HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD BACKGROUND REPORT (PL-REZ-2022-028 & PL-PUD-2022-001) BLehuaVillagePXZ-PUD.7.72022.crk
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS,LLC
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (PL-REZ-2022-000028)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (PL-PUD-2022-000001)
LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS,LLC has submitted applications for a Change of Zone from
a Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10)to a Single-Family Residential-15,000
square feet(RS-15) zoning district and for a Planned Unit Development(PUD) for 14.322 acres
of land. The PUD would allow various exceptions from Chapter 23 (Subdivision) and Chapter 25
(Zoning) of the Hawaii County Code.The subject properties straddle the east and west sides of
Lehua Street, north (makai) of the Hawaii Belt Road and south(mauka) of the Honoka`a Park
Complex, portion of Papa`anui & Haina, Hdmdkua, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 4-5-024:010 &
(3) 4-5-010:136.
PROPOSED ACTION
1. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting to change the zoning district from
Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10)to Single-Family Residential-
15,000 square feet(RS-15) for approximately 14.322 acres of land.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development(PUD)permit to
allow for the following exemptions to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes in order to
facilitate the development of a 40-lot single-family residential subdivision across two
separate properties:
Exceptions Requested from Zoning Code (HCC Chapter 25)
■ Minimum Street Frontage (HCC §25-4-30). Request to waive requirements that
certain proposed lots will have roadway frontages of less than 50 percent of the
required minimum building site average width of 38 feet based on requested RS-15
zoning district. Additionally, only one lot(Village 2, Lot 5)will not have any
roadway frontage nor access pole and will be accessed via a roadway easement due to
-1-
steep topography that would make it too difficult to extend the road lot for sake of a
single parcel (see PUD application Figure 3 —PUD Master Plan).
■ Minimum Building Site Area; Minimum Average Width (HCC §25-4-31).
Request to waive minimum building site area requirements to allow a minimum
building site area of 10,000 square feet within the proposed RS-15 zoning district.
Additionally, request to allow the minimum building site area average width to be 60
feet instead of the 75 feet required within the proposed RS-15 zoning district(see
PUD application Figure 3 —PUD Master Plan).
■ Reduction of Building Site Below Minimum Area (HCC §25-4-32). Request to
reduce building sites to no less than 10,000 square feet in lieu of the 15,000 square
feet minimum lot size required by the proposed RS-15 zoning district(see PUD
application Figure 3 —PUD Master Plan).
■ Minimum Building Site Average Width (HCC §25-5-6). Request to allow the
minimum building site area average width of 60 feet instead of the 75 feet required by
the proposed RS-15 zoning district(see PUD application Figure 3 —PUD Master
Plan).
■ Minimum Yards (HCC §25-5-7). Request to allow a minimum front yard setback of
15 feet in lieu of the 20 feet required by the proposed RS-15 zoning district(see PUD
application Exhibit 1 —Yard Designation).
■ Other Regulations (HCC §25-5-8). Request to allow for a minimum front yard
setback of 15 feet for all lots, irrespective of minimum building site average width
of 60 feet that is consistent with an RS-7.5 zoning district.
Exceptions Requested from Subdivision Code (HCC Chapter 23)
■ Access to Lot from Street (HCC §23-34). Request to allow for one lot(Village 2,
Lot 5)to not have any direct roadway frontage nor access pole, instead it is proposed
to be accessed via a roadway easement due to steep topography that would make it
too difficult to extend the road lot for the sake of a single parcel. Additionally,the
applicant proposes that the Village 2, Lot 18 pole will also accommodate accesses for
-2-
adjoining Lots 19 & 20 via a common access easement to minimize driveway cuts
onto the proposed subdivision road(see PUD application Exhibit 2 —Access &
Utility Easement).
■ Minimum Right-of-Way and Pavement Widths (HCC §23-41). The applicant
requests the allowance of the following roadway widths and turn-around radius:
o Minor Street: 40-foot-wide right-of-way in lieu of 50 feet;
o Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets: 40-foot-wide right-of-way in lieu of 50 feet; &
o Turn-around alternative designs that are acceptable to the Fire Department, such
as "hammerhead" or similar turnarounds that have depths of at least 60 feet with
corner radius of at least 30 feet(see PUD application Exhibit 3 —Right of Way
Improvement).
■ Cul-De-Sacs (HCC §23-48). Request to allow the following:
o A cul-de-sac roadway with a maximum length of no more than 1,000 feet and
serving no more than 20 lots rather than 600 feet in length and serving no more
than 18 lots.
o Turn-around alternative designs that are acceptable to the Fire Department, such
as "hammerhead"turnarounds that have turnaround depths of at least 60 feet with
corner radius of at least 28 feet.
o Turning radiuses as shown on Exhibits 5 & 6 to navigate mailbox kiosk parking
area combined with turnaround area (see PUD application Exhibits 4, 5 & 6-Cul-
de-Sacs).
■ Grades and Curves (HCC §23-50). Request to allow the following roadway grades
and curves:
o Vertical and horizontal curves of less than 300 feet provided that such curves
conform to AASHTO minimum standards.
o Proposed subdivision roads will have minimum radius as little as 80 feet,but as a
dead-end road with no through traffic and design speed of 15mph,this should not
be an issue according to the applicant.
-3-
o Allow for a minor subdivision road having maximum grade of 20 percent to
accommodate anticipated short sections along the subdivision road that may
exceed the typical maximum 12 percent grade (see PUD application Exhibit 7 -
Street Intersection Angles and Radius).
■ Street Lights (HCC §23-93). Request to allow the use of custom street lights in lieu
of those meeting the standard specifications on file at the Department of Public
Works (see PUD application Exhibit 8—Street Lights).
■ Street Names and Traffic Signs (HCC §23-94). Request to allow the use of custom
street name and traffic signs in lieu of the type of signs permitted by the standard
specifications on file at the Department of Public Works (see PUD application
Exhibit 9— Street Signs).
■ Right-of-Way Improvement(HCC §23-95). Request to allow design flexibility in
the treatment of the right-of-way areas in lieu of what is typically required by the
standard specifications on file at the Department of Public Works. The proposed
subdivision road profile will consist of:
0 40-foot-wide right-of-way;
0 20-foot-wide travel-ways;
0 10-foot wide grassed and landscaped shoulders lined with trees; and
o No bike lane (See PUD application Exhibit 3 —Right of Way Improvement).
2. Proposed Development: The proposed development is a Master Planned PUD called
Lehua Villages and consists of two development components, Lehua Village 1, and
Lehua Village 2. Lehua Village 1 would be situated on Parcel 136 (7.137 acres of land)
with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to 23,400 square feet. These 20 lots are
proposed to be sold at affordable rates consistent with affordable housing guidelines for
Hawai`i County and pursuant to an executed affordable housing agreement between the
applicant and the Office of Housing and Community Development(OHCD). Lehua
Village 2 would be situated on Parcel 10 (7.185 acres of land) with lot sizes ranging from
-4-
10,000 square feet to 33,000 square feet. These 20 lots will be offered for sale at market
rates.
According to the applicant,the purpose for the requested PUD permit is to promote the
development of a single-family residential development that is more neighborhood-
friendly and consistent with the rural character prevalent throughout the Honoka`a town
area. Another primary purpose for the requested PUD permit is to facilitate the design of
this proposed residential community across two separate properties that are bisected by a
meandering public road(Lehua Street)with unique topographic conditions that is not
conducive to the typical platting of lots that you would normally find on sites with more
moderate grades and not constrained by an existing road. Finally, both the downzoning
from RS-10 to RS-15 and PUD will allow the applicant to defray infrastructure costs
associated with typical subdivision design in order to ensure that 50% of the proposed
lots would be offered at affordable rates to prospective buyers.
3. Project Timetable and Cost: If the entitlement requests are approved, the applicant
plans to submit a subdivision application by the end of 2022,with anticipated completion
of the subdivision for both Villages within five (5)years,by the end of 2027. The
applicant anticipates the project will cost approximately $3 million to $4 million.
4. Landowners: Lehua Village Partners, LLC.
5. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the attached in support of the
request(Planning Department Exhibit 1 &2—Change of Zone Application &
Planned Unit Development Application)
STATE, COUNTY& COMMUNITY PLANS
6. State Land Use District: Urban.
7. General Plan LUPAG Map Designation: Parcel 10 (Lehua Villages 2) is split between
a Low Density Urban and a Medium Density Urban designation and Parcel 136 (Lehua
Villages 1) is fully designated Medium Density Urban by the General Plan LUPAG map.
The Low Density Urban designation allows residential use,with ancillary community and
public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses; overall residential
-5-
density may be up to six units per acre and the Medium Density Urban designation
allows village and neighborhood commercial and single family and multiple family
residential and related functions (multiple family residential -up to 35 units per acre).
8. County Zoning: Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10).
9. Hamakua Community Development Plan (RCDP): The HCDP was adopted by
Ordinance No. 18-78,which became effective on August 22, 2018. The subject properties
are located within the Honoka`a designated urban growth boundary and located in an area
designated for Low and Medium Density Urban uses by the Honoka`a/Haina Land Use
Guide Map,which essentially follows the land use pattern recommended by the General
Plan.
10. Special Management Area (SMA): The subject properties are not situated within the
SMA and are located approximately 1.8 miles from the nearest shoreline.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
11. April 24, 1978: Effective date of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 341,which rezoned
115+/- acres of land on the mauka and makai side of the Hawaii Belt Road, which
included the 14.322-acre project site, from Agricultural (A-40a & A-5a)to Single Family
Residential (RS-10) (see Exhibit A of the Change of Zone application).
12. April 3, 1985: Effective date of Change of Zone Ordinance 85-18,which amended
conditions of Ordinance No. 341.
13. June 14, 1991: Effective date of Change of Zone Ordinance 91-54,which amended
conditions of Ordinance No. 85-18.
14. April 1978 thru April 2020: The original 115+/- acres zoned for single family
residential uses have witnessed at least 15 individual subdivision actions resulting in
about 70 lots, including commercial zoned property. These include the following
subdivision actions that created the subject properties.
15. March 9,2016: Approval date of Subdivision No. 16-001585 which created Parcel 136
(site of Lehua Village 1)
-6-
16. March 18, 2016: Approval Date of Subdivision No. 15-001511 which created Parcel 010
(site of Lehua Village 2).
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
17. Subject Property: The subject 14.322-acre project site consists of two irregularly shaped
properties, each a little over 7 acres in size,that are separated by Lehua Street. The
project site is bordered along the south by the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19) and to the
north by Lehua Street and its future extension. The project site is currently vacant of any
structures or uses with an extensive cover of abandoned sugar cane and various non-
native grasses. The overall slope of the project site ranges between 8 percent to over 13
percent, with the steepest portions adjacent to the Hawaii Belt Road and Lehua Street
and an adjoining dry ditch located to the west.
18. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: The project site is situated along the makai side of
the Hawaii Belt Road within the urban core of Honoka`a town. To the east lies Tex's
Drive Inn, situated on commercial-zoned lands. In close proximity to the north (makai)
lies the Honoka`a Elementary, Intermediate and High School complexes, the Honoka`a
Park complex, and the Hale Ho`ola Hamakua medical complex. Immediately to the east
of the project along Lehua Street is a recent 8-lot subdivision consisting of lots at least
10,000 square feet in size on lands zoned RS-10. To the immediate west of the project
site are vacant lands zoned RS-10. These lands were included in the original and
amended rezone ordinances.
19. Flood Zone: The majority of the project site is situated within flood Zone "X,"which is
determined by FEMA to be an area of minimal flood hazard. However, the western
boundary of the Lehua Village 2 is defined by a shallow drainageway identified as
"Honoka`a Drainageway No. 2"which is also designated as a FEMA floodway subject to
100-year(AH) frequency floods with depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually areas of ponding)
(Planning Department Exhibit 3-Floodway Map).
20. Flora/Fauna Resources: No professional floral or faunal survey was conducted of the
subject properties due to their previous use for sugar cane cultivation. According to the
-7-
applicant, vegetation on the subject properties primarily consists of abandoned sugar cane
with a mix of non-native grasses and pockets of ironwood trees. Observed fauna include
introduced bird species such as dove, Japanese White-eye,house finch and myna that are
common in the surrounding area, as well as domestic animals such as cats, dogs, goats,
chickens, rats, and feral pigs. Given the urban nature of the surrounding area and since
the property has previously been cleared and heavily cultivated in sugar cane,the
applicant does not believe that rare or endangered floral or faunal resources are likely to
be found within the subject parcel.
21. Archaeological/Cultural/Historical Resources: No professional archaeological and/or
cultural studies were conducted of the properties as they have previously been used for
intensive sugar cane cultivation. According to the applicant, it is unknown if the subject
property or immediate surrounding area was used in the past for the gathering of plants
by Native Hawaiians. In the event that legitimate gathering claims are made by Native
Hawaiians, the applicant has stated they will provide access to the site for this purpose.
22. Public Access: There is no public access to the mountains or the shoreline that traverses
the property.
23. Traffic: Section 25-2-46 (d) (1) of the concurrency provision in the Zoning Code
requires a Traffic Impact Analysis Report(TIAR) as part of any rezoning application in
situations where the project can generate 50 or more peak hour trips. Given the number of
proposed lots (40) allowed by the rezoning, this requirement was not triggered. However,
the applicant did submit a Traffic Analysis Report(TAR) dated May 22, 2020 that
considered the traffic impacts for a larger, 80-lot subdivision including the subject
properties and a third, adjacent parcel. The report studied the potential impact of traffic at
the Hawaii Belt Road/Pakalana Street and Pakalana Street/Lehua Street intersections.
With the addition of a project with as many as 80 lots,the existing Level of Service
(LOS) "A" at the Pakalana Street/Lehua Street intersection would operate at"B" and"A"
during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. At the Hawai`i Belt Road/Pakalana
Street intersection,the existing LOS "C"would continue to operate at"C" during the AM
-8-
and PM peak hours. According to the Zoning Code's Concurrency section, LOS A
through C are all considered acceptable levels of service; thus, no intersection traffic
mitigation was recommended. However,the report recommended that, "The project
access driveway and subdivision roadway intersections on Lehua Street should be
situated and designed so as to provide appropriate sight distances on all approaches to
the proposed subdivision. "As discussed below, access to the subdivisions,including the
provision of adequate site distances,will be required to meet with the approval of the
Department of Public Works. Finally, according to the State Department of
Transportation (DOT), the proposed change of zone and 40-lot PUD/subdivision does not
appear to significantly impact the state highway system and DOT has no objections to the
applications.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
24. Roadway Access: Proposed access to the subject properties is from Lehua Street, a
curvilinear, two-way,two-lane local roadway,between Pakalana Street and the Honoka`a
County Park complex. According to the TAR mentioned above, sight distances along
Lehua Street are limited by its horizontal and vertical alignments and roadside vegetation
and embankments. Lehua Street is a County owned and maintained roadway with an
approximately 21-to 22-foot-wide pavement(in the area of the subject parcels)within an
existing 50-foot-wide right-of-way. Both Lehua Village 1 and Lehua Village 2 will have
a roadway connection from Lehua Street to a private subdivision roadway consisting of
20-foot-wide pavement and 10-foot-wide grass shoulders within a 40-foot-wide right-of-
way. Each private roadway will end in an alternative "hammerhead"turn-around in lieu
of a traditional cul-de-sac meeting with the requirements of the Fire Department.
According to the applicant,there will be no direct driveway access from individual lots to
Lehua Steet as all driveway accesses will come off of the proposed private roadways.
Finally, the PUD Master Plan also shows a minimum 10-foot-wide pedestrian access
pathway corridor, consisting of approximately 4-foot-wide pavement, connecting the end
of each cul-de-sac to Lehua Street meant to allow pedestrian access to the Honoka`a Park
-9-
Complex makai of the subject parcels. These pathways are intended to be incorporated
into an easement,with their maintenance responsibilities falling with a homeowner's
association. According to the Department of Public Works-Engineering Division, all road
connections and construction within Lehua Street shall conform to Chapter 22, County
Streets, of the Hawaii County Code and access to Lehua Street, including the provision
of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public
Works, Engineering Division.
25. Water: According to the Department of Water Supply (DWS),pursuant to a Water
Development Agreement, dated September 15, 2014,between the applicant and County
Water Board, the applicant has a water commitment of 100 units of water, of which the
proposed 40-lot subdivision will require 38 additional units of water. These units can be
made available from the existing 12-inch waterline within Lehua Street. The applicant
will be required to pay a water commitment deposit of$5,700 and pay water facilities
charges and construct water system improvements meeting with the requirements of
DWS prior to receipt of final subdivision approval.
26. Wastewater: As there is no County sewer line in this area, each lot resulting from the
proposed subdivision will be serviced by individual wastewater systems meeting with the
requirements and approval of the State Department of Health in conjunction with the
building permit process.
27. Solid Waste: There are no municipal waste collection services in the County. According
to the applicant, solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers, who will dispose of
the refuse at authorized landfill sites.
28. Utilities and Services: Electrical,telephone and internet services are available to the
properties. Police,fire, and medical services are available nearby in Honoka`a town.
AGENCY COMMENTS
29. Department of Public Works-: (Planning Department Exhibit 4-June 1, 2022
memo)
30. Department of Water Supply: (Planning Department Exhibit 5-June 6, 2022 letter)
-10-
31. Department of Environmental Management: (Planning Department Exhibit 6-May
17,2022 memo)
32. Office of Housing and Community Development: (Planning Department Exhibit 7-
June 9,2022 letter)
33. State Department of Transportation: (Planning Department Exhibit 8 -June 1,2022
letter)
AGENCIES -NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS
34. Police Department, State Department of Land and Natural Resources-Land and
Engineering Divisions, and State Department of Health.
AGENCIES—NO RESPONSE
35. Department of Public Works-Traffic Division, Fire Department, and DLNR-State
Historic Preservation Division
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS
36. Response letter from the applicant: (Planning Department Exhibit 9-June 23,2022
Letter)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
37. Richard Bidleman Testimony: (Planning Department Exhibit 10 -May 22, 2022
Email)
38. Jim Loewen Testimony: (Planning Department Exhibit 11 -May 26,2022 Email)
39. Bett& Richard Bidleman Testimony: (Planning Department Exhibit 12—July 27,
2022 Email)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
40. Response letter from the applicant: (Planning Department Exhibit 13 -June 23,2022
Letter)
-11-
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
COUNTY REZONING REQUEST - RS-10 to RS-15
APPLICANT: LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS LLC
TMK: (3) 4-5-024: 010 and (3) 4-5-010: 136
I. INTRODUCTION
Lehua Village Partners LLC ("Applicant") is the owner of two (2)
properties identified by TMK: 4-5-024: 010 and 4-5-010: 136, consisting of
a total of 14.322 acres ("subject site"). The subject site was part of an
ordinance (Ordinance No. 341) that rezoned approximately 115+ acres of
land that was rezoned from Agricultural (A-40a and A-5a) to Single-Family
Residential (RS-10) in 1978. (Exhibit A) The purpose of that rezoning
was to provide approximately 400 house lots for the former employees of
the then applicant, Hamakua Sugar Company, while creating land
exchange opportunities to foster the acquisition and subsequent retention
of lands that were under sugar cane production then.
By having the subject site rezoned from RS-10 to RS-15, the allowable
mathematical density of the subject site would be reduced from 62 to 40
lots. However, in spite of the density reduction, through the Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") process, the Applicant would like to do a 40-unit
housing project that will consist of at least 50% affordable lots/units.
It should be noted that the Applicant initially sought to amend the
underlying zoning ordinance. However, upon consultation with the
Planning Department, it was determined that going through a new
rezoning instead of the zoning amendment process would enable the
request to be reviewed with fresher lens. As a result, this report is
intended to provide support of the requested downzoning request.
II. PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site consists of two (2) parcels, identified by TMK: 4-5-024:
010, consisting of 7.185 acres, and 4-5-010: 136, consisting of 7.137
acres for a combined area of 14.322 acres.
These parcels straddle Lehua Street, located within the upper portion of
the town of Honoka'a. Lehua Street is located on the makai side of the
Highway. Tex Drive In is located immediately east of the to the subject
site, while the Honoka'a School and community hospital complexes are
located immediately makai and fronting Pakalana and Plumeria Streets,
respectively. (Figures 1 and 2)
Planning Dep . 1
Exhibit )
6
1 HONOKA`A o
PARK COMPLEX a p
p Y
r
TEX
PROJECT SITE " ..
Figure 1 — Location Map
. � 1
�- � 31501609e�� so,�
:r—
S ]6A,009
�
f 3d5wGeeC
_ I 1 + 31W1aiW\ = 1' �� � I � + 1+•� 315w�9 NRNISW�NR
1,1 " J rswa+o, e6swwn "
.- .. — _ .• `e,so,wor sasow,ox solo, �
sswrr
vso�ama
]�SONOL9 36�a,ra1B
ra$aw,2,
.---- a,wsWes rw,ro,a
n cWwI SPIT P➢ - —�� 31501Tatr
b5wrei6
365arr0,5 Seeia
NeW33989
Figure 2-Project Site & Parcels Composite Map
The original 115+/- acres that were rezoned to residential in 1978
consisted of properties located on both the mauka and makai side of the
State Highway. The subject site comprises only a portion of the makai
area. (Figure 3)
2
A•-V�
b " r
A-ia
x =
Ij Ij1TV"
.,_ PROJECT SITE
,,J. ?. l- SOfG t]lls C,►�/�MCL� N4, Tq>C •"'3 rl
�• LL+�iAL p[,3 C+4rt�Tlq„•I Cw TI"Ic � }.
r/•'-`� w Z, A21Mu-te' Arv4 CCOIG Gr,..rAT��
,�,.,,e� Rr r6lc2co To 6ev•Y. 9u,Cv<sv A r �'
, Tlnt A1V6ULATIOM 3TATIOw1 'RAA/]
SUBSECTION 7.tz a-k) O $CIBSCCTICIY 7.IC {C-J) O
AGi�rC LJi-T41LA�. (H-4d�} �.G'rL rc�.JLTUJr'�►L. (A-40o) \ �
Td 5t"GLE FAT'+•3t-}' 7o Sth/r"m Lt_� P/+P-,13LY
2c-5Fo>rNT7gl- (ray-la) 7C•LvSr�C-TVTIAL. CF�s-ro) i
/\72EA +• k.995 ACT�13S A1C L„A s 4�4.ZCo E' AGsia G'S
5U[95CC-t•fON 7.12 lC•z? O 3ULJ SL�CT70N 7.73[C� O
'A6t2••IC V4TUICAL 1A-4an3 AG7CiC4-ILT e,12AL (A-So) `�""'_
To St"GLG rm, s lLY TO 31NGL� f-AM1L7'
2L151DE1-+T1/'.1... S-f63 >2F=S1E7�HYrA4. (135-1 C)
- CICC9 ATL•.eA a 13.ZOI ACIt°LS
AhfIENDME;N— TSU 7HEE zoNING CCD0
AY✓1C-t`.O1Vti�NT No. a TO SMC-rs0N 7.1Z, TT-1L Y ^m^KUA o7s--
Trl:_)CT !-iOM C�'T 1=AO5 ATZ`�A 201VC MAA ATVfl AMCNOM>=1'•tT
7V 0. .� TC .S i=CT1C7T�t 7 tom- T1-IE t-tO frrC 1'CAA- f•-IA7tvA -KVF'CV If-7ACl..L'
SONE MAF- QF= Fb (2CItv1TVr-t GCQC�, Al2.TTCLC- Z. '
7�A1NA7F GCI.. -r'IV COCLZ, AS A1�/IC-N�LiD, Cay G!-SANGl7`.! THC-
wlFS C'7CT cL.ASSIFTI4,P,T']dl+f F'F�oM J�GT�TCIJ LTUTCAL (A-so}
AIV 17 AG2TCUs_TUIreJ'''�L (A-4r,De} T[] 57NGF_1� FA7v171_y Ia°E51-
D�iVT7AL (25 -r m) AT faAALAf=A, laAi�AANF 77, 7 IA1NA A7"-70
NANiOT°�iJ, I--IANIATCUf++, !-FAYVAtl.
nAT� c:� rQ IJOLtG r-IGA+�frvo � SCPT. 6. F�77
I�TCcT'e.�.1cGQ T.9y ' 7"fL/•.7•�rl++l7vp 1Df=T9AFCTNIG NT
G OUNYY O� I--IAY`iAlt
TMR . '1-Fa_rt' >aO1±TId wr7 On l,a g! .JI
Figure 3 - Ordinance No. 341 Map
3
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Overall Description
The Applicant has a pending subdivision application affecting one (1)
of the parcels. This application is for a 13-lot subdivision, identified by
TMK: 4-5-010: 136 (SUB 16-0011653). Due to topographic and other
considerations, the proposed lots, ranging between 1/2 (one-half) to 1
(one) acre in size, were considerably in excess of the minimum 10,000
square feet requirement. (Figure 4) The application was deferred by
the Planning Department on October 19, 2016.
The Applicant also owns the TMK: 4-5-024:10, located directly across
Lehua Street from TMK: 4-5-010: 136. Based on the RS-10 zone, the
entire subject 14+ acre site could support a 62-lot project. Its goal then
and now was to be able to have at least 50% of the lots marketed
within the County Affordable Housing guidelines. However, given the
topography and awkward configuration of the subject site, the
infrastructure cost made it less feasible to achieve that higher density
objective.
As such, instead of proceeding with the conventional subdivision
approach, the Applicant sought to develop the subject site into a 40-lot
residential subdivision, with lots ranging between 10,000 to just under
33,000 square feet, through the PUD process. The PUD is a process
that allows for public review of the application wherein design flexibility
in the way of lot size, road design, and the like are proposed. Through
a PUD, the Applicant would be in a better position to achieve its
objective of having at least 50% of the lots marketed within the County
Affordable Housing guidelines.
