HCDA seeks community input on MacKay area; workshop set for March 7

The Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority heard an informational presentation Feb. 4 from staff and consultant SSFM International on a MacKay area plan and rules update that will guide future land‑use and regulatory recommendations for the MacKay area of the Kakaako Community Development District.

April Supranath, the SSFM project manager for planning, described the project as an effort “to take into consideration all of the history behind this area, but to take a fresh look, to engage community in a new way,” and said the team will address open space, cultural assets, infrastructure and recreational needs as part of a comprehensive review.

Why it matters: HCDA staff and consultants said the process is designed to gather a broad range of public input and produce an aspirational vision statement and three alternative land‑use scenarios. Those scenarios will inform a draft plan and recommended amendments to HCDA rules for the MacKay area, potentially affecting future development, open space and cultural uses in Kakaako.

What was presented: Supranath outlined outreach already completed—agency interviews, focus groups, one‑on‑one stakeholder interviews and small‑group discussions—and said the project team will use the input to develop three land‑use scenarios and three‑dimensional visual models. She said the scenarios will be developed through the summer, with a draft plan expected in late fall.

“Part of our scope is to identify three different land use scenarios,” Supranath said. “We’ll be outlining some different scenarios, and we’ll be coming back to you and the community with those scenarios.”

The team encouraged public signups on the project website, noted a fact sheet and Q&A form are available online, and described a vetting process that will include a design review group (referred to in the presentation as a community design center). Supranath said the team will produce memos and 3D models and return to the community for additional workshops and surveys before drafting rule changes.

Board questions and answers: Members pressed on timing and cost analysis. Member Evans asked whether the three scenarios would include infrastructure cost estimates; Supranath replied the three scenario exercises will not include formal cost estimates, although the team can provide a rough sense. A formal infrastructure cost estimate, she said, would accompany the final scenario or a combined preferred plan that moves forward.

Member Anderson asked whether a scenario that maximizes public space with no new development was possible. Supranath said that outcome is not precluded: “It’s possible that no development could be a potential scenario, but we’re not predicting that yet because we’re waiting to hear more from stakeholders,” she said.

Public participation: The presentation announced a community visioning workshop scheduled for March 7 at the barn at Salt, planned to run about 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The event will feature a short presentation, Q&A stations staffed by subject‑matter experts, hands‑on activities (sticky‑dot exercises) and a 3D model to help attendees visualize scenarios.

Next steps: Staff and SSFM will synthesize workshop feedback, develop and model the three scenarios this summer, return to the public for additional review and aim to present a draft plan in late fall. After further vetting, the authority will consider recommended rule amendments and move those changes through additional review and public outreach.

The presentation was informational; the board did not take formal action on the plan at the Feb. 4 meeting.