the work of our department. And that's our statutory charge. And so, those ones that we
<br /> already have in that, in that, we've already gone through those processes and they're in good
<br /> shape on Banyan Drive, I would take those out of the equation. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but from our
<br /> standpoint that's, that's what we need to do and then look at, look at the whole rest of the
<br /> peninsula, which is one parcel that's ready for redevelopment, another one that could be, could
<br /> be right now, also. And a golf course that needs cooperation of the lessee to do it. So whatever
<br /> the, whatever the master plan is,just needs to take into account the status of all the pieces.
<br /> There's not, there's not that many pieces; there's you know, half a dozen pieces that make up
<br /> whatever the master plan is and so we're, we're entirely open to, open to the, you know, the
<br /> vision that you guys have.
<br /> ONISHL I just wanted a couple of points of clarification. So in the past, my discussion with the
<br /> Department was that this master plan developed by the County's agency would still require
<br /> Board approval. Is that still the case? Or is that your position?
<br /> CASE: Yeah, I think that for land dispositions that's correct. Yeah. And so what we're saying
<br /> is we're working closely with you, we would support that to the Land Board. It's a land
<br /> disposition, but yeah.
<br /> ONISHL As long as you agree with the plan?
<br /> CASE: Yeah, but we're very, very broad, open-minded about the plan.
<br /> ONISHL Okay. I just wanted to clarify that because I've heard other people say, no, this
<br /> process does not require the Land Board's approval, so. The second thing I wanted clarification
<br /> is in the RFI, you are requesting for the demolition and development. Now, my concern is that
<br /> who's going to outline all of the conditions for development that are required? For example, I
<br /> believe Hawaii County has a height limit on development property. Am I correct? And does
<br /> Banyan Drive have a different height limit than the rest of the Hilo or the island?
<br /> Page 15 of 21
<br /> Banyan Drive Hawaii Redevelopment Agency
<br /> October 25,2017 Minutes
<br />
|