Please note that with the dedication of a 15-acre site to the Hawaii
Housing Authority, the affordable housing obligation of the original
ordinance (of which the subject site is a part of) has already been
fulfilled. (Exhibit B) The Applicant's plan of marketing 50% of the
proposed 40-lot project consistent with the County's Affordable
Housing Guidelines would thus amount to more than "doubling" the
affordable housing requirement of the subject site. The existing
requirement calls for 20%, whereas the Applicant is proposing 50%,
which further underscores the added affordable housing contribution of
the subject site.
B. Proposed Project Details
The project is called Lehua Village. The Village has two development
components — Lehua Village I and Lehua Village 2. (Figure 5)
4
i
I ~ tiy03.�NM[Y' LAY
mm � ry pM
0
199
10
-
` 4' d a
If l x
a
(Figure 4-SUB 16-0011653 Preliminary Plat Map)
5
x
-
F
_-
Q e
a qaw� ism 9 Z _1.
o � �
ifll
..........
u u LL LL LL LL u
u� NNNNN�I I� NNNNNNNN ViNN
� e 00000000000000000000
/ �;N' NUJ viNNNUINN UJ UJNNyUJNVI VIN Vl§
{ f -NOU1-a0f
W
ID
NE {� � y 000000000.00000000000
mm� \\ ,�
N
L
Q � n
� 1 _
N _
n ""a
m
CO
� x �
a � 2
a Fawn �
(Figure 5 — Concept Subdivision Master Plan)
6
1. Lehua Village 1
This would be a 20-lot subdivision situated on the makai side of
Lehua Street on 7.137-acres of land with lot sizes ranging from
10,000 square feet to 23,400 square feet. These lots are intended
to be offered for sale at affordable rates consistent with the
Affordable Housing Guidelines for Hawaii County.
2. Lehua Village 2
This would be a 20-lot subdivision bordered by the Hawaii Belt
Road along its mauka boundary and Lehua Street along its makai
boundary and situated on 7.185-acres of land with lot sizes ranging
from 10,000 square feet to just under 33,000 square feet. These
lots would be offered for sale at market rates.
IV. PROJECT TIMETABLE AND COST
Should the request be approved, the Applicant intends to submit the
subdivision application shortly thereafter and hopefully before the end of
this year. Anticipated completion of both Villages is expected within five
(5) years from the date of approval of the PUD Permit and accompanying
change of zone, or by the end of 2027.
Assuming there are no cost-related conditions of either the PUD or
Rezoning Ordinance, the current estimated infrastructure cost of this
project is between $3 million to $4 million.
V. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
A. State Land Use
The subject property is designated Urban. As such, no State Land
Use Commission action is required. The County of Hawaii can
process the rezoning request.
B. Hawaii State Plan
Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range goals
and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended to serve
as a guide for the growth and future long-range development of the
State.
Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies and
goals and the project's relationship follows:
Goals
• A strong, viable economy characterized by stability, diversity, and
growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and expectations of
Hawaii's present and future generations
• A desired physical environment characterized by beauty,
cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness that
enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people
• Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and
families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and
caring of participation in family life.
Discussion
The proposed project would achieve these goals. It would provide
area residents an opportunity to purchase affordable and modestly-
priced product. The decades-long water moratorium in Honoka'a has
stymied the delivery of much-needed new housing product in the area.
The project location is located in a historic multi-generational
community where residents have deep roots, and where new
workforce housing options are currently almost non-existent.
The project would also provide both direct and indirect employment
opportunities for current and future residents of the island; contribute to
the island's overall tax base and hence, increase both State and
County revenues; and complement and support other economic uses
and in turn, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of local and
regional economies.
This short-term employment opportunity would come without adversely
affecting the environment. There is no known wildlife or plant life listed
as either endangered or threatened on the subject site. Also have
been in intensive sugar cane production for well over a century, there
should be no known significant archaeological features on the site.
Any inadvertent finds will be addressed pursuant to the requirements
of an approved Archaeological Monitoring Plan and the SHPD.
Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly
adverse. All required infrastructures will be in place by the applicant.
These include new roads within the subdivision, drainage
improvements, and the like.
Furthermore, the provision and/or retention of natural landscaped
buffers along selected portions within the project site would also help
8
mitigate any adverse visual and noise impacts to existing and potential
neighboring residential or agricultural properties.
C. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program
The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The
principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of the
State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within the
CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas proximate
to the coast and identified by the County as the Special Management
Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's consistency to the
CZM policies - regardless of its location - must still be made.
In that regard, please note the following:
• The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse
environmental or ecological effect. (Please refer to discussions
in pertinent Chapters below.) Any effect that may result will be
minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly
outweighed by public interest.
• The proposed development would be consistent with the
objectives of the CZM program. Specifically:
o there would be no impact to the area's recreational
resources. This is not a shoreline property;
o the site does not have any known historical resources that
require preservation. Any inadvertent finds will be
addressed pursuant to the requirements of the State DLNR-
HPD.
o the project will not affect any scenic and open space
resources;
o the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted;
o the project will help stabilize employment opportunities by
providing additional market house lots, and hence furthering
the economic uses of the site;
o the site is more than a mile from the shoreline, and thus
there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or marine
resource impacts; and
9
o public participation will be achieved through the hearings on
this request as well as notification through the posting of a
sign and notices to surrounding property owners.
• The proposed development is consistent with the County
General Plan, Hamakua Community Development Plan, and
other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Code.
D. County General Plan
The County of Hawaii General Plan is the policy document for the
long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. The
General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map
classifies the Project Site and immediately surrounding area for Low
and Medium Density Urban uses. (Figure 6) Low Density Urban
consists of single-family residential uses with ancillary community and
public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses
with an overall residential density of up to six units per acre. Medium
Density Urban allows for village and neighborhood commercial and
single family and multiple-family residential uses up to 35 units per
acre, and related functions.
5r
a �
ME Sin
PROJECT SITE
L
�oyl
J
U
(Figure 6 — LUPAG Map)
10
As such, the requested RS-15 zoning is consistent with the Low and
Medium Density Urban designations, and no General Plan amendment
is necessary. Further, no changes are contemplated in this area in the
draft revision to the General Plan now being developed by the
Planning Department.
The RS-15 zoning would also be consistent with the goals, policies,
and standards of the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General
Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow:
Housing
Goals
• Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the
different parts of the County.
• Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable
communities with decent housing and suitable living
environments for our people
• Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing
housing stock
• Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee-
simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to
satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families
and individuals.
Policies
• Increase rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality,
cost, amenity, style and size of housing, especially for low and
moderate income households.
Land Use Element (Residential)
Goals
o To provide for residential developments that maximizes
convenience for its occupants.
o To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate
the physical, social and economic needs of the island residents.
11
Policies
o Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for
multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be
allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping
facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and
public facilities and utilities.
Standards
o Areas shall be protected from incompatible uses by transition
zones.
o Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities,
schools, employment centers, and other services.
o Development shall not be permitted in natural hazard areas
unless proper on-site improvements are provided.
o Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can
be economically provided at a level of adequate to meet the
demand for the concentrated service.
Discussion
The requested RS-15 zoning is consistent with the goals, policies, and
standards of the General Plan document. For one, it will provide
limited short-term economic opportunities largely through the
construction of any improvements required for the residential
development. Relatedly, longer-term opportunities could be created
largely in providing the social support (housing) needed to sustain a
strong economy. Furthermore, the project should add sustained
revenues to the County and State coffers.
The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or
encouragement of solar energy and design features to take advantage
of wind patterns.
Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important
to the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5)
areas of environmental concerns - air pollution, water quality, soil
pollution, solid waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the
project would not be violative of any of those objectives.
Aside from vehicular transmission, air pollution associated with the
project should be negligible. All wastewater systems would be
disposed off in a State approved septic system. This should be
12
sufficient to address any potential groundwater or coastal water
impacts.
If required, a solid waste management plan could be prepared and
implemented. Being a residential project, it should not be a noisy one.
Any noise-generating facility - such as air conditioners -would be
carefully placed to minimize their noise impacts to adjoining
properties.
Further, while the site has some on-site developmental constraints,
they are not insurmountable. For the most part, the site is designated
"X" on the FIRM map. A drainage system will be designed in a
manner to protect the property as well as to minimize the volume of
surface runoff generated by this development.
There are no known archaeological or cultural features on the subject
site, having been used historically for sugar cane cultivation.
Furthermore, if there are inadvertent archaeological features found on
the site, work will stop and the State DLNR and County Planning
Department will be consulted before further activities occur within the
affected area.
Being partially disturbed and within an urban environment, the
prospects of the site serving as a habitat for rare or endangered plant
or animal life appear remote.
As this is a residential project, it will directly fulfill the goals and
objectives - as noted above - of the housing element. Specifically,
the more pertinent goals are:
• Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the
different parts of the County
• Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice
• Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing
housing stock
• Seek sufficient production of affordable rental and fee-simple
housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily
accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals
The General Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an
area's natural beauty. In this situation, the project will be developed
in a manner where it blends with the existing terrain and enhances the
natural environment through the introduction of landscaping.
13
Although the project site is over a mile from the ocean, it is also
separated by other developments from the ocean. As such, the usual
coastal resources concern would not be pronounced. There will be
no interference with shoreline access.
There will be little impact to public facilities. The public school and
medical complexes are situated less than a mile away. County water
is already available for the project. All on-site improvements will be
constructed by the Applicant. Traffic impact based on a traffic report
and as will be discussed later in this report, noted that the LOS would
still continue at the acceptable levels (A, B, or C).
Finally, in terms of the Land Use element, the pertinent goals,
policies, and standards of the General Plan note the following:
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and
mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical
environments of the County
• The County shall encourage the development and maintenance
of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance
with the physical and social environment
• Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan
designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use
District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of
public services and utilities, access, and public need
• The county shall encourage the development and maintenance
of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance
with the physical and social environment
In view of the foregoing goals and policies, it is noted that the
requested zoning would be consistent with the Medium and Low
Density designations of the LUPAG map. It would also be compatible
with the surrounding area and uses. There is a mixture of urban type
of uses within a mile of this area, including a school, hospital, public
park, residences, and commercial uses.
The soil of the site is classified "C" or fair. While it does have some
measure of agricultural potential, the site's proximity to urban uses
renders it unfeasible for intensive agricultural uses
The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that
would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and
activity.
14
E. Hamakua Community Development Plan
Relative to the CDP, Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called
for the development and eventual County Council adoption of
Community Development Plans. The General Plan states that the
CDP "will translate the broad General Plan statements to specific
actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General
Plan also notes that should the CDP require a General Plan
amendment, it could be considered concurrent with the adoption of the
CDP. However, "If there is a direct conflict between the Community
Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be
controlling."
Pursuant to the above, the Hamakua CDP ("HCDP") was developed
and adopted by the Hawaii County Council on August 8, 2018. It
became effective on August 22, 2018 as Ordinance No. 18 78.
From a land use perspective, one of the more critical
recommendations or policy of the HCDP was the retention of the
subject site's existing "Low and/or Medium Density Urban"
designations on the General Plan LUPAG map. (Figure 7). Clearly,
then, the existing RS-15 zoning is consistent with the HCDP.
Figure 12:Hanoka'a/Haina Land Use Guide Map
w.pn
PROJECT ITE
i
r
f I PIk1.1
/ Hamakua CDP
Revised Land Use Guide Map
Our Hunoka'a/Hairea
LUYAG Desipaliuns
-Cawvxa
I L.n,ILu,
,y
rn,a z�
a a+n ozs 0.5
(Figure 7 — Hamakua CDP Revised Land Use Guide Map)
15
The HCDP also identified 13 objectives. The first three (3) relate to
Natural Resources and Ag and bear little relationship to the project
site's planned development in accordance with the RS-10 zoning.
Others have only marginal relationship. The more pertinent ones,
however, include:
• Objective 5: "Direct future settlement patterns that are
sustainable and connected. Honor Hamakua's historic and
cultural assets by concentrating new developments in existing
walkable, mixed use town centers while limiting rural sprawl."
• Objective 6: "Develop and improve critical community
infrastructure, including utilities, healthcare, emergency
services, affordable housing, educational opportunities and
recreational facilities to keep our'ohana safe, strong, and
health."
• Objective 8: "Promote, preserve and enhance a diverse,
sustainable, local economy."
• Objective 9: "Encourage the increase and diversity of
employment and living options for residents, including living
wage jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities that allow residents
to work and shop close to home and that complement
Hamakua's ecology, rural character, and cultural heritage."
The focus of these objectives is having housing, including affordable
ones, proximate to areas of service and employment. The subject site
achieves those objectives. In so doing, being located in the core part
of Honoka'a town, it would also minimize sprawl and add socio-
economic strength to the Honoka'a town.
In light the above, the Applicant maintains that the ability to develop
the project in accordance with the requested RS-15 zoning and its
provision of 50% affordable housing lots are not incongruous and, in
fact, wholly consistent with the HCDP.
F. County Zoning
The County zoning of the subject site is Single Family Residential (RS-
10). If the requested RS-15 were approved, the use of the subject site
would still be the same but with less density. All of the required
infrastructure, except as may be modified by the PUD, would be
constructed prior to the occupancy of any of the proposed 40 lots.
(Figure 9)
16
ll`1Y RS-10
CV 0
C1F 0
AS-
S
CV-
7.5
'\ RS-1
PROJE&SITE
MSa
Fs 1.
Rb-10
i Fl.Ve�1�
{fOiE
[rwd]
�1
9
(Figure 9 — Existing Zoning)
G. Other Permitting Considerations
The site is not located within the County Special Management Area
(SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required.
However, other construction-related permits would still be required.
These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Subdivision,
building permit, driveway permit, and health clearances.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. General Description
As noted in the PUD application, "The 14.322-acre Project Site
consists of two irregular-shaped properties, each a little over 7 acres in
size, that is separated by Lehua Street. The Project Site is bordered
along the south by the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19) and to the north
by Lehua Street and its future extension. The project site is currently
vacant of any structures or uses with an extensive cover of abandoned
sugarcane and various non-native grasses."
B. Climate, Soil and Topography
According to the Atlas of Hawaii 3rd Edition, the average annual
rainfall in this general area is about 100 inches. This is confirmed by
17
the National Weather Service Office of the NOAA's annual rainfall data
for 2014. Being on the windward side of the island, the wetter months
tend to occur between October through April. The average daily
temperature ranges from a minimum of 61 degrees to a maximum of
79 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns are generally trade winds
(easterly) during the day and westerly or mountain winds during the
evenings.
The PUD report also noted that "The overall slope of the Project Site
ranges between 8 percent to over 13 percent, with the steepest
portions adjacent to the Hawaii Belt Road and Lehua Street and an
adjoining dry ditch located to the west." Thus, there are or should not
be any perceptible topographic or geologic constraints. It is located at
approximately the 1,200 to 1,300 foot elevation level.
Being within an urbanized area, the Land Study Bureau Overall Master
Productivity Rating does not have any classification for this site.
Likewise, the site is classified Prime/Urban under the Agriculture Lands
of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system.
Thus, the State's classification system recognizes the site, in spite of
its agricultural resource potential, to be within the Urban area.
The U. S. Soil Conservation Service, however, has designated the soil
type in this are to be of the Kukaiau, Kaumoali, Kukuihaele series
(C122). This soil type is described as being moderately deep, firm
textured, well-drained, slight erosion hazard, and poorly suited for
machine tillability. This soil type is typical of this area.
C. Natural Hazards
1. Drainage
The US Corps of Engineers' Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
designates most of the subject site to be in Zone X (areas outside
of 500-year flood). The western boundary, however, has a shallow
drainageway (Honoka'a Drainageway No. 2), and thus is
designated AE, areas subject to 100-year frequency floods with
depts of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding.)
None of the major infrastructure (road/water) will occur within the
AE designated area. Any use within that area will be subject to the
requirements of the AE designation.
As there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from
the road and related infrastructure, there may be an issue relating
to potential increased run-off. As such, a drainage plan will be
18
prepared as part of the subdivision review/approval process. The
plan will have to be approved by the County and subsequently will
be implemented in conjunction with the development of the
subdivision. The mitigation may call for installation of drywell or
similar type of accommodations.
2. Tsunami Hazard
The subject site is situated over a mile from the ocean and is
outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone.
3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the subject
site and this general area as being within Lava Flow Hazard Zone
8, on a scale of ascending risk, 9 to 1. By way of comparison, the
City of Hilo is designated Zone 2.
The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4,
according to the County Building Code. As such, the Applicant
understands and accepts that there will be added structural
requirements to address this seismic hazard.
D. Fauna Resources
Although there was no professional survey conducted of the faunal
resources of the site, the Applicant does not believe that rare or
endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or proximate
to the subject site. The site is not only within an urban environment,
but was fully disturbed through its prior sugar cane use.
Introduced bird species (such as dove, Japanese White-eye, house
finch, myna) are common in this area. Domestic animals such as cats
and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common.
These are all common and not endangered.
As such, it is unlikely that the development of the subject property
would cause any adverse faunal impacts.
E. Flora Resources
No commissioned flora survey was conducted of the site due in large
measure to its past sugar cane use. There are some abandoned
sugar cane with a mix of non-native grasses and pockets of ironwood
trees.
19
In view of the above, it is unlikely that the subject site would be a
habitat for any listed threatened or endangered plant life.
F. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources
For the same reason noted above, no commissioned archaeological
inventory survey and cultural assessment study was conducted of the
subject site. The past and current sugar cane use of the site, resulting
in its extensive clearing, reduces the prospect of finding any
archaeological remains.
Nonetheless, during the course of developing this project, should any
anticipated archaeological features or sites be uncovered, work in the
affected area will immediately cease and the applicant will notify the
Planning Department.
G. Valued Cultural Resources
In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka
Pa'akai O Ka'Aina"decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian
gathering and fishing rights must be addressed. Specifically, there
must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources
and associated traditional and customary practices of this site.
In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the
shoreline. As such, fishing and/or coastal access is not an issue.
It is not known whether the subject or immediate surrounding area was
even used for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians. However,
as the site has been used for sugar cane production for over 75 years
and now remain fallow, it would appear very unlikely that the site would
serve such purpose today and/or in the recent past.
There are also no known archaeological features on the subject
property.
Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have
any potential adverse impact relating to the cultural and historical
resources of this area.
H. Water and Coastal Resources
The subject site is located over a mile from the coastline. As such,
coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems from the
site should not be significant. Being a non-coastal property, no coastal
access will be affected.
20
The proposed lots within the project will have their own private
wastewater system approved by the State Department of Health. At
this time, it would probably be a septic system and constructed in
conjunction with a residential building permit. As such, potential
groundwater and coastal resources impacts would be mitigated.
Further as noted earlier, prior to the installation or use of any drywells
on the site to address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC
permit from the State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and
coastal resources can and will be carefully examined.
I. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust Impacts
The existing background ambient noise level is associated with the
wind, foliage, birds, and the like. This is relatively low, averaging less
than 45 Ldn.
Traffic along the Belt Highway, however, heavily influence manmade
noise in this area. As such, although this project will introduce
additional vehicular traffic to this area, it is not anticipated to contribute
significantly to the long-term ambient noise level.
Thus, any traffic increase should result in a noise increase of equal to
or less than 55 Ldn, which is within acceptable levels within an urban
environment.
The short-term noise impacts will be associated with the construction
of the project. These will be temporary. Further, all applicable State
rules governing construction noise abatement will be observed. The
Applicant also intends to not allow noise-generating construction
activity to occur on Sundays and early morning and late evening hours.
The proposed development should not generate any direct air quality
impacts. During the short-term, there may be some fugitive dust
associated with the construction of the project. However, compliance
with the State Department of Health's regulations governing dust
control should help mitigate this potential impact.
From a long-term perspective, the project itself is not expected to have
uses that generate adverse air pollutants. The only discernible air
quality impact would be associated with residential vehicular traffic to
and from the site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the
ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in
part to the higher EPA standards for automobile air emissions and the
prevailing tradewinds.
21
Accordingly, with the exception of minimal construction dust in the
beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be
insignificant.
J. Scenic and Visual Considerations
In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or
areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a
scenic site. However, Mauna Kea and Waipio Valley are listed as
scenic resources.
The proposed subdivision should not create any adverse visual
impacts on either of those resources from a public roadway. For one,
the subject site is located makai of the Belt Highway. Further, the
Waipio Valley is miles away and not visible from the subject site.
Thus, there should be little, if any, adverse visual impacts resulting
from this proposed residential subdivision.
VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
A. Surrounding Land Uses
The subject site is situated on the makai side of the Hawaii Belt
Highway (Highway 19) on the outskirts of downtown Honoka'a town.
There is a drive-inn restaurant to the east, as well as the Honoka'a
School complex makai of the subject site and the Ho'ola Hamakua
medical facility to the north. There is also an 8-lot residential
subdivision adjacent to the subject site, developed by the Applicant,
with lots consisting of 10,000 to 20,000 square feet in size on RS-10
zoned lands.
As such, the proposed 40-lot residential subdivision would be
consistent with this evolving mixture of commercial and residential land
use pattern in this area.
B. Economic Impacts
The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact,
as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in
the construction and related industries.
The nature of this project (house lots) does not have any direct long-
term economic impact. However, it does have an indirect impact by
providing the needed social infrastructure — housing - to support
22
growth on Hawaii Island. In a sense, this type of project would be
analogous to a school, which supports the needs of a community.
The requested single-family residential zoning would be consistent with
the residential pattern in this area, as well as increase the tax revenues
to the County, as opposed to leaving the land in zoned but
undeveloped stage due to regulatory and topographic constraints.
C. Agricultural Impacts
The subject site has not been used for commercial agricultural
purposes since the closure of the Hamakua Sugar Company in the
early 1990's. Further, its agricultural potential is diminished due to the
urban type of uses surrounding the subject site.
D. Housing Impacts
The affordable housing obligation of the subject site subject site has
already been fulfilled through the dedication of the 15-acre site to the
Hawaii Housing Authority. (Exhibit B) Nevertheless, the Applicant
plans to set aside at least 50% in accordance with the County's
Affordable Housing guidelines.
Based on Chapter 11 of the Hawai'i County Code relating to Affordable
Housing Policy, the projected density of 40 lots and as a new
standalone project, the project site's obligation would be eight (8)
affordable housing credits. In spite of this "doubling" situation, the
Applicant is prepared to comply with the requirements of Chapter 11,
and to further committing 50% of the lots to fall within the Affordable
Housing Guidelines.
VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
A. Road and Traffic
Access to the subject site is from Old Lehua Street, a County road with
a 40-foot wide right-of-way and a paved road varying between 16-18
feet wide. It is a curvilinear road that extends from Pakalana Street to
the south and the Honoka'a Park Complex to the north.
In conjunction with the Applicant's original request to amend the
original ordinance, the Applicant included a Traffic Assessment Report
("TAR"). The requested downzoning and projected 40 residential lots
will fall below the 50 AM/PM vehicular movements threshold. As such
the Zoning Code's concurrency requirement (Chapter 25-2-46) relative
to a Traffic Study is not triggered.
23
Nonetheless, the TAR, while addressing the impacts of an 80-lot
project, sheds light on the project's impact and is thus included in this
report. (Exhibit C).
The study, dated May 2020, analyzed the project's impact not only at
the intersection of Pakalana Street and the State Highway but also at
the intersection of Pakalana Street and Lehua Street. In sum, it
concluded upon build-out of a project with as many as 80 lots, the
traffic impact at both intersections during the AM and PM peak hours
would continue to operate at Level of Service ("LOS") C or better.
With the addition of a project with as many as 80 lots, the existing LOS
"A" at the Lehua Street intersection would operate at "B" and "A" during
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. At the Highway, the existing
LOS "C" would continue at "C" during the AM and PM peak hours. Per
the concurrency provision of the Zoning Code, LOS "A", "B", and "C"
are all considered to be "acceptable" levels of service".
The study noted further that to "The project access driveway and
subdivision roadway intersections on Lehua Street should be situated
and designed so as to provide appropriate sight distances on all
approaches to the proposed subdivision." That has already been
confirmed by the Applicant's engineer in conjunction with the
preliminary design of the subdivision. It will again be vetted by the
County in conjunction with the subdivision review process. The report
further recommended that to address existing conditions, having a
"yield" sign erected and restriping to reduce the "skewed angle" of
Lehua Road would help. That can be done if required.
Because the traffic study concluded that the proposed development is
not expected to significantly impact the intersection of Pakalana Street
and the Hawaii Belt Highway, no traffic mitigation was recommended.
Given that the proposed project is 50% less than the project for which
the TAR was predicated upon, it can be fair to conclude that the
assumptions and/or conclusions contained in the report still apply.
B. Water
Water will be secured from the County water line fronting the subject
site. The Applicant in 2017 already constructed and deeded to the
Department of Water Supply ("DWS") a waer main extension partway
down Lehua Street, adjacent to Village I. The applicant also deeded to
DWS in 2016 a 1-acre reservoir site located just east of the subject site
to accommodate expansion of the Honoka'a district water system. As
a result, the subject site has already secured the required water
24
commitments from the DWS through the Applicant's participation with
the provision of a water tank site. All DWS required improvements will
be made as part of the subdivision approval process.
C. Wastewater
As there is no sewer line in this area, the project will be serviced with
individual wastewater system meeting with the requirements and
approval of the State Department of Health. The prevailing
requirement is a septic system and will be installed in conjunction with
the construction of a building permit requiring a wastewater system.
D. Solid Waste
Solid waste will be handled by either commercial haulers who will
dispose of the refuse at the county landfill at Pu'uanahulu or
homeowners at the nearest solid waste transfer station in the area.
