206E-33 Kakaako community development district; development guidance policies. The following shall be the development guidance policies generally governing the authority's action in the Kakaako community development district:

(1) Development shall result in a community which permits an appropriate land mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses. In view of the innovative nature of the mixed use approach, urban design policies should be established to provide guidelines for the public and private sectors in the proper development of this district; while the authority's development responsibilities apply only to the area within the district, the authority may engage in any studies or coordinative activities permitted in this chapter which affect areas lying outside the district, where the authority in its discretion decides that those activities are necessary to implement the intent of this chapter. The studies or coordinative activities shall be limited to facility systems, resident and industrial relocation, and other activities with the counties and appropriate state agencies. The authority may engage in construction activities outside of the district; provided that such construction relates to infrastructure development or residential or business relocation activities; provided further, notwithstanding section 206E-7, that such construction shall comply with the general plan, development plan, ordinances, and rules of the county in which the district is located;

(2) Existing and future industrial uses shall be permitted and encouraged in appropriate locations within the district. No plan or implementation strategy shall prevent continued activity or redevelopment of industrial and commercial uses which meet reasonable performance standards;

(3) Activities shall be located so as to provide primary reliance on public transportation and pedestrian facilities for internal circulation within the district or designated subareas;

(4) Major view planes, view corridors, and other environmental elements such as natural light and prevailing winds, shall be preserved through necessary regulation and design review; provided that no portion of any building or structure in the Kakaako Mauka area shall exceed four hundred eighteen feet in height;

(5) Redevelopment of the district shall be compatible with plans and special districts established for the Hawaii Capital District, and other areas surrounding the Kakaako district;

(6) Historic sites and culturally significant facilities, settings, or locations shall be preserved;

(7) Land use activities within the district, where compatible, shall to the greatest possible extent be mixed horizontally, that is, within blocks or other land areas, and vertically, as integral units of multi-purpose structures;

(8) Residential development may require a mixture of densities, building types, and configurations in accordance with appropriate urban design guidelines; integration both vertically and horizontally of residents of varying incomes, ages, and family groups; and an increased supply of housing for residents of low- or moderate-income may be required as a condition of redevelopment in residential use. Residential development shall provide necessary community facilities, such as open space, parks, community meeting places, child care centers, and other services, within and adjacent to residential development; and

(9) Public facilities within the district shall be planned, located, and developed so as to support the redevelopment policies for the district established by this chapter and plans and rules adopted pursuant to it. [L 1976, c 153, pt of 1; am L 1978, c 119, 1; am L 1982, c 228, 7; am L 1990, c 86, 8; am L 2014, c 61, 10]

 

Case Notes

 

Although chapter 266 did not explicitly confer authority over the Kewalo Basin harbor on the Hawaii community development authority (HCDA), it was undisputed that (1) the legislature conveyed title to the fast and submerged lands within an area that includes the harbor to HCDA; (2) HCDA was given the mandate to redevelop the area that includes the harbor; and (3) HCDA was given broad rulemaking powers over its projects and properties to implement its mandate pursuant to 206E-4(5) and this section; thus, circuit court did not err by failing to find that the department of transportation had exclusive jurisdiction over harbor. 124 H. 313 (App.), 243 P.3d 273 (2010).

 

 

Previous Vol04_Ch0201-0257 Next