HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0173.007 2002-2004 Analysis
Resolution 5;-U3
Barricading R£`;E~`,rEtD ~
i;ako and Kinau Streets .n,ne-_-- . ~.~r~ e•~..__,
Kona Vistas Subdivision
Holualoa, North Kona. Hawaii _ !.~tkunty Gwn~~d.
April I5, 2003
From' Gregg Kashiwa
Project Planners Hawaii
>375 Kalanianaole High~~ay
Honol!~Iu. Hawaii 96821
Tu. County Council
Kona Ofliccs
ANALYSIS OF' RESOLD"LION 53-03
I 'The Pur-pose of the resolution asks the County be allowed to place concrete
barricades on County owned roadways at stub outs on Lako and Kinau titreets in
Kona Vistas subdivision in order to curb illegal activitie, taking pace rlu:r~~.
Barricades wvuid force participants in these activities to park in plain v;c:~a and
facilitate police enforcement to complaints from neighborhood resident; the
barricading plan (layout) proposed is attached to the resolution.
3 This analysis does not address legal requirements in the Hati~aii County Code tier
said action The first question should be, "Did Resolution 53-03, as it stands
before the County Council, meet all legal requirements of±he County Code?~~ If
so, any flaws sh~udd be corrected prior to placement of the !'~arricades.
i. Cgst concerns t2x th~~oEosed action have been raised- ~'he harricading plan
shows the need for seven (7) 10 to 20 toot long barricades. Transportation and
placement on site requires at minimum, a "low ho~~° tractor-trailer, and boom
Uuck with poss~ble police or private. escor~ vehicles. Ro=,i,th estimates for this
should be budgeted at S3,tiU0 Removal would cost ;+n et~:.al amount "this does
not include costs (br installation of signage-
4 • Kona ~_istas-Association at its Board of l3~rectors Meeting on April 15- 3U03
voted, first it doe, not oppose barricading, in the subject aria- Secondly, support
is withheld unless two (21 twenty foot wide opening. ,m Lako and Kinau Street be
provided for cunstriictiou access to Unit 2. in Ko!;a `?ist~s ~I~i;~s v,ould mitigate y
Comm. No. ~7.~/• I
Ref. TorraseM_N ~
' Ref. Dote APR 1w, 9~_
construction traffic and noise impacts on residents living on Leilani and
Kamehamalu Streets. Lako Street is the best and safest access route for
construction traffic. Third, the association has no funds to cost share the
' installation and removal costs for the proposed action.
5. Alternative plan to concrete barricades. DPW (Kona oftices) has no objection to
placement of boulders aligned as set forth on the barricading plan in lieu of
concrete barricades that can be accomplished with a backhoe. Placement may be
subject to DPy~' inspection and approval inclusive of two construction access
openings.
6. Estimated Alternative Costs: It is estimated that costs to the County for this
alternative will be $0 accomplished by donations and Kona Vistas membership
labor. It also assumes the County will supply required signage. if allowed by
ordinance, this alternative is possible at little or no cost to the County.
7. if Resolution 5,-03 is accordingly amended, this alternative can be jointly
implemented with c;onimunity support and County supervision.
Respectfully,
Gregg Kashiwa
cc: KVA
County Council
DPW (Kona)
_2_
/ / ~
~
i
i C
~ O
w V
F C
IQ G U
Y ¢a
2
~b~
/ ~ ~ ~
M
W
~
~ w
t-
~ v
O)I\fl -
`t
~
~
Q ~c• ~ ~ ~
`fib ~
ti~
r -a
Q f~.+ ~
~
~w~ w f1lVYVdH3WMl
i
--i--- - - - ~
Kona Vistas Access Options to Phase II Construction
When selecting the ingress and egress locations of any large construction project, such as
Phase II of Kona Vistas, every effort shoukf be made to minimize the amount of
construction related traffic that will occur on public thoroughfares, especially those in
existing built-up residential areas. This is done in order to reduce the traffic hazards
created when hundreds of construction trucks share the road with private vehicles, and to
reduce the impact made on the environment by the pollution, noise and dirt produced by
construction trucks.
The attached site plan looks at four routes through the existing Kona Vistas subdivision that
provide access to the site of Phase II construction, using the intersection of Lako and
Leilani as the common starting point for each. The following chart quantifies the impact, by
route, each round trip would have on the existing neighborhood.
HOUSES DRIVEWAYS
ROUTE PASSED PASSED
A~'~~'~ 2 0
Btzx<~ 26 26
Ct2xe~ 42 36
D(Zl~ei 20 16
Notes:
(1) Route A utilizes only Lako, a Primary road (wider right-of-way)
(2) Routes B, C and D utilize Secondary roads (narrower rights-of-way)
(3) Route A round trips are straight runs to and from the site without turns
(4) Route B round trips require trucks to make four turns, two of which would be left turns
across a lane of oncoming traffic
(5) Route C and D round trips each require trucks to make four turns, one of which would
be a left turn across a lane of oncoming traffic