During the course of preparing the land for this project, the
Applicant intends to retain as much of the material on the property.
This should thus minimize disposal at approved disposal sites.
E. Other Government Services
As this area is already part of an urban area, it already has access to a
number of services. All of the required police, fire, and related
services are available. Police and Fire protective services are
provided from the station located within Honoka'a town.
The Hale Ho'ola Medical complex is situated less than 1,000 feet from
the subject site. This facility is one of five (5) licensed hospitals on the
island.
This residential project is intended to address the housing needs of the
community. As such, while it is not necessarily growth inducing, it will
have school-aged occupants. In that regard, it is noted that the site is
proximate to the Honoka'a School Complex. There is also a major
County recreation center located directly across Lehua Street from the
subject site.
Given the project location, no extension of government services would
be required. Further, the existing facilities should be sufficient to
accommodate the demand expected from this project
F. Other Utilities
25
All other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are available
to the site.
VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
A. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Environment
and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the
current use, which is a property vegetated with introduced plant
species. This will continue until the full improvements are made in
conjunction with the development of the project, which will hopefully
commence before the middle to ending part of next year.
This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or long-
term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be direct
and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction and
implementation of this project. There will be construction jobs created
in the short-term. By providing additional house lots in the area, this
project will have an indirect long-term benefit to the island's economy.
Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can
supplement the State and County's fiscal resources.
This project will provide market and affordable house lots in the core
area of Honoka'a Town which is designated and zoned for residential
development and is proximate to places of employment and shopping.
The applicant will implement the required physical infrastructure to
mitigate potential impacts of this project.
B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The area of the requested rezoning has somewhat been disturbed
and proximity to urban areas. As such, the commitment of natural or
other resources (such as botanical and avifaunal) would not appear to
be significant.
Given the disturbed nature of the site, due to its historical sugar can
use, there should be no archaeological or cultural features on the site.
Although unlikely, if inadvertent finds are made during the land
disturbance process, the acceptable protocols and policies of the State
will be adhered to. These include immediate stoppage of construction
activity, consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division, and
implementation of the agreed upon mitigation before commencement
of further work within the affected area.
26
C. Mitigative Measures
The Applicant intends to provide any required on-site infrastructure in
conjunction with the development of this project. These will include
on-site drainage system, landscaping, water, and roadway
improvements. All of these will be done in conjunction with the
permitting and permit implementation phases of this project.
Although there should be no residual archaeological or cultural
features on the site, any inadvertent discoveries would be subject to
the SHPD protocols.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
1. No Project
Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain in its
present vacant, vegetative use.
Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its highest and
best use and much needed housing opportunities would be
curtailed in the very heart of Honoka'a Town. That would be
inconsistent with the visions sought by the General Plan and
Hamakua CDP.
2. Development Based on Existing RS-10 Zoning
Under this alternative, the area of the requested zoning could still
be developed into 60 or more lots. However, the infrastructure cost
would make it less feasible to market some of them at "affordable"
levels.
3. Alternative Rezoning
Another option could be to utilize this site for multiple-family or
commercial uses. While that would still be consistent with the
General LUPAG's map Medium Density designation, commercial
uses within a growing residential area and the traffic pattern may
not be appropriate. Additionally, given the existing single-family
residential pattern in this area, multiple family (unless of a less
density) may not be appropriate.
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
27
Leaving the property in its current state would not maximize the use
of the land. The land could be subdivided into 60+ lots, but with its
high infrastructure cost, the desired affordable housing price would
be difficult to reach.
While alternative residential densities — such as multiple-family
and/or lower density single-family residential subdivision - are
possible, the multiple family density would be incongruous with the
surrounding single-family residential pattern.
In that regard, the proposed project would be consistent with the
land use objectives sought to be accomplished by the County
General Plan LUPAG map and the Hamakua CDP.
In view of the aforementioned, it would appear that none of the
alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the
requested RS-15 downzoning alternative.
The residential uses would support the development of the town of
Honoka'a, as the site is proximate to commercial, residential, and
public uses. Equally important, it would provide direct and indirect
affordable housing opportunities.
28
r�
r'
BILL No. 369
COUNTY OF HAWAII -- STATE OF HAWAII
ORDINANCE NO.
-A-4 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7. 12 THE SAMAKUA DISTRICT HORESTEADS
AREA ZONE MAP AND SECTION 7.13 THE HONOKAA-S3AINA-KUKUIHAELE ZONE
MAP OF CHAPTER 8 (ZONING CODE) , ARTICLE 2, HAWAII COUNTY CODE, AS
AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE DIS'T'RICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL
(A-5a) AND AGRICULTURAL (A-40a) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-10)
AT PA,ALAEA, PAPAANUI, HAINA AND NAMOKU, HAMAKUA, HAWAII , COVERED BY
TAX NLA P KEY 4-5-10:FORT IOivS OF 1, 2 AND 31.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII.
SECTION 1. Section 7.12 of Chapter S (Zoning Code) , Article 2,
Hawaii County Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding
thereto the following subsections:
"7. 12 Cc-l). The district classification of the following
area situated at Namoku, Hamakua, Hawaii, shall be Single
Family Residential ORS-103 :
Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of this parcel of land,
on the Westerly side of Plumeri.a Street, the Coordinates of
said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Tri-
angulation Station "K.AAO" being 18. 20 feet north and 3,425.75
feet West and running by azimuths measured clockwise from
True. South:
1. Following along the Westerly side of Alumeria Street on a
curve to the left with a radius
of 840.40 feet, the Chord
azimuth and distance being_
7° 33 ' 32.5" 404.87 feet;
2. 353° 369 57" 434.15 feet along the Westerly side
of Plumeria Street;
3. Thence, following along the Northerly side of Lot 1-B, being
the Country of Hawaii Refuse
Transfer Station, on a curve
to the right, with a radius of
24.00 feet, the chord azimuth
and distance being:
380 36, 50" 28. 28 feet;
4_ 83a 36, So" 30.00 feet along the Northerly side
or tri" county or nawall rterube
'T'ransfer Station;
EXHIBITA.
Thence, following along the Southerly side of the proposed
Lehua street realignment along
the remainder of Grant 1073 to
George Hardy, along the remain-
der of ;rant 3163 to J. D.
Ackerman on a curve to the
?eft with a radius of 430.00
feet, the chord azimuth and
distance being:
19. 2730 lb ' 24" 144.51 feet;
20. 2630 30 ' 143. 78 feet along the Southerly side
of the proposed Lehua Street
realignment along the remainder
of Grant 3163 to J. D. Ackerman;
'Whence, following along the Southerly side of the proposed
Lehua Street realignment along
the remainder of Grant 3163 to
J. D? Ackerman on a curve to the
right with a radius of 770.00
feet, the chord azimuth and
distance being:
21. 2700 20' 183.23 feet;
22. 2770 lo' 993. 21 feet along the Southerly side
of the proposed Lehua Street
realignment along the remainder
of Grant 3L63 to J. D. Ackerman,
along the remainder of Land
Commission Aware 9971, Apana 5
to W. P. Leleiohoku, and along
the remainder of Lot 8 of Grant
6729 to Flonokaa Sugar Company;
23. 7° 10' 77.07 feet along the Westerly side
of Pakalana Street;
24. 130 42' 144.30 feet along the Westerly side
of Pakalana Street;
25. 210 30' 164. 20 feet along the Westerly side
of Pakalana Street;
26. 130 49' 111.32 feet along the Westerly side
of Pakalana Street to the point
of beginning and containing an
area of 13. 201 Acres.
"Ail as outlined in red as the map attached hereto, marked
Exhibit 'A' and by reference made a part hereof."
SECTION 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall take effect
Svr F:.Li.vy'r Z'i v.k7 vI3 CTiC f,tindi tQ nYi tnaG (A) the n�Li ti nnr:l" O.'C its
- 12 -
authorized. representative shall submit a revised master plan for the
subject area to the Planning Department for review and acceptance,
taking into consideration such matters as roadway network, drainage,
Open space, etc. , in accordance with the Subdivision Control Code
and the Cluster Plan Development requirements, No subdivision plans
for any of the proposed phases of development shall be approved
until the Master Plan has been reviewed and accepted by the Department;
(8) the petitioner/representative shall submit a subdivision plan
for Phase I of its development and secure tentative approval within
one (1) year from the date of acceptance of the overall master plan.
The petitioner/representative shall also assume the responsibility
forsecuring final subdivision approval; (C) in order to assure housing
development on the proposed lots, the petitioner/representative shall
enter into an "Agreement", which may include a Surety Bond, with
the County of Hawaii. The "Agreement" shall be approved by the
Planning Director and the Corporation Counsel and shall be filed
with the state of Hawaii, Bureau of Conveyances. Such "Agreement"
shall be entered into prior to receipt of final subdivision approval
of the first phase of development, (D) the petitioner/representative
shall be responsible for providing a water system in accordance with
the County of Hawaii Department of water Supply standards; (E) the
method of sewage disposal shall conform to the rules, regulations,
and requirements of the State Department of Health; (F) none of
the proposed lots shall have direct access from the Hawaii Belt
Highway; (G) a channelized intersection with left-turn storage lanes
and acceleration and deceleration lanes be constructed at the Pakal.ana
Street-Mauna Loa Street-Hawaii Belt Highway intersection meeting
with the approval of the State Department of 'Transportation, Land
13 -
Transportation Facilities Division. The intersection shall be con-
structed concurrently with phase 2 (mauka area) as shown on the
master plan; (H) the petitioner/representative work Closely with
the Soil Conservation Service to operationalize conservation
practices relative to the topographic conditions of the proposed
development; (IJ a hydrologic/drainage study for the overall develop-
ment be made by the petitioner/representative and be submitted with
the overall, master plan; and (a) all other applicable rules and
regulations shall be complied with. Should any of the foregoing
Conditions not be met, rezoning of the area to its original zoning
designation may be initiated.
SECTION 4. In the event that any portion of this ordinance
is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
parts of this ordinance.
SEC'T'ION S. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY-
COUNCILMAN, COU TY PFHAWAII'
Hilo, Hawaii
Date of Introduction: April 1. 1978
Date of Adoption: April 15, 1978
Effective Date: April 24, 1978
--
Jas's-20-06 10:02 ROGER V. MEEKER 808-889-1951 P.02
IV CW?,
Harry Kim Edwin S.Taira
Mayor Houriog.4&ninislralor
COMO of yoffialiff
OF'F'ICE OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNYTY DEVELOPMENT
50 WOUku Drive a Ham,Hac ZN 96720-2456
VM(008)961-8379.FAX(909)961-9685
July 5, 2005
Sidney Fuke
.Planning Consultant
100- Pauahi• Street, Suite_ 212
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Subject: Honoka-a molls
Affordable Housing Condition
TMX: 4-5-10:1 & 121
After reviewing our records and discussions with the Housing and
Community Development Corporation of Hawaii (HCDCH) , the Office
of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) has determined that,
based on current conditions, the parcels listed above do not have
any outstanding affordable housing requirements to satisfy.
Please note that the OHCD and HCDCH will NOT approve or recognize
any credits sold or transferred from these parcels.
Please also note that future zone changes may subject the parcels
to affordable housing requirements in effect at that time.
If you have questions or need additional information, please call ,
us at 961-8379. Thank you.
Edwin S. Taira -
Housing Administrator
C: Janice Takahashi, Planner, HCDCH
Chris Yuen, Planning Director
52S4dest
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
'HAWAFI COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUN"
PROViDERAND EMPLOYER'
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA"A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
PREPARED FOR
HONOKA'A PLANTATION COTTAGES, LLC
MAY 22, 2020
PREPARED BY
TMC THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA"A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
PREPARED FOR
HONOKA'A PLANTATION COTTAGES, LLC
MAY 22, 2020
s- 0 ,9
LICENSED �.F
PROFESSIONAL G
* ENGINEER
No.4922-C
P'
THIS WORK WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION.
I'AA 4/30/2021
iFCFTURE EXPIRATION DATE OF LICENSE
PREPARED BY
44
TMC THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
�*N ?* RANDALL S.OKANEKU,P.E.,PRINCIPAL s 1188 BISHOP STREET,SUITE 1907 s HONOLULU,HI 96813
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
A. Project Description........................................................................................................ 1
B. Purpose and Scope of the Study.................................................................................... 1
C. Methodologies............................................................................................................... 3
1. Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................. 3
2. Trip Generation................................................................................................. 3
II. Existing Conditions................................................................................................................... 4
A. Roadways...................................................................................................................... 4
B. Public Transit................................................................................................................ 4
C. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions ................................. 4
1. Field Investigation and Data Collection ........................................................... 4
2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic........................................................................ 5
3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................ 5
III. Future Traffic Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5
A. Background Growth in Traffic...................................................................................... 5
B. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project...................................................... 8
C. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project ...................................................... 8
IV. Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................ 8
A. Trip Generation Characteristics.................................................................................... 8
B. Traffic Assignment....................................................................................................... 8
i
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
Page
C. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project.......................................... 13
D. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project........................................... 13
V. Recommendations and Conclusions....................................................................................... 13
A. Recommendations....................................................................................................... 13
B. Conclusions................................................................................................................. 16
ii
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Location and Vicinity Map................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic........................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic............................................................................................ 7
Figure 4. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project.......................................................... 9
Figure 5. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project......................................................... 10
Figure 6. AM Peak Hour Site Traffic Assignment............................................................................ 11
Figure 7. PM Peak Hour Site Traffic Assignment............................................................................. 12
Figure 8. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Volumes With Project............................................................. 14
Figure 9. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Volumes With Project.............................................................. 15
iii
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA"A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
L Introduction
A. Project Description
Honokaa Plantation Cottages, LLC is planning the development of 80 single-family
detached dwelling units on its properties in Honoka a, Hawaii Island. The property is
identified as Tax Map Keys: (3)4-5-010:131 & 136, and (3) 4-5-024:010. The 35.113-acre
project site is located on the makai (north) side of Mamalahoa Highway,between Pakalana
Street and Plumeria Street. Site access is planned along Lehua Street. Figure 1 depicts
the project location and vicinity map.
Honokaa Plantation Cottages will consist of a total of 80 lots, each containing one (1)
single-family detached housing unit. The Honokaa Plantation Cottages project is expected
to be fully built-out and occupied by the Year 2024.
B. Purpose and Scope of the Study
The purpose of this Traffic Assessment Report (TAR) is to analyze the traffic impacts
resulting from the development of the proposed Honokaa Plantation Cottages. The scope
of the TAR includes the following:
1. A description of the Honokaa Plantation Cottages.
2. An evaluation of existing roadways and traffic conditions.
3. The analysis of the future traffic conditions without the proposed project.
4. The development of the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project.
5. The assignment of the site-generated trips onto the roadway network.
6. The identification and analysis of the traffic impacts resulting from the development of
the proposed project.
7. The recommendations of roadway improvements, as necessary, which would mitigate
the traffic impacts identified in this study.
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
b�_ �KuI L.er-4
i e _ Hal�nrd Nekas+vs- ��
/4 w 77 r`5 - Yici-aria
{� P (Theo. H Oarr:Y 4 Gc.,Gte>!)Le
° ae
V. 14
/0.47 Acs,
b i e,�x.�•d'seen = Pvr. Q�
O N •woNotnn xe.�ss reaHSFe-e ia,oor F
a® STATlCN SlT6" 16,94e f •`�����•
I8.4a-3Ac- y t1 c 9 5fafe�fNawair ��/ X09
'''.
y l 0 3/,739
ter. n � .4� '• '�L„c 9 W
1V7ice..glad ON
p .'r,ar""s
J/T a `r'"'sc°p•;,A.. N `83F�'A4�A` psM 'r�'IRe� '�oMr.� 0�Mau
U K J
\ W
a 5.000A ,ag®* f28 �p`d r F/�waii
MI5 a 12� 129 A � 3v,9er1 Heus<�9 4L Thor;y
o e� i23 S ,eery
y� (71 ati
14
119
�4 Ac.
lieO�.DKAA
- K ��� 20.79!Ac. �x � 4sr ' �•os P�TAL
� f
e
Project Site W1
929 ty � ` 131 12t (l
o 0 7 „
of c Th�'e5Q
l; a ( ���n.a.�'i/ i Z •5 ST��`E r gl mea - �L{� O>`
� V 1 AL4YriiPoulvo" 762<' lQ•7gd Ol r•FW�"� 6 °T a?
e
G e A K m
T � g
/a.o49,ga "� 3 J G pKrP O
.A N
L OOOAc, E H.•
4•ee �.ex .e�
I 10�4@2� FrIGH d EL[H.GCMOe�` f!` S'eAc.r. !Or"TkAGN6+
r�1 1 [L E GOTT44 r4
vy SEE INSET f� y /Qq•E/tL/liv�. Li
gY�� (aloHr SrpG, wd.Casem l:,e 2mg p.rGe RG
_ 80 :r T an.� ' .5
r _J
��774 O
_�_ — 2e�9'�F• 7!I1.2C8TAc Et
4e_ ®..ew.: PL RT
U5 L ,r /rAr
Jr
NEWS LS@s ft , ,r
N ll 1
ryM��� r jno.
PLAT IS p�w�10��� g AAo
�o /f
Study Intersections
Figure 1. Location and Vicinity Map
2
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
C. Methodologies
1. Capacity Analysis
The highway capacity analysis, performed in this study, is based upon procedures
presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM), published by the
Transportation Research Board. HCM defines the Level of Service (LOS) as "a
quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures representing quality
of service." HCM defines the six(6)Levels of Service from the traveler's perspective,
ranging from the best LOS "A" to the worst LOS "P. LOS translates the complex
mathematical results of the highway capacity analysis into an A through F grading
system for the purpose of simplifying the roadway performance for decision makers.
The Hawaii County Code Chapter 25, Section 25-2-46 "Concurrency
Requirements" define LOS's "A", "B", "C", and "D" as acceptable Levels of Service.
LOS's "E" and "F" are considered to be worse than acceptable Levels of Service. The
intersection LOS is primarily based upon average delay (d) in seconds per vehicle
(sec/veh). Table 1 summarizes the HCM LOS criteria.
Table 1. Intersection Level of Service Criteria—Unsignalized Control (HCM)
LOS Delay d (sec/veh) Description
A d<_10 Control delay is minimal.
B 10<d<_15 Control delay is not significant.
C 15<d<_25 Stable operation. Queuing begins to occur.
D 25<d<_35 Less stable condition. Increase in delays, decrease in
travel speeds.
E 35<d<_50 Unstable operation, significant delays.
F d>50 High delays, extensive queuing.
Synchro is a traffic analysis software that was developed by Trafficware. Synchro
is an intersection analysis program that is based upon the HCM methodology.
Worksheets for the capacity analysis, performed throughout this report, are compiled
in the Appendix.
2. Trip Generation
The trip generation methodology is based upon generally accepted techniques
developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in the Trip
Generation Manual,I oth Edition. The Hawaii County Code"Concurrency Requirements"
3
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
cites the ITE methodology as the source for determining trip generation. The ITE trip
rates for single-family detached housing were developed by correlating the total vehicle
trip generation data with various land use activities/characteristics, such as the
vehicle trips per hour (vph) per dwelling unit (DU).
II. Existing Conditions
A. Roadways
Mamalahoa Highway (Route 19), also known as the Hawaii Belt Road, is the primary
arterial highway along the north coast of Hawaii Island. Mamalahoa Highway is a two-
way, two-lane highway in the vicinity of the project site. The posted speed limit on
Mamalahoa Highway in Honoka a is 45 miles per hour.
Pakalana Street is a two-way, two-lane collector street in Honoka a. Pakalana Street is
stop-controlled at its four-legged intersection with Mamalahoa Highway, opposite Mauna
Loa Street. Pakalana Street provides the primary access for Honoka a High School,Middle
School, and Elementary School. On school days, between the hours of 7:00 AM and 3:00
PM, Pakalana Street is one-way mauka bound (southbound) from Mamane Street to
Kamani Street. As a result, makai bound(northbound)traffic on Pakalana Street is diverted
to Lehua Street.
Lehua Street is a curvilinear, two-way, two-lane local roadway, between Pakalana
Street and Honoka a County Park. Sight distances along Lehua Street are limited by its
horizontal and vertical alignments and roadside vegetation and embankments. Lehua
Street is stop-controlled at its skewed, Tee-intersection with Pakalana Street. About 500
feet west of Pakalana Street, Lehua Street reduces to a one-lane roadway at a drainage
crossing. "Yield to Oncoming Traffic" signs are posted on eastbound Lehua Street at the
drainage crossing.
B. Public Transit
The Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency operates the public transit service on Hawaii
Island. The Hele-On Bus provides transit service between Honokaa, Hilo, and Waimea.
C. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions
1. Field Investigation and Data Collection
Turning movement traffic count surveys were conducted in November 2019, during
the peak periods of traffic, at the intersections of Mamalahoa Highway and Pakalana
Street/Mauna Loa Street, and Pakalana Street and Lehua Street.
4
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic
The existing AM peak hour of traffic in the study area occurred from 7:00 AM to
8:00 AM. Mamalahoa Highway carried about 550 vehicles per hour (vph), total for
both directions, during the existing AM peak hour of traffic. Pakalana Street carried
about 200 vph, total for both directions, while Lehua Street carried about 100 vph.
During the existing AM peak hour of traffic, Pakalana Street and Mauna Loa Street
operated at LOS "C" and LOS "B" at Mamalahoa Highway, respectively. The left-turn
movement from eastbound Mamalahoa Highway onto Pakalana Street operated at
LOS "A".
Lehua Street operated at LOS "B" at Pakalana Street. Figure 2 depicts the existing
AM peak hour traffic volumes.
3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic
The existing PM peak hour of traffic in the study area occurred from 4:30 PM to
5:30 PM. During the existing PM peak hour of traffic, Mamalahoa Highway carried
about 600 vph, total for both directions. Pakalana Street carried about 240 vph, and
Lehua Street carried about 60 vph, total for both directions.
Pakalana Street and Mauna Loa Street continued to operate at LOS "C" and LOS
"B" at Mamalahoa Highway, respectively, during the existing PM peak hour of traffic.
The left-turn movement from eastbound Mamalahoa Highway onto Pakalana Street
operated at LOS "A".
Lehua Street operated at LOS "A" at Pakalana Street. The existing PM peak hour
traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 3.
HI. Future Traffic Conditions
A. Background Growth in Traffic
The Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii
(TPDH) was prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT), in
cooperation with the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and Planning
Department. The TPDH developed long-range travel forecasts for Hawaii Island based
upon future socio-economic conditions. The 2035 Transportation Plan projected an annual
growth rate of about 1.25 percent in vehicle trips in Honoka'a, and about a one (1)percent
annual growth rate in regional traffic on Mamalahoa Highway between Hilo and West
Hawaii.
5
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
U
M
M
W cn
6'2y
R3O
� yy F282
r11
Mamalahoa Hwy 15-* T Mamalahoa Hwy
133-* CO C, r�-
5-)k NNcO
v
v
r
0
v
07
Figure 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic
6
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
)
(LS
CU
CO
2 7y
era LO CO
N CO
vWcn� R55
X145
r21
Mamalahoa Hwy 320 T Mamalahoa Hwy
cY),r—o
23-�k N N
r
0
v
Figure 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic
7
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
For the purpose of this traffic assessment, an annual average growth rate of 1.00 percent
was uniformly applied to the existing(Year 2019)peak hour through traffic on Mamalahoa
Highway and an annual average growth rate of 1.25 percent was applied to the existing
peak hour traffic on Pakalana Street and Lehua Street to estimate the Year 2024 peak hour
traffic demands without the proposed project.
B. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project
Pakalana Street and Mauna Loa Street are expected to continue to operate at LOS "C"
and LOS "B" at Mamalahoa Highway, respectively, during the Year 2024 AM peak hour
of traffic without the proposed project. The left-turn movement from eastbound Mamalahoa
Highway onto Pakalana Street is also expected to continue to operate at LOS "A".
Lehua Street is expected to operate at LOS "B". The Year 2024 AM peak hour traffic
volumes without the proposed project are depicted on Figure 4.
C. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project
During the Year 2024 PM peak hour of traffic without the proposed project, the
intersections in the study area are expected to continue to operate at the same Levels of
Service as during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. Figure 5 depicts the Year 2024 PM
peak hour volumes without the proposed project.
IV. Traffic Impact Analysis
A. Trip Generation Characteristics
The trip generation characteristics for the proposed Honoka a Plantation Cottages were
based upon the ITE trip rates for an 80-unit single-family detached housing project. The
ITE trip generation characteristics for the proposed project are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. ITE Trip Generation Characteristics
Land Use DU AM Peak Hour (vph) PM Peak Hour (vph)
(ITE Code) Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Single-Family 80 15 46 61 52 30 82
Detached Housing (210)
B. Traffic Assignment
The traffic assignments were based upon the existing traffic patterns at the intersection
of Mamalahoa Highway and Pakalana Street. The AM and PM peak hour assignments of
site-generated traffic are depicted on Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
8
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
U
0)
y n
er
00 0
-- I lv R32
W y� �2 96
X12
Mamalahoa Hwy 140' T Mamalahoa Hwy
IrItM0-)
5-► N N CO
r
0
W
Cn
Figure 4. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project
9
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
U)
Cis
N N
n
� 7y
era I--
N cr)
Q0w- R58
� yy . 4-152
*-22
Mamalahoa Hwy 343 T Mamalahoa Hwy
CONS
24-* N N
v
r
0
v
Cn
Figure 5. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project
10
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
U
M
CU
O 00 ;c
n
Oy
U')O
SON *-10
� � � FO
Ar0
Mamalahoa Hwy 5� Vi T Mamalahoa Hwy
0 000
0�
v
v
r
0
Q)
Figure 6. AM Peak Hour Site Traffic Assignment
11
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
U
M
M
0 0 ;c
n
`�O y
� T
mooL o
`I-30
X-0
Mamalahoa Hwy 220- R + ?f Mamalahoa Hwy
000
Oy
r
0
v
Figure 7. PM Peak Hour Site Traffic Assignment
12
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
C. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project
Both Pakalana Street and Mauna Loa Street are expected to operate at LOS "C" at
Mamalahoa Highway, during the Year 2024 AM peak hour of traffic with the proposed
project. The left-turn movement from eastbound Mamalahoa Highway onto Pakalana
Street is expected to continue to operate at LOS "A" with the proposed project.
