HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0580.008 2000-2002 TESTII~1®NY CLYDE NAGAT,~,
I~I~aN,/~GER, ENGINEERING DE9~,~R1°IMENT
HAWAII ELEC1`RIC LIGHT CONIP~NY
SILL 205
.;4N ®R®INANCE AI~AEN®ING CHAIPTEIt 22, Ole THE FIAWAI'I C®l1NTY C®®~ 1983
(1995 EDITI®N), REL.~`TING T® STREETS AND SI~ENVA.LKS
APRIL. 1~, 2002
Chair Arakaki and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
I am Clyde Nagata, manager of the engineering department at Hawaii Electric
Fight Company ("HELLO"), submitting testimony on behalf of HELLO on Sill 205, "AN
~?RDINANCE AMEN®ING CHAPTER 22, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1 J83,
RELATING TO STREETS AND SIDEWALKS."
S U Afl DIARY
HELLO supports the intent of this bill to regulate construction within County
streets in order to provide for the safety and orderly movement of pedestrians and
vehicular traffic. HELLO believes, however, that the provisions of subsection (h) in
Section 22-4.4. Construction permits; conditions need to be clarified. As currently
drafted, the requirements of subsection (h) are so broad that they could overwhelm an
applicant's entire project. That subsection requires the construction of new curb-cuts for
persons with disabilities, accessible driveways or other improvements such that all
repair, restoration or replacemen# work comply with the current requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act r~gardf_ess of existing conditions. Thus, a simple pole-
change-out project could r4quire a utility not only to replace the pole, but if that pole
Comr~i. No,
F°lle No.
T~,ef. Ite.~.
happens to be on a street without sidewalks that provide sufficient room for passage of
a wheelchair, then the utility might need to widen the sidewalk, change the grade of the
sidewalk, add curb-cuts, and change the grade of the street. Clearly there is not a
rational relationship between the work proposed by the utility and the scope and cost of
the work that could be required by achieve ADA compliance.
Accordingly, ~9~LC0 proposes that discretion be vested with the Director, public
Works to work with the utility in order to achieve the goals of the County in a rational
and fair manner. We respectfully suggest that the second sentence of Section 22-4.~(h)
be deleted and replaced with following language:
Such repair, restoration or replacement work may, at the discretion of the
Director, public Works working with the applicant, include the construction of new
curb-cuts for persons with disabilities, accessible driveways or other
improvements such that all repair, restoration or replacement work comply with
the current requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); provided,
however, that the Director shall not require any repair, restoration or replacement
work that exceeds the scope of work identified in applicant's application for a
construction permit.
~?TI®N~?L
As proposed in Sill 205, Section 22-4.4(h) would require a utility that has
performed construction activities in a County street to restore the street to meet the
current requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (°ADA") -even if the
condition of the roadway at the commencement of construction did not meet ADA
requirements. As I previously testified on an earlier version of this bill, fiELCO supports
the intent and purpose of ADA, but we firm?y believe that the current language in
Section 22-4.4(h) of bill 205 will result in unmerited hardship on utilities that were not
respUnsibl~; fc~r the ci~sigr? ~rxl construction of n~an-Af~A compliant Cora~~ty ro~a~iwoys.
The utilities would be required to bring those roadways up to ADA standards merely
because the utilities perform construction work in a County street to maintain service to
the community.
In my earlier testimony, I gave the example of a utility pole-repair project that
required digging up of a sidewalk. In order to meet County standards, a utility pole
must be located one and a half to two feet from the curb, but some of the older County
sidewalks may be only five feet wide, which might not leave enough room for the utility
pole while still complying with ADA wheelchair access requirements. In order to comply
with Section 22-4.4(h) as currently drafted, the utility could be required to relocate the
entire line and widen the sidewalk to meet ADA standards. Another example is if the
utility need to replace a pole in the sidewalk, we will need to also replace the one block
the pole is in. Installation of the new ADA compliant block with the proper slope, may
result in a disjoint where the new and old sidewalks meet. The current language is
broad that it could mean that the whole sidewalk for the length of the subdivision block
may need to be replaced. Such a result could overwhelm any normal maintenance and
repair project and would unfairly shift the burden of ADA compliance to the utilities in the
design and construction of County roadways if the scope of the proposed language is
left broad.
t-I~LCO believes that a fairer procedure would be to give discretion to the
Director, Public Works, who has expertise in construction and design, to work with the
applicant to determine any necessary ADA work that fits within the scope of the
applicant's project. This will enable achievement of the County's goal of ADA-compliant
streets while still allowing the applicant to perform its construction work in an efficient
and cost-effective manner.
~®NC~l1Sl®fd
Fi~LC® respectfully requests that this bill be passed with the deletion of
the second sentence of Section 2~-4.4(h) and its replacement with the language
proposed above. fihank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this matter,