Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD BACKGROUND REPORT (PL-REZ-2022-000033) -1- BKonaThreeeLLCAmendREZ.crk.11.22.22 COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT KONA THREE LLC (FORMERLY GAMREX, INC.) AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 02 131 (REZ 470) KONA THREE LLC has submitted an application for a ten (10)-year time extension to Condition I (Complete Construction of the First Increment on RM Zoned lands) and an amendment to Condition N (Roadway Standards) to clarify which roadways within the subdivision are subject to the County Dedicable Standards, of Ordinance No. 02 131. Ordinance No. 02 131 was a successor ordinance to Ordinance No. 84-23, which reclassified two (2) parcels of land totaling 68.837 acres of land from an Unplanned to a Multiple Family Residential-5,000 square feet (RM-5) zoned district. The subject properties are located along the east (mauka) side of the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway at its junction with Kuakini Highway and between Pualani Estates subdivision to the north and Kona Vistas to the south, por. Hōlualoa Hui Lands, Hōlualoa 1, 2, & 3, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMKs: (3) 7-6-021:016 & 017. APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND REASONS 1. Applicant’s Request: The applicant is requesting to amend Condition I and Condition N of Ordnance No. 02 131. Condition I: The applicant initially requested an extension of time of ten (10) years from the effective date of the amended ordinance by which to complete construction of the first increment/phase (258 multiple-family residential units) of the proposed development. As further discussed in section 3 below, the applicant has since clarified the request to a ten (10)-year time extension to complete the entire development. Condition I currently states: “I. plans for the development within the first increment of the RM zoned area shall be submitted to the Planning Department and final plan approval secured within five years from the effective date of this sixth amendment. Construction shall -2- commence within one year from the date of receipt of final plan approval and be completed within three years thereafter;” Upon securing land use entitlements in 1983 (see chronology below), then owner Gamrex Corporation and its development entity, Kona Vistas, LLC spent the next 23 years developing the initial phase of the development consisting of approximately 103.293 acres of RS-15 zoned lands into 215 single-family residential lots/units now known as the Kona Vistas subdivision. The developer secured a series of time extensions on the initial ordinance, which covered both the Kona Vistas subdivision lands and the subject properties totaling 68.837 acres (please note, due to Subdivision No. 18-00185, which consolidated and resubdivided a 1.675-acre portion of Parcel 17 with an adjoining property, the total land area that is subject to this amendment request is 67.162 acres). The last amendment occurred in 2002, which granted a time extension until November 27, 2007, to secure Final Plan Approval for the first phase of the multiple-family residential component within the RM-5 zoned area with its planned completion no later than November 27, 2011. After substantial completion of the Kona Vistas subdivision, the owner lost interest/ability to complete the multiple-family component of the development and sold their remaining land holdings to two Hawaiʻi-based development entities, KV3, LLC and Kona Three LLC (applicant) in 2015. Upon this purchase, both entities have made a significant financial and time commitment to complete requirements of the ordinance as well as perform additional ʻsoft work’ necessary to update and align various studies and previous obligations of the original landowner to be in a position to request additional time to complete the last remaining major residential development component that was originally envisioned by the State Land Use Commission and County Council when the entitlements were granted. Furthermore, as the ordinance was stale prior to their acquisition of the properties, the applicant found it necessary to address many project- related, supporting elements needed to be complete to ensure that this time extension request is consistent with the original reasons for granting the original land use entitlements, conforms to current land use policies, and addresses project related impacts in a responsible manner. These ‘soft-work’ elements include: -3-  Completing drainage improvements within the Hōlualoa Drainageway in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works;  Dedication of three (3) remaining roadway lots within the Kona Vistas Subdivision to the County;  Secured an SMA Use Permit (SMA 430) and hired a hydrologic engineer to prepare and submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to complete drainage improvements for a 12-acre County affordable housing site makai of Kuakini Highway that was originally meant to satisfy the project’s affordable housing requirements. Despite the preceding, the County no longer wishes to proceed with the development of this parcel at this time.  The applicant purchased Hawaiʻi Preparatory Academy’s (HPA) 5-acre interest in the RM-zoned lands on parcel 17 as HPA decided it did not want to build a new school in Kona. As the 5-acre area was not previously included in the original Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS), a new AIS was conducted for the area which found a previously unknown burial site in a lava tube. The applicant subsequently prepared a Burial Treatment Plan (BTP) that was approved by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and the Hawaiʻi Island Burial Council.  The applicant was instructed to prepare a new AIS for the remaining 65 acres of RM-zoned lands within the subject properties due to the age of the original AIS report. This new AIS has been completed and approved by SHPD.  The applicant prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to HRS Chapter 343 what was accepted by the Planning Department, who issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) by letter dated September 13, 2021. The EA included an updated traffic impact analysis report, biological survey, cultural impact assessment, updated AIS and site preservation plan. Also included within this process were consultations with area residents, specifically from the adjoining Kona Vistas subdivision. -4-  The applicant entered into a new affordable housing agreement with the County of Hawaiʻi on January 10, 2022 to satisfy the affordable housing requirement for the entire project. Condition N: The applicant also requests to amend Condition N as follows (material to be deleted is bracketed and struck-through; new material is underlined): N. the roadways and stubout within the RM zoned area, as shown on “Figure 3-Conceptual Building Layout” in the Final Environmental Assessment- Royal Vistas Housing Project dated September 2021, shall be constructed to dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion. [Where a roadway crosses a zone line or if a zone line should divide a roadway, the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks shall be provided for the entire right-of-the-way and shall continue to the nearest intersection in order to avoid telescoping and to provide consistent improvement;] Condition N currently requires that the roadways and stubouts within the RM-zoned lands need to be built to county dedicable standards. The proposed amendment to Condition N would clarify that the main roadways identified in Figure 3 of the Final EA would be constructed to dedicable standards and ultimately dedicated to the County since the proposed alignments provide the opportunity for future connection to the larger area road network. The remainder of the roadways/driveways servicing the multiple family residential complexes will remain in private ownership and be built to non-dedicable standards. Finally, deletion of the language at the end of the condition regarding roadway telescoping will allow the applicant to avoid tearing up Kekūanāoʻa Place and re- constructing it to dedicable standards between its crossing at the Hōlualoa Ditch within the project site and its intersection within Kamehamalu Street within the Kona Vistas subdivision to the south. 2. Proposed Development: Although the current RM-5 zoning would allow the development of up to 585 residential units on the 67.162-acre project site, the applicant -5- proposes to construct the “Royal Vistas” project as a 450-unit, multiple family residential housing project with:  174, two- and three-bedroom ‘for rent’ units and a manager’s unit within two- story buildings on the makai portion of the project area.  274, two- and three-bedroom ‘for sale’ units, and a manager’s unit, to be developed in clusters of two- and three-story buildings partially on the makai portion and the remainder on the mauka portion of the project area.  Two (2) community centers, one for the ‘for rent’ units and one for the ‘for sale’ units. Each community center will include a neighborhood park, pool, and facilities for use by residents.  Parking will be made available via on-site, paved parking lots and covered structures.  Roadways as further discussed below in the access section.  Drainage improvements are further discussed below in the flood zone/drainage section. 3. Project Phasing, Timetable, and Cost: According to the applicant, the project will be developed in two or more phases, with Phase I having a maximum of 258 units (include all the ‘for rent’ units and some ‘for sale’ units) to be constructed on no more than 42 acres within the makai portion of the subject parcels (“project site”) and Phase II of the having the balance of 192 ‘for sale’ units within the mauka portion. According to the application, should the requests be approved, the applicant intends to submit plans for plan approval review within one (1) year. There is a discrepancy within the application on the anticipated timing of development where one section indicates that Phase I is anticipated to be complete by 2024 and Phase II by 2030, however, another section indicates that only completion of Phase I (maximum 258 units) of the 450-unit project is expected to be within ten (10) years from the date of approval of the requested amendments. The applicant addressed this discrepancy by indicating in writing that the entire project can be reasonably completed within ten (10) years of the effective date of the amendment, thus the request has changed to a ten (10)-year time extension within which to complete the entire development. Assuming there are no additional cost-related -6- conditions beyond those improvements required by Ordinance 02 131, the current estimated development cost of this project is $170 million in 2022 dollars, including County exactions and fees. 4. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the attached in support of the request (Planning Department Exhibit 1 – Change of Zone amendment request accepted June 21, 2022.) 5. Landowners: Kona Three LLC. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 6. State Land Use Commission Docket A83-549: On January 26, 1984, the State Land Use Commission (LUC) approved Docket No. A83-549 to reclassify 124.66 acres of land from the State Land Use Agricultural District to the Urban District for then petitioner GAMLON Corporation (see Exhibit A of the Application). This Decision and Order (D&O) was amended on May 10, 1993 to reclassify an additional 49 acres from the State Land Use Agricultural District to the Urban District as a second phase. 7. Change of Zone Ordinance No. 84 23: On May 15, 1984, the County Council approved Change of Zone Ordinance No. 84 23 which rezoned approximately 103.293 acres of land from Unplanned to Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet (RS-15) and 68.837 acres of land from Unplanned (U) to a Multiple Family Residential-5,000 square feet (RM-5) for then applicant GAMREX, Inc. The RS-15 zoned lands are the site of the Kona Vistas subdivision and the RM-5 Zoned lands are the current project site (see Exhibit B of the Application). 8. Multiple Amendments to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 84 23: Between January 18, 1988 and November 27, 2002, there were seven (7) amendments to the original change of zone ordinance, which were primarily time extensions to facilitate the development of the single- and multiple-family development. 9. Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02 131: On November 27, 2002, the County Council approved the latest amendment to the original change of zone ordinance. This amendment allowed for the plan approval for the first RM increment to be secured within five years, construction to commence within one year thereafter and be completed within three years thereafter (see Exhibit C of the Application). -7- 10. Multiple Single-Family Residential Subdivision Actions: Between May 17, 1990 and March 30, 2021 there were 12 separate subdivision actions to facilitate the development of the Kona Vistas subdivision on the RS-zoned portion of the project. 11. Final Plan Approval: On November 23, 2007, Final Plan Approval (PLA-07-000325) was issued by the Planning Department for the proposed construction of 150 multiple- family residential units on approximately 17 acres of land within a portion of Parcel 016 in satisfaction of Condition I of Ordinance 02 131. Per Condition I, construction should have commenced no later than November 23, 2008 with completion no later than November 23, 2011. By letter dated September 1, 2017, the Planning Department notified the current applicant that this Final Plan Approval was no longer valid since the previous owner was not able to commence construction of the initial phase of the 150 multiple family residential units within the RM-5 zoned area within the required timeframe. 12. Property Acquisition: On December 3, 2015, the current applicant acquired the subject properties. 13. Subdivision No. 18-001855: On May 15, 2019, Subdivision No. 18-001855 was approved to consolidate TMK (3) 7-6-021:017 and TMK (3) 7-6-012:124 resubdivide the property to reduce the size of parcel 017 by 1.675 acres an increase the size of parcel 124 by the same land area. The owners of parcel 124 are not involved in the current amendment request, thus the total land area covered by this amendment covering the two subject parcels is 67.162 acres. 14. Entitlement Work Since Property Acquisition: Since 2017, the applicant has submitted three amendment requests, the first two of which were returned because the Planning Department required additional information and ultimately the applicant was required to conduct an Environmental Assessment for the project (further discussed below). STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 15. State Land Use District: Urban. 16. General Plan LUPAG Map Designation: Urban Expansion & Low Density Urban. 17. County Zoning: Multiple Family Residential-5,000 square feet (RM-5). 18. Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP): The KCDP, was adopted by Ordinance No. 08-131 on September 25, 2008 by the Hawai‘i County Council and -8- amended by Ordinance No 19-91 on September 18, 2019. The subject properties are situated within the Kona Urban Area (KUA). By letter dated September 1, 2017, the former Planning Director confirmed that the proposed Royal Vistas multiple family housing project is consistent with the subject property’s RM-5 zoning and also noted that according to the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) in the KCDP, the western portion of the project site is situated in the Puaʻa-Waiʻaha Village Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Floating Zone. The former Director confirmed that location of this TOD has not yet become fixed by a master plan and Project District zoning; however, it is likely that the future TOD will be located makai of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and mauka of Kuakini Highway. Therefore, the former Planning Director determined that the subject properties are not located in the TOD. Furthermore, the project site is not situated within a Concurrency Zone. The Official Transportation Network Map for the Nani Kailua Area (see Figure 7 of the application) designates three minor-collector roadways within the project area to: 1) connect County-owned Leilani Street within the Kona Vistas Subdivision with the County-owned Hoʻomama Street within the Pualani Estates Subdivision; 2) connect County-owned Kekūanāoʻa Place within the Kona Vistas Subdivision with County-owned Paulehia Street within the Pualani Estates Subdivision; and 3) connect the two new roadways with a mauka-makai roadway segment. Finally, given the existing RM Zoning, the proposed project can be developed pursuant to KCDP Policy LU-2.8: Development Outside Transit Oriented Developments (TODs), but within the Kona Urban Area, as a non-Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project through compliance with KCDP policy requirements for parks, street standards, wastewater, and sensitive resources. 19. Special Management Area (SMA): The subject properties are not situated within the SMA and is located approximately 4,500 feet mauka of the nearest shoreline. 20. HRS Chapter 343: The applicant was required to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the project due to the proposed construction of roadway segments across county lands (the Horseshoe and Hōlualoa Drainageways). By letter dated September 13, 2021, the Hawaiʻi County Planning Department issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed 450-unit Royal Vistas housing project. The final EA is -9- included as Exhibit D of the change of zone amendment application. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 21. Subject Properties: The subject properties consisting of combined 68.837 acres are located along the east (mauka) side of the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway at its junction with Kuakini Highway north of Lako Street. The parcels slope east (mauka) from approximately 360 feet above sea level to approximately 685 feet above sea level. The properties are currently not improved with any structures and are overgrown with vegetation. Two County-owned and managed drainageways are situated within or directly adjacent to the subject properties. The Horseshoe Bend drainageway (identified as TMK: 7-6-021:018) partially bisects the project site in a northeast to southwest direction, while the Hōlualoa drainageway (identified as TMK: 7-6-021:019) runs along the entire southern boundary of the project site. 22. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Adjacent properties directly to the north are zoned Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) and are intermittently used for cattle grazing, further north is the Pualani Estates Subdivision, zoned Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet (RS-7.5). Directly to the east (mauka) is the Hōlualoa 1 & 2 Partition Lots subdivision, zoned Residential and Agricultural-0.5 acre (RA-.5a) and consist of residences and small farms. Properties to the south are zoned Single-Family Residential- 15,000 square feet (RS-15) for the Kona Vistas subdivision and Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a), which is the site of the Calvary Community Church of Kona, permitted by Special Permit No. 642 approved in 1987. Properties to the west (across Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway) are zoned Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) for the Komohana Kai Subdivision. 23. Flood Zone/Drainage: The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows the project site and proposed development as largely in Flood Zone “X”, with a small portion of the project site in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The Horseshoe Bend and Hōlualoa Drainageways which cross and are adjacent to the project site, are sited in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) Zone AE. Zone AE is defined as areas inundated by flood having a 1% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) and the floodways are in Zone AEF. These -10- drainageways flow through culverts built under Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and merge at the makai end of the 12-acre property previously slated for an affordable housing development and feed into a County-owned drainage channel from there. The applicant is processing a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) with the FEMA to further channelize the portion of Hōlualoa Drainageway that crosses the 12-acre site to allow more safe and efficient transfer of these flood waters. The applicant anticipates that a new CLOMR will be needed during the development of Phase I of the project for the Horseshoe Bend drainageway. In response to the amendment application, the Department of Public Works (DPW) outlined a varied history of efforts to provide drainage facilities for the project, with many changes to the approach and final design of the facilities that have yet to be constructed. In response, the applicant references Condition Q of the existing ordinance, which requires the applicant to develop a drainage master plan, including final design of the facilities, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works (DPW). Moreover, construction of the drainage improvements must be consistent with the requirements of the approved master plan and Chapter 27 of the Hawaiʻi County Code as part of the grading permit process and completion of the improvements will be required prior to certificate of occupancy for the project. Thus, ultimately DPW will have final approval authority over the final design and implementation of drainage for the project. 24. Archaeological/Historical Resources: According to SHPD, the project area has been subject to several previous archaeological studies, including a reconnaissance survey (Hammatt and Folk 1983) and two AISs (Hammatt et al. 1984; Hammatt et al. 1992) conducted in TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017, and a field inspection of the current project area (Escott 2016). The 1984 AIS was conducted for the original 171-acre project area (which included both the RS and RM zoned lands), except for a five-acre portion in the southeast corner of project area intended to be developed by HPA. The AIS identified 21 archaeological sites and two bulldozed modern planting terraces in the project area, including 11 excavated sites and two burials that were subsequently reinterred outside of the project area. The AIS report recommended no further work at all 21 sites. SHPD did not accept the Hammatt et al. (1984) AIS as it did not meet SHPD standards at the time. -11- No correspondence associated with the Hammatt et al. (1992) project was located by SHPD and as such, it is unknown whether the AIS assessed the archaeological sites for significance, and whether recommendations were made regarding which sites were adequately documented, requiring no further work, and which retained potential for further documentation through mitigation including archaeological monitoring or preservation. Hammatt and Shideler (2007) submitted additional site documentation in the form of a letter to SHPD for five sites, however, site maps and photographs were not provided for all sites. In 2016, SCS conducted an archaeological field inspection of the current project area to relocate the sites identified during the 1992 Hammatt et al. AIS and to assess their current condition and the adequacy of the study documentation. However, the field inspection did not include the completion of new documentation needed to meet minimum AIS standards. By letter dated July 30, 2018, to the Planning Department, SHPD requested a second AIS study of the Hammatt et al. (1992) project area to identify all archaeological historic properties present, and to update previous archaeological documentation to include site plans with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance. The applicant hired SCS to complete the study, consisting of a pedestrian survey of 76.121 acres of the project area (with the exception of the five acres slated for HPA). Seventeen of the 21 previously identified archaeological sites were located. Two of the previously documented sites relocated by SCS were determined to be natural bedrock outcrops and the two burials that were reinterred off-site in 1993. The four remaining previously documented sites were bulldozed prior to the SCS fieldwork, and the remains of the sites are no longer present on the ground surface. Three previously undocumented sites were also documented, including a portion of the railroad berm, a small coffee shed enclosure, and several ranch walls. A third AIS (Escott and Escott 2018) was conducted in the five-acre southeast corner of Parcel 17. The entire study area was subjected to a pedestrian survey and 22 archaeological sites were recorded, primarily agricultural complexes and terraces -12- associated with pre-Contact era through early post-Contact era to Historic era agriculture. Several Historic era walls and enclosures, a lava tube burial, and a portion of the old railroad berm were also documented in the report. Preservation was recommended for the burial and the railroad berm. SCS submitted a DRAFT Burial Treatment Plan for Burial Site #50-10-57-30593 Located in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Island of Hawaiʻi, TMK: (3) 7-6-021:017, which was accepted by the Hawaiʻi Island Burial Council on August 15, 2019 with a determination to preserve the burial in place. By letter dated August 19, 2019, SHPD accepted the document and SCS finalized the document as a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan, which includes interim preservation buffers and archaeological monitoring, and long term preservation measures including a permanent, 20-foot preservation buffer from the outside perimeter of the burial portion of the lava tube, an additional 10-foot, no-build easement outside of the permanent preservation buffer, and the construction of a permanent, low rock wall with a gate for pedestrian access to be built under the direction of and inspected by a qualified archaeologist. (Planning Department Exhibit 2 – August 19, 2019 Letter from SHPD Accepting the August 2019 Burial Treatment Plan and August 2019 Burial Site Component of a Presrvation Plan for Burial Site #50-10-57-30593 Located in the Hōlualoa 1st Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Island of Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi TMK: (3) 7-6-021:017). A final AIS completed by SCS (Escott and Escott, August 2021) included a 100% surface survey of the entire 76.121-acre project site with site recordation, GPS, photography, and subsurface excavation with documentation. A total of 18 sites and one isolated find were identified, including two newly identified sites and a petroglyph, with the remaining sites being previously documented, including pre-Contact to post-Contact enclosures, platforms, mounds, lava tubes, walls, a railroad berm, and complexes. Five previously identified sites were determined no longer present and as stated earlier, two burials were disinterred and reinterred off-site in 1993. All the sites were assessed as significant under HAR §13-284-6 Criterion d. The railroad berm (Site 50-10-37-30592) was also assessed as significant under Criteria a and c and was recommended for preservation. The petroglyph (Site 50-10-37-31254) was also assessed as significant under Criterion e and -13- was recommended for preservation. The former burial site (Site 50-10-37-10012) where the disposition (burial and associated burial crypt and features) was relocated, nevertheless, SHPD recommends that the burial site be flagged for preservation in the form of avoidance and the previous site location will be monitored if construction activities occur near that location. The AIS recommends no further historic preservation work for the remaining sites. By letter dated October 15, 2021, SHPD accepted the AIS, agreeing with the site integrity and significance of all the sites and making a determination of, “Effect, with agreed upon mitigation commitments.” SHPD agrees with the preservation of sites 50-10-37-30592 and 50-10-37-31254 and mitigation in the form of archaeological monitoring during initial ground disturbance. Finally, SHPD agrees that the sites recommended for no further work have been adequately documented. Prior to permit issuance, SHPD requests that the following be submitted for review and approval: 1) An archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) for all initial ground disturbing activities; 2) An archaeological preservation plan (PP) for the two sites referenced above; and 3) Written and photographic documentation verifying implementation of interim protection measures for the two sites to be preserved. During the EA process, public comments indicated the possibility of the Hōlualoa Slide being present within the project area, based on a possible alignment starting mauka of the project area at the Hōlualoa Inn and traveling makai through the project area. According to the comments, the possible remnant of the slide at the Hōlualoa Inn, “has rock walls on both sides,” which may coincide with parallel walls found within the project area AIS. In response, SCS conducted a thorough investigation of the possibility of an ancient hōlua slide in the project area. SCS provided a report dated November 29, 2019 to the applicant, addressing the public comments (Planning Department Exhibit 3 – November 10, 2019 Report from SCS, Inc. entitled RE: Parallel Walls Site #50-10- 37-30595, -30601, and -31182 (Features 2 and 3) Wall Type, Function and Age, Located on 76.122 Acres of Land in Hōlualoa 1st Auhupuaʻa, Kailua-Kona, North Kona District, Hawai'i Island [Portions of TMK: (3)7-6-021:016 and 017 (por.)]). SCS reviewed archaeological studies of the Hōlualoa Inn property as well as studies of -14- other intervening properties and found no evidence of remnants of a slide in the area. Rather, the alignment found was recorded as a historic era road (Site 24211), whose orientation, slope, ground surface materials, width, and rock wall height lining the trail were not indicative of the remains of a hōlua. Furthermore, this roadway alignment does not extend into the project area, with its western terminus at Hualalai Road. While the alignment intersects with trails found on a 1928 map, none of the trail alignments enter the project area, but rather the northern trail terminates at a railroad berm along the eastern boundary of the project area and the southern trail passes south of the project area. None of the archaeological studies conducted by SCS of the project area found evidence of hōlua features, nor is there any documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a hōlua course existed within the project area. 25. Cultural Resources: A report entitled, “A Cultural Impact Assessment for a 78.122-Acre property in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Hawaiʻi Island, Hawaiʻi [TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-019]” dated June 2020 was prepared for the applicant by SCS, Inc. and included as Appendix 4 of the FEA. The CIA notes that the region of Hōlualoa was developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine (reigned 1700-1720), with many ʻaliʻi and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The study further notes that this royal center at Hōlualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahaluʻu and Keauhou region. The project area was also a part of the Kona Field System that extends north at least to Kau ahupuaʻa and south to Hōnaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualālai. In the post-contact era, the Kona Field System hosted the planting of coffee, sugar, sisal, citrus, and cotton until eventually the land was used for cattle pasture. As part of the CIA, personal interviews were sought to provide ethnographic and oral history of the project area. SCS, Inc. sought consultation with Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Kamakana Ferreira, OHA Compliance Officer; Nicole Lui, -15- cultural descendant, Sean Naleimaile, SHPD Hawai‘i Island Archaeologist; Kekoa Nezara, Kona Hawaiian Civic Club President; Shane Nelson, OHA West Hawai‘i Representative; J. Curtis Tyler III, cultural descendant, and Gregg Kashiwa who served as project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s. J. Curtis Tyler III, Nicole Lui and Greg Kashiwa did provide information concerning lands of Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‘a. There were no past or ongoing cultural practices identified with lands of the current project area. Additionally, public notices were placed in the December 2019 issue of the OHA Ka Wai Ola Newspaper. Public notices were also published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, and the West Hawai‘i Today on November 17th, 20th and 21st, 2019. There were no responses to the published public notices. The CIA concludes that, “An analysis of the potential effect of the proposed construction of residences on cultural resources, practices or beliefs, its potential to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting, and the potential of the project to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place is a requirement of the OEQC (Nov. 10, 1997). Based on historical research and responses from the above listed contacts, it is reasonable to conclude that, there would be no traditional cultural practices affected and there would be no direct adverse effect upon cultural practices or beliefs in the broader project area region.” 26. Floral/Faunal Resources: The Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) included a September 2017 report by Geometrician Associates, LLC entitled, “Botanical Survey and Vertebrate Fauna Assessment, TMK 3-7-6-21: parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 (78.324 acres) North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i.” The report, which included a review of earlier studies and an on-site field survey of the subject parcels and the County’s drainage facilities, included the following findings: 1) Flora consists of primarily introduced plants, including guinea grass, koa haole, opiuma, monkeypod, kiawe, klu, and several other non-native trees. The understory consists of several non-native grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines along with a few native plants including ‘uhaloa and ‘ilima. In total, 65 plant species were found, five (5) of which were indigenous, and none were endemic. All native plants found are very common throughout the island of Hawai‘i and the State, and no rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were present. No tree tobacco, significant -16- for its role as a potential host for the endangered Blackburn’s Sphinx moth, was found in the survey area; 2) Fauna included 15, non-native species of birds, the most common of which included the spotted dove, northern cardinal, cattle egret, parakeet, Japanese white- eye, and house finch. While not observed during the field survey, the short-eared owl and Hawaiian hawk may forage in the area. Additionally, some endangered and threatened Hawaiian seabirds (Hawaiian petrels, band-rumped storm petrels, and newels shearwaters may fly over the area between the months of June and October, though there is no suitable nesting habitat for any of these species within the area. The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat is also likely to be present in the area, though not observed during the diurnal survey. The only live mammals seen during the survey were cattle, feral pigs, and small Indian mongooses. It is likely that feral cats, mice, rats, and domestic dogs are occasionally present. The only reptile observed during the survey was the day gecko, with other reptiles including other species of geckos, anole and skinks likely present in the area. None of the preceding have any conservation value. On-line maps found on the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) depicted no critical plant or animal habitat on or near the survey area. Despite the preceding, the report referenced some mitigation measures to address endangered or threatened species that may traverse the area, including outdoor lighting mitigation for endangered and threatened seabirds, guidance on woody vegetation removal during Hoary bat pupping season, and guidance on vegetation removal related to the Blackburn’s Sphinx moth. By memo dated August 1, 2022, the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) concurred with the proposed mitigation measures. 27. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the project area. 28. Civil Defense Sirens: Section 25-2-46 (Concurrency Requirements) of the Zoning Code requires the provision of adequate civil defense siren warning coverage as determined by State Civil Defense (HIEMA) across the entire project site for a change of zone or a time extension thereto for projects over 25 or more residential units. There is an existing civil defense siren located at TMK: (3) 7-5-019:028, approximately 2.18 miles northwest (makai) of the subject properties. According to County mapping, the coverage area of this -17- siren covers approximately 2/3rds of the project area. The applicant has represented that they will coordinate with HIEMA or County Civil Defense and install any additional sirens as may be required for the project to provide adequate coverage. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 29. Access: In the vicinity of the project site, Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway (Route 11) is an undivided, two-lane, State-owned arterial roadway, oriented in the north-south direction with approximately 70 feet of pavement within a 180-foot right-of-way. The posted speed limit varies from 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph). Approximately 2.4 miles north of the p roject site, Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway opens to four to five lanes with dedicated left turning and right turning lanes at major intersections. According to the applicant, access to Phase I of the proposed project will be via a new roadway (“Royal Vistas Roadway”) which would intersect with Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Kuakini Highway and directly to the south of the culvert/headwall that runs under the highway. As represented in Figure 10 of the EA, Royal Vistas Roadway will be designed as a full-movement, channelized, two-way, stop-controlled, intersection. A crosswalk would be provided on the east side of the intersection for pedestrian connectivity to cross Royal Vistas Roadway. There would be a refuge lane for westbound left turns onto Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway to make this turn easier for drivers (see Figure 10 of the FEA for a close-up of the proposed intersection improvements). In addition to the preceding, the applicant proposes constructing the following roadway segments in accordance with Kona CDP requirements:  In Phase I, construct that segment of the Leilani Street extension situated within the project site. This segment will stub-out the Leilani Street extension on the southern project site boundary and will not connect it across the private adjoining parcel (TMK 7-6-021:014) owned by the Calvary Community Church of Kona.  The applicant initially proposed to extend Kekūanāoʻa Place northward through the project site from its existing terminus in Kona Vistas subdivision, including the installation of a culvert system across the Hōlualoa drainageway as part of Phase II of the development, however, as further discussed in Section 30. Traffic -18- below, in response to DPW-Traffic comments on the TIAR and timing of roadway segment construction, the applicant now is proposing to construct and dedicate this roadway segment as part of Phase I and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any dwelling units in the development.  In Phase I, construct a mauka-makai roadway connecting both the Leilani Street and Kekūanāoʻa Place extensions. Despite the connection shown on the KCDP “Official Transportation Network Map for the Nani Kailua Area,” none of the roads proposed for the project will connect to Hoʻomama Street and Paulehia Street in Pualani Estates due to an intervening privately- owned parcel (TMK 7-6 013:004). Finally, these roadways will be constructed as minor collector roadways meeting County-dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, all of which will be dedicated to the County of Hawaiʻi upon completion. The remainder of the internal roads servicing the multi-family dwelling structures will be designed and built to private driveway standards and will stay in private ownership (see Figure 6 – Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas). According to the Department of Public Works, they have no objection to the proposed amendment to Condition N as it relates to the proposed north/south roadway alignments and clarification of which roadway segments are to be built to dedicable standards (as minor collector roadways) and dedicated to the County. However, DPW has concerns over the proposed, segmented layout of the mauka/makai roadway connecting the highway and the Paulehia /Kekūanāoʻa Place alignment. Instead to allow for best traffic flow, DPW recommends the mauka/makai alignment to be a continuous, linear thoroughfare like Puapuaʻanui Road and Lako Street in the vicinity of the project site. In response, the applicant indicated that while they see no significant benefit to a continuous thoroughfare over the proposed segmented layout, they will explore a continuous thoroughfare alignment where practicable given the topographical and drainage constraints of the project site. 30. Traffic: The applicant commissioned SSFM International to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) dated May 2020 as part of the EA process (see Appendix 2 of the FEA). Based on agency and public comments and in accordance with the concurrency section of the Zoning Code, the applicant submitted an updated TIAR dated November -19- 2021 (see Exhibit G of the application). Both reports used the same assumptions, traffic counts, and analyzed the same study intersections near the project area, thus we will focus on the latest TIAR for purposes of this report. The TIAR assumes that Phase I of the Royal Vistas multiple family housing project will be completed by 2024, with all trips generated by the 258 units within this phase entering and exiting at the proposed Royal Vistas roadway and distributed onto the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway (Route 11) via an unsignalized and channelized intersection. The study further assumes that the development of Phase II, consisting of the remaining 192 units, will be completed by 2029 along with the connection of Phase II through Kekūanāoʻa Place within the Kona Vistas Subdivision to Lako Street. The TIAR includes analysis of 47 turning movements at eight existing intersections on Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway. Five intersections were analyzed north of the project site: 1) Palani Road, 2) Henry Street, 3) Hualālai Road (North), 4) Hualālai Road (South), and 5) Puapuaʻanui Street, and three intersections were analyzed to the south, 6) Kuakini Highway, 7) Lako Street, 8) Kamehameha III Road. Turning movement counts were recorded at each of the intersections at peak morning (7:00am to 8:00am) and afternoon (3:45pm to 4:45pm) traffic hours to determine the existing Level of Service (LOS), and all eight intersections currently operate at acceptable levels (between LOS A and LOS D) in the AM and PM peak hours. Upon the 2024 completion of buildout of Phase I, the TIAR finds that overall, all intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS, but some turn movements at six intersections will deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS (E or F), with or without the project. According to the concurrency section of the Zoning Code (HCC Section 25-2-46 (e)(1)), if the LOS for any transportation facility in the project area is (A) currently worse than the acceptable LOS, or (B) projected to become worse than the acceptable level of service during the five-year period of the TIAR, any rezoning of the property, if approved, shall contain conditions that require mitigation of adverse traffic effects before occupancy of the project is permitted, or that occupancy be delayed until the LOS has reached the acceptable level and is no longer projected to be worse than the acceptable level. As no transportation facility in the project area is currently worse than the -20- acceptable LOS, nor is projected to become worse than the acceptable level of service during the five-year period of the TIAR, no immediate mitigation is required. Upon the 2029 completion of Phase II, the TIAR found that overall, all intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS, however, with the increase in background traffic and traffic generated by the proposed project, the LOS for some movements at seven intersections will further degrade. The TIAR recommends several mid-term mitigation measures, most of which are dependent on the State Department of Transportation (DOT) to implement. However, while the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway/Royal Vistas Roadway is expected to function acceptably through Phase I buildout, the TIAR recommends that before any Phase II residences are occupied, the connection to Kekūanāoʻa Place is completed so that Royal Vistas Phase II ‘left out’ traffic can access the Lako Street traffic signal. Finally, based on the existing traffic volumes and future projections of Royal Vistas on the surrounding roadways, the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway/Lako Street intersection and some individual movements at other intersections are expected to deteriorate to LOS E or worse in 2039, with or without the project. According to the TIAR, the widening of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway to 4-lanes, and the completion of Aliʻi Highway (aka Aliʻi Parkway) is needed to increase the north-south regional capacity. The TIAR notes that the widening of the highway to 4-lanes between Henry Street and Kamehameha III Road is included in the HDOT Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaiʻi, however, the widening has not yet been programmed on the DOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) through Fiscal Year 2027. In the meantime, the TIAR assesses alternatives and recommends several mid- and long-term mitigation measures to be considered by the County and DOT. DOT commented on the TIAR and is largely supportive of the requested time extension and roadway standard amendments with the recommendation that conditions of approval require the applicant to coordinate with DOT on any mitigation measures, including any pro-rata contribution’s that may be required, that a 10-year development schedule showing the phases, number of units, and associated transportation improvements be completed before occupancy of each phase, and that any state highway improvements -21- required for the development shall be made at no cost to the State and conform to current federal and state design standards. DPW Traffic Division reviewed and provided comments on the TIAR with information on how traffic on the highway impacts county roadway facilities and requested additional information from the applicant on the findings of the study. One of the more germane comments was the recommendation that the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway/Royal Vistas Roadway intersection be limited to right-in/right out movements and the recommendation that the Kekūanāoʻa Place connection through the Kona Vistas Subdivision to Lako Street needs to occur from the outset of the proposed project and not as a part of the Phase II development. Finally, with the connection to Lako Street, highway widening and significant Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway/Lako Street intersection improvements are necessary. In response to DPW-Traffic’s comments, the applicant has represented that they have no objection to connecting its project roadways to Kekūanāoʻa Place prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential unit within the 450-unit project, thereby distributing vehicular movements between the channelized Royal Vistas roadway and the signalized Lako Street. 31. Water: According to the applicant, they have secured 450 water units to service the entire project and have kept those water commitments paid and current. In addition, an off-site water meter box was installed in 2018 that will provide the necessary potable water and fire flow to service the project. The Department of Water Supply (DWS) has no objection to the time extension request with the understanding that DWS can only support the current allocation of water. The applicant will be required to submit water system construction plans prepared by a professional engineer for DWS review and approval. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to construct applicable water system improvements designed to deliver water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-flow and fire-flow conditions in accordance with the Water System Standards and the Rules and Regulations of the DWS. DWS further requests that the applicant addresses the non-potable demand of water by minimizing the demand or propose to supply the demand by alternate methods (i.e., reclaimed, or reused water). Finally, DWS indicated that the overall water demand should be reviewed as the water use other than the -22- residential dwelling units will need to be included, which would reduce the number of dwelling units that can be developed as additional water beyond the total number of water units allocated to the subject parcels is not available. 32. Wastewater: The subject properties are not currently served by the County sewer system, however, according to the applicant, and as required by the County Department of Environmental Management-Wastewater Division and the State Department of Health, sewer lines and other necessary wastewater infrastructure shall be extended to accommodate wastewater needs of the entire project. 33. Solid Waste: There are no municipal waste collection services in the County. According to the Final EA, solid waste generated by the development will be hauled by a private contractor on a regular basis and disposed of at a permitted solid waste management facility. 34. Schools: According to the Final EA, the closest public elementary schools are Kahakai and Hōlualoa Elementary schools, located 1.2 miles west and 1 mile east of the subject parcels respectively. Kealakehe Intermediate, located approximately 3.2 miles north of the subject properties is the nearest intermediate school. Konawaena High and Kealakehe High School are the nearest public high schools, located approximately 7.9 miles south and 2.8 miles north, respectively, of the subject parcels. According to a comment letter received on the Draft EA from the Department of Education (DOE), the proposed project is expected to house approximately 99 DOE students and although the proposed project is located within the West Hawaiʻi School Impact Fee District, the DOE has currently suspended fee collections. The applicant would coordinate with DOE and comply with all applicable DOE requirements at the time of project implementation. 35. Affordable Housing: Conditions of the LUC decision and order and change of zone ordinances require the applicant to offer 10% of the lots or houses and lots to be developed on the subject properties for sale at affordable rates to low-to-moderate income residents of the State of Hawaiʻi as required by State or County housing agencies. According to the application, the applicant initially attempted to satisfy this affordable housing requirement by entering into an agreement with the County Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) to convey approximately 12 acres of land located -23- between Kuakini Highway and Royal Poinciana Drive (identified by TMKs: (3) 7-6-024:025, 112, and 113) to the County or their designated affordable housing developer. Despite these parcels not being a part of the land area covered under the LUC decision and order, the LUC opined in 1989 and again in 1993 that the conveyance of the 12-acre parcel satisfied the decision and order affordable housing requirement. The 12 acres was purchased at auction by GAMLON Corporation (predecessor to the applicant), and as the land area contains the confluence of the Hōlualoa and Horseshoe Bend drainageways, the applicant was required to address drainage issues on the property which included the preparation of an EA and issuance of a FONSI, an SMA Use Permit to do flood improvements within the SMA, and an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to allow the flood-zone designated portion of the 12 acres to be channelized and developed. The CLOMR (Case No. 21-09-1757R) was subsequently issued on January 10, 2022. Despite the applicant’s efforts, the OHCD recently decided that this proposed 12-acre affordable housing site was not suitable to meet their goals for affordable housing, prompting the applicant to offer an alternative to satisfy the affordable housing obligations for both the existing 215-unit Kona Vistas subdivision and the proposed 450- unit multi-family residential project through the acquisition of 67 affordable housing credits via land exchange for land associated with the creation of a new 100-unit affordable rental project above Lowe’s Home Improvement on land that the applicant will donate to a qualified affordable housing developer. This was memorialized via a new affordable housing agreement between the Applicant and OHCD, executed on January 10, 2022 (see Exhibit D of the application). Despite this agreement, the applicant has yet to acquire the 67 housing credits at the date of this writing. The Planning Department is also concerned that the securing of housing credits in lieu of offering built units on site at affordable rates does not meet the requirements of the LUC decision and order and advised the applicant to either seek further clarification from the LUC on whether this approach would comply with the requirements of the decision and order or to amend the decision and order. Finally, OHCD submitted a letter requesting that a condition be added to require compliance with Hawaiʻi County Code Chapter 11 – Housing. -24- 36. All Other Essential Utilities and Services: Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. Fire, police, and emergency management services are available in this part of North Kona. Police services are located in Kona, about five miles north of the subject parcels and the Kailua-Kona Fire Station is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the subject properties. Emergency medical services are provided by the Hawai‘i County Fire Department and hospital services are available at Kona Community Hospital, approximately 7.5 miles to the south. AGENCIES’ COMMENTS 37. Department of Water Supply: (Planning Department Exhibit 4 – August 15, 2022 memo) 38. Department of Public Works-Engineering Division: (Planning Department Exhibit 5 – October 5, 2022 memo) 39. Department of Public Works-Traffic Division: (Planning Department Exhibit 6 – September 28, 2022 memo) 40. Department of Environmental Management (Planning Department Exhibit 7 – July 20, 2022 memo) 41. Fire Department: (Planning Department Exhibit 8 – July 14, 2022 memo) 42. Office of Housing and Community Development: (Planning Department Exhibit 9 – November 30, 2022 letter) 43. State Department of Health: (Planning Department Exhibit 10 – July 13, 2022 memo) 44. State Department of Transportation: (Planning Department Exhibit 11 – September 3, 2020 letter and August 17, 2022 letter) 45. Department of Land and Natural Resources – Division of Forestry and Wildlife Division: (Planning Department Exhibit 12 – August 1, 2022 memo) 46. Department of Land and Natural Resources – State Historic Preservation Division: (Planning Department Exhibit 13 – October 15, 2021 letter) AGENCIES - NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS 47. Police Department and DLNR – Engineering & Land Divisions. -25- AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS- NO RESPONSE 48. Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Housing and Community Development, Kona Traffic Safety Committee, and Kona Vistas Community Association. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO AGENCIES’ COMMENTS 49. The applicant submitted the following in response to agency comments (Planning Department Exhibit 14 – November 15, 2022 letter) PUBLIC COMMENTS 50. Email dated July 18, 2022 from Roberta Durham to Planning Department (Planning Department Exhibit 15). 51. Email dated July 19, 2022 from Douglas Fredebaugh (Planning Department Exhibit 16). 52. Email dated July 31, 2022 from Joel Gimpel (Planning Department Exhibit 17). 53. Email dated August 3, 2022 from Jack Nunberg (Planning Department Exhibit 18). 54. Email dated August 4, 2022 from Marta Finley (Planning Department Exhibit 19). 55. Email dated August 4, 2022 from Mike Jorgensen (Planning Department Exhibit 20). 56. Email dated August 4, 2022 from Janice Kerr (Planning Department Exhibit 21). 57. Email dated August 4, 2022 from Doug Perrine (Planning Department Exhibit 22). 58. Email dated August 4, 2022 from Kathy Winter (Planning Department Exhibit 23). 59. Email dated August 5, 2022 from Sheila Braithwaite (Planning Department Exhibit 24). 60. Email dated August 7, 2022 from John Randerson (Planning Department Exhibit 25). 61. Email dated August 7, 2022 from Claude Thornton (Planning Department Exhibit 26). 62. Email dated August 8, 2022 from John Bennett (Planning Department Exhibit 27). 63. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Diane Blancett-Maddock requesting a deferral of the Planning Commission Hearing on behalf of members of the Kona Vistas HOA (Planning Department Exhibit 28) and Planning Department’s Response via email dated August 24, 2022 (Planning Department Exhibit 29). -26- 64. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Sherry Bracken (Planning Department Exhibit 30). 65. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Clyde Hemby (Planning Department Exhibit 31). 66. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Renee Inaba (Planning Department Exhibit 32). 67. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Jim Johnson (Planning Department Exhibit 33). 68. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Diane Logan (Planning Department Exhibit 34). 69. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Mary Hemby (Planning Department Exhibit 35). 70. Email dated August 8, 2022 from John Miki and Bonnie Hildebrandt-Miki (Planning Department Exhibit 36). 71. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Mark Powell (Planning Department Exhibit 37). 72. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Peri Steffenhagen (Planning Department Exhibit 38). 73. Email dated August 8, 2022 from Cheryl Tanguay (Planning Department Exhibit 39). 74. Email dated August 9, 2022 from Art and Lisa Javar (Planning Department Exhibit 40). 75. Letter dated August 9, 2022 from Elizabeth Dunn (Planning Department Exhibit 41). 76. Email dated August 9, 2022 from Diane and Christopher Kim (Planning Department Exhibit 42). 77. Email dated August 9, 2022 from Sandra Leek (Planning Department Exhibit 43). 78. Email dated August 9, 2022 from Mike Park (Planning Department Exhibit 44). APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 79. The applicant submitted the following in response to agency comments (Planning Department Exhibit 45 – November 15, 2022 letter). Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance 02 131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Requests: Condition I — Time extension to secure Final Plan Approval and Complete Construction of First Increment of RM-zoned area Condition N—Clarify improvements to subdivision roads Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:616 and 017 Holualoa, North Dena District Hawaii Island Prepared by: Daryn Arai, Planning Consultant May 2022 REQUESTS FOR TIME EXTENSIONS TO SECURE FINAL PLAN APPROVAL AND COMPLETION OF MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF PROJECT AND TO CLARIFY REQUIRED DEDICABLE ROADWAYS FOR DEVELOPMENT FORMERLY KNOWN AS KONA VISTAS AS SUPPORTED BY CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 02 131 (REZ 470) APPLICANT: KONA THREE, LLC (formerly GAMREX, Inc.) PROPOSED PROJECT: ROYAL VISTAS HOLUALOA 15t and 2"d, NORTH KONA, HAWAVI,TMK: 7-6-021: 016 and 017 I.INTRODUCTION Kona Three, LLC ("Applicant"), is the owner of two (2) properties identified by TMKs: 7-6-021 016 and 017 ("subject properties"), consisting of a total of 68.837 acres situated within a larger 173.66-acre project area that was subject to a State Land Use District Boundary amendment to the Urban District in 1984 (Exhibit A—A83-549) which was then subsequently rezoned later in the same year into the Single Family Residential RS-15) and Multiple Family Residential (RM-5) zoning districts (Exhibit B—Ordinance 84- 23) in support of a proposed 500-unit single- and multiple-family residential development, with the single family residential component being completed as the Kona Vistas subdivision. Over the course of the next 23 years or so, the original Applicant, GAMREX, Inc., proceeded with the initial increment of development of the 103.3 acres of RS-15 zoned lands into 215 single-family residential units that is now known as Kona Vistas subdivision, which also included the construction of the mauka section of Lako Street that now serves this subdivision. GAMREX, Inc., and its subsequent development entity Kona Vistas LLC, was successful in securing from the Hawaii County Council a series of amendments to the original zoning (Ordinance 84-23) to provide additional time to complete the proposed development, the last extension was approved in 2002 (Exhibit C-Ordinance 02-131), that granted a time extension until November 27, 2007 to secure Final Plan Approval for the first increment of the multiple-family residential component within the RM-5 zoned area with its planned completion no later than November 27, 2011. Upon completion of the last phase of the single-family residential component of Kona Vista subdivision on or around 2007, the next increment proposed was the RM-5 zoned lands to the north of the existing Kona Vista subdivision. Work on this phase never progressed. 1 Page In December of 2015, the current Applicant, Kona Three, LLC, acquired the 68.837 acres comprising the RM-5 zoned lands (Parcels 016 and 017) with the intention of developing a 450-unit multiple family rental and for sale housing project to be known as "Royal Vistas". In the years since its acquisition of the subject properties, the Applicant has made efforts to satisfy the various procedural and regulatory requirements that would support these requested time extensions to Ordinance 02 131, which includes the preparation of an environmental assessment as well complying with the affordable housing obligations for both the existing Kona Vistas subdivision developed by the original developer, GAM LON Corp., as well as the proposed multiple family project proposed by the current Applicant, Kona Three LLC. II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST A. Time extensions to Condition I of Ordinance 02 131 —effective November 27, 2003 Condition I of Ordinance 02 131 requires that plans for the first increment of the multiple family residential component of the project be submitted and Final Plan Approval secured no later than five (5) years from the effective date of the ordinance, or November 27. 2008, with construction commencing within one (1) year thereafter and completion of this multiple family residential component no later than three (3) years thereafter, or no later than November 27, 2012. Both respective conditions within Ordinance 02 131 are recited for your convenience below: 1) plans for the development within the first increment of the RM zoned area shall be submitted to the Planning Department and final plan approval secured within five years from the effective date of this sixth amendment. Construction shall commence within one year from the date of receipt of final plan approval and be completed within three years thereafter; U) an initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1) the non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence; 2) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the general plan or zoning code; 3) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone; 4) the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year); and 2 Page 5) if the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director[sic] initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. The Applicant purchased the subject properties in late 2015, 3 years after construction of the first increment of the multiple family residential project was intended to be completed as originally afforded by Condition I of the change of zone ordinance. Regardless, a significant amount of planning, design, regulatory approvals, permitting and construction have already been done as witnessed by the completion of the 215-unit Kona Vista subdivision and the construction of Lako Street as well as in anticipation of the final residential component, the 450-unit multiple family project to be known as "Royal Vistas". Regrettably, as explained further below, the concerted and diligent efforts of both the original and current Applicants to meet all deadlines prescribed by Ordinance 02 131, were unsuccessful. As such, and pursuant to Condition I and Condition U of Ordinance 02 131 and on behalf of Kona Three, LLC, ("Applicant"), we respectfully request an extension of time of ten (10)years from the effective date of this amendment request by which to complete construction of the first increment of the 450-unit multiple family residential project upon the RM-5 zoned subject properties as originally set forth in Condition I. B. Amendment to Condition N of Ordinance 02 131 Condition N, as recited in full below, obligates the Applicant to provide for dedicable roadways with curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements within the proposed development, which the Applicant has every intention of providing. For the sake of anticipating the extent of these dedicable-standard roadways as it affects the overall design of the proposed project, the Applicant is requesting that Condition N be clarified to provide such dedicable-standard roadways only as it pertains to its extension of Paulehia and Ho`omana Streets within Pualani Estates to the north and Kekuana`oa Place and Leilani Streets within Kona Vistas subdivision to the south, along with an interconnecting road between these two extensions and to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, all of which will be constructed as minor collector roadways as identified within the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) and further defined on the Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas identified as Figure 3—Conceptual Building Layout in the Final Environmental Assessment dated September 2021. Regarding that portion of Condition N referencing roadway improvements that cross or is divided by a zone line and its extension to the nearest intersection, the Applicant recommends that this section be deleted in its entirely since Figure 3- 3 Page Conceptual Building Layout within the FEA defines the roadway segments that will be constructed with curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. The requested amendment as shown below will also clarify that the existing section of Kekuana`oa Place with Kona Vistas subdivision can be maintained with its current paved shoulders and swale, which has been expressed as the preference of residents within the Kona Vistas Subdivision. N) the roadways and stubout within the RM zoned area, as shown on "Figure 3- Conceptual Building Layout" in the Final Environmental Assessment-Royal Vistas Housing Project dated September 2021, shall be constructed to dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion.[ `^'here ^ readway eFesses a Zene line ^ n rz$f 2-IT r S 1•, I.J .J ., J , ,.J,., .., the e liaS, gHtteFs 4 -III2acS-riS v,+.1 i added material is underscored, deleted material is bracketed & struck-out) The reason for these requests and other associated information are outline in the pages that follow. III. PROGRESS OF DEVELOPMENT Since the approval of both the State Land Use District Boundary amendment and change of zone in 1984, the former and current Applicants have made significant progress towards completion of the overall single- and multiple-family residential project, as demonstrated by its accomplishment of the following milestones: 1. Lako Street extension (SUB 5738) Creation of right-of-way between Kuakini Highway and the Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road to accommodate initial segment of the proposed extension of Lako Street, approved on May 17, 1990. 2. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 1-A (SUB 6140) Phase 1 of initial increment of 39 single family residential lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, approved on May 27, 1992. Includes the construction of the initial segment of the extension of Lako Street from its intersection with Kuakini Highway and extending mauka to Leilani Street. 3. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 1-13 (SUB 6140a) Phase 2 of initial increment of 51 single family residential lots and 4 bulk lots, approved on January 21, 1993. Includes the second segment of the extension of Lako Street between Leilani Street and Kinau Street. 4 Page 4. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 1-C (SUB 6140b) Phase 3 of initial increment of 20 single family residential lots and 1 bulk lot subsequently condominiumized), approved on July 8, 1997. 5. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 1-D (SUB 6140b) Phase 4 of initial increment of 10 single family residential lots, approved on December 22, 1997. Note that this subdivision covers portion of same area as Unit 1-C. 6. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 1-E (SUB 6140b) Phase 5 of initial increment of 6 single family residential lots, approved on December 22, 1997. Note that this subdivision covers portion of same area as Unit 1-C. 7. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 2-A (SUB 7578) Phase 1 of second increment of 8 single family residential lots, approved on September 9, 2002. 8. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 2-13 (SUB 03-000022) Phase 2 of second increment of 39 single family residential lots, approved on July 23, 2003. Includes the third and final segment of the extension of Lako Street, extending it mauka from Kinau Street to the adjoining lolani Subdivision. 9. 12-acre County Affordable Housing site Located along the makai side of Kuakini Highway across of the subject properties, this 12-acre property was selected as the potential site of an affordable housing project in satisfaction of the affordable housing obligations required by the State Land Use District Boundary amendment and change of zone ordinance. An environmental assessment was prepared and a FONSI was issued in 1996. However, before the site could be developed for affordable housing, improvements to the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa drainageways were required that would connect with the existing County drainageway between Alii Kai and Kamani Tree subdivisions. Gamrex prepared and successfully secured the issuance of SMA Use Permit No. 430 on April 4, 2003 to allow for these drainageway improvements to occur within the Special Management Area. Note that this effort also involved the acquisition of properties by Gamrex in the vicinity of Royal Poinciana Drive and Kupuna Street to accommodate both the 12-acre affordable housing site and the mentioned drainageways. 10. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 4 (SUB 05-0002271 Third increment of 26 lots, each consisting of a minimum of 15,000 square feet, approved on May 8, 2005. 5 Page 11. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 3 (SUB 05-0002261 Fourth increment of 20 single family residential lots, approved on May 4, 2006. 12. Plan Approval Application On November 23, 2007, Final Plan Approval was issued by the Planning Department for the proposed construction of 150 multiple-family residential units on approximately 17 acres of land within a portion of Parcel 016 in satisfaction of Condition I of Ordinance 02 131. Per Condition I, construction should have commenced no later than November 23, 2009 with completion no later than November 23, 2012. By letter dated September 1, 2017, the Planning Department notified the Applicant that this Final Plan Approval is no longer valid since the original applicant, GAMREX Inc. was not able to commence construction of the initial phase of the 150 multiple family residential units within the RM-5 zoned area within the two-year period ending November 23, 2009, thereby necessitating this request for a 10-year time extension to complete the proposed multiple-family residential project. 13. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 4 (SUB 20-001973 Subdivided large remnant lot in Unit 4 into 3 single family residential lots, approved on January 25, 2021. 14. Kona Vistas Subdivision— Unit 4 (SUB 20-0019881 Subdivided large remnant lot in Unit 4 into 2 single family residential lots, approved on March 30, 2021. Upon purchase of the subject properties at the end of 2015, Kona Three LLC has placed a significant financial commitment and many years of consultation, negotiation, environmental review, preliminary design work and regulatory compliance in order to be able to support this request for an extension of time by which to complete the project. These efforts included the following: 1. Drainage Improvements within Holualoa Drainageway In coordination with the Department of Public Works, Planning Department and the Office of the Corporation Counsel, completed improvements within and adjacent to the Holualoa Drainageway in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works. 2. Dedication of roadways within Kona Vista subdivision In coordination with the Department of Public Works and the Office of the Corporation Counsel, performed all necessary road work and completed dedication of three (3) remaining roadway lots within the adjacent Kona Vistas subdivision, namely Kekuana`oa Place, Liholiho Place and Kamamalu Place. 6 Page 3. 12-acre County Affordable Housing site makai of Kuakini Highway With the issuance of SMA Use Permit No. 430 on April 4, 2003 to allow for improvements to the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa drainageways within this proposed affordable housing site, the Applicant retained the services of a hydrological engineer to prepare and submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR") application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2018. The CLOMR was issued 1-10-22 as Case No. 21-09-1757R, so the necessary drainage improvements can now be built and the property then developed for affordable housing. However, despite the Applicant's efforts, the County no longer wishes to proceed with the development of the 12-acre property for affordable housing in favor of the affordable housing agreement discussed further below. 4. Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) By letter dated September 13, 2021, the Hawaii County Planning Department issued a FONSI for the proposed 450-unit Royal Vistas housing project that accompanies and supports these amendment requests to Ordinance 02 131 as Exhibit D. The Final Environmental Assessment included an updated traffic impact analysis report, biological survey, cultural impact assessment, archaeological inventory and preservation plan. Also included within this process were consultations with area residents, specifically from the adjoining Kona Vistas subdivision. Work on the environmental assessments and its related studies began in 2018 until its acceptance by the Planning Department in September 2021, covering more than 3 years of studies and project design revisions based on agencies and public review and comments upon the draft environmental assessment. 5. Environmental flora study commissioned by Applicant and performed on all of Parcel 16; 17; the County-owned 18 & 19, plus the 12-acre site. 6. Environmental faunal study commissioned by Applicant and performed on all of Parcel 16; 17; the County-owned 18 & 19, plus the 12-acre site. 7. Affordable Housing Agreement Applicant Kona Three, LLC and the County of Hawai`i entered into an agreement on January 10, 2022 to satisfy the affordable housing obligations (Condition J of Ordinance 02 131) for the development of the entire 173.66 acres of land encumbered by both the State Land Use District Boundary amendment and change of zone ordinance approved in 1984. As allowed by Section 11-5(a)(7) of Chapter 11 of the Hawaii County Code regarding Affordable Housing, the Applicant acquired 67 excess housing credits via an exchange for land for a new project to satisfy the affordable housing obligations for both the 215 single family residential units within the existing Kona Vistas subdivision as well as the 450 multiple family housing units within the proposed Royal Vistas project. 7 Page As such, the Applicant is requesting an extension of time of ten (10)years to secure Final Plan Approval for the first increment of the proposed 450-unit multiple family housing project as well as to complete its construction as originally intended by Condition I of Ordinance 02 131. And with approval of the requested amendment to Condition U of Ordinance 02 131 to provide clarity and certainty regarding the extent of required County- dedicable roadways to be constructed within the proposed development, the overall design can be facilitated so that plans for engineering and construction can commence promptly after the requested amendments are approved by the Hawai`i County Council. IV. NATURE OF REQUEST GAMREX, Inc./Kona Vistas, LLC (the original landowners and Petitioners) were owned by a Japan-based development group, whose majority owner and President spearheaded the Kona Vistas project development until his passing some years ago. The development group eventually lost interest as well as its ability to continue to develop the project after 37 years of progress as demonstrated above. In December of 2015, Kona Vistas LLC sold their remaining land holdings to two Hawaii-based development entities: KV3, LLC and Kona Three LLC. These remaining landholdings that were transferred included about thirteen lots in Unit 3 and Unit 4 of the Kona Vistas subdivision together with three roadway lots and some remnant lots in Unit 4 and Unit 1 transferred to KV3 LLC; and the multi-family (RM-5) zoned subject properties totaling about 68.837 acres identified as TMKs: 7-6-21:016 & 017 were transferred to Kona Three LLC. Also included in the transfer were about 12 acres located makai of Kuakini Highway and mauka of Royal Poinciana Drive (TMK's 3/7-6-24:25; 112 & 113). These 12 acres contain the confluence of the Holualoa and Horseshoe Bend drainageways, and were originally planned by the County to fulfill the affordable housing requirements of both the existing Kona Vista subdivision and the proposed Royal Vistas multiple family residential projects. KV3, after building some drainage improvements adjacent to County-owned Holualoa drainageway, worked with the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Planning Department (CPD) along with County of Hawaii Corporation Counsel ("Corp Counsel")to dedicate the 3 remaining roadways that had not been dedicated, completing the roadway dedications in 2019. The current Applicant, Kona Three LLC, has retained a hydrological engineer and other advisors and is working on a new drainage study and flood zone analysis in anticipation of moving forward with the planning and development of the RM-5-zoned lands, which is impacted by two floodways: the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa 8 Page drainageways. The Applicant anticipates that a new CLOMR will be needed during the development of Phase I of the Project for the Horseshoe Bend drainageway. The Applicant also came to agreement with Hawaii Preparatory Academy's 5-acre interest in the multi-family zoned lands situated within the extreme southeastern corner of Parcel 017. Hawai`i Preparatory Academy decided they no longer wished to build a new school in Kona, and Kona Three LLC was able to purchase their undivided interest in the 5-acres. A new AIS was then prepared on the 5-acres as this land was not previously included in the original AIS. This recent AIS found a previously unknown historic burial site underground in a lava tube within this included 5-acre area. The Applicant then commissioned a Burial Treatment Plan which has been approved by the SHPD and the Hawaii Island Burial Council. In addition, the Applicant was instructed to prepare a new AIS for the remaining 65 acres of RM-5 zoned lands within the subject properties due to the age of the original AIS report. This new AIS has been completed and approved by SHPD and made a part of the 2021 environmental assessment report. The Applicant has also contracted with a local construction firm, under approvals issued by the Department of Water Supply, and subsequently installed in 2018 an off- site water meter box that will provide fire flow and potable water to the proposed 450- unit multiple family residential project. Finally, at the request of the County, the Applicant submitted an application for a CLOMR for the 12 acres located makai of Kuakini Highway that was formerly intended as an affordable housing site, with the CLOMR being issued on January 10, 2022 as Case No. 21-09-1757R. As demonstrated above, much "soft work" has been undertaken by the Applicant after its purchase of the remaining land assets from the original landowner in 2015, in order to update and align the various studies and previous obligations of the original landowner in order to be in a position to make this request for additional time in which to complete the last remaining major residential development component that was envisioned by both the State Land Use Commission and the Hawaii County Council when it originally approved the State Land Use Boundary amendment and change of zone in 1984. The Applicant found itself in a difficult position where it could not responsibly approach the Hawaii County Council for additional time in which to complete the final residential component within the RM-5 zoned lands without first addressing the many project-related supporting elements that will inform decision-makers in making the proper decision to support the approval of the time extension as it will be consistent with the original reasons for approving the land use entitlements back in 1984 while 9 Page conforming to current land use policies and adequately addressing project-related impacts in a responsible manner. V.PROJECT LOCATION The subject properties, consisting of combined 68.837 acres and identified by TMK: 7-6-021:016 and 017, is located along the east (mauka) side of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at its junction with Kuakini Highway in the vicinity of Lako Street. The subject properties are situated between some vacant ranch land and Pualani Estates subdivision to the north and Kona Vistas subdivision and a church to the south, in the ahupua`a of Holualoa 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii (Figure 1-Location Map and Figure 2—Vicinity Map). The current General Plan, State Land Use District and zoning district boundaries relative to the subject properties are reflected on Figure 3— LUPAG Map, Figure 4— State Land Use and Figure 5—Zoning. VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed Multiple Family Residential Housing Component The Applicant proposes to construct "Royal Vistas" as a 450-unit multi-family residential housing project with both rentals and For Sale product to be developed in clusters of two- and three-story buildings throughout the 68.837-acres that comprises both Parcels 016 and 017. A conceptual drawing of the layout of the buildings is shown below as Figure 6—Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas. Royal Vistas will be comprised of multiple family residential units "For Rent" and For Sale". While the final distribution of these units may be adjusted during final design and permitting, the Applicant anticipates that the project will consist of: 174 "For Rent" units consisting of: 0 122 two-bedroom/two-bath units 0 52 three-bedroom/two-bath units plus a resident manager's unit o All units within two-story buildings situated within the makai portion of the 68.837-acre project site. 274 "For Sale" units consisting of: 0 147 two bedroom/two-bath units 0 137 three-bedroom/two-bath units plus a resident manager's unit. o All units would be located in 10 two-story buildings and 39 three-story buildings, with the two-story buildings being four units each and the three-story buildings being six units each. Parking would consist of a mix of covered and open spaces for residents and guests. 10 Page To address housing shortages in Kona, the Kona Community Development Plan CDP) identifies Objective HSG-4: Build More Units and Policy HSG-4.2: Workforce Housing. The workforce gap group (up to 180% of median income) includes the part of the population that earns too much to qualify for affordable housing programs, yet too little to buy or rent decent housing close to their jobs. The Project would build units that offer a variety of housing types for both the rental and buyer segments of the mid- market which includes the workforce group. Although the Project is not specifically a workforce project, it would provide a housing option for the workforce gap group. The Project would be developed in two or more phases, with Phase I having a maximum of 258 units to be constructed on no more than 42 acres within the makai portion of the project site, and Phase 11 having the balance of 192 units within the mauka portion. Phase I would include all the "For Rent" units and some "For Sale" units. Both "For Rent" and "For Sale" units would target local renters and buyers in the "mid- market" price points. These are residents who earn too much to qualify for "affordable housing" but not enough to buy the expensive single-family homes located nearby. Phase I is expected to be completed by 2024, and Phase II is expected to be completed by 2029, although processing of these amendment requests will probably push its completion to the Fall of 2030. There would be two Community Centers, each of which includes a neighborhood park; one for the "For Rent" units and one for the For Sale" units. Each community center will have a pool and facilities for use by the residents. Proposed Roadways The proposed roadway system within Royal Vistas will assist in implementing the roadway network within this project area as defined by the "Official Transportation Network Map-Nani Kailua Area" within the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP), as part of the County's plan to expand the road grid to help alleviate traffic and provide safer driving conditions (see Figure 7-KCDP Official Transportation Network Map-Nani Kailua Area). These KCDP-defined roadway segments as it affects the proposed project include: to provide the opportunity in the long-term to connect County-owned Leilani Street (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Ho`omama Street (in the Pualani Estates project); to provide the opportunity in the long-term to connect County-owned Kekuana`oa Place (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Paulehia Street (in the Pualani Estates project); and to connect these new roads to each other within the Project area. Kona Three, LLC is required to build and dedicate these roads by Ordinance. 11 Page More specifically, the proposed Royal Vistas project would construct the following minor collector roadway segments as shown in Figure 6—Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas. In Phase I, construct Royal Vistas roadway as a direct, fully channelized entrance from the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. In Phase I, construct that segment of the Leilani Street extension situated within the project site. This segment will stub-out the Leilani Street extension on the southern project site boundary and will not connect it across the private adjoining parcel (TMI< 7-6-021:014) owned by the Calvary Community Church of Kona. In Phase II, extend Kekuana`oa Place northward through the project site from its existing terminus in Kona Vistas subdivision. Construct a mauka-makai roadway connecting both the Leilani Street and Kekuana`oa Place extensions. None of the roads proposed for the project will connect to Ho`omama Street and Paulehia Street in Pualani Estates due to an intervening privately-owned parcel (TMK 7-6-013:004). These roadways will be constructed to as minor collector roadways meeting County-dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, all of which will be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion. Proposed Drainage Improvements The alignments of most of the Horseshoe Bend (TMK: 7-6-021:018) and Holualoa (TMK: 7-6-021:019) drainageways are both owned and managed by the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works (DPW) as drainageways. A portion of the Horseshoe Bend drainageway sheet flows from the County-owned ditch at Parcel 18 down to the existing culvert system under Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at the northwest corner of Parcel 16. As shown on Figure 2-Vicinity Map, Horseshoe Bend drainageway partially bisects the project site in a northeast to southwest direction, while the Holualoa drainageway runs along the entire southern boundary of the project site. Phase II of the proposed project will include the installation of a culvert system across the Holualoa drainageway to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which will be gated off and used for emergency access only until Phase II is completed. Phase II will add utilities and roadway improvements which would then be dedicated to the County in compliance with both Ordinance 02 131 and the KCDP "Official Transportation Map." 12 Page The mauka section of the Horseshoe Bend drainageway, consisting of approximately 3 acres that runs between the subject properties that collectively make up the 68.837- acre project site, will be improved and partially realigned to maintain its separation from the Holualoa drainageway, along with infrastructure for channelizing a portion of the drainageway to accommodate road and utility crossings associated with the construction of the two north-south minor collector roadway alignments through the project site as defined by the KCDP "Official Transportation Map. The makai portion of the Horseshoe Bend drainageway will be channelized where it is primarily sheet flow and moved closer to the northern boundary of the project site to make room for the planned roadway intersection at Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at the location to be approved by the State Department of Transportation Highways Division. Aside from the Department of Public Works-approved drainage improvements, utilities, and roadways, the Applicant is not proposing to construct any additional drainage structures or improvements within these County-owned drainageways. Utilities and Services Electrical and sewer service would be extended from nearby public grid terminus and water commitments have already been purchased and secured for the Project. The project site is situated within the Kona Urban Area between Kona Vista and Pualani Estates subdivisions and is in close proximity to major roadways, recreational opportunities, and essential services, including grocery and wholesale stores, employment, hospital/clinics, public transit, schools, financial institutions, government agencies/services, and the airport. VII. PROJECT TIMETABLE AND COST Should the requests be approved, the Applicant intends to submit plans for plan approval review within one (1) year. Anticipated completion of the first increment of the 450-unit Royal Vistas project is expected within ten (10) years from the date of approval of the requested amendments to Ordinance 02 131. Assuming there are no additional cost-related conditions beyond those improvements required by Ordinance 02 131, the current estimated development cost of this project is $170 million in 2022 dollars. This includes County exactions and fees. 131Page f Huehue 0 Imm Makalel GolfClub KolaoaHawallanHomeCana e„ mfnan o Kai— Kalminanl.Or_—;_Koleoe y HawallanHomelane z Kuku-S, £ v Kaloko Mauka Nullkoa 0' KOHana Goal a b H'na tan, Palani Junction 90 NORTH KONA DISTRICT KealakebeNewellan Nome Land y0 a5 N en 9i Old Kona Wi,na,a0.15t Al nSlale a 40. Kaaan a Kail PROJECT SITE8na e Z s n Holualoa 3 1 y2 3 Figure 1— Location Map 14 Page 0. N 0 0 KK r 3 Parcel 17 30.90 acres o 1s NOgSE ofe IF,yO O NqcFy'a r vy,r rn7 vi Parcel 16 37.94 acres 1S 3yryd Q' 1 n N a1 H" 5 b N 12-acre former housing site Cr o 0LL y Figure 2 -Vicinity Map 15 Page 4' s RB q$ s Y F bar g RURAL o s W DENSIT N R g 0 M 1 Y-w„ Figure 3— LUPAG Map OO AL r i AGRICULTURAL g URBAN ms. URBAN Avg 9, URBAN R F s g F 5 T Figure 4—State Land Use 16 Page 4 CN-20 A-la A-Sa A-5a RM- RM-5 RS-10 A-Sa 6 8 Figure 5—Zoning 17 Page E _ : : : : olk A A 1. 1 M e" yam, 1 : Nil r MAMINJfirti ' ti mg ii ~ Wit y,i9'A.--, A. l wogv.,If POP fI A ilk 51 00. 1 gcvA1 . w YV't'4, ar If Q' 7Ai t•Y' S nil ` n}I . r. -- IIYY k Wr' S a n id l1 r UAA'YUI I l Sr Lcgcnd T - Proposod Roads,Classlflcatlon'Proposed Transit Line' j. cr 1 -i GDP.Local 111 Trunk q r GUI t rollcclor,major =t;ernndery a(:Dt,collector,minor 0 Transit HUD' LUA-GP,artariai I+u GP.oollector.major IrAnad.':tALnn' OP.oollector.minor J r e PeeMetrlen-Bike Petfu TOD TypeyP t;, ' pcT N TYPE I Nelyhbolrluod Regional Gcnicr r , 'Sr• I Any Path QKrimtJrhgnAraq' t; ' r.,. QRUral Tom)TORS' P ryl w Existirw Ruadway c •,'1 I yen-trAll f,. 1•I- + uY iShared Sliuuldul Policy Layer PROJECT SITE 0 900 11800 31800 Fast UH H 1 Inch equals 2,000 feet Source: County of l lawaii s The County of Hawaii Planning r Department is the repository of the offirial male f: Figure 7— KCDP Official Transportation Network Map-Nani Kailua Area with project site highlighted) 191Page VIII. ORDINANCE 02 131 CONDITIONS AND STATUS OF ITS COMPLIANCE Rezoning time extensions require compliance with applicable prevailing codes, particularly the concurrency provision of the Zoning Code. Further, project's compliance with the conditions of the rezoning ordinance also needs to be discussed. As such, this section addresses those requirements. Change of Zone Ordinance 02 131 A) the zoning for the property shall be effective only after: (1) there are assurances satisfactory to the Departments of Water Supply and Planning, upon consultation with the State Department of Health, and the Division of Water and Land Development of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, that a water source of sufficient quality and quantity has been established within two years from the effective date of this ordinance; provided that a maximum one- year extension to the two-year time limit may be granted by the Planning Director with reasonable and sufficient justification; and (2) an agreement, accompanied by an appropriate surety bond or other acceptable security, is executed with the Department of Water Supply for the actual development of a proven water source and its water transmission and distribution system within one year from the official date of compliance with condition A (1); provided that a one-year extension to the one-year time limit may be granted by the Planning Director with reasonable and sufficient justification; or (3) the Department of Water Supply issues a water commitment for the proposed development; The Applicant has secured and fully paid the required facilities charge fees for 450 water units that will support the proposed 450 multiple family residential unit within the Royal Vistas project. In 2018, an off-site water meter box was installed that will provide the necessary potable water and fire flow to service this project. 6) no subdivision or development of any portion of the land shall occur unless and until condition A has been complied with; As mentioned above, the Applicant has fully paid for the necessary water units to support the proposed project in satisfaction of the requirements of Condition A. 20 Page C) the Planning Director shall be mandated to initiate action for the repeal of this ordinance if conditions A or B have not been complied with; As both Conditions A and B were deemed satisfied by the Planning Director, the Director was never compelled to initiate an action to repeal the RS-15 and RM-5 zoning (Ordinance 84 23). This is further supported by the many subsequent amendments to this ordinance that was approved by the Hawaii County Council to allow for additional time in which to complete the proposed project, the most recent being Ordinance 02 131. D) the petitioner, its assigns or successors, shall be responsible for complying with all conditions of approval; The Applicant acknowledges its continuing responsibility to comply with the conditions of approval, along with its assigns or successors. E) the zoning for the 49+ acres designated by the State Land Use Commission as its second zoning increment shall not become effective until that land is certified by that commission to be within the Urban District; By its Decision and Order dated May 10, 1993, the State Land Use Commission certified that the second zoning increment of 49+acres is within the State Land Use Urban District. F) the IRS zoned area shall be developed in two increments. The first increment shall consist of a maximum of 59.5± contiguous acres, and the second, the remaining area. The effective date of zoning for the second increment shall be after development has occurred in the first increment, as determined by the Planning Director. "Development" means the applicant has completed the on- site and off-site improvements within the first increment of the IRS zoned area and has dedicated the roadway to the County; This condition has been satisfied with the completion of all phases associated with the RS-15 zoned portions of the project area now known as Kona Vistas subdivision, with the last phase being completed in 2006. As Condition F has been satisfied, the Applicant has no objection to the deletion of this condition should it be recommended by the Planning Director. 21 Page G) subdivision plans for the first increment of the RS zoned area shall be submitted within one year from the effective date of the zoning. Final subdivision approval shall be secured within two years from the effective date of this amendment; This condition has been satisfied with the submittal to the Planning Department of Kona Vistas Subdivision—Unit 1-A (SUB 6140), consisting of the initial increment of 39 single family residential lots, which secured final subdivision approval on May 27, 1992. This increment also includes the construction of the initial segment of the extension of Lako Street from its intersection with Kuakini Highway and extending mauka to Leilani Street. As Condition G has been satisfied, the Applicant has no objection to the deletion of this condition should it be recommended by the Planning Director. H) the RM zoned area shall be developed in two increments. The first increment shall consist of a maximum of 42 acres of the Multiple Family Residential zoned land and the second increment, the remaining area. The effective date of zoning for the second increment shall be after the applicant has completed the on-site and off-site improvements of the first increment of the RM zoned area and has dedicated the improvements to the County; The Applicant will comply with this condition, developing the 450-unit Royal Vistas project in two increments, as discussed in Section VI of this report. 