Lehua Street is expected to operate at LOS "B", during the Year 2024 AM peak hour
of traffic with the proposed project. Figure 8 depicts the Year 2024 AM peak hour traffic
with the proposed project.
D. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project
During the Year 2024 PM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project, Pakalana
Street and Mauna Loa Street are expected to operate at LOS "C" at Mamalahoa Highway.
The left-turn movement from eastbound Mamalahoa Highway onto Pakalana Street is
expected to continue to operate at LOS "A" with the proposed project.
Lehua Street is expected to operate at LOS "A", during the Year 2024 PM peak hour
of traffic with the proposed project. Figure 9 depicts the Year 2024 PM peak hour traffic
with the proposed project.
V. Recommendations and Conclusions
A. Recommendations
The following roadway improvements are recommended to mitigate the existing
conditions on Lehua Street:
1. A"Yield to Oncoming Traffic" sign should be posted at the existing drainage crossing
on westbound Lehua Street.
2. Appropriate sight distances should be maintained in both directions on Lehua Street at
the existing drainage crossing.
3. Appropriate sight distances should be maintained in both directions along Lehua Street
between the existing drainage crossing and Honoka a Park.
4. Lehua Street should be restriped at Pakalana Street to reduce the skewed angle of the
intersection.
13
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
4N.-4
Y
n
"1y
CO CD
C-0 Iv cO R42
4w � F296
� � � x-12
Mamalahoa Hwy 121 T Mamalahoa Hwy
M Q7
5� NNM
v
r
0
W
Figure 8. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Volumes With Project
14
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
NN _lie
S77`�
goo
er
R88
4-152
K-22
Mamalahoa Hwy 343; Mamalahoa Hwy
MND
24-)k N N
v
c
r
0
v
Cn
Figure 9. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Volumes With Project
15
M Honoka`a Plantation Cottages
Traffic Assessment Report May 22, 2020
B. Conclusions
Lehua Street is a curvilinear roadway,both vertically and horizontally, along the proj ect
frontages. The development of the proposed Honoka a Plantation Cottages is expected to
improve sight distances along its frontages by removing the existing vegetation and
roadside embankments that obscure the lines of sight, as necessary. The project access
driveway and subdivision roadway intersections on Lehua Street should be situated and
designed so as to provide appropriate sight distances on all approaches to the proposed
access points. In the future, the existing one-lane drainage crossing on Lehua Street may
require widening to two lanes with the increase of two-way traffic on Lehua Street.
Pakalana Street operated at LOS "C" at Mamalahoa Highway, during the existing AM
and PM peak hours of traffic. Pakalana Street is expected to continue to operate at LOS
"C" at Mamalahoa Highway through the Year 2024 without and with the proposed project.
Lehua Street is expected to operate at LOS "B" and LOS "A" at Pakalana Street, during
the Year 2024 AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively, without and with the
proposed project. Per the Hawaii County Code"Concurrency Requirements", LOS's"A",
"B" and "C" are considered to be acceptable Levels of Service. As such, the proposed
Honoka a Plantation Cottages project is not expected to significantly impact the
intersections in the study area. Therefore, traffic mitigation is not recommended at the
intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Pakalana Street at this time.
16
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA" A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Mamalahoa Hwy Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:1
Turning Movement Data
Mamalahoa Hwy Mamalahoa Hwy Mauna Loa St Pakalana St
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Start Time
Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Int.Total
2:00 PM 2 43 3 0 48 4 31 8 0 43 3 1 8 0 12 8 7 12 0 27 130
2:15 PM 5 44 7 0 56 4 42 6 0 52 2 2 5 0 9 29 11 11 0 51 168
2:30 PM 8 49 0 0 57 5 62 12 1 79 1 8 6 0 15 16 6 14 0 36 187
2:45 PM 9 44 7 0 60 8 41 12 0 61 4 4 4 0 12 30 13 21 0 64 197
Hourly Total 24 180 17 0 221 21 176 38 1 235 10 15 23 0 48 83 37 58 0 178 682
3:00 PM 17 84 5 0 106 4 40 9 0 53 1 2 3 0 6 16 11 23 2 50 215
3:15 PM 11 55 5 0 71 9 42 9 2 60 1 5 3 0 9 13 8 7 0 28 168
3:30 PM 16 76 6 0 98 7 35 13 3 55 2 7 5 0 14 16 3 13 0 32 199
3:45 PM 9 72 4 0 85 5 29 11 2 45 2 3 3 0 8 8 10 13 0 31 169
Hourly Total 53 287 20 0 360 25 146 42 7 213 6 17 14 0 37 53 32 56 2 141 751
4:00 PM 11 66 4 0 81 2 33 16 1 51 3 6 4 0 13 16 13 10 0 39 184
4:15 PM 12 76 4 0 92 8 37 10 0 55 8 3 7 0 18 18 10 11 0 39 204
4:30 PM 8 69 4 0 81 3 45 7 0 55 2 7 6 0 15 13 9 10 0 32 183
4:45 PM 9 83 5 0 97 5 36 16 0 57 0 2 4 0 6 6 4 11 0 21 181
Hourly Total 40 294 17 0 351 18 151 49 1 218 13 18 21 0 52 53 36 42 0 131 752
5:00 PM 10 89 8 0 107 8 28 23 0 59 0 6 4 0 10 12 9 9 0 30 206
5:15 PM 13 86 6 0 105 5 36 9 0 50 1 6 6 0 13 20 13 7 0 40 208
5:30 PM 17 61 6 0 84 8 28 16 1 52 3 3 6 0 12 11 5 7 0 23 171
5:45 PM 19 68 5 0 92 2 27 15 0 44 4 7 3 0 14 10 3 7 0 20 170
Hourly Total 59 304 25 0 388 23 119 63 1 205 8 22 19 0 49 53 30 30 0 113 755
BREAK
6:00 AM 1 15 0 0 16 1 79 5 0 85 2 2 2 0 6 3 1 5 0 9 116
6:15 AM 1 21 1 0 23 3 77 5 0 85 2 0 2 0 4 7 1 7 0 15 127
6:30 AM 1 20 0 0 21 2 66 8 0 76 3 1 2 0 6 1 0 7 0 8 111
645 AM 6 32 1 0 39 1 96 13 0 110 5 7 10 0 22 7 2 9 0 18 189
Hourly Total 9 88 2 0 99 7 318 31 0 356 12 10 16 0 38 18 4 28 0 50 543
7:00 AM 3 25 4 0 32 2 103 8 0 113 5 6 10 0 21 8 3 14 0 25 191
7:15 AM 4 32 0 0 36 5 69 12 0 86 8 3 5 0 16 4 11 18 0 33 171
7:30 AM 4 33 0 0 37 0 48 2 0 50 3 6 13 0 22 14 5 11 0 30 139
745 AM 4 43 1 0 48 4 62 8 0 74 7 7 9 0 23 39 3 26 0 68 213
Hourly Total 15 133 5 0 153 11 282 30 0 323 23 22 37 0 82 65 22 69 0 156 714
8:00 AM 6 43 0 0 49 1 56 8 1 65 2 6 8 0 16 27 7 23 0 57 187
8:15 AM 5 31 0 0 36 8 48 6 0 62 0 4 11 0 15 15 5 16 0 36 149
8:30 AM 3 35 2 0 40 6 55 8 0 69 2 3 1 0 6 18 2 9 0 29 144
845 AM 5 18 3 0 26 3 39 7 0 49 3 6 1 0 10 15 5 10 0 30 115
Hourly Total 19 127 5 0 151 18 198 29 1 245 7 19 21 0 47 75 19 58 0 152 595
BREAK
12:00 PM 5 38 3 0 46 4 34 9 0 47 4 5 3 0 12 17 2 15 0 34 139
12:15 PM 8 39 1 0 48 4 22 5 0 31 2 1 4 0 7 11 3 12 0 26 112
12:30 PM 10 41 3 0 54 6 26 3 0 35 3 6 6 0 15 10 4 7 0 21 125
12:45 PM 3 32 7 0 42 4 28 13 0 45 0 7 9 0 16 14 10 6 0 30 133
Hourly Total 26 150 14 0 190 18 110 30 0 158 9 19 22 0 50 52 19 40 0 111 509
1:00 PM 5 27 2 0 34 1 27 11 1 39 3 7 4 0 14 9 5 13 1 27 114
1:15 PM 8 31 7 0 46 11 47 4 0 62 3 6 5 0 14 25 14 19 2 58 180
1:30 PM 6 38 2 0 46 1 40 8 0 49 1 4 4 0 9 15 8 16 0 39 143
1:45 PM 6 52 5 0 63 5 22 9 2 36 2 2 3 2 7 28 7 19 2 54 160
Hourly Total 25 148 16 0 189 18 136 32 3 186 9 19 16 2 44 77 34 67 5 178 597
2:00 PM 10 43 4 0 57 4 30 8 1 42 4 4 7 0 15 28 11 20 0 59 173
2:15 PM 3 47 3 0 53 3 33 5 1 41 4 3 5 0 12 12 6 14 0 32 138
230 PM 4 54 2 0 60 1 26 8 1 35 2 1 1 0 4 16 7 8 0 31 130
2:45 PM8 36 3 0 47 2 40 4 0 46 2 9 3 0 14 14 10 9 0 33 140
Hourly Total 25 180 12 0 217 10 129 25 3 164 12 17 16 0 45 70 34 51 0 155 581
3:00 PM 11 48 5 0 64 3 33 7 1 43 3 3 6 0 12 14 7 17 0 38 157
315 PM 22 64 6 0 92 5 35 16 0 56 3 4 3 0 10 20 6 19 0 45 203
3:30 PM 5 62 4 0 7l3
36 10 0 49 2 5 6 0 13 15 7 13 0 35 168
3:45 PM 10 55 5 0 70 0 32 6 0 38 2 7 4 0 13 7 12 13 0 32 153
Hourly Total 48 229 20 0 297 11 136 39 1 186 10 19 19 0 48 56 32 62 0 150 681
4:00 PM 11 74 2 0 87 10 30 13 0 53 1 4 8 0 13 13 5 6 0 24 177
4:15 PM 13 72 3 0 88 12 34 10 0 56 3 6 7 0 16 16 7 8 1 31 191
4:30 PM 9 70 5 0 84 6 41 6 1 53 3 4 7 0 14 10 9 11 0 30 181
4:45 PM 20 81 10 0 111 7 37 14 0 58 3 5 2 0 10 10 6 12 0 28 207
Hourly Total 53 297 20 0 370 35 142 43 1 220 10 19 24 053 49 27 37 1 113 756
5:00 PM 9 84 6 0 99 3 43 8 1 54 0 5 2 0 7 10 10 11 0 31 191
5:15 PM 11 84 4 0 99 6 44 10 0 60 1 4 4 0 9 13 14 7 0 34 202
5:30 PM 12 77 2 0 91 5 37 8 0 50 1 2 3 1 6 16 3 8 0 27 174
545 PM 12 54 0 0 66 8 25 13 0 46 1 3 8 0 12 12 5 11 0 28 152
Hourly Total 44 299 12 0 355 22 149 39 1 210 3 14 17 1 34 51 32 37 0 120 719
-BREAK"'
6 00A 2 14 0 0 16 0 80 3 0 83 3 2 6 0 11 3 1 10 0 14 124
6:15 AM 4 14 1 0 19 3 80 11 0 94 1 2 4 0 7 4 1 5 0 10 130
6:30AM 2 20 1 0 23 6 85 12 0 103 6 2 3 0 11 4 0 8 0 12 149
645 AM 5 33 2 0 40 3 84 10 0 97 4 4 8 0 16 6 1 10 0 17 170
Hourly Total 13 81 4 0 98 12 329 36 0 377 14 10 21 0 45 17 3 33 0 53 573
7:00 AM 2 28 2 0 32 3 96 12 0 111 9 7 11 0 27 10 3 12 0 25 195
715 AM 2 20 1 0 23 6 74 11 0 91 3 5 14 0 22 9 6 18 0 33 169
7:30 AM 3 46 2 0 51 3 59 8 0 70 3 5 5 013 21 6 16 0 43 177
745 AM 5 27 1 0 33 6 35 8 0 49 3 7 7 0 17 32 5 21 1 58 157
Hourly Total 12 121 6 0 139 18 264 39 0 321 18 24 37 0 79 72 20 67 1 159 698
8:00 AM 4 48 3 0 55 3 61 10 1 74 7 4 10 0 21 21 8 19 0 48 198
8:15 AM 8 22 0 0 30 2 58 6 0 66 5 3 6 0 14 13 12 27 0 52 162
8:30 AM 6 30 1 0 37 3 38 12 0 53 1 3 3 0 7 20 2 18 0 40 137
845 AM 5 42 4 0 51 5 44 4 0 53 5 5 1 0 11 13 5 7 0 25 140
Hourly Total 23 142 8 0 173 13 201 32 1 246 18 15 20 0 53 67 27 71 0 165 637
Grad Total 488 3060 203 0 3751 280 2986 597 21 3863 182 279 343 3 804 911 408 806 9 2125 10543
Approach% 13.0 81.6 5.4 7.2 77.3 15.5 22.6 34.7 42.7 42.9 19.2 37.9
Total% 4.6 29.0 1.9 35.6 2.7 28.3 5.7 36.6 1.7 2.6 3.3 7.6 8.6 3.9 7.6 20.2
Motorcycles 2 5 2 9 1 2 0 3 1 6 1 8 1 6 1 8 28
%Motorcycles 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.3
Cars&Light Goods 486 2855 194 3535 264 2823 586 3673 178 269 328 775 881 398 787 2066 10049
%Cars&Light Goods 99.6 93.3 95.6 94.2 94.3 94.5 98.2 95.1 97.8 HA 95.6 96.4 96.7 97.5 97.6 97.2 95.3
Buses 0 41 5 46 4 20 8 32 1 2 2 5 21 2 12 35 118
%Buses 0.0 1.3 2.5 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.1
Single-Unit Trucks 0 69 2 71 7 63 3 73 2 0 10 12 5 1 6 12 168
%Single-Unit Trucks 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.9 2.5 2.1 0.5 1.9 1.1 0.0 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.6 1.6
Articulated Trucks 0 89 0 89 4 78 0 82 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 174
%Articulated Trucks 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.4 1.4 2.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
Bicycles on Road 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 3 6
%Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Bicycles on Crosswalk 0 1 2 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%Bicycles onq.8 - - - - 66.7 - - - - 55.6
Crosswalk
Peclestrians0 20 1 4
%Pedestrians 95.2 33.3 44.4
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Mamalahoa Hwy Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:4
di
787 398 881 o
12 2 211 o
806 408 9111 9
+1 1 4
11nn 119 019 - r v
+1 t rl
9 L I I h l I led
11
8 17
11 1 16
1-222
1691
Turning Movement Data Plot
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Mamalahoa Hwy Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:5
Turning Movement Peak our Data(4.30 PM)
Mamalahoa Hwy Mamalahoa Hwy Mauna Loa St Pakalana St
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Start Time
Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Int.Total
4:30 PM 8 69 4 0 81 3 45 7 0 55 2 7 6 0 15 13 9 10 0 32 183
4:45 PM 9 83 5 0 97 5 36 16 0 57 0 2 4 0 6 6 4 11 0 21 181
5:00 PM 10 89 8 0 107 8 28 23 0 59 0 6 4 0 10 12 9 9 0 30 206
5:15 PM 13 86 6 0 105 5 36 9 0 50 1 6 6 0 13 20 13 7 0 40 208
Total 40 327 23 0 390 21 145 55 0 221 3 21 20 0 44 51 35 37 0 123 778
Approach% 10.3 83.8 5.9 9.5 65.6 24.9 6.8 47.7 45.5 41.5 28.5 30.1
Total% 5.1 42.0 3.0 50.1 2.7 18.6 7.1 28.4 0.4 2.7 2.6 5.7 6.6 4.5 4.8 15.8
PHF 0.769 0.919 0.719 0.911 0.656 0.806 0.598 0.936 0.375 0.750 0.833 0.733 0.638 0.673 0.841 0.769 0.935
Motorcycles 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
%Motorcycles 2.5 0.3 4.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cars&Light Goods 39 316 22 377 21 143 55 219 3 21 20 44 51 35 36 122 762
%Cars&Light Goods 97.5 96.6 95.7 96.7 100.0 98.6 100.0 99.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.3 99.2 97.9
Buses 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6
%Buses 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.8
Single-Unit Trucks 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
%Single-Unit Trucks 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
%Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Crosswalk - 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%Bicycles on
Crosswalk
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0
%Pedestrians
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Mamalahoa Hwy Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:6
5,i5di
36 31 11 o
37 31 511 o
+1 1 4
S Peak Hour Data Z
4 H=
r °9Y o; 3OPM v
+1 t rl
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot(4:30 PM)
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Mamalahoa Hwy Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:7
Turning Movement Peak our Data(7.00 AM)
Mamalahoa Hwy Mamalahoa Hwy Mauna Loa St Pakalana St
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Start Time
Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Int.Total
7:00 AM 3 25 4 0 32 2 103 8 0 113 5 6 10 0 21 8 3 14 0 25 191
7:15 AM 4 32 0 0 36 5 69 12 0 86 8 3 5 0 16 4 11 18 0 33 171
7:30 AM 4 33 0 0 37 0 48 2 0 50 3 6 13 0 22 14 5 11 0 30 139
745 AM 4 43 1 0 48 4 62 8 0 74 7 7 9 0 23 39 3 26 0 68 213
Total 15 133 5 0 153 11 282 30 0 323 23 22 37 0 82 65 22 69 0 156 714
Approach% 9.8 86.9 3.3 3.4 87.3 9.3 28.0 26.8 45.1 41.7 14.1 44.2
Total% 2.1 18.6 0.7 21.4 1.5 39.5 4.2 45.2 3.2 3.1 5.2 11.5 9.1 3.1 9.7 21.8
PHF 0.938 0.773 0.313 0.797 0.550 0.684 0.625 0.715 0.719 0.786 0.712 0.891 0.417 0.500 0.663 0.574 0.838
Motorcycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cars&Light Goods 15 118 4 137 10 270 29 309 23 21 36 80 63 21 67 151 677
%Cars&Light Goods 100.0 88.7 80.0 89.5 90.9 95.7 96.7 95.7 100.0 95.5 97.3 97.6 96.9 95.5 97.1 96.8 94.8
Buses 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 4 11
%Buses 0.0 1.5 20.0 2.0 9.1 0.0 3.3 0.6 0.0 4.5 2.7 2.4 3.1 0.0 2.9 2.6 1.5
Single-Unit Trucks 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
%Single-Unit Trucks 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1
Articulated Trucks 0 10 0 10 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
%Articulated Trucks 0.0 7.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
%Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.6 0.1
Bicycles on Crosswalk - 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%Bicycles on
Crosswalk
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0
%Pedestrians
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Mamalahoa Hwy Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:8
5,i5di
11 NhIdd
+1 1 4
S Peak Hour Data Z
4 H=
ra°'oAjl oo M r
+1 t rl
2132ol 36
o
o
IE
_JIN�ol
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot(7:00 AM)
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Lehua St Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:1
Turning Movement Data
Lehua St Driveway Pakalana St Pakalana St
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Start Time
Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Int.Total
2:30 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 1 18 0 24 9 0 33 56
2:45 PM 1 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 1 0 14 0 61 15 1 76 97
Hourly Total 1 0 11 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 18 13 1 1 32 0 85 24 1 109 153
3:00 PM 1 0 7 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 8 18 0 0 26 0 37 5 1 42 76
3:15 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 6 19 0 2 25 0 20 6 0 26 54
3:30 PM 2 0 13 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 8 26 0 0 34 0 19 2 0 21 70
3:45 PM 0 0 6 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 5 15 0 2 20 0 23 1 0 24 51
Hourly Total 3 0 29 1 32 1 0 0 3 1 27 78 0 4 105 0 99 14 1 113 251
4:00 PM 1 0 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 8 25 0 1 33 0 27 0 0 27 69
4:15 PM 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 0 0 21 0 25 2 0 27 54
4:30 PM 1 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 20 0 0 24 0 22 3 0 25 56
4:45 PM 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 0 0 25 0 20 1 0 21 50
Hourly Total 3 0 23 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 23 80 0 1 103 0 94 6 0 100 229
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 27 0 0 35 0 20 6 0 26 63
5:15 PM 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0 0 29 0 25 1 0 26 63
BREAK
Hourly Total 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 16 48 0 0 64 0 45 7 0 52 126
6:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 6 17
645 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 13 0 0 22 0 15 1 0 16 40
Hourly Total 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 19 0 0 32 0 21 1 0 22 57
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 15 0 18 2 0 20 37
7:15 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 12 0 30 5 3 35 49
7:30 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 29 11 0 40 50
745 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 15 3 1 0 19 0 68 25 0 93 115
Hourly Total 2 0 6 0 8 1 0 0 2 1 45 8 1 0 54 0 145 43 3 188 251
8:00 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 14 3 0 0 17 0 56 18 0 74 94
8:15 AM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 12 0 32 14 0 46 61
BREAK
Hourly Total 1 0 4 0 5 1 0 0 1 1 23 6 0 0 29 0 88 32 0 120 155
2:30 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 9 3 0 0 12 0 22 2 0 24 41
2:45 PM 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 10 8 0 0 18 0 26 7 0 33 59
Hourly Total 0 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 2 0 19 11 0 0 30 0 48 9 0 57 100
3:00 PM 2 0 10 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 14 0 0 20 0 27 6 0 33 65
3:15 PM 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 7 20 0 1 27 0 27 0 0 27 58
3:30 PM 3 0 8 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 15 0 20 0 1 20 46
3:45 PM 1 0 7 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 6 14 0 1 20 0 22 1 0 23 51
Hourly Total 6 0 29 1 35 0 0 0 1 0 25 57 0 2 82 0 96 7 1 103 220
4:00 PM 2 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 21 0 0 27 0 16 1 0 17 49
4:15 PM 0 0 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 20 0 1 24 0 21 2 0 23 53
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 0 0 18 0 22 1 0 23 44
4:45 PM 2 0 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 0 35 0 15 1 0 16 60
Hourly Total 4 0 19 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 24 80 0 1 104 0 74 5 0 79 206
5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 24 0 23 3 0 26 53
5:15 PM 5 0 8 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 15 0 23 2 0 25 53
BREAK
Hourly Total 5 0 11 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 10 29 0 0 39 0 46 5 0 51 106
6:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 12 0 9 0 0 9 22
645 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 21 0 13 1 0 14 35
Hourly Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 0 0 33 0 22 1 0 23 57
7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 16 0 24 4 0 28 45
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 14 3 0 1 17 0 27 7 0 34 52
7:30 AM 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 46 11 0 57 70
745 AM 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 19 0 0 0 19 0 52 23 0 75 100
Hourly Total 1 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 55 6 0 1 61 0 149 45 0 194 267
8:00 AM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 8 6 0 0 14 0 43 25 0 68 85
8:15 AM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 11 3 0 0 14 0 40 8 0 48 65
Grand Total 27 0 175 5 202 3 0 0 18 3 332 462 2 10 796 0 1095 232 6 1327 2328
Approach% 13.4 0.0 86.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.0 0.3 0.0 82.5 17.5
Total% 1.2 0.0 7.5 8.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.3 19.8 0.1 34.2 0.0 47.0 10.0 57.0
Motorcycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 3 1 4 8
%Motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
Cars&Light Goods 27 0 174 201 3 0 0 3 319 456 2 777 0 1060 223 1283 2264
%Cars&Light Goods 100.0 99.4 99.5 100.0 100.0 96.1 98.7 100.0 97.6 96.8 96.1 96.7 97.3
Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 11 0 27 8 35 46
%Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 2.5 3.4 2.6 2.0
Single-Unit Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 4
%Single-Unit Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 6
%Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3
Bicycles on Crosswalk 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
%Bicycleson 0.0 - - - - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 - - - - 0.0
Crosswalk
Petlestrians 5 18 10 6
%Pedestrians 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Lehua St Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:3
5,i5di
2�I'll 2 1"1 W—d
N 1 4
4
92 o Pm
— 1E1/19OA11 30,E p
+1 t rl
1
Turning Movement Data Plot
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Lehua St Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:4
Turning Movement Peak our Data(4.30 PM)
Lehua St Driveway Pakalana St Pakalana St
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Start Time
Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Int.Total
4:30 PM 1 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 20 0 0 24 0 22 3 0 25 56
4:45 PM 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 0 0 25 0 20 1 0 21 50
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 27 0 0 35 0 20 6 0 26 63
5:15 PM 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0 0 29 0 25 1 0 26 63
Total 1 0 20 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 25 88 0 0 113 0 87 11 0 98 232
Approach% 4.8 0.0 95.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 77.9 0.0 0.0 88.8 11.2
Total% 0.4 0.0 8.6 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 37.9 0.0 48.7 0.0 37.5 4.7 42.2
PHF 0.250 0.000 0.625 0.656 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.781 0.815 0.000 0.807 0.000 0.870 0.458 0.942 0.921
Motorcycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
%Motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cars&Light Goods 1 0 20 21 0 0 0 0 25 87 0 112 0 86 11 97 230
%Cars&Light Goods 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 99.1 98.9 100.0 99.0 99.1
Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
%Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.4
Single-Unit Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Single-Unit Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Crosswalk - 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%Bicycles on 0.0
Crosswalk
Pedestrians 1 0 0 0
%Pedestrians 100.0
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Lehua St Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:5
di
11 86 o o
11 87 o o
+1 1 4
_ S Peak Hour Data Z
4 H=
r19Y o; 3o PM A
Mo'�r&'Lc�edl Goods
+1107 113 220
t rl
o
r TdIdII
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot(4:30 PM)
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Lehua St Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:6
Turning Movement Peak our Data(7.00 AM)
Lehua St Driveway Pakalana St Pakalana St
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Start Time
Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Left-Turn Thru Right-Turn Peds App.Total Int.Total
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 15 0 18 2 0 20 37
7:15 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 12 0 30 5 3 35 49
7:30 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 29 11 0 40 50
745 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 15 3 1 0 19 0 68 25 0 93 115
Total 2 0 6 0 8 1 0 0 2 1 45 8 1 0 54 0 145 43 3 188 251
Approach% 25.0 0.0 75.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 14.8 1.9 0.0 77.1 22.9
Total% 0.8 0.0 2.4 3.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 17.9 3.2 0.4 21.5 0.0 57.8 17.1 74.9
PHF 0.500 0.000 0.750 1.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.750 0.667 0.250 0.711 0.000 0.533 0.430 0.505 0.546
Motorcycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cars&Light Goods 2 0 6 8 1 0 0 1 42 8 1 51 0 139 40 179 239
%Cars&Light Goods 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.3 100.0 100.0 94.4 95.9 93.0 95.2 95.2
Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 6 3 9 12
%Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 4.1 7.0 4.8 4.8
Single-Unit Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Single-Unit Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Crosswalk 0 0 0 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
%Bicycles on
Crosswalk - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - - - 0.0 - -
Pedestrians 0 2 0 3
%Pedestrians 100.0 100.0
The Traffic Management Consultant
1188 Bishop Street,Suite 1907 Count Name:Lehua St Pakalana St
Site Code:Honokaa Plantation
Honolulu,Hawaii,United States 96813 Start Date:11/19/2019
808-536-0223 tmchawaii@aol.com Page No:7
5,i5di
40 139 o o
43 145 o 3
+1 1 4
_ S Peak Hour Data Z
4 H=
r aoYoAjlq 8oo d - =
+1 t rl
1152 2
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot(7:00 AM)
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA" A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
APPENDIX B
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
1: Mauna Loa St/Pakalana St&Mamalahoa Hwy Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 5.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol,veh/h 15 133 5 11 282 30 23 22 37 65 22 69
Future Vol,veh/h 15 133 5 11 282 30 23 22 37 65 22 69
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 11 20 9 4 3 0 5 3 3 0 3
Mvmt Flow 18 158 6 13 336 36 27 26 44 77 26 82
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 372 0 0 164 0 0 631 595 161 612 580 354
Stage 1 - - - - - - 197 197 - 380 380 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 434 398 - 232 200 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.19 - - 7.1 6.55 6.23 7.13 6.5 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.55 - 6.13 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.55 - 6.13 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.281 - - 3.5 4.045 3.327 3.527 4 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1198 - - 1373 - - 396 413 881 404 428 688
Stage 1 - - - - - - 809 732 - 640 617 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 604 598 - 769 739 -
Platoon blocked,% - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1198 - - 1373 - - 325 401 881 357 416 688
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 325 401 - 357 416 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 795 720 - 629 610 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 503 591 - 692 726 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.3 14.2 17.8
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 489 1198 - - 1373 - - 465
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.2 0.015 - - 0.01 - - 0.399
HCM Control Delay(s) 14.2 8.1 0 - 7.6 0 - 17.8
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 - - 0 - - 1.9
The Traffic Management Consultant Page B-1
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
2: Pakalana St& Lehua St Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.8
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations 1�
Traffic Vol,veh/h 45 9 145 43 2 6
Future Vol,veh/h 45 9 145 43 2 6
