Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0700.003 2006-2008 Kam, TR,.~F~~ ~E~ Co~E TESTIMONY Of The Kona Traffic Safety Committee Presented By JOEL GIMPEL Chair, Public Affairs 73886 Hina Lani St. Kailua-Kona, Hawaii Before the HAWAII COUNTY PLANNING COMMITTEE Regarding Bill 787 -Seascape Development Change of Zone (REZ 07-000084) October 78, 2007 Aloha. Earlier this year, the Kona Traffic Safety Committee submitted written comments to Mr. Yuen and testified before the Planning Commission regarding this application for rezoning to RM- 1 in order to pennR devebpmerrt of a 306-unit affordable rental complex, a singlestory office building and a 1+ acre recreation area, and those comments should be part of your record. In the interest of time, I'll review the highlights of those comments today. I should note that although we appreciate the desirability of providing affordable rental units in the Kona District, and are pleased with the mixed-use element and recreational area setaside, we have several concerns regarding safety and traffic issues that merit your consideration and should be addressed. 1. Single Access A single access route for 360 residential units is unconscionable because it creates an unnecessary danger to residents and visitors in the event evacuation or emergency vehicle access is required. It certainly violates the intent if not the letter of Section 23~8(a) of the County Code, so we urge that you require a second access route as a condition of rezoning and occupancy. Failing to do so could result in liability for the county and its taxpayers. 2. Parkin Although the number of parking spaces specfied in the application ("more than 460") might satisfy the current Code requirements, those requirements are woefully inadequate - a situation that the County Council is now addressing in Bill 79. We believe (and Bill 79 would require) that multi family residences, and especially those with oneand two-bedroom apartments, should have at least 2 Ys spaces per unit plus space for guests and delivery vehicles. Because we believe that the requirements specified in Bill 79 are appropriate, we urge that you require at least 774 spaces Comm. No" ~ .3 Ref. To: Raf. Dote -OCT 1 (2 spaces per unit, plus 10% for guests and 2.5°i6 for delivery and loading zones) for the proposed number of residential units. Additional parking will of course be needed for the commercial building. Because, however, parking needs must be balanced with the need for green areas, it may be appropriate to reduce the number of rental units contemplated in the application. 3. Alternative Transportation Because this devebpment is more than a mile from the nearest grocery store, and even farther from educational, civic and other commercial centers, all of which currently require travel along Hwy 19, autos and school buses will necessarily be the primary modes of transportation. To encourage safe walking and cycling, we suggest that the developer provide shared-use paths connecting to civic, education, and commercial centers in the general area. The traffic anaysis and circulation plans should incude appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities connecting the development to the community, and provision for public transportation and shuttle service capabilities. 4. Other Although the State is responsible for public school education, the County must note the effect of a large, school-age population on road infrastructure and traffic safety issues. Incrediby, neither the application nor the accompanying TZAR mention schools or the significant school traffic that will be generated by this and adjacent devebpments. Here, because the nearest schools are not within a safe or reasonable walking distance, we can expect that 200 or more schoohage children will require bus or auto transportation along Hwy 19, Ka'iminani, and Hwy 190/Palani, adding greatly to the congestion on those roads during peak hours. In that regard, we question the applicants failure to recommend any traffic congestion mtgation at several key area intersections, because, as asserted by the applicant, the Levels of Service (LOS) with or without this project would not change. That assertion is misleading, because LOS °E; for example, means delays of between 30.1 to 45 seconds. Thus, if the average delay had been 30.1 seconds before, and the devebpment increased the delay by 14 seconds, it would still be LOS °E° despite the delay having increased nearly 50%! Therefore, evend the adddional delays inevitably caused by this devebpment don't change the LOS, we believe that mitigation measures are appropriate and should be required. We also note that the TZAR was based on a traffic count that is nearly two years okl, and that traffic has noticeaby increased since then. Perhaps, an updated TZAR prepared by a traffic consultant chosen by the County and paid for by the applicant will be more objective. Finalty, the developer should include traffic calming features in the intemal road layout and on the roads immediately external to the project. So, to summarize our recommendations in the interest of better traffic safety and flow: We urge: 1. Require a ascend access route; 2. Require at least 774 parking spaces, or reduce the number of dwelling units; 3. Require shared-use bike and pedestrian paths to civic, educetional, and commercial in the area, and provision for public transportation; 4. Require traffic mitigation measures at key area intersections (Hwy 19/Ka'iminani, Ka'iminani/Hwy 190, and Ka'iminanUKakahiaka); 5. Require an updated TZAR; and 6. Require traffic calming features on intemal roads and on roads immediately outside the project Mahalo for the opportunity to comment.