1) plans for the development within the first increment of the RM zoned area shall be submitted to the Planning Department and final plan approval secured within five years from the effective date of this sixth amendment. Construction shall commence within one year from the date of receipt of final plan approval and be completed within three years thereafter; The Applicant is requesting an amendment to Condition 1 that will allow for the submittal of plans and Final Plan Approval for the first increment of the RM-zoned area secured within five (5)years from the effected date of the amended ordinance with completion of the first increment of the 450-unit project within five (5)years thereafter. 0) should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance; The Applicant acknowledges this condition and will comply upon the adoption of a Unified Impact Fees ordinance. 22 Page K) housing opportunities for Hawaii residents shall be provided in accordance with the condition imposed by the State Land Use Commission. The number of units and manner in which they are to be provided shall meet with the approval of the Hawaii County Housing Agency; Attempts by the Applicant, in coordination with the Office of Housing and Community Development(OHCD), to satisfy this affordable housing requirement initially began with an Agreement, along with seven (7) subsequent amendments, regarding the conveyance of approximately 12 acres of land located between Kuakini Highway and Royal Poinciana Drive and zoned RS-10 to the County or their designated affordable housing developer. These 12 acres were purchased at the direction of the County, along with the need for the Applicant to address some drainage issues in the area. At the request of OHCD, the Applicant prepared and then submitted an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision ("CLOMR") to the Federal Emergency Management Agency("FEMA"), to allow the flood-zone designated portion of the 12 acres to be channelized and developed. The CLOMR (Case No. 21-09-1757R) was subsequently issued on January 10, 2022. Despite the Applicant's efforts, the OHCD recently decided that this proposed 12-acre affordable housing site was not suitable to meet their goals for affordable housing, prompting the Applicant to offer an alternative to satisfy the affordable housing obligations for both the existing 215-unit Kona Vistas subdivision and the proposed 450-unit multi family residential project through the acquisition of 67 affordable housing credits via land exchange for land associated with the creation of a new 100-unit affordable rental project above Lowes on land that the Applicant will donate to a qualified affordable housing developer. This most recent affordable housing Agreement, attached as Exhibit D-Affordable Housing Agreement, between the Applicant and OHCD was executed on January 10, 2022 in satisfaction of Condition K of Ordinance 02 131. L) improvements to the intersections with Kuakini Highway and the Kuakini Highway Extension shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, Highways Division. The intersection improvements shall be constructed concurrently with the development of the first increment of the RS or RM zoned areas, whichever occurs first; This condition was satisfied with the completion of intersection improvements along the Kuakini Highway at its intersection with the mauka extension of Lako Street that serves all of the existing Kona Vistas subdivision. As Condition L has been satisfied with the completion of the intersection along Kuakini Highway(this segment is now referred to as "Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway) at its intersection with Lako Street, the Applicant has 23 Page no objection to the deletion of this condition should it be recommended by the Hawaii County Council. M) no direct access shall be provided for the lots within the RS zoned area from the mauka-makai collector road; The development of the existing single family residential lots within the existing Kona Vistas subdivision adheres to this condition by restricting any direct access onto Lako Street, the mauka-makai connector road. As Condition M has been satisfied with the completion of Kona Vistas subdivision, the Applicant has no objection to the deletion of this condition should it be recommended by the Planning Director. N) the roadways and stubout within the RM zoned area shall be constructed to dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion. Where a roadway crosses a zone line or if a zone line should divide a roadway, the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks shall be provided for the entire right-of-way-and-shall continue to the nearest intersection in order to avoid telescoping and to provide consistent improvement; As presented in Section 11-B of this report, the Applicant is requesting that Condition N be clarified to provide such dedicable-standard roadways only as it pertains to its extension of Paulehia and Ho`omama Streets within Pualani Estates to the north and Kekuano'oa Place and Leilani Streets within Kona Vistas subdivision to the south, along with an interconnecting road between these two extensions and to Route 11, all of which will be constructed as minor collector roadways as identified within the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) and further defined on the Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas identified as Figure 3-Conceptual Building Layout in the Final Environmental Assessment dated September 2021. 0) at a minimum, roadways and stubouts within the RS zoned area shall be provided with paved shoulders and paved swales meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion; The development of the existing single family residential lots within the existing Kona Vistas subdivision adheres to this condition by providing paved shoulders and swales along all interior subdivision roadways in a manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, as well as the dedication of all such roads to the County of Hawai`i. 24 Page As Condition O has been satisfied with the completion of Kona Vistas subdivision and dedication of all interior subdivision roads, the Applicant has no objection to the deletion of this condition should it be recommended by the Planning Director. P) the method of sewage disposal shall meet with the approval of the appropriate governmental agencies; The proposed Royal Vistas project will comply with this condition through the extension of and connection with the existing County sewer system that currently services all of Pualani Estates subdivision located to the north of the project site. Q) a drainage master plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any subdivision or plan approvals. The plan shall include, as a minimum, hydrological and hydraulic calculations for all components of the drainage system, a construction timetable for all elements of the system, and an analysis of downstream impacts. Further, mitigating measures as approved by the Department of Public Works shall be taken to eliminate any downstream impacts; This condition has been satisfied as it pertains to the RS-15 zoned lands that has been fully developed as Kona Vistas subdivision, which included the preparation and approval of a drainage master plan by the Department of Public Works and the completion of all required drainage improvements. A new drainage master plan that will provide for appropriate mitigating measures to eliminate any downstream impact that may be directly caused by the proposed 68.837-acre Royal Vistas project site, will be prepared and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval should this requested time extension request be approved. R) an intensive archaeological survey shall be conducted for the entire property and a report shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any subdivision or plan approvals; An archaeological inventory survey(AIS) was conducted in 1984 for the original 171+-acre project except for a 5-acre portion in the southeastern corner originally intended to be developed by the Hawaii Preparatory Academy. As requested by the State Historic Preservation Division, a new archaeological survey to identify all archaeological historic properties present in the Project Site and an update of the previous archaeological documentation to include site plans for each site with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance were performed. These 25 Page additional survey reports for both the previously excluded 5-acre site and the remainder of the project site including the existing County-owned drainageways were completed in 2018 and 2020, respectively, and included within the 2021 final environmental assessment for the Royal Vistas project. S) should any unanticipated archaeological sites be found during land preparation activities, work shall immediately stop and the Planning Department notified. Work shall not resume in the affected area until clearance is given by the Planning Department; The Applicant acknowledges and will comply with this condition. The Applicant also notes that it is not aware of any "inadvertent finds"that were encountered during the development of the existing Kona Vistas subdivision. T) prior to the Final Approval of the second increment, the applicant, its successors of assigns shall pay for any additional real property taxes owed for the new residential assessed value of the subject property which was previously taxed at the agricultural rate; and The Applicant understands that Gamrex Corporation, development predecessor in interest, complied with this condition many years ago. The Applicant believes this condition is no longer relevant as the remaining lands are assessed and taxed at RS and RM zoning valuations. Therefore, the Applicant has no objection to the deletion of this condition should it be recommended by the Planning Director. U) an initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1) the non-performance is the result of conditions that could have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence; 2) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the general plan or zoning code; 3) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone; 4) the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year); and 5) if the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. 26 Page The Applicant is requesting an additional ten (10)years to complete the first increment of the proposed multiple family residential project within the RM-5 zoned properties as required by Condition I of Ordinance 02 131. VII. JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST Condition U of the Ordinance 02 131 (Exhibit C-Ordinance 02-131) outlined three 3) circumstances under which the Planning Director could consider an initial time extension request. These circumstances presumably also apply to an extension to be considered by the Hawaii County Council and Leeward Planning Commission, with the recommendations of the Planning Director. As such, these circumstances and their justification follow. A. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, its successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. As noted in Sections II, III and IV of this report, upon acquiring the subject properties at the end of 2015, the Applicant took immediate steps to address the various conditions and associated requirements imposed upon the development that included: 1. working with the OHCD to satisfy the affordable housing obligations for both the existing 215-unit Kona Vistas subdivision as well as for the proposed 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family residential project, that included the abandonment of many years of effort by the Applicant to provide a 12-acre affordable housing site just makai of the project site, 2. working with the County and the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA) regarding the management, design and improvements to both the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa drainageways that borders and bisects the 68.837-acre project site, 3. updating the archaeological, cultural impact, biological, drainage and traffic impact studies that would inform the development of an environmental assessment for the Royal Vistas project, 4. prepared a final environmental assessment and secured a FONSI for the Royal Vistas project (Exhibit D-Roval Vistas Housing Project FEA-FONSI) due to anticipated improvements to these drainageways that are owned by the County, which alone took over 3 years to complete, and 5. worked with the State, County and surrounding community to address the proposed roadway system that will address anticipated traffic volumes and movements generated by the proposed Royal Vistas project while conforming to the roadway connectivity requirements of the Kona CDP. 27 Page As presented within this report, both the original and current Applicants have made significant progress towards the completion of the single and multiple family residential project over the course of past 37 years, with the completion of the 215- unit Kona Vistas subdivision in 2006 and the construction of the extension of Lako Street that serves both this subdivision as well as the adjoining lolani subdivision. The current Applicant, Kona Three, LLC, has spent much of its time and resources since its purchase of the subject properties at the end of 2015 to perform extensive studies, planning, permitting and design work that is still necessary to proceed with the construction of the 450-unit multiple-family residential component to be called Royal Vistas. Part of this effort has been towards satisfying its affordable housing obligations, including those affordable housing obligations of the former landowner and applicant. Please note that this time period also included the economic struggles associated with the Great Recession that began at the end of 2007 and extended through mid- 2009, and the accompanying burst of the "housing bubble" and the subprime mortgage crisis that has taken years for both industries to recover. Therefore, the Applicant's inability to complete the multiple-family residential project within the RM-5 zoned portion of the overall 171±-acre project area encumbered by Ordinance 02 131 are the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the Applicant and are not the result of their fault or negligence. B. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. It should be noted that since the site was rezoned in 1984, there have been no changes to the County General Plan, which designates most of the project site as Urban Expansion with a section of Low Density Urban along the makai portion fronting the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, as shown on Figure 3-LUPAG Map. Where the land use regulatory environment has changed is with the adoption of the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP), which became effective on September 10, 2008 (Ordinance No. 08 116) and was not considered during the course of review of this rezoning action by the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hawaii County Council due to the filing of the change of zone request in early 1984. Subsequent to these approvals, however, the County Council approved a slate of interim amendments to the CDP on September 18, 2019 that emphasized the CDP as providing a framework of guidance policies towards future development within the North Kona district rather than a series of mandates that actually hindered development in specific locations rather than promoting reasonable approaches to 28 Page such development that in the end, accomplishes the very intent of what the CDP was attempting to achieve in the first place. Regardless, the Applicant offers the following discussion that demonstrates consistency of its time extension and roadway condition amendment requests with the KCDP: Consistency with the General Plan LUPAG map of Urban Expansion and Low Density Urban. The LUPAG map identifies the subject properties and its immediately adjacent area as "Urban Expansion Area"and "Low Density Urban". Urban Expansion Area" allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial, industrial-commercial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. "Low Density Urban" allows for residential, 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. The existing RM-5 zoning of the subject properties and the proposed 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family residential project, if allowed to proceed, will establish a land use pattern consistent with the both the urban expansion and low density pattern recommended by the General Plan as well as with the residential neighborhoods that characterize this part of North Kona along the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway. Speaking practically, the RM-5 zoning of the subject properties is appropriate given the design constraints of both the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa drainage ways that borders and bisects the 68.837-acre project site. Placing residential units within multiple family residential structures allows for better siting opportunities while reducing the overall extent of land altering activities typically associated with single family residential lots. Consistency with the General Plan goals, policies, and standards relative to the land use and housing elements. The approved RM-5 zoning, and the proposed development of the 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family housing project, would also be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General Plan, as it was determined in 1984 with the approval of the zoning by the Hawaii County Council. The proposed project will increase the overall housing stock adjacent to established residential communities along with appropriate infrastructure that both support and facilitate the housing and transportation needs for this particular area. 29 Page More specifically to the Housing element, the more pertinent goals and policies 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. Appropriate infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and access are available or will be constructed by the Applicant to support the proposed 4S0-unit multiple family housing project. As noted earlier, County water has already been paid for and is available for the project; the project will connect to the County's sewer system; and access to the site and adjoining residential communities will eventually be enhanced as two north-south minor collector alignments within the project site, as identified within the KCDP, will be constructed, leaving relatively small undeveloped segments between the project site and Pualani Estates to the north and Kona Vistas subdivision to the south. Within the project site, a new fully-channelized access point at Queen Kaahumanu Highway will be constructed to provide primary access to Phase I, with an eventual connection of Phase II with Kekuana`oa Street within Kona Vistas subdivision to provide access to Lako Street. 30 Page Kona Community Development Plan The Kona Community Development Plan ("KCDP") became effective on September 10, 2008 (Ordinance No. 08 116) and was not considered during the course of review of this rezoning action by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and Hawaii County Council due to the filing of the request in 1984. Subsequent to these approvals, however, the County Council approved a slate of interim amendments to the KCDP on September 18, 2019 that emphasized the KCDP as providing a framework of guidance policies towards future development within the North Kona district rather than a series of mandates that actually hindered development in specific locations rather than promoting reasonable approaches to such development that will satisfy some of the guiding principles of the KCDP to: Provide connectivity and transportation choices; Provide housing choices; Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth; and to Promote effective governance. Regardless, the Applicant offers the following discussion that demonstrates consistency of its time extension and roadway condition amendment requests with the KCDP. The subject properties are situated within the Kona Urban Area ("KUA") but is not situated within any Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area as shown on Figure 7 KCDP Official Transportation Network Map-Nani Kailua Area. Furthermore, the subject properties are not situated within a Concurrency Zone. These findings were confirmed and accepted by the Planning Department as the accepting authority for the Final Environmental Assessment - Royal Vistas Housing Project dated September 2021. The subject properties with their current RM-5 zoning, as well as this request for a time extension to complete the proposed multiple family housing project that has been a part of a much larger residential project covering more than 171 acres and underway for more than 37 years, should be functionally classified as "Infill" pursuant to Policy LU-2.8 that provides guidelines for rezoning actions and time extensions for properties outside of a TOD area but within the KUA. The guidelines and their relationship to the subject site/request are: a. Consistency with the LUPAG map. The project site's existing RM-5 zoning, and its request for an extension of time to complete the proposed 450-unit multiple family housing project, will continue to fall within the area designated for Urban Expansion and Low Density Urban uses. 31 Page b. Infill. The project site is designated Urban on the State Land Use map. The subject property is situated adjacent to the north of the established 215-unit Kona Vistas subdivision, which is part of the original land use entitlements issued in 1984 that supported the residential development of this part of North Kona. Just one lot away to the north is Pualani Estates, a subdivision of more than 360 homes. lolani subdivision and other smaller subdivisions lie immediately to the east (mauka) of the proposed Royal Vistas project site. As such, this area satisfies the concept of"infill" by linking together the established residential communities adjacent to the north, south and east of the subject properties. This can be no better demonstrated than the proposed extension of Kekuana`oa Place within Kona Vistas through the project site as well as the construction of the Leilani Street alignment, both of which will help to facilitate the interconnection of roadways within Pualani Estates to the north and Kona Vistas subdivision to the south, which clearly justifies the existing RM-S zoning of the subject property, and its continued development through the approval of the requested time extensions as i nfi I I". c. Greenfields Rezoning. This is not applicable, as by virtue of the previous RM-5 zoning action prior to the adoption of the Kona CDP as well as the comments noted in "b" above, the subject site should not trigger a need to amend the KCDP. By its letter dated September 1, 2017, the Planning Director confirmed that the proposed Royal Vistas multiple family housing project is consistent with the subject property's RM-S zoning. The Planning Director also noted that according to the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) in the KCDP, the western portion of the project site is situated in the Pua`a-Wai`aha Village Transit Oriented Development TOD) Floating Zone. The Director confirmed that location of this TOD has not yet become fixed by a master plan and project district zoning; however, it is likely that the future TOD will be located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and mauka of Kuakini Highway. Therefore, the Planning Director determined that the subject properties are not located in the TOD. The requested amendments to Ordinance 02 131, in continued support of the proposed 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family housing project, will be developed in accordance with Policy LU-2.8(1)(b) of the KCDP, which indicates the project may be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, subject to the following requirements: 32 Page Policy LU-2.8: Development Outside Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs), but within the Kona Urban Area. Development outside the TODs, but within the Kona UA, may occur as follows: 1. Existing Zoning a. TND Overlay. Any project greater than 20 acres on land zoned Single-family residential (RS), Multiple residential (RM), Residential-Commercial Mixed Use RCX), General Commercial (CG), Village Commercial (CV), or Neighborhood Commercial (CN), shall be permitted to develop as a neighborhood TND following the procedures for a PUD and the Village Design Guidelines. b. Non-TND Projects. Any project may be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, subject to the following requirements: i. Parks (see Policy PUB-6.2.) ii. Affordable Housing. Resale restrictions on affordable units built in compliance with HCC Chapter 11 (see Policy HSG-5.2). iii. Street Standards. Connectivity standards (see Policy TRAN-2.1), street standards (see Policy TRAN-3.1), and traffic calming standards (see Policy TRAN-3.7). iv. Wastewater. Priority sewer area (see Policy PUB-4.4). v. Sensitive Resources. Survey of potential sensitive resources (see Policy ENV-1.5). Applicant's response: As confirmed by the Planning Director by its letter dated September 1, 2017, the proposed Royal Vistas multiple family housing project may be developed as a non-TND project in accordance with its existing zoning, subject to the requirements of Policy LU-2.8, which the Applicant discusses in further detail below. Policy PUB-6.2: Active Recreation Opportunities. A range of recreational opportunities should be provided to encourage physical activity and interaction among toddlers, youth, teens, adults, and seniors, including, without limitation the following: a) Regional park (minimum 50 acres)—New regional park at Kealakehe as shown on the Public Facilities Plan to include playfields, multi-purpose building (e.g., gymnasium) b) Kona Civic Auditorium or Performing Arts Center. Facility to provide a venue for major entertainment, social, cultural, and performing arts opportunities. c) District park (10-30 acres)—Upgrade the Old Airport Park to enhance the playfields, swimming pool, multi-purpose building, courts (basketball, tennis, volleyball), tot lots, fitness area, pet area, and skateboard area; locate a district park to service South Kona to include playfields, multi-purpose use building (e.g., community/senior center, gym), and a tot lot. 33 Page d) Community parks (4-8 acres)—A community park should be located 2 miles apart within the Urban Area to include, at a minimum, playfields and a restroom, as designated in the Public Facilities Plan to provide adequate playfields for youth leagues; multi-purpose use of school playgrounds should be candidates for these types of parks. e) Neighborhood parks (up to 4 acres)—A neighborhood park (including community gardens, community centers, pocket parks, and pet parks) should be located % mile apart [for] subdivisions within the Urban Area. Subdividers shall provide for private maintenance or pay a fee pursuant to HCC Chapter 8 when required to provide neighborhood parks. Applicant's response: The project site is situated within the Kona Urban Area, which contains a number of regional, district and community recreational facilities that are able to provide for the recreational needs of residents within the proposed project. Such existing recreational facilities within the Kailua-Kona area include: Active Recreational facilities: Old Kona Airport Park complex, Kekuaokalani Gym-Park complex Community park at Pualani Estates Beach Park facilities Wai`aha (Honls) Beach Park Kahalu`u Beach Park Magic Sands (La`aloa) Beach Park Pahoehoe Beach Park Camping Sites Kohanaiki Beach Park Two neighborhood parks, each containing a swimming pool, will be included as part of the two community centers that will be provided for the residents of this proposed community. Policy HSG-5.2: Privately-Constructed Affordable Units. For private projects subject to affordable housing requirements, the Kona Housing Non-Profit or other non- profit shall have a first right of refusal to 10% of the required affordable units. All affordable units shall remain affordable for 40 years. No restrictions may apply after 40 years based on the rationale that newer homes will replace these older homes in the affordable housing stock. During the resale-restricted period, the level of restriction shall meet the following minimum requirements: 34 Page 1st 20 years: The affordable units shall have a minimum 20-year controlled appreciation restriction (cost of improvements plus appreciation based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index; After 20 years: The owner may sell the property at market value with a shared appreciation with the County or Kona Housing Non-Profit at 50%; Right of First Refusal: After 20-years, the Kona Housing Non-Profit shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the unit; Owner-occupancy: During the resale-restricted period, affordable units shall remain owner occupied or rented out by the owner at an affordable rate as certified by the County real property tax division pursuant to the affordable rent provisions in HCC Chapter 19. Applicant's response: The Applicant has acquired 67 affordable housing credits via an exchange for land associated with the creation of a new 100-unit affordable rental project above Lowes on land that the Applicant will donate to a qualified affordable housing developer. This most recent affordable housing Agreement, attached as Exhibit D-Affordable Housing Agreement, between the Applicant and OHCD was executed on January 10, 2022 in satisfaction of Condition K of Ordinance 02 131 and Policy HSG-5.2. Policy TRAN-2.1: Connectivity Standards. Connectivity refers to the directness of links and the density of connections that make up the transportation network. Within the Kona Urban Area (UA) new development shall contribute to this interconnected transportation network of streets, pedestrian, and bicycle access that work to disperse traffic and connect and integrate new development with the existing fabric of the community. Proposals for new development or redevelopment within Kona's UA should meet the following connectivity standards: 2. Connection to Adjoining Development. The road system for new development shall contribute to the local transportation network. To supplement HCC Section 23-40, at a minimum, new subdivisions shall incorporate and continue all collector streets, and selected local streets to adjoining property. If a portion of the stub-out is not improved, the current developer shall improve the stub-out portion, where practicable. Connection to adjoining properties may not be required if seriously constrained by topography or other physical hindrances, or in cases where through travel cannot occur because the property is bounded by development with private streets previously allowed. Applicant's response: The Applicant will satisfy the requirements of Policy TRAN- 2.1 via the construction of alignments within the project site that will provide for the future connectivity between the proposed Royal Vistas multiple family housing project and the existing Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates subdivisions as 35 Page shown on Figure 6—Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas. The proposed interconnecting road alignments include: In Phase 1, construct that segment of the Leilani Street extension situated within the project site. This segment will stub-out the Leilani Street extension on the southern project site boundary and will not connect it across the private adjoining parcel(TMK 7-6-021:014) owned by the Calvary Community Church of Kona. In Phase 1, construct that segment of Kekuana`oa Place extension situated within the project site. In Phase I, construct a mauka-makai roadway connecting both the Leilani Street and Kekuana`oa Place extensions. In Phase ll, extend Kekuana`oa Place from its existing terminus in Kona Vistas subdivision northward to connect with the Kekuana`oa Place alignment within the project site constructed in Phase 1. None of the roads proposed for the project will connect to Ho`omama Street or Paulehia Street in Pualani Estates due to an intervening privately-owned parcel(TMK 7-6-013:004). Policy TRAN-3.1: Street Standards. County street standards should be pedestrian- friendly, safely accommodate bicycles, accessible to the disabled, and appropriate for its surrounding land use context. Applicant's response: The Applicant will satisfy the requirements of Policy TRAN-3.1 by constructing all connector roadways within the project to County- dedicable standards that will include the construction of sidewalks along these roadways, as shown on Figure 6—Conceptual Master Plan for Royal Vistas, in compliance with Condition N of Ordinance 02 131, as requested to be amended. Policy TRAN-3.7: Traffic Calming Standards. In order to slow traffic for pedestrian safety or comfort, standards for traffic calming should be included, as part of the County of Hawaii Street Standards. Applicant's response: Per Condition N, the Applicant must construct all minor collector roadways within the proposed project to County-dedicable standards. The only permissible traffic-calming device that could be considered within the dedicable roadways could be speed humps, which have been utilized within County roads in selected locations throughout the island. However, the uses of internal driveways providing direct access from these minor collector roadways to the individual multiple family residential housing units do, 36 Page but its inherent narrow design, already provides for traffic calming throughout most of the project site. Objective TRAN-2 Street Network Connectivity. With the proposed construction of roadway extensions through the project site that will help to facilitate the interconnection of roadway networks within Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates subdivision that lie on either side of the project site, the proposed subdivision adheres to an objective of the CDP to develop a system of interconnected roads within Kona that will provide alternative transportation routes that will disperse automobile trips and reduce their length, while not compromising the through functions of arterials and major collectors with excessive intersections. Such interconnections will also serve to: a) provide safe choices for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, b) promote walking and bicycling, c) connect neighborhoods to each other and to popular destinations, such as parks, among others, d) provide opportunities for residents to increase their level of physical activity each day by creating walkable neighborhoods with adequate connections to destinations, e) reduce vehicle miles traveled and travel time, thus improving air quality and mitigating the effects of auto emissions on the health of residents and the environment; f) reduce emergency response times; g) increase effectiveness of municipal service delivery; h) restores arterial street capacity to better serve regional long-distance travel needs; and i) provide increased emergency evacuation opportunities. Policy PUB-4.4: Sewer Priorities. In order to protect the nearshore water quality, the requirement to hookup to the County sewer system (HCC Section 21-5) shall be strictly enforced. The highest priority in expanding the sewer system within the Kona Urban Area shall be to service any shoreline properties that do not have access to a public sewer system and then to service lots within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline. Any new subdivision within 1 mile of shoreline within the Kona Urban Area shall either hookup to the public sewer system, or provide a private treatment system, and/or install dry sewers (see Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map-Waste Management). Private wastewater collection systems within the 1 mile zone shall be designed and constructed to County standards to enable potential connection to County sewer system.The County shall ensure that TODs can be served by the public sewer system in a timely manner. Applicant's response: The entire 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family housing project will be connected to the County's sewer system. 37 Page Policy ENV-1.5: Sensitive Resources. In the context of Kona's ecology and history, the following natural and cultural resources shall be considered sensitive and therefore shall be inventoried, as part of any permit application to the County Planning Department (see Figures 4-8a to 4-8d): Critical habitat areas as identified by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife or County General Plan; Predominantly native ecosystems, which may not be considered endangered but are valued because of their nearly pristine condition; Anchialine ponds subject to a management Program addressed in Policy ENV- 1.10: Non-Degradation of Anchialine Ponds; High-level groundwater recharge area which shall initially be defined as all lands mauka of the 1,500 foot elevation and which may be refined by the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program; Historic trails; Archaeological and historic sites subject to protection under HRS Chapter 6E; and, Enhanced Shoreline Setback (see Policy LU-1.5). Any permit application that encompasses any of the above resources shall incorporate these resources as assets. If a proposed project will have significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts to any of the above resources, the presumption shall be denial of the application and the applicant will have the burden of explaining any overriding considerations. The presence of any of these resources shall qualify for density transfers through a planned unit development based on potential gross density allowed by the prevailing zoning. The protection or restoration of any of these resources should qualify for funding from the Kona Treasures Fund (see Policy ENV-3.3). Applicant's response: The subject properties are not situated within an area identified as the Kona Mauka Watershed Planning Area (Figure 4-8a) due to its location within the Kona Urban Area. Regardless, the proposed project will be connected to the County"s sewer system to avoid direct impacts upon the County's groundwater resources. Also due to its location within the Kona Urban Area and below the 1,500 foot elevation, as well as supported by the biological survey, the subject properties are not situated within a critical habitat area nor does it consist of predominantly native or endangered ecosystem. The subject properties are located about 4,200 feet from the shoreline, and will not have any direct effect upon the shoreline or coastal processes. The Final Environmental Assessment for the Royal Vistas Housing Project Exhibit D-Royal Vistas Housing Project FEA-FONSI)found that, "no threatened or endangered plant species as listed by the USFWS appear to be present in the Project Site, nor are there uniquely valuable habitats. No existing or proposed 381Page federally designated critical plant(or animal) habitat is present in the Project Site. There appears to be no potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 33 Although existing vegetation would be cleared during Project construction activities including grading, the plants that would be removed are all non-native. Landscaping is an important aspect for housing developments both for residents'experience and property value. The Proposed Project would plant new vegetation as part of landscaping following Project construction. As requested in an early consultation letter from DLNR, Kona Three would plant native or noninvasive trees as part of landscaping for the Proposed Project." Cumulatively, its findings also noted that "Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity have impacted biological resources through alteration of the landscape through introduction of weeds, removal of native vegetation, and loss of habitat for native wildlife species. Impacts to biological resources from the Proposed Project would be minor, due to the limited number of native species present at the Project Site and the protection measures outlined to avoid impacts to Federally-listed species and prevent spread of non- native weeds. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to be minor." Concurrence The subject properties are not situated within a concurrency zone as depicted in Figure 4-3—Official Concurrency Map of the KCDP. However, the Applicant commissioned SSFM International to prepare an updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) dated November 2021 for the proposed 450-unit multiple family housing project that is included as Appendix 2 of the FEA, and updated on November 30, 2021 in conformance with Section 25-2-46 of the Zoning Code regarding Concurrency and included with this report as Exhibit G— Royal Vistas Updated TZAR. In response to comments from residents of the existing single-family residential communities of Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates, the Applicant moved the access for Phase I from Kekuana`oa Place to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway via a new un- signalized intersection in an effort to reduce and delay traffic impacts on the Lako Street/Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway intersection as well as traffic on Kel<uana`oa Place. This direct access for Phase I onto the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway was analyzed by the TZAR. In summary, the study assumes that Phase I of the Royal Vistas multiple family housing project will be completed by 2024, with all trips generated by the 258 units within this phase entering and exiting at the proposed Royal Vistas roadway and 39 Page distributed onto the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Route 11) via an unsignalized and channelized intersection. The study further assumes that the development of Phase II, consisting of the remaining 192 units, will be completed by 2029 along with the connection of Phase II through I(ekuana`oa Place to Lako Street. At anticipated build-out of Phase II in 2029, along with its connection to Kekuana`oa Place, the segment of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway between Lako Street and Hualalai Road is anticipated to operate at Level of Service (LOS) C in the northbound direction and LOS C in the southbound direction during both AM and PM peak hours, and found to be providing an "acceptable level of service" according to the concurrency requirements of the Zoning Code. The study then analyzed each project phase build-out during peak AM and PM hours and its effects on forty-seven (47) turning movements at eight (8) intersections along the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway-Kuakini Highway (Route 11) alignment extending from Palani Road to the north to Kamehameha III Road to the south of the project site plus the effect on the main road segment "Route 11". Five of these existing intersections are signalized, and three of them are Two Way Stop Controlled TWSC") intersections. Overall, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the existing level of service at these various intersections above the background rate. Each transportation facility (State and County highways, roads, and public transportation facilities) uses defined performance measures for assessing capacity and levels of service, and for each facility type, one or more of the stated performance measures serves as the primary determinant of level of service ("LOS"). This LOS-determining parameter is called the Measure of Effectiveness ("MOE") for each facility type. LOS is defined in HCC Section 25-2-46(c) as "Level of Service, or "LOS", means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and shall be determined using the procedures in the latest edition of the "Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board." For signalized intersections, the MOE procedure used is the Overall LOS, which measures "delay". The Overall LOS is determined by calculating the average control delay per vehicle. Once delays have been estimated for each lane group and aggregated for each approach and the intersection as a whole, then the appropriate LOS is determined using the Signalized Intersections Delay Chart, which specifies the time delay as letters A-F, with increasing time delays associated with each letter. 40 Page For TWSC intersections, the MOE procedure used includes both LOS and v/c measures. LOS for a TWSC intersection is determined by the measured control delay see "LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections" in Manual) and is defined for each movement, expressed as A through F. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole for TWSC intersections. Vehicles travelling along the major, free flow road (Route 11 in this case) of a TWSC intersection proceed with minimal or no delay at all. Those vehicles approaching the intersection along the minor movement are controlled by a stop sign and thus experience delay attributable to the volume of vehicles passing along the free-flow road and the traffic gaps available. A traffic movement can have a poor LOS but low v/c, which suggests the traffic volumes along that movement are low but must wait a long time to make the movement. These movements affect fewer vehicles and are on the minor movements. As stated in the manual "In evaluating the overall performance of TWSC intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios---" and "By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor-street left turn, users may make less effective traffic control decisions." The v/c MOE measures the volume (v) to capacity (c), and expresses the ratio of the volume of traffic utilizing the TWSC intersection to the maximum volume of vehicles that can be accommodated by the intersection during a specific period. A v/c ratio under 0.85 means the intersection is operating under capacity and excessive delays are not experienced. An intersection is operating near its capacity when v/c ratios range from 0.85-0.95. Unstable flows are expected when the v/c ratio is between 0.95 and 1.0. The study concluded that two of the TWSC traffic movements are problematic. Hualalai Road (N)'s East Bound Left turn movement currently operates at LOS "F" for both the LOS and the v/c MOE's during the AM study period, and will continue to do so during the five-year study period. Route 11 at Kuakini Highway's North Bound left turn PM movement currently is LOS "E" and will stay LOS "E" for both the LOS and the v/c MOE's during the five- year study period. Nevertheless, with or without the proposed project, certain turning movements at the following intersections are or will be experiencing unacceptable levels of service LOS E and F) upon completion of Phase I anticipated in 2024: 1. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street signalized intersection a. Westbound left turn movement onto highway at LOS E due to signal timing, which can be adjusted to reduce approach delay. 41 Page 2. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) unsignalized intersection a. Eastbound left turn movement onto highway at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours to due high traffic volume on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. 3. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) unsignalized intersection a. Westbound left turning movement at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours to due high traffic volume on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. 4. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at Royal Vistas roadway unsignalized intersection a. Westbound left turn onto highway at LOS F during AM peak hour due to high volumes along the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. 5. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway unsignalized intersection a. Northbound left onto Kuakini Highway at LOS E during peak PM hour. 6. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street signalized intersection a. Eastbound left turn onto highway at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS E at PM peak hour. b. Westbound left turn onto highway at LOS E during both AM and PM peak hours due to traffic volumes and split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. The study concludes that none of the unsignalized intersections satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant for a traffic signal. The Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway intersection will satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant in 2024. The satisfaction of a traffic warrant does not require the installation of a traffic control signal and none is recommended by the study. Widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the vicinity of Lako Street is needed in 2024 to provide for 4 lanes and a permissive left-turn phasing onto Lako Street. Upon completion of Phase II anticipated in 2029, the increase in background traffic and traffic generated by the proposed project will further reduce the LOS at several of the intersections described above, with the addition of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Puapua`anui Street intersection that will experience LOS E for left turns during both the AM and PM peak hours due to cycle length. Left turn volumes at this intersection are low, however, and should clear every cycle. The TIAR recommended that based on the existing traffic volumes and future projections of Royal Vistas on the surrounding roadways, the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street intersection and some individual movements at other intersections are expected to deteriorate to LOS E or worse. The widening of Queen 42 Page Ka`ahumanu Highway to 4-lanes, and the completion of Ali`i Highway is needed to increase the north-south regional capacity. In the interim, the following system- wide intersection improvements are recommended for consideration by Hawaii County and HDOT: 1. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Palani Road Existing and future analysis indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Improvements to this intersection are not recommended at this time. 2. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street Existing and future analysis indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Improvements to this intersection are not recommended at this time. 3. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) This intersection does not pass the Four-Hour warrant or peak hour warrant for any condition. The high delay is due to the high volume on the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. There are 44 vehicles and 10 vehicles making the westbound left turn in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the delay experienced by drivers reaches this level, the eastbound drivers are likely to find alternative routes. A single lane roundabout will improve traffic operations at this intersection for the existing condition but worsen to LOS F after 2024. A roundabout is not recommended at this intersection. 4. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) As the westbound left turn delay gets worse, drivers may decide to use Puapua`anui Street to access the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the southbound direction. This intersection did not pass the Four-Hour warrant or the Peak-Hour warrant for the existing or future conditions. Based on existing traffic operations, it is recommended an acceleration lane be installed for the westbound right turn onto the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. A single-lane roundabout will improve traffic operations at this intersection for the existing condition but worsen to LOS F after 2024. A roundabout is not recommended at this intersection. 5. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street Signal timing should be monitored and adjusted as needed to increase the probability that queues on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway can clear the intersection in 1 cycle. 6. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway This intersection will function acceptably through the full Phase 1 buildout. Before any Phase 2 residences are occupied, it is recommended that the connection to I<ekuanao'a Place is completed so that Royal Vistas Phase 2 left out' traffic can access the Lako Street traffic signal. 43 Page 7. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant during all peak hours for all conditions. The satisfaction of a traffic signal does not mean a traffic signal needs to be installed. There are other factors that should be analyzed when installing a traffic signal, such as roadway geometry, added delay to a traffic network, and the impact of rear-end accidents that occur at new traffic signals. Analysis of this intersection with various phasing showed that the overall delay at the intersection would increase, while the northbound left turn will still operate at LOS E or worse. A traffic signal should not be installed at this intersection. Royal Vistas traffic has very little effect on this intersection. A single-lane roundabout will operate at LOS F for the existing AM peak hour condition, and LOS F for all future conditions. A roundabout is not recommended at this intersection. 8. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street The Lako Street intersection operates at LOS E/D (AM/PM) with or without the Royal Vistas project in the 2039 condition. Lako Street currently has split phasing (sequential rather than concurrent) on the Lako Street approaches. Changing the phasing from split would help lower the delay, although several movements will still operate at LOS E or worse. This intersection would also improve significantly with more north-south regional capacity provided by the completion of the widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road and the construction of Ali`i Highway. 9. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road Existing and future analysis indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Improvements to this intersection are not recommended at this time. Section 25-2-46 of the Zoning Code regarding Concurrency Requirements states the following: e) Mitigation required. 1) If the LOS for any transportation facility in the project area is (A) currently worse than the acceptable level of service, or (B) projected to become worse than the acceptable level of service during the five year period of the TZAR, any rezoning of the property, if approved, shall contain conditions that require mitigation of adverse traffic effects before occupancy of the project is permitted, or that occupancy be delayed until the level of service has reached the acceptable level and is no longer projected to be worse than the acceptable level. 2) Where the LOS deficiency is due to roadway or intersection deficiencies in the immediate vicinity of the project, the conditions of zoning shall require local mitigation. Where the deficiency in LOS is due to 441Page insufficient capacity in the transportation facilities serving the project area, the conditions of zoning shall require area mitigation. As no transportation facility in the Project area is currently worse than the acceptable level of service, nor is projected to become worse than the acceptable level of service during the five-year period of the TZAR, no mitigation is required. The Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the Royal Vistas Housing Project dated September 2021 and the Planning Department's issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) supports the conclusion that the "Potential impacts to the Kona Vistas subdivision would be alleviated by constructing the Royal Vistas Roadway intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Also, the traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to LOS from the Project above the background rate to the intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street which is the main entrance to the neighboring Kona Vistas subdivision." Both the FEA and FONSI also recognizes "...the extension of Kekuana`oa Street, and the construction of that portion of the Leilani Street extension within the project site to be stubbed-out on the south boundary at the Calvary Church property between the Project and Kona Vistas, and one new road would be constructed(Royal Vistas Roadway). All would be dedicated to the County as part of the Proposed Project. Based on comments received on the Draft EA on potential impacts to traffic from the connector roads (Appendix 1b), Figure 3 shows the location and phasing of these connector roads. While Figure 11 from the Kona CDP shows connector roads connecting County-owned Leilani Street(in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Ho`omama Street(in the Pualani Estates project) and Kekuana`oa Place (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Paulehia Street (in the Pualani Estates project), these connections would not be built as part of the Proposed Project. Additionally, no mauka-makai connector roads from Hualalai Road to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no effect to neighbors in adiacent subdivisions from Phase 1, and only minimal impacts after Phase H."' (emphasis added) County water for the project is still available, and the Applicant has maintained its current commitment deposit. The proposed project will also connect to the County's wastewater system that services the I<ailua-Kona area. Attempts to contact the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (HIEMA) to confirm the location of existing operational civil defense sirens within the immediate area of the project site were unsuccessful. Should HIEMA or Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency require an additional siren to be situated within the proposed project to provide for adequate coverage, the Applicant will comply. 45 Page C. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. Approval of the requested time extensions to secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed 450-unit multiple family housing project and to commence and complete its construction within a period of ten (10) years will remain consistent with the original reasons for its approval in 1984, as well as demonstrated in discussions throughout this report as it pertains to consistency with the KCDP. In summary, the Applicant finds that approval of its amendment requests will be: Consistent with the General Plan LUPAG map of Urban Expansion Area and Low Density Urban. Consistency with the General Plan goals, policies, and standards relative to the housing and land use elements. Appropriate infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and access are or will be made available. No irresolvable issues relating to drainage, botanical, or avifaunal. Having appropriate archaeological/cultural safeguards or completing appropriate mitigation measures. It is thus maintained that the reasons used to support the existing zoning back in 1984 still apply to the requested time extensions and amendment. It should be noted, however, that since the RM-5 zoning was approved in 1984, there have been two (2) substantive changes to the Zoning Code that relate to project of this nature. One was the adoption of the Kona Community Development Plan in 2008, for which compliance has been extensively discussed earlier in this report. The other was the adoption of the concurrency provision, Section 25-2-46. That provision requires that all rezoning, including time extension, address traffic, potable water, and civil defense siren concerns. And as discussed earlier, the project meets these tests. The other provision relates to allowance and management of Short-Term Vacation Rental ("STVR") in certain areas as outlined in Section 25-4-16 of the Zoning Code. The subject properties are not situated within an area designated for Resort uses or as a Resort Node. Therefore, STVRs may be permitted within the "For Sale" units within the proposed 450-unit multiple family housing project provided that these For Sale" units are part of a condominium property regime as defined and governed by Chapters 514A or 514B, Hawaii Revised Statutes. 461Page Coastal Zone Management Due to the location of the subject properties outside of the Special Management Area (SMA) and about 4,400 feet from the nearest shoreline, and the improvements and mitigation measures to be undertaken during the development of the project, the Applicant finds that granting of the requested time extensions and requested clarification regarding roadway improvements will not have any substantial adverse impacts on coastal processes or conditions, nor will its approval be contrary to the objectives and polices of Chapter 205A, HRS relating to Coastal Zone Management. The proposed action will not create significant adverse impacts upon nearby and immediately adjacent properties nor the important coastal resources within this part of North Kona. The proposed 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family housing project is the final component of a 171±-acre single- and multiple-family residential community that was approved by both the State Land Use Commission and Hawaii County Council in 1984. The project site is situated within the Kona Urban Area that is specifically designated to direct future growth and to promote infill of areas adjacent to existing developments. As mentioned, the project site is situated immediately adjacent to or just one lot away from the existing single family residential communities of Kona Vistas, Pualani Estates and lolani subdivisions. As traffic is frequently the prevailing concern of any proposed development, the project will assist in facilitating the interconnection of these existing communities through the construction of north-south and mauka-makai roadway segments within the project site that will align with existing roadways within both Kona Vistas and Pualani Estate subdivision. The development of Kona Vistas subdivision and Lako Street now provides an important mauka-makai link between lolani Subdivision and Kuakini Highway. This same form of roadway networking, as promoted by the KCDP, will be facilitated by the approval of the requested time extensions. While the subject properties are currently vacant, it was part of the Kona Field System and was likely used for commercial and subsistence agriculture as well as for cattle pasture until the mid-1800. There appears to be evidence that the subject properties were bulldozed sometime around the 1950s through the 1970s in preparation for commercial agriculture. Based on the historical use and biological environment of the subject properties, for which studies were prepared and included as part of the FEA, no threatened or endangered plant species as listed by the USFWS appear to be present in the Project Site, nor are there uniquely valuable habitats. No existing or proposed federally designated critical plant (or animal) habitat is present. Therefore, there appears to be no potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, or endangered plant species The project will connect to the County wastewater system. Any impacts from soil erosion and runoff during site preparation and construction phases can be 47 Page adequately mitigated through compliance with existing regulations and proper construction practices. Air emissions generated during the construction phase for the proposed project will be mitigated by existing construction regulations. With these precautionary measures in place, the proposed development is not anticipated to have any substantial adverse effects upon nearby coastal resources or the surrounding environment. The Applicant continues to adhere to and implement conditions of approval for the project that will ensure that impacts on coastal resources, if any, are minimized. An archaeological inventory survey (AIS) was conducted in 1984 for the original 171±-acre project except for a 5-acre portion in the southeastern corner originally intended to be developed by the Hawaii Preparatory Academy. As requested by the State Historic Preservation Division, a new archaeological inventory survey to identify all archaeological historic properties present in the Project Site and an update of the previous archaeological documentation to include site plans for each site with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance were completed on behalf of the Applicant. These additional survey reports for both the previously excluded 5-acre site and the remainder of the project site including the existing County-owned drainageways were completed in 2018 and 2020, respectively, and included within the 2021 final environmental assessment for the Royal Vistas project. These studies found 18 archaeological sites within the original survey area of the project site, of which 6 sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, 3 sites associated with habitation, 1 with agriculture, a single petroglyph site, and one single feature site (Site 10012) contained two burials. The remaining 12 sites were determined to be historic era, with many of the sites associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching, as well as two historic era habitation sites. The other AIS for the 5-acre site found 22 newly identified sites, which were determined to be primarily agricultural terraces associated with pre-Contact area to Historic era agriculture. A pre-Contact era to later post-Contact era lava tube burial and a portion of the old railroad berm were recorded as part of this separate survey. The two burials (Site 10012) described in the 1984 AIS were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1984. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed, then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. The preservation plan for the railroad berm and petroglyph sites has been prepared and submitted to the DLNR for review and approval. A burial treatment plan for the lava tube burial within the 5-acre site has already been prepared by the Applicant and approved. Following implementation of an archaeological preservation plan, there are not expected to be any impacts to historic or archaeological resources from the proposed project. Therefore, no cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are anticipated to historic or archaeological resources. 48 Page A cultural impact assessment (CIA) was prepared in 2020 as made a part of the FEA. The study noted that the region of H61ualoa was developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine (reigned 1700-1720), with many `ali`i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The study further noted that this royal center at H61ualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu`u and Keauhou region. The project area was also a part of the Kona Field System that extends north at least to Kau ahupua`a and south to H6naunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai. In the post-contact era, the Kona Field System hosted the planting of coffee, sugar, sisal, citrus, and cotton until eventually the land was used for cattle pasture. As part of the CIA, personal interviews were sought in an effort to provide ethnographic and oral history of the project area. Based on the interviews conducted, the report concludes that "An analysis of the potential effect of the proposed construction of residences on cultural resources, practices or beliefs, its potential to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting, and the potential of the project to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place is a requirement of the OEQC(No. 10, 1997). Based on historical research and responses from the above listed contacts, it is reasonable to conclude that, there would be no traditional cultural practices affected and there would be no direct adverse effect upon cultural practices or beliefs in the broader project area region." In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai 0 Ka 'Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed. These rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site. Studies prepared in support of the proposed project and the amendment requests found no valuable cultural, historical and natural resources within the subject properties that would support traditional or customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the subject properties. Thus, it is believed that the proposed project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. Based on the above findings, the Applicant maintains that allowing for the development of the 450-unit Royal Vistas multiple family housing project and related improvements will not have any substantial adverse impacts on the surrounding area, nor will its approval be contrary to the objectives and policies of Chapter 205A, HRS, relating to Coastal Zone Management. 49 Page VIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IN JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS As extensively outlined within this report, the Applicant finds that it has made a substantial commitment of time and resources to comply with all of the conditions of approval of both Ordinance 02 131 immediately upon its purchase of the subject properties at the end of 2015. The scope of the Applicant's requests is limited to an extension of time of ten (10) years to secure Final Plan Approval and to commence and complete construction of the first increment of the proposed project and to amend Condition N to provide clarity on the extent of dedicable roads required to be constructed. Since its acquisition of the subject properties in late 2015, the Applicant has diligently pursued the development of the 450-unit Royal Vistas mid-market, multiple family housing project as approved by the Hawaii County Council to the extent that the original reasons for granting of Ordinance 02 131 is still relevant and appropriate. 501Page BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A83-549 GAMLON CORP. For Amendment of District Boundary and Reclassification of Certain Lands Situated at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii. This Is to certify that this is a true and correct COPY of thDecisim and Order an N1 the officeoftheS! 411 Law U" oo, iu Ha I Hate FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER I 1 f j3 tk k 0 gF wf 5 BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of )DOCKET NO. A83-549 GAMLON CORP. For Amendment of District Boundary and Reclassification of Certain Lands Situated at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii . FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner, GAMLON CORP. , a Hawaii corporation, filed the Petition in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Land Use Commission, State of Hawaii, to amend the land use district boundary of certain lands consisting of approximately 173 .66 acres, identified as Tax Map Key Nos . 7-6-21:4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 , 15, 16 and 17 (hereinafter referred to as subject property" ) situated in the ahupua' a of Holualoa First and Second, North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, from the Agricultural to the Urban District. The Land Use Commission, having heard and examined the testimony and evidence during the public hearing held on September 8, 1983 , in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, and having considered the entire record filed in this docket, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of F law. t` FINDINGS OF FACT PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1 . On May 9, 1983, Gamlon Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner" ) filed this Petition to amend the Agricultural District boundary at Holualoa First and Second, North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, to reclassify the subject property into the Urban District. 2 . The Land Use Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission" ) held a public hearing on this Petition on September 8, 1983 , in the Resolution Room, Kona Hilton Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, pursuant to notice of hearing published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Hawaii Tribune Herald on August 3, 1983 . 3 . The Commission received one timely request for intervention on July 20, 1983 from Elizabeth Ann Stone on behalf of the Honest Environmental Citizen' s Against Progress, and denied the request in the absence of Ms. Stone at the hearing. The Commission received two untimely requests to appear as public witnesses from James Sogi representing Mr. and Mrs . Roy Nagle, property owners in the area, Maile Akimeseu, representing the I Friends of Kamoa Point, Inc. , and permitted them to testify as public witnesses . DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 4. The subject property is located mauka of Kuakini Highway approximately 2 .6 miles south of the Palani Road - Kuakini 2- FE i Highway intersection in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii . The subject property is bordered by vacant, undeveloped lands to the north and generally to the east, by the Kalani Sunset, Leilani Sunset, and Kainana Subdivisions to the south, and by the old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road to the west. 5 . With the exception of an undivided interest in five acres of Tax Map Key No. 7-6-21: 17, which is owned in fee simple by Hawaii Preparatory Academy, Kalott Properties N.V. , a Netherland- Antilles corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owns all of the subject property. Petitioner holds an option to purchase the subject property from Kalott Properties N.V. Hawaii Preparatory Academy and Kalott Properties N.V. have authorized Petitioner to file this Petition. 6 . Hawaii Tax Map Keys Nos . 7-6-21: 14, 18 and 19 are within the general boundary of the subject property but are not being considered for reclassification as a part of this Petition. Parcel 18, owned by the County of Hawaii and the Dillingham Investment Corporation, and Parcel 19, owned by the County of Hawaii, are an existing and proposed drainage way for the Holualoa School and Horseshoe Bend streams . Parcel 14 is owned by John P. Ellbogen. j 7. On August 23, 1982, the State of Hawaii instituted an eminent domain action against Kalott Properties, N.V. to i condemn a portion of Tax Map Key Nos . 7-6-21, parcels 13 ( .578 acres) and 16 (2 .202 acres ) for the Kuakini Highway realignment 3- k. project. As of the date of the public hearing, final judgment had not been entered in this action. 8. The subject property is currently leased to and utilized by the Palani Ranch for cattle grazing under a month-to- month lease. 9. The United States Department of Agriculture' s 1973 Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Map of Island of Hawaii, classifies the soil of the subject property as being in the Punaluu series and an extremely rocky peat. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. 10. The elevation of the subject property ranges from 350 feet to 700 feet at its mauka boundary. The slope generally ranges from 6% to 20%. 11. Vegetation on the subject property is composed of almost entirely exotic specimens, with Koa-haole the dominant species. The subject property does not support any plant life considered rare, threatened or endangered. Several native species and exotic species common to Kona and found throughout the State also grow on the subject property. 12 . Approximately 75% of the subject property is located within the defined boundaries of the Holualoa drainage basin. The Federal Insurance Administration has designated two 1 portions of the subject property adjacent to the both sides of the i i 4- Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa School intermittent streams in Flood Zone "A, " which is defined as areas susceptible to a 100-year flood, in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Island of Hawaii. PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT 13 . With the exception of the five acres owned by the Hawaii Preparatory Academy, Petitioner proposes to develop a single-family and multi-family residential subdivision on the subject property. Petitioner intends to develop approximately 500 residential units of which 215 would be single-family residential units and 285 would be multi-family residential units. 14. Petitioner proposes to build the single-family residential units on approximately 103 acres, with each unit having a minimum lot size of approximately 15, 000 sq. ft. The Petitioner estimates that single-family density will be at approxi- mately 2 . 1 units per acre. 15. Petitioner proposes to build multi-family townhouse residential units on approximately 65 acres at an estimated density of RM-8.0 (1 unit per 8, 000 feet of land area) or 4.4 units per acre. 16. Petitioner proposes to use the Holualoa School Stream as a boundary between the single-family units (to the south) and the multi-family units (to the north) .i I I 5- 17. Petitioner intends to market 25% to 50% of the single-family units as house/lot packages and 50% to 75% as lot- only sales. Petitioner intends to market the multi-family units as residential, as opposed to resort, townhouse, condominiums. Pursuant to the County of Hawaii ' s incremental zoning requirements, Petitioner is required to construct dwellings on at least 25% of the lots in its first phase proposed residential subdivision in order to obtain rezoning of second phase. 18 . Petitioner estimates that it will sell the vacant house lots for approximately $70, 000 (1983 dollar) and three- and four-bedroom house/lot packages for $150, 000 (1983 dollar) . The multi-family units will range in price from $90, 000 to $180, 000 1983 dollar) . 19. Petitioner has agreed in principle to work jointly to provide housing opportunties for low- and medium-income residents. Petitioner proposes to cooperate with State and County housing agencies in order to offer ten percent of the lots and house and lot packages at prices that will enable residents to quality for Federal- or State-assisted housing loan programs. 20. Hawaii Housing Authority (HRA) feels that approximately 10% of the housing units should be affordable by low and moderate income families. 3 21 . HHA recommends that a condition be included to assure that 10% of the units will be affordable to low and I 6- moderate income families, as determined by the County of Hawaii and HHA. 22 . The Draft Kona Regional Plan estimates that approximately 40% of the households in Kona are currently facing some kind of housing problem which ranges from the household paying too large a percentage of its income for housing, living in substandard or unsafe housing, living in a crowded household or combinations thereof. 23 . Petitioner estimates construction costs for on-site and off-site improvements to be approximately $35 million (1983 dollar) . This estimate includes major drainage improvements, road construction, site preparation, and labor and materials . 24. Petitioner estimates that Phase 1 and 2 can be completed within 8 1/2 years from the date of the Commission' s approval of this Petition. 25. Petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue Chip Corporation, a Japan corporation. Petitioner holds approxi- mately $14 million of investment property free of any mortgages and can use said property to finance the proposed project. If necessary, Blue Chap Corporation will provide any additional funds needed to complete the project. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 26 . The subject property is situated within the State 1 i Land Use Agricultural District. It is contiguous to urban classi- fied lands to the south which have been developed for low density i fI I g 7- residential uses (Kalani Sunset, Leilani Sunset, and Kainana Subdivisions) . To the west, the Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road (40 foot right-of-way) , which is in the Agricultural District, sepa- rates the subject property from adjoining Agricultural and Urban Districts . Lands to the north are designated Agricultural. Lands to the east are designated Rural. 27 . The County of Hawaii General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates most of the subject property as "Alternate Urban Expansion" and a small area as "Low Density Urban. " The two stream beds and adjacent areas are designated as "Flood Plains. " 28 . The draft Kona Regional Plan prepared by the County of Hawaii ' s Planning Department recommends that the subject property be developed for low density residential (RES-4, 4 units per acre) , and moderate density residential (RES-10, 10 units per acre) uses . Petitioner' s proposed project is consistent-with the draft Kona Regional Plan. 29. The Kailua-Honalo Urban Zone Map (Ordinance No. 74, 1967) zones the entire subject property as "Unplanned" with a minimum lot size of five acres. Petitioner must obtain a rezoning of the subject property. 30. The subject property is not situated within either the Special Managment Area or the boundaries of the Kailua Village I Special District. e 8- e k NEED FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 31 . The draft Kona Regional Plan poses three growth alternatives for Kona with corresponding population forecasts for the period 1980-2000. The population projections to the year 2000 are as follows: Alternative 1 : 33, 200; Alternative 11 : 39,400; and Alternative 111 : 46, 300. 32 . Using these population projections and the antici- pated decline in household size, the draft Kona Regional Plan indicates future new housing requirements at between 5,240 to 9, 915 units or a production rate of 262 to 496 units per annum for Kona. 33 . In addition, 1, 580 units will reach obsolescence by the year 2000 and will need to be replaced. Petitioner' s consul- tant assumes 405Y, of the above enumerated housing units reaching obsolescence will not be repaired. 34. Using the draft Kona Regional Plan' s estimates of new housing units required and the obsolescence factor developed by Petitioner' s consultant, the total number of new housing units needed for Kona ranges from 5, 872 to 10, 547 units. 35. Petitioner' s market study of 32 existing residential i subdivisions of ten or more units in the North Kona area (as defined geographically by the market study) identified a total of 4, 580 existing residential lots . Of that total, 2 , 352 or 51% of the lots have houses built on them and contribute to the existing 9- housing stock. The balance of 21228 lots or 49% are vacant. In addition, only 345 vacant lots are for sale. 36 . If all the existing vacant lots counted in the market study become available for housing by the year 2000, the current available inventory of finished lots represents between 21% and 38% of the projected need. 37 . Petitioner' s market study estimates that 80% of the housing units needed for Kona will be built in the area studied by Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "study area" ) , which encompasses the Kailua-Kona-Keauhou segement of the draft Kona Regional Plan prepared by the County of Hawaii' s Planning Department. This amounts to. between 4, 698 to 8,437 units . IMPACTS ON THE RESOURCES OF THE AREA Agricultural Resources 38 . The State Department of Agriculture does not place the subject property in any of its important agricultural land categories in its ALISH Maps for North Kona. 39 . The Land Study Bureau' s Detailed Land Classification Map for the Island of Hawaii indicates that two land types, D293 and E295, are distributed across the subject property. The D and E ratings indicate that the land is poorly or very poorly suited for agricultural activities. 40 . Although the subject property is currently used for cattle grazing, it does not have a high capacity for intensive i i s 10- agricultural use. Approximately 24 to 30 head of cattle are located on the subject property. 41. The draft Kona Regional Plan, which was developed in consultation with farmers and governmental agencies concerned with agricultural activities, recommends that the subject property be used for residential purposes . Archaeological Resources 42 . Cultural Surveys Hawaii conducted an archaeological reconnaissance in January of 1983 . It discovered 47 archaeological sites on the subject property, some of which are merely remnants . 43 . Based on preliminary observations, none of the sites discovered are historically significant except for research purposes . Petitioner will conduct further archaeological work as recommended by Cultural Surveys Hawaii, the State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii. Recreational Resources 44. Petitioner intends to develop a private recreation area for residents of the proposed development. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Fire Fighting and Police Services 45 . The County of Hawaii will provide police service from the Kona District Headquarters located in Captain Cook. Fire I protection service will be provided by the County from its Kailua j Fire Station located on Palani Road. G 11- b- E Schools 46 . Students from the proposed project will attend the Kealakehe Elementary and Intermediate School (Grades K-8) and the Konawaena High School (Grades 9-12 ) . The opening of the Kahakai Elementary School in September, 1982, which has a capacity of 670 students, alleviates the overcrowding at Kealakehe Elementary and Intermediate School . The Kealakehe and Kahakai school facilities are expected to meet the needs of the growing North Kona population for the next seven (7 ) years . The DOE plans to construct additional school facilities at the Kealakehe Intermediate School and the Konawaena High School during the late 1980 ' s in order to meet the needs of the residents of Petitioner' s and other developments during the next 10-year period. Electrical Utilities Services 47. Hawaii Electric & Light Company, Inc. and Hawaiian Telephone Company lines serve the area. Petitioner will provide all necessary service connection and transmission lames necessary to transmit electricity and other utilities to the development as l may be 3Yrequiredbyapplicablestateandcountyregulations . Water 48. Petitioner does not have a water commitment from the Board of Water Supply for this project, but Petitioner is a participant in the Kona Source Agreement I with the County develop- ment of Water Supply and other developers for development of new 12- domestic water sources in Kona. Petitioner has paid $125, 000 as a contribution for its prorata share for 500 water units. 49 . Should the exploratory activities conducted pursuant to the water agreement prove successful, Petitioner will execute a subsequent water source development agreement II and the Board of Water Supply will issue water commitments issued to participating developers, including Petitioner. Drainage 50. Although approximately 75% of the subject property lies in the defined boundaries of the Holualoa Drainage Basin, intermittent flooding is limited to the Horseshoe Bend and the Holualoa School Streams. Petitioner will build and dedicate to the County of Hawaii all drainage facilities recommended in the Drainage Master Plan for the North Kona Flood Control Project within the boundaries of the subject property. 51.. Properties located makai of the subject property below Kuakini Highway) to the coastline have received various development approvals conditioned on the requirement that develop- ment of these projects may not commence unless the developers implement their portion of the drainage facilities recommended in the Drainage Master Plan for the North Kona Flood Control Project. P52 . The development of the subject property and proper- ties located makai of the subject property will result in a 13- continuous drainage system from the mauka boundary of the subject property to the ocean. Sewage Treatment and Disposal Services 53 . Petitioner proposes to dispose of sewage waste generated by the single-family residential area by individual cesspools. Petitioner proposes that the multi-family residential area will be served by private treatment plants. 54. Petitioner shall design and construct all sewage treatment facilities to satisfy the requirements specified in Chapter 38, Public Health Regulations, State of Hawaii. Solid Waste Disposal Services 55. The County of.. Hawaii does not provide refuse collection service. Petitioner will require purchasers to haul refuse to the Kona Sanitary Land Fill or make arrangements with commercial disposal services. The landfill, which serves the North and South Kona districts, is located about four miles north of Kailua Village off of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 56 . The existing land fill has a life expectancy of approximately 10 years . The County of Hawaii is planning to install a refuse shredding facility to alleviate problems . Roadway and Highway Services 57 . The State Department of Transportation has approved two accesses from the proposed project to Kuakini Highway. Petitioner proposes to connect present north/south lateral road 14- j s i 1 i IF system, specifically Kilohana, Leil.ani, and Pualani Streets to the proposed internal roadway system for the development. The lateral connections and intersection improvements would provide safer and more convenient ingress and egress to Kuakini Highway for residents of these adjacent subdivisions. 58. Petitioner anticipates that traffic generated by the proposed project should be mitigated by the completion of the Kuakini Highway realignment project which is already under construc- tion by the State of Hawaii and which State expects to complete before the proposed project is completed. CONTIGUITY OF DEVELOPMENT 59 . The subject property is contiguous to an Urban District to the south which has been developed for low density residential uses (Kalani Sunset, Leilani Sunset, and Kainana Subdivisions) . The Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road (40 foot right- of--way) separates the subject property from an existing Urban District along part of the subject property' s makai (west) boundary. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 50 . The character of the area is "city like" due to the adjacent residential subdivisions located to the south of the subject property. In addition, proposed commercial development by Dillingham Investment Corporation on lands between Kuakini Highway and the subject property further amplify the "city like" character of the area. i I 61 . The subject property is centrally located to established employment centers . It is only 2 1/2 miles south of Kailua Village and 4 miles north of the Keauhou resort community. Dillingham Investment Corporation has proposed to construct a shop- ping center and medical center on nearby land already designated for commercial use. 62 . Although the development of the subject property for residential use will not create permanent employment opportu- nities, the development of this project at a cost of $35 million will provide short-term employment opportunities for persons associated with the construction and real estate industries. 63 . Reclassification of the subject property is reaso- nably necessary to accommodate urban growth projected for the North Kona area. 64. The subject property does not have any adverse geographic or topographic constraints which will hinder or endanger the proposed development. The proposed project will be designed and constructed to be reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami, unstable soil conditions, and other adverse environmental effects . i 65 . The proposed development will not result in "spots' . I urban development because an existing Urban District which has I been developed for low-density residential uses is located adjacent 16- Y to the subject property on the south and a Rural District, which permits the development of residential housing on half acre lots, is contiguous to the subject property on its east (mauka) boundary. 66. Petitioner will install all on-site utility lines, roads, sewage disposal, and water systems at no cost to the state or county governments . Petitioner will also construct and dedicate to the County of Hawaii a major drainage facility within the boundaries of its property. COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAWAII STATE PLAN 67 . Petitioner' s proposed project is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan' s objectives and policies relating to population, the economy (general) , and housing. INCREMENTAL DISTRICTING 68 . Petitioner cannot complete full urban development of the subject property within five years from the date of the Commission' s approval of the redistricting; Petitioner proposes to develop the property in two increments, encompassing 5 years and 3 1/2 years. Petitioner will substantially complete development of the first 124.660 acre increment, consisting of the makki portion of the single-family residential area, all of the multi-family area, and all infrastructure systems within five years . The second increment consisting of the mauka portion of the single- family residential area, totalling 49 acres, is scheduled for completion within 3 1/2 years thereafter. The descriptions of Increment I and Increment II of Petitioner' s proposed development 17- F are illustrated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner cannot start development on the second increment until development on all on-site and off-site improvements within Increment I have been substantially completed. RULING ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT The Land Use Commission hereby rejects any of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner or the other parties not already ruled upon by adoption herein, or rejected by clearly contrary findings of fact herein.. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pursuant to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, and the Rules of Practice and Procedure and District Regulations of the Land Use Commisison, State of Hawaii, the Commission concludes that the reclassification of all of the lands within Increment 1 , consisting of approximately 124.660 acres (as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto) , from the Agricultural to the Urban District and amendment of the land use district boundary to permit the development of Increment I is reasonable, in conformity with Section 205-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan as set forth in Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, and the District Regulations of the Land Use Commission. The Commission further concludes that although full development of the lands within Increment II (as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto) cannot be reasonably completed within five years from the date of the Commission' s decision on this matter, reclassification of the lands within Increment II, consisting of approximately 49 acres, from the Agricultural to the Urban District and the amendment of the land use district boundary to permit the development of Increment II is reasonable, in conformity with Section 205-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan, as set forth in Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, and the District Regulations of the Land Use Commission. Therefore, incremental redistricting of the lands within Increment II of Petitioner' s development is reasonable and warranted. DECISION AND ORDER IT IS HERESY ORDERED that the lands within Increment I of Petitioner' s development plan of the subject property, consisting of 124.660 acres, as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, situated in the ahupua' a of Holualoa First and Second, North Kona, County, Island i and State of Hawaii, shall be and the same is hereby reclassified from the Agricultural to the Urban District, and the district f boundaries are amended accordingly. 19- i IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that the lands within Increment II of Petitioner' s development plan of the subject property/consisting of approximately 49 acres, as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, situated in the ahupua' a of Holualoa First and Second, North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, shall be and the same are hereby approved for incremental development pursuant to State Land Use Commission' s District Regulation 6-2 , and that redistricting from the Agricultural to the Urban District will be granted upon receipt of an application by Petitioner for redistricting of Increment II , and upon a prima facie showing by Petitioner that it has substantially completed the on--site and off-site improvements within Increment I, in accordance with Petitioner' s development plan as indicated above, within five years of the date of this Order, including but not limited to partial satisfaction of the condition A below, to the extent of the number of lots to be developed in Increment I and full satisfaction of condition B below. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the reclassification and incremental districting of the subject property shall be j subject to the following conditions : A. Petitioner shall provide housing opportunities for low and moderate income Hawaii residents prior to assigning or transferring (except by way of mortgage or assignment as security) i 20- its interest in the subject property, by offering for sale, on a preferential basis, on its own or in cooperation with either or both the Hawaii Housing Authority or the County of Hawaii, ten percent (10%) of the lots or house and lots to be developed on the subject property, to residents of the State of Hawaii of low and moderate family income as determined by the Hawaii Housing Authority or County of Hawaii from time to time. The preferential lots or houses and lots shall be offered for sale at prices not exceeding prices that enable such purchasers to qualify for and obtain state-assisted financing (i.e. , Act 105 or Hula Mae) or federally-insured or assisted financing (i. e. , FHA Section 245 program) intended to encourage home ownership by low and moderate income families; and B. In making the ultimate decision as to whether a historical or archaeological site is significant enough to warrant preservation, the Petitioner shall consult with and accept the decision of the Historic Preservation Officer of the Department of Land and Natural Resources; and C. Petitioner shall submit annual progress reports to the Commission, Department of Planning and Economic Development, and Hawaii County Planning Department as to its progress in i satisfying these conditions; and D. These conditions may be fully or partially released by the Commission as to all or any portion of the subject proper- ties upon timely motion and provision of adequate assurance of satisfaction of these conditions by the Petitioner. 21- i i DOCKET NO. A83-549 - GAMLON CORP. . Done at Honolulu, Hawaii, this 13th day of December, 1983 , per motions on December 1, 1983 and December 13, 1983 . LAND USE COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAII t By WILLI W. L. YU C i an aFd ComA4ssioner RICHARD B. F. C OY Vie Chairman a d Co issioner 1 BY LAWRENCE F. CHUN Commissioner By SHINSEI MIYA ATO Commissioner By WINONA E. RUBIN Commissioner i By _ TEOFILO PHIL TACBIAN Commissioner s By R ERT S . TAMAY CordNLssioner B Y FREDERICK P . HITTEMORE Commissioner EXH TR Y T A I j i r qq[w 4• Nor tp it Ll I III I F.iI f ' •. •' x'• , + •! } •J•i r/ .'•• l%r ;i'' Rr. `, jpt L i iS r. fir.- . „ n „lt.. 3 '; ' 'i ''`i f i' , y:' y i ,, k';-i' y Y' Q:L. rr' ' f I N i i t t #5 F : e •'F ' l i I : 1 •'.ty1;. ., C ,, w = = 5 (CY L'7 t ' y •! is f 1 !'• k .