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 3 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 0 - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 55 55 55 55 55 55
Heavy Vehicles,% 7 0 4 7 0 0
Mvmt Flow 82 16 264 78 4 11
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 342 0 - 0 486 303
Stage 1 - - - - 303 -
Stage 2 - - - - 183 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1190 - - - 544 741
Stage 1 - - - - 754 -
Stage 2 - - - - 853 -
Platoon blocked,% - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1190 - - - 506 741
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 506 -
Stage 1 - - - - 701 -
Stage 2 - - - - 853 -
Approach NB SB SE
HCM Control Delay, s 6.9 0 10.5
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT SELn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1190 - 664 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 - 0.022 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 8.2 0 10.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 - -
The Traffic Management Consultant Page B-2
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
1: Mauna Loa St/Pakalana St&Mamalahoa Hwy Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol,veh/h 40 327 23 21 145 55 3 21 20 51 35 37
Future Vol,veh/h 40 327 23 21 145 55 3 21 20 51 35 37
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Mvmt Flow 43 348 24 22 154 59 3 22 21 54 37 39
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 213 0 0 372 0 0 712 703 360 696 686 184
Stage 1 - - - - - - 446 446 - 228 228 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 266 257 - 468 458 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1369 - - 1198 - - 350 364 689 359 373 856
Stage 1 - - - - - - 595 577 - 779 719 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 744 699 - 579 570 -
Platoon blocked,% - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1369 - - 1198 - - 293 342 689 316 351 856
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 293 342 - 316 351 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 571 554 - 748 704 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 658 684 - 517 547 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.8 14.2 18.1
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 437 1369 - - 1198 - - 404
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.107 0.031 - - 0.019 - - 0.324
HCM Control Delay(s) 14.2 7.7 0 - 8.1 0 - 18.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 1.4
The Traffic Management Consultant Page B-3
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
2: Pakalana St& Lehua St Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.6
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations 4
Traffic Vol,veh/h 25 88 87 11 1 20
Future Vol,veh/h 25 88 87 11 1 20
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 1 0 0 1 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 0 - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 1 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 27 96 95 12 1 22
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 108 0 - 0 252 102
Stage 1 - - - - 102 -
Stage 2 - - - - 150 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1495 - - - 741 959
Stage 1 - - - - 927 -
Stage 2 - - - - 883 -
Platoon blocked,% - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1494 - - - 725 958
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 725 -
Stage 1 - - - - 908 -
Stage 2 - - - - 882 -
Approach NB SB SE
HCM Control Delay, s 1.6 0 8.9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT SELn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1494 - 944 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.024 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 7.5 0 8.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
The Traffic Management Consultant Page B-4
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA" A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
APPENDIX C
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
2024 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
1: Mauna Loa St/Pakalana St&Mamalahoa Hwy 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol,veh/h 16 140 5 12 296 32 24 23 39 69 23 73
Future Vol,veh/h 16 140 5 12 296 32 24 23 39 69 23 73
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 11 20 9 4 3 0 5 3 3 0 3
Mvmt Flow 19 167 6 14 352 38 29 27 46 82 27 87
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 390 0 0 173 0 0 664 626 170 644 610 371
Stage 1 - - - - - - 208 208 - 399 399 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 456 418 - 245 211 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.19 - - 7.1 6.55 6.23 7.13 6.5 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.55 - 6.13 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.55 - 6.13 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.281 - - 3.5 4.045 3.327 3.527 4 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1180 - - 1362 - - 377 397 871 384 412 673
Stage 1 - - - - - - 799 724 - 625 606 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 588 585 - 756 731 -
Platoon blocked,% - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1180 - - 1362 - - 304 385 871 336 399 673
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 304 385 - 336 399 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 785 711 - 614 598 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 482 577 - 676 718 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.3 14.8 19.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 469 1180 - - 1362 - - 444
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.218 0.016 - - 0.01 - - 0.442
HCM Control Delay(s) 14.8 8.1 0 - 7.7 0 - 19.4
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.8 0 - - 0 - - 2.2
The Traffic Management Consultant Page C-1
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
2: Pakalana St& Lehua St 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.8
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations 1�
Traffic Vol,veh/h 48 10 154 46 2 6
Future Vol,veh/h 48 10 154 46 2 6
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 3 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 0 - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 55 55 55 55 55 55
Heavy Vehicles,% 7 0 4 7 0 0
Mvmt Flow 87 18 280 84 4 11
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 364 0 - 0 517 322
Stage 1 - - - - 322 -
Stage 2 - - - - 195 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1167 - - - 522 724
Stage 1 - - - - 739 -
Stage 2 - - - - 843 -
Platoon blocked,% - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1167 - - - 483 724
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 483 -
Stage 1 - - - - 684 -
Stage 2 - - - - 843 -
Approach NB SB SE
HCM Control Delay, s 6.9 0 10.7
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT SELn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1167 - 644 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 - 0.023 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 8.3 0 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 - -
The Traffic Management Consultant Page C-2
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
1: Mauna Loa St/Pakalana St& Mamalahoa Hwy 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 4.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol,veh/h 43 343 24 22 152 58 3 22 21 54 37 39
Future Vol,veh/h 43 343 24 22 152 58 3 22 21 54 37 39
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Mvmt Flow 46 365 26 23 162 62 3 23 22 57 39 41
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 224 0 0 391 0 0 749 740 378 732 722 193
Stage 1 - - - - - - 470 470 - 239 239 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 279 270 - 493 483 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1357 - - 1179 - - 331 347 673 339 355 846
Stage 1 - - - - - - 578 563 - 769 711 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 732 690 - 562 556 -
Platoon blocked,% - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1357 - - 1179 - - 272 325 673 295 332 846
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 272 325 - 295 332 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 553 539 - 736 695 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 642 675 - 497 532 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.8 14.8 19.7
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 418 1357 - - 1179 - - 382
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.117 0.034 - - 0.02 - - 0.362
HCM Control Delay(s) 14.8 7.7 0 - 8.1 0 - 19.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 1.6
The Traffic Management Consultant Page C-3
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
2: Pakalana St& Lehua St 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.6
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations 1�
Traffic Vol,veh/h 27 94 92 12 1 21
Future Vol,veh/h 27 94 92 12 1 21
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 1 0 0 1 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 0 - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 1 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 29 102 100 13 1 23
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 114 0 - 0 268 108
Stage 1 - - - - 108 -
Stage 2 - - - - 160 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1488 - - - 726 951
Stage 1 - - - - 921 -
Stage 2 - - - - 874 -
Platoon blocked,% - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1487 - - - 709 950
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 709 -
Stage 1 - - - - 901 -
Stage 2 - - - - 873 -
Approach NB SB SE
HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0 8.9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT SELn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1487 - 936 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.026 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 7.5 0 8.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
The Traffic Management Consultant Page C-4
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED
HONOKA" A PLANTATION COTTAGES
HONOKA'A, HAWAII ISLAND
TAX MAP KEYS: (3) 4-5-010:131 & 136 AND (3) 4-5-024:010
APPENDIX D
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
2024 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH PROJECT
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
1: Mauna Loa St/Pakalana St& Mamalahoa Hwy 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic With 80 DU
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 8.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol,veh/h 21 140 5 12 296 42 24 23 39 91 23 97
Future Vol,veh/h 21 140 5 12 296 42 24 23 39 91 23 97
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 11 20 9 4 3 0 5 3 3 0 3
Mvmt Flow 25 167 6 14 352 50 29 27 46 108 27 115
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 402 0 0 173 0 0 696 650 170 662 628 377
Stage 1 - - - - - - 220 220 - 405 405 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 476 430 - 257 223 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.19 - - 7.1 6.55 6.23 7.13 6.5 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.55 - 6.13 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.55 - 6.13 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.281 - - 3.5 4.045 3.327 3.527 4 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1168 - - 1362 - - 359 384 871 374 402 667
Stage 1 - - - - - - 787 716 - 620 602 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 574 578 - 745 723 -
Platoon blocked,% - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1168 - - 1362 - - 273 370 871 325 387 667
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 273 370 - 325 387 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 768 699 - 605 594 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 447 570 - 661 706 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1 0.3 15.6 24
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 441 1168 - - 1362 - - 435
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.232 0.021 - - 0.01 - - 0.577
HCM Control Delay(s) 15.6 8.2 0 - 7.7 0 - 24
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.1 - - 0 - - 3.6
The Traffic Management Consultant Page D-1
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
2: Pakalana St& Lehua St 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic With 80 DU
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 2.9
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations 1� W
Traffic Vol,veh/h 63 10 172 46 2 34
Future Vol,veh/h 63 10 172 46 2 34
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 3 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 0 - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 55 55 55 55 55 55
Heavy Vehicles,% 7 0 4 7 0 0
Mvmt Flow 115 18 313 84 4 62
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 397 0 - 0 606 355
Stage 1 - - - - 355 -
Stage 2 - - - - 251 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1135 - - - 463 693
Stage 1 - - - - 714 -
Stage 2 - - - - 795 -
Platoon blocked,% - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1135 - - - 416 693
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 416 -
Stage 1 - - - - 641 -
Stage 2 - - - - 795 -
Approach NB SB SE
HCM Control Delay, s 7.4 0 11
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT SELn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1135 - 668 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 - 0.098 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 8.5 0 11 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.3 - -
The Traffic Management Consultant Page D-2
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
1: Mauna Loa St/Pakalana St& Mamalahoa Hwy 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic With 80 DU
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol,veh/h 65 343 24 22 152 88 3 22 21 71 37 52
Future Vol,veh/h 65 343 24 22 152 88 3 22 21 71 37 52
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Mvmt Flow 69 365 26 23 162 94 3 23 22 76 39 55
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 256 0 0 391 0 0 818 818 378 794 784 209
Stage 1 - - - - - - 516 516 - 255 255 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 302 302 - 539 529 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1321 - - 1179 - - 297 313 673 308 327 829
Stage 1 - - - - - - 546 538 - 754 700 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 712 668 - 530 530 -
Platoon blocked,% - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1321 - - 1179 - - 233 285 673 261 298 829
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 233 285 - 261 298 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 509 502 - 703 684 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 612 653 - 456 494 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.7 15.9 24.8
HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity(veh/h) 379 1321 - - 1179 - - 349
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.052 - - 0.02 - - 0.488
HCM Control Delay(s) 15.9 7.9 0 - 8.1 0 - 24.8
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 2.6
The Traffic Management Consultant Page D-3
Honokaa Plantation Cottages HCM 6th TWSC
2: Pakalana St& Lehua St 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic With 80 DU
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 3.3
Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations 1� W
Traffic Vol,veh/h 79 94 92 12 1 51
Future Vol,veh/h 79 94 92 12 1 51
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 1 0 0 1 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,#- 0 0 - 0 -
Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 1 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 86 102 100 13 1 55
Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 114 0 - 0 382 108
Stage 1 - - - - 108 -
Stage 2 - - - - 274 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1488 - - - 624 951
Stage 1 - - - - 921 -
Stage 2 - - - - 777 -
Platoon blocked,% - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1487 - - - 585 950
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 585 -
Stage 1 - - - - 864 -
Stage 2 - - - - 776 -
Approach NB SB SE
HCM Control Delay, s 3.5 0 9.1
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT SELn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1487 - 939 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - 0.06 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 7.6 0 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - -
The Traffic Management Consultant Page D-4
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ( PUD) PERMIT
APPLICATION
APPLICANT: LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS LLC
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: LEHUA VILLAGES 1 and 2
A proposed 40-lot Single Family
residential subdivision
Tax Map Keys: (3) 4-5-010:136 and 4-5-024:010
Papaanui and Haina, Hamakua District
Hawaii Island
Prepared by: Daryn Arai and Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultants
April 2022
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 2
OF
Harry Kim Michael Yee
_tfatnr ; 4' Director
I�•r Daryn Aral
- Dawn-DJrector
+��•�•„Fay
West Hawai°i Office East Hawaii Office
74-5044 Ane Yeohol-aloie Hwy101 Pauahi Street.Suite 3
Kailua-lona.Hawaii 96744 County of H ati va■ i Hilo.Hanai i W20
Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288
Fax(808)327-3563 PLA -N-L G DEP_4RTIIENT Fax(903)961-8742
Planned Unit Development (P.iT.D.) Application
PLEASE PRP�T CLEARLY OR USE FILLABLE FORM f
APPLICAN- TE TITON E R
Name: Lehua Village Partners, LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 57
City: Hawaii National Park state: Hawaii zip: 96718
Day Pli.:{ (808) 557-2223 Email: rvm.tiki@gmail.com
Sigttatttre: $� Date: April 8, 2022
LAS ONV ER (IF DIFFERENT FROM THE APPLICANT)
Name:
Mailing Address.-
city-
ddress:City: State: zip:
Dai-Pli:( Email:
Signature: Date:
C O-N SiZTA-NT!REPRESE3TATIVE
Name: Daryn Arai
Mailing Address: PO Box 4501
City: Hilo state: HawaiiI zip= 96720
DayPh.:( )(808) 895-3218 Ems:Daryn.Arai@outlook.com
Signature: Date: April 8, 2022
Please_N ote:Signing the application above indicates that to the best of your knowledge_all the information provided for this application is true
and complete.It is understood that the Planning Director or Planning Commission may nullify any decision made in reliance upon infannation
siren on this application form should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on the part of the signee_
PROJECT IN FORILATIO?\
Tax Map Key(s):(3) 4-5-010:136 8t 4-5-024:010 Size of Property'or Affected Area(s): 14.322 acres
Address(es): Lehua Street - -citr Honokaa state. HI zip-
96727
ProjectDescsiption: proposed 40-lot subdivision
State Land Use.U rba n zoning:RS-14{existing)/RS-15(proposed) LUPAG.LDUIM D U SMA: NIA
zs:=.ze.cahpSan dcvi.coni Hmvai i Cortnn�rs cut Equa,Ouparnmihr Prmrdermxl Emplc °,u plazming,�aaRaiiconutv�o�
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS, LLC
Affecting Tax Map KeyS: (3) 4-5-010:136& 4-5-024:010; Papaanui & Haina, Honoka`a
A. INTRODUCTION OF APPLICANT AND NATURE OF REQUEST
1. Applicant and Landowner
The Applicant and landowner of both Parcels 10 and 136 is Lehua Village Partners LLC,
whose mailing address is PO Box 57, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii 96718-0057.
2. Applicant's Request
Lehua Village Partners LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", is requesting a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to allow for certain exceptions to the Zoning
and Subdivision Codes in order to facilitate the development of a 40-lot single family
residential subdivision across two separate properties having a combined land area of
14.322 acres (Project Site).
As provided by Section 25-6-5 of the Zoning Code regarding Procedure for processing of
a PUD, a change of zone accompanies this PUD application that will "downzone" the
Project Site from its current Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) zoning
to a Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet (RS-15) zoning district that will align
with the overall lower residential unit density as presented within this PUD application.
As further stipulated by Section 25-6-10, (f) of the Zoning Code regarding criteria for
granting of a PUD Permit, then basic intent of this PUD application is to develop the
proposed 40-lot single family residential subdivision in a manner that will promote "The
development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required to the
normal requirements of this chapter, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it
desirable to apply regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily
applicable under the district regulations." The Applicant is requesting these variances to
improve the overall quality, aesthetics, and to make for a more pedestrian oriented
community that would not otherwise be possible with the current standards and
requirements specified by the Hawaii County Zoning and Subdivision Codes and
Department of Public Works standard details for construction.
1Page
3. Location of Subject Properties
The subject properties, each consisting of just over 7 acres, straddles Lehua Street
within the upper part of Honoka`a town, and situated mauka of the Honoka`a Park
complex and makai of the Hawaii Belt Road (State Highway 11), as shown on Figure 1-
Location Map and Figure 2-Project Site & Parcels Composite Map.
3T
"04b
",H�hr
S HONOKA'A S 004
PARK COMPLEX
�3
TO(
_ � a
PROJECT SITE / �-
Figure 1-Location Map
w ItlP,SII
(�h\ I c �VS�I�HI YSMMR
.. t YWrolo1 YSOI95p5
-
�` //��ii..� r'��s � Y�� ssca.Wr soloml Ysmalcc S �sr
j Yom' rw1
M"Q]GW.
S YM.[03 Y5091W6
xs®w® Y�ImI
ys9lmn
Y50100A6 Ysalmle
xs91o9a
,,WW�MD ]tl04mlr
Mum
Ysolmle
ss9tmis Im
3M,W3f
9yP109W
Figure 2-Project Site & Parcels Composite Map
2Page
4. Statement of Objectives and Reasons for the request
The purpose for the requested PUD Permit is to promote the development of a single-
family residential that is more neighborhood-friendly and consistent with the rural
character prevalent throughout the Honoka`a town area, as shown below in greater
detail by Figure 3-PUD Master Plan and Figure 4-Master Plan Concept. Another primary
purpose for the requested PUD Permit is to facilitate the design of this proposed
residential community across two separate properties that is bisected by a meandering
public road (Lehua Street) with unique topographic conditions that is not conducive to
the typical platting of lots that you would normally find on sites with more moderate
grades and not constrained by an existing road.
This PUD Permit application is being accompanied by a change of zone application that
will rezone the Project Site from its current Single Family Residential-10,000 square feet
(RS-10) to a 15,000 square foot (RS-15) designation, thereby reducing the allowable
mathematical maximum residential unit density permitted within the Project Site from
62 lots down to 40 lots, and through the approval of this PUD Permit, proposing
individual lot sizes ranging from no less than 10,000 square feet to just under 33,000
square feet. The following is sought to be accomplished via a PUD Permit:
a. provide a neighborhood and streetscape that is more human-scaled and
pedestrian-friendly;
b. develop a landscaping theme with open space that will reinforce a neighborhood
friendly environment; and
c. provide residents with a planned residential community that better addresses
their needs and lifestyle than is possible utilizing a typical subdivision layout with
County-dedicable roadway standards.
5. Proposed Project Details
a. Lehua Village 1: 7.137 acres
i. 20-lot subdivision situated on the makai side of Lehua Street on 7.137-acres of
land with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to 23,400 square feet;
ii. Lots to be offered at more affordable rates in conformance with the
"Affordable Housing Guidelines for Hawaii County".
b. Lehua Village 2: 7.185 acres
i. 20-lot subdivision bordered by the Hawaii Belt Road along its mauka boundary
and Lehua Street along its makai boundary and situated on 7.185-acres of
land with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to just under 33,000
sq ua re feet.
ii. Lots to be offered for sale at market rates.
3Page
::z
r r
x @
W NNNNN NNwoo NNN07N N07N y x
N m
41.mo4vO1.1.1 gHKI'T8Vt' 149
�-o000000fl0000000000ao -
Vi LLLLIiLLLLIiLLLLLLLLLL4i�4-u 4�liLL LL4
W �l]V10v']�N/I]yN�NU]N pNpNNVI 4N yN��Np Ny tl!//]N _
! 07 4?mi �'+?^Y!N q� dmf W n gW v0 t7 c�yO cggG O chi s
q.,_ O morons iia c5 d 66 ci
ffid�i66n
n--
w
�
c7 cY n�suim�mm 3 sss$g�s��_ �
[�
222 4P223p4p40020042
C `
fbN1� flf fJ+JJ/J J
rr. ,.
Q) \:1 �
ea �
co
Lo
b
e a —
y m —
$JP
� f-
N
► 00w P
Iz
Q1
i r
C 6
2 �
1 _ F
Figure 3— PUD Master Plan
4Page
pedestrian accessway
central mail kiosk in
each village
s�
SFT Y
LEHUA VILLAGE 1
13
14
12 2 13
15 9 19 14 15
16 17
11
16 3
10 17 4 18
3
5 2
1
8 10
9 19 6
7
s' iEHUq ST
HEET 20
20
8
7
2 1
6
3 40' right-of-way
5 4 private street
roads designed to
H�Wa„BELTROAo be more in keeping
with a rural character
LEHUA VILLAGE 2 with street trees
access utility easement
0' 100' 200,
Figure 4— Master Plan Concept
5 �
6. List of Requested Deviations from the Zoning and Subdivision Codes
In order to accomplish these stated objectives, the Applicant is requesting, through this
PUD Permit application, the following code exceptions as detailed below:
Zoning Code Section Requested Exception
Section 25-4-30.Minimum street frontage. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 25-4-
The following minimum street frontage standards apply to every 30 be waived for: (also see Figure 3-PUD Master Plan)
building site: • Certain proposed lots will have roadway frontages of
(a) Fifty percent of the required building site average width for any
building site in a zoning district providing for a minimum building less than percent of the required minimum
site of one acre or less,except for flag lots,any building site building site average width of 38 feet based on
located at the end of a cul-de-sac,and any building site where requested RS-15 zoning district.
the access to the building site is by means of a roadway • Only one lot(Village 2,Lot 5)will not have any
roadway frontage nor access pole,and will be
easement.
(c) The width of the pole or fifteen feet for any flag lot. accessed via a roadway easement due to steep
(d) Fifteen feet for any building site located at the end of a cul-de- topography that would make it too difficult to
sac.
extend road lot for sake of a single parcel.
(e) No street frontage shall be required for any building site where
access to the building site is by means of a roadway easement
Section 25-4-31 Minimum building site area;minimum average The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 25-4-
width. 31 be waived to allow for:(also see Figure 3-PUD Master
(a) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter,each main building Plan)
must be located on a building site having not less than the
• Minimum building site area of 10,000 square feet
established zoning district minimum building site area.
(b) Any building site which has less area or width than that required within proposed RS-15 zoning district.
by the established zoning district,may be used as a legal building ' Minimum building site area average width 60 feet
site;provided that the owner of the building site owns no in lieu of 75 feet within proposed RS-15 zoning
adjoining property at the same time. district.
(c) A building site shall be deemed to conform to the requirements
for building site average width if any portion of the building site
considered separately has the minimum building site area with
the minimum average width.
Section 25-4-32 Reduction of building site area below minimum The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 25-4-
area 32(a)be waived to allow for:(also see Figure 3-PUD
(a) A building site may not be reduced below the established zoning Master Plan)
district minimum building site area,and an existing building site,
which is below the minimum building site area,may not be
• Reduction of a building site to no less than
further reduced in area,except as provided under section 25-3- 10,000 square feet in lieu of the 15,000 square feet
5 minimum lot size required by the proposed RS-15
zoning district
Section 25-5-6 Minimum building site average width The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 25-5-
Each building site in the RS district shall have a minimum average 6 be waived to allow for:(also see Figure 3-PUD Master
width of sixty feet,plus two feet for each five hundred square feet of Plan)
required building site area in excess of seven thousand five hundred
square feet,except that no building site shall be required to have an ' Minimum building site area average width
average width of more than one hundred fifty feet. in lieu of 75 feet within proposed RS-15 zoning
of 60 feet
district.
Section 25-5-7(2)(a) Minimum yards The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 25-5-
On a building site with a required area often thousand square feet 7(2)(a)be waived to allow:(also see Exhibit 1-Yard
to and including nineteen thousand nine hundred ninety-nine square Designation)
feet:
(A)Front and rear yards,twenty feet;and
• Minimum front yard setback of 15 feet in lieu of
(B)Side yards,ten feet. 20 feet
Section 25-5-8.Other regulations. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 25-5-
(d) If a legal building site in the RS district has less area or average 8(d)be waived to allow for:
width than is required,then the yard requirements for the
building site shall be the same as in the RS district having the ' minimum front yard setback 15 feet for all lots,
largest requirements for which the building site can comply. irrespective of minimum building site average width
of 60 feet that is consistent with an RS-7.5 zoning
district.
6Page
Subdivision Code Sections Requested Exceptions
Section 23-34.Access to lot from street The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
Each subdivided lot shall abut upon a public street or approved 34 be waived to allow for: (see Exhibit 2-Access&Utility
private street.No lot shall be platted without access on a street.The Easement)
director may indicate the side or sides of any lot from which
• Only one lot(Village 2,Lot 5)will not have any direct
driveway access shall be permitted or prohibited
roadway frontage nor access pole,and will be
accessed via a roadway easement due to steep
topography that would make it too difficult to extend
road lot for sake of a single parcel.
• Village 2,Lot 18 access pole will also accommodate
accesses for adjoining Lots 19&20 via a common
access easement to minimize driveway cuts onto
subdivision road.
Section 23-41.Minimum right-of-way and pavement widths. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
(a) Unless otherwise indicated on the County general plan,the 41 be waived to allow for:(see Exhibit 3-Right of Way
width of a street in feet shall not be less than the minimums Improvement)
shown in the following table: • Minor Street: 40-foot wide right-of-way in lieu of 50
• Minor Streets—50 feet minimum right-of-way with 20 feet
feet.
of pavement • Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets: 40-foot wide
• Cul-de-sacs and Dead-End Streets-50 feet minimum right-
right-of-way in lieu of 50 feet.
of-way with 20 feet of pavement • Turn-around alternative designs that are acceptable
• Radius for turn around at end of Cul-de-sac-45 feet
to the Fire Department,such as"hammerhead"or
minimum right-of-way with 35-foot radius similar turnarounds that have depths of at least 60
(b) When sidewalks,curbs,and gutters are required,pavements in
collector streets in urban areas shall be thirty-six feet wide and feet with corner radius of at least 30 feet.
pavements in minor and dead-end streets in urban areas shall be
thirty-two feet wide.
Section 23-48.Cul-de-sacs The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
(a) A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall not be more 48 be waived to allow for:(see Exhibits 4,5&6-Cul-de-
than six hundred feet in length nor serve more than eighteen Sacs)
lots;provided that longer streets may be approved by the
• A cul-de-sac with a maximum length of no more than
director when unusual conditions exist.
(b) All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular turn-around of 1,000 feet and serving no more than 20 lots.
forty-five feet radius,except that a T-turn-around or other • Turn-around alternative designs that are acceptable
suitable turn-around may be permitted,if in the opinion of the to the Fire Department,such as"hammerhead"
director,this type of turn-around meets the requirements of the turnarounds that have turnaround depths of at least
situation. 60 feet with corner radius of at least 28 feet.
• Turning radiuses as shown on Exhibits 5&6 to
navigate mailbox kiosk parking area combined with
turnaround area.
Section 23-50.Grades and Curves. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
(a)A grade of a street shall be a reasonable minimum but in no case 50(a)and(b)be waived to allow for:(see Exhibit 7-
be less than one-half of one percent and shall not exceed seven Street Angle Radius)
percent on major arterials,eight percent on secondary arterials,ten
percent on collector streets,or twelve percent on any other street. • Vertical and horizontal curves
No grade shall be less than one-half of one percent at the gutter. provided that such curves conform to AASHTO
of less than 300 feet
minimum standards.
Vertical and horizontal curves shall be so designed as to give
nonpassing distance visibility in conformance with the following • Proposed subdivision roads will have minimum radius
minimum requirements: as little as 80 feet,but as a dead-end road with no
through traffic and design speed of 15mph,should
• Minor Street: Vertical Curve of 300 feet Horizontal Curve not be an issue.
of 300 feet
• Allow for a minor subdivision road having maximum
• Cul-de-sac: Vertical Curve of 100 feet Horizontal Curve
grade of 20 percent to accommodate anticipated
of 200 feet short sections along subdivision road that may
exceed the typical maximum 12 percent grade.
(b)Variations from the required grades or curves may be permitted
by the director and the director of public works where advisable to
meet unusual conditions and the director of public works may
specify additional standards accordingly.
7Page
Section 23-93.Street lights. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
Street lights shall be constructed within the subdivision.The street 93 be waived:(see Exhibit 8-Street Lights)
lights shall conform to the standard specifications on file with the
department of public works.The construction of street lights shall be • allow the use d custom street lights it lieu
at the
mthose
made a part of the contract for subdivision improvement and meeting the standard specifications on file
installed coincident with other required improvements department of public works.
Section 23-93.Street names and traffic signs. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
Street name signs showing the names of intersecting streets shall be 94 be waived:(see Exhibit 9-Street signs)
erected by the subdivider at each street intersection.The type and
to allow the use of custom street name and traffic
location of street name and traffic signs which shall be created by •
the subdivider shall be subject to the approval of the director of signs lieu ofthe type of signs permitted
public works and shall conform to the standard specifications on file standard specifications on file at the department of
by the
at the department of public works. public works.
Section 23-95.Right-of-way improvement. The Petitioner request the requirements of Section 23-
The subdivider shall be required to improve the entire street right- 95 be waived to:(see Exhibit 3-Right of Way
of-way.The improvements shall conform to the standard Improvement
specifications on file with the department of public works.
• allow design flexibility in the treatment of the right-of-
way areas in lieu of what is typically required by the
standard specifications on file at the department of
public works. As presented within this PUD
application,the proposed subdivision road profile will
consist of:
• 40-foot wide right-of-way
• 20-foot wide travel-ways
• 10-foot wide grassed and landscaped shoulders
lined with trees
• No bike lane
7. Anticipated Timeframe for Development
Should the PUD Permit and accompanying change of zone requests be approved by the
end of 2022, the Applicant will promptly file subdivision applications for both Villages 1
and 2 with the Planning Department. Anticipated completion of both Villages are
expected within 5 years from the date of approval of the PUD Permit and accompanying
change of zone, or by the end of 2027.
B. RELEVANT HISTORICAL PROPERTY INFORMATION
8. April 24, 1978: Theo H. Davis, Ltd, through its subsidiary, Hamakua Sugar Company,
secured rezoning for 115+/- acres of land on the mauka and makai side of the Hawaii
Belt Road, which included the 14.322-acre Project Site, from Agricultural (A-20a) to
Single Family Residential (RS-10) with the objective of providing an initial 286 residential
lot subdivision for its employees and pensioners with the potential of eventually
providing up to 400+/- residential lots.
9. March 9,2016: Parcel 136, site of Lehua Village 1, was subdivided to carve out a 10,462
square-foot lot now identified as Parcel 001, reducing Parcel 136 to 7.137 acres via SUB
16-001585
10. March 18, 2016: Parcel 010, consisting of 7.185 acres and the site of Lehua Village 2,
was created via Subdivision No. 15-001511.
8Page
11.April 1978 thru April 2020: The original 115+/- acres zoned for single family residential
uses have witnessed at least 15 individual subdivision actions resulting in about 70 lots,
including commercial zoned property.
C. LAND USE AND OTHER REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
12. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Medium Density Urban
The County of Hawai'i General Plan is the policy document for the long-range
comprehensive development of the island of Hawai'i. The General Plan Land Use
Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map classifies the Project Site and immediately
surrounding area for Low and Medium Density Urban uses. The existing RS-10 zoning of
the Project Site and its proposed RS-15 zoning are both consistent with the Low and
Medium Density Urban designations.
Low Density Urban consists of single-family residential uses with ancillary community
and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience-type commercial uses with an
overall residential density of up to six units per acre.
Medium Density Urban allows for village and neighborhood commercial and single-
family and multiple-family residential uses up to 35 units per acre, and related
functions. (see Figure 5-General Plan LUPAG Map)
13. State Land Use Designation: Urban.
The State Land Use Commission relegates uses permitted within the Urban district to
those activities or uses defined by the County's Zoning Code (see Figure 6-State Land
Use Map). The proposed single family residential subdivision is a permitted use within
the State Land Use Urban District.
14. Current County Zoning: Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10)
The RS (single-family residential) district provides for lower or low and medium density
residential use, for urban and suburban family life. It applies to areas having facilities to
carry out the above stated purpose (see Figure 7-Existing Zoning). As previously
mentioned, this PUD Permit application is accompanied by a change of zone application
that would rezone the Project Site into Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet
minimum lot size (RS-15).
The requested PUD Permit, as detailed above, requests a number of exceptions related
to minimum lot and building site configuration and roadway design, but does not
increase overall permitted density nor introduce a use that is inconsistent with the
existing and proposed Single-Family Residential zoning district classification nor will it
permit a residential unit density that exceeds the density allowed by the requested
9Page
RS-15 zoning district, which is less than the density allowed by the Project Site's existing
RS-10 zoning.
�
r
AG
PROJECT SITE
u
b
Figure 5—State Land Use Map
1
PROJECT SITE
LO E L
[Envy yap
v'u 4
%rb
Figure 6—General Plan LUPAG Map
10Page
ns-Io
CV 0
[v-o
RS-
1 w-
Z5
WAS / RS-1
J ,
PROJEft SITE
A3a
R5 Iu
RS l0
L(�q
(lam)
I
MI
RS- helq�r�
A,
Figure 7—Existing Zoning
15. Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP): The HCDP was adopted by Ordinance
No. 18-78, which became effective on August 22, 2018.
Figure 12:Honoka'a/Haina Land Use Guide Map
w.b.
S
PROJECT SITE
•� H'i
j'
r
l�/� - llaina
�a1L
HAm3kua CDP
Revised Land Use Guide Map
for Hunuka'a/Haina
LUPAG Designations
E L�maLlo.�
-c.n.en•.wb
0 (Dili -MGNbNI
lew�l Vim
Nw u."U—
Z�
023 0.3
Figure 8— Hamakua CDP Land Use Guide Map
11Page
As shown in Exhibit 8—H5m5kua CDP Land Use Guide Map above, the Project Site is
situated within an area designated for Low and Medium Density Urban uses by the
Hamakua CDP Revised Land Use Guide Map, which essentially follows the land use
pattern recommended by the General Plan.
Relative to the HCDP, Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called for the
development and eventual County Council adoption of Community Development Plans.
The General Plan states that the CDP "will translate the broad General Plan statements
to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General Plan also
notes that should the CDP require a General Plan amendment, it could be considered
concurrent with the adoption of the CDP. However, "If there is a direct conflict between
the Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be
controlling." As the HCDP and the General Plan are in alignment, we would argue that
both land use policy documents are supportive of establishing a single-family residential
subdivision within this portion of Honoka`a.
D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
16. Prosect Site Description: The 14.322-acre Project Site consists of two irregular-shaped
properties, each a little over 7 acres in size, that is separated by Lehua Street. The
Project Site is bordered along the south by the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19), bisected
by Lehua Street, and a future road extension along its northern boundary. The project
site is currently vacant of any structures or uses with an extensive cover of abandoned
sugar cane and various non-native grasses. The overall slope of the Project Site ranges
between 8 percent to over 13 percent, with the steepest portions adjacent to the
Hawaii Belt Road and Lehua Street.
17. Description of Surrounding Area: The Project Site is situated along the makai side of
the Hawaii Belt Road within the urban core of Honoka`a town, as shown on the location
map and various land use maps included within this report. To the east lies the well-
known Tex's Drive Inn, situated on Commercial-zoned lands. In close proximity to the
north (makai) lies the Honoka`a Elementary, Intermediate and High School complexes,
the Honoka`a Park facility, and the Hale Ho`ola Hamakua medical complex.
Immediately to the east of the Project Site along Lehua Street is a recent 8-lot
subdivision consisting of lots at least 10,000 square feet in size on lands zoned RS-10. A
little further to the east along Pakalana Street are a number of small subdivisions
created by Frank Texeira in the mid-1950s to the early 1960s with parcels having lot
sizes of at least 10,000 square feet to just under 30,000 square feet, all of which are
serviced by grass-shouldered, 30-foot wide roadways with pavement widths of roughly
15 feet.
12Page
To the west of the Project Site lies vacant lands. The western boundary of the Project
Site is defined by a shallow drainageway identified as "Honoka`a Drainageway No. 2"
which is also designated as a FEMA floodway subject to 100-year (AH) frequency floods
with depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding).
18. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The US Corps of Engineers' Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) designates most of the subject site to be in Zone X (areas outside of 500-
year flood). The western boundary, however, has a shallow drainageway (Honoka`a
Drainageway No. 2), and thus is designated AE, areas subject to 100-year frequency
floods with depts of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding).
None of the major infrastructure (road/water) will occur within the AE designated area.
Any use within that area will be subject to the requirements of the AE designation. As
there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the road and related
infrastructure, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. As such, a
drainage plan will be prepared as part of the subdivision review/approval process. The
plan will have to be approved by the County and subsequently will be implemented in
conjunction with the development of the subdivision. The mitigation may call for
installation of drywell or similar type of accommodations.
19. Flora/Fauna Resources: No professional floral or faunal survey was conducted of the
Project Site due to its previous cultivation in sugar cane, with abandoned sugar cane
dominating the ground cover along with a mix of non-native grasses and widely
scattered clusters of ironwood trees.
20.Archaeological Resources: Due to its previous use for sugar cane cultivation, an
archeological survey of the Project Site was not conducted. According to the Applicant,
no archaeological or historical features are known to exist on the Project Site nor are
the affected properties listed as a historic site on the State or National Register of
Historic Places. During clearing and grading of the Project Site, the State Historic
Preservation Division will be notified and all work shall immediately cease upon
inadvertent discovery of any archaeological or historic features.
21. Cultural or Native Gathering Rights: According to the Applicant, there are no known
traditional or customary Native Hawaiian cultural rights being practiced within the
Project Site, which is not surprising given its historical use for sugar cane cultivation.
22. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or
mountain areas that traverses the Project Site.
13 Page
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
A. The construction of the project can begin and be completed within a reasonable period of
time from the date of approval.
Should the PUD Permit and accompanying change of zone requests be approved by the end
of 2022, the Applicant will promptly file subdivision applications for both Villages 1 and 2
with the Planning Department. Anticipated completion of both Villages is expected within
5 years from the date of approval of the PUD Permit and accompanying change of zone, or
by the end of 2027.
B. The proposed development substantially conforms to the General Plan, any adopted
community development plan or adopted master plan and, if applicable, any adopted
design guidelines and/or standards affecting the project area.
HAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only
through a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be
made to better time or stage developments to achieve quality growth. The implications of
these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on
other similar areas in the County.
Land use is one of the principal focal points of public concern and policy. The Land
Use Element of the General Plan provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance
of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to be used as a policy guide
for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth
goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without
congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and
visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the
County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards
are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's
residents.
In addition to its goals, policies and standards, the General Plan also includes the
Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which is a graphic representation of the
document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of all
sectors of the County by presenting a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among
the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for
areas within the County.
141 Page
The Project Site, being situated makai of Highway 19 that frames the mauka
boundary of Honoka`a town, is designated for Low and Medium Density Urban uses which
would allow for village and neighborhood commercial and single-family and multiple-family
residential uses (up to 6 units per acre for Low Density and 35 units per acre for Medium
Density) and related functions, consistent with the requested PUD Permit and
accompanying RS-15 zoning in support of the proposed 40-lot Lehua Village project. As
highlighted in Figures 4, 5 and 6 regarding the LUPAG, Zoning and HCDP maps, approval of
this PUD Permit will be entirely consistent with the single-family residential land use pattern
already established along Lehua Street. Both the requested PUD Permit and RS-15 zoning
are intended to accomplish one thing; presenting a single-family residential subdivision with
lot sizes ranging between 10,000 to just under 33,000 square feet with an overall average
lot size of over 15,000 square feet. This presents an overall lower unit density than
currently allowed by the Project Site's existing RS-10 zoning.
The requested PUD Permit seeks certain exceptions from the Zoning and Subdivision
Codes to facilitate the appropriate design of the proposed 40-lot subdivision while
maintaining and enhancing its overall design to conform with the character of existing
residential subdivisions in the immediate vicinity while also providing a range of choices,
from varying lot sizes to it affordability.
Therefore, approval of this PUD Permit will conform to the following goals and
policies of the LAND USE ELEMENT of the General Plan:
Goal
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.
Policies
• Encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the
needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment.
• Encourage urban development within existing zoned areas already served by
basic infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development.
Goals
■ To provide for residential developments that maximizes convenience for its
occupants.
• To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical,
social and economic needs of the island residents.
15 Page
More specifically, approval of the requested PUD Permit will also conform to the
following relevant goals and policy regarding the Single-Family Residential component of
the LAND USE ELEMENT:
Goals
• To maximize choices of single-family residential lots and/or housing for residents
of the County.
• To ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned
areas.
• To provide single-family residential areas conveniently located to public and
private services, shopping, other community activities and convenient access to
employment centers that takes natural beauty into consideration.
• To enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities.
Policy
• Incorporate reasonable flexibility in codes and ordinances to achieve a diversity
of socio-economic housing mix and to permit aesthetic balance between single-
family residential structures and open spaces.
And most importantly, approval of the requested PUD Permit will also conform to
the following relevant goals and policy regarding the HOUSING ELEMENT:
Goals
• Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of
Hawaii.
• Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices.
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people
• Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock
• Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee-simple housing in the
County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires
of families and individuals.
• Encourage and expand home ownership opportunities for residents.
16Page
Policy
• Vacant lands in urban areas and urban expansion areas should be made available
for residential uses before additional agricultural lands are converted into
residential uses.
HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Relative to the CDP, Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called for the
development and eventual County Council adoption of Community Development Plans. The
General Plan states that the CDP "will translate the broad General Plan statements to
specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General Plan also notes
that should the CDP require a General Plan amendment, it could be considered concurrent
with the adoption of the CDP. However, "If there is a direct conflict between the
Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling."
Adopted in 2018, the Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP) was
developed with a 20-year time horizon with a planning area that included the subject
property and the judicial districts of Hamakua and North Hilo, and a portion of the South
Hilo district commonly referred to as Rural South Hilo. The HCDP Revised Land Use Guide
Map designates the Project Site for Low and Medium Density Urban uses, consistent with
the same General Plan designation, as shown in Figure 6-H5m5kua CDP Land Use Guide
Map. The requested PUD Permit, along with the accompanying RS-15 zoning, would both
be consistent with the Hamakua Community Development Plan's Revised Land Use Guide
Map for Honoka`a/Haina.
From a land use perspective, one of the more critical recommendations or policy of
the HCDP was the retention of the Project Site's existing Low and Medium Density Urban
designations on the General Plan LUPAG Map as shown on Figure 5—General Plan LUPAG
Map, which thereby affirms that single-family residential uses, as presented in this PUD
Permit application, is consistent with the HCDP.
The HCDP also identifies 13 objectives. The first three (3) relate to Natural
Resources and Agriculture and bear little relationship to the Project Site's planned
development in accordance with the requested RS-15 zoning and PUD Permit in support of
a 40-lot single-family residential subdivision. Others have only marginal relationship. The
more pertinent ones, however, include:
• Obiective 5: Direct future settlement patterns that are sustainable and
connected. Honor Hamakua' s historic and cultural assets by concentrating new
development in existing, walkable, mixed- use town centers while limiting rural
sprawl.
171 Page
• Obiective 6: Develop and improve critical community infrastructure, including
utilities, healthcare, emergency services, affordable housing, educational
opportunities and recreational facilities to keep our ohana safe, strong, and
healthy.
• Obiective 7: Establish a rural transportation network that includes improving
roadway alternatives to Highway 19, expanding and improving the existing
transit system, and encouraging multiple transportation options.
• Obiective 8: Promote, preserve and enhance a diverse, sustainable, local
economy.
• Objective 9: Encourage the increase and diversity of employment and living
options for residents, including living wage jobs and entrepreneurial
opportunities that allow residents to work and shop close to home and that
complement Hamakua' s ecology, rural character, and cultural heritage.
The focus of these objectives is having housing, including affordable housing,
proximate to areas of service and employment. This Project Site achieves those objectives.
In so doing, being located in the core part of Honoka`a town, it would also minimize sprawl
and add socio-economic strength to the existing towns like Honoka`a.
C. Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained
desirability and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the
surrounding area,that results in an intensity of land use no higher than that otherwise
specified for the district, and that maintains the standards of open space at least as high
as that otherwise specified for the district in which the development occurs.
Lehua Villages 1 and 2 are presented as a manner that is consistent with single-
family residential subdivisions within this particular part of Honoka`a town, such as the
various phases associated with the Frank Texeira Subdivisions, created in the mid-1950s to
early 1960s, located to the south of the Project Site along the east (Hilo) side of Pakalana
Street consisting of single-family residential lots ranging in size from 10,000 to almost
30,000 square feet along 30-foot wide grass-shouldered roadways (Kamani, Ohai and Kou
Streets). Through this PUD application, the Applicant seeks reasonable relief from the
standard requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes that places a "one-size-fits-all"
approach to subdivision design, rather than allowing for certain exceptions that do not
compromise the intent and purpose of these code requirements, but applies it in a way that
better fits the character of the surrounding community, while also taking into consideration
some of the physical constraints of the Project Site itself.
181 Page
In many ways, the proposed Lehua Villages PUD subdivision wishes to compliment
these existing 1950s/1960s subdivisions but also allowing for a wider 40-foot wide road
right-of-way to provide for additional shoulder landscaping that will further enhance the
rural character of this particular area. Allowing use of alternative turn-around concepts, as
approved by the Fire Department, will minimize the amount of land area required to
accommodate the typical 90-foot wide circular cul-de-sac in favor of a modified
hammerhead turnaround that will also accommodate a cluster mailbox and associate
parking area. This is an innovative and reasonable approach to addressing both vehicular
turnaround as well as the cessation of individual mailbox delivery by the U.S. Postal Service,
requiring all new subdivisions to provide areas for on-site clusterbox mail facilities.
The Project Site, comprising a total of 14.322-acres with an existing zoning of RS-10,
allows for a maximum single-family residential unit density of 62 lots. As this PUD
application is accompanied by a change of zone to the RS-15 zoning district, the Applicant is
reducing the maximum unit density to 40 lots. Therefore, the proposed Lehua Villages PUD,
at 40 proposed lots, will not exceed the maximum density allowed by its requested RS-15
zoning district.
D. The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required,to
the normal requirements of Chapter 23 and Chapter 25, Hawai'i County Code, as
amended, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it desirable to apply
regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable under the district
regulations.
Lehua Villages 1 and 2 are proposed single family residential subdivisions that do not
depart from the single-family residential character within this part of Honoka`a town, as
discussed above. The requested exceptions from certain requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Codes are to simply allow the proposed subdivision to compliment the existing
community in design while also accommodate the existing topography and physical
constraints of the Project Site being bisected and bordered by existing State and County
roads as well as a drainageway along its western boundaries.
To discuss some points in greater detail, one particular exception being requested is
a 15-foot minimum front yard setback in lieu of the standard 20-foot setback. This
requested exception is to provide the lot owner with the greatest opportunity in properly
siting a proposed home on any of the proposed lots in the hopes of reducing the need for
grading given some of the topographic constraints within the Project Site.
Other requested exceptions are specific to minimum lot configuration standards,
such as minimum street frontages, minimum building site average width, and so on. Due to
existing slope conditions and the desire to minimize the extent of grading, Lehua Villages 1
and 2 attempts to mold itself into the existing landform and within the physical constraints
caused by the gradual, but sometimes steep topography as well as the existing roadway
systems and drainageways that really limit how the proposed lots can be reasonably and
19 1 Page
properly configured. The proposed subdivision layout as shown on Figure 3— PUD Master
Plan represents many hours of fine tuning to fit the proposed lots and associated roadway
improvements in a manner that provides a reasonable building site and adequate
infrastructure systems.