%" 1 .•''F f i• t '/ i!' IF. « t t' C`I' ' 'I:.`i 4... .... 'S S [ dp M I r.• * I..11.' f•'•' !` F'' •II' 6,. 1 :l [,4 i I ! ,'` ii A. 3 OLD lb i I l ty • l f r . i• n! {" ' t r \e., p Fil 1 : 5 rti- i,, i '' -•r / •' ..r l... s t = ky \ i by ' i" i 11 E f BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of GAMLON CORP. . DOCKET NO. A83-549 For Amendment of District Boundary GAMLON CORP . and Reclassification of Certain Lands Situated at North Kona, County, ) Island and State of Hawaii CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Land Use Commission' s Decision and Order was served upon the following by either hand delivery or depositing the same in the U. S . Postal Service by certified mail: KENT M. KEITH, Director Department of Planning and Economic Development State of Hawaii. 250 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 SIDNEY FUKE, Planning Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RICHARD G. MACMILLAN KARL K. KOBAYASHI The Queen Street Building 345 Queen Street, Suite 800 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 DATED- Honolulu, Hawaii , this 26th day of January, 1984. V'GOA FURUTANI x c tive Officer f BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A83-549 GAMREX, INC.GAMREX, INC. To Amend the Agricultural Land Use District Boundary into the This fa t court Urban Land Use District for COPY d too DOWN andIn t1w 0f p;o Incremental Redistricting of 017tthe St. ntmisdan,HoWWu Ham;.i. Increment II For Approximately SAY Q 199349AcresofLandatNorthKona, by County, Island and State of Hawaii, )B.ecutive offic , Tax Map Key No. : (Third Division) } 7-6-21: 15 and portions of 4 , 9, 10, 11 and 17. 7;r- FINDINGS Y n FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER i o i j. S BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of } DOCKET NO. A83-549 GAMREX, INC.GAMREX, INC. To Amend the Agricultural Land Use District Boundary into the Urban Land Use District for Incremental Redistricting of Increment II For Approximately 49 Acres of Land at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, ) Tax Map Key No. : (Third Division) } 7-6-21: 15 and portions of 4, 9, 10, 11 and 17. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION, AND ORDER GAMREX, INC. , a Hawaii corporation, as successor in interest to Kalott Properties, Inc. and Gamlon Corp. , hereinafter "Petitioner") filed on June 4 , 1992, a Motion to Approve Redistricting of Increment II, pursuant to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, (hereinafter "HRS") and Section 15-15-78 , Hawaii Administrative Rules, (hereinafter "Commission Rules") , to amend approximately 49 acres of land in the Agricultural District to the Urban District at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, Tax Map Key No. (Third Division) 7-6--21: 15 and portions of parcels 4, 9, 10, 11 and 17 i hereinafter "Increment II") , and comprising the second I increment of lands described in the Land Use Commission's I hereinafter "Commission") Decision and Order dated i December 13, 1983 , (hereinafter "Order") in the Petition by Gamlon Corp. in this docket. The Commission, having heard and examined the testimony, evidence and argument of the parties, the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, and the parties' stipulation filed thereto, does hereby make the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. The Motion to Approve Redistricting of Increment II and Memorandum in Support of Motion was filed on June 4, 1992 , by Petitioner to reclassify Increment II, consisting of approximately 49 acres of land in the Agricultural District to the Urban District for certain land situated at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii. 2 . On June 12 , 1992 , Petitioner filed a Motion to Approve Change of Name of Petition from Gamlon Corp. to Gamrex, Inc. 3 . On August 3 , 1992, Petitioner filed its List of Witnesses and List of Exhibits, together with Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5. These exhibits were subsequently withdrawn by Petitioner. 4. A prehearing conference was held on August 11, 1992 , at the conference room of the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, 11th Floor, Central Pacific Plaza, 220 South King Street, in Honolulu with the Petitioner I 2 - and the Office of State Planning present. The County of Hawaii Planning Department was not present. At the prehearing conference, witness and exhibit lists, and exhibits were exchanged among the parties present. 5. On August 19, 1992, Petitioner filed its Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Approve Redistricting of Increment II. 6. On August 19, 1992 , Petitioner filed its Revised List of Witnesses, Revised List of Exhibits, and Exhibit Nos. 1 to 16. 7 . On August 27, 1992, Petitioner filed a Motion to Continue Motion to Approve Redistricting of Increment II. 8. The Commission held a hearing on August 27 , 1992 , at the Kamakahonu Ballrooms, King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii pursuant to notice published in the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii Tribune-Herald and West Hawaii Today on July 17, 1992 . At the hearing, the Commission approved Petitioner's Motion to Approve Change of Name of Petition and Petitioner's Motion to Continue Motion. to Approve Redistricting of Increment II. 9. On January 21, 1993 , Petitioner filed its Second Revised List of Witnesses, Second Revised List of Exhibits, and E Exhibit Nos. 17 to 20. E 10. On January 21, 1993 , Petitioner filed its Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Approve Redistricting of Increment II. 3 11. On January 28 , 1993 , Petitioner filed its Third Revised List of Witnesses, Third Revised List of Exhibits, and Exhibit Nos. 21 and 22 . 12 . The Commission held a continued hearing on the Motion to Approve Redistricting of Increment II on January 28, 1993, at the Kamakahonu Ballrooms, King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 13 . The subject property was approved for incremental districting by the Commission's Order dated December 13 , 1983 , and consists of approximately 173 . 66 acres, at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, Tax Map Key Nos. (Third Division) 7-6-21:4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 , 15, 16 and 17 hereinafter the "Property") . 14. Increment I, approved by the Commission's Order dated December 13, 1983 , consists of approximately 124 . 66 acres hereinafter "Increment I") , and Increment II consists of approximately 49 acres. 15. The Property is bound to the north by undeveloped lands, the south by the Kalani Sunset, Leilani Sunset and Kainana Subdivisions, the west by the old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road, and the east by the Iolani Subdivision. Increment II is generally located in the eastern portion of the Property. 16. The Property is owned in fee by Petitioner. 17 . By Order dated December 13 , 1983 , the commission reclassified from the Agricultural District to the Urban i I 4 _ I District on an incremental basis approximately 124 . 66 acres of land comprising Increment I . Pursuant to Section 15-15-78 of the Commission Rules, and the above-mentioned Order dated December 13 , 1983 , Petitioner may apply to reclassify Increment II from the Agricultural District to the Urban District upon a prima facie showing by Petitioner that it has substantially completed the on and off site improvements within Increment I, in accordance with the approved development plan for Increment I. 18. On November 16, 1988, Petitioner filed a Motion to Extend Time to Complete Substantial Development of Increment I and to Apply for Incremental Districting of Increment II with the Commission. 19. The Commission approved the Motion to Extend Time to Complete Substantial Development of Increment I and to Apply for Incremental Districting of Increment II per motion on January 10, 1989 and subsequently by Decision and Order dated February 10, 1989 . The time limit was extended until December 13, 1993 . IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED WITHIN INCREMENT I 20. After Increment I was reclassified to the Urban District by the Commission by its Order dated December 13, 1983, the following approvals affecting Increment I have been I processed by the County of Hawaii: 5 - F a. County of Hawaii incremental zoning approval pursuant to County of Hawaii Ordinance Nos. 84-23 , 84--42 , 88-4 , 90-62 and 91-96 ("Zoning Ordinance") . b. County of Hawaii's final subdivision approval for County of Hawaii Subdivision Units I-A and I-B which consists of single-family residential areas in Increment I. Petitioner has also received County of Hawaii preliminary subdivision approval for County of Hawaii Subdivision Unit I-C. 21. The on-site improvements which have been substantially completed or in progress to date within Increment I are as follows: a. Improvements for Units I-A and I-B. All infrastructure improvements, including roads, water system, electrical system, and telephone transmission system, within the portion of Increment I which comprises County of Hawaii Subdivision Units I-A and I-B have been completed. b. Improvements for Unit I-C. Roads and utilities are partially completed within County of Hawaii Subdivision Unit I-C. c. Drainage system for multi-family residential area. The construction of the drainage system for the multi- family residential areas has been delayed because: I i a) Petitioner did not control the lands below Queen Kaahumanu j Highway which the County of Hawaii determined were needed to complete the portion of the Holualoa drainage system running through Petitioner's property; and (b) the County of Hawaii has 0 6 - required Petitioner to participate in certain flood studies and improvements for the area below Queen Kaahumanu Highway. In June of 1989 , Petitioner completed the purchase of a 12-acre parcel (Tax Map Key No. (Third Division) 7-6-24 :25) located west (makai) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, at a cost of 1, 000, 000 to resolve a problem concerning the construction of its portion of the Holualoa drainage system which portion runs mainly through the multi-family residential areas within Increment I. All flood studies have been completed and have been submitted to the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works, which will submit them to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (hereinafter "FEMA") . Upon approval by FEMA, Petitioner will be permitted to construct its portion of the Holualoa drainage system. After completion of the drainage system, the County of Hawaii will permit construction of the infrastructure improvements within the multi-family residential areas within Increment I . d. Drainage System for Unit I-C. Petitioner, in connection with adjacent landowners and the County of Hawaii, have completed a study for the drainage system, which affects only a small portion of County of Hawaii subdivision Unit I--C. After approval by the FEMA, the drainage system which affects i Unit I-C will be completed and Petitioner will complete the infrastructure improvements within Unit I-C. After completion of such improvements, all of the infrastructure improvements s 7 - within the single-family areas within Increment I will have been completed. e. I_nf_rastructure Improvements for Multi-Family Residential Area Within Increment I . The water system master plan for the area requires Petitioner to develop the water system and other infrastructure improvements within Increment II prior to development of infrastructure improvements in the multi-family residential areas within Increment I. f. Model Homes and Recreation Center. Petitioner has completed eight model homes and a recreation center within Increment I. 22 . The off-site improvements which have been substantially completed or in progress to date within Increment I are as follows: a. Petitioner has completed construction of the main access road from Kuakini Highway to the project which is the Lako Street extension. Petitioner has also completed construction of the Lako Street/Kuakini Highway intersection. b. Off-Site -Drainage. Petitioner has submitted drainage plans for the 12-acre parcel of land located west makai) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Tax Map Key No. (Third Division) 7-6-24: 25) and these plans are currently being reviewed by the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and FEMA. Petitioner is also participating in flood (HEC2) studies for the area west (makai) of the 12-acre parcel and these i 3 i I I 8 - f I studies have been submitted to the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and FEMA. 23 . Total costs, including on and off-site improvement costs, expended by Petitioner is approximately 20, 000, 000. 24 . Due to the existing water system for the area, Petitioner cannot construct any additional water system and other infrastructure improvements in Increment I without urban districting of Increment II and cannot proceed with further development of the multi-family residential areas within Increment I without such urban redistricting of Increment II. 25. The County of Hawaii will allow Petitioner to construct the water system and other infrastructure improvements within Increment II subject to subsequent adjustments, realignments, or other revisions to such infrastructure improvements as may be required by the County of Hawaii zoning and subdivision process. 26. Petitioner has already commenced preparation of plans for the construction of infrastructure improvements within Increment II in order that it can proceed with such construction without delay if the Commission approves Petitioner's request for redistricting of Increment II. 27 . Based on the aforesaid findings, and the findings in the Commission's Order filed December 13 , 1983 in this docket, the proposed reclassification of Increment II conforms with the following objectives, policies and priorities of the 1 9 - I I Hawaii State Plan provided under HRS §§226-19 (a) (1) , 226-19 (b) (1) , and 226-19 (b) (3) . 28. The Commission, by Order dated December 13 , 1983 , imposed the following conditions on the reclassification and incremental districting of the Property: A. Petitioner shall provide housing opportunities for low and moderate income Hawaii residents prior to assigning or transferring (except by way of mortgage or assignment as security) its interest in the subject property, by offering for sale, on a preferential basis, on its own or in cooperation with either or both the Hawaii Housing Authority or the County of Hawaii, ten percent (10%) of the lots or house and lots to be developed on the subject property, to residents of the State of Hawaii of low and moderate family income as determined by the Hawaii Housing Authority or County of Hawaii from time to time. The preferential lots or houses and lots shall be offered for sale at prices not exceeding prices that enable such purchasers to qualify for and obtain state-assisted financing (i.e. , Act 205 or Hula Mae) or federally-insured or assisted financing (i.e. , FHA Section 245 program) intended to encourage home ownership by low and moderate income families hereinafter "Condition A") ; and B. In making the ultimate decision as to whether a historical or archaeological site is significant enough to warrant preservation, the Petitioner shall consult with and accept the decision of the Historic Preservation Officer of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (hereinafter Condition B") ; and C. Petitioner shall submit annual progress reports to the Commission, Department of Planning and Economic Development, and the Hawaii County Planning Department as to its progress in satisfying these conditions (hereinafter Condition C") . 3i 29. Petitioner has addressed Condition A by entering into an agreement with the County of Hawaii Housing Department providing for conveyance of the 12-acre parcel, Tax Map Key No. Third Division) 7-6--24: 25, to the County of Hawaii, in satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement. lo- 30. Petitioner has addressed Condition B by receiving approval of its archaeological report from the State Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Land Natural Resources. 31. Petitioner has addressed Condition C by submission of Exhibit A to its Second Supplemental Memorandum filed January 21, 1993 , which the Commission accepted as Petitioner's Annual Report for 1992, and having filed previous annual reports with appropriate parties. RULING ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Any of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner or other parties not already ruled upon by the Commission by adoption herein, or rejected by clearly contrary findings of fact herein, are hereby denied and rejected. Any conclusion of law herein improperly designated as finding of fact should be deemed or construed as a conclusion of law; any finding of fact herein improperly designated as a conclusion of law should be deemed and construed as a finding of fact. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pursuant to Chapter 205, HRS, and the Commission Rules including Section 15-15-78 thereof, the Commission finds upon a preponderance of evidence that the incremental redistricting of I lands within Increment II of the Property, and approximately shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by j reference consisting of approximately 49 acres of land situate I at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, identified as Tax Map Key No. (Third Division) 7-6-21: 15 and portions of parcels 4 , 9, 10, 11 and 17 from the Agricultural District to the Urban District, subject to the additional conditions provided in this Order, conforms to the standards established in the Commission Rules including Section 15-15-78 relating to incremental districting, is reasonable, non-violative of Section 205-2 , HRS, and is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan as set forth in Chapter 226, HRS . DECISION AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the lands within Increment II of the Property, consisting of approximately 49 acres situate at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, more particularly identified by Tax Map Key No. (Third Division) 7-6-21: 15 and portions of parcels 4 , 9 , 10, 11 and 17 and approximately shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, for incremental redistricting from the Agricultural District to the Urban District shall be and the same is hereby approved, and the district boundaries are amended accordingly, subject to the following additional conditions: 1. Petitioner shall develop the Property in substantial compliance with the representations made to the i Commission. Failure to so develop the Property may result in reversion of the Property to its former classification, or change to a more appropriate classification. 4 12- 2 . Petitioner shall give notice to the Commission of any intent to sell, lease, assign, place in trust, or otherwise voluntarily alter the ownership interests in the Property, prior to development of the Property. 3 . Petitioner shall provide annual reports to the Land Use Commission, the Office of State Planning, and the County of Hawaii Planning Department in connection with the status of the subject project and the Petitioner's progress in complying with the conditions imposed. 4. The Land Use Commission may fully or partially release these conditions as to all or any portions of the Property upon timely motion and upon the provision of adequate assurance of satisfaction of these conditions by Petitioner. 5. Petitioner shall record the conditions imposed by the Commission with the Bureau of Conveyances pursuant to Section 15-15-92 , Hawaii Administrative Rules. 6. Within 7 days of the issuance of the Commission's Decision and order for the subject reclassification, Petitioner shall (a) record with the Bureau of Conveyances a Statement to the effect that the Property is subject to conditions imposed by the Land Use Commission in the reclassification of the Property, and (b) shall file a copy of such recorded statement i with the Commission. 13- 3 DOCKET NO. A83-549 - GAMREX, INC. , a Hawaii corporation Done at Honolulu, Hawaii, this 10th day of May 1993 , per motion on April 29, 1993 . LAND USE COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAII By 4" M I d5aILl— AILEfIFY. J Chairman nd C mmissioner By absent) KAREN S. AHN Vice Chairperson and Commissioner By (::jr./ t't_14 JOAIA N. MATTSON Vice Chairperson and Commissioner By ALIAN K. HOE C missioner By absent) EUSEBIO LAPENIA, JR. Commissioner By absent) RENTON L. K. NIP Commissioner By TRUDY K. SENDA Commissioner Filed and effective on By _C May 10 1993 ELTON WADA Commissioner Certified by: By Executive Officer DE OND J. H. WON Commissioner F 14- i t rt c . 1• 'Wel 4 -' r' Ta kl P V Z f t3 d2L a ttalo l ti Wai d • a i1i QJC a /Tank 1 A ° Y i O i.}579 r,s ; 4• o W to u C is k 41 en4 l5 o k QRS• G V{`a Lr t AZ 7 7a k Aolualoa Bud sr` ter 4d - S I• mp T nk 1 Kamoa Pt y. . u ° — g h• a Pahoehoe Beach Park CS' 51 i 'i q Y Misappearing Sands Beach} L s :•j, White Sands Beach Park I S. _• i t n Z t• ,. zz nil DOCKET NO . A83 - 549 / GAMREX , INC . , KOH A HAMAKUA a Hawaii Corporation LOCATION MAP HILO I TAX MAP KEY: 7 - 6 - 21 : por.. 4, por.. 9, por.. 10 , por.. 11 , por.. 17 & 15 KONA PUN HOLUALOA IST & 2ND. NORTH KONA, HAWAII KAU APPROVED AREA SCALE: 1" = 2.000 ft. ± INCREMENT II) II I r. BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A83-549 GAMREX, INC.GAMREX, INC. To Amend the Agricultural Land Use District Boundary into the Urban Land Use District for Incremental Redistricting of Increment II For Approximately 49 Acres of Land at North Kona, County, Island and State of Hawaii, ) Tax Map Key No. : (Third Division) } 7-6-21: 15 and portions of 4 , 9, 10, 11 and 17. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify. that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order was served upon the following by either hand delivery or depositing the same in the U. S. Postal Service by certified mail : HAROLD S. MASUMOTO, Director Office of State Planning P. 0. Box 3540 Honolulu, Hawaii 96811-3540 VIRGINIA GOLDSTEIN, Planning Director CERT. Planning Department, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 KARL K. KOBAYASHI, ESQ. , Attorney for Petitioner CERT. Carlsmith Ball Wichman Murray Case Mukai & Ichiki 2200 Pacific Tower 1001 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, this 10th day of May 1993 . i ESTHER UEDA Executive Officer I E BILL NO.1075 COUNTY OF HAWAII - STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. 84 23 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-87 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 3 , CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM UNPLANNED (U) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY (RM-5) AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-15) AT HOLUALOA 1 AND 2, NORTH KONA, HAWAII , COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-6-21 : 4, 9-13, AND 15-17 . BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII : SECTION 1. Section 25-87, Article 3, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code , is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows : The district classification of the following area situated at Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii , shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM-5) : PARCEL 1) Beginning at the northwest corner of this parcel of land and on the northeasterly side of Kuakini Highway Realignment, Project No. 11A-03-69, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAILUA, " being 9, 193. 71 feet South and 8, 705. 53 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: 1. 2400 28 ' 30" 2, 903 . 35 feet along the remainder of R. P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 2. 2550 18 ' 17 . 97 feet along same ; 3. 3110 55 ' 219. 92 feet along same ; 4 . 3310 14 ' 15" 143 . 36 feet along same; Thence along Stream Lot 14 for the next thirteen (13) courses , the direct azimuths and distances being : 5 . 960 54 ' 67. 99 feet; 6 . 1120 56' 86. 79 feet; 7 . 900 55' 56. 48 feet; 8. 690 49 ' 76. 70 feet; 9 . 460 39' 114 . 37 feet; 10. 510 06 ' 83. 31 feet; 11. 760 01' 139. 84 feet; 12. 510 29 ' 175. 76 feet; 13. 660 32 ' 91. 49 feet; 14. 440 49 ' 170 . 06 feet; 15. 250 59 ' 247. 57 feet; 16. 370 21 ' 124 . 60 feet; 17. 310 20 ' 30" 825. 56 feet; Thence along Stream Lot 15 for the next ten (10) courses, the azimuths and distances being : 18. 370 01' 57. 76 feet; 19. 660 24 ' 138. 13 feet; 20. 440 01 ' 114 . 46 feet; 21. 670 01 ' 134. 84 feet; 22. 1020 13 ' 107. 13 feet; 23. 690 30 ' 139 . 97 feet; 24. 310 40 ' 114 . 38 feet; 25. 880 52' 64 . 54 feet; 26. 1140 04 ' 60 . 04 feet; 27 . 770 28' 132 . 01 feet; 2- 28. 1520 18 ' 10" 95 . 72 feet along Kuakini Highway Realignment Project No. 11A-03-69 ; 29. 1390 59 ' 30" 20. 75 feet along same; 30. 990 48 ' 30" 35. 58 feet along same; 31. 1540 11 ' 597 . 05 feet along same to the point of beginning and containing . an area of 37 . 936 Acres. (Refer to Parcel 1 as shown on Exhibit A) The district classification of the following area situated at Holualoa 1 and 2 , North Kona, Hawaii , shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM-5) : PARCEL 2) Beginning at the southeast corner of this parcel of land, being the northeast corner of Stream Lot 15, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAILUA, " being 9 , 565. 90 feet South and 11, 749 . 51 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: Along Stream Lot 15 for the next thirteen (13) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being : 1. 650 05 ' 2. 53 feet; 2. 980 56 ' 151. 87 feet; 3 . 1210 57 ' 191. 39 feet; 4 . 950 15 ' 205 . 20 feet; 5 . 960 50 ' 273 . 37 feet; 6 . 740 55 ' 132 . 84 feet; 7 . 1070 39 ' 54 . 73 feet; 8 . 900 53 ' 191. 87 feet; 9. 1290 17 ' 96 . 53 feet; 10. 800 07 ' 71. 22 feet; 3- 11. 530 36 ' 104. 76 feet; 12. 830 27 ' 205. 32 feet; 13. 840 08' 104 . 72 feet; Thence along Stream Lot 14 for the next thirteen (13) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being : 14. 2110 20 ' 30" 763. 45 feet; 15. 2170 21 ' 127. 42 feet; 16. 2050 59' 243 . 59 feet; 17. 2240 49 ' 148. 60 feet; 18. 2460 32 ' 87. 91 feet; 19. 2310 29 ' 170. 64 feet; 20. 2560 01 ' 140. 06 feet; 21. 2310 06' 98. 89 feet; 22. 2260 39 ' 104 . 41 feet; 23. 2490 49' 53. 22 feet; 24 . 2700 55' 33. 64 feet; 25. 2920 56 ' 83. 57 feet; 26. 2760 54 ' 90. 29 feet; 27. 3540 02 ' 55. 41 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 28. 210 41 ' 50" 8. 60 feet along same; 29. 3590 37 ' 20"20 . 09 feet along same ; 30. 50 07 ' 20"44. 89 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu and along the remainder of R.P. 8217, L.C. Aw. 3660 to John P. Munn; 4- 31. 3550 00 ' 65. 72 feet along the remainder of R.P. 8217, L.C. Aw. 3660 to John P. Munn and along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713 , Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 32 . 30 05 ' 265. 06 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 33 . 770 08` 20. 55 feet along same ; 34 . 40 39 ' 203 . 73 feet along same; 35. 3470 02 ' 187. 60 feet along same ; 36. 3370 00 ' 679. 20 feet along same to the point of beginning and containing an area of 30 . 901 Acres. (Refer to Parcel 2 as shown on Exhibit A) The district classification of the following area situated at Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, shall be Single Family Residential (RS-15) : PARCEL 3) Beginning at the southwest corner of this parcel of land and on the easterly side of Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAILUA, " being 12, 047. 12 feet South and 11, 089. 83 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: Along Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road for the next thirty-six (36) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being : 1. 1720 54 ' 30" 166. 38 feet; 2 . 1770 19 ' 91. 93 feet; 3 . 1670 17 ' 30"51. 67 feet; 4 . 1850 12 ' 69 . 99 feet; 5. 1920 52 ' 74 . 50 feet; 5- 6 . 1730 31 ' 30"20. 57 feet; 7. 1610 40 ' 30" 49. 48 feet; 8. 1410 33 ' 41. 74 feet; 9. 1280 06 ' 63 . 19 feet; 10. 1350 52 ' 140 . 78 feet; 11. 1240 23 ' 30"65. 66 feet; 12. 1130 18' 37. 19 feet; 13. 1190 09' 30"50. 14 feet; 14. 1110 13 ' 30"24. 45 feet; 15. 1070 15' 108 . 48 feet; 16. 1020 13 ' 70 . 44 feet; 17. 1120 58' 84 . 72 feet; 18. 1150 15 ' 30" 178 . 23 feet; 19. 1210 06' 87 . 41 feet; 20. 1110 55 ' 32. 57 feet; 21. 1100 49 ' 30"55. 63 feet; 22. 1040 37 ' 24 . 92 feet; 23. 1040 38 ' 30"35. 05 feet; 24 . 1020 57 ' 30"40 . 04 feet; 25. 1120 43 ' 30"58. 53 feet; 26. 1020 40 ' 32. 94 feet; 27. 950 37 ' 30"32. 48 feet; 28. 1040 23 ' 85 . 44 feet; 29. 910 43 ' 44 . 66 feet; 30. 990 18 ' 30"25 . 27 feet; 31. 1120 14 ' 66. 03 feet; 6- 32. 1170 51' 30"31. 69 feet; 33. 1250 07 ' 43. 90 feet; 34. 1340 37 ' 30"40. 62 feet; 35. 1340 37' 30"41. 48 feet; 36. 1340 00 ' 30" 47. 64 feet; 37. 1540 11 ' 400. 86 feet along Kuakini Highway Realignment, Project No. 11A-03-69 , 38. 2400 28' 30" 1, 332. 99 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu (Lot 4) ; 39. 1500 28' 30" 337. 56 feet along same; Thence along Stream Lot 15 for the next ten (10) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being : 40. 2330 36' 91. 73 feet; 41. 2600 07 ' 29. 64 feet; 42. 3090 17 ' 89. 97 feet; 43 . 2700 53 ' 203. 93 feet; 44 . 2860 30 ' 113. 50 feet; 45. 2670 11' 352. 71 feet; 46. 2750 15 ' 185. 94 feet; 47 . 3010 57 ' 189. 37 feet; 48. 2780 56' 182. 35 feet; 49. 2450 05' 10 . 28 feet; 50. 3450 30 ' 902 . 50 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu and along the remainder of Grant 3630 to W. H. Cornwell; 7- 51. 3340 30 ' 969. 30 feet along the remainder of R. P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to victoria Kamamalu; 52. 20 00 ' 537. 04 feet along same; 53. 860 51 ' 30" 120 . 73 feet along Grant 988 to Kamalo; 54. 930 48' 45. 22 feet along same; 55. 840 14 ' 106. 16 feet along same; 56. 1040 06' 30"41. 60 feet along same ; 57. 770 41 ' 30"76. 19 feet along Grant 988 to Kamalo and along Grant 1591 to Hoolawaihonua ; Thence along Grant 1591 to Hoolawaihonua for the next nine (9) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being : 58. 820 34 ' 126. 79 feet; 59. 1420 51 ' 32. 82 feet; 60. 810 37 ' 106. 15 feet; 61. 670 57 ' 30"30. 29 feet; 62. 830 03 ' 30" 258. 61 feet; 63 . 720 49 ' 30"90 . 07 feet; 64 . 840 37 ' 30"76. 23 feet; 65. 780 08 ' 62. 37 feet; 66. 820 02 ' 30" 157. 05 feet to the point of beginning and containing an area of 103 . 293 Acres. (Refer to Parcel 3 as shown on Exhibit A) All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof . SECTION 2. These changes in district classification are conditioned upon the following : 8- A) The zoning for the property shall be effective only after : 1) there are assurances satisfactory to the Departments of Water Supply and Planning, upon consultation with the State Department of Health, and the Division of Water and Land Development of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, that a water source of sufficient quality and quantity has been established within two years from the effective date of this ordinance; provided that a maximum one-year extension to --the two-year time limit may be granted by the Planning Director with reasonable and sufficient justification; and (2) an agreement, accompanied by an appropriate surety bond or other acceptable security, is executed with the Department of Water Supply for the actual development of a proven water source and its water transmission and distribution system within one year from the official date of compliance with condition A(1) ; provided that a one-year extension to the one-year time limit may be granted by the Planning Director with reasonable and sufficient justification; or (3) the Department of Water Supply issues a water commitment for the proposed development; B) No subdivision or development of any portion of the land shall occur unless and until condition A has been complied with; C) The Planning Director shall be mandated to initiate action for the repeal of this ordinance if conditions A or B have not been complied with; D) The petitioner , its assigns or successors, shall be responsible for complying with all conditions of approval; E) The zoning for the 49+ acres designated by the State Land Use Commission as its second zoning increment shall not become effective until that land is certified by that commission to be within the Urban District; F) The RS zoned area shall be developed in two increments. The first increment shall consist of a maximum of 59. 5+ contiguous acres , and the second, the remaining area. The effective date of zoning for the second increment shall be after development has occurred in the first increment, as determined by the Planning Director . "Development" means that building permits have been issued for dwelling units and construction has been partially completed to the extent that roofs have been constructed on a minimum of twenty-five percent of the number of units proposed for the entire area of 103 . 4+ acres. In lieu of actual construction, the petitioner may enter into an agreement with the Hawaii County Housing Agency to assure the County that the dwellings will be constructed within a given period. Such agreement shall be secured by a surety bond, certified check, or other security acceptable to Corporation Counsel and the Hawaii County Housing Agency. Upon final execution of such agreement and filing of the security with the Hawaii County Housing 9- Agency, the zoning of the second increment may be deemed by the Planning Director to be effective prior to the actual construction of the dwellings in the first increment provided that condition E is complied with; G) Subdivision plans for the first increment of the RS zoned area shall be submitted within one year from the effective date of the zoning. Final subdivision approval shall be secured within one year from' the date of receipt of tentative subdivision approval; H) The RM zoned area shall be developed in two increments. The first increment shall consist of a maximum of 42 acres of the Multiple Family Residential zoned land and the second increment, the remaining area. The effective date of zoning for the second increment shall be after "development, " as defined in condition F, has occurred in the first increment, as determined by the Planning Director ; I) Plans for the development within the first increment of the RM zoned area shall be submitted to the Planning Department and final plan approval secured within one year from the effective date of the zoning. Construction shall commence within one year from the date of receipt of final plan approval and be completed within three years thereafter ; J) Housing opportunities for Hawaii residents shall be provided in accordance with the condition imposed by the State Land Use Commission. The number of units and manner in which they are to be provided shall meet with the approval of the Hawaii County Housing Agency; K) Improvements to the intersections with Kuakini Highway and the Kuakini Highway Extension shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, Highways Division. The intersection improvements shall be constructed concurrently with the development of the first increment of the RS or RM zoned areas, whichever occurs first; L) No direct access shall be provided for the lots within the RS zoned area from the mauka-makai collector road; M) The roadways within the RM zoned area which are proposed for dedication shall be constructed to dedicable standards with curbs , gutters, and sidewalks meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Where a roadway crosses a zone line or if a zone line should divide a roadway, the curbs, gutters , and sidewalks shall be provided for the entire right-of-way and shall continue to the nearest intersection in order to avoid telescoping and to provide consistent improvement; N) At a minimum, roadways within the RS zoned area shall be provided with paved shoulders and paved swales meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works; 10- 0) The method of sewage disposal shall meet with the approval of the appropriate governmental agencies; P) A drainage master plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any subdivision or plan approvals. The plan shall include, as a minimum, hydrological and hydraulic calculations for all components ofthe drainage system, a construction timetable for all elements of the system, and an analysis of downstream impacts. Further , mitigating measures as approved by the Department of Public Works shall be taken to eliminate any downstream impacts ; Q) An intensive archaeological survey shall be conducted for the entire property and a report shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any subdivision or plan approvals; R) Should any unanticipated archaeological sites be found during land preparation activities, work shall immediately stop and the Planning Department notified. Work shall not resume in the affected area until clearance is given by the Planning Department; and, S) All other applicable rules, regulations and requirements shall be complied with. Should any of the foregoing conditions not be met, rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation may be initiated. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of the ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Introduced by: j Dz , COUNCIL MEMBER,V OUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: April 18 , 1984 Date of lst Reading : April 18 , 1984 Date of 2nd Reading : May 9 , 1984 Effective Date : May 15 , 1984 11- I r rw.wie wakna..rw.Ka.r.rr.w..aH....m. w...wreMwm srv...enwr r..ws i z A 0 ro x C a 1D ra-Kc e7Dj ' r ? rz ;, mini z fr nrUr i,m r•.V -)Iff1 c, o DAA 1 j IL 0 ¢ ITT 02 c I 04 -n .s mrnzl f f Z fi! aO ul 1 rfl y aav x; JI Aj Lo 61 I du o if d 'C I 7 7 a Z Z D d,r Izin rJ. n l o 1.:a.u+rnw s.a.e..rarer+.++.a>:mcvxwmya.sca:.w•.u+m..var....,,:^.•w>.+wnx:wnam+aw.-.wc.43.c..vr.ws-.wn+r..w.v..e+t .+c,.,r.e.uoaumwn.ns..1.vr..vsn,r rsrsci. swl=:. w..:s.+:.,r,wn'r+..er.cwo.•su...r.awww+..+w:..- COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. 268 ORDINANCE NO 9 2 131 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-99, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NOS. 84-23, 84-42, 88-4, 90-62, 91-96, 93-26, and 94-34, WHICH RECLASSIFIED CERTAIN LANDS FROM UNPLANNED (U) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RM-5) AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-15)ZONED DISTRICT AT HOLUALOA 1 and 2, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-6-21:4, 9-13, AND 15-17. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 97-99, which amended Ordinance Nos. 84-23, 84-42, 88-4, 90-62, 91-96, 93-26, and 94-34, is amended as follows: SECTION 1. Section 25-8-3, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM-5) and Single Family Residential (RS-15). PARCEL 1) Beginning at the northwest corner of this parcel of land and on the northeasterly side of Kuakini Highway Realignment, Project No. I IA-03-69, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAILUA," being 9,193.71 feet South and 8,705.53 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: 1.2400 28' 30" 2,903.35 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 2.2550 18' 17.97 feet along same; 3.3110 55' 219.92 feet along same; 4.3310 14' 15" 143.36 feet along same; Thence along Stream Lot 14 for the next thirteen (13) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being: 5. 960 54' 67.99 feet; 6.1120 56' 86.79 feet; 7. 900 55' 56.48 feet; 8. 690 49' 76.70 feet; 9. 460 39' 114.37 feet; 10.510 06' 83.31 feet; 11.760 01' 139.84 feet; 12.510 29' 175.76 feet; 13.660 32' 91.49 feet; 14.440 49' 170.06 feet; 15.250 59' 247.57 feet; 16.370 21' 124.60 feet; 17.310 20' 30" 825.56 feet; Thence along Stream Lot 15 for the next ten (10) courses, the azimuths and distances being: 18.370 01' 57.76 feet; 19.660 24' 138.13 feet; 2- 20.440 01' 114.46 feet; 21.670 01' 134.84 feet; 22. 1020 13' 107.13 feet; 23.690 30' 13997 feet; 24.310 40' 114.38 feet; 25.880 52' 64.54 feet; 26. 1140 04' 60.04 feet; 27.770 28' 132.01 feet; 28. 1520 18' 10" 95.72 feet along Kuakini Highway Realignment Project No. 11A-03-69; 29. 1390 59' 30" 20.75 feet along same; 30.990 48' 30" 35.58 feet along same; 31. 1540 11' 597.05 feet along same to the point of beginning and containing an area of 37.936 Acres. (Refer to Parcel 1 as shown on Exhibit A) The district classification of the following area situated at Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM-5): PARCEL 2) Beginning at the southeast corner of this parcel of land, being the northeast corner of Stream Lot 15, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAILUA," being 9,565.90 feet South and 11,749.51 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: Along Stream Lot 15 for the next thirteen(13) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being: 3- I. 650 05' 2.53 feet; 2. 980 56' 151.87 feet; 3.1210 57' 191.39 feet; 4. 950 15' 205.20 feet; 5. 960 50' 273.37 feet; 6. 740 55' 132.84 feet; 7.1070 39' 54.73 feet 8. 900 53' 191.87 feet; 9.1290 17' 96.53 feet; 10.800 07' 71.22 feet; 11.530 36' 104.76 feet; 12.83" 27' 205.32 feet; 13.840 08' 104.72 feet; Thence along Stream Lot 14 for the next thirteen (13) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being: 14. 2110 20' 30" 763.45 feet; 15. 2170 21' 127.42 feet; 16. 2050 59' 243.59 feet; 17. 224" 49' 148.60 feet; 18. 2460 32' 87.91 feet; 19. 2310 29' 170.64 feet; 4- 20. 256" 01' 140.06 feet; 21. 2310 06' 98.89 feet; 22. 2260 39' 104.41 feet; 23. 2490 49' 53.22 feet; 24. 2700 55' 33.64 feet 25. 2920 56' 83.57 feet; 26. 2760 54' 90.29 feet; 27. 3540 02' 55.41 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 28.210 41' 50"8.60 feet along same; 29. 3590 37' 20" 20.09 feet along same; 30. 50 07' 20" 44.89 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu and along the remainder of R.P. 8217, L.C. Aw. 3660 to John P. Munn; 31. 3550 00' 65.72 feet along the remainder of R.P. 8217, L.C. Aw. 3660 to John P. Munn and along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 32. 30 05' 265.06 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 33.770 08' 20.55 feet along same; 34. 40 39' 203.73 feet along same; 5- 35. 3470 02' 187.60 feet along same; 36. 3370 00' 679.20 feet along same to the point of beginning and containing an area of 30.901 Acres. Refer to Parcel 2 as shown on Exhibit A). The district classification of the following area situated at Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, shall be Single Family Residential(RS-15): PARCEL 3) Beginning at the southwest corner of this parcel of land and on the easterly side of Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAILUA," being 12,047.12 feet South and 11,089.83 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: Along Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road for the next thirty-six (36) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being: 1.1720 54' 30" 186.38 feet; 2.1770 19' 91.93 feet; 3.1670 17' 30" 51.67 feet; 4.1850 12' 69.99 feet; 5.1920 52' 74.50 feet; 6.1730 31' 30" 20.57 feet; 7.1610 40' 30" 49.48 feet; 8.1410 33' 41.74 feet; 9.1280 06' 63.19 feet; 6- 10. 1350 52' 140.78 feet; 11. 1240 23' 30" 65.66 feet; 12. 1130 18' 37.19 feet; 13. 1190 09' 30" 50.14 feet; 14. 1110 13' 30" 24.45 feet; 15. 1070 15' 108.48 feet; 16. 1020 13' 70.44 feet; 17. 1120 58' 84.72 feet; 18. 1150 15' 30" 178.23 feet; 19. 1210 06' 87.41 feet; 20. 1110 55' 32.57 feet; 21. 1100 49' 30" 55.63 feet; 22. 1040 37' 24.92 feet; 23. 1040 38' 30" 35.05 feet; 24. 1020 57' 30" 40.04 feet; 25. 1120 43' 30" 58.53 feet; 26. 1020 40' 32.94 feet; 27.950 37' 30" 32.48 feet; 28. 1040 23' 85.44 feet; 29.910 43' 44.66 feet; 7- 30.990 18' 30" 25.27 feet; 31. 1120 14' 66.03 feet; 32. 1170 51' 30" 31.69 feet; 33. 1250 07' 43.90 feet; 34. 1340 37' 30" 40.62 feet; 35. 1340 37' 30" 41.48 feet; 36. 1340 00' 30" 47.64 feet; 37. 1540 11' 400.86 feet along Kuakini Highway Realignment, Project No. 11A-03-69; 38. 2400 28' 30" 1,332.99 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu (Lot 4); 39. 150" 28' 30" 337.56 feet along same; Thence along Stream Lot 15 for the next ten (10) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being: 40. 2330 36' 91.73 feet; 41. 2600 07' 29.64 feet; 42. 3090 17' 89.97 feet; 43. 2700 53' 203.93 feet; 44. 2860 30' 113.50 feet; 45. 2670 11' 352.71 feet; 46. 2750 15' 185.94 feet; 47. 3010 57' 189.37 feet; 8- 48. 2780 56' 182.35 feet; 49. 2450 05' 10.28 feet; 50. 3450 30' 902.50 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu and along the remainder of Grant 3630 to W.H. Cornwell; 51. 334" 30' 969.30 feet along the remainder of R.P. 4475, L.C. Aw. 7713, Ap. 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 52. 20 00' 537.04 feet along same; 53.860 5 P 30" 120.73 feet along Grant 988 to Kamalo; 54.930 48' 45.22 feet along same; 55.840 14' 106.16 feet along same; 56. 1040 06' 30" 41.60 feet along same; 57.770 41' 30" 76.19 feet along Grant 988 to Kamalo and along Grant 1591 to Hoolawaihonua; Thence along Grant 1591 to Hoolawaihonua for the next nine (9) courses, the direct azimuths and distances being; 58.820 34' 126.79 feet; 59. 142" 5 P 32.82 feet; 60.810 37' 106.15 feet; 61.670 57' 30" 30.29 feet; 62.830 03' 30" 258.61 feet; 63.720 49' 30" 90.07 feet; 9- 64.840 37' 30" 76.23 feet; 65.780 08' 62.37 feet; 66.820 02' 30" 157.05 feet to the point of beginning and containing an area of 103.293 Acres. (Refer to Parcel 3 as shown on Exhibit A) All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. These changes in district classification are conditioned upon the following: A) the zoning for the property shall be effective only after: (1) there are assurances satisfactory to the Departments of Water Supply and Planning, upon consultation with the State Department of Health, and the Division of Water and Land Development of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, that a water source of sufficient quality and quantity has been established within two years from the effective date of this ordinance; provided that a maximum one-year extension to the two-year time limit may be granted by the Planning Director with reasonable and sufficient justification; and (2) an agreement, accompanied by an appropriate surety bond or other acceptable security, is executed with the Department of Water Supply for the actual development of a proven water source and its water transmission and distribution system within one year from the official date of compliance with condition A (1); provided that a one-year extension to the one-year time limit may be granted by the Planning Director with 10- reasonable and sufficient justification; or(3) the Department of Water Supply issues a water commitment for the proposed development; B) no subdivision or development of any portion of the land shall occur unless and until condition A has been complied with; C) the Planning Director shall be mandated to initiate action for the repeal of this ordinance if conditions A or B have not been complied with; D) the petitioner, its assigns of successors, shall be responsible for complying with all conditions of approval; E) the zoning for the 49+ acres designated by the State Land Use Commission as its second zoning increment shall not become effective until that land is certified by that commission to be within the Urban District; F) the RS zoned area shall be developed in two increments. The first increment shall consist of a maximum of 59.5+contiguous acres, and the second, the remaining area. The effective date of zoning for the second increment shall be after development has occurred in the first increment, as determined by the Planning Director. 'Development" means the applicant has completed the on-site and off-site improvements within the first increment of the RS zoned area and has dedicated the roadway to the County; G) subdivision plans for the first increment of the RS zoned area shall be submitted within one year from the effective date of the zoning. Final subdivision approval shall be secured within two years from the effective date of this amendment; 11- H) the RM zoned area shall be developed in two increments. The first increment shall consist of a maximum of 42 acres of the Multiple Family Residential zoned land and the second increment, the remaining area. The effective date of zoning for the second increment shall be after the applicant has completed the on-site and off-site improvements of the first increment of the RM zoned area and has dedicated the improvements to the County; I) plans for the development within the first increment of the RM zoned area shall be submitted to the Planning Department and final plan approval secured within five years from the effective date of this sixth amendment. Construction shall commence within one year from the date of receipt of final plan approval and be completed within three years thereafter; J) should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance; K) housing opportunities for Hawaii residents shall be provided in accordance with the condition imposed by the State Land Use Commission. The number of units and manner in which they are to be provided shall meet with the approval of the Hawaii County Housing Agency; L) improvements to the intersections with Kuakim Highway and the Kuakim Highway Extension shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, Highways Division. The intersection 12- improvements shall be constructed concurrently with the development of the first increment of the RS or RM zoned areas, whichever occurs first; M) no direct access shall be provided for the lots within the RS zoned area from the mauka-makai collector road; N) the roadways and stubout within the RM zoned area shall be constructed to dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion. Where a roadway crosses a zone line or if a zone line should divide a roadway, the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks shall be provided for the entire right-of-the-way and shall continue to the nearest intersection in order to avoid telescoping and to provide consistent improvement; 0) at a minimum, roadways and stubouts within the RS zoned area shall be provided with paved shoulders and paved swales meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon completion; P) the method of sewage disposal shall meet with the approval of the appropriate governmental agencies; Q) a drainage master plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any subdivision or plan approvals. The plan shall include, as a minimum,hydrological and hydraulic calculations for all components of the drainage system, a construction timetable for all elements of the system, and an analysis of downstream impacts. Further, mitigating measures 13- as approved by the Department of Public Works shall be taken to eliminate any downstream impacts; R) an intensive archaeological survey shall be conducted for the entire property and a report shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any subdivision or plan approvals; S) should any unanticipated archaeological sites be found during land preparation activities, work shall immediately stop and the Planning Department notified. Work shall not resume in the affected area until clearance is given by the Planning Department; T) prior to the Final Approval of the second increment, the applicant, its successors of assigns shall pay for any additional real property taxes owed for the new residential assessed value of the subject property which was previously taxed at the agricultural rate; and U) an initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1) the non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence; 2) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the general plan or zoning code; 3) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone; 14- 4) the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year); and 5) if the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." SECTION 2. Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of the ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: 4CICIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: November 8, 2002 Date of 1 st Reading: November 8, 2002 Date of 2nd Reading: November 20, 2002 Effective Date: Novpember 27, 2002 FE JCE- Cuiilaa. 760 15- s E..-^T'^kms"i`'r-- a..••ec9'd+'A!A@dL -_ -mce<L¢NbiF n, r.:s:iL :a'dY..GG`!+-k R.tiz:i a ^'G+p T'a.•••i.np Net'.•G_ N' .m%'a3.v Q'SJH ! 1 of w• - fi 1 E -U- 11 e c- / .e dr 1/ a i -- LLizfes Q if Ir f t E tN115 1. IN 3 M , is XV rw 44 1 1..,' \ t vr.Xy :. a t'\ a k(r 7A/\-• \`\ \ _-_. _ c - f; .,y -g igc,n 3` sx q L o Q b.mF C 6 aI j Q, 43 d OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK County of Hawaii Hilo Hawaii ROLL CALL VOTE Introduced By: Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd f AYES NOES - ABS EX Date Introduced: November 8, 2002 Arakaki X First Reading: November 8, 2002 Chung X Published: N/A Elarionoff e X Jacobson X REMARKS: Leithead-Todd X Pisicchio X Safarik X Tyler X Yagong X 9 0 0 0 Second Reading: November 20, 2002 ROLL CALL VOTE To Mayor: NnvPm es 25 , 2002 AYES NOES ABS EX Returned: November 29 , 2002 Arakaki X Effective: November 27 , 2002 Chung X Published: December 10 , 2002 Elarionoff X Jacobson X REMARKS: Leithead-Todd X Pisicchio X Safarik X Tyler X Yagong X 7 0 2 0 I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council published as indicated above. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: C CIL CHAIRMAN W'L DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTY OF HAWAII COUNTY CLERK Date Bill No.: 268 C-768/PC-105 Ge Disapproved this c day Reference: Ord No.: 13 1` of oY2 20 0"' YOR, STY OF HA WA II FILE COPYWichellD. Roar Z.cndo Kern T,iCc E, I_nrel JeffCeV W I)LIrr0 W L1rnIirg?rrQ BOFW rr ti a,iF: tom-e" 4 l:c+:r, fJ r Yror eta••Nair,. Wes,[Hawaii 4711ice Futit rauWpd`L OffiVc 4-5iN,l Arts K=1wrrkS]u1r IlWy 101 P;Iij Lh$Ircci. Kmkia-Koro,ainwai'3 46740 County of Hawaii Hllo.Hawk,I96.,. U Fax t+30R1327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fit,%NC8} s 2 September 13, 202 l Environmental Review Program Office of planning R11 d SUS€alnable Development 235 S. Beretanitt St., Pun. 702 11011u1tllu, 111 96813 ldc 1r Director, Subject:Final Environmental.Assessment (FEA) and Finding of'Sty Significant Impact(F ONSI) for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Projeci Location: North bona District, Island of 1lawairi TM K-s :3 7-6-021:016 — 01% With this letter, the Courtly of Hawaii Planning Department (Accepting Authority) hereby transmits electronicahy the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Sigaificant Impact (PfA-FONSI) for the proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project for publication in the next available edition of the Environmental Notice. The Royal Vistas Housing Project is being proposed to constnict Lip to 450 multi-family residential units in clusters of two- and three-stury buildings on approximately 70 acres of land, Additional irnprovernents are also planned such as landscaping,roudways,and utilities. The Draft B.nvironnacnial Assessment and .Anticipated Finding of No Significant Tinpact (T)f:A- AFO SI) was published in the OFQC's SeptemI r 8, 2020, issue of the Environmental Notice. The FFA includes copies of comments received anal the corresponding responsc5 from the applicant that were received during tic 30--day public Cl1IY incia period on the DEA-AFQNSI. Based or the findirig from fart 5 of'the F A, the Nanning Dcpartment has determined that this project will not have to "significant effect" or "si nific{ant tinpaet" on the quality of the environmcnt and have therefore issued a FC NSL This FON S1 does not constitute approval of the project or of any project cornp€tnents or proposed uses. 2 - 036 ti\"15r t.i]flrr Ill?',"I:lr5 i111:Vlli r',„f l4 Fluuyn'r CoeirU, r%irrr F.7u;7+r.1;.'arr airrr,n-Fr r•1 PfV! r:r:+I rrtyri0kilr y ta lgting h ltay.011CluknaY G)i17k ERP/EN September 13,2021 Page 2 If there are any questions regarding this letter or the project, please contact Alex Rey of our Planning Department staff at (808) 961-8140 or via c=ail at Alex.Roy(o1awancouat ,g_v- Sincerely, 1 11:35 HST) JEFFREY W. DAR.ROW Deputy Planning Director A1R:jaa coh0i pianiiing publiclwpwin641C:GMLtllcn\2021lXoyal Vass FD tn_fsEQC: FEA.dae 036 From: webmasterCcbhawaii.aov To: DBEDT OPSD Environmental Review Proaram Subject: New online submission for The Environmental Notice Date:Thursday,September 16,2021 3:10:47 PM Action Name Royal Vistas Housing Project Type of Document/Determination Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact(FEA-FONSI) HRS§343-5(a)Trigger(s) 1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds Judicial district North Kona,Hawai'i Tax Map Key(s)(TMK(s)) 3)7-6-021:016; (3)7-6-021:017; (3)7-6-021:018; (3)7-6-021:019 Action type Applicant Other required permits and approvals Grading Permit, Drainage Plan (County DPW); Building Permits and Plan Approval (County DPW and Planning); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit(State DOH); Chapter 6E, HRS, determination from State Historic Preservation Division on historic property effects (obtained) Discretionary consent required Approval of Amendments to Zoning Ordinance (County Council) Approving agency County of Hawai'i Planning Department Agency contact name Alex Roy Agency contact email (for info about the action) alex.roy6d hawaiicounty_gov Email address or URL for receiving comments plan nina(d)hawaiicounty_gov Agency contact phone 808)961-8140 Agency address COUNTY OF HAWAI'I PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 PAUAHI STREET, SUITE 3 Hilo, HI 96720 United States Map It Applicant Kona Three LLC Applicant contact name Richard Wheelock Applicant contact email richard(o)eastwestrealty.ora Applicant contact phone 808)753-3167 Applicant address 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720 United States Map It Was this submittal prepared by a consultant? Yes Consultant Stantec Consulting and Geometrician Associates LLC Consultant contact name Michele Lefebvre Consultant contact email michele.lefebvre(a)stantec.com Consultant contact phone 808)494-2039 Consultant address P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 United States Map It Action summary The proposed project is located approximately 2.7 miles south of downtown Kailua-Kona and would consist of necessary improvements to construct up to 450 multi-family residential units in clusters of two- and three-story buildings on approximately 70 acres. Units would target local renters and buyers in the market" price points. The project is the final phase of the original zoning ordinance (No. 84-23)signed on May 15, 1984, and includes the multi-family zoned land which was planned for work-force housing. Electrical and sewer would be extended from nearby utility grid terminus and water commitments have already been purchased for the project. The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts from surface water run-off. Traffic impacts would be minimized with a new un-signalized intersection off Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. No impacts to biological resources, historic or archaeological resources, or cultural sites or practices are expected from the project. Reasons supporting determination 1) Irrevocably commit a natural, cultural, or historic resource. No valuable natural or cultural resources would be committed or lost as a result of the Proposed Project. No impacts to archaeological resources would occur with the planned preservation of the railroad berm and petroglyph. 2)Curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment; The proposed mid-market housing development does not curtail beneficial uses of the environment and is consistent with the medium density zoning in the LUPAG and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona CDP. 3)Conflict with the State's environmental policies or long-term environmental goals established by law; The State's long-term environmental policies are set forth in Chapter 344, HRS. The broad goals of this policy are to conserve natural resources and enhance the quality of life. The impact from the Proposed Project is minor and, therefore, is consistent with all elements of the State's long-term environmental policies and environmental goals. 4) Have a substantial adverse effect on the economic welfare,social welfare,or cultural practices of the community and State; The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the social welfare of the community and would contribute to services. The Proposed Project would generate work for the local construction industry, which would stimulate local economic spending. The Proposed Project would balance the social welfare of the community by providing infill mid-market housing and allow resident households better access and the ability to safely manage commutes between home,work, and recreation. Stable households lead to stable communities and associated workforce, and promotes a functional economy. 5) Have a substantial adverse effect on public health; The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design. 6) Involve adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities; No adverse secondary effects are expected since the development would utilize existing infrastructure, provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County services. 7) Involve a substantial degradation of environmental quality; The impact from the Proposed Project is minor, and would thus not contribute to environmental degradation. BMPs and appropriate erosion control measures would be utilized during construction. Short-term impacts on air and noise quality will be mitigated by employing BMPs. No long-term adverse impacts are expected from the Proposed Project. 8) Be individually limited but cumulatively have substantial adverse effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions; The Proposed Project is not related to other activities in the region in such a way as to produce adverse cumulative effects or involve a commitment for larger actions. 9) Have a substantial adverse effect on a rare, threatened, or endangered species,or its habitat; There are no rare, threatened, or endangered species or suitable habitat for these species present at the Project Site, and no effects to these species are anticipated. Endangered Hawaiian hoary bats and formerly listed Hawaiian hawks,which are island wide-ranging species,would experience no adverse impacts due to mitigation in the form of timing of vegetation removal and/or hawk nest survey. Additionally, no rare, threatened,or endangered species of fauna are known to exist on or near the Project Site, and none would be directly affected by any project activities. 10) Have a substantial adverse effect on air or water quality or ambient noise levels; No adverse effects on air quality or noise would occur. The increase in noise levels on the site are acceptable and would be only a moderate increase in the existing levels. To minimize impacts to air quality during construction,the Proposed Project would implement a watering program for dust abatement. Other control measures during construction such as limiting the area that can be disturbed at any given time, applying chemical soil stabilizers, mulching and/or using wind screens would also be utilized as necessary to minimize impacts to air quality. 11) Have a substantial adverse effect on or be likely to suffer damage by being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain,tsunami zone, sea level rise exposure area, beach, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal waters; Although the property is located in an area with volcanic and seismic risk,the entire Island of Hawai'i shares this risk, and the Proposed Project is not imprudent to construct.The property is approximately 0.85 miles from the shoreline and the development is outside any flood plain. Based on potential impacts from climate change,the Proposed Project has been designed to accommodate increased stormwater run-off from larger storms in the adjacent drainages and on site. 12) Have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas and viewplanes, during day or night, identified in county or state plans or studies; or No scenic vistas or viewplanes identified in the Hawai'i County General Plan will be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. 13) Require substantial energy consumption or emit substantial greenhouse gases. The development would have solar water heating and incorporate efficient appliances, as practical and possible. Negligible emissions of greenhouse gases would occur during construction and occupation of the proposed development. Since the Project addresses an existing demand for housing, it is expected that a portion of the residents that would occupy the development already live in Kona or on Hawai'i Island, and there would not be a substantial increase in emissions when residents occupy the Project. Therefore, Project impacts would be considered a negligible increase to the global annual greenhouse gas emissions. Attached documents(signed agency letter&EA/EIS) Final_EA_Royal Vistas.September.2021.pdf RoyalVistas_PD toOEQC_FEA.pdf Shapefile The location map for this Final EA is the same as the location map for the associated Draft EA. Action location map RoyalVistas TMKs.zip Authorized individual Alex J. Roy Authorization The above named authorized individual hereby certifies that he/she has the authority to make this submission. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Royal Vistas Housing Project TMKs (3) 7-6-021 :016, 7-6-021 :017, 7-6-021 :018, and 7-6-021 :019 North Kona District, Hawai`i Island State of Hawai`i September 2021 Applicant Kona Three LLC 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720 Approving Agency County of Hawai`i Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Royal Vistas Housing Project TMKs (3) 7-6-021 :016, 7-6-021 :017, 7-6-021 :018, and 7-6-021 :019 North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, State of Hawai`i APPLICANT: Kona Three LLC 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720 APPROVING AGENCY: County of Hawai`i Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 CONSULTANT: Stantec Consulting Inc.Geometrician Associates P.O. Box 191 P.O. Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 Hilo, HI 96721 CLASS OF ACTION: Use of County Lands This document is prepared pursuant to: The Hawai`i Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 343, Hawai`i Revised Statutes, and Title 11 , Chapter 200.1 , Hawai`i Department of Health Administrative Rules this page intentionally let blank] TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 : PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................................................. 1 1 .1 Project Location and Property Ownership............................................ 1 1 .2 Project Description .................................................................................. 1 1 .3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................. 5 1 .4 Environmental Assessment Process...................................................... 13 1 .5 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination ................................. 13 PART 2: ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 15 2.1 Proposed Project................................................................................... 15 2.2 No Action ............................................................................................... 15 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 15 PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES.............................. 18 3.1 General Setting...................................................................................... 18 3.2 Environmental Consequences............................................................. 18 3.3 Physical Environment ............................................................................ 19 3.3.1 Climate, Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards ..................... 19 3.3.2 Flood Zones and Drainage ........................................................ 22 3.3.3 Water Quality and Water Quantity........................................... 26 3.3.4 Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems ................................................... 28 3.3.5 Noise............................................................................................. 35 3.3.6 Air Quality and Scenic Resources ............................................. 37 3.3.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes.............................................. 38 3.4 Socioeconomics.................................................................................... 39 3.5 Cultural Practices and Sites.................................................................. 41 3.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources.............................................. 46 3.7 Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 49 3.7.1 Utilities and Public Services including Wastewater Treatment and Solid Waste Management......................................... 49 3.7.2 Traffic............................................................................................ 51 3.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................. 60 3.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................ 60 3.10 Unresolved Issues ................................................................................... 60 3.11 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................... 60 3.12 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies ............................. 61 3.12,1 Hawai`i State Land Use Law, Hawai`i State Plan, and State Housing Functional Plan.............................................................. 61 3.12.2 Coastal Zone Management Program (Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes)....................................................................... 68 3.12.3 Hawaii County Zoning, Special Management Area, andGeneral Plan .................................................................................. 69 Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment i 3,12A Kona Community Development Plan....................................... 72 PART 4: DETERMINATION .......................................................................................... 74 PART 5: FINDINGS AND REASONS............................................................................ 75 PART6: REFERENCES................................................................................................. 78 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Plant Species Observed in the Project Site .............................................. 29 Table 2 Bird Species Observed in the Project Site.................................................31 Table 3 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics................................................39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Map ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2 Proposed Roads and Existing Ditches in the Project Site..................... 8 Figure 3 Conceptual Building Layout................................................................. 10 Figure 4 Two-Story and Three-Story Building Schematic .................................. 11 Figure 5 Concepts for Building Layout............................................................... 12 Figure 6 Sea Level Rise Exposure Map ............................................................... 22 Figure 7 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRM Map.............................................. 24 Figure 8 Local Intersections Studied for the Project .........................................54 Figure 9 Proposed Improvements to Project Intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu..........................................................................................55 Figure 10 Close-up of Proposed Improvements to Project Intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu.............................................................................56 Figure 11 CDP Transportation Network Map in the Vicinity of the Project.......58 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 a Early Consultation Letters APPENDIX lb Comments on Draft EA and Responses APPENDIX 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) APPENDIX 3 Biological Survey Results APPENDIX 4 Cultural Impact Assessment APPENDIX 5 Archaeological Inventory Survey Reports APPENDIX 6 Archaeological Preservation Plan Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment ii SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project is located approximately 2.7 miles south of downtown Kailua-Kona and would consist of necessary improvements to construct up to 450 multi-family residential units in clusters of two- and three-story buildings on approximately 70 acres. The following are estimates for the number of units, floor plans, bedroom/bathroom counts, and buildings heights. The numbers may be adjusted during final design and permitting. The development would conceptually include approximately 174 "For Rent" units consisting of 122 two- bedroom/two-bath units and 52 three-bedroom/two-bath units plus a resident manager's unit, all in two-story buildings on the makai portion of the project site. The development would also include approximately 274 "For Sale" units consisting of 147 two bedroom/two-bath units and 137 three-bedroom/two-bath units plus a resident manager's unit. The "For Sale" units would be located in approximately ten two-story buildings and approximately 39 three-story buildings, with the two- story buildings being four units each and the three-story buildings being six units each. Parking would consist of a mix of covered and open spaces for residents and guests. The project would be developed in two or more phases, with Phase I having a maximum of 258 units and Phase 11 having the balance of 192 units. Phase I would include all the Rental units and some Sale units. Both Rental and Sale units would target local renters and buyers in the "market" price points. There would be two Community Centers, one for the Rental units and one for the Sale units. Each center would have a pool and facilities for use by the residents. The development would be compliant with American with Disabilities Act Standards for accessible design. The project is the final phase of the original zoning ordinance (No. 84-23) signed on May 15, 1984, and includes the multi-family zoned land which was planned for work-force housing. Electrical and sewer would be extended from nearby utility grid terminus and water commitments have already been purchased for the project. The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts from surface water run-off. Traffic impacts would be minimized with a new un-signalized intersection serving the project off Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. No impacts to biological resources, historic or archaeological resources, or cultural sites or practices, are expected from the project. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment iii this page intentionally left blank] Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment iv PART 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1.1 Project Location and Property Ownership Kona Three LLC (Kona Three) proposes to develop the Royal Vista Housing Project Proposed Project") which would occur within Tax Map Keys (TMKs) (3) 7-6- 021 :016, 7-6-021 :017, 7-6-021 :018, and 7-6-021 :019 in North Kona ("Project Site") as shown on Figures 1 and 2. Kona Three owns TMKs 7-6-021 :016 and 7-6-021 :017 which together cover approximately 69 acres, while the County of Hawai'i Department of Public Works (DPW) manages TMKs 7-6-021 :018 and 7-6-021 :019 which together cover approximately 7.3 acres. The Project Site is located 2.7 miles south of downtown Kailua-Kona along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway Highway 19). Photos 1 and 2 were taken at the Project Site. 1.2 Project Description Housing Project Kona Three proposes to construct up to 450 multi-family residential units in clusters of two- and three-story buildings on approximately 70 acres. A conceptual drawing of the layout of the buildings is shown on Figure 3. The following are estimates for the number of "For Rent" and "For Sale" units, floor plans, bedroom/bathroom counts, and buildings heights. Although the numbers may be adjusted during final design and permitting, the EA analyzes the maximum building height of three stories and the maximum number of units (450 units). The medium density development would include approximately 174 "For Rent" units consisting of 122 two-bedroom/two-bath units and 52 three-bedroom/two-bath units plus a resident manager's unit, all in two-story buildings on the makai portion of the Project Site. A property management firm would manage the rental units. A schematic showing the site sections for two- and three-story buildings is shown on Figure 4, and the concepts for layout shown on Figure 5. The development would also include approximately 274 "For Sale" units consisting of 147 two bedroom/two-bath units and 137 three-bedroom/two-bath units plus a resident manager's unit. The "For Sale" units would be located in ten two-story buildings and 39 three-story buildings, with the two-story buildings being four units each and the three-story buildings being six units each. Parking would consist of a mix of covered and open spaces for residents and guests. A comment from Gary East on the Draft EA asked about walkability within the development (Appendix Private driveways within the development would be paved and provide safe access for residents (including streetlights). Additionally, the location of walk paths within the development would be determined upon final design. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 1 The Project would be developed in two or more phases, with Phase I having a maximum of 258 units and Phase 11 having the balance of 192 units. Phase I would include all the Rental units and some Sale units. Both Rental and Sale units would target local renters and buyers in the "market" price points. Phase I is expected to be completed by 2024, and Phase 11 is expected to be completed by 2029. There would be two Community Centers, one for the Rental units and one for the Sale units. Each center would have a pool and facilities for use by the residents. A comment from Clyde Hemby on the Draft EA asked whether the proposed development would comply with accessibility standards (Appendix 1 b). The development would be compliant with American with Disabilities Act Standards for accessible design. Construction could start as early as third quarter of 2021 , following Plan Approval and construction permits, and would be expected to last 12 to 18 months. Construction would be conducted in accordance with any applicable COVID-19 emergency proclamations in place at that time. The Project is the final residential development identified in the zoning ordinance No. 84-23) signed in 1984. The original zoning ordinance and subsequent amendments included the following: 103 acres for 215 single-family units; 71 acres for multi-family, mid-market' units (the Proposed Project); and An additional 12 acres acquired at the behest of the County of Hawai`i, Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) at TMK (3): 7-6- 24:025. The development of the single-family units on 103 acres was mostly completed by the previous developer. The previous developers built and installed roadways, intersection, and drainage improvements, as well as driveways, light poles, utility infrastructure, landscaping, and other assets for the new community. The 12-acre area for the affordable housing project is located on what are now TMKs (3) 7-6- 24:25, 112, and 113 and the area could be developed in the near future. As a condition in the zoning ordinance, Kona Three had an agreement to convey the 12 acres of land for the affordable housing when construction of the Project's drainage system is completed. A comment from Martin Ohan on the Draft EA asked about the affordable housing project (Appendix 1 b). If OHCD decides not to pursue an affordable housing project at this location, Kona Three would negotiate a new agreement with OHCD to satisfy the requirement of the zoning ordinance using options such as dedicating some of the Project's units for affordable housing, providing affordable housing elsewhere off-site in Kona, acquiring affordable housing credits from another location in Kona, or a combination of these options. I Mid-market refers to the price point that the Project targets, which is in between the subsidized housing market and the wealthy or upper middle market groups. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 2 Electrical and sewer service would be extended from nearby public grid terminus and water commitments have already been purchased for the Project. The Project is in an urban area located between Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates subdivisions and is in close proximity to major roadways, recreational opportunities, and essential services, including grocery and wholesale stores, employment, hospital/clinics, public transit, gas stations, schools, financial institutions, government agencies/ services, and the airport. To address housing shortages in Kona, the Kona Community Development Plan CDP) identifies Objective HSG-4: Build More Units and Policy HSG-4.2: Workforce Housing. The workforce gap group (up to 180% of median income) includes the part of the population that earns too much to qualify for affordable housing programs, yet too little to buy or rent decent housing close to their jobs. The Project would build units that offer a variety of housing types for both the rental and buyer segments of the mid-market which includes the workforce group. Although the Project is not specifically a workforce project, it would provide a housing option for the workforce gap group. The Project is an infill project located within the Kona Urban Area as designated by the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7 in the Kona CDP), although it is not in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) area nor within a CDP Concurrency Zone. As stated in the CDP, "Within this Kona Urban Growth Area, growth would be directed to compact villages located along proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development." The Proposed Project is consistent with this designation. Roads The existing Zoning Ordinance for the Project requires Kona Three to build three main road segments to County dedicable standards and to dedicate these segments to the County. Specifically, these segments are laid out in the "Official Transportation Network Map - Nani Kailua Area" as part of the County's plan to expand the road grid to help alleviate traffic and provide safer driving conditions. These segments that are designed include: to connect County-owned Leilani Street (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Ho'omama Street (in the Pualani Estates project); to connect County-owned Kekuana'oa Place (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Paulehia Street (in the Pualani Estates project); and to connect these new roads to each other within the Project area. Kona Three is required to build and dedicate these roads by Ordinance. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 3 The Proposed Project would extend Kekuana`oa Place, it would construct Royal Vistas Roadway, and it would construct the Leilani Street extension in the Project Site as shown on Figure 2. The Proposed Project would stub-out the Leilani Street extension on the southern Project Site boundary and would not connect it across the private parcel (TMK (3) 7-6-021 :014 owned by the Calvary Community Church of Kona) to the existing Leilani Street. Comments from Gary East and John Powell on the Draft EA were provided regarding sidewalks and gutters within the development (Appendix 1 b). These road segments that would be built to dedicable standards would include sidewalks and curved cutters. None of the roads proposed for the Project would be connected to Ho`omama Street and Paulehia Street. Those connections occur across another privately-owned parcel TMK (3) 7-6-013:004 north of the Project Site not controlled by Kona Three. In response to public comments on the Draft EA, Figure 3 shows the phasing of when the connector roads would be built. Drainage Improvements TMKs 7-6-021 :018 and 7-6-021 :019 are owned and managed by the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works (DPW) as drainages located adjacent to the proposed housing development (Figure 1). TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19 encompasses approximately 4.25 acres, includes part of the Holualoa Ditch, and runs along the southern boundary of the Project Site. Infrastructure during Phase II of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadwav across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the KCDP Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 illustrates where the Holualoa Ditch is located. This improvement is the HEPA trigger for the EA since it crosses County- owned land. TMK (3) 7-6-21 :18 encompasses approximately 3.0 acres, includes the mauka portion of the Horseshoe Bend Ditch proximate to the Project, and runs between the two subject parcels of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the KDCP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 also illustrates the location of the Horseshoe Bend Ditch. This is also a HEPA trigger for the EA. The makai portion of the Horseshoe Bend Ditch is located within the Project Site TMK (3) 7-6-21 :016), and as part of the Project this portion would be channelized where it is primarily sheet flow and moved closer to the northern Project boundary to make room for the planned roadway intersection at Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at the location approved by the State Department of Transportation Highways Division. Aside from the drainage improvements, utilities, and roadways, Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 4 the applicant is not proposing to construct any additional structures in the County-owned-parcels. In response to comments received on the Draft EA (Appendix 1 bl, additional detail regarding the need for the drainage improvements as well as possible improvement options are discussed with more context in Section 3.3.2. 1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Project is to complete the final phase of the project and provide multi-family mid-market housing in North Kona. According to the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP), although home construction has outpaced population growth, Kona continues to experience a housing crisis as the production of new homes has been skewed to upper income levels. The project would "provide housing choices" to residents of North Kona, consistent with several of the guiding principles in the CDP. The Project is the final phase of the larger development project that includes Kona Vistas, which was approved as part of the same zoning ordinance passed in 1984 and is needed to provide mid-market housing (for rent and for sale) in North Kona in a centrally located area near existing infrastructure, including shopping, schools, and job centers, and easily accessible from existing main roads and utility grids. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 5 this page intentionally left blank] Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 6 Figure 1 Project Location Map S FF t' 17s"n:.. w t d Yl 5tantec k Protect Site 9 Iw Figural W.W ProJeef Loaoilon E 3 r wEcrua ta wo-5e a r Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 7 Figure 2 Proposed Roads and Existing Ditches in the Project Site t 1 kE S$ s 4 kk o R:3gr Prajaot Slte I—1C pmanl Proje l Y§ Proposed County Dedlcated Rcodways 3 Y 1 XI y County EnistIng Road REA Plnpvsed Raad ondFx".g Dtiche In the Pmject Slfa y•f Ir•4w+rrr''a'a4 r•44 W Ir Ikairvw IamNl rw y['.Nnal u[4m14r1 Nwm16YY N'aphR01M aNg4 W 4 44wlgwnwraT Ira GRu, I.r .Ir+ntalr..Hrrh.r,.t'arrri,rf x.NII•wum,y•r:,M1,...a.i..,aur.rnr'a7Fry'o+v"KnI YS N`Irlrla'Nlmti•VIM 04M Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 8 Photo 1 Project Site:Mid-makai section (looking west) Photo 2 Project Site:Mauka section (looking northeast) a Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 9 Figure 3 Conceptual Building Layout 4. C.-..., I Qiw I.I4 1 !'11111 11 I F,,1,•II 11}Irl am..,, A•1.1 Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 10 Figure 4 Two-Story and Three-Story Building Schematic A 9e 3e iai b• 51[e SE tklTlS I`la er I}nn nr 110 YriS n Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 11 Figure 5 Concepts for Building Layout C. ri TI—a.,y F-,Lhi. Throe&kxr SL.LW. Mmikr Mail 11w How I ViNh A-2.1 Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 12 1.4 Environmental Assessment Process This Environmental Assessment (EA) process is being conducted in accordance with Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). This law, along with its implementing regulations, Title 11 , Chapter 200.1, of the Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR), is the basis for the environmental impact process in the State of Hawaii. Section 343-5, HRS established nine types of actions that "trigger" compliance. The use of State or County lands is one of these "triggers." Since portions of the Proposed Project cross parcels (TMK (3) 7-6-21 :18 and 19) that are controlled by the County of Hawaii DPW, compliance with HRS and HAIR is required. According to Chapter 343, an EA is prepared to determine impacts associated with an action, to develop mitigation measures for adverse impacts, and to determine whether any of the impacts are significant according to thirteen specific criteria. Part 4 of this document states the anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact; Part 5 provides a review and analysis of the "Significance Criteria" defined in Section 12 of the Chapter 1 1-200.1 , HAR. In the EA process, if the approving agency determines after considering comments to the Draft EA that no significant impacts would likely occur, then the agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the action is permitted to proceed to obtaining any other discretionary permits and approvals. If the agency concludes that significant impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action, then an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared to analyze the impacts and identify mitigation. 1.5 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination The following agencies and organizations were consulted in development of the EA: Federal: National Park Service, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State: Department of Education Department of Land and Natural Resources Department of Transportation Governor's Office State Historic Preservation Division Office of Hawaiian Affairs Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 13 County: Civil Defense Agency County Council Department of Environmental Management Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Fire Department Mass Transit Agency Planning Department Police Department Private: Inter Pacific Motors Inc. Sierra Club Calvary Community Church of Kona Kona Vistas Community Association Copies of communications received during early consultation are contained in Appendix 1 a and relevant aspects of reply letters are discussed in the text of the EA. Notice of the availability of the Draft EA was published in the August 8, 2020, and September 8, 2020, editions of the Environmental Notice. Appendix 1 b contains written comments on the Draft EA and responses to these comments. Various sections of the EA have been modified to reflect input received in the comment letters. Additional or modified non-procedural text is denoted in double underlines, as in this paragraph. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 14 PART 2; ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Proposed Project The action under consideration is described in Sections 1 .1 to 1 .3, above. 2.2 No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be developed on the site and no ground disturbance associated with the Proposed Project would occur. Under this alternative, there would not be 450 multi-family units available in North Kona at this site. The site is owned by Kona Three; however, under this alternative the parcel could either be held or sold. The parcel could be developed as some other type of project or not be developed for some time. These options would not help the existing and growing mid-market/workforce population in Kona and if it is developed, it is unknown whether it would be developed with both Rental and Sale units. Focusing development within the Kona Urban Area is a guiding principle of the Kona CDP. The no action alternative would fail to focus such uses and provide such improvements within the Kona Urban Area as prescribed by the Kona CDP. Also, under the no action alternative Policy TRAN 2.1 : Connectivity Standards would not occur and there would be no roadway interconnectivity. 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Kona Three considered alternative building configurations, alternative building locations and numbers, alternative access, and different numbers of Rental and Sale units. Kona Three looked at building larger structures more like conventional high- density buildings with a heavier density (zoning of the land allows in excess of 600 units to be built). However, it was decided that the larger structures did not match nearby communities, were less aesthetically pleasing, and would have more environmental impacts than the 450 units of "flats" and "courtyard" styles that are the style for the Proposed Project. Kona Three considered that the larger structures did not offer a lifestyle to the target market (both Rental and Sale units) that is conducive to family living on Hawai`i Island as compared to the "flats" and courtyard" style structures. Alternative design features were considered including wider access roads and stand-alone rather than clustered structures, but these features limited the amount of green space available for the Project. Kona Three's initial land plan (known then as "Kona Village") presented to the community and government officials in late 2018 included 260 of the 450 units contained in three-story buildings to help minimize ground disturbance. Access Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 15 for the first phase of that plan was designed to be from Lako Street via Kekuana'oa Place, in Kona Vistas Phase IV, which would have eventually connected to Paulehia Street in Pualani states. Based on responses from members of the communities of Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates, Kona Three changed the name of the Project from Kona Village, reduced the estimated number of units in three-story buildings from 260 to 156 units (a 40 percent reduction), and moved the access for Phase I from Kekuana'oa Place to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway via a new un-signalized intersection (proposed to be built). These changes were made in response to community concerns about 1) confusing the Project with the similar named "Kona Village Resort," 2) eliminating all three-story buildings on the makai portion of the Project site to reduce visual impacts to existing Kona Vistas residents, and 3) providing separate access to the Project from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to reduce and delay traffic impacts on the Lako Street/Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway intersection as well as traffic on Kekuana'oa Place. In response to community concerns, Kona Three also considered changing the zoning from Multiple-Family Residential, with a minimum building site of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit (RM-5) to either Single-Family Residential District minimum building site area of 10,000 square feet) (RS-10) or Single-Family Residential District (minimum building site area of 15,000 square feet) (RS-15) for the development. However, rezoning to RS-10 or RS-15 would result in a development with homes similar to those already present in the vicinity, which would not meet the purpose and need for the Project to provide housing choices for various community sub-markets compared to the RM-5 zoning. Additionally, if there were a change of zoning that resulted in a reduction of density of less than 450 units, then any left over water credits (which have already been committed and paid for) would be effectively "lost" since they cannot be transferred except to "adjacent" properties. Currently, there is no known plan by the owner to develop the adjacent property. These credits are difficult to obtain and cannot be transferred by County policy, except to adjoining properties. Not building on this site at the proposed density would effectively eliminate a housing project that serves the mid-market/workforce community in the Kona area for the foreseeable future, since any other similar projects would depend on furtherwater improvements in Kona which is a process that would take years. Similarly, the extension of the County sewer system to this Project would allow leveraging Kona's limited amount of sewer capacity required for multi-family housing, in addition to providing the future opportunity to have surrounding, existing properties hook up to the extended sewer system to eliminate environmental contamination. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 16 In the end, none of the other alternatives were found to be optimal for the property or the perceived demand in the market, or resulted in more environmental impacts than the Proposed Project and were eliminated from detailed analysis. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 17 PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 General Setting The two parcels and location of the Project is referred to throughout this EA as the Project Site. The term Project Area is used to describe the general area of North Kona. The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles south of downtown Kailua-Kona on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway adjacent to its intersection with Kuakini Highway. Archaeological studies indicate that the Project Site was used prior to Western contact for a variety of activities, leaving features associated with agriculture, habitation, burial, and transportation (SCS 2016). More recently, the Project Site was farmed for coffee and ranched since the early 1900s. The lower portion of the Project Site was still used to pasture cattle until August 2019; evidence of ranching including fencing, cattle walls, several corrals and cattle chutes are present. The Project Site and surrounding lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s in preparation for a commercial agricultural project, most likely coffee growing. The Project is bounded to the north by undeveloped cattle pasture, to the east and south by residential subdivisions and by Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to the west. Topography at the Project Site is consistent with the vjcjnjty and is relatively steep, with elevations ranging from approximately 330 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 900 feet amsl. 3.2 Environmental Consequences This section of the EA includes a description of the environmental setting of the Project Site as well as the potential impacts from the Proposed Project and alternatives to the resources. Environmental consequences, both primary and secondary, and the cumulative as well as the short-term and long-term impacts are considered. Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts include the direct and indirect impacts of a project together with the reasonably foreseeable future actions of others. Past projects in the vicinity of the Project Site have included the following: flood control projects for the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainageways; urban residential development including Kona Vistas Phases 1 through 4; commercial development west of the Project Site (Scarlet Thread alteration shop, Power Self Storage-Kuakini) and south of the Project Site (Orchid Isle Auto Center); Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 18 construction and use of the Calvary Community Church; as well as a number of infrastructure projects including construction of the Lako Street-Kuakini Highway intersection, construction of the Leilani Street extension, Pualani Street extension, and Kilohana Street extension, and ongoing road maintenance and improvements. The nearest reasonably foreseeable future project is dedication of the three remaining roadway lots (Kona Three is currently working with the County of Hawaii DPW to accept dedication of these). The development of the affordable housing project located approximately 0.1 mile from the Proposed Project to be built by others, makai of Kuakini Highway is also reasonably foreseeable. The affordable housing requirement was part of the original zoning ordinance (1984) and is located on approximately 12 acres. Subject to approval by the OHCD, Kona Three's affiliate which owns the 12 acres would deed the parcel to the County or their nominee to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing development requirement, and the homes would be built by qualified affordable housing developers. If OHCD decides not to pursue an affordable housing project at this location, Kona Three would negotiate a new agreement with OHCD to satisfy the requirement of the zoning ordinance using options such as dedicating some of the Proiect's units for affordable housing, providing affordable housjna elsewhere off-site in Kona, acquiring affordable housing credits from another location in Kona, or a combination of these options. In the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) prepared for the Project (Appendix 2), future road improvements include the widening of Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road by two travel lanes as well as bicycle facilities and sidewalks. The Bike Plan Hawai`i also identifies a signed shared road on Kuakini Highway from Lako Street to Hualalai Road, and a signed shared road on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Kuakini Highway. 3.3 Physical Environment 3.3.1 Climate, Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards Environmental Setting The Project Site has an elevation that varies from 330 feet amsl to 900 feet amsl and receives an average annual rainfall of between 35 and 38 inches, increasing in the mauka direction (Giambelluca et al. 2013). The geologic substrate on most of the Project Site is soil-covered pahoehoe lava flows from Hualalai dated between 5,000 and 10,000 years in age (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the Project Site is classified as Waiaha medial silt loam (Map Unit Symbol 243), on 2 to 10 or 10 to 20 percent slopes, depending on location Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 19 NRCS 2019). This soil forms on ash-covered pahoehoe flows and has a 10- to 25- inch depth to bedrock. It is well drained but also has a high runoff potential (Sato et al. 1973). Hawai`i Island is subject to geologic hazards, such as lava flows and earthquakes. However, the Project Site appears to be stable with no evidence of subsidence or landslides. Volcanic hazard as assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey in this area of North Kona is Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk from 9 to 1 (Heliker 1990). The hazard risk is based on the fact that Hualalai has steep slopes and is the third most historically active volcano on the island. Volcanic hazard Zone 4 areas have about 5 percent of their land area covered by lava or ash flows since the year 1800 and less than 15 percent of their land area covered by lava in the past 750 years. They are at lower risk than Zone 3 areas because the frequency of Hualalai eruptions is lower than those of Kilauea and Mauna Loa. The Island of Hawai`i experiences high seismic activity caused by eruptive process within active volcanoes or by deep structural adjustments due to the weight of the islands on Earth's underlying crust (USGS 2019a). Although the earthquakes are seldom large enough to cause widespread damage, they can produce locally extensive ground fractures and subsidence (USGS 2019b). For example, the 6.6 magnitude earthquake that occurred in 2006 centered just off the northwest shore of Hawai`i Island resulted in widespread damage to buildings and roads in Kona. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geologic Hazards In general, geologic conditions do not impose undue constraints on the Project Site. Building design will meet all appropriate seismic standards ensuring safety for the future residents. Climate Change According to the EPA, global climate change could mean a rise in sea level that could worsen Hawai'i's existing coastal hazards, including waves, hurricanes, and tsunamis, and extreme tides (EPA 2016). Of the man-made greenhouse gases, the greatest contribution currently comes from CO2 emissions. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these greenhouse gas emissions and net losses of biological carbon sinks (i.e., vegetation) cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although greenhouse gas levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 20 caused greenhouse gas concentrations to increase dramatically and are a possible contributor to overall global climatic changes (IPCC 2007). Potential changes to Hawaii resulting from the effects of climate change include higher than normal temperatures, contraction or expansion of existing vegetation species distribution, the expansion of the range of existing invasive species populations, and the introduction of new pathogens and invasive species, decrease in prevailing northeasterly trade winds, decline in rainfall and increased variability in rainfall patterns, increased ocean acidity, sea level rise, and threats to human health (University of Hawaii at Mdnoa Sea Grant College Program 2014). The State of Hawai`i in Hawai`i Revised Statutes §226-109 identifies priorities to prepare the State to address the impacts of climate change. Also, Title 1 1-200.1-13 includes significance criteria to consider in environmental impact analysis that includes the hazardousness of sea level rise including: 1 ) the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by assessing greenhouse gas emissions in a qualitative, or if reasonable, quantitative way; and 2) the effects of climate change on a proposed action and its environmental impacts. It recommends that agencies consider the short- and long-term effects and benefits in the alternatives and mitigation analysis in terms of climate change effects and resiliency to the effects of a changing climate. Figure 6 illustrates that the Project's elevation of more than 300 feet above amsl and 0.85-mile distance from the coast protects the site from sea level rises of 3.2 feet, which could occur as early as the 2060s (PaclOOS 2017). The Project's design including surface runoff drainage plans address the potential impact from flooding that could occur if increased variability in rainfall patterns occur. A more detailed description of flood and drainage plans are described in Section 3.3.2. Potential impacts to climate change from the Project include direct impacts from emissions of greenhouse gases during construction and occupation of the proposed development related to the consumption of fuels (combustion) and indirect impacts from greenhouse gas emissions associated with electrical power consumption. Since the Project addresses an existing demand for housing, it is expected that a portion of the residents that would occupy the development already live in Kona or on Hawai`i Island, and there would not be a substantial increase in emissions when residents occupy the Project. Therefore, Project impacts would be considered a negligible increase to the global annual greenhouse gas emissions. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions. There would be Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 21 no change in impacts to climate, or from geologic conditions or seismic activity, under this alternative. Figure 6 Sea Level Rise Exposure Map m9an 1. 0.-J ofl weJLA 9 f 311f1i L4KkiAY3, 1 q I Cumulative Impacts Since there are no impacts from the Proposed Project, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions to these resources. 3.3.2 Flood Zones and Drainage Existing Environment The Project Site is located approximately 0.85 miles from the ocean at elevations ranging from 330 to 900 feet amsl, outside the area affected by coastal flooding. The area of North Kona includes a series of narrow drainageways that flow to the ocean. Two intermittent drainageways are located adjacent to the proposed development on the parcels managed by the County of Hawai`i DPW, Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainageways. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 1551660952F (9/29/2017) shows the Project Site and proposed development is in Flood Zone X, and part of the Project Site is in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (Figure 7). Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainageways, cross Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 22 and are adjacent to the Project Site, are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas SFHAs) Zone AE. Zone AE is defined as areas inundated by flood having a 1 probability of being equaled or exceed in any given year (base flood) and the floodways are in Zone AEF. These drainages merge makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Channelization of much of both Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainages was planned starting in 1976 (Master Plan for Kona Flood Control Project for the County of Hawai`i DPW by Stanley S. Shimabakuro & Associates), but not completed. The County installed a lined drainageway just south of the AIN Kai subdivision and a basin to contain the flow from this channel, but the mauka end of the channel ended below Kupuna Street. During the extension of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (downstream of the Project) in the early 1980s, the State of Hawaii constructed culverts for the Holualoa Drainageway and the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway under Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to direct flow under this major arterial. Culverts were also constructed under Kuakini Highway by the State for the Holualoa Drainageway; however, the culverts that were proposed under County-owned Kuakini Highway for the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway waters were never constructed. As a result, during heavy rain events flooding occurs across Kuakini Highway which flows down and impacts Kuakini Highway and the residents makai of Kuakini Highway all downstream from the Proiect. Holualoa Drainageway and Horseshoe Bend Drainageway waters have a confluence at the makai end of the 12 acres downstream of the Proiect. Working with the County, the previous developer of the Project assisted in obtaining private property owners' co-operation to achieve land use rights that allow the confluence to feed into the County channel. The current developer is now processing a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) with the FEMA to further channelize the portion of Holualoa Drainageway that crosses the 12 acres to allow more safe and efficient transfer of these flood waters. This channelization protects the lands adjacent to and makai of this work from flood exposure as well as further implementing Phase II of the County of Hawai`i's Master Flood Control Plan. It also allows more efficient development of the 12 acres into residential use in a safe manner. These drainageways continue to act as runoff distribution and flood control and most recently, the Effective FIRM (effective September 2017) increased the Q estimated flow) within the Holualoa Drainageway, including the section within the County-owned ditch adjacent to the Project Site. To help mjtjaate the existing downstream flooding concerns, several options for mitigation are being considered in the vicinity of the Project Site in conjunction with the County of Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 23 Hawai'i DPW. Multiple comments on the Draft EA were regarding what the drainage improvements could be (Appendix 1 b). The potential options for addressing the flooding that have been previously discussed include: (1 ) the County's disposal of TMK 7-6-021 :018 to Kona Three for use in the drainage improvements; (2) diverting some or all of the Horseshoe Bend flow into the Holualoa Ditch; (31 installation of a retention basin(s) and/or downstream culvert; and (41 leave the drainages in their current configuration with on-site improvements within the existing drainage boundaries. The final design could include one or a combination of these options, or an option to be identified in future coordination with DPW. The State of Hawai'i, Department of Land and Natural Resources Flood Assessment Tool shows the Project Site outside the area that should be evacuated during a tsunami warning (http://gis.hawaiinfip.org/fhat/, accessed December 2019). No known areas of local (non-stream or ocean related) flooding are present at the Project Site. Figure 7 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRM Map 10 5. Y 4- ry r 11 I a 4C-r s • 'i r l r Frole-1 5+'s hro-a y Liulrurr irrmq F:p[yrl Stalls inrn Thar-I I Flood Nmrd Zone9. ctard i'mpal',la;c.Miv k:ip nl Pam: A—.1 Ch—Fkd 1%Arkhual Crwt7e Rem ra3'U y--r n.+ Sao:, Fi4Tird ri•,q NI xro x F'Lre•vard'nrs 144 Arretll FN•ggWla ryCfGAd'+PY anrc Fksad 4aartl lal'UOFrb'w.ra•,;= r,='.',•,. SP -.dl F"W y Area rfih Rerk=[tid Rlak Or,NLb f A n Ya Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 24 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Comments on the Draft EA inquired about flooding and drainage improvements Appendix 1 b). The Project would be required to follow County regulations and policies related to flood control and drainage, among them Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code. Chapter 27 requires the difference between pre- development and post-development runoff to be contained onsite, limiting impacts. A drainage study will be prepared and reviewed and approved by the County of Hawaii DPW which would be submitted as part of the grading-permit process. As part of this requirement, the amount of expected runoff would be calculated according to DPW standards and these calculations would include the effects of the proposed project. As required by Chapter 27, storm water should be disposed into drywells, infiltration basins, or other approved infiltration methods (Section 27-20(e)l. Implementation of the approved Drainage Plan would ensure that runoff from the Project Site would not be directed toward adjacent properties and the development would not alter the general drainage pattern above or below the development (Section 27-20(el 1. The Project does not propose to impact the existing flows within the Horseshoe or Holualoa Drainageways, other than to channelize portions of the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway where it sheet flows and as needed to address downstream flooding issues once the options are analyzed and a solution is approved. Kona Three would coordinate with County of Hawaii DPW and FEMA on the CLOMR discussed above, which proposes to re-locate the Flood Zone (Zone AEF) within the new flood control channels, therefore, no Project-related surface disturbance associated with grading, parking, and landscaping would occur within the Flood Zone. Kona Three will continue working with the County to alleviate the downstream flooding issue caused by the lack of culverts under Kuakini Highway; however, these issues would not be exacerbated by the Project. The final design of the improvement projects for the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainages would be developed by Kona Three in coordination with the County of Hawaii DPW. Completion of the drainage system improvements is required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. A comment from HDOT on the Draft EA identified potential impacts to existing culverts (Appendix 1 b). There would be no changes to existing culverts or the headwall at the proposed intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu. The proposed intersection (discussed in Section 3.7.21 has been designed to avoid all impacts to existing culverts and headwall within the hjahwav right-of-way. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions. There would be Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 25 no impacts to flood zones under this alternative and improvements to the drainages to reduce flooding of downstream properties would not occur. Cumulative Impacts Since there are no impacts associated with flood zone exposure from the Proposed Project, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions to flood zones. 3.3.3 Water Quality and Water Quantity Existing Environment Groundwater The State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) classification of aquifers locates this part of Kona within the Keauhou Aquifer System of the Hualalai Aquifer Sector. The Project Site is not located above any of the nine Principal or Sole-Source aquifers identified in the U.S. EPA's Region 9 https://archive.epa.gov/region9/water/archive/web/htmI/ssa.htm1, accessed on-line December 2019). Water commitments for the Proposed Project have been secured from the DWS and fully paid for all the multi-family residential units through Keauhou Source Agreement commitments and Kealakekua Source Agreement commitments. According to a letter received during early consultation, the Project Site is served by an existing service that can accommodate a 4-inch meter on `lo Place, and is limited to 180,400 gallons per day, or 451 units of water. The demand for the Project is expected to be 180,400 gallons per day, which is included in the Department of Water Supply's calculation of Authorized Plan Use. Landscaping is planned for the Project Site as well, and water use for landscaping is accounted for in the water credits. Surface Waters The Project Site is approximately 0.85 miles from the Pacific Ocean and has no nearby surface water bodies or waters of the U.S. According to maps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, confirmed by field inspection, no wetlands are present on the Project Site (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.htm1). The Wai`aha Stream is the nearest riverine habitat and is located approximately one mile north of the Project. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 26 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential impacts from the Project could occur to water quality during land clearing and construction activities from erosion and sedimentation. These impacts would be minimized since grading of the Project Site during construction would be conducted in accordance with the grading permit which would be issued by Hawaii County. Prior to the initiation of construction for the Proposed Project, Kona Three would ensure that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit is in place. The permit would require best management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and for stormwater pollution prevention. Oversight of the BMPs would be conducted weekly for the duration of construction, with updates and corrective actions documented and transmitted to the State Department of Health, Clean Water Branch. Additionally, all earthwork and grading would conform with Chapter 10 - Erosion and Sedimentation Control - of the Hawai`i County Code. The intent is for the Proposed Project to collect and convey stormwater runoff into multiple onsite seepage pits with sizing based on a 10-year, 1-hour rainfall event. Based on the initial concept plan shown on Figure 3, a portion of the Project Site would be landscaped, including two parks in Phase 1, and the rest of the site would consist of buildings, parking areas, and roads. Water runoff from parking lots, driveways, and other surfaces would be treated to minimize potential impacts to inland and coastal waters using standard stormwater pollution prevention technology. The specific technology, or combination of technologies, that would be implemented for the Project would be identified during the final design. Where feasible, the Proposed Project would include water efficient fixtures and provide water-saving recommended measures for residents. To minimize water demand, the Project would minimize landscaping and use xeriscape landscaping where landscaping is installed. In addition, the Proposed Project aims to implement and balance xeriscape with the provision of safe and adequate recreational space for residents. The Project would utilize reclaimed or reuse water for landscaping, if possible. No impacts to groundwater are expected from generation of wastewater since the Project would tie in with the County's sewer system. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions. There would be no impacts to water quality under this alternative. Cumulative Impacts Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 27 The relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects for cumulative impacts are described in Section 3.2. Each project has or could result in depletion of water quantity and impacts to water quality, including depletion of available groundwater, sedimentation or nutrient loading to surface water and groundwater. The issue comes not from the impacts of an individual project, but cumulative impacts in the region. As described above, impacts to water quality and water quantity from the Proposed Project would be negligible. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to be minor. 3.3.4 Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems Existing Environment Vegetation A survey for biological resources was conducted by Geometrician Associates for the Project Site (Appendix 3). The pre-human vegetation in the Project Site was likely Lowland Dry/Mesic Forest, which likely consisted of an open canopy forest dominated by a wide variety of trees, shrubs, herbs, vines, and ferns. However, current vegetation at the Project Site includes introduced species that are common throughout Kona and include the non-native haole koa (Leucaena leucocephala), opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce), and guinea grass (Megathyrsus Maximus). The Project Site includes two vegetation types that are distinguished primarily by previous management activities. The higher elevation portion of the Project Site contains few cattle, is intensely overgrown with guinea grass, and could be described as a scattered forest or thick savanna dominated by koa haole, opiuma, and monkeypod (Samanea saman). The lower elevation portion of the Project Site is moderately grazed and has a very similar but slightly more diverse canopy, including kiawe (Prosopis pallida), klu (Acacia farnesiana), and several other non-native trees. The understory in both vegetation types include a diversity of non-native grasses, herbs, shrubs and vines, with a very few natives, including uhaloa (Waltheria indica) and `ilima (Sida fallax). Although two drainageways traverse the property, no aquatic or true riparian vegetation is present in the Project Site. All plant species found on the property during the survey are listed in Table 1 . Of the 46 species detected, six were indigenous (native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere) and only three were endemic (found only in the Hawaiian Islands). No rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were present in the Project Site. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 28 Table 1 Plant Species Observed in the Project Site Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Status* Form Ferns Ne hrole is multiflora Ne hrole idaceae Sword fern Herb A Ph matosorus grossus Polypodiaceae Maile scented fern Fern A Flowering Plants Abutilon grandifolium Malvaceae Abutilon Shrub A Acacia farnesiana Fabaceae Klu Shrub A Aleurites moluccana Euphorbiaceae Kukui Tree PI Amaranthus viridis Amaranthaceae Slender amaranth Herb A Bidens alba Asteraceae Beg ar's tick Herb A Bidens cynapiifolia Asteraceae Blue bidens Herb A Bidens pilosa Asteraceae Beggar's tick Herb A Buddleia asiatica Scrophulariaceae Buddleia Shrub A Caesalpinia decapetala Fabaceae Wait-a-bit Vine A Chamaecrista nictitans Fabaceae Partridge pea Herb A Chamaes ce hirta Eu horbiaceae Gardenspurge Herb A Chamaes ce hypericifolia Eu horbiaceae Graceful Spurge Herb A Chloris barbata Poaceae Swollen fingergrass Herb A Coccinia grandis Cucurbitaceae Ivy gourd Vine A Crotalaria sp. Fabaceae Crotalaria Herb A Cynodon dactylon Poaceae Bermuda grass Herb A Desmanthus vir atus Fabaceae Slender mimosa Shrub A Digitaria ciliaris Poaceae Crabgrass Herb A Digitaria insularis Poaceae Sourgrass Herb A Digitaria setigera Poaceae Crabgrass Herb A Dysphania carinata Chenopodiaceae Dysphania Herb A Eleusine indica Poaceae Goose grass Herb A Era rostis tenella Poaceae Love grass Herb A Hyptis pectinate Lamiaceae Comb hyptis Shrub A Indigofera suffruticosa Fabaceae Indigo Shrub A Ipomoea obscura Convolvulaceae Obscure morning glory Vine A Kalanchoe pinnata Crassulaceae Air plant Herb A Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana Shrub A Leonotis ne etifolia Lamiaceae Lion's ear Herb A Leucaena leucoce hala Fabaceae Haole koa Shrub A Malvastrum Malvaceae False mallow Herb A coromandelianum Megathyrsus maximus Poaceae Guinea grass Herb A Melinis repens Poaceae Natal redtop Herb A Merremia tuberosa Convolvulaceae Woodrose Vine A Mimosa pudica Fabaceae Sleeping rass Herb A Momordica charantia Cucurbitaceae Bitter gourd Vine A Paederia foetida Rubiaceae Maile pilau Vine A Parthenium hysterophorus Asteraceae Santa Maria Herb A Passiflora edulis Passifloraceae Lilikoi Vine A Ph Ilanthus debilis Eu horbiaceae Niruri Herb A Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 29 Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Status* Form Pithecellobium dulce Fabaceae Dulce Tree A Plumbago auriculata Plumbaginaceae Leadwort Shrub A Plumbago zeylanica Plumbaginaceae `llie'e Herb I Portulaca pilosa Portulacaceae Portulaca Herb A Proso is paffda Fabaceae Kiawe Tree A Psidium ua'ova M rtaceae Common guava Tree A Ricinus communis Euphorbiaceae Castor bean Shrub A Rivina humilis Phytolaccaceae Coral berry Herb A Samanea saman Fabaceae Monkeypod Tree A Schinus terebinthifolius Anacardiaceae Christmas berry Tree A Senna occidentalis Fabaceae Coffee senna Shrub A Sida fallax Malvaceae llima Shrub I Sida rhombifolia Malvaceae Sida Herb A Sida spinosa Malvaceae Sida Herb A Solanum amencanum Solanaceae Popolo Herb I Solanum seaforthianum Solanaceae Vining solanum Herb A Sonchus oleraceus Asteraceae Sow thistle Herb A S athodea cam anulata Bi noniaceae African tulip Tree A Thevetia peruviana Apocynaceae Be-still tree Tree A Thunbergia fragrans Acanthaceae White Thunbergia Vine A Triumfetta rhomboidea Tiliaceae Bur brush Shrub A Waltheria indica Sterculiaceae Uhaloa Herb I A = alien, E = endemic, I = indigenous, PI = Polynesian, END = Federal and State Listed Endangered (none) An online mapping tool provided by the USFWS indicates that no designated or proposed critical habitat for endangered plant (or animal) species is located on or near the property (USFWS 2019). The nearest designated critical plant habitat is for endangered haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) approximately seven miles northeast of the Project Site. Blackburn's Sphinx Moth The one endangered insect found in many parts of Kona is the Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca blackburnii). It is generally associated with drier environments and `a`a substrates. The native host plant aiea (Nothocestrum spp.) is extremely rare, but a substitute host, the prolific weed tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), quickly colonizes dry, disturbed lava flows. Neither host was found within the survey area. Birds The 15 species of birds detected during the survey were all non-native and typical of those found in similar areas of lowland disturbed habitat in Kona (Table 2). The most common species encountered were spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis), Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 30 northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), parakeet Aratinga sp.), Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus), and house finch Carpodacus mexicanus). No native birds were detected, and it is generally poor habitat for most native birds. The short-eared owl may utilize habitat at the Project Site and vicinity for foraging. The trees in the survey area are generally too short to serve as typical Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) nests, but individuals could forage at least occasionally in the area. Table 2 Bird Species Observed in the Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Status Acridotheres tristis Common myna Alien resident Aratin a s . Parakeet Alien resident Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret Alien resident Cardinalis Northern cardinal Alien resident Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Alien resident Francolinus pondecerianus Black francolin Alien resident Geo elia striata Zebra dove Alien resident Leiothrix lutea Red-billed leiothrix Alien resident Lonchura punctulata Nutmeg mannikin Alien resident Padda oryzivora Java sparrow Alien resident Passer domestic us House sparrow Alien resident Serinus mozambicus Yellow-fronted canary Alien resident Sicalis flaveola Saffron finch Alien resident Streptopelia chinensis Spotted dove Alien resident Zosterops japonicus Japanese white-eye Alien resident A number of other rare, threatened, and endangered birds are fairly unlikely to be found at the Project Site and vicinity. The Hawaiian goose or nene (Branta sandvicensis) is an endemic, federally listed endangered species that is only occasionally observed in urban Kona, although it is more abundant at Big Island Country Club in the Kekaha region of Kona. Some endangered Hawaiian petrels Pterodroma sandwichensis or `ua`u) and band-rumped storm-petrels Oceanodroma castro), as well as threatened Newell's shearwaters (Puffinus auricularis newelli), may overfly the area between the months of June and October. All three of these pelagic seabird species nest high in the mountains in burrows. Most recently (November 2019) a Hawaiian petrel burrow and chick were observed in a newly documented `ua`u colony inside the Pu`u O Umi Natural Reserve Area on Kohala Mountain. There is no suitable nesting habitat for any of these seabird species within or near the Project Site. The primary cause of mortality in all these seabird species in Hawai`i is thought to be predation by alien mammalian species at the nesting colonies. Collision with man-made structures is another significant cause. Nocturnally flying seabirds, especially fledglings on their way to sea in the summer Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 31 and fall, can become disoriented by exterior lighting. When disoriented, seabirds may collide with manmade structures. If they are not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals. Although not a listed species, the Hawaiian endemic sub-species of the short-eared owl or pueo Asio flammeus sandwichensis), a protected migratory bird, nests and hunts in tall grasslands and shrublands and could conceivably be occasionally present at the Project Site. Hawaiian Hoary Bat The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the only native Hawaiian land mammal, may utilize the property, as it is found in most areas on the island of Hawaii and has been observed in surrounding areas with similar vegetation. It was not observed in our survey, which took place in daylight and did not use any detection equipment, but it should be presumed present. Bats may forage for flying insects over portions of the property on a seasonal basis, and they may find some of the larger shrubs and trees (both exotic and native) suitable roosting habitat. Hawaiian hoary bats are vulnerable to disturbance during the summer pupping season. Introduced Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians The only live mammals seen during the survey were cattle (Bos taurus), feral pigs Susscrofa) which were abundant in the survey area, and small Indian mongooses Herpestes a. auropunctatus). Given the Project's location in an urban area, it is likely that feral cats (Fells catus), mice (Mus spp.), rats (Rattus spp.), and domestic dogs, (Canis f. familiaris) are occasionally present. There are no native terrestrial reptiles or amphibians in Hawai`i. The only reptile observed during the survey was the day gecko (Phelsuma sp.). It is likely that other species of gecko, anoles, and skinks are also present. No amphibians were seen or heard. None of these alien mammals or reptiles have conservation value and all are deleterious to native flora and fauna. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Vegetation As discussed above, no threatened or endangered plant species as listed by the USFWS appear to be present in the Project Site, nor are there uniquely valuable habitats. No existing or proposed federally designated critical plant (or animal) habitat is present in the Project Site. There appears to be no potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 32 Although existing vegetation would be cleared during Project construction activities including grading, the plants that would be removed are all non-native. Landscaping is an important aspect for housing developments both for residents' experience and property value. The Proposed Project would plant new vegetation as part of landscaping following Project construction. As requested in an early consultation letter from DLNR, Kona Three would plant native or non- invasive trees as part of landscaping for the Proposed Project. Blackburn's Sphinx Moth In order to prevent potential impacts to the Blackburn's sphinx moth, the Proposed Project would include the following protection measures. A biologist familiar with the species would survey for Blackburn's sphinx moth and its larval host plants (tree tobacco and native `aiea) between November and April or several weeks after a significant rain and within four to six weeks prior to construction. Surveys should include searches for eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). If moths or native `aiea or tree tobacco over three feet are found during the survey, Kona Three would coordinate with the USFWS for guidance to avoid impacts. If no Blackburn's sphinx moth, `aiea, or tree tobacco are found during pre- disturbance surveys, Kona Three would ensure that measures are taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn's sphinx moth and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow more than three feet in approximately six weeks, and above three feet in height the tree tobacco can become a host plant for Blackburn's sphinx moth. The Proposed Project would remove tree tobacco less than three feet tall and monitor the Project Site for new tree tobacco grown before, during, and after Project construction. Monitoring for tree tobacco after construction, can be completed by any staff, such as regular maintenance crew, provided with pictures of tree tobacco at different life stages. Birds If construction for the Project is scheduled to occur in the Hawaiian hawks breeding season (between March 1 and September 30), a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-disturbance survey for hawk nests within and immediately adjacent to the property. If a Hawaiian hawk nest is located during the pre- disturbance nest survey, no land clearing or construction should occur within 1 ,600 feet of any active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season until the young have fledged (usually October). Regardless of time of year, Kona Three would coordinate with the DOFAW prior to trimming or cutting trees with Hawaiian hawk nests, as nests may be re-used during consecutive breeding seasons. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 33 The Proposed Project would not involve any unshielded lighting for either construction or operation, in conformance with Hawai`i County Code § 14-50 et seq, which would avoid impacts to nocturnally flying Hawaiian petrels and Newell's shearwaters. Additionally, during operation the site would use lighting only where and when it is needed for safety purposes. The use of outdoor lamps with warmer colors (less blue light) and energy efficient fixtures would be considered when the building is being constructed. Subject to local rules and regulations, the Proposed Project would utilize lighting on the 2700 degrees Kelvin scale in response to a public comment received on the Draft EA reaardina potential impacts to astronomy. If the Proposed Project incorporates additional outdoor lighting, it may attract threatened and endangered Hawaiian seabirds, which may become disoriented by the lighting, resulting in birds being downed. To avoid the potential downing of these threatened and endangered seabirds due to interaction with outdoor lighting, no construction using unshielded equipment maintenance lighting should be permitted after dark between the months of April and October. All additional permanent lighting should conform to the Hawai`i County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Hawai`i County Code Chapter 9, Article 14), which requires shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting. The Proposed Project would also avoid nighttime construction during the seabird fledging period, September 15 through December 15. Hawaiian Hoary Bat The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat is vulnerable to disturbance while roosting with its juveniles in the pupping season. To minimize impacts during construction, woody plants taller than 15 feet would not be removed or trimmed during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15). Additionally, Hawaiian hoary bats forage for insects from as low as 3 feet to higher than 500 feet above the ground and can become entangled in barbed wire, if used for fencing. The Proposed Project would not use barbed wire for fencing. Marine Species Factors that might impair urban Kona's coastal water quality and potentially affect threatened or endangered marine species are wastewater, chemical contaminants from industrial and commercial uses, and polluted runoff from streets and parking lots. Runoff from the drainageways in the Project Site could reach the ocean; however, the runoff from the Project would not be directed into the drainageways or increase flow during flood events. Potential impacts to water quality would be minimized through wastewater and stormwater treatments described in Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 34 Additional Impacts A mix of native species, Polynesian introduced species, and non-invasive introduced ornamentals would be used in landscaping for the Project Site and an invasive weed control plan for the Project Site would be developed to minimize impacts from fire-prone, non-native vegetation species. Additionally, where no grading or grubbing is required, existing vegetation would be left in place. Biosecurity protocols during construction would include cleaning and inspection of construction equipment for invasive species (including insects, frogs, rats, and mice), and would be applied as applicable. A comment from DOFAW recommended consulting with Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISCI Appendix 1 b). The developer would also request current recommendations from BIISC at the time of development. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions. There would be no vegetation removed, and, therefore, no impacts to the native plant species present in the Project Site or removal of potential habitat for protected wildlife species. However, there would be no invasive weed control plan in place under this alternative, and existing weeds at the Project Site would continue to spread at the Project Site. Cumulative Impacts Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity have impacted biological resources through alteration of the landscape through introduction of weeds, removal of native vegetation, and loss of habitat for native wildlife species. Impacts to biological resources from the Proposed Project would be minor, due to the limited number of native species present at the Project Site and the protection measures outlined to avoid impacts to Federally-listed species and prevent spread of non-native weeds. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to be minor. 3.3.5 Noise Environmental Setting Noise on the Project Site is low to moderate; the main source of noise at the site is traffic traveling on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 35 The noise descriptor used to assess environmental noise by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the day-night average A-weighted dBA) sound level (DNL). DNL is a representation of the average noise during a typical day of the year. DNL levels of 55 or less are typical of quiet, rural or suburban areas. DNL exposure levels of 55 to 65 are typical of urbanized areas with medium to high levels of activity and street traffic. DNL exposure levels above 65 are representative of dense urban sites and areas near large highways or airports. Administrative Rules for the Department of Health, Chapter 1 1-46, Community Noise Control set permissible noise levels to provide for the prevention, control, and abatement of noise pollution in the state. The Project Site is zoned Multiple- Family Residential 5,000 square feet (RM-5). Multi-family dwellings are in a Class B zoning district defined by HAIR § 1 1-46-3. The maximum permissible sound level in a Class B zoning district is 60 dBA from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (HAR § 1 1-46-4). Various agencies have different standards of noise compatibility. Per 24 CFR 51 .103, HUD exterior standards are as follows: Acceptable (DNL not exceeding 65 dBA): The noise exposure may be of some concern but common building constructions will make the indoor environment acceptable and the outdoor environment will be reasonably pleasant for recreation and play. Normally Unacceptable (DNL above 65 but not exceeding 75 dBA): The noise exposure is significantly more severe; barriers may be necessary between the Project Site and prominent noise sources to make the outdoor environment acceptable; special building constructions may be necessary to ensure that people indoors are sufficiently protected from outdoor noise. Unacceptable (DNL above 75 dBA): The noise exposure at the site is so severe that the construction cost to make the indoor noise environment acceptable may be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would still be unacceptable. Impacts and Mitigation Measures During construction of the Proposed Project, there would be moderate levels of noise from the operation of heavy equipment during grading and construction. In cases where construction noise is expected to exceed the State DOH maximum permissible" property-line noise levels, builders must obtain a permit per Title 11, Chapter 46, HAIR (Community Noise Control) prior to construction. The DOH reviews the proposed activity, location, equipment, project purpose, and timetable in order to decide upon conditions and mitigation measures, such as restriction of equipment type, maintenance requirements, restricted hours, and Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 36 portable noise barriers. Kona Three and/or its construction contractor will consult with DOH to determine if a permit will be required and what, if any, noise reduction measures are necessary. During operation, moderate levels of noise which would be consistent with the level of noise from neighboring residential subdivisions is anticipated. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to significantly impact any existing residential subdivisions within the vicinity of the Project Site. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions. There would be no additional impacts to noise from this alternative. Cumulative Impacts Since there are no impacts from the Proposed Project, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions from noise. 3.3.6 Air Quality and Scenic Resources Environmental Setting Air quality in Hawai`i is generally good, below criteria levels for most pollutants in most locations at almost all times. There are no State Department of Health (DOH) air monitoring stations in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. The nearest site is the Kailua-Kona monitoring site which is located on Walua Road approximately one mile north of the Project Site. Air pollution in West Hawaii, when present, is mainly derived from volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide, which convert into particulate sulfate and produce a volcanic haze (vog) that can affect North and South Kona. Vog concentrations are dependent on the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted from Kilauea Volcano, the distance downwind, and the wind direction and speed on a given day. Minor levels of air pollution also come from urban uses including traffic and other nearby industrial activities. Neither the Project Site nor any surrounding areas are mentioned in the County of Hawai`i General Plan as being notable for their natural beauty (County of Hawai`i 2005). The nearest site is the White Sands Beach which is located on the coast approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the Project and is not visible from the Project Site. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Short term direct and indirect impacts on air quality could potentially occur due to Project construction, principally through fugitive dust from vehicle movement and soil excavation, and exhaust emissions from onsite construction equipment. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 37 Adequate fugitive dust control can typically be accomplished by the establishment of a frequent watering program to keep bare dirt surfaces in construction areas from becoming significant sources of dust. In dust prone or dust sensitive areas, other control measures such as limiting the area that can be disturbed at any given time, applying chemical soil stabilizers, mulching and/or using wind screens may be necessary. Onsite mobile and stationary construction equipment also would emit air pollutants from engine exhausts, but no sensitive receptors are present. The contractor will be required to prepare a dust control plan during construction compliant with provisions of HAR, Chapter 1 1-60.1 , "Air Pollution Control," and Section 1 1-60.1-33, "Fugitive Dust." Also, the Proposed Project includes proposed landscaping on the Proposed Project's parcel; therefore, impacts to scenic resources are not expected to occur. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions. There would be no additional impacts to air quality or scenic resources from this alternative. Cumulative Impacts Since there are only minimal impacts from the Proposed Project, any potential cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions to air quality or scenic resources would be minor. 3.3.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Existing Environment Based on the known land uses of the Project Site for agricultural and livestock grazing and since the Project Site has not been previously developed or used for industrial purposes, no hazardous materials or waste are expected to be present. Additionally, no hazardous or solid wastes were noted by the field inspections completed for the Project. State databases did not indicate any Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs), or records of incidents or releases on the Project Site or in surrounding properties https://eha- cloud.doh.hawaii.aov/iheer/#!/viewer, accessed December 2019). Impacts and Mitigation Measures Previous land use and informal review has shown that is unlikely that any potentially hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste would be found on the Project Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 38 Site. Reasonable precautions would be undertaken in the context of the Project construction Best Management Practices to include provisions for the appropriate reporting to the State and readiness for response and remediation should any such hazardous, toxic, or radioactive material be encountered during the construction phase of the Project. Construction equipment would use fossil fuels, and hydraulic power would be used in grading and construction. There is a possibility of leaks, spills, or accidents during construction and during occupation of the development by residents from an accidental vehicle leak). The construction contractors will be required to develop and maintain an emergency action plan for management and recovery of any release of petroleum or hazardous materials to the environment. Onsite stormwater treatment would minimize impacts from spills during when the Project Site is occupied by residents. No impacts to hazardous materials or waste are expected from the No Action Alternative. Cumulative Impacts Since there are minimal potential impacts from the Proposed Project, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions to hazardous materials or wastes. 3.4 Socioeconomics Population as measured in the 2010 U.S. Census (the most recent U.S. census) for North Kona, a Census County Division (CCD), was 18,642 (U.S. Census Bureau 201 Oa). Table 3 provides information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the State of Hawai`i, the County of Hawai`i, and North Kona CCD, from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics Description State of Hawaii County of Hawaii North Kona CCD Total Population 1,360,301 185,079 37,875 Median age (years) 37.2 40.9 41.4 Total housing units 519,508 82,324 18,642 Median Household Income2 71,977 53,936 65,682* Individuals below poverty level2 10.8% 18.7% 13.7%* Race and Hispanic Origin White alone 24.7% 33.7% 45.6% Black or African American 1.6% 0.6% 0.5% American Indian or Alaska 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% Native Asian alone 38.6% 22.2% 15.3% Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 39 Description State of Hawaii County of Hawaii North Kona CCD Native Hawaiian 5.9% 8.5% 1 1.2% Two or More Races 23.6% 29.5% 23.8% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 8.9% 1 1.6% 1 1.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010a, 2010b, and 2010c 2Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016 Estimates for CCDs have a high margin of error due to small population and sample size. The County of Hawai'i's population in the 2010 census was 185,079, an increase of 24 percent from 2000. The population of the North Kona District increased from 28,543 in 2000 to 37,875 in 2010, representing a 33 percent increase. In South Kohala the population increased from 13,131 in 2000 to 17,627 in 2010 which is a 34 percent increase. This rate of population growth is significantly higher than the rate of growth for the state which was only 12 percent over the same period and the County of Hawai'i which was 25 percent. The combined population of the two districts was 55,502 in 2010 which amounted to 30 percent of the island-wide population (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). According to the latest Housing Planning Study, in recent years building has focused on units that are not available for Hawaii families (SMS 2019). "In spite of continuing moderate growth of subdivision activity and housing construction in the North Kona district, housing problems for the low and moderate income groups have been particularly acute." Residents, including families, compete with the visitor market for the rental of apartment and condominium units. The General Plan anticipated in 2005 that the in-migration to the district would continue as would the need for housing for residents. The Draft General Plan 2040 predicts that over the next 25 years the population in Hawaii County will grow roughly 50 percent, and identifies that housing is a burden for more than 50 percent of households (County of Hawaii 2019). Lastly, the high cost of housing is reflected in the number of households that are crowded (two or more persons/bedroom), doubled up, or both. In the North Hawai'i District, 17.3 percent of the 10,203 households are crowded, doubled up or both while 14.6 percent of the 14,184 North Kona households were in the same category. As such, there are 3,836 households in North Hawai'i and North Kona living in crowded conditions or are doubled up (OHCD 2019). This is a trend that has been increasing since 2003 (SMS 2019). As discussed in Section 3.10.2, the Proposed Project conforms with all land use designations. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 40 Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Proposed Project would provide 450 mid-market Rental units and For Sale units. These units are much needed in the area of North Kona as identified in the 2005 General Plan and Draft 2040 General Plan (County of Hawaii 2005 2019). Occupants for the development would either come from on-island residents (i.e., existing overcrowded or doubled-up households) or new residents to the island. The Proposed Project would address a portion of this demand. The Proposed Project would generate work for the local construction industry, which would stimulate local economic spending. The Proposed Project would provide infill mid-market housing in the urban area and allow resident households better access and the ability to safely manage commutes between home, work, and recreation. Stable households lead to stable communities, and promotes a functional economy. The Project would also increase demand for services from residents both during construction (transportation and trade services) and during occupancy (infrastructure, school, utilities, government) (see Section 3.7). Revenues of local government can increase as a result of a housing development project, at first from building fees, taxes on construction workers' wages, and taxes on sale and transport of building materials and then in the long term from property taxes and mortgage and deed transfer taxes (Housing Assistance Council 2019). Under the No Action Alternative, the site would remain unchanged from current conditions and the mid-market housing development Project would not be constructed. Cumulative Impacts Since there are no impacts from the Proposed Project, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions to socioeconomics. The Proposed Project does not require any changes to land use designations and would not cumulatively affect land use because it is consistent with community plans. 3.5 Cultural Practices and Sites The following text are excerpts quoted from the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) prepared for the Project Site (Appendix 4). The Project Site is in Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a within the area of Kona kai`opua in Kona `dkau. Holualoa literally means "long sled course," and Holualoa 1st is a traditional ahupua`a stretching from the ocean to the foot of Hualalai in the uplands. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 41 Very little is recorded of Holualoa Ahupua'a in traditional oral accounts. The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka-Miki, published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii contains the only description of Holualoa. The legend is set in the 13th century but also reflects more recent influences. According to the narrative, The lands of Holualoa were named for the chief of that name; both Holualoa and Puapua'a were high chiefs, who controlled the lands from mountain to sea, which bear their names... Kaluaokalani served as a priest of Holualoa at the temple of Pdkiha. This heiau was near the contest field of Holualoa... The lands of this region are named forvarious ali`i, all of whom were related. When the chief Holualoa took up the challenge against Kepaka'ili'ula on behalf of the Kona chiefs, Holualoa called upon his god Kalaipdhoa to assist him in his battle... Holualoa was the first chief to call upon the god Kalaipdhoa, and this was the beginning of this god's use by the chiefs of Hawai'i. Pre-Contact Era Holualoa, Kona, and much of the leeward side of Hawai'i Island, while well populated at the time of European Contact, were settled later than the windward side. This in part may be due to the fertile land, numerous streams, and abundant rainfall on the windward side. Many archaeologists believe that Hawai'i Island was first settled around A.D. 1 ,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas. During early settlement of the leeward side permanent habitations were established in Kona concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes. Informal fields were cleared at higher elevations where rainfall was higher. Between AD 1200 and 1400, habitation and agriculture expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualalai. The initial construction of the Kona Field System (KFS) began approximately between AD 1400 to 1600. The development of these extensive formal walled fields coincides with a dramatic population increase and with the development of the stratified chiefdom structure which is reflected through large residential complexes and heiau. Thus, there was a need to expand the previously limited agricultural base. The royal centers and larger heiau were in place by AD 1600 to 1800 which reflect the growth in power of the rulers and chiefs in the region. Royal centers are located at Kailua, Holualoa, Kahalu'u, Kealakekua, and Honaunau. The region of Holualoa developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine (reigned 1700-1720). Many 'ali'i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites are known to have existed in this region. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 42 notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The royal center at Holualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu`u and Keauhou region. The Kona Field System The Kona Field System extends north at least to Kau Ahupua`a and south to Honaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai. During his travels in 1823, William Ellis noted the extensive field system divided with "low stone walls, made of fragments of lava", producing "bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, tapa trees, melons and sugar cane" and "flourishing luxuriantly in every direction." Many of the archaeological projects conducted within Kona deal with components of the Kona Field System. The kula zone of the Kona Field System is from sea level to 150 meters amsl. This zone is associated with habitations along the shoreline and cultivation of sweet potatoes (uala), paper mulberry (wauke), and gourds (ipu). Clearing mounds, planting depressions, planting mounds, planting terraces, and modified outcrops are common agricultural features in the kula zone. Permanent habitation including royal and high chiefly centers as well as non-agricultural activities such as fishing, ceremonies and burial practices were usually concentrated along the shoreline zone portion of the kula zone. The higher elevation zones are the kalu`ulu zone, apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone. The current project area is in the kalu`ulu zone. This wetter region is above 150 meters amsl where bread fruit, sweet potatoes Ipomoea batatas), ki (Cordyline fruticosa) wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera), karo (Colocasia esculenta), sugar cane (Saccharum sp.), and other arboreal crops were grown. The `apa`a zone is above the kalu`ulu zone. Hawaiians cultivated melons, sweet potatoes, ti, bananas, taro, wauke and sugar cane in fields with low stone walls. The highest zone, the `ama`u zone, was used to grow bananas and plantains in walled fields. The `apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone were also used to collect timber and catch birds therefore temporary habitations were constructed. Post-Contact Era During the post-contact era, the Kona Field System was exploited and the planting of coffee, sugar, sisal, citrus, and cotton took over original Hawaiian crops until eventually the land was used for cattle pasture. The first cattle and sheep were brought to the island by Vancouver in 1793 and 1794. Horses, mules, oxen, goats, and donkeys were brought shortly after. Feral cattle, sheep, and goats overran agricultural fields by 1813 to 1815. By 1848, in the Kona District, a Great Wall (the Kuakini Wall) was constructed from Lanihau to `Onouli to keep them away from homes and agricultural areas. Formal cattle ranching began in the Kona region in the mid-1800s. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 43 The Kona landscape evolved rapidly with the turn of the century. The rapid growth of the sugar industry produced the Kona Sugar Company in 1899. A railroad was built in 1901 to help sustain this influx in produce. It was later used to haul lumber and freight along with the sugarcane. The rail line was seven miles long and extended from Holualoa to Ka`awaloa. Cotton, tobacco, and sisal were grown in the drier lands below the railroad. The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at middle and upper elevations, and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Cattle ranching and clearing for sugar cane and coffee removed many of the endemic species of plants. The suite of vegetation that existed prior to the pre-Contact era were replaced by koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and other newly introduced invasive plant species. Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, coastal Kona was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. It became a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou. Homesteads, ranches, and plantations developed in the uplands during this period as reflected in the pattern of Land Commission Awards (LCA) and Land Grants (LG) recorded during the Mdhele. The project area is just makai (west) of most of the land commission awards and is at the same elevation as portions of the land grants in the region. Based on historic documents, the project area and surrounding lands were likely being used for subsistence and commercial agriculture, as well as for cattle pasture from the mid to late 1800s. The project area might have been used later than surrounding lands because of its steep slopes and very rocky soil, but based on aerial photographs, the project area was bulldozed sometime around the 1950s through the 1970s in preparation for commercial agriculture. The Mdhele The Land Commission awarded the majority of Holualoa 1 st and 2nd Ahupua`a to Victoria Kamdmalu Ka`ahumanu IV, Kuhina Nui of Hawai`i Island and Crown Princess of Hawaii as Land Commission Award (LCA) Number 7713, `Apana 43. Several smaller LCA and LG properties were also recorded in the upland region of Holualoa 1 st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Twenty four Land Commission awards were recorded in Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a, the ahupua`a where the project area is located. A portion of LCA #3660 to John G. Munn makes up a thin strip of land located through the center of the current project area. With the notable Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 44 exception of LCA #3660 and a few other large LCAs, the average award was 2.8 acres, most (n=16) were for less than 3.0 acres. Three Land Grants (LG #1592, 1602, and 3630) were also recorded in Holualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. LG 1592 was a 25.0-acre parcel sold to Kealalio and LG #3630 was a 38.2-acre parcel sold to W.H. Cromwell. Almost all of the awards and grants were used as subsistence and commercial farm land, and some were used to pasture cattle. Cultural Resources and Practices Related to the Proposed Development Consultation for the Proposed Project Gathering input from community members with genealogical ties and longstanding residency relationships to the Project Area is vital to the process of assessing potential cultural impacts to resources, practices, and beliefs. These individuals ascribe meaning and value to traditional resources and practices. The following text has been quoted from SCS's CIA for the Project (Appendix 4). In the case of the present parcel, consultation was sought from Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Kamakana Ferreira, OHA Compliance Officer; Nicole Lui, cultural descendant, Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) Hawaii Island Archaeologist; Kekoa Nazara, Kona Hawaiian Civic Club President; Shane Nelson, OHA West Hawaii Representative; and J. Curtis Tyler III, cultural descendant. Consultation was also conducted via telephone with Gregg Kashiwa who served as project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s. Public notices were placed in the December 2019 issue of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Ka Wai Ola Newspaper. Public notices were also published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, and the West Hawaii Today on November 17th, 20th and 21 st. There were no responses to the public notices published in the OHA Ka Wai Ola, West Hawai`i Today or the Honolulu Star-Advertiser newspapers. J. Curtis Tyler III, Nicole Lui and Greg Kashiwa did provide information concerning lands of Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a. There were no past or ongoing cultural practices identified with lands of the current project area. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following text has been quoted from SCS's CIA for the Project (Appendix 4). Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 45 An analysis of the potential effect of the proposed construction of residences on cultural resources, practices or beliefs, its potential to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting, and the potential of the project to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place is a requirement of the OEQC (No. 10, 1997). Based on historical research and responses from the above listed contacts, it is reasonable to conclude that, there would be no traditional cultural practices affected and there would be no direct adverse effect upon cultural practices or beliefs in the broader project area region. Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to cultural practices or sites would occur. Cumulative Impacts Through on-going consultation, no cultural practices have been identified in the Project Site. Any potential impacts to cultural sites from the Proposed Project would be mitigated; therefore, no cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are anticipated to cultural practices or sites. 3.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources An archaeological inventory survey (AIS) was conducted in 1984 for the entire project except for a 5-acre portion in TMK (3) 7-6-021 :017 of the project site (CSH 1984). In a letter to the County of Hawaii Planning Department dated July 30, 2018, (Log. No. 2018.00878 Doc. No. 1807SN01 ), the SHPD requested a new pedestrian survey to identify all archaeological historic properties present in the Project Site and an update of the previous archaeological documentation to include site plans for each site with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance. Kona Three contracted with SCS to conduct an inventory on 76.1 acres to update the original 1984 area and a second archaeological inventory was conducted on the 5-acre portion that had been previously excluded. Based on an interview with a local resident, the five-acre section of the project area was excluded from the original AIS because the property owners were planning to give the five acres to a group to use as a school. The two most current AISs are included in Appendix 5, and the results are summarized below. Existing Resources In the AIS for the 76.121-acre portion of the project site, 18 archaeological sites were identified and recorded. Fifteen of the sites were previously documented in Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 46 the 1984 AIS and three sites were previously unrecorded and included a small coffee shed enclosure (Site TS-1), several ranch walls (Site TS-2), and a possible petroglyph (Isolated Find-1 ). The Draft AIS was submitted in March 2020. Six of the 18 sites recorded were determined to be pre-Contact era, three associated with habitation, one with agriculture, a single petroglyph site, and one single feature site (Site 10012) contained two burials. The remaining 12 sites were determined to be historic era, with many of the sites associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching, as well as two historic era habitation sites. The following text is from the AIS submitted in 2020 for the 76.121-acre portion of the Project Site (Appendix 5). All of the archaeological sites were assessed significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield information important to prehistory and/or history. The railroad berm Site 30592 is also significant under criteria "a" and "c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. A petroglyph Isolated Find-1 ) is also significant criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The railroad berm Site 30592 and the petroglyph were recommended for preservation with preservation measures to be outlined in an archaeological Preservation Plan. The petroglyph (Site TS-1 ) is recommended for preservation in a safe location on the project area. No further work was recommended at the remaining 16 sites. Site 10012, a pre-Contact site described in the 1984 AIS, included two burials. The burials were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1984. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. In the AIS for the 5.0-acre portion of the project site, 22 newly identified archaeological sites were recorded. The AIS was accepted by SHPD (Log No. 2018.01 123, Doc. No. 1805SN05) (Appendix 5). The following text is from the AIS prepared for the 5.0-acre portion (Appendix 5). The sites are primarily agricultural terraces associated with pre-Contact era to Historic era agriculture. Several rock walls and enclosures are associated with Historic era agriculture and ranching. A pre-Contact era to later post- Contact era lava tube burial and a portion of the old railroad berm were also recorded. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 47 All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study were assessed significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria "a" and "c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The burial is also significant criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial is recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments to be outlined in a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (BSCPP), which has been completed and approved. The railroad berm is recommended for preservation with preservation measures to be outlined in an archaeological preservation plan now under review by SHPD. Impacts and Mitigation The preservation of the railroad berm (Site 30592) and petroglyph (IF-1 ) with a Preservation Plan would prevent impacts to archaeological resources from the Project (Appendix 6). The Preservation Plan was drafted in February 2019 for the railroad berm, and revised in March 2020 to include preservation of the petroglyph which was located in the subsequent AIS. The Preservation Plan outlines short-term and long-term preservation measures for the railroad berm, as well as archaeological monitoring during construction. During construction, a 20-foot buffer from the western perimeter of the berm would be established with orange fencing. An archaeological monitor would be required for any construction work using earthmoving equipment in close proximity to the buffer. No construction activities would take place between the railroad berm and the eastern property boundary except for the breaches allowed for access as outlined in the Preservation Plan. Any construction within 30 feet of the railroad bed and berm would be monitored by an archaeological monitor. A permanent preservation buffer would be established twenty feet from the western perimeter of Site 30592, excluding the approved breaches. Native ornamental plants may be used to mark the 20-foot preservation buffer, excluding the breaches. No use of heavy earthmoving equipment would be allowed within the twenty foot buffer. Hand-tools only would be permitted within the twenty-foot permanent preservation buffer, excluding the breaches. Kona Three is responsible for keeping the easement clear and open, and ensuring pedestrian access to the site. Parking is available on `lo Place. Access would be permitted seven days a week, one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Signage would also be placed at the railroad bed at the end of `lo Place. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 48 Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to historic or archaeological resources would occur. Cumulative Impacts Following implementation of an archaeological preservation plan, there are not expected to be any impacts to historic or archaeological resources from the Project; therefore, no cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are anticipated to historic or archaeological resources. 3.7 Infrastructure 3.71 Utilities and Public Services including Wastewater Treatment and Solid Waste Management Existing Facilities and Services The Project would also increase demand for services from residents during construction and occupancy including utilities, services, infrastructure, school, and government. Electrical power to the Project Site would be supplied by Hawai`i Electric Light Company. A comment from Clyde Hemby pointed out that the name of the utility provider was incorrect (Appendix 1 bl. Telephone and data service are provided by local utilities. Wastewater would be disposed of through a tie-in with the County sewer system. During Project operation, solid waste would be hauled off site by a private contractor on a regular basis to a solid waste management facility in compliance with the applicable provisions (HAR, Chapter 1 1-58.1 , "Solid Waste Management Control"). No burning of wastes would occur on site during construction or during operation of the Proposed Project. Fire, police, and emergency management services are available in this part of North Kona. A police station is located in Kona, about five miles north of the Project Site. The Kailua Fire Station is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Emergency medical services are provided by the Hawai`i County Fire Department. Emergency medical services are available at Kona Community Hospital, approximately 7.5 miles to the south. Kahakai and Holualoa Elementary Schools are the nearest public elementary schools to the Proposed Project, approximately 1 .2 miles west and 1 mile east, respectively, of the Project Site. In a Final EA prepared for a new classroom building for Kealakehe Elementary School in 2018, the Department of Education DOE) projected the school could see a growth of approximately 33 students from 2015 to 2021 at the nearby Kealakehe Elementary School (DOE 2018). It is Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 49 reasonable that the same level of growth could be assumed for Kahakai and Holualoa Elementary Schools. With a current student population of 749 students at Kahakai (DOE 2019a) and 519 students at Holualoa Elementary (DOE 2019b), this would be a three percent increase over a six-year period. Kealakehe Intermediate School is the nearest intermediate school, located approximately 3.2 miles north of the Project Site. Konawaena High and Kealakehe High School are the nearest public high schools, located approximately 7.9 miles south and 2.8 miles north, respectively, of the Project Site. Current student populations at the Intermediate school is 689 (DOE 2019c). There are currently 1 ,374 students at Kealakehe High School and 831 students at Konawaena High School (DOE 2019d and 2019e). According to a letter received during early consultation, Konawaena Intermediate has capacity for additional students for the next five years, and the remaining schools are currently over capacity and expected to remain over capacity for the next five years (Appendix 1 ). Additionally, Hawaii Community College- Palamanui campus and the University of Hawaii Center, West Hawaii, are located approximately 10 miles north of the Project Site. The nearest private schools are Makua Lani Christian Academy approximately 9 miles north of the Project Site, and West Hawaii Explorations Academy Public Charter School is approximately 8 miles northwest of the Project Site. The Proposed Project is designed to serve the demand of the existing mid-market population of North Kona, which as described in the socioeconomics section consists of households that are currently overcrowded or doubled-up in market rate rentals. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Electricity and telephone/data service would be extended from existing lines. There could be minimal impacts from solid waste generated from construction. However, these would be hauled off-site. Since the development is approximately 450 units, the Project would result in moderate impacts to the county solid waste disposal system if occupancy is at 100 percent. Trash from all parts of Hawaii Island are trucked north of Kona to the Pu`uanahulu landfill, which has anywhere from 20 to 100 years capacity (HPR 2020). The Project is expected to serve the existing demand for mid-market housing for on-island residents. According to a comment letter received on the Draft EA from the Department of Education, the Project is expected to house approximately 99 HIDOE students. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 50 Although the Proposed Project is located within the West Hawaii School Impact Fee District, the DOE has currently suspended fee collections. Kona Three would coordinate with DOE and comply with all applicable DOE requirements at the time of Project implementation. Although this may result in a shift or addition of approximately 99 students potentially from other on-island or North Kona DOE schools, the Proposed Project would provide much-needed housing for residents including families. The net of impact of the Project to the mid-market community in general is expected to be positive compared to the impacts to facilities. Multiple comments identified potential issues to local schools from the development (Appendix 1 b). Since the Project would be constructed in phases, occupancy would occur over an extended period of time and not all new students would be added at once but rather over a longer period of time. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions and no utilities would be needed and no solid waste from the Proposed Project would be generated. Cumulative Impacts Existing utilities and public services have and plan for the capacity to accommodate developments such as the Proposed Project, therefore, cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to be minor. 3.7,2 Traffic Existing and Proposed Facilities The concept of level-of-service (LOS) is often used to describe the quality of traffic flow. There are six levels-of-service, A through F, which relate to the driving conditions from best to worst, respectively. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions with no congestion. LOS F, on the other hand, represents severe congestion with stop-and-go conditions. LOS D is typically considered acceptable for peak hour conditions in urban areas. LOS is usually applied to peak hour traffic, which is the "worst-case" scenario. A traffic study for the Proposed Project conducted by SSFM International included analysis at eight existing intersections on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Appendix 2). Five intersections were analyzed north of the Project Site: 1 ) Palani Road, 2) Henry Street, 3) Hualalai Road (North), 4) Hualalai Road (South), and 5) Puapuaanui Street. Three additional intersections south of the Project Site were Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 51 also analyzed: 6) Kuakini Highway, 7) Lako Street, 8) Kamehameha III Road Figure 8). In the vicinity of the Project Site, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Route 19) is undivided, two-lane, State-owned arterial, oriented in the north-south direction. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway extends from Kawaihae Road (Route 19) in the north to the intersection with Palani Road (Route 130) where it turns into State Route 11 . The posted speed limit varies from 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph). Approximately 2.4 miles north of the Project Site, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway opens to four to five lanes with dedicated left turning and right turning lanes at major intersections. Turning movement counts were recorded at each of the intersections at peak morning and afternoon traffic hours. The peak hours for the local roadway network were found to be between 7:OOam to 8:OOam and 3:45 to 4:45pm. Existing LOS were determined for the morning and evening (AM/PM) peak hours at each of the eight intersections. The results are included in the TIAR (Appendix 2). Impacts and Mitigation The TIAR calculated the projected increase in background traffic volumes within the local roadway network (without the Proposed Project) in 2024 and 2029 Appendix 2: Tables 12, 13, 19, and 20). Background traffic volumes are volumes not directly associated with the development proposed. These volumes are comprised of regional volumes using Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the rest of the local roadway network to travel past the Proposed Project. A background growth rate of one percent per year was assumed, to account for additional traffic at the intersections. This one percent takes into account the following proposed projects: Penaloza School: Youth Gymnastic and Sports Fitness Facility: and Pualani Makai development. The TIAR also assessed impacts from the Proposed Project following completion of 258 units in Phase 1 (2024) and then following completion of 192 units in Phase II 2029) (Appendix 2: Tables 14, 15, 21, and 22). Only one roadway is planned to provide access for Phase I of the Proposed Project. This roadway would intersect with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Kuakini Highway. In the TIAR this Proposed Project access road is referred to as "Royal Vistas Roadway." The TIAR analyzed impacts of the Proposed Project under the presumption that the Royal Vistas Roadway approach would have a left turn and a right turn lane. Turn lanes for this road would be provided for the southbound left turn and northbound right turn into the Proposed Project. Right turns would be channelized and this intersection was analyzed as a two-way stop-controlled intersection. A Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 52 crosswalk would be provided on the east side of the intersection for pedestrian connectivity to cross Royal Vistas Roadway. There would be a refuge lane for westbound left turns onto Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to make this turn easier for drivers. The expected future lane configuration is shown in Figure 9 and a close-up of the intersection is shown on Figure 10. The traffic analysis for Phase I of the Proposed Project indicates the only detectable changes to LOS under the With Project condition would occur at one turn movement. The Hualalai Westbound Right turn at the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) intersection is predicted to decrease from LOS E to F in morning traffic. Under the Without Project condition, the analysis for 2024 projects a decrease in LOS at both (1 ) Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street intersection (from LOS A to B in the morning and evening) and 2) Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street intersection (from LOS C to D in the morning). No other turning movement at any other intersection or turn movement within the roadway network is projected (in 2024) to demonstrate a detectable delay increase (Appendix 2). The traffic analysis for Phase 11 of the Project indicates the detectable changes to LOS under the With Project condition include: (1) afternoon decrease from LOS C to D in the Hualalai westbound right turn movement at Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) intersection; (2) morning decrease from LOS C to D in the Queen Ka`ahumanu northbound left turn movement at the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway intersection; and morning decrease from LOS B to C at the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway/Kamehameha III Road intersection. Under the Without Project condition, the analysis for 2029 projects a decrease in LOS at the following: (1) afternoon decrease from LOS C to D at the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street intersection; (2) morning decrease from LOS E to F at Hualalai westbound right turn at the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) intersection; and (3) morning decrease from LOS C to D at Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street intersection (Appendix 2). The traffic analysis indicates that only one intersection and two turn movements would experience decreased LOS under the With Project condition, and many vehicle trip delay issues are unrelated to the Proposed Project (i.e., they would occur even if the Project did not proceed) (Appendix 2). Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 53 Figure 8 Local Intersections Studied for the Project R 4, 0 5 nut St x 7 3 3 z 9 x 3 tci y C e Project Sife J n Kona Three CLC Roy alVlslasC7txt,vlc:pr L,,, c ccl Feet aJMD I In=':&Ok I y K—k M MOD 1903Sidcmwr Hoed 1 FIN DO)F-4 fiewe g Ywa{er.e IN eelnKwu ITanac"EVY M tuval 11rferse lions i Studled bribe rwJoct i n....:.,..5.,t.a: ,.:;n .t._:q.[.:.y.; .z[•,...;:f.:..,. .,,. . . :..rt.;, .a.,^"Fwhnaw d'Irirtlua Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 54 Figure 9 Proposed Improvements to Project Intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu 1 Ir mr-m5ia+a-t re+ I +'J cs>3rarvrru I s'i0tr' M. lJ G[YCiue6.W'lp5ECTICN Rdy e e w eex='-x Qo''A'-_ <ONk- WOAD rr,Y 4IGNWAY IN- QSECTION mea.c L srA r, Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 55 Figure 10 Close-up of Proposed Improvements to Project Intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu PEWATTEW ACCEW PENT ID'WIDE as•S r new 17 wloe aorAL vlsTAs ROAD Pew iz wlDe ACX751 RATION LNf E Ky 7-P2 -r!' [O' I.__------ -DeCS.MATION LAM1E aaw L1NE f I r as y w r+evr sr>arm A IAIV aae•9•w Jw 4=2 a ,.ice a'e°r- .-s: --.•w.. .,,. _ e-+ aaasrx.eu..wras.vw rz -_ 1 17 M9MN KL APIL/u1ANLl NCFMY K7 NEW SMPM km" jpi-° `1rrw2f ace c y, WOW 17 WIC€LEFT TLRN LME NEW IZ WILE TN2OU($1 LANE r QOw LINE NEW Ky WOE A I GRAP4CAL 5CAI-5LOYALVISTASROADWAY HIGHWAY INTERSECTION My U v 5U U l r 1 J Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 56 The Kona CDP includes the official Transportation Network Map- Nani Kailua Area and shows future connections of `minor collectors' running parallel to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the location of the Proposed Project, extending Hoomama Street to Leilani Street and Paulehia Street to Kekuana`oa Place Figure 11). While the exact timing of these improvements is unknown, it is not expected they would be completed prior to Phase I (i.e., in 2024). The most likely scenario is that the developers of Royal Vistas would construct a collector road to the south before the completion of Phase 11. The connection of these roads north to the Pualani Estates subdivision is not proposed for this Project, since these roads cross TMK (3) 7-6-013:004 which is owned by the Frank and Betty Gomes Trust (Figure 1 ). In addition, the traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to LOS from the Project above the background rate at the intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street which is the main entrance to Pualani Estates subdivision. Potential impacts to the Kona Vistas subdivision would be alleviated by constructing the Royal Vistas Roadway intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Also, the traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to LOS from the Project above the background rate to the intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street which is the main entrance to the neighboring Kona Vistas subdivision. As shown on Figure 2 and explained under Roads in the Project description Section 1 .3), one existing County-owned road would be extended (Kekuana'oa Street), the Leilani Street extension would be constructed and stubbed-out on the south end of the Project Site at the Calvary Church property between the Project and Kona Vistas, and one new road would be constructed (Royal Vistas Roadway). All would be dedicated to the County as part of the Proposed Project. Based on comments received on the Draft EA on potential impacts to traffic from the connector roads (Appendix 1 bl, Fiaure 3 shows the location and phasina of these connector roads. While Figure 11 from the Kona CDP shows connector roads connecting County-owned Leilani Street (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Ho'omama Street (in the Pualani Estates project) and Kekuana'oa Street (in the Kona Vistas project) to County-owned Paulehia Street in the Pualani Estates project), these connections would not be built as part of the Proposed Project. Additionally, no mauka-makai connector roads from Hualalai Road to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no effect to neighbors in adjacent subdivisions from Phase 1, and only minimal impacts after Phase 11. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 57 Figure 11 CDP Transportation Network Map in the Vicinity of the Project k t—• BA y ygN 1 y w• 5 1 w= I.C eer.l c r„ p Lrtd Rradx.C:a czrfir i!ir:ii PFOAUY#d Ttiln#it Lino'7. 'Y i_. CDP.cnllr..,:a ...9acondsry fk3 L'C COP caue,r r minx ® Transit Hub' GP ni rta4 FrE'3 w. G• TrOPMSWA*P- S` w. *. as GF't 11 -;ui rnlner y. Pw*-hWn-Si&m Papa IGOPI' TOP Type SYPE NEPSbxho 4 f2 asrmeFC*nLd Path C3Kona Urban Anna' C3 Rur4 Tmti.Y TQO*- PadwPardw- ExWxV Roadway r' L `'a Pad-trai Shared t k 5tr9uIdCY per ¢ w, s. Policy LayerY 'i 0 000 .000 3,000 Feet 1 inch egijals 2,000 feet Source_- County o€Hawaii 1.: The County of Hawaii Planning r DPparrrnent is the repositcvy of m the Q ffir,01 map h* Kur•la Ccrn-.Iu-I'Y Uev=_Iop,ne,-:l I':a7 z.gu e A-2d offiz,ai"f•ansperta!tUT.Netvo" Map.Nan Ka1ua Area Figure 10:CDP TranspoTtation Network Map in the V€cinity of the Project Area Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 58 Additionally, any work that is conducted within the County Right-of-Way would conform to Chapter 22 - County Streets - of the Hawai`i County Code. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain unchanged from current conditions and LOS are predicted to decline in 2024 and 2029 as shown in the Without Project tables in Appendix 2. Cumulative Impacts The predicted impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are estimated for 2024 and 2029 in Appendix 2. The predicted cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project in addition to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are estimated in the With Project projections in Appendix 2. As stated above, the traffic analysis indicates the only detectable changes to LOS in the With Project condition in 2024 and 2029 would occur at one intersection and two turn movements, and other predicted delays are not predicted as a result of the Project. The cumulative traffic analysis completed for this Proiect was conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic reduced traffic. The traffic analysis included a background growth rate that took into account nearby projects that are proposed in the vicinity of the Proposed Project including: Penaloza School: Youth Gymnastic and Sports Fitness Facility: and Pualani Makai development. Based on existing traffic volumes and future projections of traffic from Royal Vistas on the surrounding roadways (and input from public commentsl, the following system-wide intersection improvements are recommended in the TIAR Appendix 2) for ongoing consideration by Hawaii County and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT): 1 . Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Palani Road: monitor and update signal timing to ensure left turn queues clear every cycle. 2. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street: monitor and update signal timing to ensure left turn queues clear every cycle. 3. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North): depending on monitoring, a traffic signal may need to be installed but priority should be given to keep Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway traffic moving. 4. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South): monitor future traffic. 5. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street: monitor and update signal timing to increase traffic clearing the Queen Ka`ahumanu intersection in one cycle. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 59 6. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway: monitor future traffic and conduct a traffic signal study. 7. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street: consider changing the phasing from split to protected left turns to help lower the predicted delay suggest further traffic study to analyze signal modification. This intersection would also improve significantly if Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is widened to four lanes as in the 2035 Transportation Plan. 8. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road: monitor and update signal timing as needed. 3.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources A commitment of resources is irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit the future options for a resource; an irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. All the land to be used by the Proposed Project is in a State Land Use Urban District and, therefore, has been characterized by "city-like" concentrations of people, structures and services. This District also includes vacant areas for future development. No new land would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed as a result of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would require the commitment of natural, physical, and human resources to plan, design, construct, and operate. Diesel fuel to power equipment would be used during Proposed Project construction and building materials, such as concrete and asphalt, would be consumed. Some of those materials could ultimately be recycled for reuse, those that are not would be expended. 3.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts from the Proposed Project are anticipated. 3.10 Unresolved Issues No unresolved issues for the EA have been identified. 3.11 Required Permits and Approvals The Proposed Project requires granting the following permits and approvals, which are listed by responsible agency: Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 60 County of Hawai'i, Department of Public Works, Building Division Approval and Building Permit County of Hawai'i, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, Grading Permit County of Hawai'i, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, Drainage Plan County of Hawai'i, Planning Department Plan Approval State Department of Health, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit State Historic Preservation Division, Chapter 6e Historic Sites Clearance State Department of Transportation - Highways Division, Permit to Perform Work in State ROW County Council - Approval of Amendments to Zoning Ordinance 3.12 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies 12.1 Hawaii State Land Use Law, Hawaii State Plan, and State Housing Functional Plan The subject parcels are designated as Urban by the State Land Use Commission, and State Land Use Commission Docket No. A83-549 determined the status of condition compliance for these land use entitlements. The Hawaii State Plan (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, as amended) establishes a set of themes, goals, objectives and policies that are meant to guide the State's long-run growth and development activities. The three themes that express the basic purpose of the Hawai'i State Plan are individual and family self- sufficiency, social and economic mobility, and community or social well-being. The Proposed Project would provide much needed mid-market housing to residents of North Kona. The Proposed Project is consistent with the State Plan objectives and policies related to housing and facility systems as cited below: Ch. 226-4 State goals. In order to ensure, for present and future generations, those elements of choice and mobility that ensure that individuals and groups may approach their desired levels of self-reliance and self-determination, it shall be the goal of the State to achieve: 1) 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. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 61 2) A desired physical environment, characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable natural systems, and uniqueness, that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people. 3) Physical, social, and economic well-being, for individuals and families in Hawaii, that nourishes a sense of community responsibility, of caring, and of participation in community life. The Proposed Project would meet this goal by providing choices for mid- market/workforce families in North Kona to rent or buy homes in communities near their work. Ch. 226-5 Objective and policies for population. a) It shall be the objective in planning for the State's population to guide population growth to be consistent with the achievement of physical, economic, and social objectives contained in this chapter. b) To achieve the population objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: 1) Manage population growth statewide in a manner that provides increased opportunities for Hawaii's people to pursue their physical, social, and economic aspirations while recognizing the unique needs of each county. 2) Encourage an increase in economic activities and employment opportunities on the neighbor islands consistent with community needs and desires. 3) Promote increased opportunities for Hawaii's people to pursue their socio- economic aspirations throughout the islands. 4) Encourage research activities and public awareness programs to foster an understanding of Hawaii's limited capacity to accommodate population needs and to address concerns resulting from an increase in Hawaii's population. 5) Encourage federal actions and coordination among major governmental agencies to promote a more balanced distribution of immigrants among the states, provided that such actions do not prevent the reunion of immediate family members. 6) Pursue an increase in federal assistance for states with a greater proportion of foreign immigrants relative to their state's population. 7) Plan the development and availability of land and water resources in a coordinated manner so as to provide for the desired levels of growth in each geographic area. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 62 By providing mid-market housing to those that need it, the Proposed Project would promote increased opportunities for local residents to pursue their socio- economic aspirations. Ch. 226-13 Objectives and policies for the physical environment--land, air, and water quality. a) Planning for the State's physical environment with regard to land, air, and water quality shall be directed towards achievement of the following objectives: 1) Maintenance and pursuit of improved quality in Hawaii's land, air, and water resources. 2) Greater public awareness and appreciation of Hawaii's environmental resources. b) To achieve the land, air, and water quality objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: 1) Foster educational activities that promote a better understanding of Hawaii's limited environmental resources. 2) Promote the proper management of Hawaii's land and water resources. 3) Promote effective measures to achieve desired quality in Hawaii's surface, ground, and coastal waters. 4) Encourage actions to maintain or improve aural and air quality levels to enhance the health and well-being of Hawaii's people. 5) Reduce the threat to life and property from erosion, flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other natural or man- induced hazards and disasters. 6) Encourage design and construction practices that enhance the physical qualities of Hawaii's communities. 7) Encourage urban developments in close proximity to existing services and facilities. 8) Foster recognition of the importance and value of the land, air, and water resources to Hawaii's people, their cultures and visitors. The Proposed Project has been designed to minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources during construction and operation as described in the resource sections above. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 63 Ch. 226-15 Objectives and policies for facility systems--solid and liquid wastes. a) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to solid and liquid wastes shall be directed towards the achievement of the following objectives: 1) Maintenance of basic public health and sanitation standards relating to treatment and disposal of solid and liquid wastes. 2) Provision of adequate sewerage facilities for physical and economic activities that alleviate problems in housing, employment, mobility, and other areas. b) To achieve solid and liquid waste objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: 1) Encourage the adequate development of sewerage facilities that complement planned growth. 2) Promote reuse and recycling to reduce solid and liquid wastes and employ a conservation ethic. 3) Promote research to develop more efficient and economical treatment and disposal of solid and liquid wastes. As described in the water quality and water quantity section above, the Proposed Project has been designed to maintain basic public health and sanitation standards by tying with the County sewer service. As the final phase of the larger development, the Proposed Project complements planned growth as part of the authorized 1984 zoning ordinance. Ch. 226-16 Objective and policies for facility systems - water. a) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to water shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of the provision of water to adequately accommodate domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and other needs within resource capacities. b) To achieve the facility systems water objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: 1) Coordinate development of land use activities with existing and potential water supply. 2) Support research and development of alternative methods to meet future water requirements well in advance of anticipated needs. 3) Reclaim and encourage the productive use of runoff water and wastewater discharges. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 64 4) Assist in improving the quality, efficiency, service, and storage capabilities of water systems for domestic and agricultural use. 5) Support water supply services to areas experiencing critical water problems. 6) Promote water conservation programs and practices in government, private industry, and the general public to help ensure adequate water to meet long-term needs. As described in the water quality and quantity section above, the Proposed Project would utilize the existing water supply through coordination with DWS and meet that objective. Through water efficient fixtures and xeriscape landscaping, it would meet the water conservation objective. Ch. 226-19 Objectives and policies for socio-cultural advancement- housing. a) Planning for the State's socio-cultural advancement with regard to housing shall be directed toward the achievement of the following objectives: 1) Greater opportunities for Hawaii's people to secure reasonably priced, safe, sanitary, and livable homes, located in suitable environments that satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individual, through collaboration and cooperation between government and nonprofit and for-profit developers to ensure that more affordable housing is made available to extremely low-, very low-, lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income segments of Hawaii's population. 2) The orderly development of residential areas sensitive to community needs and other land uses 3) The development and provision of affordable rental housing by the State to meet the housing needs of Hawaii's people. b) To achieve the housing objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: 1) Effectively accommodate the housing needs of Hawaii's people. 2) Stimulate and promote feasible approaches that increase housing choices for low income, moderate-income, and gap-group households. 3) Increase homeownership and rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, location, cost, densities, style, and size of housing. 4) Promote appropriate improvement, rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing housing units and residential areas. 5) Promote design and location of housing developments taking into account the physical setting, accessibility to public facilities and services, and other concerns of existing communities and surrounding areas. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 65 6) Facilitate the use of available vacant, developable, and underutilized urban lands for housing. 7) Foster a variety of lifestyles traditional to Hawaii through the design and maintenance of neighborhoods that reflect the culture and values of the community. 8) Promote research and development of methods to reduce the cost of housing construction in Hawaii. The Proposed Project would meet this objective by providing the mid- market/workforce population (a gap-group) housing options to buy or rent in North Kona. The Project Site is zoned for multi-family residential and is an in-fill project on vacant land that is surrounded by residential development and has utilities available. Ch. 226-104 Population growth and land resources priority guidelines. a) Priority guidelines to effect desired statewide growth and distribution: 1) Encourage planning and resource management to ensure that population growth rates throughout the State are consistent with available and planned resource capacities and reflect the needs and desires of Hawaii's people. 2) Manage a growth rate for Hawaii's economy that will parallel future employment needs for Hawaii's people. 3) Ensure that adequate support services and facilities are provided to accommodate the desired distribution of future growth throughout the State. 4) Encourage major state and federal investments and services to promote economic development and private investment to the neighbor islands, as appropriate. 5) Explore the possibility of making available urban land, low-interest loans, and housing subsidies to encourage the provision of housing to support selective economic and population growth on the neighbor islands. 6) Seek federal funds and other funding sources outside the State forresearch, program development, and training to provide future employment opportunities on the neighbor islands. 7) Support the development of high technology parks on the neighbor islands. b) Priority guidelines for regional growth distribution and land resource utilization: 1) Encourage urban growth primarily to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are already available or can be provided with reasonable public expenditures, and away from areas where other important benefits are Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 66 present, such as protection of important agricultural land or preservation of lifestyles. 2) Make available marginal or nonessential agricultural lands for appropriate urban uses while maintaining agricultural lands of importance in the agricultural district. 3) Restrict development when drafting of water would result in exceeding the sustainable yield or in significantly diminishing the recharge capacity of any groundwater area. 4) Encourage restriction of new urban development in areas where water is insufficient from any source for both agricultural and domestic use. 5) In order to preserve green belts, give priority to state capital-improvement funds which encourage location of urban development within existing urban areas except where compelling public interest dictates development of a noncontiguous new urban core. 6) Seek participation from the private sector for the cost of building infrastructure and utilities, and maintaining open spaces. 7) Pursue rehabilitation of appropriate urban areas. 8) Support the redevelopment of Kakaako into a viable residential, industrial, and commercial community. 9) Direct future urban development away from critical environmental areas or impose mitigating measures so that negative impacts on the environment would be minimized. 10) Identify critical environmental areas in Hawaii to include but not be limited to the following: watershed and recharge areas; wildlife habitats (on land and in the ocean); areas with endangered species of plants and wildlife; natural streams and water bodies; scenic and recreational shoreline resources; open space and natural areas; historic and cultural sites; areas particularly sensitive to reduction in water and air quality, and scenic resources. 1 1) Identify all areas where priority should be given to preserving rural character and lifestyle. 12) Utilize Hawaii's limited land resources wisely, providing adequate land to accommodate projected population and economic growth needs while ensuring the protection of the environment and the availability of the shoreline, conservation lands, and other limited resources for future generations. 13) Protect and enhance Hawaii's shoreline, open spaces, and scenic resources. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 67 The Proposed Project helps meet the demand for mid-market housing in North Kona, which is needed to support existing needs as well as predicted population growth in the area. It is located on vacant land in an urban area surrounded by residential development with utilities available. Ch. 226-708 (2) -Sustainability. 1) Encouraging balanced economic, social, community, and environmental priorities; 2) Encouraging planning that respects and promotes living within the natural resources and limits of the State; 3) Promoting a diversified and dynamic economy, 4) Encouraging respect for the host culture; 5) Promoting decisions based on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations; 6) Considering the principles of the ahupuaa system; and 7) Emphasizing that everyone, including individuals, families, communities, businesses, and government, has the responsibility for achieving a sustainable Hawaii. The Project Site is within the Urban Expansion and Low Density Urban zoning district in the LUPAG, and is consistent with this designation. The Proposed Project would provide much needed housing options for the mid-market/workforce population in North Kona, and meets the sustainability objective by meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations and promotes living within the natural resources and limits of the State. Chapter 205 Hawai`i Revised Statutes classifies all land in the State of Hawai`i into one of four land use categories - Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation - and determines permissible uses in each district. The Project Site is in the State Land Use Urban District. The proposed use is consistent with intended uses for this land use district. 3,12.2 Coastal Zone Management Program (Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes) HRS 205A defines the coastal zone as "all the lands of the State and the area extending seaward from the shoreline to the limit of the State's police power and management authority, including the United States territorial sea", the Project Site is located in the coastal zone management area. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 68 The Project Site is located approximately 0.85 miles mauka of the shoreline at an elevations from 330 to 900 feet amsl and would not influence coastal process or conditions. The Proposed Project would also have no impact to coastal recreation opportunities, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, beach protection, and marine resources (HAR § 205A-2). Detailed explanations of potential impacts are described above in the environmental consequences sections. As the site and actions on it are not likely to influence coastal processes or conditions within coastal areas, no potential impacts are anticipated. 3.12.3 Hawaii County Zoning, Special Management Area, and General Plan The subject parcels are zoned Multiple-Family Residential, with a minimum building site of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit (RM-5), by the County of Hawaii. County of Hawaii Ordinance No. 02-131, which amended previous ordinances to establish zoning on the parcels. As described in Section 1 .2, the Project is the final residential development identified in the zoning ordinance (No. 84-23) signed in 1984, and subject to subsequent amendments. An amendment is required in order to provide additional time to commence construction of the Project. This amendment request would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, with a decision by the County Council. Aside from the need for more time, this Project and the zoning that supports it continues to conform with the original findings and reasons for its approval by the County Council in 1984, and as amended as recently as in 2002. County of Hawai`i Ordinance 02-131 amended previous ordinances to establish the zoning on the properties and required the applicant comply with conditions A through S, and the State Land Use Commission Docket No. A83-549, to determine the status of condition compliance for these land use entitlements. The General Plan for the County of Hawaii is a policy document expressing the broad goals and policies for the long-range development of the Island of Hawai`i County of Hawai`i 2005). The plan was adopted by ordinance in 1989 and revised in 2005 (Hawai`i County Planning Department). The General Plan itself is organized into thirteen functional elements. In general, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives, standards, and principles for several functional areas. This section addresses the consistency of the proposed action with relevant policies of the County. Housing Goals: Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 69 Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices. Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing inventory 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. Housing Policies: Encourage a volume of construction and rehabilitation of housing sufficient to meet growth needs and correct existing deficiencies. Increase rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, cost, amenity, style and size of housing, especially for low and moderate income households. Aid and encourage the development of a wide variety of housing to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix. Discussion: The Proposed Project would incorporate measures to provide additional mid-market housing in a quickly growing part of the County. The location of the Proposed Project is adjacent to other housing developments and services for future residents, and would provide choices for the mid-market population in North Kona. Historic Sites Goals: Protect and enhance the sites, buildings and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawaii. Appropriate access to significant historic sites, buildings and objects of public interest should be made available. Discussion: No impacts to archaeological sites would occur from the Proposed Project. Natural Beauty Goals: Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed. Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beauty. Discussion: The Proposed Project would not degrade the scenic environment of the area. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 70 Transportation Goals: Provide a transportation system whereby people and goods can move efficiently, safely, comfortably and economically. Discussion: The Proposed Project would include constructing an intersection from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway that would allow for safe ingress and egress during Project construction and occupancy. In addition, the Proposed Project would build and dedicate a substantial portion of the expanding County planned roadway grid system. Land Use Goals: Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. Protect and preserve forest, water, natural and scientific reserves and open areas. Land Use Standards The designated land uses will be delineated on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. The broad-brush boundaries indicated are graphic expressions of the General Plan policies, particularly those relating to land uses. They are long-range guides to general location and will be subject to: a) existing zoning; and b) State Land Use District. Similarly, the acreages allocated represent alternatives for the various levels of economic activity and supporting functions, such as resort, residential, commercial and industrial activities. Land required for community and governmental services and programs as well as new towns and resort centers may be accommodated within the allocated acreages. Discussion: The Hawaii County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide LUPAG) and Facilities Map components of the General Plan are graphic representations of the Plan's goals, policies, and standards as well as of the physical relationship between land uses. They also establish the basic urban and non-urban form for areas and the planned public and cultural facilities, public utilities and safety features, and transportation corridors. The Project Site is within the Urban Expansion and Low Density Urban zoning district in the LUPAG. As discussed above in this section, the Project Site has been found to be consistent with this designation. The Proposed Project would provide much needed mid- market housing for residents in North Kona. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 71 3.12.4 Kona Community Development Plan The Kona CDP encompasses the judicial districts of North and South Kona was developed under the framework of the February 2005 County of Hawai`i General Plan. The CDP is intended to translate broad General Plan Goals, Policies, and Standards into implementation actions as they apply to specific geographical regions around the County. The General Plan now requires that a CDP shall be adopted by the County Council as an "ordinance," giving the CDP the force of law. This is in contrast to plans created over past years, adopted by "resolution" that served only as guidelines or reference documents to decision-makers. The Kona CDP was adopted in September 2008 and amended by Ordinance 19-91 in 2019 by the County Council. The version referenced in this Environmental Assessment is at: http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/north-and-south-kona-cdp/cdp-final-drafts. The Plan has many elements and wide-ranging implications, but there are several major strategies that embody the guiding principles related to the economy, energy, environmental quality, flooding and other natural hazards, historic sites, natural beauty, natural resources and shoreline, housing, public facilities, public utilities, recreation, transportation, and land use. The Proposed Project's proposed development is consistent with all aspects of the Kona CDP, including three of the eight guiding principles: (1 ) provide connectivity and transportation choices; (2) provide housing choices; and (3) Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. It is in keeping with the Plan's the Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions to develop a system of interconnected roads in Kona (Section 4.1). In particular, Section 4.1 .3: Objective TRAN-2 Street Network Connectivity. To develop a system of interconnected roads in Kona that will provide alternative transportation routes that will disperse automobile trips and reduce their length, while not compromising the through functions of arterials and major collectors with excessive intersections. Under this Objective, the Project complies with guiding principles established by the Kona Urban Area by promoting Policy TRAN-2.1 : Connectivity Standards (5) Future Extensions and (6) Connectivity. It is in keeping with the Plan's the Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions to guide the development of housing in Kona (Section 4.5). In particular, Section 4.5.3: Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 72 Housing Goal: Diversity of housing choices for all segments of the population close to places of employment and/or daily needs. The Proposed Project specifically aligns with Objective HSG-4: Build More Units, Policy HSG-4.2: Workforce Housing and HSG-4.4: Housing Variety. The final guiding principle emphasizes that future growth should occur where infrastructure (roads and utilities) and essential facilities (i.e., police, fire, and schools) are already in place. These facilities should be maintained at a level that will enhance the quality of life for Kona residents. This project is the final phase of a larger residential development that saw the completion of Kona Vistas, a 215-unit, single-family residential project on approximately 103 acres. The zoning that supports both the existing Kona Vistas and proposed Royal Vistas projects spans over 35 years. As last amended in 2002 to provide for additional time by which to complete both projects, the completion of Royal Vistas is encouraged by the Kona CDP as an infill rezoning. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 73 PART 4' DETERMINATION Based on the findings below, and upon consideration of the public comments received during pre-consultation and on the Draft EA, the County of Hawai`i Planning Department has determined that the proposed action will not significantly alter the environment and has accordingly issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSII. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 74 PART 5: FINDINGS AND REASONS Chapter 1 1-200.1-13, HAR, outlines those factors agencies must consider when determining whether an Action has significant effects: 1 . Irrevocably commit a natural, cultural, or historic resource. No valuable natural or cultural resources would be committed or lost as a result of the Proposed Project. No impacts to archaeological resources would occur with the planned preservation of the railroad berm and petroglyph. 2. Curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment. The proposed mid- market housing development does not curtail beneficial uses of the environment and is consistent with the medium density zoning in the LUPAG and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona CDP. 3. Conflict with the State's environmental policies or long-term environmental goals established by law. The State's long-term environmental policies are set forth in Chapter 344, HRS. The broad goals of this policy are to conserve natural resources and enhance the quality of life. The impact from the Proposed Project is minor and, therefore, is consistent with all elements of the State's long-term environmental policies and environmental goals. 4. Have a substantial adverse effect on the economic, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community or State. The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the social welfare of the community and would contribute to services. The Proposed Project would generate work for the local construction industry, which would stimulate local economic spending. The Proposed Project would balance the social welfare of the community by providing infill mid-market housing and allow resident households better access and the ability to safely manage commutes between home, work, and recreation. Stable households lead to stable communities and associated workforce, and promotes a functional economy. 5. Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design. 6. Involve adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. No adverse secondary effects are expected since the development would utilize existing infrastructure, provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County services. 7. Involve a substantial degradation of environmental quality. The impact from the Proposed Project is minor, and would thus not contribute to environmental degradation. BMPs and appropriate erosion control measures would be utilized during construction. Short-term impacts on air Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 75 and noise quality will be mitigated by employing BMPs. No long-term adverse impacts are expected from the Proposed Project. 8. Is individually limited but cumulatively has substantial adverse effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions. The Proposed Project is not related to other activities in the region in such a way as to produce adverse cumulative effects or involve a commitment for larger actions. 9. Have a substantial adverse effect on a rare, threatened, or endangered species, or its habitat. There are no rare, threatened, or endangered species or suitable habitat for these species present at the Project Site, and no effects to these species are anticipated. Endangered Hawaiian hoary bats and formerly listed Hawaiian hawks, which are island wide-ranging species, would experience no adverse impacts due to mitigation in the form of timing of vegetation removal and/or hawk nest survey. Additionally, no rare, threatened, or endangered species of fauna are known to exist on or near the Project Site, and none would be directly affected by any project activities. 10. Have a substantial adverse effect on air or water quality or ambient noise levels. No adverse effects on air quality or noise would occur. The increase in noise levels on the site are acceptable and would be only a moderate increase in the existing levels. To minimize impacts to air quality during construction, the Proposed Project would implement a watering program for dust abatement. Other control measures during construction such as limiting the area that can be disturbed at any given time, applying chemical soil stabilizers, mulching and/or using wind screens would also be utilized as necessary to minimize impacts to air quality. 11 . Have a substantial adverse effect on or is likely to suffer damage by being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain, tsunami zone, sea level rise exposure area, beach, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal waters. Although the property is located in an area with volcanic and seismic risk, the entire Island of Hawai`i shares this risk, and the Proposed Project is not imprudent to construct. The property is approximately 0.85 miles from the shoreline and the development is outside any flood plain. Based on potential impacts from climate change, the Proposed Project has been designed to accommodate increased stormwater run-off from larger storms in the adjacent drainages and on site. 12. Have substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas and viewplanes, during day or night, identified in county or state plans or studies. No scenic vistas and viewplanes identified in the Hawai`i County General Plan will be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. 13. Require substantial energy consumption or emit substantial greenhouse gases. The development would have solar water heating and incorporate Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 76 efficient appliances, as practical and possible. Negligible emissions of greenhouse gases would occur during construction and occupation of the proposed development. Since the Project addresses an existing demand for housing, it is expected that a portion of the residents that would occupy the development already live in Kona or on Hawai`i Island, and there would not be a substantial increase in emissions when residents occupy the Project. Therefore, Project impacts would be considered a negligible increase to the global annual greenhouse gas emissions. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 77 PART 6: REFERENCES County of Hawai`i. 2005. County of Hawai`i General Plan, as amended. February 2005. County of Hawaii. 2019. Draft General Plan 2040. August 2019. http://www.hiplanningdept.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-8-09- General-Plan-2040.Final .Draft .Optimized.pdf. Accessed December 2019. Department of Education. 2018. Final Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for Kealakehe Elementary School New Classroom Building. http://oegc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA_EIS_Library/2018-06-23-HA-FEA- Kealakehe-Elementary-School-New-Classroom-Building.pdf Department of Education. 2019a. Kahakai Elementary School: Strive HI School Performance Report. httl2://www.hawaiil2ublicschools.ora/Reports/StriveHIKahakaiEI19.pdf. Accessed December 2019. Department of Education. 2019b. Holualoa Elementary School: Strive HI School Performance Report. http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/Reports/StriveHIHolualoaEI19.pdf. Accessed December 2019. Department of Education. 2019c. Kealakehe Intermediate School: Strive HI School Performance Report. httl2://www.hawaiil2ublicschools.ora/Reports/StriveHIKealakeheInter19.pdf Accessed December 2019. Department of Education. 2019d. Kealakehe High School: Strive HI School Performance Report. http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/Reports/StriveHIKealakeheHigh l 9.pdf Accessed December 2019. Department of Education. 2019e. Konawaena High School: Strive HI School Performance Report. httl2://www.hawaiil2ublicschools.ora/Reports/StriveHIKonawaenaHiah 19.12 df. Accessed December 2019. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. What Climate Change Means for Hawaii. August 2016. EPA 430-F-16-013. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 78 httl2s://l 9ianuary201 7snal2shot.el2a.gov/sites/12roduction/files/201 6- 09/documents/climate-change-hi.12d . Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte. 2013. Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai`i. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10.1 175/BAMS-D-1 1-00228.1 . httl2://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu/interactivemal2.html. Accessed September 2019. Hawaii Public Radio (HPR). 2020. Hawaii Island Has Decades of Landfill Space But Still Faces Challenges In Dealing With Its Waste. January 9, 2020. https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/post/hawaii-island-has-decades- landfill-space-still-faces-challenges-dealing-its-waste#stream/0. Accessed February 2020. Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Washington: U.S. GPO. Housing Assistance Council. 2019. The Effects of Housing Development on a Rural Community's Economy. http://www.ruralhome.org/sct-information/mn- hac-research/mn-rrg/94-the-effects-of-housing-development-on-a-rural- communitys-economy. Accessed December 2019. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. httl2s://www.il2cc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4 syr full report.pdf. Accessed November 2019. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. Accessed November 2019. Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD). 2019. Kaloko Affordable Housing Project Final Environmental Assessment. httl2://oegc2.doh.hawaii.gov/EA EIS Libra ry/2019-07-23-HA-F EA-Ka loko- Affordable-Housing.pdf. Accessed November 2019. Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PaclOOS). 2017. Sea Level Rise: Hawaii Sea Level Rise Viewer. httl2s://www.12acioos.hawaii.edu/shoreline/slr- hawaii/. Accessed December 2019. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 79 Sato, H. H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawai`i, State of Hawai`i. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agriculture Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Scientific Consultant Services (SCS). 2016. Archaeological Sites Inspection Letter. 2016. Report for 20 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located on 66.039 Acres of Land in Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a, Kailua-Kona, North Kona District, Hawaii Island [Portions of TMK: (3) 7-6-021 :016 and 017]. Prep. for Richard Wheelock, East-West Realty. SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc. (SMS). 2019. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2019. Prepare for the Hawai`i Housing Finance and Development Corporation. December 2019. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS): USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. httl2s://ecos.fws.gov/ecl2/report/table/critical- habitat.html. Accessed November 2019. University of Hawaii at Mdnoa Sea Grant College Program. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in Hawai`i - A summary of climate change and its impacts to Hawai`i's ecosystems and communities. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TT-12-04. httl2://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/wl2-content/uploads/2018/05/smFINAL- HawaiiClimateChange.pdf. Accessed December 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Census Summary File 1 (DP-1 ) for the State of Hawai`i. httl2s://www.census.gov/quickfacts/. Accessed November 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Census Summary File 1 (DP-1 ) for Hawaii County. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/. Accessed November 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010c. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Census Summary File 1 (DP-1 ) for the North Kona CCD. httl2s://www.census.gov/quickfacts/. Accessed November 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Selected Economic Characteristics: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (DP03) for State of Hawaii, Hawai`i County, and the North Kona CCD. httl2s://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed November 2019. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 80 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. httl2s://ecos.fws.aov/ecl2/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed November 2019. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019a. About Earthquakes in Hawaii. httl2s://volcanoes.usas.aov/observatories/hvo/about earthquakes.html. Accessed November 2019. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019b. Damaging Earthquakes - A Common Hazard in Hawaii. USGS Volcano Hazards Program. Hawaii Volcano Observatory. httl2s://volcanoes.usgs.aov/observatories/hvo/hazards earthquakes.html Accessed November 2019. Wolfe, E.W. and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawaii. USGS Misc. Investigations Series Map i-2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment 81 APPENDIX 1 a: Early Consultation Letters YY Os Harry Kim David Yamamoto,P.E. Mayor Director Wil Okabe Allan G.Simeon,P.E. Managing Director GII Deputy Director 1YXC1 •? ?t t DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 7-Hilo,Hawai'i 96720-4224 808)961-8321 -Fax(808)961-8630 publ ic_works@hawai icounty.gov November 27, 2019 Michele Lefebvre, PhD PO Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 via email to: michele.lefebvre@stantec.com) Subject:Environmental Assessment Early Consultation for Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project, Island of Hawaii, North Kona District Tax Map Key: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 7-6-021:017 We have reviewed the request for early consultation for an Environmental Assessment and our comments are as follows: 1. Flood zones AE and AEF affect the subject parcels as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). New construction and substantial improvements shall comply with Chapter 27— Floodplain Management—of the Hawaii County Code. 2. Drainage improvements, including the combination of the Holualoa Drainageway and the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 3. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward adjacent properties. 4. All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10— Erosion and Sedimentation Control—of the Hawaii County Code. 5. All work within the County Right-of-Way shall conform to Chapter 22—County Streets — of the Hawaii County Code. Please provide us with a copy of the EA when it is completed for our review. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Natalie Whitworth of our Kona Engineering Division office at 323-4853. Ben Ishii, Division Chief Engineering Division NW Copy: Engineering Division - HILOXONA, Planning Department - Hilo County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Harry Kim Paul K. Ferreira Yk 4L Kenneth Bugado,Jr. 4-Z County 02' Hawaili DEPARTMENT id- ;,iwail 96720.3998 A)961-2389 De(e,mbp-r 7, 2019 M- Nlkch(--IC3 Lefeb-vre, F-D Ervjronrr.ei-it l SLI_ntsL Stantec Cc s-Jti7q S r,• ces 1,ic. P.O. Box 191 Hi o, Hawaii 96721 Dear Ms. Lefebrvre; SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EARLY CONSULTATION FOR PROPOSED ROYAL VISTAS HOUSING PROJECT, ISLAND OF HAWAY1, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, TMKS: 7-6-021:016 AND 7-6-0 21:017 This is in response tO YOLr letter dated November 18, 2019, reque5m-,g comments related to YOLr project. Thank you for allowing the Hawaii Poke Department the opportunity to partclipate. At this time, the Hawaii Police Departmert has no comments. Should YOL have any questions, pease ccr;tact Captain Gilbert Gaspar Jr., Commander Qf'the Kona District, at 326-4646, extension 299. Sincerely, PAUL K. FERREIRA P07t-[,-E C-fEF KOBERT V,,rAG J'.-::R ASSISTAr 7 PbLICE CIMIEF AREA 11 OPPE P'A-i LONS GG/ -: Inp 1":5 0, 0 4ViD Y.IGE i.%1 r•F G.H"1;Tr, ^., h r.till,A 0T'0 Gcvr:wNem r "I(a 1 n Yp a' aaM'J,'• STATE Or F•IAWAI'I IDEPA,RTMENT OI" L.:UCA"TION I14,rJ c I.IJ.r l j,'k,•"v"t l as:.r..: OF r[CE OF FAC ILFTIE5 AND OPERA710 W S DeCcember 10.7019 Michele Lefebvre Slantec Consulting services P,OC Box 191 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Re: fri irunrnentol ;l,.t 111 rll 1 .arl, C.1,'1-111..Ilo"II I:t:;lel4',I 11"I Prlq ".-cd R .1I Housing Project. Hawaii TTIAK-, 7-o-[I}I.II Io & i'I Dear Puts. Lefebvre: Tllc I1,I1 im Silliw DL:p iitmc 11 LEI 1:1-; Ilic I".''Ilw%Ill'_..". _l'I11117 'lli:i ioi '.11L I71oposed Royal Vistas Huu4ing Project (Project). r1 c'}nlil;l Iil L, iIl(ill"ll lli" II ru' ILIL.J I41":1;1 I''Ir,s 1 I C [,. iA ,:yloi'150 multi-family units. a c€tmhhil iwr id ciiiill and lnr sale units. IC1culL tl in Norm Itioim. kI.m,! c-i I kr7k :11 1_:m aii, TMK: 7-6-021.016&017, whell Il1L Frojecl i5 L1111. 10:'110%LL l lt:".7 k: d, We would expeoi roughly 99 HIDOE students Lo reside there. The 1-111D yE schook currently gervicing the proposed Pro Wel Area ,irt 1-10IM1111W1 F:ILumll.lr' _ Kah;lLii 1'lelll:entary. Kealakehe Middle. KcnaA;.iena Middle- KeLia akch,t I liuh nrhl I'-.'`11..',+:;I1'1;:; I1: 1 1'. 11 5,:,_'.;; '•.lI'i'I W 1:1` '_;kracity and Is expected it) have c:ll7acil1 o%L2T thv, nu,-,i hive lon! . 1„ 1.111:::'lll;!' ; 'I',i, "I:, L:Ir' 11 :. 1:1LI ..:tkY,l li': .:Il1d are expected In rernain over capacily ravel•the next ln'e yL!'II ; The proposecl Project is JocaiA within the West I la%vad School Iinpact rce District.ho"evcr we arc currently not cclllccling impact ices. The HIDOE tivauld ii:i 1<1 w.op% of-hc I7r:i11 r, ''"i-w-t}Crltal Assess r'wnl I'ix" T11Anliyou forIl]4 3] pt51";l':'lll'. I;,''tid I::llltlll. '.1"."ll ks I; ',IEL: 1.1".:,i1 17S. 10ii1_: la'nl:i4i I.".,',,n LOULI'.'S'1117I1. °-illool Lands and Facilities S1]c i i Iti" I :L'lil"It-, 11A" : 14s'"11': Ir [il'Iirl "1_ I."iiI". !"i '. -1L`L'I"1P" C1I 1'-, 7 X'-t_t;.l,) ' ,n 11:1 ::J;,: I tit mhvn,louden-niIk Respectfitlly. Kenneth G. Masden 11 Public Works Manager Planning Section KGM:ril c: Art Souza Complex Area Suprrintcndew, Hc3trnikaolKetslakr;llelKL)IialWKonawacna Complex Area AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1,q IVI say PARTM ENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OFHAWAI'l 345 KEK0ANACYA-STREET, SUITE 20 HIL0, HAWAI'1 96720 T F=L F-P HO N E (80 8) DS 1-80 50 FAX(809)96 1-8657 December 16,2019 Ms. %lidli!IC _ClChvti Stalvcc 12'il) Voki H I 10 III 10(l 7_1( Subject., Cousliltation for Prolm;kd Hf)),:i[ isms I lousirvo Priiject LIkIFId 10AI.Mai'L NOrth K01111. MS11[i:t ILL\ NTAI) Key 7-6-021.-W6 :md W7 W hut, rcvl,xed ,~oor Pre-Frivirwimental Assessment Consultation letter,dated NovemberQ, 2019. ink_.(II;;;J : 1,'.T I)L 51it1..-.e-, parcels are served by an existing service that can accommodate a 4-inch T lo Place, is 1::m i1cd io 180,400 gallons per day,or 451 units of water, Ik.,Iw '10-w -lint TSle cl,W w r' ' ',Ipplv SIUV 1VITC' iS 17TCC IOU 1'C' I I Id L'I -I I a1 I I11 k, I I k,it 11_ -L:F coi is Li tion and rcsei-vc the highest LILI;_1111.. ol lwFlCLI iCi lilv is 111L-, olr hk2. Wv reqt:e,r.I,, ir hater UcmL trill howld be I III[I)0' T 01 J%VC 11:111 ;.1!1:1 L,:lot tlkfv,:I A ::J I hLN'.)I Id 1.0 10rA 111 r-1 K`:' M )\;17;:;' LMitS tl'nc;jicd iK, Ili,: -iihicci i,mr._,2k 1-; 11 11 Sl:- .1!11 L L 1I.1:;CI 10! lizona-w T'!X)1I!fi`2 Branch aL 961-8070.cxtcll i L11 K. C, leer RQ-dmj Water, Our_%fost Twins V,?source kVa-A ,rL Natlonat Park Service Kaloko-Honokdhau 73-47W KanalaN SWW#t4 U.S.DeporMwnt of IIw InWrtor t4WAk al Historical Park Kagua-Kom,HM14 90740 ON 320-W1 Phone OW 329-2597 Fax Kaloko-Honok hau 1N REPLY REFER TO: L7621 (2019-10) December 18, 2019 Dr. Michele Lefebvre Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O.Box 191 Hilo,Hawaii 96721 Subject: National Park Service Comments for an early Consultation for an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Royak Vistas Housing Project,Island of Hawaii, North Kona District,TMKs: 7-6-021.016 and 7-6-021;017 Dear Dr.Lefebvre: Thank you for providing the National Park Service(NPS)with the opportunity to comment for an early Consultation for an Environmental Assessment far the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project.The proposed project is located approximately 5 voiles south of Kalokc-Honokohau National Historical Park(Park)and 2.7 miles south of downtown Kailua-Iona along Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and would consist of necessary improvements to construct up to 450 residential units in multi-family configurations with clusters of two-and three-story buildings. Congress established Kaloko-Honokfhau National Historical Park in 1978 to preserve,interpret, and perpetuate traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture by protecting the cultural and natural resources within the Park(16 U.S.C. §396d(a)).The Park contains more than 450 known archeological and cultural sites,among which are several heiau, networks of ancient and historic trails,traditional dry-laid masonry features,more than ISO known anchialine pools, two ancient Hawaiian fishponds with associated wetlands,and a f'ishtrap. The park lands and waters provide habitat for 17 federally listed species,and candidate species for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. `AimakapE Fishpond and wetland is"core habitat" for the recovery of two endangered waterbird species,the Hawaiian stilt(Himantopus rrmexlcanus knud..rent)and the Hawaiian coot(Fulica americana alai),and is an important habitat for migratory waterfowl.' In addition to the fishponds and pools,the Park boundary encompasses 596 acres of marine waters and coral reef habitat.As we stated above, there are many groundwater dependent ecosystems ODES)in the Park.All of the Park's GDEs are dependent upon groundwater inputs to maintain these ecosystems,especially as habitat for culturally important and rare native aquatic species. US Fish and W ldlife Service.2011.Recovery flan for HawWan Waindyhds,Second Rovisioa. EXPENEHCE YOUR AMERICA The 140anal Park SwAce taros far spatial pintos saww!by the Arnadcan people so that al may expKbnm our hertlage 2 Approximately 220,000 visitors per year visit the Park.'Local residents,cultural practitioners, and visitors from around the world come to experience Kaloko-Honok3hau's unique sense of place,bio-cultural and natural history,and to understand and perpetuate Hawaiian traditions. According to the Water Resource Protection Plan 2019 Update,the content methodology used by the State of Hawaii Commission on rater Resource Management(C RM) for determining sustainable yields does not explicitly account for freshwater flows needed to preserve GDEs such as anchialine pools, fishponds,and wetlands.'CRM has recognized the need to refine its management approach to groundwater and requested that its staff study ways to refute the estimation of sustainable yields to account for the needs of GDEs.'Therefore,CWRM is developing a"pilot adaptive management plan"for protecting GDEs in partnership with the NPS and cultural practitioners.'The pilot adaptive management plan will focus on GDEs within Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The Hawaii County Department of Water Supply has also proposed measures to minimize the effects of new groundwater withdrawals on groundwater dependent ecosystems and the Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices that rely upon them. The 2017 Water Use and Development Plau Update for the Keauhou Aquifer System Area describes these efforts and includes refined demand projections and a calculation of Authorized Plan.Use(or Anticipated Water Demand)for the aquifer system (28.07 million gallons per day).'Therefore, the NPS requests that the Envirmuncntal Assessment include the water demand for the proposed project and address whether this dtrnand was included in the Department of Water Supply's calculation of Authorized Planned Use. Thank you for allowing us to comment on the early Consultation for an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Dr.Jeff Zimpfer of my staff(805-329-6881 x 1500 er Jeff zirnpfer@nps.gov). Sincerely, L eonel Arguello Acting Superintendent Kaloko-Honok5hau National Historical Park Pu`uhonua u HonaunauNational Historical Park lsttpa:'inna.nps.gov Statal Commission on Water Resource Munagement,20IS.Water Etesouree PmoWion Plan 2019 Update,Appendix F, Page 9,Public Review Draft,October 2018.Available at:http;lldlnr.hawaii.govfcwnrdplanninoiwaterplanlwrpp: bid- 11. rbid.,65. EXPEREHCE YOUR AMERIICA The National Park Service Gwm for apectet places saved by the American people as that al rey experience owheftpe. SUYAWNt MPASS DAM L?Y.ME GCRk MCLLJM OF LAND AND NATURAL RWOURC= CtIKIM1910H ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT vwd arNfL,, STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT 0 F LAND AND N AT11 RAL RESOURUS LAND DIVISION 1`08'r 0MCE BOX 621 ff0N0UULIJjiAWAII 96809 D-,G:%n',ber 19. 2019 on rrir- - Mlc.vin Prnail hp1 .1,-fpbvreDp stantec com 1 96721 31-IBJECT: Envii-onwe,ir_fl Lai-ly Consultation fl l- Royal visL i`i Housilhij Pfojtut a[ Noii i Koiiti u' Ha f'dcii. uri Leh:d 11 I '7(-, 0 1- e 13 D P C'-;L I F I L'' 10 and ccjn-u,-nent on Ire S&jec- matl&'. I 1,e Land of -and and NaLiral i esoL-xQes IGI,.%Nl cistrtmled or mado ji-,lirling '0 t"Je cl rn,[ter is for theiratoDLNR's Divisioi Mviaw arc, Comi-1--anis At (his t!1--1C-n(l+neer na Division, Division of Forestry & lNildlil,-7. Land Ha-voii cir tl-e suhjec[ ma(ter. S-I'Duld vou have any questions, feel free. rl.- -:c.ri'art al 17 :-.r email- darlp-ne,k,nakamt,ira&ba ,,ci!i gov. Than yaL Sincerely, ussell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures CC: Central Files SLIFANNZ Ik CAME oA4M0 T.lOE o.•',e a y CHAI lPERSUN C+D' U IAAV!till ht' rraWP Of LARD AND NATURAL.NLBSiPd 4X$ k CoWlISSJONON WATIMA Sa!l7tM AIANAQFAMNT 1 .1Ir' [yF 11tV'. tll R I>FI'Erl ilia+r r 'fa x1i l 111' %I i:.1 LiCkE. l. YOS!`U!l•I[,:1G kiOJC b2 I A 1d014OLULU,RAWAU 9009 N o1 en-loaf. 226. 20 1 MEMORANDUM DLMR Agenciosa Div. of Aquatic Resourcm Div. of Boating & Occain Recreation X Eoigineering Division tiX Dtv. of F)restry&Vfldlife Div. of ,Slt,iu Park-, nlniIsslo) l on '.P! tee r c;.11r -, P,i®iridgL,1`lent i ffic:e of (.r rt r ;a[ on & coa'.;lsll l orlds r '_ and UI'v;sicn — Hawaii District X Hiistori.. P reservaticn Russell Y. Tsuji_ -anti Acministrator -' SUBJECT: Ergiromli;un(,I. Early C0r'ISr.11[8liGr1 for Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project LOCATION: North Kona District. Island cf TMKs; ( } -pry-02 1 ICI lei & 7-5-021. 17 APPLICANT:SkrRntpr• ( consulting Servi,.r--, Inc r1n behalf of r'ona 'I'hree LLC Transmitted for yaUr review and comn)i nt is infer.nl %7ir::i on the above-refprr:rnced subject matter. Please submit ccrnments by 0a5cember "l S, 2019_ If no response is received by this date, we will assurna your agency no comments. If YOU have arly gUttAiorl.s about this request, please contact Darlono NO-MR)Ura at f: r-041 i or by email at trlerie.k.d src1r11r;r ; k"a,,raii.cov. Thank you_ c1'.e r 1 o objeclions. no comments. f ) Gar ,is .-ire-attached r Signed: Print Name: Gayly S. Chi iiiy, Chief Engineer Date: 1 Attachments cc: Central Files DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENCANEERING DIVISION l.1 :1 11 it'll V. T.sliji l,'l: l:n it11ra11sc1ttA1[ .a? l'; I11t`111 Errvl (`iltimill:ilkill I'or l'r•r 1wed R(I)A Vial vi I'm Aiow 'g,4,011 llk.i,11,'a I)kh icI. I'Iil,id (11, li.ol Iii Aj-5p1ic:1111: Cipri ,l'l lin lark. „11 Ilc•II;III•„I" III-+um Three I.I:it``" I'll 1-11]CS << s.: r 's.11l:r:i,'11 Of :11C \„lic r'11 1 Fklo 9 111 rI1ilncr Pro?-r rlr ':N1I1P), Title. 1144, s ;L 1"od (11, Ft24[1,r.tl 1-"cou1atu711w 144CFR), are in LIfLl l 'vhc1 n kit•tL.;I% 7r11vw I'Llls xvi_Ililr SI-L":1ir1 1-I;'11.)ci II'1t 11,1:d Ai-,a fhi",h 1'1;14. iit"1.:,1ti 1. SI,;:Iic 1)t'0Etia'l. [11k [t:.l 1.11[`Cd ILI 111jj'!'- Wx [I) I 'F 1: 1:"tll;lri,11, .I ltil ulillr iri seclv)li 6 '). 12. l:ie 44(TR rcticot, ik- T11i.1tirt.lrnl L1[L1IIL,1k1'1 hv dic N1.IP. I. I I.ir.11.lni[w i5 OoI,I -}- il llL.l lii *il r I r :.l;Ir l, (hill yi n he 11:ilre re lr I,-:I I',c .l.stl Would lake plecccicncc Over the P I rl I B11.1111 NFll' tilllllilrll. l l I f' I114' 't""IovI 17roperly Wld/.IF their lel'r_ 7`i.,:II 2 1.L; L Ili IrcI GI'_ l ', L'41 '. I:11..I,l XkIIc Ij=I ti I)rl IL 11 K. I r,rjC'6[. I l c E I:IJiIr(t hIlies Iry llcwi rl{rtcci i'!1'I 1 1 ;irk 11 Ood 1nslur,lncc Rat M-,i p CLill he Vlt-, cal 0[1 r1111• FryI1,'•,cl TC3el i,ITIA I.I (IIII;, 1ii'i• II:ILti.iiinIII-) orgJf:HATl ikl",- LIIL' CI.1'_'*1r7T1 rL4Tirlilrn l 1174 luci,1 IIt.ud ,.II 1=n 1[111:. _ I)IOLISC C'0I11.ilCl the i:pjpl'iC:r`1bl t'i I.Ylllt' °1-ll' coor,. :nal.in 11 trlc: h,k)ty: irllu: Cite and County of 1•-Ioiwi llu, Department of Planning and Permitting Mi) M-8099, o Hawaii 1slilnd. County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works (809) 961-9327. aunty of Maui, Department of Planning (808) 270-7253. U Kal;iri: C` 'LIn1}l 1lf" KZIl'.iii• I)el7itf1111C1lL 0 I'i1111ic OS08) ;41-4896. s` S°nrYCd, C RT,V 5. Ir NO, CHIEF ENGINEER Date: 1 i 9WktUiL V.rX79 DAVID Y.IGE C11-kIRKMON GOVEMOR OF I iAVYAIP BOA ki)OF LAND Ali D MAT URAL R"PUM" COMMIMCM WATER DMOUR01 d LAND D J Lw I IN POST P FFICE BOX 621 HONOWALMAWAIT 91SR09 1). 2019 MEU10RANDUNI 76.DLNR Agt-,n6P-,- MV. Div. of X Engincoring Division X Div, of Forestry &Wildlife of State Pa PCs X of ,I I I Uri 'Xa',m r Rescurce Management iflcG of N', Coy ,tal Lands Lrar Di-J,-Iuri — AY His'orrz Preeservnlin-n Fw0m: -Co Y. i sLjjf, Land Administrator r Prc;posed Royal VistasSUBJECT: Envlronmont il Corlsultation 1c.- Hotislrig Project LOCATION.- Fth Ko%a District, Is-xicl ej 71,W_jjj; 71)]I<S: (3 7-6-''2 1.01 7-6-021:017 APPLICANT: Stantec, Co?is..ilting Services, Inc. o°i j" KciiI2 Tllr-_, LL(; Transmitted for )/nijr rpvir-we :Fld romment is informption en the above-referenced subject matter. Rease h,; December 18, 2019. If rto response is receiveJ 2:- t,Jll assurn-- vour ogenay has no comric-rils If you have a n y questions about this rc ell 1)1 r,-.,nfact Darlene Nakamura ;at )87 04,17 or Ibyernailat I. lclvt Jw objec;tion have fiox[]r Comments e EeA(zh Signed- Print Name: DA VID G.SMITH9 Ad nd ubtrato r Date: Att2chmerii_g Cc' Central Flies i F. w r SU7-Ab NIF a.0ASE DAVIDY.ICE ctiO-06PIENSM MCA:RC OF LAND ANP NATURAL RESOURO LS GOVERNOR OF HAJdAn GOMA1rwKmmNWA7ER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT R46ERT K. FI MT EIEPUTY' I iP M.KALEO MMUEL 12 AMI + ,. i-:> ua-uxY NREOTPR-WATER AUATIC STATE OF HAWAII N mD ucESQ4 Es 3<]AT'HG ANEAAl REC PE+:T+Rt+L BUREAU OF CONVEYANCE3 srareorH DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESDURCES COMMIMXW4ONWATERRESCVRCEW04AGENEN CDWGERV.LTK]N AND CDA51AL IAWK POST OFFICE BOX 621 CONSERVAM sF31Na p'E hiSENFORGEk7 HONOLULU, HAWAII C'650 FORESTRY ANCI YALOUFE HI STIORIC PRE15ERVATION KAKd8LAW5 t31.AND RESE RVE COMMI!351W; DEC 1 1 2019 Js:.afie a'aRxS Lo- no. 2373 TO: Russell Tsuji, Administrator Land Division FROM: David G, Smith, Administrator SUBJECT: Division of Fore,,Ti , :Iltd Wildlife Carninew, ,1:, 14)_ :il `, i ,t,':. I .ous:ng Project TNIK No.: (3) 7.6-0.2:0 t rP b;; . -(,-021:U17 11 i.e f)cp hrtrrent of Lan, -Iltl I",rJAI DI.NIR) f?i-•. 1-.IorI cd I 0I-4ry -I TO V,'L9ifc f )t)l I Iial `ecel'k"ed 1 .'IIJ- I.1ti1L'..". Itigftfd1:: : i<'aI Itii i I .'i•14;',-741 _al'1'114':`R V%- 1f}171 `"-:lL' iI-A. S'lE.'port.litl.114' t1..7 1,71'01.'IL.IM1: i:i:Yi-•t.1 1I:4''ll Lt 1L1 !1l' I. Iiw`4i.ILy.,ti 14 ;I[ t...A: '.I•,': i ., I I lt'1.5ai's.I.L wi•I i.:}1s 1 IL1, n L; L""' 1)r t;c:i. i i i i c r eck;:'L U'F'ti' oI L I I e 1-1U t11, t: ! til'.ti:l' t"1can ,far: In -.dd.h,d'. 1.;,: L: L:.,Liiq, oxygen, cz)z 'faded ;0, ,..I1 Il L: ;.till '.'':11t4. I14:titi Cl,:,I11 lh,_ .Ili' E-;'; rLx.11t}`,"IW c2l,h +11 i1.4ik:idc and other Mir 13 dhitants. 0M 'IL11d-_`J l:t"!L' L`_• i : l' I "" ' 1'.' It,I;.A L' r. 1t l7Cai7 iit.l. ids ci'7 I }- IT ,-I1,Lj; nf4tl 1. :Iil- P('P-utants annually. f1L'tklth &. ''+.+`19-18±'@'.'INN I'k'C-li k:d II.6i.I1 : t ''lt?(C1 'IrL: 11 l'. 7",'.d: IL_ 01d physI4•L1.1 5t'FCSS. dt1141 L`lluilt'1, ,:.:L: I"t'trl5 L k15 i511 17 [`1-0 III.',: 11.1i-ljL7i''il'. jlifiiLlill.ly t:'c1L1tiPu!'Ui II )I"I (i.e., 'vk+.,Ching and I::wh.l' 4"S. fL ll'wII.-,.I. I :; lil'S`t1Sl1+l t$ u~il''•lir; Sl w l`:ia v"]Il;! ti3l[j )C5trie7t pedestriall' S 1Lt. 141w.r,gy 015i "s 4'4 ielilti: ' reeq j)rn-\-iA_. 511 rice acid cooling, grL*1v reducing energy costs. 1 recs L'.1LI1`L' i. 5; ,• ' i;IH,I 'I' I' li' l . 1U11LU1- d i[ l1L t1 :,: ( t 44LEt i .`:I1iCl Li'a}^_'iElti!1: L'L.tiw I,t i•;,ti"lx:.. 4' filtcl. 'ri'l 1T1?I'1'ove grater quality by redu6ng S;I,I0}',Yater 1'u11,.' ' .l I_: :`I.I,.,.lil.:_. I Wit:, 1!, 11 ai)OIUILI iiore than 35mullion gallarrs of 4};ral e'•;I [' ,'I .nr I f !I I ,iY !.4`71 I III:'_. at 111o:-ut1l'ar S,S ).000annually- Reef Protection: i,ti:Ilt1:;, ii"'In fol'C_I Ivduccs M-o,,lun and filters pollutants significantly 1+,'..Icl4II!._ !1.i174; I :. 1:4. tIIC: 4.1C5211.L:LA{}TI ofo ll YeLIL).[L1.1k'. 1'ia't5. 11 -1' P1;Iti in to trees, foreStS.. 1911d -re `Il infra<Structuare 8Te below: SCOJ_};_ 0, k',ork show..' 1?I"+.ztt'tti,01f1 glari, and ' supervised by certified arborist Consider pruning as an alternative to removal Replace removed trees with native or non-invasive canopy trees Designate which species of trees are proposed for removal Proposed disturbance of area: Scope of work should include a tree protection plan and be supervised by a certified arborist Install green infrastructure for rehabilitated areas post-disturbance Proposed tree root & crown pruning: Scope of work should include a tree protection plan and be supervised by a certified arborist Proposed paving: Consider permeable pavement or other permeable surface to allow for absorption of groundwater Should you have any questions, please contact Heather McMillen @ heather.I.mcmillen@hawaii.gov 0 Ir ry 6]JZAMK DL CAW UAVIL)Y.I uE 4b/' - Ip 13DARD OFLANDAND NATURAL REWURCES COMMISSUM ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMKHT 1Vy—d Ind DEPARTMENT OF 1-,,%lfl A'[)F A 1!il j. 'nTT 1R Fr, 1,A.NP)PIV4510N FIO)T liOX C-21 6'00 2019 t; McVORANnUM L7 M rrI DILAII-I Aqciicles: 1-7r NO 0 Llr- of Aqua0z- Di,'. of Boat"ricJ & 0(tE;n Rt w-c-,,at X Einjjnec lit'g PIV.Isio -I 21(-D cf, Forestry &VV i'd 11 fe 7 rtis m Slate Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management 0'-flice of Conservation & Coastal Lands X Division - Hawafi Distfict X-1 4;Is-orI-c Preservation FROM. Russell Y. Tsui, i- S Eir.d AdmjOqtrato, UR JFCT Frivircnrnental AssassrRcnt ly Consultation for Proposed Royal Vistas Hamshig Project LOCA'rim: NnrIl- Ke31-12 DiSIf'(1, IldAvri of Hawaii; TMKs: (?) 7-(`--.W-1 f 16 & 7-6-021 IN 7 APPLICANT Stantec, Consulting :services, 41C. on behalf(-,. Kon:i Tr)re%rb ! f C, ronsmiacci fog- wor and cornrnant is inforrnation on the above referenced subject rnatter. Ple ,;e submil ccnimnrnts by December 18, 209. J [IL resporisu -u TeGeiv,u by this date, tare will assume your agency has no cornments- J YOU IIEIVC any qLJ-r)Stf011S abuut (lies revues'. pli-arse cort(act Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417 or by email at dprleqe.k.rial qq-,urrj 'DI Li Tliauk yuJ. or We have :i,-) cormnents, Carnments z:re, attached, zz-Z-/ Attachrnents CC. Central Files SUZANNE 1j.CASE 13AVID Y,IG E bo'A'14'40N Or ivtisvnli b.+r"BOARD OF LOVAN13 NAT MAL kNSrWKCU 1CMUMMIUM ON WATER MOLORCE Awl s'm1i. OF I I A WA,I I DI 1'-1 V F)I 1 ,1 4 IF LAN P AND N t 11.114 k L RKSO I R( Vlti 2 J Z 0 J S COnSUIti-ig Services inu- Atici-ion: Ms. Mki-ele Letebwe vaernal ii,i,-,):--Ii.iefebvreLdsiantec.corn P 0 Box 1`)I 6721 I'lin,,ir fuls 1-.,fpbvrc- SUBJECT Frivironmental AssascmicvL Faily Cons ultal ici, fi-r Royal Vistas Projoct loc-Mcd :it North Island of H!Dw-aiil' T 1--il Ks. i G-0 2 1:01('i N /-6-021 C, 7 oni ID.-:I I K i E; Three LLC Tf-irink yn--i ±i -i the: re'vil,"n, w--Lij of, III(-- tiuljjt to 11 ;-J'Lhti"m W CUF I`? d a Lc d L) r 19. '12 G L.11 1 us i d 'L I e uci I I t u-F)I S f r(i F,1 ills com m S 6 i 0 ri on VV R'j P S 0 U rrP, IV1 11 o 't Ciie i,rT)'i i I c r. 5[)Ot I I d YO L ally questions, please eel free to Na.kariiura -it cr e-m-ail- dar[Bne.k.nakanieraLdhavvaii.cicv. 1'I-.ai,,k il f;f rely, Enckosares cc: Central Files y suF,%m4F 0.CASE C:1IAI101A. StPN DAY40Y.tGN o-x ,esaY 9l, ioAlLnarLANUA.;D atiTuPILkUKt QUNC.r:S GGMEFMR OF KN,k.P 11 F _ l;[Yhi,1i L4Sl'6N ON 4l 47"E7t 1tL'Si1 L'RCe ItLkY.Yil['RlF..a'I' Ap s STATE OF ti,1W,diI rarry JI;I' I' I :till•" i Lal 1 li i' 4ti'1) N., %I 1 1"A RI Y)! I:;'I ' Nc '•.fr.Iris„r 2l`;, 201' MFiViORANDUM iv, of Acjo `if_ NcAsor.rces V. of Bu-_itiing LJL earl Recre t!on t Engineer.;f1C1 Divisicii X Div.. of Foresli-V & Wildlife Div. of State Parks f CCommission on Water Resource Management YI Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands X Land Division -- Hawaii District X Historic: Preservation FH4hJl: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator SUBJECT. Environmental Assessment Early Canwr,[tall on for Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project LOCATION: North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 7-b-021:016 & 7-6-021:017 APPLICANT- Slantec Con-smiting Services, inc. on t ehal`of Kona Three LLC Tralr rnitled for your rovie%v and c,)mment is information on the above-referenced ok.jti!:;f. m +l_<<er_ PIetL e subrrtit corr}c';4-:i Its by December 1€.. 2019. Il r y rep ipc,ric_u is rece"ved by this data, we 'will ass1_1171 Y voter agency has no comments. If YCILI Ir?', : !.311 ho-it this request, please contact Darlene NakarrwFa at 587-04 17 or by errs; it yet dadetia.k.nal,ou i1.r flawaii.goy. Thank you. e have no cbjectPons. e have no cornrnents. x } Comments are attached. Signed: sf M. Kaluo Manuel. Print Name: Deputy director Date: Deesmber 16, 2019 I.I1 Irs r.`r.,ntral Files F1LE lt?: CAVID Y.GE IJZANrF3 r- C AtE 7RLICF-S.ANDERGD11.-1 B MICHAEL C.BLICK NEI L a HA,,KAHS WAVNIFIK VA-.AYAMA, PAULJ M---YE;Z STATE OF HAWAII N.KALEO NIAWEL OEPAR7MENT OF LAND AND NATURA-RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT P.O.EOX621 HOuCt.jLU i-[AW,;11 MOM 0ecen)bia-r 16. 2019 REF: RF0.5288.8 TO.Mr, Russell Tsuji, Administrator Land Division FROK M-Kaleo Manuel, Deputy Cirector Commission on Water Resource Management SUBJECT:Environmental Assessment Early Consultation for Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project FILE NO.: RFID.5288.8 TIVK NO.: 3)7.0-02 1:Q16&7-E-021:01 7 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document, The Commission on Water Resource Management(CVVRM)is the agency responsible for administering the State Water Code(Code). Under the Code, all waters of the State are held 1 n trust for the be riefa of the citizens of the State,therefore all water u s a is subject to legally protected water rights- CANRIVI strongly promotes the efficient use of Hawaii's water resources through conservation measures and appropriate resource management" For more information,please refer to the State Water Code. Chapter 174r,,Hawaii Revised Statutes,and Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapters 13-167 to 13-171. These documents are available via the Internet at hitp:lldlnr.haWAii.cloviL,tvrm,. Our comments related to water resources are checked off below. FxJ 1. VVe recommend coordination with the county to incorporate this project into the rounty's Water Use and Development Plan. Please contact the respective Planning Department andior[Department of Water Supply for further information. El 2. VVe recommend coordination with the Engineering Division of the State Depa tnent or band and Natural Resources to incorporate this project into the State Water Projects Plan. El 3. We recommend coordination with the Hawaii D e ps rtment of Agriculture (H D OA)to incorporate the reclassification of ag ricu Itufa I zoned land ei n d the redistribution of agricultural resources 1 n to the S t a te's Agricultural Water Use and Development P[a n (AWUL)P). Please contact the H 00A for more information. FRI 4. We recommend that water efficient fi xtu res be installed and water efficient practices implemented throughout the development to reduce the increased demand on the area's freshwater resources. Reducing the water usage of a home or building may earn credit towards Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(IL E E D)certification" More information on L E E D certification is available at http:1/vwvw.Lj9gbc.org1I9ed A listing of fixtures certified by the EAP as having high water efficiency can be found at htIpJ1www.epa.g Dvlwale rsen se. FX] 5 We recommend the use of best management practices (BIVI P I for sto rm water management to minimize the impact of the project to the existing area's hydrology while maintaining on-site infiltration and preventing polluted runoff from storm events. Stormwate r management B M Ps may earn credit toward LEED certification. More information on sturmwater BMP!s can be found at http 11p la n n i n g.lhawaii.gavlcz m/i nitiatives/I ow-irn pact-developmen V Fil 6. We recommend the use of alternative water sources, wherever practicable, F-1 7. We recDm m end participating in the Hawaii Green Business Program,that assists and recognizes businesses that Strive to operate in an envrro n m en ta I ly and socially responsible manner. The program description can be found online at h ItIp:Ilenerg y.h awal 1-g ovigree n-busi n e ss-prog rarn. 0 8- We recommend adopting landscape irrigation conservation best management practices endorsed by the Landscape industry Council of Hawaii. These practices can be found online at htLp:J1www-h awa i i scapexomtvip-contan Vuplo ELd&120 1 31041L IC 1-1-1`09a tiQn—Conse rvatio n—BIV Ps.pdf. Mr. Russell Tsuji Page 2 December 17, 2019 9. There may be the potential for ground or surface water degradation/contamination and recommend that approvals for this project be conditioned upon a review by the State Department of Health and the developer's acceptance of any resulting requirements related to water quality. 10 The proposed water supply source for the project is located in a designated water management area, and a Water Use Permit is required prior to use of water. The Water Use Permit may be conditioned on the requirement to use dual line water supply systems for new industrial and commercial developments. 11 A Well Construction Permit(s)is(are)are required before the commencement of any well construction work. 12 A Pump Installation Permit(s) is (are) required before ground water is developed as a source of supply for the project. 13 There is(are)well(s)located on or adjacent to this project. If wells are not planned to be used and will be affected by any new construction, they must be properly abandoned and sealed. A permit for well abandonment must be obtained. 14 Ground-water withdrawals from this project may affect streamflows,which may require an instream flow standard amendment. 15 A Stream Channel Alteration Permit(s)is (are) required before any alteration can be made to the bed and/or banks of a steam channel. 16 A Stream Diversion Works Permit(s) is(are) required before any stream diversion works is constructed or altered. 17 A Petition to Amend the Interim Instream Flow Standard is required for any new or expanded diversion(s) of surface water. 18 The planned source of water for this project has not been identified in this report. Therefore,we cannot determine what permits or petitions are required from our office, or whether there are potential impacts to water resources. X OTHER: Planning-The proposed water sources and projected water demands for the project, both potable and non-potable, should be identified and the calculations used to estimate demands should be provided. A discussion of the potential impacts on water resources and other public trust uses of water should be included, and any proposed mitigation measures described. Water conservation and efficiency measures to be implemented should also be discussed. If you have any questions, please contact Lenore Ohye of the Commission staff at 587-0216. Harry Kim icliaef Yee ay,or Direcior Wit Okabe 4I Duane Kanuha Managing Dirwor LlepulyDirector P TCFiMt West HaWaN Office East Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane KeohAalole R,4y 101.Pawshi Strut,suke 3 Kaflua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of s avian n f-A%Hawaii 96720 Phooc(908)323-4770 Phony(908)961-82U Fax 009)327-3563 PLANNING 11PPARTNff,,N F Fax(808)961-8742 December 23, 2019 Michele Lefebvre, PhD Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.D. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Dear Nis. Lefebvre: SUBJECT: Comments for Early Consultation for Environmental Assessnicnt for Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Kevs: 3 7-6-021.016 & 017 Hi5lualo2 151 & 2f". N. Kona, Ha l ai`i This is in response to vcair letter dated November 18. 2010 re(jae-,6ii-. early consultation cormicnts for an envirol)_)iental assessment being prepai-ecl 6(1:- 450 n-.LiIti-family residential unit development and improvements on the above referenced property, including drainagre dnd road%w ay within County-owned parcels 13 and 19, 1. The subject prcip.rtics are zoned Multiple-Farnily Residential, with a minimu><n building site of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit (RM-5), by the County of Hawaii and designated as Urban by the State Land Use Commission. Refer to County of Hawwrai'i Ordinance No, 0 -131, which amended previous ordinances to establish the zoning on the propertics, and State Land Use Commission Docket No. A83-549, to determine the status of condlttion compliance for these land use entitlements. 2. The General Plan Land. Use Pattern .Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designation for the properties are Urban Expansion and Low Density Urban. Be aware that the County General Plan is undergoing a comprehensive rek 1.w and these lands use designations may change soon !upon adoption of an amended Gcacml Plan. 3. The property is not 9r c'Lfltd within the Special Management Area (SMA) and is situated about 4. ):.? 1 i iiik-i v f the shoreline. 1 hfn1ai1ningJ1tP1X03n F{mvQr'i -ommv:;r;r, rquafQpporj€,wayPrrovhkr and Fmplgwr Michele Lefehvre. PhD St M"tfC COFS.1-11-11W'. Set-vices Inc. pa'-'C 1 2', 20 19 4. LJfccted by the Kona CO'11111 Lill It', J1 1) ihc- I lx'k c--3 Councill hv No . 08-1:") 111clir.%t'- hnv, ''-e 1x-OFQ5ed 11--:'LA` fl' 10 a 1(11 OJ'111Q CDP, S. The EA should describe the specific dra-Inup and road vav itillproverielit." proposed ithin i1w f and anajysis o fI impacis rind attorjiativcs cu1741dcrcd- 6. 1 ti <;Xoii l:v h- Planning Department files related to these CLI--ed 1A land use permitting history, 1ALLit"Ll U-IL; ub[ic sentiment regarding 11C Y"I'_" d[': itll--! t,l' 11 =, PlCi,-C SJI,jUIL; so that we t:l, 3iimi1z :ill 11-'ti -'.1-C 1-o'" vicwing. lrclu, o in the F-.A I lill'-' -11-WWOV WAI`ItTs and ivision, Kuui -:im \L,kiii and proputy owners dire,:Lly eas€ of th subjecl 1 roperfieS. We look forward to rc c% i n 1Igthec;i,a.-' :"A Mion it is avauLubiv. If you have any qLLEStIO11S, please feel free 110 Con-1,1L Maj-a LU 961-8159. SH-1ccrCiV. 1 MIC I 1A E L Y LE M JJ inad S P A]),A iT161;( 1643 21319 Royal Vista s.doc cc w/copy of letter: Ronald Kim. Deputy Corporation Counsel APPENDIX 1 b: Comments on Draft EA and Responses Mars, Ashley PT T h COH PILPIWING DIL To.. Planning lntc!r: AUG 13 202 0 iH 11:52 subjuct: KoriaThfee 1_1: esr 1.I it-ili--,iriq Proj--!;- r Di Ft rivirn,-mprval d r I 11 alani EsIdk.-s arid nis Hcusvig Pfr -o -fic l--.-,,,'C J regarding the Traffic 1-r-pactY I C" :,ilk;--c- lip 1F1 k. 11 n 'I LI FJ !h:_-- )7e[°,ia I e I on Lra Iti r3 nin High--' oy 1 'hat u,lld Id ipolications lor amendment to crdfiriai ices id hc IiJCuI F r! co r I i I n e: t;-, hose appl i Cati Ons, ;N'-1 P rope)C- a G 0,010 0 sq, It. 10PP'lent and, 386 multi-family residential UnJU- un 'Lhc wesl_. L;irle of Hlgh4-%.,y 11 ri,hrnl`ted to you Or April 2 and hine 3, 2020. Those ('1-o,mI'ncntS nated the Iieady ri--ffic: tarns experierced daily between Henry '--;trect and Kanich6meha !N Rct. dI,ijnng j_-'Jk WI ram, be Linaitc-rably ,vorsered by t-c tratfic fesulting from ti-losc c-,-:LICr)S, it s inexcjsi,b,e for Zhc Kona T 11 ree e-U fail to take the S ujCfu i k- aryl Puaa ap,)I.caflors into aCC'Untr' 1,-c Rc-v I .Iirztas Traffic nalysiis, WN U ippropriatc-ly IR: I-i-° 7- -ct'-_ I" Pu_!,.W: I''f.atP-s to 9a. 11 access for- Rcy,jl Vi,,'iu'5, r"s I dc, -1 ind viw,llors to Highway il via Str-cet, scok-, to create a nev , r-L I b_t [lull- acCess '-rl the highway aria Roy,a! V'.L,'t-as Roadv' Hy. Ever access lanes can LJc J IlWay, rJie absence cat !-rafflc sjgl-,a s vjlj inevitably d to accidents and jj existing accos-, I io ',ig ljw -;y t.lhc Lako Sti-cel: ri'k-i-,o( tion is idequate because of [he necpss-ar iy shoi L lui'.-h and sout,hDOUrd access P,Llt I FOLI d J 5 h) have the County exercise erniment domain to CA-'%, %10 17 P;lt t,:, Hu'crj- Ci-l,I lnrl Pi-iole-hia Streets in Pualan! I o!gh the I Id : 1"' by :Iccess H 1 7 il I-lie Puapuaan Lii interscctlor-. OLA I- [.-)'revious included ('-r objection to such 1-1 qhvvay 11 access Lt!:.0 I W-:-ys. 1' U I S i:-n-1-y bcl that addir i q 1 N17(I1-1 L.3. [)-d r,nr re,idc-rh aL least 90C) vc_-hicle trips per day will aggr-E)..(ZAC tl-,;-- 'Jlrea('I 2 tr.;1[ic ce;,-Ys an Highway 11 b(_-Lv (,r Henry Street and Karri;.h:jnrrha I I I IRA, F2vc'r 1vIJi. the proposed added access via Royal Vistas Roadway. I note also that the [D EA fails try ad er.ija'(_''Y Cc',i I v,i'TI Ir r f x I s t 1 ng problem 0 IF ove rcro vvdi n 9 in rr,ost of the public schools serving Li-,e Ever that the development would qcnerate 99 students, there appears, n,.,D needed classroom space in the area. F alky ficT;icr' 1 other owners of P-91a7 Estates, nor HawaiianinL , 1;1 I Fl-;dllQqinq agent, rtcejved your ong-nof no tice of this 700-page DEA. AftcrI xic,tc-once from a thi-d pe-irLy, .1 re-Viewc-ld it, noffied our managing agent, Emd prc.,'-1I reo rlhes---, BecaUse many lntercs,,ed I-)erties were 11C)t [,'Ticially notified & the DEA, I I)F;OvF tl,=- "O-day deadline for comments shcu'd be extended. Alc-ha and mahalo in advance for your careful cn'is'dr--atln-rl of JOCI GIFTIPCI 75-(--).M f ',lc-!a Lanakila Pl. KailLJa-KL.;11,J, hl W')?740 808/325-4991 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Joel Gimpel 75-628 N. Mea Lanakila PI. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Via email: alohafidlr@aol.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Gimpel: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 13, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The impact analysis fails to take into account the potential traffic on Highway 11 from the Suffolk Investment and Puaa Development applications for amendments to ordinances being considered by the Leeward Planning Commission, given the existing traffic issues between Henry Street and Kamehameha III Road. Response 1: Existing traffic conditions were established as part of the analysis in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the EA). As described in Section 3.7.2 and Appendix 2 of the EA, turning movement traffic counts were taken at eight study intersections, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street as well as Queen Ka`ahumanu and Kamehameha III Road. Although these intersections may experience delays, Appendix 2 demonstrates that Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street functions at level-of-service LOS) C in the morning and evening while Queen Ka`ahumanu and Kamehameha III Road functions at LOS B in the morning and level C in the evening. These are both considered acceptable levels of service by the County of Hawaii. Based on the methodology described in Appendix 2, the TIAR assumes a growth rate of one percent to account for additional traffic at the study intersections. Projects such as the ones you mentioned, Suffolk Investment and Puaa Development, have been accounted for in this one percent growth rate. With these assumptions, the traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to level of service from the project above the background rate to these intersections. September 13, 2021 Mr. Joel Gimpel Page 2 of 3 Comment 2: The DEA does not consider accessing the proposed project from Queen Ka`ahumanu along Puapuaanui Street and then along Ho`omama and Paulehia Streets in Pualani Estates. Kona Three could seek to have the County exercise eminent domain through the Gomes property. Accessing the project directly from Queen Ka`ahumanu will lead to more accidents and injuries. Response 2: As described in Section 3.7.2, Kona Three LLC does not have rights to extend these streets across private land owned by the Frank and Betty Gomes Trust, and Kona Three LLC as a good neighbor is not seeking to exercise eminent domain when another access option is available and supported by the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). Regarding the safety of accessing the site from the proposed intersection of Royal Vistas Blvd and Queen Ka`ahumanu, Kona Tree LLC has coordinated with HDOT and continues to coordinate with HDOT on ensuring the safest design and construction of this intersection. Comment 3: The existing access at the Lako Street intersection is currently inadequate due to the short north and southbound access. Response 3: Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would not be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street until Phase 2. Although this intersection may experience delays, Appendix 2 demonstrates that Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street functions at level of service C in the morning and evening which is considered acceptable level of service by the County of Hawaii. The traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to level of service from the project above the background rate to this intersection. Comment 4: The project would increase overcrowding in public schools with the addition of 99 students and does not include provision to fund needed classroom space. Response 4: As described in Section 3.7.1, the West Hawaii School Impact Fee District has suspended fee collections. Therefore, there is no funding requirement in place for new developments. The project would be constructed in phases, and occupancy would occur over time. Additionally, it is expected that the project would provide workforce housing for the local community. The project's first phase would construct rental units, and it is expected that occupants of these units would be local and many of the students already attend local public schools. Section 3.7.1 has been revised to clarify that since the project would be constructed in phases, all 99 students would not all arrive at once and occupancy would occur over a longer period of time. This is consistent with predicted rates of growth for the area which are considered by the Department of Education in their forecast planning for public schools. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Joel Gimpel Page 3 of 3 Comment 5: Request to extend the 30-day deadline for comments. Response 5: This request was granted by the Hawaii County Planning Department and the DEA was released for a second 30-day comment period. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department I cis Mori. Ashley From: Les,r-r SJ-irlp-,, • lvw rio,G DEPT Sent F ric a w, A u-i u!. I-1. 0 2C 1 1.1116 A Jt2 To-hVrp P re.;-T), I :, I ) 1':'J 1w".111i'i M.--i Subject: Poya Vistas Hoi.j,-.IIiiU PJ 9..I t Alolia Nk 1,cfebvirc and the 1'11111,1;11 4 I live on Kinau Street in the k n., \ I I IAI 'I I-k 'I•:[I d I Mv concern abom thl.,, 1,11,,;J{Jr,114'L ' 1, PA J, I Street, The intersecdon of diL LI)LI Jkl-' 1 Jil C.h k li I i, i-'ii i,-;l 11-ii- k-Jdrw!-I.%I Ir.i.1-fic trm13 -450 rnuH-Family units, 11w R(.)N--,Li Vista Housing Project nccd, k) hil.VC aI-I C.Idt ditLUIV tc)the highw-,Ly, 6,1 .-LCIL'ITH)n to enttT arid exit through Kona %'[,,tag. ester W. Shirley, 1:,;q. Retired 1 .15249 to` tec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Lester Shirley, Esq. Retired Via email: Iwslaw@sbcglobal.net RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Shirley: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 14, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The project would add traffic to the Lako Street intersections which is already a busy intersection. Response 1: Although this intersection may experience delays, Appendix 2 in the EA demonstrates that Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako Street functions at level- of-service (LOS) C in the morning and evening which is considered acceptable LOS by the County of Hawaii. The traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to LOS from the project above the background rate to this intersection. Comment 2: The project should have an exit directly to the highway, in addition to entry and exit through Kona Vistas. Response 2: As described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC proposes to construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Blvd. at the project's intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu. Additionally, Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street during Phase 2 of the project. At project completion, there would be two ways to access the project. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. mic hele.lefebvregsta ntec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department CaN f l.ANW; DEPT OUG 19 2020 P4,15 I 2010 REO'TD By MA"' Co.jrly, of Fldvriii Nanning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RP: Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District TMKs (3} 7-6-021:016, 017, 018,and 019 Dear Sirs: am a long-time homeowner in Paulehia Street, having purchased my hcu--;o irr .100/_ A.; a homeowner, I am adamantly apposed to the proposed Royal Vistas HfAl,in„ I1roject. It would add about 450 multi-family residential units just south of Pualani Estatr-.- Thcc reasons I am against such a project are as follow,; 1. Much-increased Traffic on the n ain highway between Henry and Laka Streets, especially when tourists and mainkind people return to live, work, and play on our island. 2. Po$sible traffic from Royal Vistas through Pualani Estates, on Paulehia Street (my street), and FaHo'ornama Street. The streets here are narrow and many families with small children live here. Such traffic would then have to turn lent on Ptaapuaanui Street to get to the highway, creating traffic backups on Puapuaanui Street. 3. Lass of property values in Pualani Estates due to the above passible scenarios. Please do not allow the Royal Vistas proposed project to go forward!I Ronald F. Raritfon 75-6133 Paulehia Street, Kadua-liana, HI 96740 540 F fz J( d- r r k I 1Y y 5 LOry yIA# ck: tiro, 1 v1 K 4 f Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Ronald Raridon 75-6133 Paulehia Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Raridon: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 16, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The project would add to existing traffic problems between Henry Street and Lako Street on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Response 1: Existing traffic conditions were established as part of the analysis in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the EA). As described in Section 3.7.2 and in Appendix 2 of the EA, turning movement traffic counts were taking at eight study intersections, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street as well as Queen Ka`ahumanu and Lako Street. Although these intersections may experience delays, Appendix 2 demonstrates that both of these intersections (Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street, and Queen Ka`ahumanu and Lako Street) function at level-of-service C in the morning and evening. These are considered acceptable levels-of-service by the County of Hawaii. Based on the methodology described in Appendix 2, the TIAR accounted for traffic measured during peak periods of use in April and August 2019, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic reduction of local and visitor traffic. The TIAR also assumed a growth rate of one percent from use in 2019 to account for additional traffic at the study intersections. With these conservative assumptions, the traffic impact analysis shows no impacts to level-of-service from the project above the background rate to these intersections. Comment 2: Traffic from the project would impact Ho`omama and Paulehia Streets in Pualani Estates, and create backups on Puapuaanui Street. Response 2: As described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC does not have rights to extend these streets across private land owned by the Frank and Betty Gomes Trust and Kona Three LLC is not proposing to access the project from these streets. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Ronald Raridon Page 2 of 2 Comment 3: Loss of property values in Pualani Estates. Response 3: The project is consistent with medium density zoning and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP). It is beyond the scope of the EA to speculate on property values in the analysis. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From. Ka i I n '.V r r-i P-k I i n--, I Sent:0-H, To: pl-i i r-.l I ri[-i riel Mai AUG 26 2020 ,---5:34 Subject Project Fro comments Attachments: Hui Re-sp(-i lettc-i.docx eau Kukui "Ula Helau Hui August 22, 2020 k ,. ,, [4 vyNati m 1111i, Ikeati Kolmi 1_11';i I k-i;1,11 I•'.,`, ill % :'A;I': I k(A C1(a]]Tll0r11 l II M 1ti t1i4 Itrli 111'Q i"; t'(° vori-illlc f(w Aw I i csc i'val'hm ;1[ttl Ik[•c]:c-1•li+Ill tit Or 11,'N: in do, WON Maks sulolivi1on, 4' v Ash to t'x1}nAs cmr l"llll('l"'I']lti S1']t"I "lit' p,-(Il1(,,,(-d di[ vel(tpr1lE'nt "Noyal Vitas Hnuning MOM"Th4K 131 7--6-f)m:r is cl;tsl. 1110 stildv i f llic, aT r.,! olio 4 that there is evidence of 1 1 iY'er ntact aI~rieillturt il_ II.'.1•'iI 1:is i.I. 1'l11 i 11 ;1IItl t[-.i11wpt1!-lali!1I1 rt 1tI]1',.,.: 1.1v;1 tl,la-s :1::1cl Caves 1-1-x11 %vere-aot t,;':kcllr `41 11[r 1cl', 11 I.fiC dcli,' 1?I I";1,- 4ir(' t,; Ill, rls •.( l}lr eo]y7t I)!'l 117i y".`4I t'y Ll_ c i:'o...,; "•1 t]ne vi 111A1 h1A1(01, 1hr II f..-ijn i,.it Ipi.' D'.!Ae0 I i'tl !I tl'!.`I :;It Od. 11, K011;1 1':(:141 Kl"-) I I;It I','S :111(l -!.111jpori.'ll ;I lir? .:[' lEi;1111 !!:.?!.'1 1 .I 1 iir% i n I Itaia}l:: ij-ea. The i.]I1[-I. 111.tyliii;.r'i,I I[}1- 01c,jl'I! •]1lltI rc1;1 II ;;Ells' tI III,: ll lltl'Ii:I ('\ I+11't11':' '.1'111 '!1 'y'."1* -[Iti'.. WV11LT1 IW]';1A1S1r1T1g' cla.,; '1 11=.'11k .. 11- 1-1tillt. Though the area roadti mnd strr?c_tst ond, Am are' inn pprVT111iAI SIrc'.a m-s iv Kona. The area tin der co nsid[:'i':1t!mi coil-mills r11w n1 0 1(- I I II ','..,i! I. 1: tllill cc.ruld pro idcc ilisight i11(o I;ir: Iiis (II'iU d ll,SeS (II'tllr IAII(I i[I rr's.11iat[1 II I M,`.;^or St]11re. MW l71'eservatkul f'O11'tti K 1 ima we atthe sIZr;mli.ne, so As I-,.:ivel is copAH) VaIlla le, for 11]i'-wlv Tllii]l illili , T1( 1i .1 Itlrg[, t l'w'i'l ll}Illl'lll l l[t".Iti dl . Di. ika l[- 1 eaian i 1-1. Winter Co-c-hair Ric IA-eke Buni aiiglag -Co-chair Jcf-i Nolica Alvx.mder- Re& & Doc. Manager Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Dr. Kate Kealani H. Winter, Co-Chair Mr. Ric Likeke Bumanglag, Co-Chair Mr. Jeff Nohea Alexander, Resident and Doc. Manager Heiau Preservation Hui, Keau Kukui `Ula Heiau Email: khkealani@gmail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Dr. Winter, Mr. Likeke, and Mr. Nohea: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 22, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The project area shows there is evidence of pre-contact cultural resources that not obscured already by previous bulldozing. The size of the project will erase some of that history that cannot be restored or recreated. The project is located on land that is a significant part of the Kona Field System and retains historical evidence that was lost when neighboring developments were built. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 of the EA and included in Appendix 5, two Archaeological Inventory Surveys (AISs) were prepared. The AISs and EA describe the project's location within the Kona Field System and how sites identified during the inventories are relevant to the Kona Field System. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules §13- 276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Two of the sites were identified for preservation (the railroad berm and petroglyph). As described in Section 3.6 of the EA, Kona Three LLC is coordinating with State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to ensure protection and preservation of these sites. Comment 2: Although there are no perennial streams in Kona, the project area contains one of the few seasonal watersheds that could provide insight into the historical uses of the land in relation to water sources. Response 2: As described in Section 1.2 of the EA, the project includes a small portion of the Horseshoe Bend Ditch that would be re-routed but not destroyed. September 13, 2021 Heiau Preservation Hui, Keau Kukui 'Ula Heiau Page 2 of 2 Historic land use is described in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the EA. None of the existing Holualoa Ditch will be re-routed or destroyed; therefore, if anyone wanted to study the drainage ditches in the future, that opportunity would still exist. Mauka areas where rainfall occurs could be considered watershed areas and would not be impacted by the project. Comment 3: Most preservation efforts in Kona are at the shoreline, so this parcel is especially valuable for preservation that such a large development threatens. Response 3: Regulations for evaluating site significance and eligibility for preservation were applied to all sites in the project area. These criteria apply regardless of proximity to the shoreline. The project is following required regulations for development to protect cultural resources in coordination with the SHPD. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From.- Z.Itlhy VVIiIi-r Sent, 0" -Jr C sri Ll, A 2020 9--02 .M CGH PLMVING DEFT To: Mail PUG 26 20 2-'0:?5 Subject, 21 -:i V A:i- -lo.i-sipg Project EA comments Attachrnen6.- Le:L u V d-1 c x 135595 T i-I.v:i Y I-e. H e.r7 i i i Fm-i) Dr Kate! H- Viwer Re: Vistas Ho-, 1-vi As a leaf;h'!r)C I hov de p concems aboN;c?. I hove taught acne of Kona's te3Chr--rS as U!: :C I I'Jd L L3 1!. -1 and know I,ic ail. rit nd challenges they work As a professor at Univers j Hilo wind H'cjwal'l CCITMUII ty CFAC-ge. I l')OVQ Witne5sed the dcfichts tha: d s r::;[ stl-,,)cjIs ;eaves our slude,ik with. Socioeconcinc stresses such a lary huLjtiirq In Mis distlr r,' wil, !;,Ive n'i (,..r LJ.' laachers and OLI' The report states that 11 of nu -5 piihli7, sp-hool-s, are, over capacity at this -I'i)c. ;Afherc does the County plan to have the additiona chIdren from this 450 unit development go to school? Thank you for your coriFideration of-1-!:s probleni- Dr Kate H- Winter, Professor Emeritus U=-i r;,i-y -,-1 A I b a n Y to` tec SO.Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Dr. Kate H. Winter, Professor Emeritus Via email: khkealani@gmail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Dr. Winter: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 23, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: As a professor, I have witnessed the deficits that the district schools leave our students with. The project will have adverse impacts to schools which are already over capacity. Response 1: As described in Section 1.2 of the EA, the project would be constructed in phases and occupancy would occur over time. It is expected that the project would provide workforce housing for the local community. The project's first phase would construct rental units, and it is expected that occupants of these units would be local residents and many of the students already attend local public schools. Even if the project added 99 new students to the district, all 99 students would not all arrive at once since the units would be built in phases and occupancy would occur over a longer period of time. This is consistent with predicted rates of growth for the area which are considered by the Hawaii State Department of Education in their forecast planning for public schools. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department 74 - 0211OV, 011.01? KOIS Mori, Ashley From: it,'i J ki Al i i.,C-rT I GOO PL"ING 9.FT- 3 7Sent: Tuesday. A,v o- '3020 I G 31 AM fj'JG 25 2020 art To. Pl-ii,ii r!Li hitt i j,L7,- -,T i Cc: Subject: R; I %_1 1-.7-,i Attachments: Please gee attachod. Thank you, Daniel Malakic 1 .15478 I_f L'; IraL N1ALAKIE N-i 11 i' K.A MFH,Af,, Al t_l -;I HFl-1 K''.11 KONA. FII )C.40 P,-it_J ''l: I :;Ili r r :ir u r: uupc:'Aici, ;u :he pru.Josed new develaJprneri. , Hoyal `v t_,", I have lived here far over 25 years and have been very active in our comrl"LTItV. I I-L:4o s„_I-11 l'-_r: lark of irifrastri,c:ture causing nur erC1,18 problerps for our community, As ;GL know if you live in Korn: the biggest pre'ilern Is traffic. When t"r iq! rP.l.rn o r',arinal and the tourists and visitors rrtclrn and v e i-c 711a to open all Tan- bi.-sine sses ano return to ricrlc„ [!-Fe traffic extends t unit•.r to L:,roper Iron) Borth of tree ai,pu-1 I;j Gook, 'l lle trl,;ttic 101 at Lako and Queer, K. intrl rr,:,tir, ,a cos 9.5 minUtes tta chl,inge- C)rl-d a tew r.r'<rs siren L,ble to go through this lighl Lr. one ti1ric. -1heiiD is t'-, potential for cr r 2000 r evv rehi,, L=2s froIii the new praposed devel,oprr.ent irave!-nr ;hrc'L qh tni£ I oht ever r :; This ir.tersectiol- aliead of the de;ti.iesl iiilersec;li(•I. ell iov, , haviiig riunlL: L:u:: ,ittsl licc'derts, `f'1•s .. ui could add on Fm mini.-=5 o our CDrrMUte. We nee-, a 4-land rc n' Henry Street to Kzn- 3 H:g•,.svn;. There is terrible flooding it 1 r; ,r; .:rcr: Numerous times whe,T I I_ f vwas a he,'-ivy rain, I have Qcrson[:I;y %^,.t•W'sS..i. i r ::',u' itill 11-:t ,v i° :>il lne1ess w,de. ct:J cavor (!Ljoi r• K. I lighway between Pualani Fsttites t rr1 I_,lkr: Strt.et It blcc ked the er`ire hig-1V)1-. . It causod mach destruck un, There i;; E' e; i-:)L) inu :!-,s area ar'd r-ot much you carp do to stop it. A new development will rompo.int~ th s r."no Liam. Anc.he— r-'ajar concern is 'ior oiir v, -iter. It there are 750 new apartments and condos built, what will 1 to o it vjatE r sufiiply a!ici sewage? Ihaere is alreacy a strain on the exi.s:i iq •v:pIls ar',c waterslied. Adc)iticiri:ji s(J-nears wil; r0so he rleec.pd, I ii ireil is rir:'i in cultura' p!aoes -Drlri t.c:tly ties. There is .ick of n----rks . r- d rF.c:reot:i•,n'-)i ai'-rs. ri fti I" [",s}r?'r11°.I'1R'.; Just loot{ ni tl"( :'.'ITOXII of people th,1- IL.-, `!01 -,rCl iihL Old f'x f-ioQ Vail ever',- day. You can r.'riNc.'c with PATH for ,Ac,l ml'e 1I Il lfr rl :.1 1, E! if +,.s t:c:lrity trt_:I•„htt this piecin k)r ')fCperty they could I-ave a be,9L.tifUl park tr.-il: r:nc h..-tiv rigriificant tx..i un(jr•'.:ik. I here u,re numerous ;,)ur,WI yro--jn.ds In this Laet-tafic . ;,a uI CLI- Icr;i7Pr ct rr Imen has ref:fives who are btu led in ca'w¢ . -): this area. I"';`p'vt- :itJfJtS.!!I'1 t.l rfl 'y of rri',, '-Pi t4J%nr,4. ,nd re.lde-F,l3 tJt alir town. I qui v ti.'.I','l- I•l i iiilel" t r ;,I °I'I '.-i in ! Ili >w' ;iris cgr0ca?: , vl i0h .'iCC aunt for trUUL,t r,;4:i1 t v.s L'IOP;i i`-:Lj :C -[W: H01AHY,, Kr'Itl1'Js of Geluli'. .` Li F is Lounge 'D2Esaf'i' l arp :%:so orc.errec '•'Y:t7 lI = ,rtb ir,. I Firocise y-ou h;:ilcin;; :1 near parr; 1,,1` )4 1 r grf;'.:i-Iq ni11,1Jr;iy' 1- I-I !` -Iel T'1 S v:01-1ls service our com,n"Lenity gjea-1 CAMEL C. MALAKIE Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie 76-1 17 Kamehamalu Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Via email: malakied@hawaii.rr.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Malakie: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 25, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The biggest problem in Kona is traffic and impacts could occur at the traffic light at the Lako and Queen Kaahumanu intersection with the addition of the proposed project. We need a 4-lane highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road. Response 1: The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the EA) acknowledges the bottleneck that occurs at Lako Street. The traffic signal timing and phasing can be changed in the interim from split phasing to protected or protected/permitted or permitted phasing on Lako Street. The long-term solution is the widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from Henry to Kamehameha III Road has been in the long-range transportation plan; however, this falls outside the scope of this project. Comment 2: There is terrible flooding in this area, especially over Queen K. Highway between Pualani Estates and Lako Street. There is sheet flooding in this area and not much you can do to stop it. A new development will compound this problem. Response 2: Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is owned and maintained by the State of Hawaii, together with the two culvert systems traversing Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway which transport the floodwaters of Holualoa Ditch and Horseshoe Bend Ditch below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The State has not indicated any problems with being able to maintain the highway or the culverts, and the proposed project would not increase the amount of water in the ditches per Section 27-20 of the Hawaii County Code). September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 2 of 3 Comment 3: Another major concern is for our water. If there are 750 new apartments and condos built, what will happen to our water supply and additional sewage? There is already a strain on the existing wells and watershed. Additional schools will also be needed. Response 3: The Project is planned for 450 units, not 750 units. As described in Section 3.3.3 of the EA, the water credits for this project have already been committed and paid for. The Department of Water Supply assigns credits based on capacity, so the infrastructure can provide the water for this project. Potential impacts to schools through the addition of students from the project is described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA, and is not expected to have a major impact to local schools. Comment 4: There is a lack of parks and recreational areas in our community. If the County bought this piece of property, they could have a beautiful park, hiking trails, and show significant cultural landmarks. There are numerous burial grounds in this area and one of our former councilmen has relatives who are buried in caves by this area. Response 4: The project is consistent with medium density zoning and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona Community Development Plan. The applicant action being considered and analyzed on private land in the EA does not include a proposal for change in zoning or creation of a public park. Although the project site has been nominated for County of Hawaii Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONC) acquisition twice, both times the Committee declined. Potential impacts to cultural resources are described in Section 3.6 of the EA. The entire property has been inventoried and this section describes two burials that were located in the project site, which were removed and reinterred prior to 1984. There is one single burial on the project's 70 acres, and this burial has been approved for preservation by the State and Burial council. Based on these results, impacts to burials in the project site have been mitigated. Comment 5: I am very active in many community organizations. Our veterans groups, which account for about 900 active members are opposed to this. ROTARY, Knights of Columbus and Elks Lounge personnel are also concerned with the traffic. I propose you consider building a new park for our growing community in this area. Response 5: Impacts to traffic are described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA. Additionally, the applicant action being considered and analyzed on private land in the EA does not include a proposal for change in zoning or creation of a public park. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 3 of 3 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department From: Zimpfer,Jeff F To: Lefebvre. Michele Cc: Broward,John Subject: NIPS comments: Draft Environmental Assessment for Royal Vistas Date:Tuesday,August 25,2020 3:52:45 PM Attachments: 2020 08 25 NIPS letter re DEA.pdf Attached please find our comment letter. J eff Jeff Zimpfer, Ph.D. National Park Service Environmental Protection Specialist Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park 73-4786 Kanalani St., #14 Kailua Kona, HI 96740 ph: 808-329-6881 x1500 fax: 808-329-2597 ieff_zimpfer_nps.aov http://www.nps.aov/kaho/index.htm The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage National Park Service Kaloko-Honokohau 73-4786 Kanalani Street#14 U.S.Department of the Interior National Historical Park Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 808 329-6881 Phone 808329-2597 Fax Kaloko-Honokohau IN REPLY REFER TO: L7621(2020-3) August 25, 2020 Dr. Michele Lefebvre Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O.Box 191 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Subject: National Park Service Comments for a Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project, Island of Hawai'i,North Kona District, TMKs: 7-6-021:016 and 7-6-021:017 Dear Dr. Lefebvre: The National Park Service commented for an early Consultation for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project. Thank you for addressing our comments in the Draft EA.As a physically small park in a developing region, we depend on the careful and thoughtful actions of our neighbors to protect the fishponds,coast, and anchialine pools that are valuable cultural and natural resources for our community and our nation. Mahalo for working with us to help protect this precious place. We have no further comments for the EA. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Jeff Zimpfer of my staff(808-329-6881 x 1500 or jeff zimpfer@nps.gov). Sincerely, John Broward Acting Superintendent Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park EXPERIENCE YO UR AMERI CA The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage. to` tec SO.Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Broward, Acting Superintendent Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park 73-4786 Kanalani Street #14 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Via e-mail: Jeff Zimpfer, jeff_simpfer@nps.gov RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Broward: Thank you for the letter dated August 25, 2020, in which you stated that the National Park Service had no further comments on the Environmental Assessment. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From John Sent COH p, DEPT H J 1230To:AUG 22 70'20 PH.L - Subject RCJY31 VISLJS -1 1.1,ihJ Project EZ Comments Aloha W mA- :lic. followinly submissiII loll: T-hc Traffic hil"Orm!1ion !?:,",)rt (I 1AI'l) I-LIEC Ill w-)days: Thos: tiAk:N -114-111 C'1.C1UdC1hC f1cri"w, peninds w1ilch bepin in Noveniber mid erid h1 (lie I VC-I 11, I'IC11 b I K: [ICI W L.1 L!Llri Ilt-1 11 11 1U1 I I L:I.: 1-4101 11111 OtIlCr LjS A Itt: (jlel[ J-1- I ...I; TIC.1 1.1: 11,-1 1 I'll,: ',Wll ly fo 3,1,ir111 411-Cet Ill LWI ;III;.l —.iJ-l1)0LIIK; b4w';-- u: w. I;l' i '"1:.1.11,k I--:.-.: II' 0 1 11 oi 1 11 C p: 11 -.o I I yall 1.1 l In the [Illau:(- th"l; 111;LJk"J "-J':I A'S-'; [':C 1-111; i W '111,k 11,,.t I T', 11',' k1ld , 'A-P. 1111 hIL:I;I L' I C,; 1:; K, I Al, %Ilh IlllktlC data C I rV,A.:Ll il 11 Ali!,- I h:J !w,l I-, k!d N(pk 11 '-1 k( Ilk' I-, bCCaU.qC! A!- 11 1 L-Ll nll I Vk' rh;L] i I', 01.1' 1.1, k 1'1% k.'C. -Ill ;I!ItL-Ld LAIC &SC-14NIllClIt Or L 1;a-nl )(J,cQt to` tec SO.Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. and Mrs. Randerson 76-4353 Leilani Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Via email: fjrl23@gmail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mrs. Sonja Randerson and Mr. John Randerson: Thank you for the comment letter dated August 27, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix Two of the EA) measured peak traffic flows on two days: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 and Thursday, August 24, 2019. Those dates exclude the highest density traffic periods which begin in November and end in the following March. The proposed Royal Vistas Roadway is in the middle of that backed up traffic and the proposed two way stop intersection will simply not work. Kona Three LLC should resubmit the TIAR with traffic data selected from two dates during that peak period (Nov-March). Response 1: Historic Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts show that the overall average weekday volume is fairly consistent throughout the year. While tourism traffic is higher during the winter months, summer break, and spring break, the overall traffic due to work and school being on break is also lower. A typical school/work day will usually have higher AM and PM peaks. It is this school peak hour in the AM and PM peak hours that the TIAR is aimed at analyzing. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department C AVID Y.IGE e' trk DR.CFCRfST1NA M.KI$di13A6Td u'SV Rh1FW4 r ELIFE7NIENDEKT STATE OF HAWA11 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA71ONi P.O. BOX 2360 HONOLULU, HAWAII95304 OFFICE OF FACILITIF$ANTI OF'LRAiIONS September 1, 2020 Mir,h eie Lefebvre Stantec Consulting Services P.O. Box 191 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Re- Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project Draft Environmental Assessment North Kona. Hawaii. TM1K: 7-6-021,016. 017. 018_ & 019 Dear Ms, Lefebvre: The Hawaii State C)epartment of Education I.HIDOE) has the following comments for the proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project (Project). Kona Three L_r-" proposes to develop 450 multi-farrlily units, a combination of rental and for sake wiits. and associated improvements in North Kona. Island of Hawaii. TMK: 7-6-021.016. 017. 01B & C10 The HI DOE previously provided comments on the proposed Project by the enclosed later dated December 10, 2019. As there are no Changes tc the Prey urlsly eviewed Prgect we have no further comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comments. Should you have r r1-nsfions please r.oritact Robyn Loudermilk. Acting Land Use Planner, Facilities Develc;pr°ier•vi BlaI iuh. P1annl-ig Section. at (808) 784-5093 or via email at rcbyn louderrnilkgkl2,r.:.Gs. Respectfully, Kenneth) G_ Maslen .I 1 Public Works r,ta:-,ack r Planning Section KGMAI Enclosure c: Jan:ptte Snelling Complex Area Superintendent, Horlokaa!KealakehLa/Kchala.iKonawaena Complex Naomi CoLl-ty Planning Department AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER art_WRf3 INA M.+(19NIUOT17 Sup:IrfEw:Ever o STATE OF HAWAIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P a BOX 2360 ONOLULU HAWAI i 9Baa4 pFF LE OF FAC I CITIES AND OPERP,71014S December 10.019 Michele Lefebvre 5tanteC Consulting scraices Hilo.HLmali 96721 Re: Fnvirnnmantal Assessment Fafli, Consuliation Retlti-St for Pr{7postd Roval Vista$ Housing prctlect: Hawaii TNIIK:? b-li_1:171 f tI< 017.North Dona,Hawaii Dear Ms. Lefebvre: The Hawah State Departmeni of Education(I IIDOE) Ila$the following commcnis litr the proposed Royal Vi-stas Housing Fraject i Project.i, Aecordine,to the information}pro%i&A Kona'three LLC proposes to de4elr)p4= fl multi-family units.a combination or•renW and for sale unit;_ located in `+Jprth Kona.Island ofIla.zkaii, HwNaii, TM K! 7-6,-t121.1)i6&- (117, When the Project 14 maiwv and tlttit Wrnovg r stabilized.,+e ikvuld expect roughly 99 HIDOF -41J;ntS to residc tl erc_ Thi:YI[DOE schooh;currcnd% s wiring the pt'c po Qd Prkiect ar"xc l loluoloa Elcrncntarti. Kai ak—ai I..cntcntar-. k aKehe Xliddle.kona acna Middle. Kealakidie H ht h and Kon.wancria High. KLITIRM. eni Middle has capacity and is expected to have upacitt over The next fivi tcar-, The remaining schcwls nre current) Over GaP.1c11% and arty expected to remain o)r`r capacit) over the Itcxt Iivt:cars. The pmpnsed Project is located within the West Ifauaii School Impact Fee District, hmke er we are eurrerniti uut coilecting.impat:t lees. 1I7e IilIr3()=: tEc)uld like to recei%e a cop% ofthc Draft f nti ironrmntai As5essmcm for rc iets, Thank you for the opport nit, W comment. Should %ou hove questions,please comaei Robyn Lowd rmilk-'School Lands and Facilities Speciali.i. Fari litic5 Dcvelopmeni ldraivh-Planning Section at(909 or via email at nobin.loudermilk ir.kI7.17i_us. Respwfull 50 Kenneth G. Nfasden 11 Pt3blit WOrks Marial~er Planning section K G IVI:rl I c: Art 5nuzaConlplex Area Stjrerintendcwn Complex Area AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER to` tec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Kenneth G. Madsen II, Public Works Manager State of Hawaii Department of Education P.O. Box 2360 Honolulu, HI 96804 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Madsen: Thank you for the letter dated September 1, 2020, in which you stated that the Sate of Hawaii Department of Education had no further comments on the Environmental Assessment. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department From: Melissa Matsuura To: plannina(abhawaiicountv.aov Cc: richardCaleastwestrealtv.ora; Lefebvre.Michele; rmclaren(cbhawaii.edu; David Lonbora; Richard Wainscoat Subject: Comments on the Proposed Royal Vistas Project Draft EA Date:Wednesday,September 02,2020 2:27:12 PM Attachments: 09-02-2020 Hawaii County Plannina Dept Comments on Royal Vistas Housina Draft EA.pdf Aloha, Attached are comments from Robert McLaren, Interim Director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy regarding the proposed Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project DEA, Tax Map Key No. (3) 7-6-021:016-019, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. 44efissaA. J44atsuura Operations Coordinator University of Hawai`i Institute for Astronomy 2680 Woodlawn Drive, C-205 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 808) 956-6829—direct mmatsuurahawaii.edu R UNIVERSITY OF H A A 1 ' l AT M AMID A IrnlrAr..lur A'!vrA-1:My C M D&Of Ifs DInmaw September 2, 2020 Via email: Planning Department, County of Hawai'i 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Attention: Mr. Michael Yee (planning0hawaiicoun . ov) Re: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Royal Vistas Housing Project TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-019, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i Dear Mr. Yee: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project referenced above (published August 8, 2020), specifically with respect to issues and concerns regarding light pollution. The University of Hawai'i Institute for Astronomy (IfA) conducts research in astronomy using telescopes located on Haleakala and Maunakea and operated by IfA and our partner institutions. Both Haleakala and Maunakea are among the best sites in the world for astronomical facilities because of their elevation, clear skies, favorable atmospheric conditions, and low levels of light pollution. Hawai'i-based observatories have played major roles in the advancement of astronomy and astrophysics for over 50 years and are well positioned to remain at the forefront of astronomical research for decades to come. Because of the outstanding quality and productivity of these facilities, IfA is acutely concerned about negative impacts on astronomy from increased light pollution. Our work to combat light pollution has also brought us into contact with others concerned about light pollution for other reasons, including impacts on wildlife (particularly seabirds) and on human health. While IfA's comments focus on the impacts of light pollution on astronomy, appropriate mitigation measures also help to reduce non-astronomy impacts. With that background, we offer the following comments: Any new or additional artificial light at night has an adverse effect on astronomical observations by increasing the night sky brightness. Nearly all observations performed by the telescopes on Maunakea are sky-background limited. This means that there is a natural sky brightness coming from airflow and zodiacal light. Artificial light increases the sky brightness, thereby decreasing the sensitivity of the telescopes. Lights can have an adverse effect on astronomical observations by incrementally increasing the night sky brightness, effectively making the telescope smaller and less sensitive. swbo"*n D.W.. ,w CPPoF" "W"*Aclmn Planning Department, County of Hawai'i Mr. Michael Yee Page 2 Appropriate steps to reduce the impact on the observatories would include: 1. Any lighting at the facility must follow the Hawai'i County lighting ordinance. All lighting must be fully shielded. This means that all lighting fixtures must emit zero light above the horizontal plane. 2. The minimum possible amount of outdoor lighting should be used. Motion sensor activated lighting is strongly preferred. Blue light is most harmful to the observatories, so blue-deficient lighting should be exclusively selected. The best choices are filtered LED lights, or amber LED lights. Under no circumstances should high-intensity discharge lamps such as metal halide be used; fluorescent lights also must be avoided. Both of these types of lamps use mercury and emit light at wavelengths that is very damaging to astronomy. 3. White light should be avoided because the blue component of white light is very damaging to astronomy. White light should always have a Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 K or below. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and attention to IfA's concerns. If you have questions or need further detail regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Richard Wainscoat (riwPhawaii.edu). Very truly yours, Robert McLaren Interim Director cc: Mr. Richard Wheelock, Konda Three LLC (richardPeastwestrealty.org) Ms. Michele Lefebvre, Stantac Consulting (michele.lefebvrePstantec.com) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert McLaren University of Hawaii at Mdnoa Institute for Astronomy 2680 Woodlawn Drive, C-205 Honolulu, HI 96822 Via email: mmatsuur@hawaii.edu RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. McLaren: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 2, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: Lights can have an adverse effect on astronomical observations by incrementally increasing the night sky brightness, effectively making the telescope smaller and less sensitive. Appropriate steps to reduce the impact on the observatories would include: 1 . Any lighting at the facility must follow the Hawaii County lighting ordinance. All lighting must be fully shielded. This means that all lighting fixtures must emit zero light above the horizontal plane. Response 1: The project has considered potential impacts to night sky brightness and incorporated protection measures to minimize these potential impacts. As described in Section 3.3.4 of the EA in impacts to biological resources, the project would not involve any unshielded lighting for either construction or operation, in conformance with Hawaii County Code § 14 - 50 et seq. Additionally, during operation the site would use lighting only where and when it is needed for safety purposes. No project construction using unshielded equipment maintenance lighting would occur after dark between the months of April and October. All additional permanent lighting would conform to the Hawaii County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Hawai`i County Code Chapter 9, Article 14), which requires shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting. The proposed project would also avoid nighttime construction from September 15 through December 15 (to avoid during the seabird fledging period). These measures would also reduce potential impacts to the observatories. Comment 2: The minimum possible amount of outdoor lighting should be used. Motion sensor activated lighting is strongly preferred. Blue light is most harmful to the observatories, so blue-deficient lighting should be exclusively selected. The best choices klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert McLaren Page 2 of 2 are filtered LED lights, or amber LED lights. Under no circumstances should high-intensity discharge lamps such as metal halide be used; fluorescent lights also must be avoided. Both of these types of lamps use mercury and emit light at wavelengths that is very damaging to astronomy. White light should be avoided because the blue component of white light is very damaging to astronomy. White light should always have a Correlated Color Temperature of 2700 K or below. Response 2: As described in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, the use of outdoor lamps with warmer colors (less blue light) and energy efficient fixtures would be considered when the building is being constructed. Additionally, the project does not anticipate using metal halide and fluorescent lights. To minimize Project impacts from lighting, the following text has been added to Section 3.3.4 of the EA to address your comment, "Subject to local rules and regulations, the Proposed Project would utilize lighting on the 2700 degrees Kelvin scale in response to a public comment received on the Draft EA regarding potential impacts to astronomy." We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec CConsulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department DAVIO Y.IGE W JAZE T.BUTAY GOVERNOR o jp DIRECTOR Daputy Dimk r LYNN A.S.ARM-BEGAN DEREW J.CHOW 41 Rog m HIGASHI FOWIN H 9NIFr.FN STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION J)IT o-74o 869 PUNCHROWL STREET HVvrY-P S x HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5091 S I I I I I mall 96721 Dear Ms. ll-cfcbvrc: Lh.jcct: Dr,11'r RoyLil Vistas Housim,, Project Norih Kona, Istwid of I kmLid. I lzm aii. Tax Map Key Nos.: (3) 7-6-021. 016. 017. 018. gym. 1)N The -ippfik:am Knmi Hircc T-I C prnposcs io dev clop '70 ticrcs of hr.d iNo ;i 11ILI]i 1411111 11 1 -U-0JIN il,'1011. I a1;111 I'Ll 11,101-11 o Ilik, '.% ILI] 2159 tinits, I he PI!'()11CI't-1, 1w 10C,d,'d Idl 11-14 Ilvukl "I& of 11i:Iwlcd 11) plk'k -Jc K'11 Ph,l4ti I -o'llik:11 fflwrsL C[-, 4Al Rk'Uk: I 11, r'I,i iioith orihc id) ['tii;Ai7ii lieLIC]ILCICLI 1'71 I'tW HRM Mill) I'LlIld 1545"16()()') -F tt l cry 1 on i )ukml 1('d. Tll" DI 01C l!'JTill!', I hI-JpLIL:! I [.Nj) I'01- thtf ROyai dlted AL11V 2020, I-, .\Ilperldl\ ro 1"IC N Dopnriilicnt offraii,pov%dion {1-JDOT Nis r-C-ti]'L'tkCd 11,' I 1A1",- 11,kl 11,1, IL, jklJo) Ili,-,r,,:1k:1LLnt to State hit-,h ways 1.The TIA R k i I!L'I I lkhtid 111 1 1:11-1 k 1 I'Ll I it A I L'Ll[I i I-Cd !-1 ( r' ll.11 fcr 3143 11 I-M i i Rc\i LL d Statute, f0ir 1 hC 1,1 ih;L-t "I't) cci Rq- fl),l ofCoti I I-\ I Irld. c I of the project iN,Ph'IS expected to be completed by 2024 " e 07jjIjfil111y IJT-opflNed J,,,k L:Vti 11,:111-,2 11 1-11 o powd ILilltll Vil I I k:I I(111 1 1 QUeell Kld I I LI T Il,,l I I-I Iv. I. hishls proposed Cw-,• lk-ti a JLAll-I1:1t14citIfi11 till 111c 11'Lfl1w,1\. v,11 111:1101' :It-76.I iiji, is not ak 1,,11111- <1111.[ alteMifliN L' tlI)1111111 1110 1111 :)L' C\1110E,71.1. \[1,'IiIM1I Ms. Michele Lefebvre HWY-PS 2.3918 September 3, 2020 Page 2 options should include connc :ilwi, w Loll,:c-wrs' runji-ji,-, tO KI i'vlim inu I liuhw r,,- 1rmin theor'flici,i'u I I 11ir N"m Aiv l 1'-1w: dic Kona Gmillt[11111:, 1)"\LAOP111,,I! 111::11. 1 I looiriim tirrcc.l to Lellaill SILreet—m,1 Pau I Cii I a i i-cc 1 1 k I K 12 k L I:I t I Lk P ki CC `.% 11 7k.:I 1 11 1 11".-all 1111:lse I to pro ldc the 111'0'j'L-'LA. 111,: .-11 I'TI:I I di,,tild InClUde 131111,ii:Ls CO the ,Rld\ iITUL; 1;!Iuer.SeC[1011, 01'QU LI'l K'LtLl]"-LlllliltU: I 1111ouL the propusQd Roval Vistas Roadvay intersecil0l]. 3.Tlie ITAR LA10111(i illc]ULL 21 jlfisUlil-11' plan aiid the traiikmirlatinn improvements, Ofeach1 I hl", ,]IoIIW 1!01!klC 11W 1-0,11.1 111YOUL :Illd L:l1'CUhHl0J) ti' ltlljll t11C IN-0110:1 I'M' plia!'C. 4.The TIAR 'A W U I-LI 111-Ok 11: Ll II L a I L)jj('k1]k 'L[IIJ1 fi)r the in(Cr cclii 5ns that operate at Level ol'S'ervice 1: oi- lower. 5.The `r]AR should ITICJUL C Lll-. 1111a7L' I I-Ll I'l IC t-'MCTIK ba;LL.' on A pro-rats basis. 6.Tfic. HDOT requests a design setback of 30 ilect from 1111Q existing Queen Kaoliumallu I II'Lli i' n,L,1ii-af-way for ftiture roadway H111)l 0% .-1 L,11t>. I L 17 1 L J I I i I 1\ I'II ld 1-0; I I-, #Il- I [Ak". J, I'-A I I'k: L I L III C I'd left I Urn 111d ii-'n lu,.-n al-L• I'Or- the Roval Ruidm I lii`i i, 'I, ;iko iw ww?l i':rm of fli-hwav, F)k i ioil, 1'1 tni11liL, Branch a 5 7-(.)3')0 01. '7\ email at jeyan.th]rugnanamLy.hawai I.-gov. Please re 1:erence thele re -I L w number PS 2020-120. JA 1)1: -1 . 131 °-1 AY Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Jade Butay, Director of Transportation State of Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Butay: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 3, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The DEA should include a hydrologic study of the proposed changes to the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway depicted on the FIRM Map Panel 1551660952F where the existing culverts on Queen Kaahumanu Highway may be impacted. The DEA should also note the proposed access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway will apparently conflict with and impact the existing drainage culverts. Response 1: Please see the response prepared by Mr. Ty Dempsey of Dempsey Pacific Inc. enclosed. Mr. Dempsey is the Civil Engineering consultant for Kona Three LLC, the applicant for this project. Comment 2: Phase I of the project is expected to be completed by 2024 with the only proposed access being the proposed Royal Vistas Roadway intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This proposed access is a full-intersection on the State highway, which is a major arterial, is not advisable and alternative options should be explored. Alternative options should include connections of 'minor collectors' running parallel to Queen Kaahumanu Highway from the official Transportation Network Map - Nani Kailua Area from the Kona Community Development Plan. These include extending Hoomana Street to Leilani Street, and Paulehia Street to Kekuanaoa Place which may be done in Phase I to provide access to the project. The alternative analysis should include impacts to the study area intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway without the proposed Royal Vistas Roadway intersection. Response 2: The minor collector roads located within the project site would be built and dedicated by the project to the County of Hawaii, but these collectors cannot connect Ho`omama Street to Leilani Street due to two intervening properties (one on the north of project and one on the south) that are not owned or controlled by the Kona Three LLC. Kekuana`oa Place would be connected to the project's connector roads in Phase II (as outlined in the TIAR and EA), but cannot be connected to Paulehia Street due to the intervening property on the north side of the Project which is not owned or controlled by Kona Three. September 13, 2021 Mr.Jade Butay Page 2 of 7 Comment 3: The TIAR should include a phasing plan and the transportation improvements of each phase. This should include the road layout and circulation within the project for each phase. Response 3: Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would not be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street until Phase II. Comment 4: The TIAR should provide a mitigation analysis for the intersections that operate at Level of Service (LOS) E or lower. Response 4: The only intersection that operates at LOS E or lower is the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street in year 2039 AM Peak period (see Tables 27 and 28 on pages 53 and 54 of the TIAR), which is due primarily to Queen Kaahumanu northbound through traffic coupled with Queen Kaahumanu Southbound Left movement and Lako Street Eastbound left movement. Section VI., Item 8 on page 57 of the TIAR provides the following mitigation analysis for that intersection: Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street: The Lako Street intersection operates at LOS E/D (AM/PM) with or without the Royal Vistas project in the 2039 scenario. Lako Street currently has split phasing (sequential rather than concurrent) on the Lako Street approaches. Changing the phasing from split to protected left turns would help lower the delay. This intersection would also improve significantly if Queen Kaahumanu Highway is widened to 4 lanes as in the 2035 Transportation Plan." Comment 5: The TIAR should include an estimate of regional traffic improvements based on a pro-rata basis. Response 5: Based on our understanding of the HDOT Proportional Share Impact Fee Methodology, a transportation fee is charged to new development projects to pay for regional transportation improvements needed as a result of the new development. The fee is proportional to the project's impact. The method for determining the pro-rata share of regional transportations improvements is as follows: 1) list project-related regional transportation improvements determined by TIAR, (2) determine the cost of each regional transportation improvement, (3) identify project's percent of trips towards each regional transportation improvement based on critical peak hour, (4) total project's cost towards regional transportation improvements, and (5) apply the project's total pro-rata share cost towards one or more HDOT initiated regional transportation improvements or require the developer to implement one or more regional transportation improvements. The TIAR analyzes traffic conditions for existing conditions, 2024, 2029 and 2039 with and without the proposed project. The conditions for future years with and without the project mirror existing conditions: delays for stop controlled traffic at Hualalai (N) and (S) and Kuakini Highway. The delays worsen with time and added traffic. However, the signal controlled intersections operate at overall LOS D or better acceptably) for 2024 and 2029 with and without the proposed project. In 2039, again all of the signal controlled intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr.Jade Butay Page 3 of 7 better (acceptably) with or without the project, except for the Lako Street intersection in the AM peak hour, when the analysis showed it is expected to operate at LOS E with or without the project. As the highway is widened to 4 lanes, the LOS is expected to improve significantly. Further, the LOS can be improved by changing from split phasing (sequential) to concurrent phasing for the side street traffic. There are no regional transportation improvements needed as a result of the proposed project, other than building the Royal Vistas Roadway access intersection, which the applicant would fund at 100 percent. Comment 6: The HDOT requests a design setback of 30 feet from the existing Queen Kaahumanu Highway right-of-way for future roadway improvements. Response 6: Where possible, Kona Three LLC would accommodate a design setback of 30 feet from existing Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway for future right-of-way improvements. Comment 7: The summary and recommendations of the TIAR do not include the proposed left turn lane and right turn lane for the Royal Vistas Roadway. There is also no mention of channelization, a refuge lane, or a crosswalk. Response 7: The TIAR does propose a left turn and right turn lane for Phase 1 and Phase II. As stated in the TIAR (Appendix 2, on page 21), "A crosswalk would be provided on the east side of the intersection for pedestrian connectivity. A refuge lane for westbound left turns onto Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is recommended as this is an unsignalized intersection and will make this turn easier for the driver." We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com Enclosure cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department nemp ey cine inc. VVII Engineering Design &consulting services October 19,2020 Mr.Richard 4Vheekatk Kona free LLC 101 Hualalai Street Flib,HI 96720 Subjtit:Exi3ting Culvert Inf6rmation for Que w Kaahumanu Highway Intersection Iropr0v2ment5 Royal Vistas Queen Kaahurnanu Highway Preliminary Engir"nng Assistance North lennar Big Island TMK-(3)7-6-021-016 Dear Kama Throe LLC: we have I''f.r'Us?A the I'i 41i:';I-" I'IY%!Y I I7C$Lill:'.nd I ialVaii(? I]]I';:77r^".n'T'aI".ii7:7'I 7',ron,regarding le Dfa-z k-, ol i10T+t°f;+;,,ay;r",-efooce DIR 0736,HWY PS 2.3918). The I 1s .I I„r ri(.l7 Off'I "-"r .c-i r=1i- `r Koy,'I V-1 r,rn.lduday€Onne€rirl°-'..d Chrr»r K,t.7h1rri)arylrgyp•.. lil:l I1lu `Ol':3s. . il' L`'r•exi :inj;i?[`-ni:i l7:'rrtliIL:''c,,:c::r,,;:01,1:iru- 'A- I;:'r- Ilo. .I i>„';:q,17i;:;'iis:If;'Ilv!'r!cr,-scink rnr-Inrcr•shoc.1,n-1 Inr-s IC r;[7-7ci ldy ra16'in .h.- I i;.,.,°•,='.1, exif: .•F I?:'Y;.:i`: E,,1-1iit:r'-J 3i.:.:'.i.5 kw I r,n. 'Y,l4r'd UI' P.R:]'o'1 Ma;:,;r'd IL7l of r;]PI-,+i iLI':ti'°i-I° II It, exis, r vJI-.ert U d 1,e.IJYMilII Ic?c:i omi:i bUll Iro l the orEiFID 1I1.:'wVav car-s 1 FLIC:107.:_2_crtl eI- m[r'.. ;CI:1:-I_1 : 11i.;' 11-1me;te4!,3rcr.,.. . Ili'All-•--, the third r,llwel l al ;h? 1 il:,..r• ,.;,,...iii.r1 .1 ,o i 1+-err'.lily ;+' :I-. ;:.II;.-rl ta:,ili'li[tfiwPl'r:"1°.°,w'EaYRS r•6'Ii-I I ...I:-II: I Aiv - 1?:7' 11; bv, rr..Ixin in•.;liti:,,l•[c•,7f?' y. T,e:-r7-,c_e- i--e _ c'ior ::-I n'=1 r7 re re 1 --F ,c_i--e i7-:rti c.'tFe e;istinP. L20;v,i-k FerI-'1::ed_1Z.•_ ss in a tier= a c°.v=-e=:,:s-.I ;=IphvM. ul'rert:rasslr;; ren a r In place and no-, a ril,•.uI 1 . _ r , c :I•sl p.:,r i..rr rntlY fay h.?•a.11 V:;-;:1 ru)Liv,';p fi rv.-r1i_'r:''[;ii..:+rS Ui.:4dl ?4 Is'Win" p:1:71'r:-' 1`'I'i U wide, rr:i=,ed access,and a-1seL 1.5.00'From the sou;~•.frn lao,r G_the 120'wide perr7i:::::,access, The pr.`ir-iInxv U:U'IC?':I IU':^•'S the edY,es c•=ec:_n-rent_for the radius:=cr z•,e U ri_'r. iin v ithir e=. :1-. 1'' :,ide c,e.71--yd -iece 1-w -,or.an- "e"rlali •-1ea: 7=:r e e.>istir.f;~i h,+:c,. it°:urt e,Jv,ull a,"'d 4.11i7j wjll Iu•_.:-•-jr' -hz ;ieh '1117_:r,•L vj.i-r,Jr,J1 ":17e J,,."err?rcj,' per :v '."e_2'r Jr°pr,imi::Cd ar.Ci Si by 4.,r;} ..^,)71 T..- i:'JCi'f 1,r j r:i':1 :L.IrI -r-,° '.h+ iI`;C'i.i"=.i,.7r`r.7c.•.1:;`.o,1- edgc o-the pern31:.ed access- It wcr11;'..,I•.ca;::iL"•.:,t::I , r: ;I': R,J,.lI"ista roadw;..7v up to 9_60'fun h:=r Guth if preferred duiin-final construction pion design,and st •'I -:a•-•:•iNri the existing 12U wade permitted acc:e55 location. P.C.Sox 103 ,Har1olulu,HI 968i6 I {808)277-2043 dnfo@deerlpsey`P*f 1C,i;Qr.l I http:Ifwww.dernpseVParif'rc.aarn 3IS31-Royrd VLi,,&m Page 2 of Attzkched is a copy 9-Lh..-?ON vl.-Ip cnilli'll P I IIL• io"n I h- This I D.Ea Ljor ina-Le I i- K cur._:ptjc11 iIILer,ectia^plat!,C": -2 Vi;'d e r er:I I I'- f arts 3rtS 90-54'from the nor-,ern prcjp-_,r-.y I'i-L comEu_ Try=rerinar.t cons-rLiCtion P;D.-_r.'-natrlic-tl)•_ conceptoal ifiLer'I01.I i-.)"Fflkil ib-I:i ki-p 1 1s, Roy";Vk:"Ioel OLAt I idi:1(I.F LiD I' pI 11 V%Ile 1'. :),1111 1"1C 11!0!"!3' 1 IF I-I ' 1.J'P fi 1 1,40._.L1 I,I 111 1.1[1-: 11 I 111,.,'1 .:11 1 Ill %11,11 f!I i--r;r:,.-,i r, 1 1,i I v ir:nr`11,11 W-iM'ar,:'-.'I I:I i Aid Project No,F-01 1 1..1 4; I h I n f I C•.I Iv fr I q r.i I I vr-,! hr.r,'I v-:,I :i-il i alls,12:J .i'.C,P".rm i I I N LO Or A I'11, 7,o d L I I C p I I I i I'i:I !''vil V i;!as rnad w. :1:01 1'11 rn' 1 111.' k)"ClWA." intersect cri icn b- 0 1 -1 L c-,e T Ci Lit V D v I I- -C n-_-d 1 .I-. i::t i ri,;i.h I:,, c. ve,-_c rc .In:!. r,-e i x..:I -or I. i,; ia r I......I I: I i: i i I il..1,- I-I))I ,II I sir I".i I I—. I r:-I, 11. 1.. VA k-dr)"IM 'JOJId I rl :,I:Ili-:P1I.I1.*-'1.' I i ipr rilents. 51 ncQ ri o:h-.I i- . :---vilr:)Ii:i.hL ijr I ocifilhim C.K;4 71- r,c 1 '!I III11C'. A-, .-'.1 FFV,A Ihi.,A nir;)ro,rlii -in ;v)r hk location will remair valid,and i r'-';.; '!01. •J r,-.-.L.z:ppt;cJb1e. Ifthere are arty questions I . - :-i i i:I.i,.,i . -reel free to contact me at ty 11 v,111 ol Si rtterely, Ty De sev,P-E.,C Cavil Engineer 01X Map Tormpi Skii vLV n-cx:.,:ir'g Culv"'I .rns"iilp icil R,O,RoK jf)?A,11-10ftololu,HI 968I15 277-2C43 I M1tP:/JWWW.defflJO5evPKif6C.COM GRAPHICAL SCALE, Elf re r nuw C ptI 4,• N iq c ° i a . of 9 3 ' r r s F; r 4 F4 fpy>,u k'1'rJ t.e Gym.. 4 a II_ .', f I ' t f «w g' y l! _ e • 'ca—,-- cr• ..~{. . l o-nn u raa o oes'i.^`.. it i'.ft t5'! r—{--".•—.•"' - M}..:' z twig as.. 6 ,,.... '. k..=hr. ,. I e'w.. i -'+••''Y% T" 31+ 4 _ x.. L 9 i e ', nee:.; ... yt' _. sw.P..t} r f ' r 't-A` 1. _- Su y I, II 7 n G d L wAv T1Fls'r xtown 3 off rl I M' a P I a`t__ r a From: Honda,Kyle J To: Lefebvre,Michele Subject: DEA for Royal Vistas Housing(TMK:7-6-021:016,017,018 and 019) Date:Thursday,September 03,2020 2:36:30 PM Attachments: DPW Comments DEA Royal Vistas Housino.odf Hello Michele, Attached are my comments for the "Royal Vistas housing Project Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact" (TMK: 7-6-021:016, 017, 018 and 019). Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments. Thank you! Kyle Honda County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy, Bldg. D Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Tel. (808) 323-4854 Email: kvlei.hondana hawaiicount l.gov v Warty hire r,ik til :I nt:l llLcki,ll, ,E. 1/envar ti Lrur rrrr Ruy Takt miolo t'`f aF +'¢d' 141.an C-eilrrcnn,P.E.4itrrual;rng I arrr crur- 13e rrtr j f1'rc'IYL• u fi1111t,r [If E'a ill'n 17F'P_kRT11FNT OF PUR1-1{ 11'(WhS 411lruni Center 10 14u.,ini Ir iro.Hawaii %720.4224 48i si4ar,l-, ,•,I,ri;IVC+I-8630 pu6lic_u,+l.,,II<<K II Liunty,+.• September 3, 020 Michele Lefebvre Stantec Consulting Inc. P-0, Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 t 1 i-an,;nilted via emai I to: michele.lcfebvre5f stantec.com) Subject:Royal Vistas Housing Pruiect Drift Fn°iron i,r l 11 .ass.s rr r nt and Anticipated Finding of No Significant "ipact Tax Ms Key- =J_yi7 '1- 9p r 1. k7 ; r'. U 3'; ' We have reviewed thy; Draft Env rorraenial it rx'w Ar'iclp-,,k-n oding of NoSignificantImpacta,7d ,,ui ori, 1 Flood Zones AL ta,id . ,Ff 'te:, ' `"I. .=_L:ky the Flood Insurance Rate Uap (FIRM)- New construction and substan-i: l inn ovenivants shall comply with Chapter 27— Floodplain Managerneni.—of the Hawaii CGode. 2. Drainage improvers r-s tu. Hol!; alo_a Drainage way and the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway shall b r;_s: n7ii'. ti O t•io Department o' Puhk ic~ Works for review and approval. 5holIld there be any questions concerning this Matter please feel 'ree to contact Kyle Honda of our bona Engineering Division office at 323-4854, e v I HiI, Division Chief Engineering Division KH Copy, ENC-HILOIKONA, Planning Department Wat}ON-1—i'i is an Equal Opponuno Pro idler and Empiqu. to` tec SO.Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Ben Ishii, Division Chief Department of Public Works, Engineering Division 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, HI 96720 Via email: Kyle Honda, kylej.honda@hawaiicounty.gov RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Ishii: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 3, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: Flood zones AE and AEF affect the subject parcels as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). New construction and substantial improvements shall comply with Chapter 27 - Floodplain Management - of the Hawaii Code. Response 1: As described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA, the project would follow County regulations and policies including Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code. Comment 2: Drainage improvements to Holualoa Drainage way and the Horseshoe Bend Drainageway shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Response 2: Kona Three LLC would coordinate with the Department of Public Works regarding the final design of the improvement projects for the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainages as described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department From: Robert Harris To: Lefebvre,Michele Cc: olannina(ftawaiicounty.aov Subject: RE: Royal Vistas Housing Project Date:Monday,September 07,2020 8:49:31 AM Attachments: Royal Vistas Housina Proiect letter.odf Aloha, I live in Kona Vistas' subdivision and am attaching a letter in reference to my objection to Royal Vistas having access to their project through Kona Vistas' Subdivision. Mahalo for the opportunity to present my comments regarding this project. Robert D. Harris 76-4323 Kekuanaoa Place Kailua Kona, HI 96740-6958 September 7, 2020 RE: Royal Vistas Housing Project Aloha, My wife, Bonnie, and I have lived in Kona Vistas Subdivision for over two years. We very much enjoy our home and look forward too many more years of enjoyment. Our home is located on Kekuanaoa Place which currently is the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project specified on the Royal Vistas' plans. When we purchased our lot almost four years ago we were not informed of this project or Kekuanaoa Place as being the only access to the Royal Vistas Housing Project. The Royal Vistas Housing Project owner presented to Kona Vistas' owners their plans for the Royal Vistas Housing Project and what it would look like.They had proposed two entrance/exits to their project from Kona Vistas and two entrance/exits from a subdivision on the north side of their project, Pualani Estates. One of the accesses from Kona Vistas, not Kekuanaoa Place, requires permission from the owner of the property for access the Royal Vistas which has been denied by the owner from my understanding. Also, the two accesses from Pualani Estates requires Royal Vistas to be granted access across a strip of land owned by another owner who has also denied Royal Vistas access to their project from my understanding.This only leaves Kekuanaoa Place in Kona Vistas as the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project. Since Queen K Highway is adjacent to Royal Vistas Housing Project there should be access from this highway and not from Kona Vistas Subdivision. Kona Vistas only access is from Queen K Highway by Lako St.for our subdivision with 200 homesites. Royal Vistas Housing Project is slated for 490 homes (Condos, some rental units and some purchased units). If Kona Vistas has only one access to it's subdivision why shouldn't Royal Vistas only access be Queen K Highway as well. Why should Royal Vistas have an access through Kona Vistas and allow all their traffic, including the construction equipment traffic over the next 20 years of their development,to drive through Kona Vistas Subdivision? Royal Vistas Housing Project with 490 units has almost 2.5 times larger density and this traffic should not be funneled through Kona Vistas Subdivision. Mahalo for your time, Robert D. Harris 76-4323 Kekuanaoa Place Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris 76-4323 Kekuana`oa Place Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 via email: bobh.home@gmail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Harris: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 7, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: Our home is located on Kekuanaoa Place which currently is the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project specified on the Royal Vistas' plans. When we purchased our lot almost four years ago we were not informed of this project or Kekuanaoa Place as being the only access to the Royal Vistas Housing Project. Response 1: The project would be accessed in two different ways. As described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC proposes to construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu. The second access point would be from Kekuanaoa Place, which would not occur until Phase II of the project. Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuanaoa Place from Lako Street during Phase II of the project. At project completion, there would be two ways to access the project. Comment 2: The Royal Vistas Housing Project owner presented to Kona Vistas' owners their plans for the Royal Vistas Housing Project and what it would look like. They had proposed two entrance/exits to their project from Kona Vistas and two entrance/exits from a subdivision on the north side of their project, Pualani Estates. One of the accesses from Kona Vistas, not Kekuanaoa Place, requires permission from the owner of the property for access the Royal Vistas which has been denied by the owner from my understanding. Also, the two accesses from Pualani Estates requires Royal Vistas to be granted access across a strip of land owned by another owner who has also denied Royal Vistas access to their project from my understanding. This only leaves Kekuanaoa Place in Kona Vistas as the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project. Response 2: The plans for access into the development have evolved over time based on discussions with various stakeholders. Section 2.3 of the EA describes how access from Pualani Estates from Paulehia Street was an alternative klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 2 of 2 considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The project as described in Section 1.2 and analyzed in this EA for approval presents two access points for the project, from a new intersection (Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu) in Phase I and from Kekuana`oa Place in Phase 11. Comment 3: Since Queen K Highway is adjacent to Royal Vistas Housing Project there should be access from this highway and not from Kona Vistas Subdivision. Kona Vistas only access is from Queen K Highway by Lako Street for our subdivision with 200 homesites. Response 3: A small number of 'left turn out' (southbound) vehicles will be pushed through Kekauna`oa Place and Lako Street. For emergency reasons, it would be beneficial if more than one access is provided to any development. The master plan for this area shows connector streets parallel to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway through these developments to purposely provide connectivity redundant to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. This is not a new or recent concept in the area. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Standard Comments for Land Use Reviews Clean Air Branch Hawaii State Department of Health If your proposed project: Requires an Air Pollution Control Permit You must obtain an air pollution control permit from the Clean Air Branch and comply with all applicable conditions and requirements. If you do not know if you need an air pollution control permit, please contact the Permitting Section of the Clean Air Branch. s Includes construction or demolition activities that involve asbestos You must contact the Asbestos Abatement Office in the Indoor and Radiological Health Branch. Has the potential to generate fugitive dust You must control the generation of all airborne, visible fugitive dust. Note that construction activities that occur near to existing residences, business, public areas and major thoroughfares exacerbate potential dust concerns. It is recommended that a dust control management plan be developed which identifies and mitigates all activities that may generate airborne, visible fugitive dust. The plan, which does not require Department of Health approval, should help you recognize and minimize potential airborne, visible fugitive dust problems. Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, §11- 60.1-33 on Fugitive Dust. In addition, for cases involving mixed land use, we strongly recommend that buffer zones be established, wherever possible, in order to alleviate potential nuisance complaints. You should provide reasonable measures to control airborne, visible fugitive dust from the road areas and during the various phases of construction. These measures include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Planning the different phases of construction, focusing on minimizing the amount of airborne, visible fugitive dust-generating materials and activities, centralizing on-site vehicular traffic routes, and locating potential dust-generating equipment in areas of the least impact; b) Providing an adequate water source at the site prior to start-up of construction activities; c)Landscaping and providing rapid covering of bare areas, including slopes, starting from the initial grading phase; d) Minimizing airborne, visible fugitive dust from shoulders and access roads; e) Providing reasonable dust control measures during weekends, after hours, and prior to daily start-up of construction activities; and f)Controlling airborne, visible fugitive dust from debris being hauled away from the project site. If you have questions about fugitive dust, please contact the Enforcement Section of the Clean Air Branch Clean Air Branch Indoor Radiological Health Branch 808) 586-4200 808) 586-4700 cab doh.hawaii. ov April 1, 2019 to` tec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Clear Air Branch Hawaii State Department of Health Via email: cabgdoh.hawaii.gov RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island To Whom it May Concern: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses to your substantive comments below. Comment 1: You must obtain an air pollution control permit from the Clean Air Branch and comply with all applicable conditions and requirements. You must control the generation of all airborne, visible fugitive dust. It is recommended that a dust control management plan be developed which identifies and mitigates all activities that may generate airborne, visible fugitive dust. Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, §11-60.1-33 on Fugitive Dust. Response 1: As described in Section 3.3.6 in the EA, the contractor for the development would be required to prepare a dust control plan during construction compliant with provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-60.1, "Air Pollution Control," and Section 1 1-60.1-33, "Fugitive Dust." Comment 2: Includes construction or demolition activities that involve asbestos. You must contact the Asbestos Abatement Office in the Indoor and Radiological Health Branch. Response 2: The project does not expect to encounter asbestos during construction, and no demolition is proposed. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvregstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department yryQ K•'Y.ST{,'k Y 1 A'1' 4:'DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAVI pH. 4 345 KEKUANAO`A STREET. SUITE 2.0 - HILO, HAWA1'I 96720 TELEPHONE-(808)961-8050 • PAX(808)951-8657 September 8, ?0?0 Is_ !Michele 1.efehvre Stantec Comultlag Sen-ices Inc. 12')9 MokLl Place Hi1c, HI 96770 Dear Ms. Lefebvrc: ulalcit: TIr,Ci T.si•, ia !ir!v!itsy.l ,*1titi+lllf•I1 ]'4r]' 1 trti.tl O, iys t lTsru iit_r Pi"eject 11:1 1.? 1 irr. klmid (if H-m%:]i'i 1',.!v %l.!l1 ]"c.. -i-N-i)= l;;bl(, Ial .!, (.I"% :."ltl {1!f) ha,.-- rcviewed the subject Drat Environmental Assessmeni (DE-;' .),and have M-2 following t}l7'ol7l lllti. Please he inforn3ed that the sulnlect parcels are served by an -x3sting service that has an allocation of 451 units 01'Wtiter. or an a•vera-e usage of 180.400 gallons per day. T11e• development will need to provide water at adequate pre ssure any Awne under peak-flow and fife-tlo-sv condluoMi- The ovr-rall water demand calculations should be submittod for review, as the water use other than the residential d-wtlhag emits , ill need to be included.. which could recluse the number cal'c1widling units that can be devciopcd. Additional water ber,ond the total number of allocated water ia-its to the subject parcels is not zo ailahle. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Ryan Quitorianc)of our )Pater Resources and Planning Branch al 961-8070. extension 256. Sincerely yours_ W//P Keith K. Okamoto. P.F. Manager-Chiel'l ngincer RQ:df2 copy —Plaiwing Department Water, ou-rMust Vicious soirr'ce. . , Ka `-Vai,,.4 KzTne. . . The pepar!rnenr of Wam 8-ippaps an Eqja!4pparun!vy prov! w and®mq!ayai- Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Keith Okamoto, Manager-Chief Engineer Department of Water Supply 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 20 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Okamoto: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: Please be informed that the subject parcels are served by an existing service that has an allocation of 451 units of water, or an average usage of 180,400 gallons per day. Response 1: The project would not exceed the amount of water allocated by Department of Water Supply. Comment 2: The development will need to provide water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-flow and fire-flow conditions. Response 2: Kona Three LLC would ensure that the development provides water at adequate pressure and volume to occupants under both peak-flow and fire- flow conditions. Comment 3: The overall water demand calculations should be submitted for review, as the water use other than the residential dwelling units will need to be included, which could reduce the number of dwelling units that can be developed. Additional water beyond the total number of allocated water units to the subject parcels is not available. Response 3: Kona Three LLC would submit water demand calculations as part of Plan Approval. Additionally, as described in Section 3.3.3 of the EA, the project would minimize water demand by limiting landscaping and using xeriscape landscaping where landscaping is installed. The project aims to implement and balance xeriscape and providing safe and adequate recreational space for residents. The project would also utilize reclaimed or reuse water for landscaping if possible. kwp September 13, 2021 Mr. Keith Okamoto Page 2 of 2 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department q'?",%NF p( S'+ M l 11:11 t.II 54 dLvin Y.lGr i I Uxi R1 4111 IN b.s I —p n%% i i n.HI X)i W L STATE OF HAWAII DEPARI-NIFNT OF LAND AN D NATURAL RESOURCES LAN I)DIVISION POSTOFFICT 130X 621 HON011 11.11,HAWAII 68M September 8, 2020 Startec Consulting Services Inc. Attention- Nls. `%ifichele Lefebvre via email: m1chele-lefehvre(d)stantec-corn En-.,ironmental Scientist P.C. B04 191 Hilo, 1--lav aii 96721 Dear Ms Lefebvre- SUBJECT.- Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Prc>ject located at North Kona, Island of Hawaii, TPv-1 K: (3) 7-6-021:O 16. 017, 018, and 019 on behalf of Kona Three L LC Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Lal,d Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR distr;buteci or made avaJabie 9 copy of your request pertaining to the subject matter to DLNR's Divis o!is for their revie-'?v and comments. At this time, enclosed are comments from the (a) Engineering Division, (b) Division of Forestry& Wildlife, and (c) Land Division-Hawaii District an the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darlene Nakamura at (808) 587-0417 or email: dadene.k-nakarnuraC&_hnwaii-c10 - Thank you. Sincerely, Fus--'011 T54 ji Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files County of Hawaii (Mcopies) Attn: Planning Department (via email: Diann i ng@h@waiicgu nty.-gov) A,% CLAM Y.ME 40-40 f.1nVFIAW,9 4,,r HAWA:i 1"'IM IY L%ILI"rD 7 1 It%I I- I V. STATE 0 F I I AWA I I F)1rP 111111 FNT 01- 1 1A 11 A*%1111 NAIL RA 1. [411-1%0[ RUES LANI)0111"Ir MOM POST OFFIC E 13OX 62 1 I 10N01.[11AJ,I[AWAII 96.401 August 14, 2020 F R 0 MEMORANDUM DLNR Acgencic's! Div of Aqi..i-ritic: Div. of Boating & Qcea[i Recreation X Englneeiring 10ivlsion (DLNR,ENGRCcDhawail,qov) X Div. of Forestry & Wildlife (rubyrosaIterrago(5hawail, cv) Div of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management(Q1_NR.QWNM(&haw@[J..qoy) Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands X Land Division — Hawaii District (qqrcLcn.c.heit@hawai:i.qov) TO X Historic Preservation (L)LNR.Intike.SHPD@hawaii,govl) M14"M_ Russell Y Tsuji, Land Administrator Russell r5t? SUBJECT, Draft Erivuanrrental Assessment (DEA) and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact J-ONSI) for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project LOCATION' North Kuria, Islanduf h lawaii, TMK (3) 7-6-021:016, 017, 018, and 019 APPLICANT-Stantec Consulting on behalf of Kona Three LLC Transmitted for your review and comment is infom-iatiorl on the above-referenced subject matter. Please submit any com ni ents by September 7, 2020. The DEA can be found on-fine i3t: [VI):11hea1th,h'qwa6._qov1ueq (Click on The Environfnenfal Nofice in 1ho miciclh;, of the page.) If no is received by the above date, we will ar'SLIme yOL3r agency has no Y.'_-ju have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura i! d-:'k 11('! Thank you, ilddilicmal We have 110 Rbjections, We have nogcomment5. Comments are attached Signed- 4L:Z2 Print Name- Carty S Cl-,anq, Chir-f F-iq Division; Eiiyineu!ing Llivision Date: cc: Uentr.fl Files 811ZANA V,CASE DAWD Y.16F W 46 MAIRIPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND RATU IRRAL F,50URCMS00"ERNOR f,)F-KAM UUMMMIGN ON WATER RLW'R(:r, 5 STATE OF HAWAII 11)[YAR.I MFN 1'0 f- ND 1NP NXI FRAI.RESOURCES LAN'D DIVISION Pos r OFFICE BOX 621 111101101-UL U.HA WA 1196909 August 14. 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: Div. C. I CI I,.1 1I.i, Sol -9I, `1 , Re .,r-e Div. cal Boating & Ocean t ecreation X Engineerrng Division (DLNR.ENGB,@hawaii.gov) X Div, of Forestry & Wildlife (rubyroSaLt.torr. oAhawaii.gov) Div. of State Parks X COn)[TIliSSiOn on Water Resource Management (DLN LCWRMPhawaii.gav) Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands T arid Division - Hawaii District (_q2,rdon.c.heit@hawaJi_gqv X Historic Preservation (DLNR.Jntake,5HPDC6hawaii._qo, FROM: RUSS011 Y, TSLIii, Land Administrator Russe).-'Tsf.-i; SUBJECT: Dritt Frivirorunerital Assessment (nFA) and Antici.u-ited Finding of No Significant Impact fFONSI) for the Fli-aposed Royal Vistas Housing Project LOCATION: North Kona, Island of Hawaii; _TMK: (3) 7-6-0211'b 0":7 018, and 019 APPLICANT:Stanl"OC C011SUItifIg on behalf of Kona Three LLC Transmitted for your review and comment is information ori tuts r:h()Ve slt)J&Ct matter. Please submit any comments by September 7, 2020. The DEA can be found on-fine at.- hitp.-Ilheafth.hawaii.,govIbegol(Click on The Environmental Notice in the raiddle of the page-) If no response is received by the above date, we will assume your agency has no comments. Should you have any questions about this request, please Contact Darlene Nakamura atdarlerfe,k,nakarnura hawail.gov. Thankyou. i' We have no objections, i, Ne have rio comments. IJ-71) Comments are :attached\LY-i Sig sled Print Name DAVID G. SMITH, Administrator Division. Forestry and Wildlife Date:Sc-.,p 4,2020 Attachments cc: Central Files r ii•I GJd'd++d'Lh44'ul 7,r" q.a sa,ti! 4-0 x`„ I'hAhll{U I'.hlv'fF.hh,S r:.hiL'Yu.I.EI aX.11l.'ry f v y f Inllt.n+. r{w.511 nn.l.s,I I s.In1.n.+I+nl•I f 1 1. RIJOERT k A1,15L'Clh i. 4 L KAI L u MAN I TL 4' STATEOF HAWAi7 tY1N51L'l 11 lr. 'S5+ 111 :Y, 5i .i\II:':I 0eAwjM%tI MA>.li !... DFPARTMENl'C)F LAND AND N.IWRAl.R1::S01-RCES tY l5FF5.511cx,151 hXs1.4111.aHEIl vll{I.IGL E'h:l!:S DIVISION OF F llt1-S'l KY{1`,11. Wr1. IJ I'E r+rEs1YVHN, q""Il.rkf nsrlrls rsel:!ae4';talnrl 1153IilINC11110"1.S1R.[::I:T.IWOINI 25 X.41Nhr.h4rll.i+Il}N,51YY l{ih IItiN,r. I n 161] 110xtiOt 1.1.1,1[AWA.11 9013 r.,n'r.vu4 Septetllber 4, 2020 MEMORANDUM Log no. 2763 TO: RLJSSELL Y. TSUJI. Administrator Land Division FROM: 17.: VID (i. SMITH. .f11-[In iniL lrator 1711 isiurl '.,t'1-01V'1ry Iind A111LI11"L' SUBJECT: 111k isilrn of 1=(westry and Wildlife (',1 111 111 0 1 1 1r for the [haft Environmental Asscs E1)Cfl,l (1)l,r\) :Lllol %nti ipitC'dl I'III{IIII, EII tr i;rLlil'c: rttlrripaet(FONSI fur' thC^ 1rl'011(Y.Wd Itrr:d VIII:1, 1#lylktilll'r l'I'{rlk+{I The Dej),irnrkm[ ,11'1 .: :Li :In, N III.1'.II 1.[:),.I Ir kx.. DI% 1,1,rI I I . IL .1r'', ,I:I,I 'S. ildliFe (DO A\ I has reC'I%01,1 01i1 In(lUll : 'd:l1" in III I)1 A ,IIid allticIr:II I '.11 the I,I'11„I'S4CiI Rif 11 VIsLas I Etlu;ins.' 1'1':,jLL'I in N-1111 F r'11.` :ln 11Lmai i 1.tiILlIld. 1 I:.'.`. III11 H-1k 15r41171+1.Q1J I171IjLLL _L Ilwi k "If ti',,Itwl,l'llk'11'1._ LJI1 !%!I !llwl 11 Ielm i.1 111,1 11 111i11 in C11JS1Cr5 Of 1.\I' 111LI 111 14k11"k 1)L!IIL1111!_.. ,III appri} 1111,L14'1'S 71: !IL1-l'S Y. 1)!CLILYLP-J [IIIL111L'I'51141k1 land, Ibc L'1!IL:1 II4I"al I ILI%%aIian I I:mkor 'to Bme{r .wiIiirrrius) is I4!'o,'' II 1' ' . .'11r in III, 1'I, . , I ', !, iliitX'. II'L'Ll?111I ICH,k 4LII l L'1 ing the area to enstire no Hawall'slll I I.-,m k Ilt't, 'ire I)1'Q:'k:111 11 1,r'i. W-C Lid be cut "lo n.wtw niIglit be present during the breeding season fro i=i \'1LLYL 11 tO ti4'1 1L'111her. The Bute listed 1•-m' tiian l-lr-1am Pat or `0pe`ape`a fLeisiurur c'inerens serrxcrm0 has the potential t47 L11't'lll III the 1 I4lilll\ 0-1 [1-IL' 111'0Ik'LI FII`' i :Isid lria\ R50tit III I1Cal'111 ti,L:c,,. 1: ilrl\ 'itv L'1carillg IS rCtILI:1-cd 11'11i :'.111'1111LI Il4' 'tim d to al o'ld di1'( rl}:.IILC L::II'lllii 11W hJ1 xltld 11L11] 1L'Hl rl;+,' Sk;l'iO1 I,il. li 1 :ltl"L.1LJ`!Il t'Ii14.':',1Iti4.`I I 1. 11 1111} k'L1,L1111.1I 11l :.I.\',IILI LI_ 's`,I Dda f illliti `'r'I:a1111" tll:lrl 1 II:L'1 (4.6 ll.'iL.'I 1I111 Sill 1111d I101 1h2 d."nUII'I'Cd, I't.17 mL'l1. ortr1l m1 .,d 1\Itll,m L"i1wl u11 .l...' 17{1I.1 1•, J It iatL' 1kied 131,ickhorn's ti1111 '1S NTs1t11 (RANI: t{;+n1:r, L:u_I. y r that llu`'''3":111:i'•r„ tl) I C41rCLt IIY'i_n. I NI'1ilC LII 1i I Jk'Ci :lli 311,L11', lli7r111aillk' I ',11 I 111:11 Ililnkle L!'t c"ufftJll[f ,?tl?J[ii[ \k 1'IIL'I'. ',Ir1.`•11 y 111 d I1 I.UI:,Cd tiwI I. W L'' rccUL niIr1CI1:1 L I.'I i I[ i'I1!' L'tlI 11i1Y,;11 1 1'talik1 II 3y 1,W ;,l l lti.ol I, II Il'-1 A 7'{, I 11' lilrl lsk'I i:1ltmii:a on abLIU[ 1111,21'c 10V :wv, h l,l'L`:enl and'v h 11':t'C.. 1l""IL`1.r115117 w111't0 '!iL7dld 11C LiYISi:11tiC,ti'i11.o determine illy 171;t'wL'1102 ol'p.:.Jli: pi-cl' rred I +\,r,. („ ,It51Id 1l;lrrlI C1r 11'%J. 1)()I :\%\' 3-LL:,,llrllk2nLk 1%miot in1z, IxiilllS4 1,', than one Ill.'A r in mr •.1:'."111!, 'il.' dry t1111C LEI [lie \-L' .. WWII r'c.I11Y.{\L' CI' k: tohd','L:LI o} c3' L'r1w meter 11l I?k`1ght. or I ,lFmIlld i.rl'%%iihil1 4w1':i1 n1ti'i`3'4 L71 I;1L4E' 111.111t', 1110 11111t1 I'C L:Il;.:CkCd 11tL+4MIU111V alld I:111 iLw. 1)()FAW recommend mInimizint the lwwcmclst L-)Fpl,lrtt or ;011 111aJj sl-i:II hk°'LVI;:'CII 1 Cl ksiic,,, micIi rti ill fill. :lil a1nd l;I:I:l,, 11 a;Crial 111..hVCOT11,611 i'.ln 131 R:,,pi41 'nlwa l):,t11)- k4`riebra(4, mid Inveru-,k atc pests, IL I I".'.L- I in: AIII Ci.11,:011Ut Rhil11'Ice]uw Heelj`s)• or III% P,Ive plara piirls Illil[ ootiId hai Ili c,Lirnatl%L ,I}ti::_' a!l.l 4'4'.exk it'!11 %VQ r.lc1][nmend c0n;Ll1dII,, 111ti Big l I:I[Id JII as—IN't' `tillk-'i_I:^'•. 1. •'1111 ill 1ttj•_' .It I,.%,,IjxI +_;_;-.;_5 III 111 1 1i11111151. { ti1_11, :1141 i1-1110l"tIL't1.II1 U1 the I rc,jttit I+ lea[•11 01 an. 13i ih-I'itil, inti,r its ti .cit' ill 111c iii—a and slsl'ead. All t{tJIlJllll'[lt. nl[lli'rl'ill',. -ilill l3il'ti1!f111E1 ,111'•111L1 1'' i ;.':°:11'i; 1 1 l't*titi .'il :.i'.41 i14-'I'i`+ r i 1171JIIIllllc 1}ll„ riskcif"sllt'cading inva1 l% : DOI A11 r,c ..11111 t:11kI4 11,71 1 11E1111 c I1l t[II tillecic; I'L,I' I[L[IL11,C lnirI ;halt [Ilt LSI-11-11'C1,l tc islet IL ,1rC11 i.L• LI'lInL[77 ' :t+Ilditioll'.:11i -k!it.lhIc i,li-di plants to thrive. hiss 11-IcailIl 11CLLIITCd 111trL:, L 1.4.1. I'Ica c dO ni':I ;}I.i'11. II",%Ll'-d 'e s1`Cc-.C". I){]1 'i ILL1 01111-Tjencls CUP L,LlltinL the I ILM li'i-I'LIClII ' 1 VCd RI-sk A,,tic,,smciI, ',-J-.'ie to det•'1'!t Ink the Iis-wntial invaw11 cw11 i Isl 101- U1 Ill [lie pI-Cliect(litt11 site.2OOPle.c}nlfs lc r we:slrl ka wt4 sn74lttilt },37c}. WC il0111s111LML11h tr vL u rrl`erto ke ti, p1a1nIr!(wt1_M fer guidance on seler-Cor mid ewcalliation for l Indsc,I p1m, I)1m1,iL,. WL: lo[e tllill al-10-IL'1"ll lighting can tl.tl%„I',.'1\ !,lilp1cl soRk Il'•_Ii I, 1sr, rhrnugll the nrt;a5l at TIll IV.,Wll_ I:l 1111 rllallnlal,lti lUIilit S,'(5 I.III It", .st' Dirk?' I' .I IIi4iIlCilatti I i;liII ilim mighi 11L 1%Ljl."'; ,1. I}t;}l . 44 r€ 111111 11 1, that 111 li llt; k-i JullY s111t141-d to minitrlif.. iltlpacLs. Ali klitl fl, II'aIt !LLIIIIr , o11I,J+ L>r lwhting d1,i111-•, he aft ided during} [1-c se,31 1=.•LI r11'JLjI7+'. tii:9 L}P1 [11,1111 `C]I'JCPI;L I i.-" 11'11OW:J! Dc,' l ihur 15. I1 p,-riod ~Vhen ` , t:ll__ ',<,I''1-L!, tai.t LhCIr' I111d](I=:i L0;11't I 11': iisll:il .k,I ! , I. I iISLIatii J1 11I•.I _ i:1!i1ni IvILIiied to seAl)Jrd-1'rI,2ii Jll' Il hi tityles lhaL also prcu!L:'1 ;.I: LIJI'L 1101"l4' l l.:;k,1i '14`:Iyt' 'itit: htt s: 'dl[lr,hauaii_1;'x,ilcJlii l Ifilt sl?4?1614 1I))t I•.i. L' 1:11797iL' I;ilc o.1•I ,' I 'i ork 1%IL11 01.11 1SJJI L' for tlle con4,:r%:Ilion s.11 I1tll' I1i16Ve -T L:IQti. l!tlllltil the w4,'I"' :I :il 1 1. j; I Lhan L i nilic'untly, orshotilcl it hcconlc :ipp1Irelll Ih,l; 1hi-Ci I[Clied ;Ii .,'11ti 1r.r::cl w '`L'IC5 Mal [IL i11117a1wtL:ll, `14ci1,;; c:QPUlcl. 0111' st,llJ .I4 SONI as 1)£I1,: il'}le. lCy ,1 havu .11, LI,1a lii.I:b. IJL114t' c:onl-IwL Lauren Taylor. Pr11t+~ ed Species II;thi(Li, C(I Il-'et-\ation 111a11111LIlg COIJIrLlJfl., '! :II I X08.) .87-c1(11(l l`I' 1!101'1ltl-ltlti ltll"r+ hattiltlll,+LPO1 w a..r- 141 U'2-%r.'4f P CASE DAVID Y.IGE r11A11 rFaiDN rUCyAFwnR Ur HAW 4n BOARD OF LAMh AN11 k;tL MAL AF IMUCES CON;-rlinnu,VIT WATER xr_Wa'R[R t14 h,SC 1='YT it STATE OF HAWAII to'PAR1r EE1NT OF LAND AND N%ILU L RESOURCES LAND DIVISION MST OFFICE BOX 621 110NOLUr U.HAWAyII 96$09 August 14, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies. Div. of Aquatic ResourcesDiv. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division Q1_NR.ENGR hawaii.ggvi X Div. of Forestry &VVildlife trubyrosa.t.terra ocg.hawaii. av} Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR_GWR_M[aD_h_awaii_goy} Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands T Land Division— Hawaii District( ocrdon.c_heit hpwaLgoy) 7 Historic Preservation {[OR.Intake,SHPDt5 hawaii.gov} FROM,Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator R'V5 tl r'saji SUBJECT- Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project LOCATION- North Kona, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 7-6-021:01G, 017, 018, and 019 APPLICANT;Stantec Consulting on behalf of bona Three L.LC Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-references!subject matter. Please submit any comments by September 7, 2020, The DEA can be found on-line al. ht1p.I/1realth.haw aii.goyLQeacl(Click on The Environmental N'otrce in the middle of the page.) If no response s received by the above date; we will assume your agency has no comments. Should you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at darlene.k,nakamura hawaii. oy. Thank you. e have no objections_ We have no comments_ Comments are attached. Signed, Print Name: Division: Date:72 Attachments Inc: Central Files Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. David Smith, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife 1 151 Punchbowl Street, Room 325 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 4, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The State listed Hawaiian Hawk or `lo (Buteo solitarius) is known to occur in the project vicinity. Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) recommends surveying the area to ensure no Hawaiian Hawk nests are present if trees are to be cut. `lo nests might be present during the breeding season from March to September. Response 1: The EA includes protection measures to avoid impacts to Hawaiian hawk nests. As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, if construction for the project is scheduled to occur in the Hawaiian hawks breeding season (between March 1 and September 30), a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-disturbance survey for hawk nests within and immediately adjacent to the property. If a Hawaiian hawk nest is located during the pre- disturbance nest survey, no land clearing or construction should occur within 1,600 feet of any active Hawaiian hawk nest during the breeding season until the young have fledged (usually October). Regardless of time of year, Kona Three LLC would coordinate with the DOFAW prior to trimming or cutting trees with Hawaiian hawk nests, as nests may be re-used during consecutive breeding seasons. Comment 2: The State listed Hawaiian Hoary Bat or `Ope`ape`a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) has the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area and may roost in nearby trees. If any site clearing is required this should be timed to avoid disturbance during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15). If this cannot be avoided, woody plants greater than 15 feet (4.6 meters) tall should not be disturbed , removed , or trimmed without consulting DOFAW. Response 2: As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, to minimize impacts to hoary bats during construction, woody plants taller than 15 feet would not be removed or trimmed during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15). Additionally, Hawaiian hoary bats forage for insects from as low September 13, 2021 Mr. David Smith Page 2 of 4 as 3 feet to higher than 500 feet above the ground and can become entangled in barbed wire, if used for fencing. The proposed project would not use barbed wire for fencing. Comment 3: The State listed Blackburn's Sphinx Moth (BSM; Manduca blackbumi) has a historic range that encompasses the project area. Larvae of BSM feed on many nonnative hostplants that include tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) which grows in disturbed soil. To avoid harm to BSM, DOFAW recommends removing plants less than one meter in height or during the dry time of the year. If you remove tree tobacco over one meter in height or disturb the ground around or within several meters of these plants they must be checked thoroughly for the presence of eggs and larvae. Response 3: A biologist surveyed the project site and did not find the species present, and did not find potential habitat. As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, to prevent potential impacts to the Blackburn's sphinx moth, the project would include the following protection measures. A biologist familiar with the species would survey for Blackburn's sphinx moth and its larval host plants (tree tobacco and native `aiea) between November and April or several weeks after a significant rain and within four to six weeks prior to construction. Surveys should include searches for eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). If moths or native `aiea or tree tobacco over three feet are found during the survey, Kona Three would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance to avoid impacts. If no Blackburn's sphinx moth, `aiea, or tree tobacco are found during pre- disturbance surveys, Kona Three LLC would ensure that measures are taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn's sphinx moth and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow more than three feet in approximately six weeks, and above three feet in height the tree tobacco can become a host plant for Blackburn's sphinx moth. The proposed project would remove tree tobacco less than three feet tall and monitor the Project Site for new tree tobacco grown before, during, and after project construction. Monitoring for tree tobacco after construction, can be completed by any staff, such as regular maintenance crew, provided with pictures of tree tobacco at different life stages. Comment 4: DOFAW recommends minimizing the movement of plant or soil material between worksites, such as in fill. Soil and plant material may contain invasive fungal pathogens (e.g. Rapid `Ohi`a Death), vertebrate and invertebrate pests (e.g. Little Fire Ants, Coconut Rhinoceros Beetles), or invasive plant parts that could harm our native species and ecosystems. We recommend consulting the Big Island Invasive Species Committee in planning, design, and construction of the project to learn of any high-risk invasive species in the area and ways to mitigate spread. All equipment, materials, and personnel should be cleaned of excess soil and debris to minimize the risk of spreading invasive species. September 13, 2021 Mr. David Smith Page 3 of 4 Response 4: To minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species, Section 3.3.4 of the EA states that "where no grading or grubbing is required, existing vegetation would be left in place. Biosecurity protocols during construction would include cleaning and inspection of construction equipment for invasive species (including insects, frogs, rats, and mice), and would be applied as applicable." Text has been added to the EA to state, "The developer would also request current recommendations from Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC) at the time of development." Comment 5: DOFAW recommends using native plant species for landscaping that are appropriate for the area (i.e. climate conditions are suitable for the plants to thrive, historically occurred there, etc.). Please do not plant invasive species. DOFAW recommends consulting the Hawai'i- Pacific Weed Risk Assessment website to determine the potential invasiveness of plants proposed for use in the project. Response 5: Also, to minimize the spread of introduced species, no invasive species would be planted and Section 3.3.4 of the EA states "a mix of native species, Polynesian introduced species, and non-invasive introduced ornamentals would be used in landscaping for the Project Site and an invasive weed control plan for the Project Site would be developed to minimize impacts from fire-prone, non-native vegetation species." Comment 6: We note that artificial lighting can adversely impact seabirds that may pass through the area at night by causing disorientation. This disorientation can result in collision with manmade artifacts or grounding of birds. For nighttime lighting that might be required, DOFAW recommends that all lights be fully shielded to minimize impacts. Nighttime work that requires outdoor lighting should be avoided during the seabird fledging season from September 15 through December 15. This is the period when young seabirds take their maiden voyage to the open sea. Response 6: To prevent impacts to seabirds from lighting, as stated in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, the project "would not involve any unshielded lighting for either construction or operation, in conformance with Hawaii County Code § 14 50 et seq, which would avoid impacts to nocturnally flying Hawaiian petrels and Newell's shearwaters. Additionally, during operation the site would use lighting only where and when it is needed for safety purposes. The use of outdoor lamps with warmer colors (less blue light) and energy efficient fixtures would be considered when the building is being constructed. To minimize Project impacts from lighting, the following text has been added to Section 3.3.4, "Subject to local rules and regulations, the Proposed Project would utilize lighting on the 2700 degrees Kelvin scale." If the proposed project incorporates additional outdoor lighting, it may attract threatened and endangered Hawaiian seabirds, which may become disoriented by the lighting, resulting in birds being downed. To avoid the potential downing of these threatened and endangered seabirds due to interaction with outdoor lighting, no construction using unshielded equipment klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. David Smith Page 4 of 4 maintenance lighting should be permitted after dark between the months of April and October. All additional permanent lighting should conform to the Hawaii County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Hawai`i County Code Chapter 9, Article 14), which requires shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting. The proposed project would also avoid nighttime construction during the seabird fledging period, September 15 through December 15." We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department From: Jackson,Maiia To: Lefebvre,Michele Subject: FW: Kona Three LLC Project(Royal Vistas) Date:Thursday,September 10,2020 7:58:00 AM FYI- From: Martin Ohan <martyohan@hibr.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 2:37 PM To:Jackson, Maija<Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: 'Martin Ohan'<martyohan@hibr.net> Subject: FW: Kona Three LLC Project (Royal Vistas) Hello Maija, Well that was quite a long and detailed EA for the Royal Vistas Project. Some of my objections to this project moving forward as outlined in the EA are as follows; This is primarily a single family neighborhood/area. The current Zoning and Density proposed is not a good fit and creates a suffocating impact on the existing road system. The vehicle access points for this project will clog an already stressed Road system or grid and unduly impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Much has changed since the original 1984 zoning designation. I would suggest that a down Zoning be initiated to RS-15 or RS-30 from the current multifamily zoning. The work force concept at this location is not feasible based on the proposed high rental values. The Vacation Rental concept, with the proposed higher density, will add an unknown higher volume of trip generations to this region. A safety and quality of life concern. The required affordable housing development has not been funded or finalized which is a Requirement for this Royal Vistas or Kona Three, LLC project moving forward in any capacity. This designated land is adjacent to the Kilohana Subdivision, et al with a very extensive drainage problem with no known Developers or Builders under contract at this time that I am aware of. Let me know if I am misstating any of the facts. I may also add other EA concerns in a future email. I am opposed to this Project being granted approval by the Hawaii County Planning Department/Commission or the Hawaii County Council. Mahalo and Aloha, Martin M. Ohan/Vice President Kuakini Makai Homeowners Association From: Martin Ohan [mailto:martyohan@)i hibr.net] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 12:37 PM To: 'Jackson, Maija' Cc: 'Mark Holst' Subject: RE: Kona Three LLC Project (Royal Vistas) Hello Maija, Mahalo plenty for the update with the Kona Vistas Project. Does this EA mention the affordable housing proposal or plans adjacent to the Kuakini Makai subdivision? Name change from Ted Baldau to Mark Holst, President HOA. Same address. Take care. Aloha, Martin M. Ohan From: Jackson, Maija [mailto:Maija.Jackson(cbi hawaiicounty.00v] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 11:43 AM To: Martin Ohan Subject: Kona Three LLC Project (Royal Vistas) Hi Marty, I just wanted to let you know that the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Royal Vistas Housing Project will be available for a 30-day public review and comment period starting August 8th To view the draft EA go to the following website on or after August 8th: http://oecic2.doh.hawaii.gov/_layouts/15/start.aspx#/Doc_Library/Forms/Allltems.asp A hard copy of the draft EA is also being sent to the Kona Planning Office. I also asked the consultant for the applicant to send a copy to the Kuakini Makai Association. I believe she is sending it to Ted Baldau at PO Box 2924, Kailua Kona since Ted is listed as the registered agent. If that is not the correct contact info for the association please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you. Moijo Jackson, Planner County of Hawaii Planning Department 808)961-8159 JC l.a n Lec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Martin Ohan, Vice President Kuakini Makai Homeowners Association Via email: martyohan@hibr.net RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Ohan: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 9, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: This is primarily a single family neighborhood/area. The current Zoning and Density proposed is not a good fit and creates a suffocating impact on the existing road system. The vehicle access points for this project will clog an already stressed Road system or grid and unduly impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Much has changed since the original 1984 zoning designation. I would suggest that a down Zoning be initiated to RS-15 or RS-.50 from the current multifamily zoning. Response 1: The proposed action being considered in the EA is the proposed development project within the current zoning. The project is consistent with medium density zoning and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP). The applicant is not proposing any change in zoning for the development, so the EA does not analyze any change in zoning. Comment 2: The work force concept at this location is not feasible based on the proposed high rental values. Response 2: The need for the project has been identified by a private developer based on demands for mid-market, including workforce housing in the area. Comment 3: The Vacation Rental concept, with the proposed higher density, will add an unknown higher volume of trip generations to this region. A safety and quality of life concern. Response 3: The first phase of development has been identified as long-term rental, but the exact nature of the rental units has not yet been determined. The traffic analysis in Section 3.7.2 of the EA conservatively accounts for occupancy of all the units, and daily trips are not expected to be different whether the rentals are short-term or long-term. September 13, 2021 Mr. Martin Ohan Page 2 of 2 Comment 4: The required affordable housing development has not been funded or finalized which is a Requirement for this Royal Vistas or Kona Three, LLC project moving forward in any capacity. Response 4: As described in Sections 1.2 and 3.2 of the EA, the affordable housing development is required as part of the original zoning ordinance. The EA states, "Subject to approval by the OHCD, Kona Three's affiliate which owns the 12 acres would deed the parcel to the County or their nominee to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing development requirement, and the homes would be built by qualified affordable housing developers." The Final EA identifies options for the affordable housing project if this parcel is not selected. Finally, the approval of this project is not dependent on the completion of the affordable housing project which would be built by a qualified affordable housing developer. Comment 5: This designated land is adjacent to the Kilohana Subdivision, et al with a very extensive drainage problem with no known Developers or Builders under contract at this time that I am aware of. Response 5: The flooding that occurs across Kuakini Highway is described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA. As described in this section, the sheet flooding occurs as a result of a lack of infrastructure on the highway. The applicant recognizes this existing condition and as described in the EA, is working with Hawaii County's Department of Public Works to correct these issues. As discussed in the EA, the project would not contribute or exacerbate the flooding issues. Per Section 27-20 of the Hawaii County Code, the project is not allowed to increase any run-off onto neighboring properties, so there are no effects on any neighbors from project run-off including on the County-owned parcels. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department SE OF Mq SUZANNE D.CASE D"IDY.IGEq, CHAIRPERSON GOVERNOR OF HAWAII BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES i COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 September 17, 2020 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Attention: Ms. Michele Lefebvre via email: michele.lefebvre(a-stantec.com Environmental Scientist P.O. Box 191 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Ms. Lefebvre: SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project located at North Kona, Island of Hawaii; TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016, 017, 018, and 019 on behalf of Kona Three LLC Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. In addition to our previous comments dated September 8, 2020, enclosed are comments from the Commission on Water Resource Management on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darlene Nakamura at (808) 587-0417 or email: darlene.k.nakamuraCa-hawaii.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Russell Tsoi Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files County of Hawaii (w/copies) Attn: Planning Department (via email: planninq(a-hawaiicounty.gov) u.rrf5•.r. 4,a. DAVID Y.IGE A y `r SUZANNE D.CASE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII 4' r CHAIRPERSON BRUCE S.ANDERSON,PH.D. try s KAMANA BEAMER,PH.D. MICHAEL G.BUCK NEIL J.HANNAHS WAYNE K.KATAYAMA PAUL J.MEYER STATE OF HAWAII M.KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY olREcroR DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT P.O.BOX 621 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96809 September 14, 2020 REF: RFD.5288.8 TO:Mr. Russell Tsuji,Administrator Land Division FROM: M. Kaleo Manuel, Deputy Director *qW—P Commission on Water Resource Management SUBJECT:Draft Enviromental Assessment(DEA)and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI) for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project FILE NO.: RFD.5288.8 TMK NO.: 3)7-6-021:016, (3)7-6-021:017, (3)7-6-021:018, (3)7-6-021:019 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. The Commission on Water Resource Management(CWRM) is the agency responsible for administering the State Water Code (Code). Under the Code, all waters of the State are held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of the State, therefore all water use is subject to legally protected water rights. CWRM strongly promotes the efficient use of Hawaii's water resources through conservation measures and appropriate resource management. For more information, please refer to the State Water Code, Chapter 174C, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapters 13-167 to 13-171. These documents are available via the Internet at httr)://dlnr.hawaii.aov/cwrm. Our comments related to water resources are checked off below. FRI 1. We recommend coordination with the county to incorporate this project into the county's Water Use and Development Plan. Please contact the respective Planning Department and/or Department of Water Supply for further information. El2. We recommend coordination with the Engineering Division of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to incorporate this project into the State Water Projects Plan. El3. We recommend coordination with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA)to incorporate the reclassification of agricultural zoned land and the redistribution of agricultural resources into the State's Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan (AWUDP). Please contact the HDOA for more information. FRI 4. We recommend that water efficient fixtures be installed and water efficient practices implemented throughout the development to reduce the increased demand on the area's freshwater resources. Reducing the water usage of a home or building may earn credit towards Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)certification. More information on LEED certification is available at http://www.usgbc.org/feed. A listing of fixtures certified by the EAP as having high water efficiency can be found at http://www.epa.gov/watersense. 5. We recommend the use of best management practices (BMP)for stormwater management to minimize the impact of the project to the existing area's hydrology while maintaining on-site infiltration and preventing polluted runoff from storm events. Stormwater management BMPs may earn credit toward LEED certification. More information on stormwater BMPs can be found at http://planning.hawaii.gov/czm/initiatives/low-impact-development/ FRI 6. We recommend the use of alternative water sources,wherever practicable. El7. We recommend participating in the Hawaii Green Business Program, that assists and recognizes businesses that strive to operate in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. The program description can be found online at http://energy.hawaii.gov/green-business-program. El8. We recommend adopting landscape irrigation conservation best management practices endorsed by the Landscape Industry Council of Hawaii. These practices can be found online at Mr. Russell Tsuji Page 2 September 14, 2020 http://www.hawaiiscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LICH_Irrigation_Conservation_BMPs.pdf. 9. There may be the potential for ground or surface water degradation/contamination and recommend that approvals for this project be conditioned upon a review by the State Department of Health and the developer's acceptance of any resulting requirements related to water quality. 10 The proposed water supply source for the project is located in a designated water management area, and a Water Use Permit is required prior to use of water. The Water Use Permit may be conditioned on the requirement to use dual line water supply systems for new industrial and commercial developments. 11 A Well Construction Permit(s)is (are)are required before the commencement of any well construction work. 12 A Pump Installation Permit(s) is (are) required before ground water is developed as a source of supply for the project. 13 There is (are)well(s)located on or adjacent to this project. If wells are not planned to be used and will be affected by any new construction, they must be properly abandoned and sealed. A permit for well abandonment must be obtained. 14 Ground-water withdrawals from this project may affect streamflows, which may require an instream flow standard amendment. 15 A Stream Channel Alteration Permit(s) is (are) required before any alteration can be made to the bed and/or banks of a steam channel. 16 A Stream Diversion Works Permit(s) is (are)required before any stream diversion works is constructed or altered. 17 A Petition to Amend the Interim Instream Flow Standard is required for any new or expanded diversion(s) of surface water. 18 The planned source of water for this project has not been identified in this report. Therefore, we cannot determine what permits or petitions are required from our office, or whether there are potential impacts to water resources. OTHER: If you have any questions, please contact Lenore Ohye of the Commission staff at 587-0216. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Kaleo Manuel, Deputy Director Commission on Water Resource Management P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Manuel: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 14, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: We recommend coordination with the county to incorporate this project into the county's Water Use and Development Plan. Please contact the respective Planning Department and/or Department of Water Supply for further information. Response 1: The water units have already been acquired for the project. Additionally, Kona Three LLC would coordinate with the county regarding the Water Use and Development Plan, as it applies to the project. Comment 2: We recommend that water efficient fixtures be installed and water efficient practices implemented throughout the development to reduce the increased demand on the area's freshwater resources. Response 2: As described in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of the EA, the project would include water efficient fixtures and provide water-saving recommended measures for residents. Comment 3: We recommend the use of best management practices (BMP) for stormwater management to minimize the impact of the project to the existing area's hydrology while maintaining on-site infiltration and preventing polluted runoff from storm events. Response 3: Prior to the initiation of construction for the proposed project, Kona Three LLV would ensure that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) general permit is in place as described in Section 3.3.3 of the EA. The permit would require best management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and for stormwater pollution prevention. Oversight of the BMPs would be conducted weekly for the duration of construction, with updates and corrective actions documented and transmitted to the State Department of Health, Clean Water Branch. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Kaleo Manuel Page 2 of 2 Comment 4: We recommend the use of alternative water sources, wherever practicable. Response 4: No alternative sources of water have been identified for the project since 451 water units have already been allocated for the project. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Hiirn Kim Paul K. Ferreira Police Chigf 450 Kenneth Bug2d03 Jr. Ccunty- of Hawal'i 149 kapi clam Szrcin • Hiic, 7'671215-aW& 808)535-3311 Fax%8,A,:61-2M Augus, 18, Q20 Ms. Michele Le-ebvre, PhD Ervironr-nen"al Stantec Ccnsulting Inc. PC Box 191 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Ms. Lefebvre: SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRCNMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DEA) AND ANTICIPATED FINDING OF NU SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSE' FOR ROYAL VISTAS HOUSING PROJECT, ISLAND C.-- HAWAI—i, NORTH KONA -D-ISTRICTI, TMKS (3RO) 7-6-021,016, 7-6-021,017, 7-6-021:018, AND 7-6-02'; :C19 This is in response to your letter rcceivec c n A-,g ist --O; 2020, requesting CDMMQ-1-1-5 -'C ated to your project. Think you for allowing the Hawaii Police Department the opportunity to participate. At this time, the Hawaii Police Department has no comments. Should you have questions, please contact Captain Gilbert Gaspar Jr., Commander of the Kona District, at 326-4646, extension 299, Sincerely, PAUL K. FERREIRA POLICE CHIEF ROBERT WAGNER ASSISTANT POLIO C, AREA II OPERA-FiONS GG/jaj 19HQ1210 cc: Planning Department HawafiCnLmtvisan Equal Opportunity PrDwicicr and Employrf" to` tec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Wagner, Assistant Police Chief - Area II Operations County of Hawaii Police Department 349 Kapi"olani Street Hilo, HI 96720 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Wagner: Thank you for the letter dated August 18, 2020, in which you stated that the Hawaii Police Department had no comments on the Environmental Assessment. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department t4 O/rf Harry Kim fie'*•-r_ `!s Darren J. Rosario Ray Takemoto Robert R.H. Perreira l3rreri rrrk 13Lxe7nr fJrpxf1•Firs•f'fiirj'tiy`.. C wv*p gr'HK o unt of abjal 1 HAWAI`I FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Au pit ni Strref tinitr 2501 IIilo,lfanai`i 9f;721J Milli}9 t2-271}I1+l;.ix(ADS I 932-2928 September 22, 2020 Michele Lefebvre Nfichele_lefebvre rl,stantec_uom Stantec Consultine Inc- P.O. Box 191 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear s- Michele Lefebvre: SUBJECT: Drart Environmental Agsessrnent Royal Vistas Housing Project North Rona, ffawai`i TMK. 7-6-021:016, 7-6-021.017, 7-6-021,018, 7-6-021,019 In regards to the abo v e-mentioned Env irotrtnentaI Assessment application, the following shall be in aCCcrdancc: S-FPA 1, UNIFORM FIRE €ODE, 2006 EDITION vote: IfawoO,State 1-ir` Cock Narioncd fir•c 1'rotecrion.-f.s-sociaiion 006 rer..sion. tlitTr C'f)rt rtt uf crw ai`i comc•m#rmmls. C"olrlrfl r rrrc rc rr cyrrfs x•c° icics rrrfi'c +girl rxpl{ccc°r irr "l.'- of'rltc Chapter 18 Firs Departmetit Access and Water Supply 18.I (.eneral_ Fire departrncnt access and water supplies shall cornpIy with this chapter_ For occupancies of an especially hazardous nature. or-kvhere special hazards exist in add irtion to the normal hazard ofthe occ tip anc y, or w here access f<)r fire apparatus is unduly dlffiCLlIt, ar areas inhere there is an inadequate fire flow, or inadequate fire hydrant spacing and the AH.1 may require additional safegLiards inCludIlig, but not limited to, additional fire appliance units, more than one type ofappIiaace, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard in,,olved- 18.1.1 Plans_ r rfelxe!':i i'rrF.fl,r i<r J l:+lirr!i]rl iiiliF.lfl+i'i'r':rf:'i ;iill.iir k'+e'i'. Stantec Consultine Inc_ September 22, 2020 Pauc 2 18,1.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access. Plans for fire apparatus access reads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior tc construction, 18,1,1.2 Fire Hydrant Systems. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shal l be submitted to the lire departrueut for review and approval prior to constrLlctlon_ C— 18.1.1.2.1 Fire Hydrant use and Restrictions. No unauthorized person shall use or operate any fire hydrant unless such person first secures permission or a permit froilr the owner or representative of the department, or company that owlis or governs that water supply or system_ Exception: Fire Department personnel conducting firefighting operations, hydrant testing, and/or maimcnance, and the, Mishing and acceptance of hydrants wMicsscd by Firc Prcvention Qurcau perscjnncl_ 18.2 Fire Department Access. 18,2,1 Fire department access and fire department access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Section 18_2_ 18.2.2x Access to Structures or :areas. 18.2.2.1 Access Box(es). The AH1 shall have the authority to require an access box(es) to be installed in an accessible location inhere access to or within a structure or area is difficult because of securitV. 18,2.2.2 Access to Gated Subdivisions or Developments. The AHJ sliall have the autliority to require fire department access be provided to gated subdiv isions or developniems through the use of an approved device or system. 18.2.2.3 Access Maintenance. Hie owner or occupant of a structure or area, with required fire departinent access as specified in IS.12.1 or I S.2.2.2. shall notify the AHJ wheii the access is inoditied in a manner that could prevent fire department access_ 18.2.3 Fire Department Access Roads. (*may he referred as FDA?,') 18.2.3.1 Required Access. 18,2.3.1.1 Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility, building., or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated. 18,2,3.1.2 Fire Department.access roads shall consist of madways, fire lanes, parking lots lanes, or a combination thereof_ Stantec Consultine Inc_ September 22, 2020 Pa-'C 3 18,2.3.1.3* When not more than two one- and two-family dwellings or private garages, carports. sheds, agricultural buildings, and detached buildings or 51ructures 40Oft' (37 in') or less are present, the requirements of 18.2.i.1 throuuh 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be modified by the AHJ. 18.2.3.1.4 W eta fire department access roads cannot be installed due to locatio11 an property, topography, waterways_ nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions, the AHJ shall be authorized to require additional fire protection features. 18.2.3.2 Access to Building. 18.2.3.2.1 A fire department access rand shall extend to within in 50 tl (15 m) cxfat least one exterior door that can be opened from the outside that provides access to the interior of the building. Exception: I and 2 single-family dwellings. 18,2,3.2.1,1 When huiIdlnP-s are protected throughout with an approved automatic spankler systein that is installed ill accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D, or NFIIA 13R, the distance ill 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be increased to 300 feet. 18.2.3.2.2 hire departineut access roads shall be provided such (lint any portion of the facility or any portion cif an exterior wall c)f the first story of the buildin- is located not more than 150 ft 46 m) from fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 18,2.3.2.2.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler System that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 1 3D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in 18.2..2.2 shall be permitted to be increased to 450 ft (137 ni). 18.2.3.3 Multiple .Access Roads. More than one fire department access road shall he provided when it is determined by the AH7 that access by a single road could be impaired by vehicle con-estion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access_ 18,2,3.4 S1)ecifications, 1 .2.3.4.1 Dimensions. C:-- 15.2.3,4.1.1 FDAR shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20f1 with an approved tarn around area if the FDAR exceeds 150 feet. Exception: FDAR for one and two farni1V dweIIIn s shall have an unobstructed %,vidth.of not less than 15 feet, with pan area ofnot less than 20 feet wide with-1n I S0 feet of the structure bung protected. An approved turn around area shall be provided if the FDAR exceeds 250 feet_ C— 18.2.3.4.1.2 FDAR shall have all wiobstructed vertical clearance of not less thell 13ft 6 in_ Stantec C'onsultin" lnc_ September 22, 2020 Page 4 C— I S.2.3.4.1.2.1 Vertical clearances may be increased or reduced by the AIU. provided such increase or reduction does net impair access by the fire apparatus, and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating such approved changes. 18.2.3.4.1.2.2 Vertical clearances shall be increased when vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to accommodate fire apparatus. C— 18.2.3.4.2 Surface. Fire department access reads and bridges shall 1be desi-ned and maintained to support the imposed loads (25 Tons) of the fire apparatus_ Such FDAR alid steal I be comprised of an all-weather driving surface, IN.2.3.4.3 Turning Radius. C- 18.2.3.4.3.1 Fire department access roads shall have a minimum utside turning radius of 10 feet. and a minimum outside turning, radius of 60 feet. 18.2.3.4.3.2 Turns in fire department access read shall maintain the nlinilnum road width, 18.2.3.4.4 Dead 1:nds. Lead-end fire department access reads Ill excess of 150 ft (46 ill n lend-nth shall he provided with approved provNions for the fire apparatus to turn around. 1 .2.3.4.5 Bridges. 18,2.3.4.5,1 When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire department access road, it shall be constructed and rna€mained in accordance with county requirements, 18,2.3.4.5.2 The bridge shall be desiUned for a 1-1 e load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus_ L 18.2.3.4.5.3 'Vehicle load limits s h a I I be posted at both entrances to bridges where required by the AHJ_ 18.2.3.4.6 Grade. C— 18.2.3A.6.1 The mdXlriium gradient of a Firc department access road shall not exceed 12 percent for unpaved surfaces and 15 percent for paved surfaces. 1n areas of the FDA R where a Fire apparatus would connect to a Fire hydrant or Fire Department Connection, the maximum gradient Ofsltch Uea(s) shall not exceed 10 percent. 18.2.3.4.6.2* The angle of approach acid departure for any means of fire depar(ment access road shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft t:0.3 m drop in fi in) or the design limitations of the fire apparatus ofthe fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ_ Stantec collsultin" Inc_ September 22, 2020 page 5 18,2.3.4.6.3 Flre department access roads connecting to roadwlVS shall be provided With curb cuts extendiirg at least 2 ft (0.61 in) bevoiid each edge of the fire lace_ 18.2.3.4.7 Traffic Calming Devices. The deli-ii and use of traffic calming devices shall be approved the AHJ_ 18.2.3.5 Marking of Tire Apparatus Access Road. 18.2.3.5.1 'W'hcm required by the AHJ, approved sins or rather approved noticas shdil be provided and maInta1ned to 1dentlfy fire department access roads or to prohibit the 011strLict.1011 thereof 0f both. 18,2.3.5.2 A marked fire apparatus access road shall also be known as a fire lane. 18.2.4* Obstruction and Control of Fire Department Access load. 18,2.4.1 General. 18.2.4.1.1 The required width of a fire department access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parkin; of vchicics, 18,2.4.1.2 Minimum required v idths and clearances established under 18.2.3.4 shall be maimained at all times. 18,2A.1.3* Facilities and structures Shall be ma I nta1iied in a manner that.does not impair or impede accessibility for fire department operatiolrs_ 18.2.4.1.4 Entrances to fire departments access roads that have been closed with gates and barriers in accordance with 19.2.4.2.1 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. 18.2.4.2 Closure of Accessways. 18.2.4.2.1 The AHJ shall be auth0r1zcd to require the installation tend maintenance Dfgates Or other approved barricades across roads, trails, or other accessvvays not inclLiding public streets, alleys, or highways. 18,2.4.2.2 %khere required, gates and barricades shall be Secured in an approved manner, 18.2.4.2.3 Roads, trails, aird other access ways that have been closed and obstructed in the inanner prescribed by 18.2_4_2.1 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized by the owner and the AHJ. Stantec Consulting Inc_ September 22, 2020 Patre 6 18,2,4.2.4 Public officers acting within their scope of dut.v shall be permuted to access restricted property identified in 18_2.4.2.1. 