Finally, a 40-foot wide right-of-way is deemed adequate to support both 20-lot
subdivisions as these roadways are not through-roads channeling a lot of traffic. These
roadways will be dead-end streets that will primarily serve the residents of this subdivision
and not general traffic passing through. And as with many dead-end streets, it also
becomes a community resource for residents by becoming a focal-point for community
engagement, such as when walking the dog, exercising, children learning to ride their
bicycles, and so forth. A narrow streetscape with landscaped shoulders is always so much
more personal and inviting, and will promote these types of community-engagement
activities. And with a narrower streetscape, it will promote lower vehicular speeds and
create for a safer street environment for all users.
E. Assessment of archaeological, historic and valued cultural resources.
In view of the Hawai'i State Supreme Court's " PASH" and "Ka Pa`akai O Ka`Aina"
decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be
addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated
traditional and customary practices of the site. As the Project Site has been physically
altered over many decades due to sugar cane cultivation, it is unlikely that there are any
valued cultural, historical, and natural resources to be found within the Project Site. The
Project Site is vacant of any structures or uses and is vegetated predominately by
abandoned sugar cane and non-native weeds and grasses. For similar reasons, the Project
Site does not host any floral or faunal resources that are protected, threatened or
endangered nor could it be considered as providing a resource for any cultural practices.
Finally, there is no known public access to mountain or shoreline areas that traverses
through the Project Site.
CONCLUSION
As presented in the discussion above, the Applicant finds that granting of the
proposed Lehua Villages PUD will encourage comprehensive, inclusive site planning of the
proposed 40-lot single-family residential subdivision in a manner that will be compatible
with the character of the surrounding community and that adapts the design of proposed
project to the particular characteristic of the land.
As discussed, approval of the PUD will allow for a project that conforms to the goals,
policies and standards of the General Plan; adheres to the general policies and objectives of
the Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP); will not have a significant adverse
impact upon coastal resources; and would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will
further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare.
20Page
Exhibit 1: Yard Designation
Variance Request- Zoning Code
Request:
The Petitioner request the yards be designated as indicated below.
41%1q LEHUA VILLAGE 1
� ST
< 13
14
C 12 r ' 1 r - -� ` ` 12 13 i
15 I ' v � I I � 14 I I 15
9 10
> L___J 1617
8
17 - 18
-
n- 18 ,
JI v I f I L L 19
1s - - - - LEH04 STREET
20
r�-• 8 - 20 - - _� �' '•
7
2 1
l 6 v
\ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
2v 3 l
5 r 4 - ,
HAWAII BELT ROAD front yard setback 15'
rear yard setback 20'
side yard setback 10'
0, 100, 200,
Exhibit 2: Access & Utility Easement
Variance Request- Subdivision Code
Request:
Below is the reference site plan indicating the location of the access and utility
easements:
<FyG LEHUA VILLAGE 1
AST
RFFT
13
14
12 12 13
15 9 10 11 14 15
16 17
11
16 8 '
10 17 4 3 18
5 2
1
18 19
9 19 7 6
LE 014 STREET 20
20
8
7
2 1
6
3
5 4
HAWAI'l BELT ROAD
LEHUA VILLAGE 2
access utility easement
0' 100 200'
Exhibit 3: Right of Way Improvement
Variance Request- Subdivision Control Code
Request:
The Petitioner request that the requirements of Section 23-95 be waived to allow
design flexibility in the treatment of the right-of-way areas as indicated below:
HOA to maintain street
pavement
1 I
SECTION
shoulder drive lane drive lane shoulder
10' 10' 10' 10'
40'
✓ ✓ ✓ right-of-way ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
edge of pavement
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
F ✓�� ✓�� Shoulder ✓�� ✓�� ✓��
street trees
a a
PLAN Private Street 40' Right-of-Way
0' 5 10'
Exhibit 4: Cul-de-Sacs
Variance Request - Subdivision Control Code
Request:
Below is the reference site plan indicating the location of the cul-de-sacs for referral
to exhibits 5 to 6:
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 5
LEHUA VILLAGE 1
GAS
ryF
Fp
13
14
12 ��� ��• 12 13
14 is
10
a 16 17
• 16 8
10 17 i q 18
3
.... 6 2 1
18 19
g 19 7 6
LF1i UA STF7EFT
20
20
S
7
2 1
6
? 3
5
4
Y1AW A1'l BELT FiO119
LEHUA VILLAGE 2
�"J n• inn, 200,
Exhibit 5: Cul-de-Sacs
Variance Request - Subdivision Control Code
Request:
The Petitioner request the cul-de-sacs be permitted to be as detailed below:
lot line
12
\ r= 18'
o.
r=28'
r=28'
S�Cee
r= 10'
of
edge pavement
g
road right-of-way
0' 20' 40'
Exhibit 6: Cul-de-Sacs
Variance Request - Subdivision Control Code
Request:
The Petitioner request the cul-de-sacs be permitted to be as detailed below:
\ lot line
® os \
28' cow
18'
0 \
40,0.p
edge of pavement
road right-of-way
0' 20' 40'
Exhibit 7: Street Intersection Angles and Radius
Variance Request- Subdivision Control Code
Request:
The Petitioner request the street intersection angles and radius be designated as
indicated below:
<Fy� LEHUA VILLAGE 1
4S
TRFFT
13
14 'CO
12 12 13 14 '
15 9 10 11 15 ``�
3„ O 17
11
16 8
10 17 4 ��3 18
150' radius 5 2 tea\ 1
19p' radius 19 18 7 6 CO
�9 LEHUA STREET 20 19
20
8
30'radius
7
30'radius
2 1
6
3
5
4
HAWAi'i BELT ROAD
LEHUA VILLAGE 2
0' 100' 200'
Exhibit 8: Street Lights
Variance Request- Subdivision Control Code
Request:
The Petitioner request that the requirements of Section 23-93 be waived in lieu of
a custom street light fixture, allowing flexibility in color and housing type selection.
Pole type lighting fixtures may be used at street intersections while bollard type
lighting fixtures may be used to aid pedestrians.Typical examples of custom light
fixtures that might be used in the project are as indicated below:
Pole Lighting Fixture Pole Lighting Fixture Bollard Lighting Fixture
Contemporary Traditional Traditional
I, 1 2.
Exhibit 9: Street Signs
Variance Request- Subdivision Control Code
Request:
The Petitioner request that the requirements of Section 23-94 be waived in lieu of
custom street name and traffic sign fixtures, which are more in keeping with the
design goals of the project. Typical examples of custom fixtures that might be used
in the project are as indicated below:
O O
custom sign
standard
Street Name Sign Traffic Sign
o' 1 z
• r 1•� � r r r r
+ 4 Search fur an address or location
rte,,
186 t
2
ON
2.50
ZI
UMRROD AH
ZONE t 3 0228E € 0
TMK:(3)4-5-010:136
~ TMK:1314-5-024:010 E TU -
342 n ..
137 f
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 3 J _.,,✓ o - �"w - ^,r. 4•.�_...
�•T,�.�"""" �„•,��•• DISCLAIMER,Information contained in these files is derived from public reca rds that are cc n startfy undergoing change and.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
H I LO, HAWAI I
DATE: June 1, 2022
U0
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Department of Public Works I�
N
SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
PL-PUD-2022-000001
Applicant: Lehua Village Partners, LLC
Location: Papaanui and Haina, Hamakua, Hawaii
TM K: 4-5-024:010 and 4-5-010:136
We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated May 10, 2022
and have the following comments-
1.
omments:1. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and not directed
toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the
recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the
Department of Public Works.
2. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter
10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code.
3. A portion of the subject parcels are located within Zone AH according to the
current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Any construction within the designated FEMA
flood zone shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 27, Floodplain
Management, of the Hawaii County code.
4. Identify all watercourses and drainageways and encumber with drainage
easements.
5. All road connections and construction within Lehua Street shall conform to
Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. Access to Lehua
Street, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the
approval of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division.
Planning Dep,.
Exhibit 4
Memo to Planning Department
Page 2
June 1,2022
6. We believe the minimum road improvement requirements codified within Chapter
23 of the Hawaii County Code provide public welfare and safety. However,
should the Planning Director determine that the requested code exceptions are
acceptable, DPW would recommend that the proposed cul-de-sacs be kept in
private ownership as the roads would not conform to County-dedicable
standards.
Questions may be referred to Melanie DeMello at 961-8927.
MD
County of Hawai.i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
O,,Yi ATZR 3
W4� •�Af
1B? •:f4
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII
G 345 KEKUANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 MLD, HAWAII 96724
"�w�f�. TELEPHONE (808)961-8050 - FAX (808)961-8657
Rine 6. 2022
CDH PLANNING DEPT
JUN 7 2022!'m2:17
TO: Mr. Zendo Kern. Director PEC'D HAND DELIVERED
Planning Department
FROM: Keith K. Okamoto, Manager-Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development Permit Application
Request—To Allow Various Exemptions from Chapter 23 (Subdivision)
and Chapter 25 (Zoning) of Hawaii County Code for Development of a 40-lot
Single-Family Residential Subdivision
Applicant—Lehua Village Partners, LLC
Tax Map Key 4-5-024:010 and 136
We have reviewed the subject application and have the following comments and conditions.
Pursuant to the Water Development Agreement("Agreement"), dated September 15, 2014, between
the applicant and the Water Board, the applicant has a water commitment for 100 units of water, for
properties designated at Tax Map Key 4-5-010:001,and formerly Tax Map Key 4-5-010:121. As the
subject parcel is a portion of the former Parcel No. 001, the subject parcel has a water commitment for
the subject application. Water can be made available from an existing 12-inch waterline within
Lehua Street. Based on the proposed 40-lot development, 38 units of water are required to be allocated
for the proposed subdivision.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Department's Rules and Regulations, a copy of which is being
forwarded to the applicant, a water commitment may be issued. Based on the 38 additional units
requested in the proposed 40-lot development, the required water commitment deposit is$5,700.00.
Remittance by the applicant of the $5,700.00 is requested as soon as possible so that a water
commitment may be formally issued. The commitment will be in writing with specific conditions and
effective dates stated. Please keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water
commitment.
Final subdivision approval will be subject to compliance with the following requirements:
1. Construct necessary water system improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to:
a. service laterals that will accommodate a 518-inch meter to front each lot,
Planning Dept.
5 . . . Water, Our Wost{Precious resource. , . Ka Wai A ane. . .
Exhibit The r[ment of Water Su I is an Equal Opportunity pa pp y� q ppo ty provider and employer.
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
Page 2
June 6, 2022
b. cut and plug existing service lateral (Account No. 674-05650),
c. water mains capable of providing water at adequate pressure under peak-flow and fire-flow
conditions; minimum diameter of which shall be 6 inches,
d. fire hydrants spaced no more than 600 feet apart. On dead-end streets, the last fire hydrant
shall be located at one-half the distance from the last house, or unit, fronting the property or
driveway or access to the property, and
e. subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road
right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development, the applicant
shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department's affected water
system facilities, should they be necessary.
Submit construction plans prepared by a professional engineer, architect, or land surveyor,
licensed in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval.
2. Remit the prevailing facilities charge balance, which is subject to change, as shown below:
FACILITIES CHARGE (FC):
I"service to Parcel 010 $1,319.00
1" service to Parcel 010 $1,319.00
38 additional units (2$6,095.00/unit $231,610.00
Total FC Balance $234,248.00
This is due and payable upon completion of the installation of the required water system
improvements and prior to final subdivision approval being granted.
For your information, water commitment deposits are credited towards the final facilities
requirement for the development. Note that the amount of water commitment deposit may
exceed the prevailing facilities charge amount; for example, when requests for time extensions
continue and are approved. Until the development is finally completed, these are separate and
unrelated items. In the event that water commitment deposits exceed the facilities charge, no
refunds are applicable.
3. Comply with all other applicable policies and requirements of the Department's Rules and
Regulations. Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which time
availability will be subject to change in accordance with prevailing water system conditions,
policies, and Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Zendo Kern,Director
Page 3
June 6, 2022
4. Submit the appropriate documents, properly prepared and executed, to convey the required
easements to the Water Board of the County of Hawai'i prior to final subdivision approval
being granted. A registered land surveyor shall stamp and certify the metes and bounds
description within the conveyance documents. However,prior to water meter services being
granted to the development, or any lots within,the conveyance documents shall be accepted by
the Water Board.
Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Troy Samura of our Water Resources and
Planning Branch at (808) 961-8070, extension 255.
Sincerely yours,
[7
Keith K. Okamoto,P.E.
Manager-Chief Engineer
TS:dfg
copy—Lehua Village Partners, LLC
Mitchell D.Roth Ramzi I. Mansour
Mayor i,r ;. Director
Lee Lord %i'` ;�` Brenda Iokepa-Moses
u
Managing Director Deputy t3'Director
County of Hawaii
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
345 Kekuanao`a Street,Suite 41 'Hilo,Hawaii 96720'cohdem@hawaiicounty.gov
Ph: (808)961-8083 'Fax: (808)961-8086
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zendo Kern, Director
Planning Department
FROM: Ramzi I. Mansour, Direc r mora�-
Department of Environmental Management
DATE: May 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development Permit Application (PL-PUD-2022-000001)
Applicant: Lehua Village Partners, LLC
Request: To Allow Various Exemptions from Chapter 23 (Subdivision) and
Chapter 25 (Zoning) of Hawaii County Code for Development of a 40-lot
Single-Family Residential Subdivision
Tax Map Keys: (3) 4-5-024:010 and 4-5-010:136; Hamakua, Hawaii
The Solid Waste Division has reviewed the subject application and offers the following
comments and/or recommendations (contact the Solid Waste Division for details):
( ) No comments.
( X) Commercial operations, State and Federal agencies, religious entities and non-profit
organization may not use transfer stations for disposal.
(X) Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be responsibly reused to
its fullest extent.
( ) Ample and equal room should be provided for rubbish and recycling.
(X) Green waste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the West Hawaii
Organics Facility and East Hawaii Organics Facility, or other suitable diversion
programs.
(X) Construction and demolition waste is prohibited at all County Transfer Stations.
( ) Submit Solid Waste Management Plan in accordance with attached guidelines.
( ) Existing Solid Waste Management Plan is to be followed. Provide update to the
department on current status.
( ) Other:
Planning D-spi. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Exhibit 6
Ramzi I. Mansour, Director
May 17, 2022
Page 2
The Wastewater Division has reviewed the subject application and offers the following
comments and/or recommendations (contact the Wastewater Division for details):
( ) No comments.
( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in
accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code.
( ) Require Council Resolution to approve sewer extension in accordance with Section 21-
26.1 of the Hawaii County Code. Complete Sewer Extension Application.
( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance
with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code.
( ) Check or line out as applicable: [ ] If required by the Director of the Department of
Environmental Management("Director of DEM"), [ ] Applicant shall conduct a sewer
study in accordance with the applicable wastewater system design standards prior to
approval to connect to the County sewer system. Applicant shall provide such sewer line
or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require, which the
sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project.
Contact Wastewater Division Chief for details.
( ) Proposed activity may be subject to existing or future federal, state, or county regulation
under Title 40 CFR 403.5,prohibiting discharge of certain pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works. Contact the Hawaii Department of Health for information regarding
pretreatment standards.
(X) Applicant shall follow Department of Health regulations.
( ) Other:
RM:pls
2
Mitchell D.Roth t14 Of Of
Susan KKunz
�fdaaestarlr,1�a>aaradsta°�t'trr
Leave E.Lord +: ;
Managing Director F[arry M.Vada
. • Assa.�tearat 6arousing:1dr Administrator
Robert 1{.Command ���;•��,�
Depjr y M aaarxg,r°rag Dirererterr
County of Harvai`i
Office of Housing and Community Development
1990 King safe Street,Suite 102 . 1111aa,11awa1`1 96720 (808)961-8379 • Fax(808)961-56115
Existing 1-lousing:(808)959-4642 1'ax(€3(113)959-9308
Kona: (808)32:3-43010 • F'ax(808)323-4301
.lune 9, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Hawaii County Planning Department
Attention: Christian Kay
101 Pauahi Street 43
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Email: tannin
SUB41EC;] COMMENTS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION (PL-PUD-2022-000001)
APPLICANT: LE1- lJA VILLAGE PARTNERS,I_,LC;'
TMKs: (3)4-5-024:010 and 4-5-010:136
Dear Mr. Kay,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Office of Housing and Community
Development (OHCD)does not object to the Applicant's request for change in zoning and
respectfully submits thefollowing comments,
"To ensure, that the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the Cleneral Plan are
implemented, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Ha a `i
County Code, relating to the'Affordable Housing Policy. Compliance with Chapter 11 shall be
approved by the Administrator of the OHCD prior to Final Plan Approval and./or Final
Subdivision Approval,
It is recommended that.the applicant reach out to the OHCD to discuss an Affordable Housing
Agreement. Should you have any questions, contact Neil Erickson at (�fll;l9�2-5959.
Op
Susan K. K'
Housing Administrator
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 7 v 711111UALH SSIN
1 PORTi1N1TY
DAVID Y.IGE *� jai � ,, JADE T.BUTAY
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
r
1 ✓ n Deputy Directors
,rrwP ROSS M.HIGASHI
EDUARDO P.MANGLALLAN
° EDWIN H.SNIFFEN
STATE OF HAWAII IN REPLY REFER TO:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIR 0494 and 0495
869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HWY-PS 2.8621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097
June 1,2022
VIA EMAIL: planning@hawaiicounty.gov
Mr. Zendo Kern
Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Kern:
Subject: Lehua Village Partners
Planned Unit Development Permit Application
Development of 40-lot Single-Family Residential Subdivision
Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 4-5-024:010 and(3) 4-5-010:136
Thank you for your letters dated May 10, 2022,requesting comments on the request to allow various
exemptions from Chapter 23 (Subdivision) and Chapter 25 (Zoning)for a 40-lot single-family residential
subdivision.
The applicant proposes to reduce the residential unit density by downsizing the project site from its
current Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10) zoning to a Single-Family
Residential-15,000 square feet(RS-15) zoning district. In the project site,the applicant will construct 2
20-lot subdivisions for a total of 40 lots on 14.322 acres. The project location is adjacent to
Mamalahoa Highway(State Route 19) and approximately 0.3 miles from Honokaa-Waipio Road.
The Hawaii Department of Transportation(HDOT)reviewed the Planned Unit Development Permit
Application and has determined that the project does not appear to significantly impact the state highway
system. Therefore, HDOT has no comments or objections on this permit application.
If you have any questions,please contact Jeyan Thirugnanam, Systems Planning Engineer, Highways
Division,Planning Branch at(808) 587-6336 or by email atjeyan.thirugnanam@hawaii.gov. Please
reference file review number PS 2022-090.
Sincerely,
JADE T. BUTAY
Director of Transportation
Planning Dept.
Exhibit—9,
SidneyFuke, P€arming Consultant
P.O. Box 1345 •Hilo,Hawaii 96720
Cell:(808)989-0640 •Planning•Variance•Zoning
E-mail:sidneyfuke@gmail.com •Subdivision•Land Use Permits
•Environmental Reports
June 23, 2022
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Kern:
Subject: Response to Agency Comments
Applicant: Lehua Village Partners, LLC.
Change of Zone (PL-REZ-2022-000028) and Planned Unit
Development Permit (PL-PUD-2022-000001)
TMK: (3) 4-5-024: 010 and (3) 4-5-010. 136
This is in response to agency and other comments posted in your EPIC system
relating to the subject applications. We note that some of the comments were directed at
only one of the two applications, whereas others commented on both. Where both, we note
that comments were generally identical. Accordingly, for those comments referencing only
one application, our responses will be predicated upon their applicability to both.
STATE AGENCIES
The State Department of Transportation"determined that the project does not
appear to significantly impact the state highway system. Therefore, HODT has no
comments or objections on this permit application. "
Neither the State Department of Land and Natural Resources—Engineering Division
nor Land Division Hawaii District had any comments or objections to the requests.
The State Department of Health 'found no environmental health concerns with
regulatory implications....
In sums,to date, none of the State agencies had any objections or adverse comments
on the requests.
COUNTY AGENCIES
The Police Department noted that it "does not anticipate any impact to traffic and/or
has any public safety concerns. "
The Department of Environmental Mana err>:ent--Solid Waste restated its policies,
to wit construction material may not use the transfer stations and that green waste needs to
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 9
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
June 23, 2022
Page 2
be disposed of at either the East Hawai'i or West Hawai'i authorized Organic Facilities.
The applicant will comply with these requirements. It should be noted that to the extent
practicable,the applicant intends to use much of the graded material on-site to create
finished lots, thus minimizing the need to transport material off property.
The Wastewater Division commented that wastewater must meet the requirements
and approval of the State Department of Health. The applicant will comply with this
requirement, which will probably be the installation of a septic system by individual
homeowners in conjunction with the building permit process.
The Department of Water Supply noted that the applicant has a water commitment
for 100 units of water. Thirty-eight(38) water commitments are required for this project
and that a commitment deposit of$5,700.00 is required. The applicant intends to submit
this deposit immediately upon favorable action of the applications.
Further, payment of the water facilities charge and construction of the required water
improvements as outlined in its memo will also be complied with in conjunction with the
subdivision of the subject properties and prior to receipt of final subdivision approval.
The Department of Public Works—Engineering Division (DPW) noted that site-
generated water must be contained on the property. This will be addressed during the
subdivision process wherein on-site construction plans relating to utility and roadway
installation will address this requirement. The plans will require the approval of the DPW.
Further, drywells will probably be required to contain site generated water, in which case the
appropriate NPDES Permit from.the State will also be secured.
Prior to any grading/grubbing activity, the appropriate land disturbance permits from
the DPW will be applied for in accordance with Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment Control
of the Hawai'i County Code.
DPW noted that a portion of the project site is situated within the Zone AE
drainageway situated along the western boundary of the project site. No major subdivision.
infrastructure (roads or water systems) will be constructed within the Zone AH, which is a
shallow drainageway. Any uses contemplated by individual lot owners within this
drainageway will be subject to the requirements of the Zone AE designation.
DPW noted that Lehua Street is a County Road. As such, all connections will be
subject to the approval of the DPW. Prior to or in conjunction with the subdivision review
process, the applicant will provide information to DPW to assure the proposed accesses have
adequate sight distances. Further, the streetlights within the subdivision and at its
intersection with Lehua Street will be installed per the requirements of DPW.
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
June 23, 2022
Page 3
Relative to the interior road standards, DPW noted that it would defer any deviation
from the standards to the Planning Director and, if approved, "recommend that the proposed
cul-de-sacs he kept in private ownership... . " If the PUD is approved, the applicant intends
to have all interior roads be privately owned and maintained by the various homeowners.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) informed the
applicant that the project requires compliance with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1
of the Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. Please note that with
the dedication of a 15-acre site to the Hawaii Housing Authority, the affordable housing
obligation of the original ordinance (of which the subject site is a part of) has already been
fulfilled., as confirmed in a June 5, 2005, letter from OHCD included as Exhibit B of the
change of zone application. The Applicant's plan of marketing 50% of the proposed 40-lot
project consistent with the County's Affordable Housing Guidelines would thus amount to a
"doubling"of the subject site's affordable housing obligation.
We trust that the aforementioned adequately responds to the comments to date. If
not or if there are questions relating to this matter, please feel free to direct them to me or
Mr. Daryn Arai. Thank you very much.
Sincerely
�4 �\41J
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Copy —Lehua Village Partners, LLC via email
Mr. Daryn Arai via email
Mori, Ashley
From: richard@bidleman.net <rbidleman@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Planning Internet Mail
Subject: RS-15 notation
Attachments: Subdivision Sign Posted by County, 4-21-22jpg
See the attached.
If the designation RS-15, does the mean multifamily
developed. Does the designation allow the building of duplexes?
Also, there is pedestrian accessway in both subdivisions that
spills out onto Lehua. It would seem pedestrian infrastructure
improvements will need to be developed concurrently by the
County or the developer.
Please clarify.
Thank you
Richard bidleman
Honokaa
Planning Dap,.
Exhibit 10 1
� i
EPSM
✓' /.�`k �..::jvs�IyJr.'`t' �� JI / • • `- \\� fix
., /�,
jv
will
Lill
\llEr c' t �� � f� r 1, e J�� � i`, Ahe, f �i ��f�,l "' �✓�, jI�•AI�/N � ��/� /i /�`�.1 � /�.��/��,
f ANGIE OF ZONE
i ��� ✓' �I 1y i� 1(� �jl'/
NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATIONS
>
FROM RS- 1 TO AND A
7PLANNED UNITTO THE 44.
TO ALLOW CERTAIN EXCEPTION
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODES
PROJECTAREA: ACRES
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
-LOT SUBDIVISION
PROPOSED PROJECT: 40
�a
Planning DepartmentY �
101 Pauahi Street, #3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone: (808) 961-8288
r 3
yC
c
77
FIR
r
I iii �,� /i ` xT ,'s�►• .
s ,
�` .�C�Y�� J � .. �i�'S _ �hrF a 'Y fl .. . i . :•"JIC�.. _ s„ .�nl`.•4�.` - � .. ... .- - - '.��"`="� �....
From: Jim Loewen
To: Kay.Christian
Subject: Re: Lehua Village 1&2
Date: Thursday,May 26,2022 5:09:28 PM
I have sent each individual as p d f Mahalo
On May 25, 2022, at 12:59 PM, Kay, Christian
<Christian.Ka .hawaiicounty, ov>wrote:
Aloha Mr. Loewen,
Unfortunately, the attached documents will not open and I get a message that the
contents of the documents are unreadable. Would you please save or print them as a
.pdf and re-send?
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Mahalo,
Christian
Christian Kay, Planner
County of Hawai'i Planning Department
Aupuni Center, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone: (808) 961-8136
Fax: (808) 961-8742
Email: christian.kayna hawaiicount�z.g_ov
<1MAGE001.PNG>
The County of Hawaii is launching its new Electronic Processing &
Information Center (EPIC) permit system on July 26° 2021. C�nIX
electronic applications will be accepted after that date. For more
information go
tohttps://www.dpw.hawaiicounty.aov/divisions/building/plans-
permits-and-inspections-system.
From:Jim Loewen <mountainkayak04na yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 12:45 PM
To: Kay, Christian <Christian.KayIPhawaiicount�j.g_ov>
Cc: Dan Miller<drksmillerna gmail.com>
Subject: Lehua Village 1&2
Planning Dep;.
Exhibit 11
Proposed New Subdivision T.M.K. (3) 4-5-010:135
Mame,rwn
.1 f
Y_ l� r r
10.
The following are are concerns for future 40 lot subdivision.
1 Access and egress from Lehua St.
We have a single lane Bridge. This Bridge has no sight distance. There are near misses every
❑ay.We would be better served to move entrance and exit to both Sub divisions between lot 8
and 15. This would require a 4 way stop sign.
2 Everyone here purchased lots for an ocean view. Height restrictions are very necessary, not
to obstruct this view. This would include trees.
3 With Height restrictions, all utilities should be underground. Poles and wires are blocking the
view. We were promised underground utilities and that promise was broken.
4 Proper drainage. This is very important this is a flood plane.This was not initiated on our
subdivision and mud slides and a huge amount of water was initiated on our property.
5 Internet we were put in a position to bring in our own internet. This was not easy. Hawaii tel
com can not handle any more customers on this line. Infrastructure is very necessary in this
area.
I am lot 14 T.M.K. (3) 4-5-010:135
Nw
i W
SAL ❑ � D �-9 a -aI& -ec . •
Community concerns for proposed Village 1&2 subdivision
None of the community or Hamakua action committee member concerns from the September 15,2021
meeting have been addressed. Please see the meeting minutes for comments and concerns. This is
alarming to the community that no changes have been made.
The changing from 10k to 15k lot sizes seems counter intuitive to the affordable housing concept.
Smaller lot size should equal smaller price.
Bridge congestion at the one lane bridge on Lehua Street.The current bridge has no line-of-sight
distance opportunity due to plant growth.
The use of cul-de-sacs have shown to be a bad idea in regards to emergency evacuation planning.
Roadway interconnectivity should be used to allow for multiple access and egress from Lehua Street for
each addition.
The current drainage culvert under Lehua Street located between Village 2 lot 1 and village 1 lot 7 is
undersized. During high rain events the culvert capacity is exceeded and water flows across Lehua Street.
KSr nTq
Mitchell D.Roth F , Zendo Kern
Mayor Director
,f
Lee E.Lord 'r,Tr'oF'M's�r Jeffrey W.Darrow
Managing Director Deputy Director
County of Hawaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HAM,kKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE
Aupum Center ■ 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hito,Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 ■ Fax(808)961-8742
Wednesday, September 15, 2021
Meeting Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Kurokawa called the Hamakua Community Development Plan (HCDP)Action Committee (AC) to
order at 5:13 P.M. Due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic,this meeting was held via the
Zoom interactive video platform.
ROLL CALL
AC Members Present: Nicolette Hubbard, Carol Ignacio,Tawn Keeney, Crystal Kua, Brad Kurokawa
(Chair),Jeff McKnight(Vice-chair), Robert Nishimoto, Rhonda Pollard
AC Members Absent-Excused: None
County Staff: Planners—Alexis Ching and Keiko Mercado
County Officials: Council Member Heather Kimball
5 members of the public observed the meeting via Zoom. The meeting was also available for
synchronous viewing via the COH Planninp, Department YouTube Live Stream. The live stream
recording is available at: Hamakua CDP AC Meeting-September 15, 2021 -YouTube.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Kolekole Bridge Capacity: Council Member Kimball provided information from the Department of
Transportation around the sudden closure of Kolekole Bridge to vehicles over 4 tons.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: One (1) member of the public signed up to provide oral
testimony.
Daniel Fujii,testifying on agenda item 3, lives next to the proposed Lehua Village 1. Mr. Fujii expressed
concern over the influx of subdivided lots and its impact on roadway safety for Lehua Street, which is
used as a bypass road when school is in session. He specifically asked that the one lane bridge be taken
into consideration for safety reasons (walkers, traffic flow). Mr. Fujii referred to one of the major
issues for the makai subdivision being heavy rain/flooding on the road. He does not oppose the
development but wants to ensure it is good for everyone in that area. He believes they are currently
unprepared to handle an influx of lots. Mr. Fujii also inquired about CCRs regarding height restrictions
to maintain view planes.
Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Committee Member Crystal Kua moved to accept the meeting minutes from July 1, 2021. Motion
seconded by Committee Member Town Keeney. Motion to approve minutes passed with 7 votes aye, 0
votes nay.
Committee Member Nicolette Hubbard moved to accept the meeting minutes from August 12, 2021.
Second by Committee Member Rhonda Pollard. Meeting minutes were unanimously approved with 7
votes aye, 0 votes nay.
BUSINESS:
I. Update on Shoreline Setback Project: Ms. Mercado updated the AC, stating that contracts had
been signed with University of Hawai'i (UH) and Tetra Tech. UH will do the data collection and
analysis, and Tetra Tech will synthesize the information to propose revised setbacks. UH is curently
collecting images and Li DAR of coastline areas (one case study is along the Kona coast and one
along the Hamakua coast). Public hearings are anticipated for the summer of 2023.
2. Presentation by Dennis Flemming, Hamakua Institute: Dennis Flemming, Executive Director of the
Hamakua Institute described their approach to sustainable rural development, which is focused on
systems thinking to developing the economy, agriculture, and community.Their work prioritizes
partnerhsips, collaborative programs, and helps to facilitate groups to work towards solutions.
Their work has led them to the Hawaii Island Agricultural Partnership (HIAP), a public/private
partnership focused on island agricultural development.They conducted the Hawai'i Island Ag and
Food System Study, mapping agrifood systems (needs/opportunities) and what actions people can
take to improve it. They looked at: value chain functions, farm to consumer process, what info is
available to agricultural businesses to make informed decisions, applicable policies, etc. HIAP
action teams and committees were then formed to focus on three things: value-added growth,
new employment pathways, and market opportunities. HIAP (a 501c6 entity) acts as a neutral
platform, where various agricultural groups can form and team up to share projects, assets,
contracts, or business opportunities. Mr. Flemming offered this space to the Hamakua AC and
looks forward to supporting the AC's work.
Click here for Comm. No. 2 02 1-09 (Hamakua Institute Presentation):
http://records.hawaiicou nty.gov/W ebiink/l/doc/`112614/Page 1.aspx
Committee Member Keeney and Committee Member Jeff McKnight serve on the Agricultural
Committee of the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawai'i, which reviews
agriculture bills presented to the legislature each year.They would like to collaborate with Mr.
Flemming on this type of work.
Committee Member Q+A:
• Q: Where does funding come from?
A: The establishment of the Institute was mostly self-funded by Mr. Flemming. They have
also received funding through grants from Kamehameha Schools, UH Foundation, Ulupono
Initiative, and a collection of funds from different organizations that are supporting this
agriculture partnership.
• Q:Are there adequate lands devoted to agriculture farming projects?
A: Access to land was something few people mentioned in their study. More of a concern
was access to labor recruitment/good labor and economic viability, i.e., cost of inputs and
operational costs.
https.11www.,Tannin,-.hawtiiicoirn4t-eov/ hanzakna(a hawaiicowwtl�.,o, Page 2
• Q:Are there any projects where people can be on site?
A: The Institute is not set up for that yet. Currently there is a small office and training space,
but they have only held about four in person meetings since the pandemic began.
• Q: What are some of the goals of the action teams?
A: The action teams are finalizing the details for each objective in recommended plans,
starting with identifying what everyone is already doing, and then determining where
coordination or opportunities are for existing projects or planned projects.
Committee Member Carol Ignacio emphasized that making a living by farming is challenging, and
she would like to see whether some of the plans are based on what the reality has been on the
Hamakua coast, when it comes to the success of local farmers.
Council Member Kimball stated that Committee Members Kua and Pollard are helping in the AC
agriculture working group and encouraged them to continue a relationship with Mr. Flemming,
stating that the AC is a great networking body that can help share out information with the
community and herself,to continue advancing actions forward.
3. Presentation by Lehua Village Partners, LLC—Proposed 40-Lot Su bd Nision in Honoka'a: Roger and
Terri Meeker, and Jack Larson of Lehua Village Partners, LLC, along with planning consultants
Sidney Fuke and Daryn Arai were in attendance to present and discuss their proposed affordable
housing project in Honoka'a.They first spoke to Council Member Kimball,who suggested they take
an audience with the Hamakua CDP AC.
Mr. Fuke began by providing a brief description of the land use history for this project area,
beginning at the end of the sugar plantation era.
Mr. Meeker then provided the AC with a brief introduction to their proposed project. Utilizing
Zoom's screen sharing feature, Ms. Ching shared a location map as well as a detailed plan that had
been provided by Lehua Village Partners, LLC. Mr. Meeker stated that their project conforms with
both the General Plan and the Hamakua CDP,which has the proposed area labeled medium to low
density urban. He added that although County Code requires a project to be 20%affordable,they
want to designate 50% of the units in their project to affordable housing, according to the County's
affordable housing guidelines. Lehua Village 1 will target first time local buyers, workforce housing,
etc.to help satisfy that need. Mr. Meeker shared that once the project is approved,they would
enter into an agreement with the County's Office of Housing and Community Development
(OHCD). The process requires preference be given to first time, local buyers for the first seven
months, after which, it could be open for other Hawaii residents.
Lehua Village 2 may be a combination of lots and homes (uncertain at this point). The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) allows for more flexibility. Mr. Meeker described the roads, and other aspects
of the proposed project, such as a pedestrian path and native tree landscape.They intend to have
minimal CC&Rs and would maintain an appropriate design aesthetic, referencing the historic
plantation design of that area.They have met with OHCD and the Planning Department, and both
agencies are supportive of their project's vision. Mr. Meeker then opened the conversation for
questions and feedback.
Concern over roads and the one lane bridge were expressed, and a discussion ensued about the
roadway placement for Lehua Village 2. Chair Kurokawa advocated for smaller roads, and wasn't
sure if the County has adopted roadway standards which call for complete streets. Looking at the
PUD aspect he recommended they consider natural drainage ways. Mr. Meeker explained the
https.11www.,Tannin,-.hawtiiicoirn4t-eov/ hamahua(a hawaiicounfi'.-Ol Page 3
engineers and PUD designer placed the location of the access road to meet adequate line of sight
requirements and to avoid the area's flood zone.
Committee Member Keeney asked if the project would go before County Council for approval as an
affordable housing project. Mr. Meeker replied that 201H was not applicable to this project
because they are working within the existing zoning. Council Member Kimball added that the
project would still go through the PUD process and go before the Planning Commission.The
project would also go before County Council for review because they are applying for a rezone. She
thanked Lehua Village Partners, LLC for coming out to the community early to begin this dialogue.
Francine Roby expressed concern for this area being labeled "high susceptibility"for landslides
under the HCDP's community hazards profile on hazards. Ms. Roby also stated that cul-de-sacs are
not a good idea because it only allows people with one exit route when a hazard occurs. Chair
Kurokawa agreed that for higher density areas in town you want more connectivity for distribution
of traffic.
Committee Member Carol Ignacio commented that the 2019 medium income in Hawai'i County
was about$63,000 and "affordable" for people is about 30%of that. She queried what affordable
would look like for this project. Mr. Meeker stated that they did not have fixed pricing right now.
The OHCD has affordable housing guidelines with numbers for 80%, but this project will be well
under those numbers. They won't know for certain until they have fixed infrastructure costs.
Chair Kurokawa asked if they were planning on building homes or subdividing the land. Mr. Meeker
stated that Lehua Village 1 would be finished lots for buyers to build their own homes on. They
remain uncertain about Lehua Village 2. Chair Kurokawa noted there may be some extra costs for
building because of the sloping terrain, versus a flat site. He also noted that affordable housing
usually entails having smaller lots, so the developer can develop more, and the lots can be lowered
in cost. Chair Kurokawa also shared concerns around maintaining visual screening from Hawaii Belt
Road, so the view does not become rooftops.
Mr. Meeker encouraged everyone to view the area firsthand and look at the gentle slope,
especially Village 1, stating the topography does not present a challenge in this area. View planes
will be protected by ensuring only one-story homes can be built on the makai side.
Committee Member McKnight asked to what extent outreach had been done with the surrounding
community. Mr. Meeker acknowledged that this is the start of that process, and that they would be
meeting with the Honoka'a Business Association in a couple weeks. He added that they have
nothing currently scheduled in terms of meetings with residents, but they are open to do whatever
is appropriate.
Click here for Comm. No. 2021-07.1- Lehua Village Partners, LLC map and concept plan:
http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/l/doc/112472/Page 1.aspx
4. Island-wide Action Committee Member Initiatives: Chair Kurokawa incorporated this business
agenda item with#5—Implementation Updates from Action Committee Members (read below).
S. Implementation Updates from Action Committee Members:
a. Emergency Preparedness & Hazard Mitigation—Francine Roby&Jeff McKnight: Ms. Roby has
federal emergency planning experience and has adapted that planning process to a household
model. She has looked at plans from various counties, including the COH Multi-hazard
Mitigation Plan, and created a self-instructional document that helps households learn and
think about the types of decisions they need to make for emergency preparedness. It includes
https.11www.,Tannin,-.hawaiicoirn4t-eov/ hamakiia(a hawaiicounfi'.-Ol Page 4
links to up-to-date online resources, guidance on home preparedness, and contains a vital
records section, and emergency financial first aid kit. It is a fiIla ble document that is
customizable for each household.The idea is to have households work on this first, and then
take it to a community level, connecting networks of communities together to enhance
preparedness.
b. Affordable Housing—Nicolette Hubbard & Rhonda Pollard: Committee Members Hubbard &
Pollard will connect with one of the Action Committee members in Kohala that could be a
valuable resource and will get back to the AC with this information.
Council Member Kimball offered to bring in a speaker from the Office of Housing and
Community Development to talk about affordable housing with the Action Committee.
c. Public Access&Trails--Jeff McKnight&Tawn Keeney: Committee Member Keeney has been
attending meetings about Waipi'o Valley, focusing on the valley's rim area and public access.
Committee Member Keeney spoke about a property below Pa'auhau.
Council Member Kimball shared that there is a collaborative working group comprised of
various nonprofits that are working in the valley(taro farmers, Ha ola ❑ Waipi'o, Pohaha i ka
Lani) and they have received $100,000 from Hawaii Tourism Authority (destination
management program)to facilitate a discussion with the entire surrounding community on
what they would like to see for the future of Waipi'o and management of that destination.
They're in the process of selecting a vendor to provide the facilitation services, and some of the
input received from the groups in the valley is the need for a facilitator that knows the history
but has not been intimately involved.
Council Member Kimball also shared that there is a potential investor for Jack Wayne Hall
(roadside building between Waipi'o and Honoka'a town).The investor is willing to make it an
education gateway to the valley, and will expand parking, potentially provide shuttles,
education services, etc.
d. Recycling&Solid Waste--Jeff McKnight& Francine Roby: Committee Member McKnight
received several calls about the transfer stations abrupt COVID-related closures and limited
hours—which has since been temporarily resolved but seems to be a recurring issue. Council
Member Kimball said she will connect him with solid waste contacts at the County.
e. Roadway Network(bridges)--Brad Kurokawa & Nicolette Hubbard: Chair Kurokawa reached
out to John Cross, formerly of C. Brewer& Co., and said there is quite a bit of information that
the plantation has on old roadways. He believes there should be another data gathering effort
so that they can identify some of these routes for emergency preparedness.
f, Agriculture--Crystal Kua & Rhonda Pollard: Committee Member Kua said it was helpful seeing
Mr. Flemming's presentation, and she will connect with Rhonda on the topic of agriculture.
g. Protection of Coastal Resources---Robert Nishimoto: Committee Member Nishimoto is hoping
to serve as a bridge between the AC and the agencies working on the shoreline setback study.
Committee Member Nishimoto asked about the new owners of the 'n'okala Dairy and recalled
that the former owner had various land issues with others (dumping sewage off the cliff etc.).
He requested that the new owners be asked to do a presentation to the AC about their plans.
Council Member Kimball offered to arrange for the presentation with the new owners
Stephanie and Chad Buck, as well as Charlene Nishida.
https.11www.,Tannin,-.hawtiiicoirn4t-eov/ hainakiia(a hawaiicowwti•.,o, Page 5
Other: Chair Kurokawa requested clarification and information on a recent director's memo regarding
Farm [Dwellings. Ms. Mercado will follow up with information on the memo.
PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: None
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Keeney motioned to adjourn the meeting. Second by Committee Member Hubbard.
The motion,passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
All Action Committee information can be viewed and downloaded from our website:
httas:llwww.h awa i icou ntvcd p.i nfolh a m a ku a-cd p
https.11www.,Tannin,-.hawtiiicoiin4t-eov/ hanzakna(u hawahcownifi•.
From: Bett Bidleman
To: Kay.Christian
Cc: WPCtestimonyCai)hawaii.countv.aov
Subject: Testimony on Application by Lehua Village Partners(LLC)for Change of Zone and Development Permit on Lehua
Street in Honoka'a
Date: Wednesday,July 27, 2022 10:48:22 AM
We are submitting the following as written testimony in advance of a public hearing
on the applications filed for a Change of Zone (PL-REZ-2022-000028) and Planned
Unit Development Permit (PL-PUD-2022-000001 ) for TMK -4-5-010:136 and 4-5-
024:010. Applicant is Lehua Village Partners, LLC.
We reside year-round at 45-2805 Lehua Mauka Place, Honoka'a, HI 96727 in the
home owned by our son Pfister Matthew Week, situated close to the proposed
development. We support rezoning of these lots provided that infrastructure
improvements are made to Lehua Street before the lots are sold.
We are aware from frequent media reports and from personal experience that the
island has a housing shortage. These Honoka'a lots are close to village services,
including public schools. They offer our community an opportunity both to address
the countywide housing shortage and the specific need for affordable housing for
local families. In that regard, we hope that this development is a success.
However, as you must know, Lehua Street is a very curvy and steep narrow road
with poor visibility for both motorists and pedestrians at this location, further
hindered by a one-way bridge, also with poor visibility. We believe strongly that,
at a minimum, a sidewalk is needed on the makai side of Lehua Street from
Plumeria Street to the bridge. The one-way bridge must be replaced with a two-
way bridge, with a mauka sidewalk continuing to Pakalana Street and a crosswalk
placed appropriately for school children.
The improvements we are proposing should have been made years ago. We have
lived at the above location for 2 1/2 years and have experienced numerous
incidents when oncoming motorists do not yield to traffic already on the bridge. If
the above change in zoning is approved and forty new homes are built on Lehua
Street, the one-way bridge will not only increase as a hazard but will also become a
traffic issue, as vehicles back up on Lehua to deal with drivers failing to yield.
The sidewalk issue is a long-standing one. There are blind corners that make it
impossible for pedestrians and drivers to see one another as they turn those curves.
The need for a sidewalk on Lehua was specifically noted in the Hamakua
Community Development Plan [See Policy 70 under Sect. 5.3 Improve Roadway
Network (pp 81-82)].
Having lived on Hawai'i Island for over 16 years, our experience is that County
government does not resolve dangerous road conditions until numerous accidents
and pedestrian or motorist casualties have occurred. So promises that poor
infrastructure will be corrected "later" hold no weight with us. If the County
decides to approve this subdivision plan without these improvements being
mandatory before homes are sold, we cannot in good conscience support further
development of Lehua Street.
Sincerely,
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 12
Bett and Richard Bidleman
2ardenalohaPic loud.com
808 756-1808
45-2805 Lehua Mauka Place
Honokaa, HI 96727
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultani
MAE
Ro.Box1345 -Hilo,Havrai'i 96720 •Planning•Variance•Zoning
Cell:(8p8))989-0640
8998 •Subdivision•Land Use Permits
E-mail:SidneyfUkeke@gmail.cnm •Environmental Reports
June 23, 2022
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Kern:
Subject: Response to Public Comments
Applicant: Lehua Village Partners, LLC
Change of Zone (PL-REZ-2022-000028) and Planned Unit
Development Permit(PL-PUD-2022-000001)
TMK: (3) 4-5-024: 010 and (3) 4-5-010: 136_
This is in response to public comments posted in your EPIC system relating to the subject
applications. We note that some of the comments were directed at only one of the two
applications, whereas others commented on both. Where both, we note that comments were
generally identical. Accordingly, for those comments referencing only one application, our
responses will be predicated upon their applicability to both.
To date,there were two (2)public comments--Mr, Richard Bidleman(unknown address)
and Mr. James Loewen(TMK: 4-5-024:001).
Mr. Bidleman offered two (2) comments. The first was whether the RS-15 designation
would allow multifamily units. The short answer is "no". Each of the proposed lot would allow
the construction of only one single-family residential structure.
His other comment related to the pedestrian pathways that connect the private roadways
to Lehua Street and the park located makai of the proposed subdivision. The objective is to
enable future residents of the proposed Lehua Village communities to have direct access to the
park and schools without having to take a more circuitous route via Lehua Street. These
pedestrian pathways are private and will be maintained by the homeowner's association(s). They
will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Loewen outlined several "concerns" while attaching a copy of the September 15,
2021,minutes of the Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee. His
comments revolved around a) the single lane bridge along Lehua Street which could compromise
safety; b)the need to preserve view plane for lots within his subdivision; c) drainage and
adequacy of the size of the culvert within Lehua Street; d) cost of the affordable housing lots;
and e) adverse impacts of cul-de-sacs.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 13
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
June 23, 2022
Page 2
The applicant understands and appreciates the fact that Lehua Street, as do so many other
public streets on the island, does not meet the County of Hawai'i's dedicable road
standards. This may relate to the cited bridge, drainage (culvert), or even road width. To
address situations, the County's approach on rezoning application like this has been to apply the
judicial principles of"nexus" and "proportionality." Specifically, if a project's impact has some
reasonable physical relationship to an existing infrastructure (in this case, Lehua Street), it can be
maintained that there is a"nexus." Once that is established, its "proportional" obligation could
be determined.
Where there are perceived infrastructure impacts, the County through the rezoning
process has sought to equitably address a proposed project's "proportional" obligation through a
"fair share assessment" condition. The assessment equitably addresses traffic/road, parks,
police, fire, and solid waste.
The Applicant believes that this system, if applied, is most equitable and proportional.
Funds derived through this process, coupled with the County's Capital Improvement Program or
its road maintenance budget, could make some of the desired improvements if deemed
appropriate.
As with other applications, the "fair share" imposition of an additional $15,000 or more
per an affordable lot would make its availability more tenuous_ As such and as with other
applications, all of the affordable lots/units have been exempted from this fee. We trust that, if
approved, this exemption will be applied here as well.
On the matter of view plane preservation,the applicant sympathizes with the concern.
This is an unavoidable situation, whether the property is developed based on the existing RS-10
or requested RS-I5 zoning. In deference to this concern, the applicant will develop and require
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project that will, for the most part,
restrict the height to one-story. The few exceptions would be for a few lots along the
mauka/highway border and/or other lots where because the topography or their location lends
themselves to multi-level without significantly compromising view plane of existing lots.
While underground utilities are ideal, it is a significant cost item according to the
applicant's electrical consultant. This is a cost that would affect the applicant's ability to deliver
more houselots and/or housing at the County's affordable rate or guidelines. Accordingly, the
applicant is not prepared to have underground utilities.
On the matter of cul-de-sacs, while through streets facilitate overall traffic circulation,
there are some situations where a through street is not reasonable (such as connecting to nowhere
or topography or other landform making a connection unfeasible) or let alone, preferred or
desired. As such, the Subdivision Code allows cul-de-sacs but caps the maximum number of lots
Mr. Zendo Kern, Director
June 23, 2022
Page 3
at 18. In this situation, through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, we are requesting
a 2-lot exemption to allow up to 20 lots.
The layout was designed in a manner to enable the applicant to develop the project in a
cost-efficient manner and thereby provide more affordable housing/lots. As noted in response to
the County Office of Housing and Community Development's comments, in spite of the
project's affordable housing obligation already having been fulfilled, the applicant is still
prepared to provide at least 50% of the lots within the County's affordable housing guidelines.
There are several other things to note. For one, from a traffic circulation standpoint and
other considerations, there is no "magic" in the number 18. The Code could have easily capped it
at 16 or even 20. In this case, because of local terrain (embankments, drop-offs, etc.), site
distance concerns, as well as the desire to minimize the number of lots having direct access to a
public street (in this case, Lehua Street), having all 20 lots of each Village access via the cul-de-
sac road would appear to be a better option--especially in light of the option of having more
affordable homes/lots. Finally, it should be noted that a prime objective of a PUD concept is to
have all proposed lots be functionally part of the subdivision. Sharing, accessing and
contributing to the same private road achieves that objective.
The applicant recognized that the existing RS-10 zoning could mathematically yield more
lots (62) than the RS-15 zoning (40). While the applicant's goal has and continues to be how
best to address the affordable housing market in this area, it was equally concerned over wanting
to also have a"quality" type of project that a less dense project would render. Further, the added
development cost to reshape the undulating property to create buildable lots could result in the
applicant not being able to provide the desired level or number of affordable lots.
We trust that the aforementioned adequately responds to the comments to date. If not or
if there are questions relating to this matter, please feel free to direct them to me or Mr. Daryn
Arai. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
S v y\ �4
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Copy—Lehua Village Partners, LLC via email
Mr. Daryn Arai via email