18.2.4.2.5 Locks, gates, doors,barricades. chains, enclosures, si-as, tags, or seals that have been installed by the fire department or by its order or under its control shall not be removed, unlocked, dest roved, tampered vith, car of lie rw1se vandalized in any manner_ 1 .3 Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants 183.1* A water supply approved by the county, capable of supplviiig the required fire flm'v for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are hereafter constructed, or moved into or within the county. When any portion of the facility or building is in excess of 130 r'eet (45 720 nim) from a water supply on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route at'ou17d the exterior of the facility or building, On- site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided when required by the AHJ_ For on-site fire hydrant requirements see section 18_3.3. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When facilities or buildings. or portions thereof, are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler systcm the provisions of section 18.3.1 may be modified by the AHJ. 2. When water supply requirements cannot be installed due to topographv or other conditions, the ATIJ may require additional fire protection as specified in section 18.3.2 as amended in the cede. 3. When there are not more than two dwellings, or two private garage, carports, sheds and agricultural. Occupancies, the requirements of section 1 3.1 may be modified by AHJ_ 18.3.2* Where no adequate or reliable water distribution system exists, approved reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tacks, fire department tanker shuttles, or other approved systems capable of providing the required fire flaw shall he permitted. 18,3,3x The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of dclivering the required fire flow shall he provided c)n a fire apparatus access road can the site of the premises or bath, in accordance with the appropriate county vvater requirements, 1 .3.4 Fire Hydrants and connections to ether approved water supplies shall be accessible to the fire department, 18.3.5 Private water supply syslems shall be tested aird maintained in accordance with NHPA 25 or county requirements as deterniined by the AHJ_ 18.3.6 W'here required by the AHJ, lire hydrants subject to vehicular daniage shall be protected unless located Within a public ri"llt ofway_ Stantec Consulting Inc— September 2.2, 2020 Pane ? 18.3.7`I-he AHJ shall be notified wheirever any fire hydrant is placed out of service or returned to service_ Owners of private property required to have hydrants shall mailitaitt hydrant records of appreval, testing. and maintenance, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. records shall be made ava11able far revie,,v by the AHJ upon :•equest. C- 18.3.8 Mini rnutn water Supply for buildings that do not meet the trtinitrturtt Cauuty eater standards: Buildings lip to 2000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 3.000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Ruildings 2001- 1000 square feet, shall N-lVe a minimum of 61000 UaIIons of water available for hirer htin_ L Buildings, 3001- 6000 square feet, shall have a minitnum of 12,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings, greater than 0000 square feet, shall tneet the niiiiimuru County water and fire flow rfigilirfimCntS. Multi pie story buildings shall multiply the square feet by the amount of stories 4{hen determinina the minimum water supply. Con1mereial buildinB's requiring a njinimum fire flow of 20OOgpm per the ]department of Water standards shall double the rninit7yun7 water supply reserved for firefighting. Fire Department Connections (FDC)to alternative Water supplies shall comply with 18.3.8 (1)- 6) of /hhf food, NOTE: In that water catchment systems are being used as a means of water supply for firefighting, such systems shall meet the following requirements; In that a single xvater tank is used for both domestic and firefighting water, the water for domestic use shall not be capable of being drawn fron, the'4vater resew-ed for firefighting; 2) M Ail mum pipe diameter s17Q8 from the water-SLIIJPIV to the Fire Department Conne-ct1411 1-D(') shall be as follows- a) 4" for C900 PVC pipe; b) 4" for C906 PIS pipe; c) 3" for ductile Iron; d) 3' for galvanized steel. Stantec Consulting Inc. September 2.2, 2020 Pace S 3) The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall- a) be inade of galvanized steel; b) have a gated valve with 2-1!2 inch, National Standard Thread male fitting and cap, c) be located be(ween S ft and lb ft from the Fire department access. The location shall be approvtd-bv the AHJ; d) not be located less then 24 inches, and no higher than 36 inches from finish grade, as measured from the center of the FDC orifice: c) he sccurc and capahlc of withstanding drafting operations- Engincered stamped plans may be required; f) not be located mare than 150 feet of the most remote part, but not less than 20 feet, ofthe structure being,protected; g) also comply with section 11, 13 and 18.2.3.4.6.1 of Ihis cod e- 4) Commercial buildings requiring a fire flow of 2000gpn7 slhall be provided with a second FDC. Each FDC shal I be independent of each other, with each FDC being capable of flawing 50Cgpm by engineered design standards. The second FDC sliall be located in an area approved by the ,AHJ with the idea of multiple Fire apparatus'con duct in-, drafting operations at once, in niirid. 5) ]nspcetion and maintcnancc shall he in accordance to NFPA 25. 6) The owner or lessee of the propem, shall be responsible for maintaining the water level, quality, and appurtenances of the system. EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 18.3.8: 1) Agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and shade houses with no combustible or equipment storage. 2) BuildiAgs less than 800 square feet in size that meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements_ 3) For one and two family dwelI111gs, agrlcuItural buildings, sturag'e sheds, and detached garages SOD to 2000 square feet in size. and meets the minimum Tire Department .Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to 1000 feet. 4) For one and two family dwelIIrigs, a.ricultural buildinus- and storage sheds greater thaii 2000square feet, but less than 3000 square feet and nieets the niininiuin Fire Department Access Load requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to SOU fee(. Stantcc Consulting Inc_ September 22, 2020 Pape 9 5) For buildings with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the mininlum water supply required may be modified- If there are any questions regardin- these requirements, please cmitact Deputy Fire Chief Robtrt Perreira at (808) 932-29021_ 0 DARREN J. ROSARIO Fire Chid RP:nac Email: plannini'c?ha'<'iicount o' to` tec SO.Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Darren Rosario, Fire Chief County of Hawaii Hawaii Fire Department 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Rosario: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 22, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comment. Comment 1: The project should be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1, Uniform Fire Code, 2006 Edition. Response 1: The project would be compliant with all applicable codes and standards of the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, 2006 Edition. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley r c m X fFdix(Fvezrizzo n.n.-t Sent- S--pf mh, I' 30, 2020 3:10 AM To. S'Ll bj 1' t Istas Project EA Comments Attachments: PlOmP ' Ii'P MY attaCII;'d CrTki bes my opposition to the Royal Vistas Housing Project on the basis of iarchec.,Ih ,( il ctinfwflS. Arthur M. Felix 1 1 52 9 FELIX L A THU R M FE L IN-&clam I lam Sewt Of Hawail i. 1110 FIR)P( I I h' .Is 1 ]X L I L '%_C. or,he pending DrLdl Erwirortrnent©l RO al 02 1!n 17,7-6-0? In'Q T]j'atricl,J-Jaw{ll i i 1.913irKI.01ftwo r anwar i affects nic personally as Yvll Lt,uEt as ray inw%:it in real propwy. I reside within 250 rcct distance)ol'tkeproposed land develolmwril projcvl. In mxh capacitics, I have rir,%h nti Irww1cdge of the following fwu and could aM wtmiid IeNtify them(u if coiled upon to doao. Z. I hmLT reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRON-MFIN'TAl. ASSRSSSIFNT an(] a. The nwp topography.hisrorical rapid.stann,watcr run-aft'and assoc if dmriagc prcient hazxds that am nut adequately addiv-swd in the Draft Envirortmcftial A-"..essment. 1 1 MM R%%;MV that thin rrrei ccl will ham c sen L iu,.imp cl c n the irnTnediatc and surrounding ma- In sum,the Draft Envirommental A&sessrneni&w.s exit discuss wfficient facts and UrWy!is-,uh that the acv:esswy draitinge improvemmts and diversions can be understood. A pniper cm,irDmnental awssmcnt cannot[cavr mcaningrul Mail%iLs 1-c rak-n cam of fn the Future. A-q I undomimrid it,%wbcir ulttstustces would lead io unlav4dl project 4eginentation, Umal;OLbCr crmm' 6 A ham c(qwlusion by the Applicaal OC nej;cptJF1i;authority that nee4ed 1. itif'rastrtycture will amiply i%ith 1. -ivs,i.c imuMdem At ra minimurn, the Drafl Nnvirvinvicnial:assessment mint be rc+iwd[r, show gmcitically whin inrMstructuiv improwe+rnmis am rcyuimd to tic into the County's drajnage systc n will huw thuw iniprovemcros wiR functian. I declare udder pcaal-t ,of rcriury ifim the forr.girdri iii ime- Nted: kaitua-knm,I aWaci`l.SCPWMtN;r 30.2020. Arthur M,F`rlix; 7 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Arthur Felix Via email: artfelix@verizon.net RE: Comments on Drainage Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. Response 1: Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 2: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 2: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr.Arthur Felix Page 2 of 2 contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works (DPW). Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 3: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 3: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec!!'Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. micheIe.Iefebvre@)stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From- Ar?-;I I T F-! I X <artfellx@vedzon.net Sent: Wu d i i c S,-.i)temb er 30, 2 C12C 14 AM To Plarnin--! Mad Subject: l?(YJ'-L:i 11:-.J.-: ,ousing Project EA Comments Please enmil WhIc.h des--ribes my Opposition Lo ihe Rny,O Vj,,tas Housing Prnjecton the basis of drainage colif f,rr:,, re area around that prnjoc.t. Arthur M. Felix DECLARA TION OF ART71L7R M.FELIX I.AR7l-UR NI, FFLIX.decl$rr° 1. I am a tcsidurat of Kmw Vistnr subdivision,t_`uuntw of Ilnw%i`i.Staw of I Itmai'i. The pWiscd leurad de elopaa enlL project that 6 the dUbjCCL 0If the pending Draft C•n%ironmentsl 11,sw5smernt s 1brinitICd by E;ovat Vi&tea I-[wsing Pto*t Tax Map Key Nns.(3)7-6-021:016,7-6- 021,017.7_6-111,01 E,and 1-6--97I.L011)Norllt Keno I)iytric i.I lnu°ai"i ISland,Mate Of Nawrrt'i affects me per. atally as well as affects m interest in rural property I reside with n 25 tee r[distancel oaf the IA IIrHa'J l.eleil L1L!'4thilln?011a 110 Oct hi such capacities,I have firghand knuxvl cdLic{rf Ilea :4rIl ing I'AcL•D11 L.l L:s Mid an LI tivs?eeLI Lekl IJ'k a,h.r:tctir if called upoFL lu de so. v, ::f rh; fie-tld,irrt.- flft;tF F FN'-"Ili(?NNIFNTA1, AWSSW NIT and aanachrrients. I am spccir"ly caned about llwcultuml impc''['t ofthis projoa i. I du not ctmli«iak-i that dw atreba eolo$icatl studies offered in support of the Draft E tvirant^netrtal Assessment are adequate. a 1 am uw:nm thus stahstantial erOdence cOms that the larval encompmed by t?ac qub*t land pttm.eis in:luJ s rt:-,lur'a"`,of the 1 loltralua Slide, including rocs.%NalJls that arc inddequaately de9cribed say a rrcrtl ut r varallg ill td e.rL,Lliss offervi in 5arpport of the Draft a-6ronmental Assmnaeat. The Fitrlualcut Slide is an lmportant llatv aiian cultural and atrcktmArvViral k-attar FratCn d)nri,:r turec that rannot ht-mplacttl if damaged Cer dcVrcyed. S. I b esc m% cam:cros topc,rr die e aluatio a arld atnal):si5 perfar-mcd by Tit Pohak-u Static.n txipy cfwEdi is attached. 1 6, In simi.the Draft EnvironMeTIm I AswssTnvo does not dl wits-,.Oric tent facts am ajLalysis such Lhanhe impormat I I awakian cultud and archamlogical katuresewi be it Alone prqcrly preserved. At a minimum.the Droffi 4nvironmcntdAssc5srncnt mug be rev6cd to Wmm dabs rccovm and pre gcmnfiori of the Holualeiii NJ idv compn"eftts POMtri 6M titre subjcct pEtrcc Is, I darer uadcr pmW of perjury that the forcgoing is Erne. DLllCd. KJliILa-Ktwia,Hswui'i,ScplcfnbL:r 311, Y20. SigmluTr: -,4 AAhtw M,Felix Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Arthur Felix Via email: artfelix@verizon.net RE: Comments on Cultural Resource Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 do not consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. I am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Surveys (AISs) were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a h6lua. Also, the walls were 1 .0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the September 13, 2021 Mr.Arthur Felix Page 2 of 2 same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 2: I base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The DEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 2: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1 .0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From., ARFHU= 4 X Sent; To: 7 Su bje ct-. Rn o I If etas. Hcusinq. i r ol ect EA Co ri,me n ts Attachments: KVI-T r a ff ic.-A F.pd f Please see my attached er7A,a l which dRWri;)F--, niy oppc ition to the RoyAl Vistas Housi,g Project on Lhe basis of traffic corcerns which will have a r,pg8tive iiripi L 4:ji) thL, entire ccimimilily Arthur M. Felix 52 2 DECLARATION- R M_ 1X 1. ARTIJ1JUR M. FEE.)X,&C[we 7 1. 1 am a resident of Kona" kwA subdivislon],CnUnty of Hawati'i.Stair o l'1Taush.The prtTo-md lurid devc1opimcni project that is the subject of die pending Draft,E_LIVUL'rSnioni Al Assessraettt subrrutsrcl by Royal Vistas HGusing, F"rojgAzl Tax Map key Nos,0)7.6-021 16.7-6r1121:017,7.46d12l;Ol8,wW 7- 6 1)21.r.719 Norlh 1 ova Iliwrrict,Hawati'l Island,State afHawai•i a,rli:.ets me p rar,,tl} :Lw wv,:ll iU' iii=a rny+intcr[st isr rr l Frm,p y. 1 aesids wwirhin"{t1 fect(dista,mxj art"the prup uwd land development project_ Ira such cOp;Avtfes,I by%v Frakindkntrw.l edge oflhc F"nllo"ing rams and could and'X-)Lild tress f tI wrelat If eaIlccl q4 n to d3 3o, I. I havc mviewed the pmding DRA.h I h:i 'jRI NI J 1v"1"i L A S t IEiv F itarrluding t1w Truk irn}tract-knalyais Report by SSFM latersosioral.dated July 2020 and irrdchc7d as ApNvdix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES'aKENT. I scan spedfiically c,L ncerracd ibour udvem traffic intpmts both m ithin and%ithout the korm Vis`iars subdivision t,luu wr riot frslly ur aLvuratel}'addressed in tfte SSFM Truf'f c Impact An livsis llcport. Traffic a,ki dx wSFM Trek InWw Anafwsis Report.art discu."iaed its the Wy of the DRAFT' I_NV 1R(_) N1[,:vTnt..ASSFSSMENT. ut pp,49-56,67 and 7l. 1a the Kona Vistas subdirrisiorr,the proposed projeci relies on the use of n sLbxtarxlnrd road%vay,KCkuan.t'r+a lrlace- Kekuxta`ou flare is very steep,has lrmrk td list ~es due tics oxmirmv eL-ves and is naarraw with raw sikwelks. 11c iwpaj:t of inc rt owd srafl arising,was Pha:+e I ttrad Phw 2 builldouts of the Royal Vi5W HOUSi"Fn, I CCL 14 3rtuctequut,It l addrew4 in the SSFh1 Traffic Impact Anal},sis Report_which focuses irutrad on impacts 1110rig Queen haihumanu l lighw•sy 1 am pardiculdlrly concerned that Gd>ding numerous vehicle trips FL., i from a1 Sepamte suhdivi$ion vwill pnwnt dimpm ttta,l congesiic t to resi&n%Along, I s+insider that Lhe Pi coning,Departrtreni skwuld requirc llte applicant Ict addmss Ilrr... . ._ . 4, The DRA>=r ENV IRON MENIAL ASS EssmzN-rftNuiwsevoluatimor.wwntg athem, erts crrt paNic fiWiliries. r t'17:t 11- ftfl.l-1 .Flawaii hdmidtiistrritive R Ilrs. Ittait t!i r, Iti7rr". .icldrL:oing their iwwlic°ti,3!s43t'ter,7.9iv UIZ.{F f E'1W1R(]Nh1.F1 1"AL_A* ,' '. I ..i , !w ignares llm!tm, claira ng that"No adwrst secondary of&tb tare expwtvd sirwc the clt:relOPMC tl WOUld!utsli cxtr4rg intir strut,.pmvicls inlill Wtssing,,ffld i,nol expectcd r:°usual ill suhatav'i aj krnnnds lep County scrt7ces." II i Or 4.c OR.\Y?'I-'NA Iki P\U'%I %I ASSI•'.55ME;NT'w fail tt+addrtrsl*the~Ix.Ncndisrl dcas:•'sutipFu.1 'it1Ct,;•..t_ thr I, ;sl' subsinadard c=mil;lafiastructwe,Life Kekuaaut ! 5 Thr DRAFT ENV 1RON-MF`IAL AS". z, irr pacts only in lht cottlant of wttcthrrr the mica would 11r.; ubs&wia1 atf wSa eft on pablic health.The Applicant darts• '"nc 1'rDputwdi Projoet would nolaffCcipuNic health in any way:mormwater would be uppropriateh diTowd of in drainage strucilirc5._I taf1 is i M cts have hot,ig taken inu,cnrful consideriti€tn in project ftign." Emphasis add,edl_ This hald con-chi^sion doc-4 nol dtldiva ,,liotenu l ndver;e impacts as required by Chapter 1 1-200,1-13, 1lawaii: dniinistrativ, Rule , The Planning DMrtment should not accept the DRAF1 F'.NVIR SAL ASSESSM T`s retinue an the SSFM Tmfiic Im*ct Analysis RoporL which has dlw-frollo%kinft d€15cicwC cs: a, failure to addnrss adverw traffic impac#s within.the Kona Vistas subdivision arming from the project: h. The SSFM f rarffic Inipaci Analysis Relwrt uses a gru%&1 t mic of I%,in cunuml to the 2%growth We eTapluyed h y the 2018 Witcher Engineer ng Traf v.Impact Analysis Report, l raffii conkeWon is%vq smsitive to growth rate in a non-linear,exprsngndal relation; r. the 55Fm.rmffc lrrtpav Analysis Reptnri dDes teat rt aLmi7c rnulli-gewmti cal hot;csing,UhararteriFAicy cumvion in Flaysaii according to census date and likely Lmd reatin' tics 4aily vehicle trips attribulable to buildaut of the propciW proliect, d. The SSHV Traffic Impact Anal-, is Rrquv cuiplorr_,yen ur.usutdllti low vvh-tt< vcllhimr of 8 i vv-hieleq for yvrthbound Qticev K:gFtP nn,wo lti4 hwwrty on the taeleeted dales of April 30,2019.a tikraAdaa and Aqu,: ' 1,. ?tal Swurday,ti,srnpweJ'-jib the 2019 Witcher Erq;iwk iinf; I'riill.k lnigr;ci Ari;dl i, !' i -:•p,,jrtcJ 1057 with 0-ley fair January 14 and 15,201k bt9h t&vekcWYs fhe um ilk.rted vehicle volume of 853 is else at odds+aith Figure 4 orthe SSFM Trnffrc!mr peen.Which slhnvvS app mxirnatcl)° 1050 vehicles par hour in 2016 for Nort bound{were Katthumiutu Highway at 7 P.m "ediUrmcviv vulurnc is murr tltrn duulalr tilt.WAXIMum I tl°14 val-iatiun gwicrally o"epted in day-tip-day mcas=rnents and thus unreliable. e, The r `'mm(tndol wrs by S SFM, TMFfic Impad hnulyMs RcNrt for a roundabout at tureen Kaaku nnnu lfigltA3y and Rgalslai Road(North)is inconv%wni with thr traffic corri o IMt4rti;t { l,l Y I+Ic; 't ll.r LIf i rc all.'+'Habiliry ccincerns for the governmcrtit, i the mcomroendattinn b) SS FM Tmfflc Itstl,.. n: , ,i Rrrctt for monftorinS of tllc lnicrswuon of'Queen Kgia atumanu Highway and Kunk:uii t'I i ,I: 41) is ina&quete. WtP=.M Iycre, tan im'crvcoon luaswrs more than enc warrzat ttrulcr all cc,odilioret,'I should be pri,witia',rd liar stuity^eratl desip afar sipaal For installation. This circunntaawe will lac er erhated by the Iatr FKat i,1 projea:a_ T. In sum,the Draft E:MvironnwnW Assessrnani and SSFM Traffic Iaxtfrsct Analysis Repon dm. ntjI faresenI saiMcienl,credible fincts and analysis vxa that 01c adwersc imp is on cxistin.g infiastruduiv aaatd resultinw..Fns i increatscti traffu;can be#ally is Werstood land result in eppropriatc go,.rv)ment plaarning and response. I declare under penalty of pctjury that Itte foregoing,its true. I-Mir_d,September 30_2020,Kaduca.Xowr Fa.wal`i., Isia anase _ ''r j Vthur M. FAN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Arthur Felix Via email: artfelix@verizon.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Mr.Arthur Felix Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Mr.Arthur Felix Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multi-family housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the TIAR for the project is undercounting, but the project's TIAR report does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr.Arthur Felix Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley FT o rki- rlawaj rr.conl SOFIL scpternbev 3i), )0,,u 3 37 Ar"l To: liltaln t K"'all Subject: 1 P-val V- v, HnoOnq Projf-ct At to c.I Y i ii e i its, De-llalat,ull FL 1 'Ifri:.Pdf 1. Daniel Mallakie 1. I alit i KoiiaVslas mihtfivisioul- ol lkw;ii'i The PI-OpuScd lOrld dL-'C+1p111CI11 111-ol.OCI that is t11C.SLIh -',7: O"LL Draft EnvIrL)IIIIjL ntal A wssnuni whirmcd by Royal VIO:i,i 11ou-,'Ing Project Tax Map Key Nos, (3) 7-6-021-016, 7-6-021.017, 7-6-02 1:018,and 7-6-021:019 North Kcria District, I-lawai'i Island, Statc of Haw.11"i affiects me personally as ivcll a5 aiffcci my [111CrC'-J III real property. I reside within 1 mile 1:;' the following facts and coin l, ,iad -,k Ihc[,-i;, i upon to do so. 2. T have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT including the Traffic Impact Analysis R,por-L by SSFM hiteniational, dated July 2020 and tillached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT LiN VI RONMENTAL ASS ESSM ENT. lam spccifically concemcd about adverse trafflic impacts both within and without the Kona Vi5las subdivision that arc not ruliv or ;iccunitcly addressed In the SSFM Trall-ic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and ill ).1k I Ar:dvos Repon- ai-CLL;CLJ. Cal In the bodyofthe DRAFT pp. 17 'LI1J 11 . hi ri".,- ih-' 11111[)O,t:Ll 110.YCI 111 11110 LF10 "I a i4; very step, has limited sight I 11,C, UL ILO I-'V:'k-I 'A., ''I A I IT.OT-11'1 X 1-111 1.1:.". 1 Y C arising from Ph&sc I and I'll z 1,4 hii1Jt,1J;:. d;k 4 N 1 j I address.,o m r'.1I1IL7 111111dCt IP III .!L-jJ i)Ih,!L 1L KAJ!DI71.1111. I fain P, i LLI[,'U1V OIKO IIW,III IT, !t Ll 1k, Tri ps it) 1 11 1 17 t: 1011 L 0 r( I C 11 ,1111111 I C i I n I t:dk 'k, 11w PI 1111!"l, L-L:l A: 1[)J)1' 4 aniong 5L:c CilaplcT 11-200.1-13,Hawaii Administrative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing these iasucs, however.the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT simply ignores their, claiming that "No adverse secondwy ofiL6,i_-; -liv c,,pcm; -:1111L 0 1 h, Lk".L'lk 1II'L 11: V'.1 11 11'; W 111/0 existing infrastructure, provide inn I i li%m,,n!,. jn.l I,, iioi l::tiil,t l.t! 0 I Cl;. III W:-Lild ILI 1 demands io County sci%:I i I, .I ,-!!4)4 I- k I:1 L,7114 111 1..I: Il : I),-'%I I i. ''I F I I I'1%11,`N,I ASSE SSNI HN-1- In Fail it) aildric." the polLmtial advcj-su Impacts of increasing the use of substandard cxisting infrastructure., like Kckuaj-iU'oa Place. 5. '111:- Ml'.!' I' [:\\ [WIX",1 f:\T 1 A 1%!1:1tiS\l I advci-se traffic impact only in the context of whother the project would Have a ecton p0lic health, The Applicant claims., Illic Propusrd Project would not affect public health in.any way-,stormwater would be approprialely disposed of in drainage structures.Traffic impacts have been takyn 1rtQ c areful cgn5idgLqtjan ja prg.iect design-" Emphasis odded:. This bold conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11-200.1-13. 1 lawall Admirilistrativc RuIcs, i I 1 1.i:I!,i I i L- [):-,I 1t.i r:,-,r a •I-,,_i,it I r c r 111 )T.' 11 I 1 111% IIY( )11%1I1 I A I J: P 1 1 w ng 1'_':C:14: 11.1 C II I i,-.I,,!:, v.I I!11-.1 J.t: K 'IkA lal subdivision 11. The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rake of 11N, in contrast to the 2114,j growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic corigesiion is very sensitive to growth Taw in a non-linear. expoijk'ni Ld rotation C_ The SSFM 'haflk linp:ici Repor d,.-, iiol Illy h' Air.to d. The SSFM Traffic Impaci AnAy is I k-.PPTI Q11-1PIO-Y', K11`1 Urltl,UUIIV IOW VC11MO volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2D 19, a weekday and August 24. 2019, a Saturday,compa"with the 2018 Witcbcr Engiaccring Trullh lMp ItsA(Iak L ii LW 1057 vehicles for January 14 and L:,, I ,,,L:L: 7]1 U d I i L,1,J i I I I tI.F.'S. L ..i(ds with Fisnii - 4 s 1 S F I I Trifffi,-, ':i)pa,_ Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles PCT 11011T in '1016 I'Vr NorilibOLITIld Otteen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difTcm= in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable; 3 The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for a roundabout i Q ' ',L K;L.iIILLilltl<i,l 111g11\gay aild i-luakalai Road (North) L; inckingk lone with the traffic t.: rlllll 1. 1.IL''1.L'L"11i'IS lkj" rl:,ti Willl'iLfl("" [1L11 It_'I1'll,rl 11TCSOM traffic ,akt.y lirlbday Vi.J" k.';)or :,1I. 1'1;Tl101'lllg of the interwction of t., uo;iir Kai huri!arl,r 1-1iddiw.iy and Kuakiiri IEI._•i,'. : .' I• I-]: A. k1 1;.';r.. as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant Lander all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of ka sigmal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbtatcd by Clio proposed pruj t. 7.LI .''ll,i. 11l: F)1' 1k t_Il% I 'i'rl';Ili '1';:.'.1 A. k p1'. -'Ill 111,- -'ur. r, Al-.' '4". wl -.1 :11.,1 1'I. •1 "4"1'`'.. Ir„I'. ..f' .'I. C', It In appropriate government planning and resnL,i I 1 dcc[are under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true, Daltcd: Kailas-ICurla, Hawat`i, Sept 30 200. electronically signed Signature: Daniel f: Matakia printed name: 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Via email: malakied@hawaii.rr.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Malakie: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 2 of 4 to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 3 of 4 Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 4 of 4 without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: To: Cr.J ikfurio a CkvT1 Subject, r,yal Vistas Id nu,inq Prnlf--.c-t r Pm. on re drainage pdfAttachmenh; Maw see attached. Daniel Malakie I r i)1 c L, A''RNt`I'ON ()I, TRAF FI C 1, Daniel Malakie , declare: I.I a w tl 1-c'3'(1 tit l)l'l ltiQltl:I V1"rfII tiIII1t lk lS III II,. mmly al`H jwai`i, State of 4awai'i. The proposed land de'.-L luprrwn1 projiccI that is the sub;C t OFthC pendInr L roP En%lronniti !ntal :1.,'1W`.-;TI 'I31 4JllhlttItICLI by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos, (3) 7-6-021.016. 7-6-021:017, 7-6-1:f21:018, and 7-6-021-019 North Dana. District, l awai'i Island. State of'Hawaii affects me personally as vvcll it; Ak'4 k 111}: 1111L'l''11 lit I .':•!Ll. .vithin 1 mile distance] ofthc 1):-ollos d III01.-;A, In sucft capaCitics, i havc firsthand knowlcdgtr of in,_', ,,'alvrlti and would iustiiy thcrQtu if"callcd upon to do so. I have rw. l_' .L!J -11.' 1:114.l in.o DR 1\FT ENVIR4NMENTAL,ASSESSMENT including tbo Traffic Impact Analysis Rcporl by SSFM lnturtational, elated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENV[RON MENTAL ASS ESSMENT, l attt specifically concemed about adverse traffic impacts both within wl.d 4vli -o„lr III,, I.,ina Vistas subdi-vision that are not kiI1% ill ACLIIIA C!% I11 I:1,' "'I'V Trail'ic and I11_ :- i %1 i 'trIA% ,:, I;cjw— 3 . t]t,_ n `;Iv Iwd,- T'h1-, 1)1,' T l ", 1,.11`;.',11`4 I.\im atpp. 48-56, 67 aj-i:.1 ry?. 111 II'.L I"111:1 \ I-dak; HL' 11101CL:[ :' iL, ;111 L' A— 01 A KLAIIllua I'ol l Pl;tce. f<.6WIMI 0',k P1,ACC is very steels,has limited sight 1, 1I Itic :,:i lextrcm L cur-.-cs anti is narrow %vith nn sidewalks. Tht Irnract 0f increased traffic l arising from Phase I and Phasc 1 buildouts ofthe Royal Vistas 11ousing Project is inadquawly n the ,,INITt i I'lic Iniri%wi Analysis Report, U-1-', 1 OU IIG11.1.1kk 9110ng I W )A' 1-1, ,.-1 I,:J ;11.Il Q o i cle trips to III,! 1'!otii a separatic sul)dik Noo wil I [)I C.SLLTfl Intl -mF,,7-o1on to residents along FL,111 -I I iCoa Place. I considk,r Ill,: P].I ii I.I I I )CI%1 1'(1112 111 tillnllldl Tr«(Jljiw the Ipphcant to 4.1 1w I)RA 1, 1 UN VI Al Y l officrs,adverse secondary inywcts, w-m 1. f7 i, ilifi cs,0 . 13, Hmxaii Adminkii.ol" I ddress Ing theseggChaptcr11-200.1 11 issues,however.the D RAFT ENVIRONMEM AL ASS I-,SS M I NT simply ignorrs them, claililing that "No adverse sccondary effects are expcctcd since the development would utilise existing infiastructure, pro dt.2 W111 11 11LILL'i1lS, and is not expected to t:.,O i III wlafttial de hands to Caunty service;-"'service;-"' i I ,i ,Cr 01--S Oill I 1 11 1 IKA I 'I -.'l P'i NTAL J C I i<'i L 3 1 1 L' I substandard c,,i]I I i-1, ILI I: h- K P I L I L i I'I 1' 4 public health. The A ppl ican I c!,Li im st "The P ror oL;od 1 wau Id no I I L 11 I'll IIL ally Way; Stormwater would bQ appropriately disposed Of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts bciv bun taken into careful in pro'ect d —TV Emphasis added. b .jlll o ncl.ision d Qc 5 no- ac a t s po L-i I i, I ,:F r,I I c_rti eq Lfired by Chapter 11-20(1 i 1 ',. I 6.11'L 1"k.I.I'.IF .. I),'I1,L1!11,.'1[! 1,1 ric: t' 't'151 ncc I W.,O 'I i NV I R.i..)VNII :TAL ASS['.SS\11`1; I . r.'11,: 1._e.' ,1. ,1 o f `,( 11-1I`i 1:11 1 ., : il.11 tiit Rcpori. wh.t11 il.l,: ikc Iokko Luig cle 171:I4'17 L:L'„1. a. failure ii, ,Iildrt";, ., 1',a° nail:,' in'fi,i+.'l, '.l Ar!i IhL f%rrn,' 4'i;1:,4 yoff al'•1 Etl 11 arising from Lh,:Pr[7JL-ct; la. The SSFM Trsiffic Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rate ul'1%, in icontrast to the 2% growth Talc employed by the 2018 "Witcher Engineering Traflic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is ve:y :L: lli,` I.'• r; '..Li r,:;.' sIa a n i' ;'1.!'.1'. . ;p, 17411tL:il JQI;%lion- G- IL41" d 11[LI®iL llll}1.Lwti `1i1., I It. w'h'1. --. . Ilitl . . . '!1',l. i1lUII1 1' Iit L l 1t71i11 hCaUtiiTigcharacteristicsconinion in I-x aii 11Rlg 10Vell;lI. 1LE,i .L:IJ I'kc1'. 1.1'sIcrI . ;1i:Il,IC 4.;i# ', ^:w` II!"'1' ?f5lt, i lll"tl„r,llahlt' I+ It.i.11il„ 1l i.!I leti I [!'•fM1•..._ I}i'i' ,'k'r. d. The Stil;M Traffilc lilji,Ir "'.I, l ;1 I;._`I7,. I ti'IIII) iit. ":l l.lk.l•,II .;T. lok',' Olume of853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Ko;,lll iall fli;luk av on the selec ed &itc.,, of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher I llr-611;,`t;T1n,. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which reported 107 vehicles for January 14 and I , .2016, bosh weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 953 is also at adds with Hgurc A of the S,F } Tr.lttic Impact Analysis R,cport. she w,. ap}arosiinately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 For Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the nia`iimirn l t1'i. -'tari3tion gettetally accepted in clay-to-Clay measurements and thus unreliable; 3 1he I k col.ILI]lve. likkoun by SSF,'M h'-fll), 1ii1p;15:t Analysis Report fora roundabout at Oueen Kaahuinanu I fivi I,,,,m :1! 1 J Ll:.L11.11 ROALPN,,rih Is inconsw-t5:w k, ;'h ;'I. i'l Or k 1 111, 11-.:' A I raffic I Ill i pa I,. R.: the iatersL'o Ivii u ixn Kaa i-i:!I I and Ktj:-ti.,;;i I I 11,111%.iy I", I i I;, I I is here, an intursection passes more than one war-rant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for ia wllauon. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed prqject. Si I 1r-affic Impact Analysis 011-1 1,1d re"I 1"di.2 I I I !I lilt 1 11.1 and result in appropriate govcminent planning and response. I declare under Penn Ity of po ri uTy that the forC.2.0 111 1 I-k tv. Dated: Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i. Sept 30 electronically signed I,,r i:.L I,r c' Daniel C- Malak'p— T'I 11 1 1 I-11 L LtA DRAINAGEICL-1- j 0 )."' ()1 Daniel Malakie I 1;17,:7 I.I am a r qiktd:ni I k-I I IIAIS A&J I I,I I i. ('t 1 (,1'11-v%iA'i, State of Hawaj'i. I 'I,- JIMPOWI.] 1:111:' 1-'a L 11`[IVL'il III J)".1tdfilL, Diall F,M ii, ri,, cr] :J V] I 1,1.tiIrj- 111 .1.:, 1 NJ Lj, 7 7-6-021:017,7-6-021:0'18, anki 7-1`I.-1 1 -411 1 '.1'Ik J V, ; I I I I I!, Hawai"I affects me personally as well as affects my F I I L T;'-d 1:1 F, III! ['(I I r k L I Itill 1 mile distance] oftlic proposed latid LiL:%iA)I)111011 PFt)jeC(. In ,=W'11 have firsthand knowledge of the ffillowing facts and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. I have reviewed the pending DRAFT F M"TAL ASSESSMENT and I AIA NlIeCifiCally concerned about, sewage and water to le i, -11 11 pj)ly, hl'wi ICLLI rap1 d [k aiiiw,ocr run-o d':ind J ]IlagL 1)1:1[1 I-m ircimi,,ni,il S PP. 4 1 aul Awji - ',11A I '[;C -'VC!fIC I-.hA1;j: S. In slum, the Draft Environrncirital Assessment does nut diiCLISS sufficient facis and analysis such that ihe necessary drainage! irnprovements and diversions can be understood. A P[(JPCJ CH%'LI0i1-i1'-r I.[!cannot Icave mcaningful,details to be taken car, of in tho future. A:' I Iii 143.,1 mx 1:+- I-, I 6. A tare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrast.ruc[tire will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft F-iikircinnicnial Assossmant must he revised to shoe specifically whal inrrastructure ini[na1 oii)cnts are rcquired (o lit: into, tl]c C:'oiunty's drainage System anti how i110si ip1pr(lVoinents will function- 1 declare wider penalty of perjury thal the foregoing is true. Date& Kailua-Kona. Hattrai'i, Sept 30, 2020, electronically signed Signature- naniel iC Malakie. Printed name- 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Via email: malakied@hawaii.rr.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Malakie: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 2 of 5 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 3 of 5 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 4 of 5 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. Response 10: The developer is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 11: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 11: Section 1.2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. It describes that on TMK (3) 7-6-21:19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the KCDP "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21 :18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the KDCP's "Official Transportation Map." Additionally, as described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA, Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by DPW. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 12: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 12: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Daniel Malakie Page 5 of 5 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley Froor. M r'.'t it%s. I I, I;:L•rL r12! Sent 0 2 rl Am fC1:le:f l'Il 1. '-' e' [`: r.': I Fe y "'"'. •i d S3.II)Jeclo vl,-[ ,' -,isincg Project EA Comments Atsachrnents: f L Jf 19 ':rlor'1'p' i.,`f r :7 .I13 }, [, Ir'Illi'll, "Ifs[ II' E115 'Tl C"rt?rns about the rcwjt-'-'ed rll-i,,I Ilr"3.IS -i2 1 ra'.. C''I 4Y7(' Craffic situdl ;II •.'1` :[I r54' i3ECLAliX1,1UN tlk C4 &URFFN, :[-LX I.MAUREEN A.FELIX.declare" E. I am a rtaident of"1 orm Visw subdivEgionI,County of Ha"'!,State of Ilawai'i,I'hc 7mposed ImO development project rhea ids the subject of the peridi ag Draft Frivimr mental Asseoment submitted by P uyai V ism I-h'using Project Tzm Map Key Dios.(317-6-021;016,7-W21,O17,7-6t021,01IS.Arad 7- 6-021 O19 North Koos Qistritat I larwai'i I sl and.Sialc q)f I I wai i affects me presgrraelly as wall a ccts m}iratcFe,t in rtial pruptrty, E r slde µitltin 2 Fcci Idixtanccl of the prope l 1arW drYelopzDcnt prujent- In such ,gpwatirw,t ho t• !irsowirid knowtL cdgc of the follcming facts and couki and Mms,ld t tify thoerew iftAlod upon to do so. 2. I have re%ic wed the pending DIE-4 -1 ENV III.t.}NMFN I AL ASSE SSMFNI ineludinj the Trulf'tic Ir pact A naly i Rgkpo b3 14S F hl In(craaational.dated Jul) h020 and dtachcd as Appc,at+dix 2 to the ORA- t'EN VJ ON MENTAL ASSE$SiMEI+T. I am spmi f ical ly cOMCMCd 4b0kA AdVcrse tralTIc Esttp,te av both%ithin Lint!%aitirow the Kona Vices subdivision tint nre not folly oramurawly dddf ssv-J iiw the SSFNI Trart-w Impact Analysis Rep= T asn w5d the SSFNI Traf'Iic:Impala Anal,ais R"n.ane discusscJ .n ilre tAy o1'the I:yRAF"T ENV M[NNIENIAt, AS$[;SSN1 ENI. at pp.48®56.67wid 71_ 3, In Elie Kona V11,1tl5 sWWiVisiun,tiic projK)%ed prulcct r hts oil the uae of subs stdard t d 'ay.XckuenYoa Place. Kekunna"ttir Place is very steep*hats limited sight disuinus duce to exUv w craves and is rrrusow with tto six walks- IN:itttpau of ixicrcascd trai is arising frnm Phase I wW Pharr 2 huilduuts of the Royal V'iistuS I luti,s ntg Pruiei;t is inude:quawl) I adtiTemed in the SSPM Traffic irnr Ll Arj lyMs l{epcnt,which locuWs instead or ir"Pam along Qw n Iauhumanu i lighway. l 4M past cularly°comcfnrd that addisrg nuar cmm,Vc1tieie pips Ira and fnaru a separate subdir,isian mill presan dmg =,di congestion to residents adtrng Kvkt ma'aa PiaLe. I consider fti the Plan6M Depaanntcri.;hoidd require the arpprlicanl tat address theta''r,,nt crrde 4_ flLc DR-AFT L:NVIROlVMENTAL ASS SWr-NT teyluiresw evaluuntion of;among ethers.a ar1wr.,w,racvawlury inrpwir, ,rrxh as poprrlaOun changes or a ecrl npp rua+r!!c fua iJJries, cc Chapter II.2(N),I-I F1nwaii hdministrativeRuins. tnsteardofnqunrcll'aaddracssing tfics issmes,howev Or,tlte 1)P 11 I i %-V1R,e",I± w"r.'•I VS FSgltlENT simply igrratzsdwai, elalming that'No adverse sec,iI urn cffcc:rs arc cxpo CVdl .ince the dct ti[Opment would utilise eata9trng lnfra4t wwre,provide in11H1 hmLsilkg, -ir7i:is I+UI 5nLpecicd to reyuli to s-.-tKs tan rial Llerrt€nds ta Coimty;miscs" It is a icriouc -rrli,;it n r;,r the DR T FNVIl O,,INI1 -N I AI A%SESSMEM to i:rtil try address Ihr:pA rtvEltkit]%J eerse imptuts of increasing the use of 1,UbStun,5trrd txj$ting infTa.struCtusr,1Lkc Kcl<s><wa'Loj lliol e, l'heI3RAI=TFh'4°IFtcrtil,iF''f11 1 atiF w4"lF.1hT"f"ad lre mdversetraftbe impiwis ortly in the c.1YIett o %%Ikt'I.194: IhC projL:;:t vooWJ Haw a saa'i'a,rtanrtaf a7a ver.w goes an ptr he health Tht Applicant elnini% "Thee Proposed Piuiec,t would nrlt aflmt puNic health in any wav:sttwrmwater wutiLl bc°nppropaiaf'ly di Ia ,ed of ii,urz .jr_w: i 1 ..%v been 1ntc-catrefulconsideratiuri vn io-rt-jjC5jgL" i ;. I -fied This bald conclusion does not address pmenual adverw I mpncts as regUtred by Ljta ater I I-MO,1.13, Hswaii Administrativc Rules. 6. The Planning Department should rat weept the DRAFT FN'V'IRt}1 1MEWAL 1SSESSk,"Ts rcliaEt c on tltc SSF& `l'rall"te lu p*g ArWysia Kapork,which has the ftrllttw del:t:iettcics; a, failurc to atldrex5 a 4vrm tratljc irnlxtcts within the Kona Vistas suhfflritiott airiOng from the pro*l-, h, 'ne SSM Traffic Impact Aradysis Report ums a growth Me of I%.in ca imm to the 2%grewTh rate tt playod by the 2018 Witcher hnginewing'Fraflic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very smsitive to ga°w', non-linear,cxatrttetttial rclatinn; r T'he S rM Tmil c not r>~ecxgriirr multi-genemtinnnl hmisingribu-jotrri;tic4tnminion I Rwsdata and likel} undentsfirnaws al+i3•e rhi4ke trit+s xtrnh:rt<rhlr t hui nt C1se ja'r ;tr'oj,eet; d. The 5Sl"M Traffic Impact Vialysis Report employs an ttturatttAy low vehicle volume of 853 vchielei fnT INo-ON-nlinrl t,lirx-n Kr abnmanu highmmy tm the selarcvd date,dif April 30,2019,a weekday and Aagwsi 24.2019.a Sattadny,compamd Aith the 2018 Witcher Enginmring Traffic Impw Aaalyais Rcpom which ri ptrt'lotl 1057 vehicles f6r yuuwtry 14 and 15,2016,both wea<Ic&r•, Iw unutta11} lo%repcTted vehicle vnlmne of$53 is also at odds with 1`igvsr 4 of the.SCSI:M I"ra3tl;c Impact Analysls Reli[srt,m,hich show,,,aippmWinaately I DSO vehicl+s per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumnnu highway at'7&m, The dilliavrtce in volum4 is trwrc dour si%uble the maximum 10%variaanon gcnerslly ac4t-c- I defy-t,rtclay rnea urernews And ihus uUM-IJU ale. c th`rcq.nmmcn1w^a4n t,4, 4SFM Traffic 1mract Anal)sii Kq, ; i rounelabo,ut Lu Quetn KraAhumanu I lighwii) :end I i4utlalui Road{'%orlh)is invonsisrkn-m;. 1 the rrat'lic i corridor 1rsi... . i, hur s--,aitr nmog tIOed fimsoc l traffic:sOutr linhilitw concerns fist Oi,:A;ove-rnancni E The recOrti ;,, ,11: *; k4i ' 1 rtffie Impact Analysis Repon for monitoringof the interjaction uf'Quercn I<iwhumanu Higlsway anti KuAini Highway is infi&grutte_ VIliac.a.s here,an intmwv icm uses rnow tlur°nnc warra nl wtdcr all cmdiflons,it Oiculti by priprill7Cd foT-sWy wW design of a signa6 for insvillatirwn 14115 c1rUu11s1E WC M i hA-c-A.a xrhwcd by the Propowd Pvacct. 7. In surest,the Drift Fn%,irowwmw1 Aswssmral and SSFM Tn fEia bnpact Artlysis Report does not present Kufficient,credrbie facts and analr ,,r,-.wh that the adveTw imprictt on existing infrastract=and resulting from ir ercmrcd Iratf+i can ire Cully underswod wid result in aT4,rmpriaw guNLTriment planning and we pt vw I declare under pettslty of penury that the fbmjoirag is true. Mt &Septcmher 30,2P.0;Kmkw-Kona,lfa 'ai'i. y Stgnaiuw Maureen A.Felix 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Via email: maureenfelix@verizon.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 1 Oho variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashlex Fre rn, r'.1 i,:kv ,In a;.I;P't,[I f,I-,:Dvi,117,-,r.rip t> To- Subject:Hi.tijFim-1 Pi'r)jad EA Comments Attachnients- Kv.D ralli'm F.pdt t t? le i t P r 1"1a it-, i 1 v ci}ricern iab&I.i t the It T--pa, F i- ;)rc I ii P n'w,i I V s Housing Project on the P,i i ri".F,c! p rob Mevv, th i i,,t in the area. P,'l 6 Ll I!e 11 A. F,-I i DWLARATIONOF MAVREENLAILAJ 1,MAUREENA.FELIX.declare: L I am a rnklenLof KA)ria Visw5 56&visium Comty of lbwai'i,Siale of 1h%w='1- The proposed laced dcvclupm=%project Lbal its the sut jw of the pending Draft ErivironnwnLal Avwumvint suhmiltud kv Royal Vistas Housing Pmjed Tax Map Key Nos-(3)7-6-021!016,7-6, 021--Ot 7,7-4F212 1'111 S,;jntl'7-0-fr—I*()l 9 Niortb Koha Mgtriet-Ha,. Island,Slate or Hawai'i Wmy,me pmonAh. is wellas iffects my interest in Twl proper-K% I reside within 250 fart fibLiiam ej of the prop,wM 1wid dtr%tlopniml project, In such capacities,I have firsthand kTinwiedge of the following facts and could and would lesflfw d=elc if called uriTi to do so, I have rcviewed Lh.r pvndinE DRAFT FNVIRONKfF N T x I '% NIT i3rkd alwhnients. I am specifially cancerned ahiut the erviroarntnW impact of tW projecl- i -J)w w-cp tap-&grapby,historical rapid gorm%ver run-off ai%d"socimed dumve pr afl hAz-Lfds that Me mA,iJc-qLL;1t1flN aJ&v5svd in Ow Draft EnVtrmrnrnLM AssmNmmt- 4. 1 am a%h,:rc th.--v th;pr-rject%011 have scrious impact on the immediate and surrUnding area. 5. 1 n surti,the DtzLfl Fm vi ro ilmental Amewincni doos neat disco."sufficient facts mid Mfl)'hj N I I .Jl thC11=C5W-Y dfalMge iJIIPFQt C939"tS aOd diWrsiOMS CIM hC twdcr&14)ud. A M)M ti- :v mtol aswsgnent eannot lenve nwani ngful details to tic taken care of in the future. As I undimstand if,wv-h cireumAarxTs would lead in unlawful priDjecl segrnentnLion, among other CrMriL 6. A bare conc[uxiwt by the app]it:mkj ui woEp6ng authority that accdcd I 6. En gttM, the J3rtlfl J-nVirtanMCntuJ mit diwcws stillocicr11 flnctx and mialysis,uuh thai dic irnportnm Hawlli'iOn cultwA WILL i'cartual:'lcua bC uaxl,:ntu(xlr Yc#uit=prrrFcrl_v Prc wr%cd. 4t a Erxintnsurca,the Draft Uti'irtsnrnental _. s Jenj mini the lip ,.,: r,data xcovcr;-wd prew7valron of the lfrilualm Slide compnn . sub3eeo l.i,,.; o. 1 declare under pcnmlty of pcsjury that The foregoing,iN true. Da lc& Kiilua-Kona,l-lawai-i.September 0,MO2 Mmaven A.,FtAx 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Via email: maureenfelix@verizon.net RE: Comments on Drainage and Cultural Resource Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the DEA. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. Response 1: Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 2: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 2: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Page 2 of 3 by Department of Public Works (DPW). Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 3: In sum, the DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. At a minimum, the DEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 3: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) reports were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1 .0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. L September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Page 3 of 3 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: cky frYY. n.irrenf is: FF',,:Seat: VVed rI e d J'f Sip: r fiber 30 2D2 C A N4 To: PI,,nri'i,_I Iiitem t h1 ;I Subject: Rv4v)I Vista; hc,-i1in_] Project EA Ccmments Attachments: ITV;-Arch,N1F pdr_pdi I am cancerned about the archaer)[agical impact of the proposed Royal Vistas Hausir,g Pr()ject, p1Ej-d%C-1 srje my attached letter. Maureen Felix 36 I)EC IARAMN OF hiAUREi N A.F'ELIX 1, MAU RIav:N ,,V H11l.I X,Jvc Jai w_ t f area at re6 dont of Ipma Vistas subdivlRrom Ct)unt% of Hawaii,Saute of h€avmi'i. The pmpms land development mjctt that is the%a, Jrct or the pending Drall Envilritru77cr1ml Assessment submiucd by Royal Viam Housing Proj= lava Nki—K,-, ",. ":}7-6-021.016,7-6- 1121`O17, 7-6-()21 1118,prnrl Nimh Kona Diatiict,Iia%%,G l Or I aw-ai`i aflects tyre perulnally a A ti"ell as afrem my ime-Fest in real property. l rc^;ide within 250 feet Idistancr]of the proposed land development pr>a]c L. In:such enrKiw I have firsthand ke7awWge other fol low ing fuels and a:uuld and ticou1,1=.-g,ti ty ileerelrs if ujIled upon lu do so. 1 have mvicTaed the pending TIR N T %I .kSk,f ti:ih1l :1 tlliach1l mks, lam sN ifica-lly+:mimed dhirul the%7m irt-runcill:sl irttpati't el'alir PrcOjOLt. I he 16;'AIg"r-afjb).Il,rt,rl EHFid titornl%wiwr tun-of1'dml iLS4i cmli.Ld danmgc prClsL'ret bwArds abut m not Wcquatci} riddres—A in the l?r;:ti'i I'tevirnna;:ntal rks c5wment_ d. 1 urn aik me thtrl this l!!r.qui- .ill h-mt7 i..t;r;r[i,,ri lhr er1ef-T1'-JmIC tmd lurruerlSding am& fri sum,the Dmh Enviramental AsAmmem dcxs txn discum suffkienl wets and anri' h necegwry drainage impruve mms and dkers6m;can to understood. A groper rnvimrimentaf agscs rrlt caannUl I0'avt ntearcingfUl cic t t l ti tc•l,t I.Ac n cdTL•of in thcr 1i.Iture, As 1 wWcr-Lalld it.such t:isceuttstattecs would ized 14+unlawful p1t°aject si:gmenttltion. amotrg other cmx,. 6. .A Fran conelus4i n h,y 11'11r itpl_+Iicnnl or nmepting authority ftt needed 1 infr,r dma+-m voll t arnply der%vmnim wgulations is insullicierrt. Al a minimum.the I)Tall Envrrunrncmd Assr•mrnenf mi,sl bC rcvII;k7d 1,1,4F10W 5PCcilic4elJy ve•lrnt infrnStructure iinp"temenrs arc reyuirc+l te,tic into the C:ounty`s tl,rainagc system ntkd how Lhuse i,mpnsaiti cm Ls will hmc ion_ J doe lare undtrprnalty rrf'pe6ufy th.9t the foregniq i trine Dated: Ktsilua-Lo kawai'i,eSoprlember 30.2020, i Nipature:, me rtl.Eeii r 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix via email: maureenfelix@verizon.net RE: Comments on Drainage Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated September 30, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. Response 1: Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 2: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 2: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three LLC would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Maureen Felix Page 2 of 2 contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by Department of Public Works (DPW). Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 3: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 3: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec!!'Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. micheIe.Iefebvre@)stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: ic'eOl vv_r-rllih '-J Sent: Jr".rj .tc 01, To:11,jrv) rq irer it-4 M&I CGH PONNING DEPT Cc: 11'101-1lvwww Viscolit! OCT 12020 F 3*513, Subject: K oya i v i, i a u s i n g Pro e:-t F,-%co mm 1 r i I s Attachments. JV Ded riticn.pdf Planning, See attached declaration in opposition to the proposed development referred to above. I am very cancern d thf AJf] thi-CJLIrjh our neigh bo rhc-&J. tv-,I rho: safety issue but also, the inc,eased i0ad ni-ji:oc. T-ic- 1,1 pick. ,,-i),dro'p f)f'i oil F1c1LIk..!I19 Street & Puapuaanj Street is of add,-Ljonal c(mccrn as I i:-, Thank your for u: and our nciqhbors. JCQ 75 G104 PIaulehk) Street IlOdLkl K09,1. J 1, JOSEPH I am a resident of Paulani Estates(subdivision).County of Hawai'i, State or I lawai'i. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending DraR Fm,1 ro-iinxntal Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project 1 ,:, 'k latN Key Nos- (3)7-"21-0 1.6, 7-6-021-017. 7-6- 021:0 1 S.and 7-6-021-019 North Kona D istfict,Hawaii Ls land,State of llawai'i affects me personally as well as afl4ts MY interest in real MWLY- I reside within I mile of the proposed land development project. In such capacities. I have firsthand knowlcdgl-of the following facts and could and WO Ll ld testify thereto if c al Icd upon Lo do so. 2, 1 have rcyiewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT i nc I ud-t n V,(hAe Traffic I nipa c t Analysis Report by SSFM international-dated July 2020 and attached jis Appendix 2 to the DRAFF ENVIRONI MENTAL ASSESSMENT. I am speciriWly canocrned about advcme tralfic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas sutAivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in thu SSFM Traffic; Impact Analysis Report. Iraffic and the SSFM Traffic Impart Anal, sls Report. aro discussed in the body of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. at pp. 4 8-5 6, 67 4i nd 71 1 project relics on the use of a1. In the Kona Vistas subdivision.the proposed pr( fiuhstandard rnadN%av, Kekuma-aa Place. Kekuana'ea I'lace is very Steep, has limited sight dlstancvs duc to extreine curves and is narrow V%Ith no sidewalks. I'L Unpact of increased traffic arising from Phase I and Phase 2 buildouts ol'the Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadequately I atddro;sed in the, SSF M Traffic Impact Analyvis Ref L}rt, which ioc:uses instcad an impacts along Queen Kaahummnu Hlghw+ iy. I .ern particulauly cuncemed that nddirn, numerous vehicle trips to m-kd trctim a separate sutxl ivisinTi m ill present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekaiana'oa Place. 1 consider that the Planning,Department should require the applicant to address those careers. 4, The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSF.SSMFNT requires evaluation of,among others. &A,er•se sevwrdrn_p imprarr,e, srjc h ax pr,pnlation changes or rffeels on public•,fit6lifies. See Chapter 11-200.1-13. Hawaii Adminis[rative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing tlhese issues,however, the DRAFT NNVIR0NMFN`I-A1. ASSESSMENT simply ignores there, claiming that "No adverse secondary effect*arc c.xp clod since the developnicnt would utilizc existing, infrastructure~, provide infill howling.and is not expected W result in suhs=lial dcmandl to County services." 1t is a serious uruissiou for the DRAFT ENV R()NMENTAL ASS ESSM1 NT to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing. the use of sulastattkla.d eximirng infa-strrlcture, like Kakuans-oa Place. The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT addresses advcrsc :rabic impacts only in the untex(.of whether Lhc lirirjc.ct would Have u.ti ibslunfrul ac},`c•rst.etka on public heallh The .Applic:ant claims, "the Fropowd Project would not affect public heaIt11 in any way;storm water wou I he aipprupriaateIy dispused of in drainage structures. Traffic irrttaacts have been Laken into careful consideration in project design," Emphasis added. This bald conclusion dl oe:, riot, cddr css potential advvrse impacts as required by Chapter 11-200.1-13, I-18waii Adn'dinistraui ,e RuleK. 6, '1 tic Planning Department should not accept the DRAFT F1' VIROlrll+ EN I'AL ASSESSMENT's reliance on tha SSF\1 I-rafl-re Irnpact Analysis. Deport. .which has the fallowing deficiencies: a.failure to address adverse Irafl is impacts within the. Kona \ IA,1', :;4t1,J_°iw, re arising teartt the project h.I he SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Repon uscs a growth rate of ! `_ ir, s°+t, r:1',1 ro the 211;4', crm%th rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Lnginecring'Fraffic Impatct Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rarc in a non-linear, cxPane111 s..; C, The SSFM Tmffiic Impact Analysis ReporL does not recognize multi -,CnCr,rMT'a1 housing characteristics wmmon in I Iawaii according;to census data and likely underestirnaxes c!i ilx t,i l trips attributable to buildout of the proposed projeev L The SSFM'Fraffic Impact Analysis Rgxyrt employ,an unusually low vehicle volume of for Northbound Quc;cu Kaehurnanu highway on the selected dates of April 30. 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019.a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher EnpTw( ring Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vehiches fcrr lanuwy 14 and 15,2016,both weekdays_ The unusually lore reported vehicle volunne of 853 is also at odds 'a h Figure 4 of the SSUM Traffic Impact Analysis Deport. which shows approximately iOSO vehiJes per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahuntanri Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is metre than double the maximum lt)`.'a wiriation pencrally accepted in day-to-day mcasurcrnents and thus unreliable: e,The reconunendation by SSI-M Tra ffic Impact Analysis Report for a mundabout at Queen Kxa hiln33nu i Iig;hway and l lualalai Road t'North) is irtaunsistertt with the traffiic. 3 cOrridor.. hacrmcctiexns that paws warrants but rLn'Nin LM%IVn,Ilifeci present traffic safety liuhilily con cenis ttiir the gti%orninctit-1 I`. I.Ite rece+mincTacl itiva by SSFM I rl1'Iic Impact AnaINsis Report l'elr monitoring (11' the intersemion c l'Qucen Kja.11k.lrniulai l lighNN i and Kuakini Highwa% is 1ILLILIC4.[U:Ite. Vlr°hM. tiaw licre. an interscc l'OH Inure: that on ti+arrant Under all condttlelns, ii should he prioril,ized 1,01 :'wj" ;end design tsfa .i ir4il I'AM. installation. I his circum"tana mill he cxaccrh.iied by the propoNc%] project, I In sl tt, the; Drali 1--xvirr7lyrt ental .Assessnienl and SSFM I ral`Iic Impact Anaksis Rcluirl riol preSe'r1t sUtflc. ent. cT'edihicc f ct5 and analysis finch dial th,.! '41VCrLc 611j%WIs On c\14611 1 i'[)1r.tstrLwtllrQ and romiliinl fi-om trattic can Ix ftill k6nd,:rwl+ od and result in ral`I" priat ,tP%cminvnt platn1ng wid rt<sponsc. K. i :any very concemed about tltc addiLRITud "I'raftiry(in our ~tree[ and through our nci.°hhorliovd 1'roni a and "noiu- per pecli%c. leclre under pen311r c,t'I "tour!. that the iorc (lint is true. Dated- Kailua-Kona. Ila'wai`i. f Gl. 2o2o. Sitnisturr: PH cued i n1 p, h .A Visconti 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Joseph Visconti via email: javisconti@sbcglobal.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Visconti: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 1, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Mr. Joseph Visconti Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Mr. Joseph Visconti Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Joseph Visconti Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: I am very concerned about the additional traffic on our street and through our neighborhood from a safety and "noise" perspective. Response 10: Impacts to traffic and safety from the project are described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, and project impacts from noise are described in Section 3.3.5. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From, Sesi t: 1'1Ur.%dJ'/, OL-ObC4! 01 1 COH PLANNIN6 PT qTwPlannii- lntF-rn,t Vail C11 C- 7-*2 2 0 PHO:56 Cc: r-r,cl C*f en Subject. Voyjl V-L,[as- Hlcr-jwig Pic,;-,ct EA comments Attachments: DedarAion re Traffic.pdf Aloha: My name is Greg Olsen. I own and live at 76-158 Karneliarrialu Street, Lot 33. I'm attaching my declaration for use at the Planning Departments' review of the Royal Vistas proicct. Mahalo, Greg 01scu 1 .16530 7 't f .11 1 ]t}N C.}R f_ili.f.I ')1: Y OLvSEN declare. 1. 1 atn a resident of Kona Vise subdivision_County cif Hawaii. Slate Oaf Hawaa`i, The pmposrd land development project that is the subject of the pending Drail Environmental Assc5s,mcnt suhmittcd by Royal Vistas !-Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos_ (3) 7-6-0-21-016. 7-b-D'771-017, 7-"2 1:01 X,and 7- 6--O?1:019 North Dona District, Hawaii Island, State of I lawai`i affects me pemmally as well as allects my interest in real property. I reside within 500' ot`the propose land development project.. In such capacities, I havc 1 irsilr,ind knowledge of the fallowing facts and could and would 1"ify the:rCLO if i':,di d upon to do so. 2 1 have revieti%-ed the pending, D AF T I NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT including the'rraffic Impact Analysis ReNrl[ by SSFNI HnternatioaaL dated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL AeSSESS1v1T:) I. 1 an, specifically cancerned abOL1t a&,vtsc tr-affitc impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately a+dcre-ssed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Depart. Traffic and the SSHM Traffic lrnpaut Analysis Report, Ctrs disceissed in floe burly or die DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL .ASSFSSMEN`T. at pp. 48-56, 67.-od 71- a- My concern is that new residents of Royal. Vistas who work south ofLako will cut up Sunset A - a,, I-oilani and then proceed to drive iwrth to their homes in Royal Visms. 1.ollani t% ll K:ome a "Short. Cut"due to the traffic on Knakini Highway at Lako so pecplc will drive through Sun;iet and Kona VislaMS on their way home frorn work/schcx)]. Our streets were I not mcant to handle ihat am mint ofIrallir whictr kvill result in Car more trat'lic:driving home on residential reads nol intended six handle thr iraftic. Children ridetheir bikes down the steep driveways, seniors vvalk along our Toads. and people wall: their dogs alone, all the roads of Kona Visuuss This behavior has evt71><fed over ttMe since CUr streets are quiet with little rushing traffic. The votutne oftraffle cart t-116, ro-,ulI in advert& conditions thrOtrgh the neig,ltbars in Kona Vistas and Suasct. 3. Iri the Kona Vistas guKdivicion, the:proposed project relies on the use Uru substandard roadway, Kckuana"pa Place, Kekuana`ea.Plant is v ery steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is ri=o w with no J,,:: WLdks. i-he impact of incrmsM traffic arising frow Phase 1 and Phase 7 huildouts of the Ro,,:31 V iNii LN f 10Uu iRl;' Pri jcct is inadequately addressed 1n the SS1=1wr1 1'ratiic Impact Asralysis Report,which 110CU inLAvad on impacis along. Queeta KaahuruuEu Highway, I am particidarrly concemed that adding numerous vehicte trips to rind from a separale subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Keltivana*Lm Place. I consider that th ]'IW111u12 0,:parli> em should require the applicant to acldress these concerns. 4. The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSWNT re4uires evaluation of, 2111ong others. aitreme secondary impacts, such as papalalion changes or gffects on publIc faciiiiif,. Sce. Chapter l l-200.1-13, llawaii Aciminisxr:zrive Rules, Instea' d of sgtia.rely addressing These issues.however. the. DRAFT ENV I R4 SIN K [`\ I'Al. ASS]:SSM1,NT simple ignon7 a tlicill, etaiming that "No adverse secondary t}ffccts arc expected Sine 0-ic:dc%-clopin nt would Utilirc. existing infrastructure,provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial derttands to County services." It is a ierious ornission for the DIZAR'ENVIRONMENTAL 2 ASSESSNU N`I io fall to address the potential ad %.!ric inipacts of increasing the use of substandard exigting iafrastructLire. like Kelcuana'oa Place. 5. The DRAI,T E VIROltiMENTAL ASSESSMENT addresses adverse traffic uupacts only in the context of whether the project WUUId ilave c subsianthd fnAvrse O c-r on public heallk The Applicant clahns, "The Proposed Pto.le t would not affect public health in any way; storm ater%mild bL apprupdately disposed ufin drainage structures. 'Trafric impacts have 4akenaniu la c+rns' :ration in projcct 1"igil," Emphasis added. This bald conclusion clues not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 1 1-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrati-e Rules. 6, The Pl fining Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMEN`fAL ASSESSN1I:NI's reliainceon the SSIN Traffic; Impact Analysis Report, which has the following deficiencies: a,failure to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision aril-Ing fiorn the project: b The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rate of M in wntrast to the 2% sratitit sate employed by the ?Oi S Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact hrtalsis Report_ Tratfic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear,exponential relatirin; C. T'hc '.;SFM Traffic Impact. Analysis Ikeport clues not recognize multi-generafinnal housing;characteristics com. ni on in Haw-aii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attrihutahle to buiIdout of the propostgl pri,iect; 3 SSF.M Traffic lmpact Analy,4s Report employs wi unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vei-jeles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway tin the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a %yeekday and August 24, 2019, a Saute-lay, mpared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering 'traffic Impact Analysis Deport.which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016. both wvekday%. Thtf7 wiusually low reported %,ehicle volume ol-853 Is alsa a,t odds with Figure 4 or the SSFM Tral-t 1c Impact rkrialysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 101C,for Norlhli,-kirid Queen Kaahutnanu Highway at 7 a-m. The difference in vol urne is more than dw ilhle the maximum I On/b variation gerivrally accepted ire day-to-day MeffilAreftlenV, and ihii unreliable: C. The recommendation by SSFM Traffic I rllp:tcl 2\P-,IIVSiS Report tbr a roundabout at Queen Kaah um ijri u 11 igh,%-ay aj id H Ll Ld 3 1 11 i Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic conidar. Intersections that pass ,,Aiarranls tmt remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability L;uncems for the government; r.Tli-e reconjincadation F% ssFm 'riaa,: linpai Analysis Report for monitoring of the intersection OfQUCk.°ll K@ UIUMAZILI Htig)IWUy and Kuak-M-1 I lighway IS -Maduquate- Where. as here,an inter-welian P'Lsqes firlore than orte warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study ajid design of Lk signal .leer it)-,;MluLiuii. -Allis cirewnsumce will he exacerhated by the propo.wd prul'jt.t. 7, to sum, the Draft Environmentul A.-.;sQLsrncnt and SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report does not present sufficient- credible facts and .9nalysissuch that the adverse impacts (m existing infrasirucaire and resulting from increw;,:d ir;jilic caij he fully understood and appropriate government planning and response. I declare under penaltyty of perjury that the foregoing is true. 4 Dated: K,ailua-Kura. Hawaii, Oct. 1.2020. r• Signature: Printed n llic: Gregory ,01 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Gregory Olsen Via email: gregolsen@earthlink.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Olsen: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 1, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: My concern is that new residents of Royal Vistas who work south of Lako will cut up Sunset Ave. to Leilani and then proceed to drive north to their homes in Royal Vistas. Leilani will become a "short cut" due to the traffic on Kuakini Highway at Lako so people will drive through Sunset and Kona Vistas. The volume of traffic can only result in adverse conditions through the neighbors in Kona Vistas and Sunset. Response 2: While it is possible that after Kekuana`oa Place is connected in Phase 11 of the project, some residents could travel into the project site from the south by turning onto Sunset Avenue, then north on Leilani Street (or Pualani Street), then east on Lako Street, and then west on Kekuana`oa Place, this would represent the majority of traffic or where backups could occur. This is why the traffic study focused on impacts at the intersections identified in Section 3.7.2 and in Appendix 2 of the EA. Comment 3: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents September 13, 2021 Mr. Gregory Olsen Page 2 of 4 along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 3: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 4: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 4: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase 11 outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 5: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 5: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 6: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 6: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local September 13, 2021 Mr. Gregory Olsen Page 3 of 4 residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 7: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 7: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 8: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 8: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 9: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 9: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 10: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Gregory Olsen Page 4 of 4 The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 10: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mari, Ashley Frow Christina Visconti <christina_viscCdsbcglobal.net- Sent_ Thursday, October 01, 2020 6A 5 € M To: Planning Internet Mail 5',bju(t Royal Vistas Horsing Project EA comments AttachLTlentb: CV Declaration.pdf i:;lllti'11Ily1111111 .tit[1L111 1r%kIIIIC ,)114f'IC(I [IL'1L'II 1'1IIIC111IClCrredI,t ,,'1 I :I.-'1 ci•. 11CA i7ti1,1 :i(Mi'ilw,d Ir:ii lt 11 7 Ill-h iIui I:L'I 'I11 ;I' ,I;id- 11+.tL ust 111:° sdfI:t1' Jvtil,I:: 1]ul :11 , i:l' 111.1 i.t l'S: 14Tr1dnoise. IyE' .,,yl,,li 'l.t ;'Itilk ..1} Slrilp twlT 311 ULIT C11.17 1. }cllios'I1]II S1l'CC[ & T1i1I71]i;Lil111 t0"ek 15 )t 11 11ICC1 7. a It i"-J .I h1W.L.1 C,01-11eT. il:.11i. `•s LR 71 tiL':..`•I: Ltll 'J-i i11L4. 0,1l7. LLL:1g11')0I1, II.i'LI,-II.I S'n '"'I r ICLA tr71h VOL1:TRY[IedCe I 2jVC YOU. I (1ki riot give w you am 111c Aorlf liver Do not let your hearts be trouhlcd and do not be afraid.- JOHN 14:27 1 t1 534 i3FC`1.ARA`I ION O 1, CHR.ISTINA VFSCON't t, &clarc, 1. 1 am a resident ofPaulani Estates(subdivision].County of 1lawai'i, State of Hawaii, The proposed hand dovelupmcnL proj ec t that is th,c s-ubjuct of the pending, Draft Environmental Assessment suhmitted by Royal Vistas lousing Prtajec:t 'I ax h4ap Keys Nos,(3) 7-6-021`,016. 7-6-021:017, 7-6- 021:0119. ind 7-6-021:019 forth Iona District. Hawaii island, State of I lawai'i affects me personally as well as affects my interest in real property. I reside wits l'n I tnile of the proposed land cleveh)prnent project. In such eapac ifiLe , I hav,t tirsthK rnd knowledge~of the following; facts find C0utd and tvouId tc:sti 1'v i tic reto 1fcaIIed upon to do so, 2. 1 have revicwcd the pending DRAFT F.NVIRON\,4F TAL ASSESSMENT including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM International.nal.dated July 2020 and ittached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRC)NMENIAL AS;SESWENT, tarn specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts bath within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully oracc.urately addressed iri the SSFV1 Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and the SSF N4 -I-rallic Impact Analysis Report_ are discussed in the body nt°ihe DRAFT FNVIRONNIF.NTAL ASSESSIVI1:N-L at pp.4g-56, 57 and 71. 3. In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of substandard roWway. Kekucana—oa Place. Kc;kuana`oa Place is eery steep, has limited sight distances duc to extreme: carves and is barrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Please 2 buildouts of the Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadequately l 1, , L".:•.41I ,1 rltk• f rj tl is Inipaci Analysis RcpoM which foci instead on impacts along Quecrt k-1,1hki-!7:ii:. tIighwaa . I :tan particularly concerned that adding rrurncrrjii,, vehielt trips (o and from a se.paratc SLJb fiVkiOrr will J)Yesertl dangr2rs and congest'con Lo resiJents along Kckuana'eaa f'Jacc. I consldcr that the PlannW8 Departmerrt sltould require the applicant to addre L, i.hesc k,onc urn,, 4. The DRAFT EWRONM1.;N ]"AL ASSE SMENT requires evaluation of, among. others,ctc#wse secondu?Yv imp aril_ xitch as populaiion changes or effects on publieJae:ilide.;. c.e Chapter 11-200.1-13. Hawaii Administrative Rulr<s. Insicad of squ=ly addressing then: issues, however, the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSBSMEltiT simply ignores them, claiming that "No adverse-secondary effects are expected siace the development would utilize existing infrastructure, providr inlill housing, and is nut expected to result in substantial demands to County services-" It is a serious otnission for the DR,,XFT ENVIRONMENTAL A,SSF:SSML•:N1 un tail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of I substandard existing infrastructurc, like Kckuana`oa Place. 5a The DRAFT ENVIRO NMFNTA1. ASSL.SS.ME.NT addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of"hethe;r the projcc;t would /lave"ra substopMal adverse e&ct on public heallh The Applicant claimw- 'The Proposed PriP.jL:c•t woe tld not affecr public: hcmlth in in way. stormwater would be appropriaicl) disposed of in drainage wtntctUres. 1raflic impuets have been_talven_into careful consideration in i,roiect design." Finphasis i dded. Tills bald conclusion does nett address potential a(lver•se impacts as required by Claapter 1 1-200.1-13, Hawgli Administrative Rules. 2 6. The Planning, !)qEinmea( should not acct:p[ file C)R_,% 1 ENVIRONMEN I At. ASSFSSMFNT's reliance can the SSFM Traffic Impacl Analysis Repclrt. wlzicl, has the ii}Ilnw1r1L, deiicicncies, a.allure to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising frorn the prajec:t, h. The SSFM Traffic Impact Anaiysis Report uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2%growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher F:[t¢incering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestiorr is very sensitive to growth rate i 1 a non-linear,exponential relation; C. The SSEM Traffic Impact Analy'is Report does not recugni/c rsutlki-gericrational housirg characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likek urtdureslimates daily vehicle tripsattr-ibutable to buildout of the propo.wd project. d. The SSFM Traffic lmp;,ict Analysis Deport crnph ys an unusually lore vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northhound queen Karahurn anu highway can the selcoted dates of dtApril30. 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019,a Saturday,compared with the 1_018 Witcher i Engineering Traffic.Impact Analysis Report,which Mported 1057 vehicles for Jaruary 14 and 15. 2016, both weekdays- 'lie unusually low reported vehicle volume or85 l is also at odds with 1-1gure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report.which shows appro+:imatcly 1050 e.cllicics per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahurnaanu I Ii,ghway at 7 a_rm The d1fllerencc in vol Lime is more: than double the maximurtt 10%variation generally accepted in day-today mrasurenzents and thus unreliable, C. The recommendation by SSF M Traffic Impact Analysis, Report for a roundabout at Queen Kaahurnanu Ilighway and Hualalai Rand(North) is inconsistent with the traffic 3 condor. Intersections that Marti; t arraTats hart remaiTT LASIOn<tl zed pre,,:rtr wifik ulet% li:rbilitl tonL;mis liar t17c go%crnment: f.The rccommend{ation h} SSI NI I raft is Itnp;ica A ialysir• Report fiir monitoring sit' tlic 1nterscc;tion(.)CQueen K.auharmarm Ifilglmaav anill Kwkini IIigii%%aay is irlaacickcluaate- Whm-as here,are inzerscctiuri faassc tau+r:thmin one warmnt under all conditions. it sh47trld he prioritiztcl fear StUdy atnd design o f a signatI for InitaIIniion. I his crrrua77staracQ wi11 he exacerbated bi the praaptased prtifec:t. 7.In Duna. the Draft Liv irorrtta mal r .s es r71 rtt load SS -1 Traffic; Impact Anrale'gis Rcrcerc CIO,. mxt prc Qnt suflicik:rit. credible t'ai4iw and analysis such that the aJ,cr.s impacis on cxististg irrl'rastructure and resulting from increaascd [rafiic cart he tullk utlderst,%aa:l and rt ull in rapprrrpriale grvverrast ow pl.rra 141L and rc,POT1W. 9, I nm very cmwenied !LTIOW. 111L -iddiarkrmal Traffic on vur street and tlirough afar a eighhaarh(wid Ircim a irld l declarc tier ponalt_r, of porjain that tlic Ibreg aing is true. Dated: Kaailaaat-K{aa7,a- fla ai"i. Signature: f OCC)k- Printed nwrtv: ro rta del CT 4 II Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Christina Visconti 75-6104 Paulehia Street Kailua Kona, HI 96740 Via email: christina_visc@sbcgloba1.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Visconti: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 1, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Christina Visconti Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Christina Visconti Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 1 Oho variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Christina Visconti Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: I am very concerned about the additional traffic on our street and through our neighborhood from a safety and "noise" perspective. Response 10: Impacts to traffic and safety from the project are described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, and project impacts from noise are described in Section 3.3.5. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From- R-)bpri I'ar!,is , job' ury j i q'l Sent: I fltrr su-iy, Of 1:A+i "TVO 5-19 AM To: iann 11y Illie-lit. Subject: P^vii V; i i r-L-j 1-1 r JeCt EA CO VII Ftlefll 5 Attachments- L-JL-,,;irationOf Drainage Concerns pdf, Dedaratron I have attached three declamtion concerns for this prcjcct. I have also attached a letter(p. 5) to the declaration of Lraffic concern. i,L,t s i k tr time: i o ;:.ons lticr w y concerns. P 1 .16532 DECLARATION OF 7-,44 1. ea.4 b. iza 15,declare; 1. l ant aresidL-ntof[jKtk.La4,* ,4 Kona Vistas subdivision], County of Hawai'i. State of Hawaii. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Envi-rozin-tuntal Assessmcnt submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Prcject Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021,016,7-6- 021:O 17, 7-&021.018.and 7-6-02 1:019 Worth Kona District, HawRi'i Island, State of Hawaii affects me personally as well as affects my interest in real property. I reside within 10 C) -e e t [distance] of the proposed land dcvc1opment project In such capacities, I have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and could and would tostify thereto if ca]ILA upon to do so, I have reviewed the pending DRAFT EN V IRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM Inicrautional,dated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMLNT. I am sperzifically concemed about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not Nlly or accumtely addressed in tho 58FM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. are discussed in the body of the DRAFT F,NVIROWENTAL ASSESSMENT- at pp. 48-56, 67 and 71- 3, In&,-Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on iht use ora substandard roadway, Kekuana'oa Place. Kekuana'oa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is tiarrow with no sidewalks, The impact of incTeased traffic arising frorin Plwse I and Phase 2 b-uildouts,of the Royal Vistas Housing Project is 41adcquatcly I addivssed in the S4la1+1 Traffic Impact Analysis Report,which k w,suy ins cad Lm impacts along Queen Kaahurnanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding nLmerous vehkie trips to and from a separate subdivision will presort dwigers said congestion to residents along; Kckuana-on Plate, I consider that the Planniii Department shoulcl require IIle"I IIPlii°.trrt to address these concerns. 4. TTtc- DRAFT ENVIRONNIFNTAl ASSESSMENT requires evaluation of,among Others,cadvel-se secrandap-v it pae—°ts, svch aspapaalarion changes or effects on pub Ifvfrrvi lilies. See Chapter 1 I-200.1,11, l-fauaaii Administrative Rules, Instead of squarely addressing thes.- icssues,however, rhe i)Rr' F1 I N',,'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .imply ignores Ownt, claiming thar"No ,idverse effects are expected since the development would irtilize existing infrastrueftue, provide infsl l housing,and is not expected to result insubstantial demands 10 County services." It is a serious or-iission for the DRAFT FNVIR{JNMENTAL ASSESSMENT to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing th use of substandard existing infrastructura, like ckuana'oa Placc. 5, 7be DRAF-r F.NVIRQNMENTAI_ASSF,SSMIF.NT addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether tf,w grVIVO WOL]id Have a,subsiarnlral adverse eSeO var puhlk helahh, The Applicant claims, "Tltc: Prt71 ug. d Project Wuuld not affect public health in any way; stotrnwater would be appropriateIy disposed u 1`i»drainage AMC tufV& Traffic: impacts have been taken into careful consideration in proiecl design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11-00-I- 1 3, Hawaii Administrative ]tales. 2 6. Tho Planning Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVER()NMF.N"rAL ASSESSMENTS reliance an the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report,which has the following deficiencies. 3, failure crs 1'c1l.1-;C lnlp'l:(S 1A,01111 0-0 M1111division arising train the project; b. Tiie SSFM -11 affiq: lwpuot Analysis Report uses 3 rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the '01 WiLCIICI Fagin-Oci Ing Traffic Inill-ac( Analysis Report, Traffic congestion IS Very sunsitivc to LrMkkth rdtC III a mfll-lffluai', cxpozicnfial relation, C. The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Roport doci not n cogpil7c multi-gciierational hotising characteristics common in Hawaii according to CCnSLI'-, data anti likly underestimates dLL I;)- ;,c I i i c I L: u-ips a t(ri b Li tab Ic to bu i I do ut o f th 0 pro posed proj cc t; d, The SSFM Traffic Impact ,Analysis Report employs an unusually low vChielc volume of 953 vehicles for Northbound Qiicon Kaahumanii highway on the iclected datc.%or April 10,201t), a wcckday and August 14, 2019, a Satarday, compared with the 2018 Whither Fnginecrhig Traffic rinpact Annlyq.k Report, which reported 1057 vchicles. for Rumary 14 and 15, 2016. hoth wockdayi- The Linusually low irpui-wd vehicle volume of 953 is ako ai Ads with Fiaure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Reliort,which shows approxinlau'-ly 1051) vehicles perbour in 2016 ror Nurthtn)und Queen Knahumana Highway at 7 a-rn, The dif)"Creace in volume Is ruore than double the maxinium 10% vai-iatiDn gentn-Ittly acoq?lk d -M day-to-day measurements and thus tinreliable: o- The rccommendation by SSFM Traffic IniNct Analysis Report J'OU U 1-flLIDJdh()U1 at OiLecii K aa h iiman u 1-1 tghway and H ual al ai Road (North) is inconsistent k'i t]I rite c ra t I I c 3 corridor, lntersectinns that pass warrants but remain unsignahzed present traffic safety liability concerns for the govcrnrnent; f.The recommendation by SSF M Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highuay is inadequate_ Where, HS here,an intersection passes more than one warrant under all cunditluns. it shOLLId be.- prioritized for study and design of a signal for irLstallaticn. This circumstance will he exaccrhatcd by the proposed project. 7. In stim, the Draft Environmental A,3sessment and SSFINl 'Tr.ffic Impact .knalysis Report does not present sufficient,credible facts nd analysis such that the adverse impacts on existing infrastructure and resulting from ircrc;isod traffic can be filly understood and rosult in appropriate gevernment planning and i L:-,pun c, 1 declare under penalty of perjury thattltc forcguing is tru4. Dowrd: Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 014A 4L 2020. S inai4 rc: 1'ri111L'ij 1:3me: j e p IL 4 e q r RL: RL)l A ki h j. R;1,r' wiie how rc. mcl I -,ave lived In K,711a VtMlc t-i-o,l-r,"1,.v.1 v-?,,.j--,. We very much enjoy our hon)c and loop forw@rc too rnany more 'rear;, [ ow I- rig- 1,, iot,ated on Kekuanaoa Place wh,0 ,uriuiiLlhy i ltv-, uril-V tICCess ic Roya housing Project.Specified On the, Royal Vistas'plans. When we purrhasc-r] c).1, almost foi.u-v,:;rs we were not informed of this project or Kekuanaoa Place as being the ciily to the Royal Vlsta5 Housing Project. The Royal Vistas Housing Project owner pr2serited to Kona Vistas'owners their plans for the Royal Vistas Housing Project and what it would loolk like.They had pTaposed two entrance/exits to their project from Kona Vistas arif-I r,.t7ancejexiks frL)rTl a subdivision cin the north side of their project, Pualani Estates. Drie of the accesses 1-rorn Kona Vistas, Flot Kekuanaoa Place, requires permission from the owner of the Property for access the Royal Vistas which has been denied by the owner from my understanding.Also, the two accesses from Puala nl Estates requires Royal Vlstas to be granted access across a strip at lend owned by another owner who has also denied Royal Vistas access to their projec L worn my understanding.This only leaves Kekuanaoa Place in Kona VistaS as the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project. Since Queen K Highway is-adjacent to Royal Vistas Housing Project there should be access from this highway and not from Kona Vistas Subdivision.I(Dna Vistas only access is from Queen K Highway by Lako St-for our subdivision with ZX harriesites and two other subdivisions. Royal Vistas Housing Project is slatp(l fur 490 hciriie5 (Condos,some rental units and same purchased units). If Kona Vistas ha.only one access to its subdivision, why shouldn't Royal Vistas only access be (lueen K Highway as well. Why should Royal Vistas h8ve an access through Kona Vistas and allow all their traffic, inclu-c-ling t*ie construction equipment traffic over the next 20 years of their development,to drive through Kona Vistas Subd ivislon? Roval V15tas Housing Project with 490 units has almost 2.5 times larger density and this traffic should not he funneled through Kona Vistas Subdivision vi.a Kekuanaoa Place or any other street. Mahala for your time, Robert D. Harris 76 4323 Kekuanaoa Place DECI ARATION i31~ r r c c• *+ 1, 06ear - Z>re'r Is.,docIarc: I. I am a resi.dcnt of Kona Vistas subdivision,County ofHawai'i,State of Hawaii. The proposed tand cicvc1opmont project that is the subject of the pending; Draft Environrnental Assessment submitted ley Royal lli,,tas Housing Prc+iect Tax Map Kcy loos, (3) 7-fi-021:016, 7-6- 021:017, 7-6-021:018,and 7-6-021:019 'north Kona District, Hawaii island. State orHawai'i affects me perrsonaily as well as affects niv Mr Cresi Ln rc:JLl properly, I resi& within cc distancel G)f the proposed and development project. In such capacities, I have firsthand knowledge:Lit-rlickiI Jowl g t CLr artd canrld and would testify thereto if called upan to do so. 2. 1 have revicwud the pL:-dim, 1,31tAH L.NVIRO NMl N I AL ASSESSMENT and attachments, i am sp"itically concernO about-. t l id 3. I do not consider that the archaeological studies offered in stippnrl of the Draft Environmental Assessment are adequate. See pp,thereof. 4. 1 am aware that subsmiinal evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject land parcels includes fcalures of(he Holualva Slide, including ruck walls that sire inadequately described as agricultural walls in the urchueulogical stuudies offered in support of the Draft Environmental Asscssmcni. Tliv.iiolualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological featurc from pre- eswrn cun(act times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. 5. 1 base niy concenrs upon Ilia evatuation and analysis performed by Team Pohaku 9 Stone,a copy of which is attached. In sum, the Draft Einvi aninental Assessment does nut discuss sufficient facts and MIftlyRiS such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understoud. let alone prvpeAy prvsvrve4 7. At a minimum, the 1)raft F ii v i ro nmental Assessment must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa.Slide components pment an the subject parcels, 1 declare tinder penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true. Dated: Kailua-bona,Hawaii, Cldob e i2 2020. Signature; Printcd nainc; 2 DECLARATION OF 1, i? y egt l i% ,declme: I e I am a resident of Kona Vistas subdivision, County cif Hawaii, State of Hawai'l. Thy proposed land development project that is tlec stEl?Jm of the pending Draft T:nvironmental Assesstnent submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map iiey ND5. (?1 7-64)21:01 b, 7-6- t12.1:017, 7-6-021:018, and 7-6-021:O19 North bona Dmri4i, HaI v j"i Island. State cfNawai'i affects txee personally as well as affects my interest in real property. I reside within iC' r distance] of the proposed land development project. In such capacities. I leave firsthand knowledge of the following fact%and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2. I have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachinerits. I ain specifically concrerred about: Ll-k iLL4.t f , c,e-`y 3. The stccp topog"ph'y,historical rapid storinwater ntn-off and associated damage present hazar+ly that uru not Mc€Iuately addressed in the Draft Enviiennwntal Assessment, See PP. .__ 111crouf, 4. 1 am aware that[cite specific facts]. 5. In %um, the Draft Environmental Asgo,srnent does not discuss Sufficicnt facts and analy wis loch that the necessary drainage irnprovenients and diversions can be undorstood. A proper envirnntnental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to bw taken care of in the feature. As I un€,erstartd it,such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation, among other errors. 1 bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting atrshority that needed c,mPly with governmen(regulations is iltsufficient, At a minimum, the Draft irunmenla I :'.,,sessment trust be revised to show specifically what infmitructure tir:• .art :_,:;; ,] : ,<< ii, , _ r s:.'. ,i:; ge system and how those improvements skill j'Unction. I declare under penalty of poijury that the foregoing is tie, Dated: Kailua-Kona_ Hawaii, + ° 'r+ + , 2021), d Pnntod name: JC l.a n Lec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris 76-4323 Kekuana`oa Place Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Via email: bobh.home@gmail.com RE: Comments on Drainage Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Harris: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 1, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 2 of 7 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TTIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 3 of 7 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum I Oho variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where L September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 4 of 7 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: Our home is located on Kekuanaoa Place which currently is the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project specified on the Royal Vistas' plans. When we purchased our lot almost four years ago we were not informed of this project or Kekuanaoa Place as being the only access to the Royal Vistas Housing Project. Response 10: The project would be accessed in two different ways. As described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC proposes to construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Ka'ahumanu. The second access point would be from Kekuana'oa Place, which would not occur until Phase II of the project. Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana'oa Place from Lako Street during Phase II of the project. At project completion, there would be two ways to access the project. Comment 11: The Royal Vistas Housing Project owner presented to Kona Vistas' owners their plans for the Royal Vistas Housing Project and what it would look like. They had proposed two entrance/exits to their project from Kona Vistas and two entrance/exits from a subdivision on the north side of their project, Pualani Estates. One of the accesses from Kona Vistas, not Kekuanaoa Place, requires permission from the owner of the property for access the Royal Vistas which has been denied by the owner from my understanding. Also, the two accesses from Pualani Estates requires Royal Vistas to be granted access across a strip of land owned by another owner who has also denied Royal Vistas access to their project from my understanding. This only leaves Kekuanaoa Place in Kona Vistas as the only access to Royal Vistas Housing Project. Response 11: The plans for access into the development have evolved over time based on discussions with various stakeholders. Section 2.3 of the EA describes how access from Pualani Estates from Paulehia Street was an alternative considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The project as described in Section 1.2 and analyzed in this EA for approval presents two access points for the project, from a new intersection (Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Ka'ahumanu) in Phase I and from Kekuana'oa Place in Phase II. Comment 12: Since Queen K Highway is adjacent to Royal Vistas Housing Project there should be access from this highway and not from Kona Vistas Subdivision. Kona Vistas only access is from Queen K Highway by Lako Street for our subdivision with 200 homesites. Response 12: A small number of 'left turn out' (southbound) vehicles will be pushed through Kekauna'oa Place and Lako Street. For emergency reasons, it would be beneficial if more than one access is provided to any development. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 5 of 7 The master plan for this area shows connector streets parallel to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway through these developments to purposely provide connectivity redundant to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This is not a new or recent concept in the area. Comment 13: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment and attachments. I am specifically concerned about the Holualoa Slide rockwall being damaged. I do not consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. I am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 13: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) reports were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1 .0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. No holua slide has been identified in the project site. Comment 14: 1 base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The DEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 6 of 7 Response 14: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31 182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1.0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. Comment 15: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment and attachments. I am specifically concerned about drainage interruptions. Response 15: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan's (CDP's) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK 3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the Kona CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 describes that Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by Department of Public Works, and there would be no drainage interruptions. Comment 16: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Robert Harris Page 7 of 7 Response 16: Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 17: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 17: There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 18: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 18: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department RCVD C014 PLANNING [KEPT 0cJ 7'20 FI.3:16 HAND DELIV RED October 3,2020 Planning Department County of Hawaii 74-5044 Ane Keoholalole Highway Bldg E Kailua Kona, HI 96740 RE: ROYAL VISTA Housing Project EA comments pear Planning Department Officials: I am submitting to you my comrnent5 regarding Vie Royal Vista Housing Project EA. I arr opposed to the project as It is currently proposed. My husband and 18re full time residents of Hawaii and I have attached my comments regarding the EA, Further, I fully concur with the detailed ccrriments that have been submitted by the Kona Vista FEorneowners Association and Board, Sincerely ZMar ret Donnellan Todd 76-151 Karnehamalu Kadua Korea, HI 96740 M tOM PS.NET 567 879-0546(cell) 365too I RGV0 COH PLANN1146 DEPT OCIT 2'20 P83:17 HRW I)ELIVEk10 DECL&R ATIDN OF 1, MARGARET l_7ON EI'.I,,AN TODD,declare; 1. I am a resident of 76-l S 1 Kastmehamtxlu St Kailua Kona I Kona Vis?2 subdivision], County of Ha ai`i, State of I Iawa_i`i. The proposed land deue lop rmsent project that is the subjeci orthe pending Draft Enviror.rncnt.11 Assessnmem submitted by Royal Vistas Mousing Project.Tax Mal) ICey dos_ 3)7-6-021:016,7-6-021:017, 7-6-021.018, and 7-6-021:019 North Kona District, Hawaii Island,State of Hawaii affects me personally as well a5 affects my interest in real property. l reside wilhin approximamely two blocks of the b cundaries ufthe proposed land development project. I.n such capacities, I have firsthand knovvledgc of the following Facts and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2. 1 have reviewed the pcnding DRAFF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT including the TrafTc Impact ,Ana[ysis Report by S5FM Intemtiona],dated July 2020 and attached its Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRON'WNTAI.. ASSESSMENT. 1 am specifically coacerrmed about adverse traffic impacts both within and wiilmui the Kona Vistas subdivision Oiat are not fully or accurate]y addressed in time S5FM Traffic Impact Analysis depart.. Traffic and the SSFM Traffic hnpact Analysis Report. arc discussed it the hody of time DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE SSMENT. at pp. 48-56, 67 and 71. I am also concerned that the mitigations for ingresslegress in emergency situations is iuTadequaw. 3. in the Kona.Vistas subdivision,the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Keku.ana`oa Place, Kekuana`oa Place is ver, steep, has limited sight I distances due 10 e+ctterne curves and is narrow with no side-,wdIks. The impact ofi€tcreased traffic arising from Phase l and Phase 2 builtlauts of the Royal Vistas Housing Protect is inadequately addressed in the SSFM Track Impact Analysis Report,which focuses instead on impacts along queen.Kaahurnanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips Io and from, a separate subdivision will prewnt dangers and congestion to residents along Kckuana'oa Placer. I consider that the Planning Dcpartanmt should require the applicant to address these concerns. 4. The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires evaluation of, among others, adverse seeondary irrapads, such asp€apulalton changes or effects on public facilities. Sec Chapter 11-200.1-13, f4awmli Administrative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing thine issues, Ww aver, the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT simply ignores Ihem. claiming that "No adverse secondary effects are expected since the development would utilize existing infrastructure,provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County services." It is a serious ornissiorl for the DRAFT €NVIRf71xldvlENTAL ASSESSMENT to fail to address tN potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substandard existing infrastruttuw, like Kckuana`an PI ace. 5. 'l-he 1)RAFT ENVIPQNIwIE TAL ASSESaN1ENT addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the contaxt of whether the pmject would Have:a subsxanricai adverse e Lc!on public health,ealth, The .AppllL:Lait claims, 'The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way, stvrnawater mould be appropriately disposed of in drainage stmctures. Traffic impacts have been taken intQ:arefMl cor)sideration in prof rct dam" Emphasis added. This bald 1 con6usion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 1 l-200.1-13, Flawaii Administrative Rules. b.The Nanning DeparLmuni should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT's reliance on the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Retort,which has the following deficiencies: a.failtire io address adver,c traffic impacts wwrithin the Kona Vistas subdivision arising From the project; b. The SSFM Traffic Impact / nalysis Report uses a arowth rate 0r la/0'+ in contrasr to the 2% growth raie employed by the 201 g Witcher Enginecring Traffic Impact:Arialvsis Report.. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to gowvth rdtc in u 11011-1i.ncnr, exponerntial relation; C.The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report dads not reeognixe multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to huildout of the proposed project; d. The SSFIvI TraTic Impact Analysis Report employs Mtn unusually law vehicle volume ,of 853 vehicles fur Northbowul Queen Kaahurnanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and .august 24. 2019, a Saturday, compared %ith the 2018 Witcher Fng-kneering Traffic lmpaez +Analvsis RepoM which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15. 2016, both weekday . The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report.,which shows appro•umately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in vnlume is more than double the maximum 10 ,o variation generally accepted in day-te-day measurements and thus unreliable: i C. Tb,:recomnicndation by SSFM `l`raffiw Impact Analysis Repeal #or a rourdabout at Quccn Kaahunaanu Highway and Hualtatai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass wan-ants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concems for the govemment; f.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate, Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under al I conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will he exacerbated by the proposed project. 7_ In sutra, the Drafi Environmental Assessment and SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report dews rant present sufficient,credible facts and analysis such that the adverse irnpacts on eNisting infrastructure and resulting from increased traffic can be fully understood and result in appropriate govemment planning and response. C declare under penalty of penury that the foregoing is trtae. r Dated- Kailua-Kona, Kswai`i, Octobvr 3, 2020. r!} 5igtaattai f Mnted Marne; ar aa l f)vnnellasa l-Ad 4 RCUD CQN l'l_ANFW40 DEPT OCT 2 '2D Fl-3:17 PnND DIA.lUERE0 DF,t'.I,ARA.TI{]N OF 1, MARGARET DONNl::UAN TODD,declare: 1. 1 am a resident of Kona Vistas subdivision,County of Hawal'i, Slate of[lawal'i. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by .royal Vistas Housing, Project J'ax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021:416, 7-6- 021 :017, 7-6-021,01.8, and 7-6-021:019 North Kona District, Ha va;`i Island,State ofl-lawai'i affects me personally as well as a#1ects my intermit in real property. I reside within approximal6v Mc blacks of the proposed lead development prctiect(76-151 Kameharnalu St.). In such capacitics" I have firsthand knowledge oI.the following fads and could and would testify thcretu ifcalled upon to do sea. 1 have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachments. I am specifically concerned about: the proposal"s failure to adequately address drainage and runoff issues including the increascd potential for adverse weather events re'sulfing from dirnate change, Prudent planning requires that new developments are planned to address chu poteT1tia-1 increase in adverse weather events. 3. The steep topography,historical rapid storr mwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft environmental AssessrttclI 4. In sum,the Draft Environmental Assessment does nct discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessrrwcnt cannot leave meaningful details to be taken dare of in the future. As I understand it, such circumslanc;s would Ic7d to unlav ul project segmentation, 1 aunong other cr ors. A bare conclusion by she applicant or accepting authority that needed infras"eture will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft EnvirunntersW Assessment artust he revised to show specifically what infrastruratur: improvements are required to tie into the tYo~anty's drainage system and how those improvements will function. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing; is true. Dated: Kailua-Kona,Hawaii , October3,2020. Signature., Printed name: M aret Dannellan 'To d. 2 RCUD CON PLANNING DFPT OG1"2*20 P-'O;17 HAND DEL R.tERFI] DECLARATION OF 1,1v1ARCARET ODD, declare: 1, I am a residem of Kara V i star, subdivision, County of Hawai`i, Mate of Havwai''i. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Environrnenaal Assessfnent subattittcd by Kuys] VisW Huusing Prated Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021-.016, 7-6- 021:017, 7-6-021:018, and 7-6-021.019 North Mortar Distract, Haiwai'i Island, Mate ef-Hawai'i afr°ects me personally as well as affects my interest in real pmperty. I reside within approximately two blocks(76-151 Kamehannatu St.Ka ilua Kona)or the proposed land dcN^cIopment project. In such capacities, I have firsthand knowledge ref the following tacts and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 1 have reviewed the pending DRAFF FNAIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachments. I am specifically concerned aebouc inadequate assessment al"archealugical features 3. 1 do not consider that the archaixlogical studies offercel in support of the Draft Environrnen al Assessment are adequate. 4. 1 ant aware that substantial evidence exists that the land cncompa.ssed by the subject land parcels includes features ofthe Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as a riculturai walls in ilia:arch€aeologichl studies offered in support of the Draft Envirormcntal A ssesmrnent. The Holualoa Slide is an important. Flawaiia..n cultural and arehaeological feature From pre-Western contact times that cannot be replacccd ifd rnaved or destroyed. i hase my con erns upon the evaluation and analysis perfurmed by Tom i'ofitdctt Stone, n copy of which is attached. h.In sum. the Drub Environmr-Mal Assessment does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such dia: the important Hawai-ian cultural and archaeological feawrc5 can he tincic;rstood, let alone properly preserved. 7. At a minimum,the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised io address the location,data recoveTy and preservation of the Hui ualua Slide cornpnnents present on the subject parcels, l declare tinder penally of perjury that the foregoing is true, Bated: Kai ILta:-Kona, Pawai'i, October 3, 7020, Sim Printedn®me: rgaretif nneliatt`Tc dd 2 Cta n L}e Stantec Consulting Services Inc. J P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd 76-151 Kamehamalu Kaulia-Kona, HI 96740 RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Donnellan Todd: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 3, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. I am also concerned that the mitigations for ingress/egress in emergency situations is inadequate. Response 1: As described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC proposes to construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Ka'ahumanu. This intersection would be built to County and State standards, and dedicated to the County. Additionally, Figure 2 in the EA has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana'oa Place from Lako Street during Phase II of the project. At project completion, there would be two ways to access the project. This is consistent with access of other communities in Kona. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana'oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana'oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana'oa Place to L September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd Page 2 of 7 Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. L September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd Page 3 of 7 Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd Page 4 of 7 Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: I am specifically concerned about: the proposal's failure to adequately address drainage and runoff issues including the increased potential for adverse weather events resulting from climate change. Response 10: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase II of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the KCDP Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21 :18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the KDCP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three LLC would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by Department of Public Works. Comment 11: The steep topography, historical rapid storm water run-off and associated damage resent hazards that are not adequately addressed in the DEA. Response 11: Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is owned and maintained by the State of Hawai'i, together with the two culvert systems traversing Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway which transport the floodwaters of Holualoa Ditch and Horseshoe Bend Ditch below Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. The State has not indicated any problems with being able to maintain the highway or the culverts, and the proposed project would not increase the amount of water in the ditches per Section 27-20 of the Hawaii County Code). Additionally, Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd Page 5 of 7 Comment 12: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 12: See response to comment 10. Also, the Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by DPW. Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 13: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 13: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. Comment 14: 1 am specifically concerned about the inadequate assessment of archaeological features, and don't consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. I am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 14: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) reports were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a h6lua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd Page 6 of 7 similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 15: I base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The IDEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The IDEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 15: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31 182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1.0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Margaret Donnellan Todd Page 7 of 7 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. LV Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From. y F 1.1 L'.2 Sent: F,; C),-i-ber 02,202C 1:57 PM stji jpct.. or, Roval Vistas proposed project Attachments; Sent: k-id c.)Oober N. 2020 1'12 PP Tn Vee, h,ip J/lir-h4el.Yoe`' Ivvui, 'ccunty gov> Su I)jp ct- .-v j: Coro ments on Roya I Vi tA 5 proposed project F 0- ded message--------- F:.-n.- Gary C.)st <FwPast2@gmafl.cprr> i --niments on P-y. Vistas proposed projm i, i!irig@)hawaiicuunLy.guy- ihmit public comnienr5 or) the Royaj Vivas proposed project that are ottached as a PD file to this email. A IrAi i Gary W. East 1136533 From: Gary W. East To: plarininpCa)liawaiicouiity.-.Ov Subject: CornmenLs an Royal Vistas Housing Project TMK-s: (3) 7-6-OZI 016-019 Date. Cocker 2, 2020 Aloha, I am writing to submit [,,k.b i i r ell k-11 P ropo d +--hq 5rn t ,! t y 61 VI' L).4 P I aim a homeowner in t h C P L1,i;i c, F c It L-,Us su bdivi5ian I G ,1!+.-11 U 1!CL, V 01 7.h 0 1 U 1,_ o 11-1 1 t I P"t t1c: pro nc I My r,r(,17 c,rt -c.nrp rn i i I ho (16-je I opment is the lack Ur' h r 11 Y,r,iy i i ij ct ructur- cr i, -it ly III J);'i c- . to C, arto,r %-od,te, all of 1 hp edtbti c)n du traffic generated f I U-I I d )(J I i,:,-i s i n i,! -, i s. It is irlin ri r n cF rF-rne r fl A, I i the 4Y) UrlitS Will COW,11111 1,105 bedrooms whine -J-e k corn'Mete ' T,iH d(,ruc)Vr,:1& c !w [ht- oc(up,jr-ts of thu,.,u uu, L -milt cQnLt'iOuAe to more than cone., dr -,,µr 1)jr v-u-tiO'O'd 01_; nun)bc r of vO, i w u.ic h unit. The Queen Kaahu ira nu Highway, Ro;,tc.' I that will r"ovi die -I i-.1 e Id I hp proposed dc-veloc rilq-i i 1 ('1-1 .1 I i,j I I I Road LD Lh_- 10 L 111two-lane road be Lweer Herr- the n0ftrl aild '-Ie Kr';TVI;l P111 currertly hiehly conper}*,erl in trl,-. ell orj-jll;? and ftaa e r rlU I I I ri to i ig I hi.-, L2 ri i i e stretch of i Oadw.-!Sr, has planned for rhp reconstruction Arid widening of the between Henry 1rd K..-ill !11 ir, f i i:i i rp and I helieve this, i r)ve,,l Fi i oi 11 irs ^n f r.1 Str L,CtU Fe must be(LI 111141, i,d liptore a'-'- 1; c! ho L, '1,2 1 constructed. Th-- lr-i ff 1 c I r-1 pic' A-i-i lyS i S Kepo rl Prepared far Kcoi T- rep I I ( nv S5110 l^.tr'i ri:i tional r-A 0,10 has 1)1 uvided ci r i --11)k i i-(Liana, of dal a to model the i c i p,-,t rd traffic generated blp.' L'',e proposed RU';J I Vistas p i oject. Hu wever, I lip P is 1.)i a,-F d by st-1 C T t h-• dates for the traffic 5 L,d" of Auri 130, 2019 and August 2019 tourism I o r I I i I;I r nd is h S tc. tows as Sh aw ri in f ig U 1'i" !"'L ci,-v Big Island To u r i s rn-1 51 LOF Arrivals by Mori th Big WA" AWAI& lvalstmsWWWWLhaW8Li_gU de.COM/rl leSy visitor-y rr , nIfflaeSChartsWijsland-vi A more realistic assessment would have included the traffic associated w1th rental vehicles from visitors to this ase 1 2 :,vvc, r;1, i,-d 51 , -r,! .!L-111 un t- rq-i total cl 400 btdrooms, Phase 2 ccintains 147 twoJoor! , - - beC11COW L01(561n'C1137-ihirci :)i fioorn units for a Lci-4 i i-A' I-Pd-nnris for the project are 1,105. The SSFM document references LhL: ri I 'r,p ge:'1c---r3tQd from Thi,,iiiilitLite of .,I I,i tic n Engineers Trip (7 r i)Prgti0n, 101" Edition (ITE, 20:6 ITE 1.,rid U S41 Cat ow La pis descr b_,d L-Is :i-li lyhousing low c i!i ing one or two floors and r,Ij,,,I ic atio n 2 2 1, 1,, f or nn, ta M i I Y housing CC)ni JJi 1-7 "l'i,<f, to ten ou Ih.- rroposed development , o .ui,,binat,on bi I-O.-c rFld '11ree story units so rrnither cai:e ory kFrflhpq, the irtendeii I -c- data fisted Table 9: Estimated Tr,p'. Phase I U-1 Page 19 of thc, 5M PA ril;: ;r 1r,nt s very rnisleacfing -j5 thl.' t qUaban shovvn is tor statistical any 1 fr.-,-d L -e fol Lhu ITE data. Ilk(;!E. no eviaLr,,jll (IILUI Jtecl, range otvahws nrccim'L 1`1`1(( 111'' I-IiIII-AL"'I I I"-- C131CUIr'Ited IT 1.1 r'iufflbol. are not 17,11-1-d or) any of LhE local n-affic 1hal i i'i 1 t- IVI t r0(LJ III erl L. ed Phime I the Aflz'i -nil-1 PM 6c-signiiinn-S how O-E only re7.-ite o J,o r jnlh,pr of trins, betwr' ) rfir. of Muhl-Earthly Ucicj k4whall Equation A r%,l a 1,0 1 P M FhP 1001 1111_1'11_.-I' 7,' Ar Mu A lti-fartilly HOUM Ln(To=0.95 Ln X]- Ln(T) D.&9 Lt Ik(X [Z gerw;'AULI a 211 hoUf Perio(I a17'.. h FL ;TE data I Dwelling Un Its 256 256 fui .58 ui 't: sl ruaied to be abD,,,r and YrS'out r; tl I,M-A phi5c 1. ; L-Y !.;ii5 reabufi, I h;nlw,r' it is a%_ 77% 27 913 4 86 dr,d be"ure Lliis pi!)i do'!iT-Total number a tripi gonerawr,x r,upg 7 an additional 75%ri rnof(, iwti., i :)h.i,_-v 11 -., I h'iv;- large impact on the traffic generated by this project. I also have some concerns about inadequacies and omisslors from the draft Environmental Assessment submitted for the prciposed Royal Vistas Housing Project to be developed by Kona Three LLC, I lic ,Oid th'it will provide access to the dF,,cloninc. )I CW C,` IaUi:'.`1, "'),ahurildni.] HighWaV riOlpt'ar s tO bP 3b fc?(_-L WICe LIS ShOW11 C:' i:;( .',( -.I,. ri!-:ivuinV In Phj t"i- rr,Ddl- to the bLI14iiss and suefc;:c;- APP(!O' I.,-, be Only 18 feet Th drikp., np-. n"Icilr-' ihoiil V')-1 ,urface parkirg spacesar4 pskj%-Idud u 11 I.:,. ii;, this a de ul. J:L' I L)- Havr:j I k eel in I v ,t a n d I rd-.' IS t h , I.c,;r II rhborhocdintendediide4d t0 b 1(,r) ic, s jr if this iceanyt. I I I I', .z Lie)I I U s,the case, I think thi-.. s -I Iar concern e,il--i-,i I ly brsca i I s I-, ;I',.: 111',k.i i dud I p,:i,i L Lri U-I e-zi av i ts will certainly contain a high p('rr;,n children lrc- any roqirjent5 SUPPOS,(-,.1! :v tilwcc i e park and 5wim nn i ng pool if there is no s i F, Jci to illi,ik : 1 Pi- p;irk area for phase I lookL. ;c; or y hav` - sit mast 15 parkinE 5PdLeS which o is'- The access roadviays for phase two also appear restricted to a single lane 18 feet wide. How (ou'd two vehicles safely Bass each other if e-; .V4 t. L'J.V I I the-c p..j:j-1. 1 t i, d i rp(-1 On? Aj;,i i n, I see f-c, r:I r,",I.)I I of sidewa I ks and sireetl li',-iti f r>r I h,-r,f I i i!I,. '-,+f h ic I(-. pa Fki ng i n 1J h,i v i v:u E,,l r everyone I ivi ng r, these tIr1I, r r, elect (a p,v k Inside of their 6,.1 r i,,e? Many occ ;p-i z-,L., t)7 t I I,, :t, [ vc, I nd t I I et: bedroo ri 1 41 r i ilS w!I' I-u,.if a d d 11:io n-r'! v4'-111-Ic,,; 11",d vd nere are they c:x.1:%c I rd to 13,,;:1, t 11 C;11" I have no vvav to judge if,(- .,( , 11,j1 u fk_„ r"r1:',i9_LkQn excet:,L lo say that the sq'I.- i.re of the u p[) -r portion i,, then corip re s--,od 7ti ','V 1,,;1 .:;! -1 I U I)k- : rj t y -,r r ia 1140 foot vy I de C U 1,'E'I t. I i(YA dr'ep I.5 this structure ec Lj I r-t-d to bt- Sri I I"'i' I' (-,A I, ca--I -- i' -'F. .",I i),-i f i k i!-T)e r p L,i 4,,o n d w I ir, hi.- f,.,r'(L-d' oraccess re5LriLled 401-11 the occu:)-_jriI , of th (Ipv&: opment:! Aloha Gary East Thee5tirnatewas obtained using a spreadsheet from the Florida DLP:wFre-Acil c-i w n data -rox th-2 3" Eci-_ior IT[ Trip Geqeratio,n F(49port =p_s,,Uwww tdOt_AOYJOIarir1ir&stem dplu Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Gary East Via email: gweast24gmail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. East: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 2, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: My greatest concern about the development is the lack of highway infrastructure currently in place to accommodate all of the additional traffic generated from 450 housing units. It is important to remember that the 450 housing units will contain 1,105 bedrooms when the project is complete. The demographic for the occupants of these units will contribute to more than one driver per household thus compounding the total number of vehicles for each unit. Response 1: The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Handbook referenced in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 in the EA) used for the traffic analysis uses housing units, and it does not assume one person per unit. This is taken from the ITE trip gen handbook regarding land use 220: 2.72 residents are assumed for each unit. There is no trip generation for number of bedrooms. It is difficult to analyze and make projections based on number of bedrooms, or how many people we expect in bedrooms. The ITE trip generation for land use 220 collected data on low-rise multi-family housing, and based on that data, the traffic model came up with a best fitted curve, which discussed below, has a very low standard deviation, and a very high R squared value, which indicated that the data collected is not scattered. The TIAR assumes a land use that is typical, and with the best possible data, captures the number of project generated trips. Comment 2: The Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Route 11, that will provide access to the proposed development is only a two-lane road between Henry Street to the north and the Kamehameha III Road to the south. Traffic is currently highly congested in the morning and afternoon along this entire stretch of roadway. Hawaii county has planned for the reconstruction and widening of the roadway between Henry Street and Kam III in the future and I believe this investment in infrastructure must be completed before additional housing is constructed. September 13, 2021 Mr. Gary East Page 2 of 4 Response 2: The State's plans to widen Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road as a result of existing levels of traffic congestion have been contemplated for more than ten years. This improvement is listed in the 2035 long range transportation plan for the Big Island. However, the project's analysis was conducted with the 2-lane highway and levels-of-service at the signalized intersections were acceptable. Comment 3: The TIAR provided an abundance of data to model the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed project. However, the report is biased by selecting the dates for the traffic study of April 30, 2019 and August 29, 2019 when tourism for Hawaii Island is at historical lows. A more realistic assessment would have included the traffic associated with rental vehicles from visitors to this island. Response 3: Based on the numbers for the 2018-2019 monthly tourism numbers, August 2019 had the 4th highest visitor total and April 2019 had the 1 Oth highest visitor total. This is consistent with the information you provided. For all islands, the pattern is similar with high visitor volume in June through August, December, and March which corresponds to summer break, winter break, and spring break. These are when school is not in session, so visitor traffic is high as people travel more. When school is out, typically the overall traffic volume during the AM and PM peak hour is lower. Generally, traffic counts are taken during "worst case" scenarios, which are historically on Tuesday through Thursday during school days. This is information we know, and we purposely target school days as when we take our traffic counts. While tourism numbers may be low, the intensity of the peak during the AM and PM school day peaks are generally more intense than the AM and PM peak during non-school days. Here is the HDOT station on Queen Kaahumanu Highway in 2016. It shows that the monthly weekday average is very close to the yearly weekday average. The standard that traffic engineers use is the school day peak; therefore, the counts taken in April and August are defendable. Comment 4: The TIAR references the number of trips generated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, loth Edition (ITE, 2016). The ITE land use category 220 is described as multifamily housing low rise containing one or two floors and classification 221 is for multifamily housing containing three to ten floors. The proposed development is a combination of two and three story units so neither category completely describes the intended project. Response 4: The project proposes mostly 1- to 3-story buildings. The traffic engineer reviewed low-rise and mid-rise multi-family housing options. Mid-rise, Land use 221, would actually provide lower numbers than Low-Rise. Therefore, the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis is more conservative. The project's density does not correspond with high-rise multi-family housing, Land Use 222. Therefore, the trip generation used in the analysis is appropriate. Comment 5: The data listed Table 9: Estimated Trips Generated - Phase I on page 19 of the SSFM document is very misleading as the equation shown is for statistical analysis of September 13, 2021 Mr. Gary East Page 3 of 4 a fitted curve for the ITE data. There is no Standard Deviation calculated, range of values or confidence interval rho indicated. The calculated trip numbers are not based on any of the local traffic data that is included in the SSFM document. Response 5: The fitted curve is available when there are "enough" data points to determine a best fitted curve. If there are not enough data points, the ITE trip generation will have only an average rate, but the best fitted curve is generally a more accurate projection based on actual data points collected. The standard deviation was not provided in the TIAR. As shown in the figure below shows the standard deviation of 0.12, which indicates that the fitted curve will generate outputs really close to the overall mean. The R squared value is 0.90, which also indicated that the regression prediction is very close to the collected data. Therefore, the best fitted curve is the correct curve to use when available, and the traffic engineer is confident in the number selected. Comment 6: Also, the AM and PM designations from ITE only relate to the number of trips between the hours of 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM. The total number of trips generated over a 24 hour period using the ITE data for 258 units is estimated to be about 1,7002 and this is just phase I. For this reason, I believe it is imperative that the existing highway needs to be upgraded before this project is developed. Adding an additional 75% more units in phase II will have a large impact on the traffic generated by this project. Response 6: While it is accurate that the 24-hour traffic is higher than the AM and PM peak hour traffic generated by the project, the AM and PM peak hours are when traffic is at its worse. The TIAR looks to provide mitigation during the worst traffic periods. The overall traffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highway is much lower during the non-peak hours. Figure 4 in the TIAR shows the 24-hour volume on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road. This chart shows the AM and PM peak periods, with lower midday volumes, and much lower volumes before the AM peak and after the PM peak. Comment 7: The new road that will provide access to the development off of a Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway appears to be 36 feet wide as shown on the scale drawing. In phase one, the access roads to the buildings and surface parking appear to be only 18 feet wide. The drawing indicates about 354 surface parking spaces are provided for the 258 units. Is this adequate for Hawaii County standards? Is this neighborhood intended to be walkable? I do not see any clear indication of sidewalks or streetlights. Vehicle parking in phase two appears to be underserved. Is everyone living in these units expected to park inside of their garage? Response 7: As designated on Figure 3 of the EA, the layout and number of buildings and parking spaces are conceptual. The final number of parking spaces will determined upon final identification of unit mix (i.e., number of 2- bedroom and 3-bedroom units), and will have the number of parking spaces as required by Hawaii County Code and zoning ordinance based on the numbers of each unit type. Regarding sidewalks, the text in Section 1.2 of the EA has been revised to clarify that the road segments that would be built to dedicable September 13, 2021 Mr. Gary East Page 4 of 4 standards would include sidewalks and curved gutters. Regarding walkability, the text in Section 1.2 of the EA has been revised to clarify that private driveways in the development would be paved and provide safe access to residents including streetlights), and that walk paths within the development would be identified upon final design. Comment 8: 1 have no way to judge the design of for rainwater mitigation except to say that the square footage of the upper portion is then compressed to what appears to be a relatively small 40 foot wide culvert. How deep is this structure required to be so that it can contain the runoff from the upper portion? And will this be fenced, or access restricted from the occupants of this development? Response 8: As discussed in the EA, the project would not contribute or exacerbate the flooding issues from the project. To prevent these issues described in Section 3.3.2), the project would prepare a Drainage Plan in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code which would be reviewed and approved by DPW. As required by Chapter 27, runoff from the project site would not be directed toward adjacent properties (both private and County-owned) and the development would not alter the drainage pattern above or below the development. This plan would be submitted as part of the grading plan submittal prior to project construction. The text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA has been revised to clarify what is required as part of Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code for developments regarding containment of runoff. To ensure public safety, any structures constructed to manage runoff as identified in the Drainage Plan would be compliant with County requirements, with public access restricted. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley Lconi> A I 1.33 AM To: Subject: u ya V i s ta s, I I c jj'e c t EA cc ri ir-:)l Attachments. I;Ilk! Nffilclavitoll hchAl )I I!;t 11 16—i effl I L`11L I[I!Ll U LL)1"7:2( 1 01, AL l)I-,'(.,'LARA HON OF CANIMCF, J IIALI EFF, 1, -CANDACE J IIALLET'I declare- I ani a rosident of[76-156 Kamehamalu St J Kona 'Vistas uhcjjvi,-'(),jj. CL jjjjty of I jawai'i. State of Hawai-Cl lie propowd land cle-velopmem r.ro.ICCI that is Lhi;subject of the pending I)raF1 FTivirt-irmenizi Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housixig Prkwject Tax Map Key Nos. 3) 7-6-021,016. 7-6-021:017, 7-6-02 1:019,and 7-6-021:019 Norfli Kona Distrkt. I lawai'i Island, State (if ilawai-i affects me personally as well as affects niv interest in re a I property. I rw-,i t I c w I 11)1 F 1 500 feel distanct:1 of the proposed land developu wiv project. In Such capacities- I have 5 rsihand knowledge or the Collowing facts and could and wouid testify thereto if called upon to do sa. 2.1 have reviowed 1he pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN1 including the'Uraffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM International. dated July 2020 and attached as AppeTidix 2 it) the DRAFT ENVIRONNIFN"I'Al, ASSESSMENT. I wn silxcifically cowerned ahout adverse traffic lmpact hoth k-Iililn and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not rally or accurately addre5sed in the S-,J-M TraMQ Inipa t Analysis Rtfporl. Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Rupuri, are dlscList.cd in the body of She 1)R A 1-1 ENV I RON M E NLTA L A SS USS M I-NI cat pp, 48-5 6, 6 7 and. 71. I flarti S1,a The 1pmcafikil for new tesideBis ol'Royal Vistas to use Sunset --%%,cand Lei as a cut-through to Kekudi-ta'oa Place poses a nA threat to the residents(if Kona Vistas- Sire-Eus, wid-illi Kona Vistas were not meant to handle high volumes of traffic. In addition,our residents regularly Nval kalori- our reads. -,,k alk their dogs and children ride their bikes all Oft OL[r SIMMS since we do not fiavc sidewalks. "Me increased volume of traffic due to the influx of residents in Royal Vistas oan only have adverse effects [Or the residents of Kunu Vistas and those living car Sunset.. 3,In the Ku na V i stas S UbJ i vision, the prop O-SH Ptaj ect relies on the tuw of a substandard roa&vay, Kukuana'w Place. KekUana-Oa Place is very stccp,has limited sight disL mccidue to extreniecun,t,-s and isnarrowwiih nosi&walks. The impact of lucreased triffic arising frorn Phase I and Phase 2 buildouts of the Royal Vices I lousing Pr(iccl Is inadequately addTesscd in the YSFM TTuffic Impact Analysis Report, which focuses in-stead on impazis A)TIg Queen Kwiliumanu I lighwa,v. I W11 PIL11iCt1harly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips Ic and froin a separaiv sLjbdivision urill present dangers and cone-cation to residents along Kekmarixoa Place. I consider that the Planning Departirkent should roquire the applicant to address these concems. 4. The 1)RA FF I N V I R()N M FNTA L A S S El-SS M E NT rcq u i tv s evaluation of.among oilier,;, adverse secondar-y impacts. such as pw pulafion chonges or eftels an a!gChapter 11-200.1-13. Hawaii Administrative Rnics- Instead ol-squarely addressing these N,I, r issues, however.the DRAYF U N V I R()N M I AL ASS 1"I-SSMr ENT simply ignores them. claiming that "(tilo adverse secondary effects are expected since the deve I opmerit WOUld UliliZe ex j-.1 ing i n lir4sir ucture. provide i n f i I I humijig. and is nut Q x pec Wd k) wsult in-,absianii al demands to County services." 11 is a serious omission for the 1)RAFT FNV1RONMFNTA[. ASSESSMENT to fail to address die potential adverse inipac6s Ofirivrea5ing the use Of substandard existing in fras Lru eture. like K ek,"na';)a P1 atx- 2 w. Tlea I]HAI 'i I-I'N VI1dE)Nf I-N l',At ASS LSSM ENT a4dresses adverse traffic istirti:iti':-j ".tl, it i t aQ ;vie c%L c I' .;Itchier ilia•projeci xould ffirre ra.substantial adverse[(fret on puhfrc he a)rlr. 111v kpplicml claitns. ""lie Propo.wd Project would not affect public health in any wav: stornwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures,. j'raf is impacis have been taken inro careful consider duri,in project delim" Emphasis added. This bald conclmsion does riot aaddres; potentl.il advt!rse inllmcLs cis reLluir'ed by Chapter I I-200-1-13, Hawaii Adminismitive 6, The Planning Department should 110t acCept the 1-)llAY'l ENVIRONMENTAL ASSCSSMCNT's reliance on the 4SFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which has the lbliowing dclicicncie.s: a.failure tca address adverse traatlf is inipacts within the Kona V istas suwivisican arising brim the pnE ject b. 71'he SSI'M Traffic Impact Analysis Report Lu;es a gruwth rate or 1%, in contrast to the -2%growth rate employed by the 2018 Witchcr Engineering Tralfic Impact Anab sis Report. Traatfic wnge.4, 1on is very sensitive to growth rate in a nran-linear_ expnaleritial reltstien: c. The SSl°lei l'rallic Impact Anaiysis Report does not recegni7e multi-sencrational housing characteristics common its Hawaii Lic,cnrding to cemsats dar,a and likely underestimates artily vehictc trips attributab€c to bLiiIdcaat 0rthC Praalx>seei-Project; d The S:SFM fra fic Impact Araalyfsis Report emplcays an unwsually low vehicle volume L,['8537 vchic1cs t6r Northbound (queen Ka uhumantt highway on the selectod crates of April 30,2019, a a ccktta% and August 24, 2019. a Saturday, compared with the '1018 Witcher E112inuQrlrag 1'rtatfic Fmpacl Anaksk Report, which rcporiod 1057 vehicles for.lanuary 14 and 15.2016, hcrth weekdays, The unaasually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds, with Figurc A of the SSF.M Traffic Impact An@dvsis Repon, which shows tapprkv\fi ;i( %, 1050 vehicies per hour in 201 fi for Norlhhound Oueen Kaahumanu llighwav at 7 a.rn. T'hes di Itcrcnec in voltune is more Than double the tmxtmam 10% varlatOn generally acceptod in day.-tc-daw naeaisuretnents and thtis iinrtliJhle: e. The rccoi nuiiL:Ti alIon by `~;SFM Traffic ImpaacI Analysis Repart i0r a roulrdA)ut at Queen Kaahurnariu I liolr vjj% atitl Huttlalai Road North) is incons'stem +a[ilt the trat`fic corridor. Intersections that pass Lvarmnls but remain unsignaliled present trrffiic ,tial' tv liai 11110., conccros ]or tltc govcrnmenl. f.The recommendation by SSFM TmFlic Impact Analysis Repua fOr triuniLuTing o[' the intersection ofQueen Kaaltumanu Highway and Kutakini Iiigh«ay iw iWWecivale. Where. as lacrc, an inwrsccnon passes more thin one warrant underall conditions, it ShOUld he priorinzed for study avid design ofa signal for'installaation, This 6rcumstance will lie CxVccrbatcd by slit prol-K sed project_ 7. In Burn, the Draft f:nvirunalenl,rl Assessment and SSF11I Traft c Impact Ajudysis Rep#irl chit, not presein loll k:icat. crcdibic 1,icts and analysis such that the adverse impact&on existing infrastructure and resulting from incrensed tral`lic can be fully understtrod and result in appropriate govemnieni platining and resprtinse. I deLl;are under penalty M'perjUr that tlX: I'Oregaing is true. Dated: Kailua-Korea, I[awai-i, t-)CIA)CE M..0 Printed nallle Candace J ITa ett 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Via email: hallettcj@gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Hallett: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 3, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: The potential for new residents of Royal Vistas to use Sunset Ave and Leilani St. as a cut-through to Kekuana'oa Place poses a real threat to the residents of Kona Vistas. Streets within Kona Vistas were not meant to handle high volumes of traffic. In addition, our residents regularly walk along our roads, walk their dogs and children ride their bikes all on our streets since we do not have sidewalks. The increased volume of traffic due to the influx of residents in Royal Vistas can only have adverse effects for the residents of Kona Vistas and those living on Sunset. Response 2: While it is possible that after Kekuana`oa Place is connected in Phase 11 of the project, some residents could travel into the project site from the south by turning onto Sunset Avenue, then north on Leilani Street (or Pualani Street), then east on Lako, and then west on Kekuana`oa Place, this would represent the majority of traffic or where backups could occur. This is why the traffic study focused on impacts at the intersections identified in Section 3.7.2 and in Appendix 2 of the EA. Comment 3: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Page 2 of 4 to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 3: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 4: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 4: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase 11 outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 5: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 5: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 6: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 6: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Page 3 of 4 residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 7: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 7: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 8: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 8: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 9: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 9: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 10: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Page 4 of 4 The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 10: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: Canda, To- P}:In Ill rvla I sutqKt: Roy:) aject EA comments Attachim,nt4: Royal VIsLas Deckidtlan - Traffic - Run.pdf P I e..,I". h 1 1;1 1 F'i fLll 'L I', I bd i 1 1,"of P,u;jlt P, I I:LIIL:li ii fir, I Kamebamalu SI., Lot 42632 DECLARATIONION OF RONALD R 11ALLE-1TT I., RONALD R I1ALLE-1-1- declare: l. Tam a resident of[76-1 6 Karnehamlu 13t ! Kane Vistas subdivisionj.County of liawai'i, State ofIlawai4i. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the penililir i)rih I:.nvironmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos. 3) 7-6-021:016 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021:01 S..-Md 7-6-021'O 11)North Kona Dixtnct, I-laww"i Island. States of i la+cai`i affects Me personallw a% ClI as af]ects my interest in real property. l reside: within 500 feet distance] ofthe propused land develuprment praaca In such capacities, I have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and could and would testify thereto d-called upon Eo do so. 1 have reviewed the Pendln- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT includir g the'Traffic Impact analysis Report by SSFM International, dated July 202C and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. I am specifiLally concerned about adverse traffic impacts Muth within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that arc;not fully car accurately addressed i1i the SSF" 1 'I"raffie ltupact,Ualysis Deport. Traffic and the SSPM `rrafis impact Analysis Report. are disclosed in the body of the Ulm`f ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMLN'T. at pp. 414-56,G7 and 71_ 2.a The potential for new residents of Royal Wgas to use Sunset Ave and Lei Iani St. as a cut-through to Kekuana'oa Place poses a real threat to the resideras of Vona Vistas. Streets within Kona Vistas were not meant to handle high volumes of traffic. In addition. our rcgidcnts rcgularlti walk along our roads_ walk theft'dogs and chddrt rn rick their bikes all on our streets I since wv do not have sidewalks. The increawd volume of traffic due to the influx of residimts in Royal Vistas can only have adverse effects for the residents of Kona Vistas uad those living on Sunset. 2.b, 1 am a senior Mth health issues and limited mobility sea the increased vall.ic definitely, poses a senous threat to me personEllyr, h3 the Kona Vistas subdivisican.the: proposud project relies on the use of a substandard roadway,Kekuana`oa Place, K Auat7aa`ca Place is veer steep,has limited sight distances due to extreme curves midi k Hamm, vJth nt) sidc%%alks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase l and Phase 2 buildouts of the Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadequately addressed in.the SSF M Traffic Impact Analysis RLeport, tiddch focuscs instead on impacts along queen Kanhurnartu Highway- I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dan-ors and congestion to residents along Kekuanat oa Price. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. 4. The DRAFT F NV[RONNIHNTAL ASSESSMEW requires evaluatiOn of, among others,auYerae secondary impacts, such caw po,{ndwio n ehwi, es ur r fkcz1. on Preh L facilirze,s. See Chapter 11-20C1_1-13, Hawaii.Administrati%L Rules. lnsw ad 0f stluarOy° addressing,these issues.,however,the DRAFT l:NVIRONMEN fAl.ASSESS N1l;l T simply ignores them. cWm,ing that "Nu a6ase sccondary effects are expected sinue the development would utili7e existing infrastructure,provide in611 housing,and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County services." 1t is a serious omission for the DRAF'f ENVIRONMENTAL ASSIaS SENT to fail to address the potential adverse impact,,c}l'increfisIn.g 'Lh IiSC oI suhsladidard existing infrastructure..like Kekuane0 a PLev. 3. The DRAFT ENV IRON MENTA[_ A S1SSMIENT nddr+:sses adv,,•rn: traf k inipacis only in the context of v hclhrr the prnicct would Hove a,.sr±a sdcl+a'i rl tech-c•F.Se o1-'cr public•heukh, The Applicant claims, "I he Proposed Project would nOt affect puhlic health in any way;st ormwater would hc;appropir ately disposed of in drninag4 struc.turi s. Trttffic irnnactw harm been taken into careful consideration in ps9leet des pa." Emphasis added, This bald Coll 0usiorr does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chaptcr l 1-20U.1-13, ilaw,tii z;d!1)i11i"'1 tiw Rule . 6. The Planning Departmcnt should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONVIENTAF. M'SSMENT's reliance crn the SSFM `I'rafc Impact Analysis Report, which has the following deficiencies: a,failure to address adversc traffic irnpacts'uvithin the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project; h,The SSF"M Traffic Impaet Analysis Report rises a 4rwmh rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2%growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering ]raftic Impact Analysis Repom Traffic cang stion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-liTiCar. exponential relation. C.The 5SFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report does not recogtxi e multi-Lcrreral"ional housing c.haraciuistics common ir, I lawaii acco-ding io ccnstas data and likel% underestimates daily vehicle trips auributablc 1ei buiIdout nf'thc proposed pro.1M; i d_ The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report employs = unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles Fin Norf abound Queen Kaahumanu highway-on the selected dates of April 30,2019. a, wcckda, and August 24,2019,a Satuzday, xmpared with,the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analy.-w; f(c:port,which reported 1057 vehicles i-Or Jauutff 14 ajMd 15. 2016. hoth v eekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the SSFM °Tra is Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicle per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen K.ashutnanu Mollway at 7 a.m. The diEcrence in volume is more than double the ma rimutn 10%variation generally accepted in day-to y m=urments and thus unreliable„ C.The recommendation by SSFNI Traffic: Impact Analysis Depart for a roundabout at Queon Kaahumanu l ighway and Hualalai Road(North) is inconsistent with the traffic conidar. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalize d present tratfic safety liability corucerw for the government; f:The rce mmcndation by SSFlv1 Trattlie Impact Analy,is Report t'or mon-1ioFln1 01' the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway turd Itualtin! Highway is inadequate, where, as here, an Intersection passes more than one warrant un&r all conditions, it shm,Id he pri€rriti7.ed for sakiv and design of a signal for installation. This circurnstance will be L x tccrl7ated by the proposed project. 7_ In sum, the Dram EnviTOnMentad Assessment and SSFNI Traffic Impact Analysis Report,does not present sufficient,creel-Lble facts and such that the adverse impacts on existing infrastructure and resultitYb Frow Metro-sed nf`e can be Cully understood and result in appropriate government planning and resposise. I declare wider penalty of pejury that the foregoing is true- 4 02te& Kailua-Kona_ H awai'E. 00ober 1 2020_ Priv tei name: I n Ictt i Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Via email: hallettcj@gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Hallett: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 3, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: The potential for new residents of Royal Vistas to use Sunset Ave and Leilani St. as a cut-through to Kekuana'oa Place poses a real threat to the residents of Kona Vistas. Streets within Kona Vistas were not meant to handle high volumes of traffic. In addition, our residents regularly walk along our roads, walk their dogs and children ride their bikes all on our streets since we do not have sidewalks. The increased volume of traffic due to the influx of residents in Royal Vistas can only have adverse effects for the residents of Kona Vistas and those living on Sunset. Response 2: While it is possible that after Kekuana`oa Place is connected in Phase 11 of the project, some residents could travel into the project site from the south by turning onto Sunset Avenue, then north on Leilani Street (or Pualani Street), then east on Lako, and then west on Kekuana`oa Place, this would represent the majority of traffic or where backups could occur. This is why the traffic study focused on impacts at the intersections identified in Section 3.7.2 and in Appendix 2 of the EA. Comment 3: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Page 2 of 4 to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 3: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 4: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 4: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase 11 outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 5: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 5: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 6: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 6: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Page 3 of 4 residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 7: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 7: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 8: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 8: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 9: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 9: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 10: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Candace Hallett Page 4 of 4 The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 10: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, A01ey prory d -,m; Janet Tung Sent: October 04. 2020 804 PM To: ri7ifq Intemel Mail stibjeM Il '.., s"as Attachments: R-y-i I V:!'Lds-pd If h!i,1 ri dCLA-L.1.'1110 11 ht.' VI-, di2vc1ol .11'-w h{.-lc DIVIARA i It ()f I am a I-CsidCut of Kona V tslas suwtv isiml. couni ul'i 1. Si ate of I i Vh,-pmp't,tcd land development Pmiecl ihai iyi&-5vbjLvt of the pending Oraft Hi%Ironnienlai As. .,Snlcffl Nubmitled by Royal Vist;L% Houniriv Pro-jocci UN Map Kuy time (17-4-02 1:0 16. 7.6 02 1:111 P, 1-6-1)2 1,01 X.wid ? 6-(121.0 1 y Norih K,,nla 1 r!,% I fawai-i IsIvAl. N1.11C of I lawai'i ZOITCO" mm-Tvrziomilly v, well as aikxiN m% ntcre t in real piv)pMw I rc-side wAin t b k c I distawe I of the pfflfmsod land &-velopnwrit pruiw- In twh capaciuc-, I have fimbmW k 1„ -.-, (A 1.s'Is'IF141 c(Puld arki Aould tc-sili'v tlk-tclo opon 1,1 Jo I h:i N c rc,-ic%%,cJ the pc-nd i 111: 1)R A I I. L-N VI R()V i Sc;N I ",S i TW I L kf',F,L.. I h C I f%.,I l I': I m 7s.L I %rl.L 1,,,,I%.Rvtx sri hs SS 1,M I n It.-mat i orui I dilcil J u v '0 20-U)d 1)'-I p rg:;i,i v, a wlx: D R A IT VKV I R ON M r.NT A 1. A SS F SS M r N T I fical I y coxwemed abo u,, aj%ci,,c t.- t fi c i mpac 1,; both %vi I h t n and %vi i ho ui I bc Kom Vistas subdivision dus :jFc not fully or wcw=1% adJrc%,w--d in the SSFM Fralffic Impact Aftalyqls ker%-)n I raffite the SSYM kaffic Impact Awls sis KvNit Jry JiWvwWd in d-K- b.L%Jv of 11-W DRAFT EN VJ P,C)\k I T\TAL AS q r-SWEN'T at pp 4 8-5 6.[,7 m%d 71 1 1 f u ' ofIntheKouVisla!, on, [lie proper project ref on iL 'A. a dismices due to extreme cun-cs and is narrow wiih ro sidc-,alks. III,.,lmpjk i •',.:rc-jAA 1ruffic wising from Phw e I and Phan 7 huildotn,;of the Rnyrd ViNut% Hcmisint! NI'vet iv,inadvAILVOICIV I sxlilrc:-wJ In tlx SS1:M -1 raflic° Irnprct Arulvsis Rcrkirt, xtihich focuses In.sicjd on 1mpact_-q aJoFig mx.-n KaahkzrTv4ntj 1 1 atxr pari%W.irl% ccim,nwd OLO A4 ing runicrotis%chwi Iy}p's W 111 S1Phdlk1,i14orl v,iII rrx`-44:t1t a4;+r 1!.`-i ;iIkj C.L#ijgc!jIIUH1 to fir'titk-jItS alkvnk! KiALt:1U1' i HaCA I Considct thal the Plannini= I kFtirirriont should reyuire the appl,,,:-mi to f Ilic I)KAF-'1 l NVIRC)NMWN I:'%I. _ SSEtitiMEN-1 rcquirc v-jivation cif:anmg vt.hcm L2&v7':,a ,w,'11r,%1,jr 4 rmjkKa t+, ,wrc h a:%priprrlai mn t-hlram.,c'.x or cafia°/a e'rrm{°.rJ+Jrt 1 a.fr ltr+ Ir:r rter 11-700 1-1+, I1:txx4ui :'ldmin wtrati%t Rulc`. In-tcad iml'444u.r,rt:lr ailclrr-siry dwsw 11;suc1:. ht c%er,the flF A11 EN1J'lf'ZO s mpl}' i-nor"dicni. claiming that "No aJ%k-r-..k sk-wrid4ry OY6:15 are c-ir tni sini6 the ,4:%c1ciy,rncnr. w(mid IuiliM v- iw-tine° infrmwsrwItire, pnwx i& lertiil Ird.wiijiv,MW is tt«)t C%rxXte i it, rckcrlt W +UN.SLI liaj dcniarxis to Cc4ann wr-vices." It is a acnous omission ror the DRAFT 1'INNIRONMENTAL 1 ti! 4. 1`,It.N I to fail to add resa the lxitcnInaI .uIlkc-r I'M11.1w 11,01 rTxmvsinf- the LL%carf nFtslattrtmI cusiin , Infra°Rrr IC111r1, like K;Auanj',ns I16:: w The I)R.II"-1 I7til'tFi{11si'11' . I Al .ViS SSMt `.l ,i l ttestir _, aclser+c txatlik impac s on]\ in the conicxt v1_w Jbcr 11K projiMl a,riultil lhl%s u.x ri slrrndarrf ucflr r,c e-1°cf rrra yubfjc health Mc .Applicant clalrtrw. "l Iic Nor—•i,-Ld Imrolcct would not alfcct P'OEslic h,.-Ah in an xaam ,. stirrrnxr:mtes "could tv, appri prtatcly di.sfi%v.°,d of in dmirwgc structures Un f is im5tt:ls have bm Uiken inic c3feful consider l.pi I r 1 l.irOject 0'dl" Emphasis added Tors bold cjancluwn does not address potential adverse trnp°acls as required by C°hapier 1 1-2(tt) 1- 1 3- llaxxaii Adminismrwi-vc Ri lv, 61.1 he Vlzuuufl, Vq),Wro)CIjj 14)ulkl mst;wck-pt the DRAF I FNVW0NMT_N TAI SSVSS%. lFN[' rulunce on the SM."50 Triffic finrtict -AnaIN-sis Rejxm- which lue,Ihc ti4lowirl1v failurc to addre-,akhersc traffic imNo" %ONTI arosing from Lh% pix,'J"L. b- TI)cSSI'M I rillic I nipact Amilysiz Rmir, uw-,a gluMh rjWvf 1` ILI tht- 2Q-O MI C CMP1CkVkNJ_ h% thu NUN %itch,.,r Engirseen'ng Tnill`iL Imp. Rerm Fri I ru Ili c cong,'Si ILI To IS %C]', --'I I I I I L !+.t V-0VAh ratc in a rwin-tiricar. i,>a, I I ie SS I IM Traffic I niN, T w r3 I i oni I COrRMOn ir I I I JL01 rding to em trq A11:1 :'nd Ti . wkk-reqikMtCS daih, N-011,Ck Ifirt'.attrihwa,Ilv I. t 1h," rr;,rk, ,:d Prujoccu, d Me cSFM Tnitli,_ hnp-i-A uj,u,onlly Im% vehicle k Col uPmc ttr'853 vAides for NordiNluixi Otwcti KaAumanu biFhuai- sari the t,:j dait:-,(tr April 11). 3019, as %wckd;jN and Aueust 24, 2019.a Nuwrda; .Ckmilpalcxf 'Ailh the _'Ilg Witch" FqViiwt:rIag Truffi%, hip"t %11-ilssis Rcperl,which n:Tx1rwd 10 1 i-chjde:i for brit wN 14 and I S. ?016. Nsib .keekdays I th- IMilliLkIl', wrxwied %ehpck- %sihirite ifl'X51, fs ahwl al twj&',wiffi krurt 4 ofthe SSFM Tr-.0)Ii 1IM;Idl! AjWNsis Rcrmrt. %NhWh Ahiv-s approxinuile1% 1050 vehlcics Nr Famy m 2016 fcw NonbNiund Quew kzLhimuiiu at 7 a-m. The diffemncc in ti umc L-%niorc J=dvub)u the nvi i m ufn ari al.It Pro Fe I ieml Iy accvpu-il in Ja%-11 ihu, unwhabic, C_I he rucutunwnodalMn ty SSI NI I raffic Impact Anal-., i, Rcli.Nrl Ior i r,I Uriki.O-%Foil al (Ai4xn Kaahwmqvtu thV_hwi% and Hualalal Rtmd(Nonh I Is i1rKwTi,1%'vvi -I r h I toc P'-'1Ff1c er+rr'idor, lntawcttcttts that puss lout ru[imlo urati nali;ed par€ nt traffic safery hab lis^ csowurras for late go%-crnrtrcnt; l'l lw r,ceon micndatiOn b% SSFM 'lr Pic Irnp;rct x'1md:r sim Refx rt Ei-r ninnit on-n 11 lair intersection ofQcrcca Kaahttratanu Highway aml Kuakirti I lighwa% i4 itv.6+Nuatc_ Where,:. as hcre, qua mtcrA:, % 1,.7 :ram:mare,-th.m one %-arrmt urk]L-r all corrlitiLMS,it ahOUld kt pfiOriti ed for studs `silo cicsagn for®mU'lition, This ciltu"arssc %ili l lC CXJCCrKlLCd hN the pmpostd pr-uyrc°t 1. In sum, the T]rAI F:mirtrrYmemal A ewnent dM S FNf Traffic- lrrtpyu.o lruulttii. Ito f>urt ducts not phrsv-xrnl glllloZlellT- c.rc,dibl lat-t,and analy5i-,such thil the ;mE rse irnpac ;orr evamint9 lnfrw truc lwe and reswung trt.1m rnc-rxma,—d trrl`lie cars he fully unda-stmd aW milt Ira apptrupriare go,,crnment plwr we -, aai, :t k5n:c I &- law un&—, l-wruhl % of p rrufw that the foregoing, is true. Dated Kalltus-Korti..r,I1.1-ai"t. (ry g ar,il.7ttlrC: Printed name: DI C I AR-N I ION (11, 1. C,lt--C,8 —io-,c 3,-c tar". 17 L I I mi a remcicn I Coumv t?f slallt of I ij)4ju,I The prop%,iscd land tioclopment project that i tht: If dw pcnding Drift L`m tromnalal Aw-'snur I I rtlrlfl I wkl Irk Ro%J I Vils4t,I IOUNiFle- P140j1:L I Tex k1lip Kc% Nos- t.1)7-4)-4)7 1.01o. 7-0- Q):(j 17. 7-6-021-01 X and 7-0-021.019 North Keria 131-wict. I lau ai"i Istamd. State 0A la 3-1,A allicos inc rrrsunall... ws %%cll &,alYL-uls w) 1wiTrrv%1 In reA prtiprr?N I rrodc i,%oh,m I 'k,, Jistwvj kit'1.1ic prkilxp.,'I Lind Jc%clipipcm JITIJVO 111 1,601 Italic firs[4md kno%]W-c tit the follouing facts and could and %%vuld iesfib. thcroo it r:.dlcxl upon to dk)so- 2. 1 tuiw rcvlowd the pcndin,,, DRAVI LNV lRONW-N I At, ASSI SSMUNT WW anachmcims. I am!qxcifitmily concemcd ahstv 6 I- The stc;p lopovmvh. 1:;Is[kprL%:.J rapid siornmawr run oft and iss-cwiated dzunzif-c m%ent K:L-Put& Out am notadequalc1% aMrv%cd In the DrL;jjj I-nvironmencil A%-%kN--mww 1%ru PP. dwrvu I- 4- 1 3m aware thm 10 1 pck 111 , I In sure, I 110 I)T-,LJ I 1 11%IT,$91 171,:111-t I A -4--swum I%h)cs rKA doo,-u-s-,su I I ic I vi i I I a,.:U w id artat%i.%mxli dw the novk:-Nar', drairtal!c imp"l,ernivil"'IFILI I;vt-,r%;i m%capi I-*-- mA-r%ii%wi 't t"ipernivironmemal a u nt cars Icavc mc—,mingful dcuilb,to he LA" a;:r.ra:of M 111V l'ut to c. As I mn der,,and it. such I:Lm umsm rK c x u ou Id lc-ul to unla"ful proj ecl sc4•n wnuih)fl, wmml:, cvthcTcrn)r-s. I LI A .conclusion hN• the aMlrcant or.c-celminF.atlllxinty Ihm "Ce4k- l mlr-wtnr4turt: witl t~-crntpl} 6whi ,,,,rc'ntnK:m rr:'vuLatitrits is insufficicnL At a minimum. thc: Craft 1-nv ronmeritil .m1% sMent n';L:I ke re, to cht w speclfirall)'what inframucturc irnTni-v m attw arr requimd to tot: Iwo the Cauni)A draiiWc system and ho% thtw isnprowmcnts kill CuttcLion. t :l:rrt umc—,r pcmlly of perjury that the fibreping m true. lllwd K;" i) ua-lea , Flawai` Jet L! mil I Llhd I%vmor I. ('I I U1 It% of I I j%kiii. Staw of I[am-w'L 111C sohmilikNI b) RoNal VINULI- 110k r1F. PrOjChA lax MAP KCN, N41 021AM7. 7-6-4121:01K.amd 7,61)21:01q North KoTkaDistrkiflawmil Island. Swc cif lla%t'l 4frm.ts me rwmimally arc well Ala,allccu, m-., liumm in rcal pmperty. I fcsi& vithin Idisaijit.:I O'dw pri pi-wd LIFO dk%,AAnwmcn1 pnijiv.l In slwh caNwilic', I It arc Ii9rtill`a11# kw%%1vdtv kPI'dw i'ollmkinV LxL,xid coWd atW wouW w-stify tlmcto If calkd upon to do ski- V rt:%k-w,.NI t1w jvwbrie. DR Al-1 F NVI Rt)N Nfl-N I Al A Ujj atw,ut. L;,rt, +" 44. I dorrot c.%%n.,Jtk-r ihni ifIvarLILIC-11loeical ill -Uyppxnl 10t,the Mall Emironmcnial A-sscssnictil arr:mdrqualr. Sm pp, 1 ant awarc 1hai c%-idcrxc that lhc land cmompasiscd b flic subjccl Id id Pamck i1w1UdL% k2lufv%441lic t1olvahm Burk. I nC 11KI I FIC. rC W IN Wal 1't Iutl a ry itUdequate1% &-ic6hed ar,3 rictplwral in the are.KAL-t&it i cat Wier oll rkA III supikal III cultural wid ambacloloyncaT (catirre I'mr) pre-We-4cm contact 11mcs that iamut bL wplxcd 1-1-damagr'll kpr I 1wase m%, cot)C4;sn't ursq 5 n I he C'L n t I m t i,+n k nd Unah s I,,,rk--irl'Or- mod HN I on't Ilok=&tz tt14KW„a Cop} vI-whWh is aILicl•Icd, 6 In SUM, tL,- A.S*-.SMCnt AlLj).i; +LICf1 that the €njl;X*11ant Iiam xi'un tiul1ur-al wid L: _an k•-: nzw-1e'r~uxxL let alrrnc Nupctl} presmvd., the loc:atYon. data rccw cry apt{pTv%cTv atiaxi col'the l Iolua.- cotn,• a ccY Yrr ls. da-cLize t •r pc' illN nr pe 'urn that IhL'fore"Otng 15 trw, l,lt4t 1 a:1111Lq-l'il)1tw!_ I{:'1'r'tr Y'I,1ti;4W}'.• ' '[t`'I fff f I rrnt xl rl:urte; Boiow arc-corrmnunicntions with Mr, tom ponaku stone about the twin walls and this slide wit#t a Kona Vista Board mernbers Below are communications with Mr.Torn! Poha u Stone about the twin walls and die slide with a Kona Viste Board i°lierobera On C't on, Jul 1 2G- &55 AM Tom Pohnku Stone<>wrote, To answor ti lion rogarding thp-walls YE,13. Not all hi-Dlua skies had walls but nearly all those on l-1 ivrai'i Isiandl cro The purpose veal to hold the ruck irr flan slide in siirxie sections and in areas that neeoed is be raised. Wien you mention ,roving of logs`ron-i wnnuka-rnakai that rs an irtiport.,int print b cau. e t'ici kol fore5l line was:al a lower Lalevation orlien we were gathering die groat trees ror ow wa's, uafiahe'enalu, eic. This was the rnain rDtirpDse of the slides rhous Inds e;yeo s drgki,. which overt,irne charrrged tra rerlr ct an association to the ajods of the wao keel (upland fnrest) and the zpirituality we r-onnected Oh tiv n and now,. The pifiysical cullu,at IandsCape Hound 01 Ilia 170ua slides is the telling of the story what made ttrase specific areas important to our cultural prar.tices especially since this massive c:omplox is connected, to Pa'ao, his iirieage, and the greatAIi'i Nui c(Ilds rnolct puni (islE niid) Than;ti-vere aeveraf e'rgniticFant cornpl xes along thi, coastline bill nona as grai!dutir. Knr c-ak5 in KeaUl)OLdiatialu'u is another. Waha'uia, rt+Its'okini, and Kahikmw c^,aul)were Elie earlier caornplues estaWishod for migration purpD.ges and the channe-in rel'Igionr The HOualcra cumfaiex solidlfes the complete- adaptation to the establistred reh iion of Pa'aa On Man, Jul 1.2019 at 8.95 Alin John Tam, Tharik you fOl''-kiri6J the itime tp eclueate niFa, it is greatly appreciated. The history of Holtaaloa is truly emark@ble, and I kr)cw I have 1-nitr the sufT,-Are 0rir 1-1,uEsitun h1 vw, I he oilIrItacApokm of 3TiLa hDILIa at I IF. tartHolualoainnIiasarrar;F:,-ualI trail sirl e5 hu1f L1111 l',rasG. Wr li have IJeari 150t al the sarm-= lirnE ^'" P i'liafiic tr?I v--up Lhe, kc qs 4%)rf sati1k;A as they trav lsd ,,,wlrn. f hs L fa un[I, in the proposed develo-pine[it area;a sectieari, of parallel fook kvalf , DO any of tfiri other Hoiipaz have w.1110 i agakt thank you for all your help. Ver} rVspect(ut and graiertrl, JoIir, On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, AM fgym wrntr': Aloha John. I i:,icw I have riot been in r,ontaot fear sprn+ time bur. I hav(- Ia+?en grjiricJ tttrougit alf niyr records and irife tar this i9fea. Yoi,a are nu' going to Find much In any library ahoul thai SlkleA because I'm tli4 pel^0n vino Girl tl;e MJudy of A let of deg 21oproerit has t:h;;angad the cultural la,nd-cnpe in the area raver the veafs i; past 200 yrs. and Will it illy n8d fie cul.Tal and a ir41'6heczul al iarldixa e!•f) 11., i Puzz"e. 1.10Itl=J I<nr Lie-jrj p tri o-riQ 'oltiana aFid it has bi=ran my acadeirrfc focus rrraiiaecl igis:elP ari d::ultrar"ally. I ht`,A.C, fipeli+, yrri:ars PlovidilrL.Cultor_il edix-ation to our r;oForounity+ lhi ;IL- iflr ;nP ;:rf !tr-r"raialcllr?{,3 ui r'ii? a taralk fandscape. The c:f`or' i' to the r'Uttural Inridscalne into thy: development pro ss if tiVll sane the p6 ysiCal otilttrral lararJGC2pr: With ti'iet'Said, thetc f . n chrad corn' Ball-7n bi, (w6ern the I fbkiaiaa slide, Kaolunahrlil, Keakealaniwahlrie, Karriailumallu, kCc-cilzikowa'a,and&Calm:€r ,Lyman)" The 4 vf alr,nr` cmt of Kona raver tho yaars has separated (&Etr6yed)the ph"imli C-Onnectran of the slide to alp PIO)IG In-7R At d IT&7`Vkhoo Mail-11-F"wd"_:A Halus"-of^_l-[olvalaa' Ilia:1}mail.yal on.comfdfisearchfl:uwarrl utrject Y 3.A°"Z d o... the greater complex that had existed,y lira coastal area of this complex has now beeit protected but not the MaUka seC11QF1S that are still Undeveloped. It's at this point the amphasire s600ld ire on protecting whet is left of this great oomplex.We do know that Karnehamahe I was trained in this comrAex which Included I e am 1 ng to hdIua slide and surf.. I would advise you to look at the greater€sicture anti focus on what is Ir;Yt of the an fire,camp] and how this would benefit thek r Lrltura111ISkDry at K01)a. Safry I'm no L can island to as ist, but at tliis point 1 be#ieve the development will de:,troy more. If you need sc'Srneorre with H,,n eraiian tulturalltr'aditional backtgrOUrid let me know, I can assist but if YOU mead someone Eo do in-depth research, pfepare presentaliops, or provide community edtv.abon wo can discuss(his. Hen()? Kekahuna provided the ninst deiailod archaeologicol record of th!';areel, Kll)Vledge. interprelation, and undE,-saanc>lin of thnc v r`d lr:Ypf Yr cit-e -.ri haw its all Iilti rtwlr ed Is significant,* - r Ie Ya ha'aha'a Tom PChaku Stare 1<2nalu (K35) is a 501 c 3 nor profit organization dedicated to cultural&ncean education based on vad 1,i°Ynr,of CiuP,ICIlpuna, Cta n L}e Stantec Consulting Services Inc. J P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Edward Tong Via email jtong60091 @gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Tong: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 4, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Edward Tong Page 2 of 6 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Edward Tong Page 3 of 6 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where September 13, 2021 Mr. Edward Tong Page 4 of 6 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: I am specifically concerned about drainage. The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. Response 10: Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 11: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 11: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan's (CDP's) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK 3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by Department of Public Works. Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 12: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. September 13, 2021 Mr. Edward Tong Page 5 of 6 Response 12: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. Comment 13: 1 am specifically concerned about archaeological significance. I do not consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. I am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 13: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) reports were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 14: 1 base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The DEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 14: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel September 13, 2021 Mr. Edward Tong Page 6 of 6 walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31 182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1.0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: r-i 7,I- -,i I t nets Sent:2020 4:30 PM Ter: P 1,9 r inte7nel NIE!il Subject: Reoyi!l vi ter. usinq Project EA comments Attachments- Hoyal Viia-,, Cjaii,y ducs.pcif Ati.ached are 3 different comments about this project, Archaeological, Drainage, Traffic. Mahalo Jc)hrt DECLARATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POWELL,declare: 1. [ an ,i residcnt.(if Kona Vistas subdivision. Count} of Hawai`i. State of Hawaii. The proposed land development projec-t that is the subject of the pending Drall Environme—ntal Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos, (: ) 7-6-021,016. 7-6- 021:017, 7-6-021,018,and 7-6-021:017 North Kona District, Flawai'i Island, State of Ilawai'i affects me perwnally as weE as ufTects my intrrest in real property. I reside within half a mile of the proposed land development project. In such capacities, I have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and could and woWd testify thereto i f called upon to do so. 2. I have: reviewed the pending DRAI'T FNVll;OlJMENTAL ASS ESSlv11 NT and attacliments. I am spe-cifically concerned abouc the history and the undiscovered artifacts that could be last. Very- likely that more hand excavation is needed on the complete site. Only five a,cers w-as barely scratched doing;light haled excavation which tuicovertd many things, 3. I do not consider that the archaeological studies offered in support of the DrA Environmental Assessment are adegttate thereof 4. 1 ant aware that stnbstasttial evidinice exist,, that the land enenmpGssed by the subject land parcels includes te amies ofthe I lotua:lna Slide_ including rock walls that are inadequately descriM as agricultural walls in the archa(.-ologicacll stt.adics offered in support of the I Taff. knvironmental Assessment. The H.olualoa Slide is an.important Hawaiian cultural and arehaeologictd feanire from pre-Western.contact times that cannot be replaced if d;mPi.)eed or destrci~yt:ci. 5.l Nise my ccwccriv upon Lhe ev iluatioit and aiialvsis PerfonTied by Jorn Pohaku stone. In sum, the Drnft Environmental Ass tssrncrt does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and arc ha ingical features can tie understcx _ lei alone properly preserved. 7. At a minimum,the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to address the location, data recovcry anti preservation of'the f Jolualoa. Slide c:omINments present on the subject parcels and other historical artifacts. I declare under penally of perjury that Elie foregoing is true. f]atc'cl.; E ail ut Koz1a. I far ai`i,C 20,1 f. 5ignaaftur: Printed name: 2 DECLAR.ATION OFDRAINAGF 1,101-IN POWELL,decture: I. 1 "111-1 a resident of Kona Vistas subdivision.County ofllin ai'l. Slatt: The proposed IaTid development project that is ilic sub.imi of the pending Draft Env'ffunnicnlal Assessment subillined by Ruv l Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021:016, 7-6- 021:017, 7-6-021:018. and 7-6-021 M9 North Kona Mtrict, llawai'i Island. State of Hawai'i affects me persunullr as well as affects my interest in real property. I reside xithin lialf Mile distance] of ih propowd land development PT(JeCt. l-n such capnities. I have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and could xid would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2. I have rcyiewvd the pkmrding MATT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachments. T am specifically concerned about, drainage/runoff. Water quality. groundwater recharge. flooding. There is no drain4Tc plan that I could find. PrPiCCLS ne,d io have this plan first not aver. These monster buildings appear Lo have maJor runuff that can add to the problem, 3. The steep topography.historical rapid stomm-ater ruff-offand associated damage present hazards that are not adequate]y addressed ire the Draft Lrivirormem Lal Amms Mcnt that I could find. therein' 4. 1 am aware that flooding has occwTed Makai of the highway. 5.In sum, the Draft Frivironmenial AssessaiMt does not discuss sufficient facts Lind anaslysis such that the nc"ssary drainage improvernents and dhrersions can be understLIOL). A proper environmental assessment caanO L leave meaningful details (o be taken care 0 f in tilt: future, As I understated it.such circumstanceswGWd lead to unlawful project segrnontation, 1 ono other Orr«rs. 6. A bm conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority [hat necded inFraatrUCKITe 'Nil] comply vAth goverrment regulatiuns is insufficient. At a minimum. the Draft Fvvironim Mal Assessment muss be re-vised to show specifically what in'raE.struCUIre impruvemmis are required to lie into the C_ounty's drainage systern and how these unprovcments ill fUnctiom dMare under penalty of penury that tht fbmgoing is true, Dattxi: ltiailua-t sink, 1[uw€ii`i, 10 0. Sinatut: 77'-Nnted name: 2 L JOHN POWEL. declare- I. I am a resident aafKailu -Kotm and live in the Kona Vistas subdivision, Country of11awai`i, State oi'Hawai'i. The proposed land development projout that is the subject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment subwilted by Royal Vistas Housing Prgject Tax Map Key Pas. 3) 7-6-02 I:016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-0-21:01 R,and 7-6-021 1:019 North Kona, District. I kiwai`s Island, Statc Of lla%vdi'i affects me personally as well t al'lects my iiiierust in real propertN,, 1 reside ,,within a half mile ot'the pt iposed land d'evelopmont pR}100. IT] StiCh ctilp:i iti . 111,1 ve firsthand kliowledge (if the fo]]OWing f lCt5 =aTkd OdUld and wkmjld testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2. 1 have rc: -icwcd the pending DRAFT EN- IRONM1 N"1`Al.ASS SSl rlENT including the Tral7`ic Impact Analysis Report by SSF-M lnternatiultal, dated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVTR['OMEN I AL ASSESSMENT. I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts loth within and without the Kona Vistas stkbdii.°ision that are not full), or accurately-addressed in the SS1{M rl mffic Impact Analysis Repart. Traff is and the SSFMI Truffle Impact Analysis Report. are discussed in the body of the DRAF I ENVIRONM.1 NTAl_ASSLSSMPENT. at lap.48- 6, 67 and 7l. 3. In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed p jeet relics on the use of a subsst,ndard roadway,.Kckuana,oa Place. Kekuan a-oa Place is very steep, has limited Night distances due to the grades.extreme curves and is nartow witlj e10 curbs, gutters, or sidewalks,. I The impact of increased traffic arising 9-rorn Phase I L!t i d i Ii.,c ; 1,,11 Idout 3 of the Royal Vistas Housing Projmt is inadequalely addressed in thc SUM Traffic lr',pact Analysis Report, which focuses instead on impacts ulting Queen Kaahun-mnu Highway- f am particularly concerned that adding nurnerous vehicle trips w and frorn a separate subdivision will present danyers and congtstion to residents alanglKektiana'vo Place, I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these conecras. Royal Vistas road system should follow County standards of'Mauka to MakA with a signaiized intersection at the highway, 4. Jhc DRAFT FiNVIRONMENTAL ASS l-,SSMEN'T requires evaluation of,among others,ativc rs v s econtlary jmpucj, such as Mjpu h won vhaitg", or e/ffiects on puhfic Ii.c fliries. 5i Chapter 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Instead of sqimrelyadaddressing,lhcsc issws,however, t1w DRAFT ENV I R ONMENTAL ASSESS Mf,-N'I' simply ignores tht[1]. claiming that "No adverse scvondary efTeAas are expected since dic devdopment %)vUld utilize existing infiaswucturc,provide infill housing, and is nol expected to result in substwitial demands, to County senices." It Is a serious omission for the DRAFT F.NVIRONMIENTAL AS USSMENJ'lo fail to address the potential adverse impzictas of increasing the use of subswndaTcl existing infrastructure, like Kokuan2'oa ['lace with young children present.. 5. The DRAFT ENVIRONMFNIAL ASSESSME:NT addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context ofwhelher the pvc:)].04:1 WOUld /Jaiv a awYerse e#ivi an huh}}c rr'rrllh. The Applicant el rims. r - Proposed Project vmuld not affect public 1-walth in anyMt. way, stormwatcr would bv :.ppniprraiely disposed of in ch-dinLgc structures_ T' fficipamis haveIra been taken J=cargful yorisi4erallon in VrQiecLA Emphasis addecL This bald 2 conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chaipier 1 1-2 .1-13. I la wail Adrnini trative Rulc3. G. The Planning Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASS"SIN 'Ts reliance on the 54FM Traffic Impact Anal ysis Repr}rt, which has.The fo110wing deficiencies- a. fai lure to address adverse tragic impacts througho Lit the entire Ktana Vistas subdiw ision arising from the project, b The SSFM Traffic:Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rate ol' 1°fie,, in cantrast tag the 2%Itowth rare einployed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Traffic congestion is eery sensitive to grc)c4lh rate in a re action, c_ The SSFM"fralTic 1mllikt Analysis Report dews not tceo>r iilze muhi-,eiierailotial housing characteristics crtnmon in Hawaii according to census data and lii cly underestimates claily v:1114:le tripN attributable to buildout of the proposed project; d. The sw Trame Impact Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume Of 853 vehicles Fear Nofthbuund (queers Kaa3humanU highway tart the selected dates of April 30,2019,a weekday and August 24, 2019,a Saturday, compared with thQ 2018 Witcher Engineering Trailic lmpalc•t Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vehicles for Januaq 14 and 15, 201b, h(O lveek ys. The Lin Usual 1), lurr reported vehicle volume t~•f g;', is also at odds with figure 4 cal the SSFM Traffic I nipad Analysis Rerxrrt, which shows approxima.tcly 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 i"Or l`otilihound Queen Kaahunis Lau High%vay at 7 a.m. The dif urericc in vt4lume is more than double the maximum 1 i1°,o vasrialio t generally accepted in day-tea-day rneasumments and thus unreliable, C. The recommendation by 44FNI 'l-rallic Impact Analysis Report fort roundaK)w at Quccn Kaahutnanu l fighway°and Ilualalai load kNonh) is inconsisient with the traffic corridor. Intersections thai Iwsss warrants but remain ujisignaliud presort traffic safety liabilit% c-oncenis for the government, J:The reccmmen6ation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of t11c intersectiEort of Queen Kaahttmanu Highway and Kua kini Highway i5 inadegnale, Where. as here, an intersection passes more;than one warrant under alI conditions, it 0iould be prioritized tnr study and dcsign of a signal for initallation, This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed pmjcct_ 7. In surn_the Draft Environmental Assessment and SSFM.Traffic: lrnpact Analysis Report does not present suf iclent,credible facts and analysis such that the adverse impaCLS on e-,fisting infrastructure and resuhina frorn increased traffic can he folly understc and result in apprctpriale goy=errtment planning and r-yspottse. 1 declam an&r penalty ofpejury that the foregoing, is true. Dated: laailtua-bona, l IaAmi.,A/(./-` ', - I , 2020. Signature:ture: Printed name: Cta n L}e Stantec Consulting Services Inc. J P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Via email: markp504att.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Powell: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 4, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 am specifically concerned about the history and the undiscovered artifacts that could be lost. Very likely that more hand excavation is needed on the complete site. Only five acres was barely scratched doing light hand excavation which uncovered many things. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 and in Appendix 5 (Archaeological Inventory Survey [AIS] Reports) of the EA, the entire project site has been recently inventoried for archaeological resources. One inventory covered 76.1 acres and the other covered 5 acres. Section 3.6 includes a summary discussion of the findings for both surveys that cover the entire site, as well as a discussion of how potential impacts would be minimized. The reports have been submitted to SHPD for review and acceptance. Comment 2: 1 am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 2: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two AISs were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 2 of 7 Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 3: I base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The IDEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The IDEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 3: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1.0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. Comment 4: I am specifically concerned about drainage/runoff, water quality, groundwater recharge, and flooding. There is no drainage plan that I could find. Projects need to have this plan first not after. These monster buildings appear to have major runoff that can add to the problem. Response 4: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase II of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 3 of 7 roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan's (CDP's) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK 3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by Department of Public Works. Comment 5: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. I am aware that this project will have serious impact on the immediate and surrounding area. Response 5: Kona Three LLC is not aware of any damage to adjoining properties, including Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, from water flowing from the subject property. Comment 6: 1 am aware that flooding has occurred makai of the highway. Response 6: Flooding has occurred makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from waters in the County-owned Holualoa Ditch and the Horseshoe Bend Ditch; however, as described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA, the proposed project would not be increasing the amount of water carried by these ditches from the entire drainage basin extending miles up-hill (above the proposed project). Comment 7: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 7:. See response to comment 4. Also, text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 8: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 4 of 7 improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 8: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. Comment 9: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 9: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 10: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Royal Vistas road system should follow County standards of Mauka to Makai with a signalized intersection at the highway. Response 10: As described in Section 1.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC would extend County-owned Kekuana`oa Place and construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Kaahumanu. The TIAR Appendix 2), did not identify a signal warrant for the new intersection based on current and projected levels of growth. To ensure safety, Kekuana`oa Place and the new intersection would be built to County and State standards, and dedicated to the County. The Kekuana`oa Place extension constructed as part of this project would include sidewalks and curved gutters. To clarify when the Kekuana`oa Place connection would occur, Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street during Phase 11 of the project. Therefore, at project completion, there would be two ways to access the project and would alleviate impacts to any one entrance. Comment 11: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place with young children present. Response 11: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 5 of 7 expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (in Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 12: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 1 1 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 12: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 13: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 13: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 14: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 14: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 15: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 15: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1 .00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 6 of 7 Comment 16: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 16: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 20: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 20: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 7 of 7 Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@)stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: rF7 u:( ,,L - 07, 2(CI 9,1 AMSent: To- PLarT)Irq :rtErnet hAafl Subject. R,Iyal Pr(7,iect (TMK Nos.(3) 7.6-UZI-016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021-016, and ULA (.UfI1IIIeIIt5 Dear Director Yee: I humbly apologize for rnisspplling 'yOUr c:r• tile, inq the subject DEA that I submitted late yesterday. sincerely, Joel GImpel Mori, Ashley From- J;--al ,Ir• ppr roln> Sent: Ilk:`SC L-h, ()-It!flk''r Ob .'l.:k{; i I),' PM To: K-kr iliflu Inte ttei V all Subject Win'., Vis as --ousing Prolrwrt (TMK Nos- (3) 7-6-021-016, 7-6-021:017,7-6-021:018,and Dear UlrcJ-x I-t_-c. You may recall the crrnrneilt I el_:Ib1111tted on AuOust 13 stating my many concerns over the shortcomings of the Traffic Impact Analysis in the subject DEA, and commenting on the probil—in r}t 1Ver1' rl--rvvded public schools serving the area that was not adequately addressed- I hereby 2xprc-ss my thanks and appreciation for your decision to extend the deadline fol C:omnienLLs becacJse of the delayed notification. Accordingly, I had th(( opporlunit tu wor-..? carefully review the DEA and prepare the following coninients and concerns rcgardinq the, Dmhr.lologiical and cultural Issues raised. cruse I live in and own El I-1r_me in Pualani Estates, the 362-single family ticrrllw subdivision several hu,idred yards north of the subject property. 111;_ :cndinu. f)f' 111 1 ri% ['imily's person,.11 find ;1]`],p i'tL bill ti1)EtlllLiillti ti±11wL` 11LIC Illi ll? l.li' lritrt l'ii111't'.3- I-1'11.'+ II`L'[ti,lI ,tLI(IIL lei I1111 ti'ILpi}o1-i i€1 DEAL becaLIIe thCI-C I`• .tiUhSI_LI1tMI w'w IdcMCL' hiv 111 ` -L11]Icct inc'E dc" c.`i 10I.l:110:1 11([C. Itic]tl4ll[YI`_" n 1A, '., Il l;.. th.it m I11c1[ll'illiellt'll dc4 k'i-1114'I.1 IFLlr'i "llI 1 I1L` 11t.11J%1'0.7 )IJdc 1,a Eill 11111)oj-r:[':I 11.1 1,;]11 t11l<'.JIA1 ;Litd IGjlil' 7a5Y'1''1 IL`:11111C horll lr -%V4 ll`;ter[t 4' ,I'(:lw' lln,',,; dmi. c:'1i110i I `, t1 1.;` 1 if J:':lll;l'.`a.1 DI 'A II!d ;lil':lti:wlti hLI lI16C111 ;el llr:[ii:l 1 311ii II'.f 11.13.a. ;11-Nlli CU:rL.A-31 a ild 1.111 :l l )I ',;1U u'611L'I.1, C01, Wc'Alc+rl cd I IC'N'C HIdIlk1ll,ll COPL"Clrl1 N. 0 ~.'y 25-4EilJ I I Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Joel Gimpel 75-628 N. Mea Lanakila PI. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Via email: alohafidlr@aol.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Gimpel: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 6, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: I am specifically concerned about the inadequacy of the archeological studies purporting to support the DEA because there is substantial evidence that the subject includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls, that are inadequately described as agricultural walls. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. In short, the DEA doesn't contain facts and analysis sufficient to understand and preserve the important Hawai'ian cultural and archaeological features. Response 1: Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. Joel Gimpel Page 2 of 2 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: Sent: Tu e 6 A kil To. Subject: r i ,.jti-- FA cnrnq-iP,nts Attacht'nents, Kd (herlb4,.I.o I.-C-Ox-atioll -e Tra"f L 100120.docx,- Kirschenbaum Declaration re fea,ur--,CQW'026.ju, x it whorli %i iiuCv At t I-i chc(I f 1 11 onr r I i-I-,,, I W, i h I"W 4 4A H I,'L''I 11-1 11 C F, I-,I Dl:'iVl I III III III Dl-,'l I I F-. 11-1 -,7117111 Ck'ClIll Ll'-111C W. VOU f0l VOW Bruce Kirschenbaurn 360-904-9563 Kona Vistas Resident 4 1 DECLARATION OF BRUCE KIRSCHENBAUM 1, BRUCE KIRSCHENBAUM, declare: I am a residunt of the Kona Vistas subdivision, Caurity of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. The proposed land dcvelopincni projcct that is the subject Ur the pending Draft Envii-onmental. Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Huusing Project Tax Map Key Nos. (3)7-6-021:016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6- 021:018, and 7-6-021-019 North Kona District, I hiwWl Island. State (I C Hawill'i affws not:personally as well as affects my into r 4•t 11 lx 11 1)rnpertN-. I reside within two blocks of d-: L-1 01111)L I 1t klv C on Kuktianaea.Place, one o i'nvi-t lw-il;i I I;,Il ollvs to Royal Vistas. in such capacities. [ have firsthand knowledge of the following facts and a?.I Id ,,1::.1 L'-,l I IV thereto it called upon to do so. i[Lk I,: I I.,i I.;A L tI k 1'1: DJ1%;17 LN VI 1)0 N\,-1 I ",J i 1 Y- 00 II I incl ud-1 ng the Tra ffi c Impact Ali 1-i 1.% 1 Z L-JW„1 1 1. 1% - 1:1 f-V I z I i t:!-l%J I.,'.i,",1. ki dtCd Italy 21 12 t 1 w.11It attached as Appendix? to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT- lam srt1 cirlc.:.dly concerned about 2tdversc traffic inipacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or--1CCLlr.1te1V cIdd!FeSqed in the SSFM 'I NT'TIC I 11',I).L 7. I L i I I t uport. Traffic 11. 17.I k.I -F F LL L I L L 1;1 K L I,ct- IAV1R,-)\N-1FNTA1- 56, o7 and Ow ill I'VOilt 01 htvx,con KALtanatia Palace isless than thirty per day, Kukvanaoa Place is a quiet residential street that Into LaskoStreet. Per the roads and traffic plan for Royal. Vistas, Kukuawoa Place woutd be used as one of the two I major I:'l lo traffic For the 450-unit subdivision. Not being a traffic expert, but assul-ning eachof tlie 450 Knits owns 1.5 cars and each of those cars. snakes two trips ln.++{)ut of the t-k%k.-lo:)-=ivi-I I'."I diiy and Ih P,,c !I'ip%, [:t;Ll:i.:a.' LI',t' I. ]L ]]Min hiFllll'ay and ttiukLiallr^koa I'I '.ic as (hell- 1hor'-s.L!jII I:L-'' 1"1. r Ir:p". III.It VOIt-III II1;.1_V I',, IllL' 1M H C i'IT9. l\'Ji-,U;Jl1;4'..';I Place: 1111`. iki ,iCl{I vnu Ait fir I,.i%c lilt- trc 4r .]l 4' .'I I 111 ill Li I:'14 ,I I I,ijor r'o-id-vay when it ~%,as never intc;ndcd or designed fvr such a purpose. Why should the residents ui Kukuanaoa Street and Kona Vistas bear the brunt of esttl1)i1L_,111L1L', Cw Nerll:,.i1',Lit, I,"' li 1' ' ,r.;, II r°{:l.Lihi -.:lnvnt? -Mat simply is not fair and wrong in lit v Ifyou Ic %1 iXIl'P'L ck 11171':rly to 111s.' Pu,iltuli L:'.,fl s. Puapuaanui Street is the maim and sole irlgresslegrm point for 100% of their traffic:flaw. There are no cross roads that have been used to ofllay tnaflic to z 1I,1;llL.'r RFC.l HI 111,.!L'1 -'L'i I.:.: - 3t',I development. l bel cvclthe same cl nett pt should be used for 1 .w-rJ,1 1i I'll All k'.J'IA. !"LIILAI I'll a.".1' L- '111.. i!a,1! isl .'],.' main QL10,' 1 K 111g1131ray. flee: jell 4 lrrl r:Iti' lCti'. Ofsubstandardroad-way, Kekuana`oa Place. Kckuana`Ca Place iq very stwp,has limited sifdht distances due is extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of In roa,"ud rra,I e arisil Is>>1l Phan t and Phase 2huik!o'.f5y ol'l i.: Ro,,j1 ltitti IIvU--Litt P11.rlt" `l l:. IL Ills' S l 11 I ..'.tt't Impact r11 ;II;,' 1.'t9i ". 'X1',li}1 tt L'UI; .li:•1,: '',19 ]I:I':Lt:. ,I I'I' d 1 t r f 3 1. toL]t I7 ;1 Ill.l., lrlll lllL.l 'i'. l :lrll ll.ir-;It.:.Il.fl'.4 s"til'":'1'7ie'i t l:l e1,C lrli, 'i1J119:'I'=°9L'-. it' Ik:.' 1 ,1 InlI from a separate subdivision will present duagers and congestion to residents along KeWana'cla Placc. 1 consider that the P1 anning Department should require theapplicant to JdL!ress these concerns. 2L 4. The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires uvaluation of, among others, adverse s ecopidary inzpacts. such as popula tio n changes or effects on pablic fercilities. See C haptcr 11-2 00.1-13, 1 I'a w a i I A 11-,111:1 I I'-1 t i ve Ru Ics. 111 J J 01 .1'L!.i:.r-.-k k. d i i;'1,. r x"Y [ A'SlJ)0'AL-,C;. 111 IM 1 I A and is not cxpouted to result in ,Lihstaatial demands to County servic&s." it is a serious omission for the DRAFT EN%:W(Y'4ml-TAL ASSESS%I EN I- to Jail 10 L[ddl-Vsw the voti.,1111.11 ndvcr'4 Tl`]F"!"'01, Ll i U of 1111 1 1 Lk:i Ll i'll,Ll I k: k 5.1 fic I WAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSFS9VENT 0%ers-e traffic impacLq only' In the conlext of vdict1wr the project would Ham a suhmnriai adverse e&cl Un public health. The Appliconi claims, 'The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stonnwatcr-WOLI[d be{ipprolir-atelv disposed ofindrainagc structures. Tr -c pact haveaffl JL LL!dkjl Added. This bald Cli:ip-ci- ' !t0lldll"0011 (1110S Dirt d(Idt-CSS )'AL':1',1A! xd i HWAdii Adniinistrative Rule" i. The Planning Department sbould not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL A':S 1 S S%J 1-C]nu[L:L: glut the SS I [M I I-A,I]c I i.-; lal ysis Report, which has the following ell 1!1111 111 Pi 1-i V',ta, Subdivisian arishli holl] the 1)ro]'L:C7'. b.The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rate of I%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2019 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth.rate in,a nonlinear, exponential relation; C.Thy: SSFM Traffic: Impact Ar a1%,,1,, I.Lj,-ii 1 does not rccogtize multi-generationall housing characteristics common in Hawk', l `.'t'i11i `:Lti ceti,,1„,data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout el l-!I,, psi =J 11]41'jek:U d. The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Deport employs an unusually loin vehicle J1:_'+,`I1 . ..!s 1i111L:'I 1 .!7:vv'ayon the welCctc'€I dat,2ti ol` April30, 2(6v ,a „ kl,{I;¢. ;Ili:! AM.11.1,1 .' 1. .'.1I'J. 1 comparcd nlih ihe2018 Witcher si. it sii y TI•:3tt :. firp.;c: 1:i;1.1. . . l:cj%)J-1, `.l 11. ., ..i,l„M-lecl 101 ,4hi.Iw•, tip- _I:1t '_L.L_k I4 :!1"1 15, "?316, bath weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of853 is also at odLis wilth Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact :Analysis Repom which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 016 iM NOFthbOL111d QcLCCA K' ;LLlwilla!il. I I :-.hvayat7 a-m. Tht difttirkv_e. in voluirle isTnor6; than doublc tile131t1X1111U1T1 measurements and thus unreliable; e.The recommendatiml by SSFM Traffic In,pac:t Analysis Report for a roundabout at Queen Kaaburnanu Highway and Hualalai Read (North) is inconsistent with the traffic; corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignall"Cl: p ,, I'1 '.1 I : ,F:1,.11Y 1;I, Iii . conccrns for the government; F The rct.,,w,, mk4iii1-,riw,. F`:° 'Y M 11-,1T... 1r,r:!(1 AF1,11'.;14 14L.11i 1: i.ff 11., !Ll:iy!I?I'_, ,i; the intersection of Queen Kaaliumanu 1-1it,h,.1,:a. ,L,1t' I: ,..:,I,z111 11L.'1•,'4ti:w._, r li,11 . Wh12;_:, z13 here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions,it should be prioritized 4 for study and design of a signal for installation. This circimistancc ivi I I be rNaQorb.t,-d I L' proposed project. 1A I7, id aj i a s.1 1 .1 u. vcrsc I m Pa CIS Oil C.XiMilll 1171l-U.S[FLIC111.11-C I.HM! 11 1-iLiderAok)(1 ;AMI rLtia,llt in ppropriaro govern-imort plamiliig and m,,,ponse. 8.1 wl-A to add a statement expressing my concerns for safety on the proposed roadway through Kona Vistas as w61- As the street fines not have sidewalks only lines hc oi-.iin road :ion) .h,: Jdv11oArJs, the people who walk,children Who play, bike LqL-p,. ndcl!1 11.111' CL)l I AMI 601- r.hclr M,,I rcl y Ll A". :L) Ihe vcT- I,m, I J k2 rl I I A rik-L,W,ol-holld iraftic th.11 ex io(lay- Once Kckuanaoa Place is ap,n;M In Royal Vistas and its a]most.a thousand trips per day, it would be extremely unsafe to =j o y the activities I j ti-q It descnibod ew,pec I-a I ly %k 1 th the fact the street is hilly anal I 114sre are not Linabsmicted views of C7 1 : try :i1 T) in a residential killdc. J%.,11'altyof rcrillry thal the i.11 ii1 ..L; tIUC, Dated. Kailua-Kona, HawaN, October 1, 2020. i-I ,2t i,t i I it! I r I k:.,- K I r!.-h m1--a in Kill Ilia-Kolla, I I I k)0741 BRIcek4 5 55 1 u,,-,mai Lcona, 160-404-9563 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Bruce Kirschenbaum Via email: brucek45554gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Kirschenbaum: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 6, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: Today, the number of trips that passes directly in front of my house on Kukuanaoa Place is less than thirty per day. Kukuanaoa Place is a quiet residential street that "T's" into Lako Street. Per the roads and traffic plan for Royal Vistas, Kukuanaoa Place would be used as one of the two major ingress/egress points to service traffic for the 450-unit subdivision. Not being a traffic expert, but assuming each of the 450 units owns 1.5 cars and each of those cars makes two trips in/out of the development per day and those trips equally use the main highway and Kukuanaoa Place as their thoroughfares for the trips, that would increase the traffic on Kukuanaoa Place from 30 to 675 trips per day. That's a 2,000% increase. Response 2: Regarding the methods for calculating trips, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Handbook referenced in the TIAR Appendix 2 in the EA) used for the traffic analysis uses housing units, and it does not assume one person per unit. This is taken from the ITE trip gen handbook regarding land use 220: 2.72 residents are assumed for each unit. There is no trip generation for number of bedrooms. It is difficult to analyze and make projections based on number of bedrooms, or how many people we expect in bedrooms. The ITE trip generation for land use 220 collected data on low-rise multi-family housing, and based on that data, the traffic model came up with a best fitted curve, which discussed below, has a very low standard deviation, and a very high R squared value, which indicated that the data collected is not scattered. The TIAR assumes a land use that is typical, and with the best possible data, captures the number of project generated trips. September 13, 2021 Mr. Bruce Kirschenbaum Page 2 of 5 Comment 3: If you examine a simjlar development that is the next group of parcels directly to the North of Royal Vistas, Pualani Estates, Puapuaanui Street is the main and sole ingress/egress point for 100% of their traffic flow. There are no cross roads that have been used to offlay traffic to another area in order service their development. I believe the same concept should be used for Royal Vistas with all traffic routed through the new connection to the main Queen K highway. Response 3: As described in Section 3.7.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC proposes to construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Kaahumanu. As required by the County, and in accordance with Kona Community Development Plan (CDP), the major roads in Royal Vistas would be build and dedicated to the County. The County has long-range plans as outlined in the CDP Official Transportation Map for these dedicated roads to link Kona Vistas roads Leilani Street and Kekuana`oa Place to Pualani Estates' roads Ho`omama Street and Paulehia Street respectively as part of their community connectivity policy. These roads are also planned to further extend to the north eventually. Additionally, Figure 2 has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street during Phase 11 of the project. At project completion, there would be two ways to access the project and according to the traffic analysis would serve the needs of the project without exacerbating regional traffic. Comment 4: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 4: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Mr. Bruce Kirschenbaum Page 3 of 5 Comment 5: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 5: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 6: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 6: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 7: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 7: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 8: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 8: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Mr. Bruce Kirschenbaum Page 4 of 5 Comment 9: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 9: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 10: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 10: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 11: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 11: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where September 13, 2021 Mr. Bruce Kirschenbaum Page 5 of 5 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 12: I am concerned about safety on the proposed roadway through Kona Vistas as well. As the street does not have sidewalks only lines separating the main road from the sideboards, the people who walk, children who play, bike riders, skateboard riders have little concern for their safety due to the very low residential neighborhood traffic that exists today. Once Kekuanaoa Place is opened to Royal Vistas and its almost a thousand trips per day, it would be extremely unsafe to enjoy the activities I just described especially with the fact the street is hilly and there are not unobstructed views of oncoming traffic or pedestrians. This could lead to a very dangerous situation in a residential neighborhood. Response 12: As described in Section 1.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC would extend County-owned Kekuana`oa Place and construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Kaahumanu. These roads would be built to County and State standards, and dedicated to the County. The Kekuana`oa Place extension constructed as part of this project would include sidewalks and curved gutters. To clarify when the Kekuana`oa Place connection would occur, Figure 2 in the EA has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street during Phase II of the project. Therefore, at project completion, there would be two ways to access the project and would alleviate impacts to any one entrance. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley 7 D vi 1-1,n> Jzu PM To z:r nF Cc o i,, lcan & Mark Powell At tach n iont s. lit I.: T I P- C d I I f1(1;.l ATTOGOC6 I 1 :1 DECLARATION QF QO IN ,ER-ALD A IKI I. JOHN GERALD M K I declare 1 I am a resident of 76-43744 Kinau Street i Kona Vistas subdivision], County of Hawai`i, State of Hawaii. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos (3) 7-6-021 016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021:018, and 7-6-021:019 North Dona District, Hawai`i Island, State arHawai'i affects me personally as well as affects my interest in real property. 1 reside within 100 Yards of the proposed [arid development project, In such capacities. I have firsthand knowledge of the fallowing facts and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so 2. I }lave rcviewcd the pending DRAFT El+WRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM International, dated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONNIENTAL ASSESSMENT. I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts bath within and without the Kona V stas subdivision that are nctt fully or accurately addressed in the S F'iv1 Traffic Impact Arrialysis Report Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Irnpaci analysis Report are discussed in the body of the DRAFT E'VIRONME-N7AL ASSESSMENT. at pp 48-56, 67 sand 71 At. 82 years old, 1 spent surriners during it with other kids, playing in Mont of racy Chinese grandparents grocery stares in Horiaunatt on Mamalahoa Highway, the only level area between the pahoehoe and a'a lava roadside Only an occasional sampan taxi Carrying to iris(*" from Hilo to the Kona Inn or Der. Hiyashi making house calls in his Muriel T interrupted our play Now, 75 years later, our South Kona ohana relations complain that endless traffic makes i( hard to enter the two-lame marl to go to mark, doctor or the grocery stare. After retiring to our Komchana home off Lako Street in 1990, my wife and I watched the traffic turn into gridlock where Kuakini Highway intersects Queen Ka'ahuntanu Highway Auwe! Now, Kona Three LLC warns to build a 450 unit subdivision which will add 900 plus cars into the two-lane vehicle crawl stretching from Captain Cook to Palani Road. Using are outdated 1983 EIS., Kona Threc request access thi-o gh narrow residential streets in Iona vistas and Pualani Estates. Issues not adequately addressed include traffic safety and density, ernerSency vehicle access, kids disembarking from school busses, the lack o€curbs and sidewalks required by code, impatient drivers cueing through Pualani Estates, Kona Vistas, and Sunset subdivisions to bypass gridlock, and merging mauka and makai traffic from L,aku Street onto Queen Ka'athumanu Highway In addition, the original easement for Sunset Subdivision's [xilari. Street was onIN 40 feet wAe To provide safe access for modern emergency aunbulance and file trucks. plus access for underground utilities. cable and electric lines, etc., the easement for L.eilani Street was widened to 60 feet when Kona Vistas portion was built It is hazardous if emergency vehicles, encountering traffic.accident gridlock on Quueen Ka'ahatmanu Highway or Lako Street, are Forced to enter the proposed Royal Vistas SUbdiViTOT-i ihmLI-gh Sunset's narmw portion of Lei lani Street to quell a fire anchor save IIves We're not against development But the people ofWest I4awaii need affordable housing with reasonable access to and from work, rather than another developer I3uilding more million dollar homes for wealthy snowbirds. We treed a wider highway. not 900 more cars,. trucks and vans choking our two-lane Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway while we sit in gridlock. In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the }imposed project relies can [lie use of a substandard roadway, Kelcuar @'oa Place Kekuana`oa Place is very steep, has li it]ited sight distances dtae to exm7me CUTYcs and is narrow with no sidewalU The impact of iticrc.ased tragic allsinp from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the Royal %istas Housing Project is inadequately addressed in the SSFNI Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which focus instead on impacts along Queen Kaahunizinu Higft6vay I am laarticu[arly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision wi 11 present dangers and congestion to residents al.on KckuwWoa Place. I consictcr the )lard ng Depailment should rcquire the applicant to address these concerns, 4. The DRAI 1_ 1A V11 0''N-WNTAI._A SSESSMENT requires evaluation of, am€pis others,adverse,SeurnrOuri,1mpeivi., .vich rr.s pc pirkinem changes or e Ncf,s on P.uhtic.lbeilities. Chapter 11-200 1-ii, Hawaii Administrative Rules Instead ofNquarely addressing these issues, however, the DRAFT ENWIRONMENTALASSESSMENT simply ignores thern. claiming that "No adverse secandary effects are ercpected since the development would utilize existing infrastructure, provide infrll housing,and is not expected to result in substantial dernands to County services " It is a serious omission for the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT to Fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substandard existing infrastructure. like Kekuaaa°oa Place, The DRAFT ENVIRON-MENTAL ASSESSMENT addresses adv'ersc traffic impacts only in the contest of whether the prc Jw would f a)n,°rrh.Crraal crl crcr")rse ec r r rr l ahlre lac c!l. Tbe.Arplicant claims, '"The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way. storniwarer wDuld be appropriately disposed ofin drainage struMires. Traffc impact h0 e 1 tsa iQ careful consideration in project design."' Emphasis added. This bold conclusion domes not address potenilol aaverse impacts as required by Chapter 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. 6. The Planning€Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS MEN17s reIIa<Yce ttn the SS F M Traffic Impact.nalysis Report, which has the following deficiertci es, a faiILire to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas sub di vision arising front the prolect, b. The SSIrM Traffic Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rate of I `o, in c c mirast to the 2%growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponentiay relation, c The SSF NI Tra.fltc Impact Analysis Report does not recognize multi-gene-rxional housing characLonstics co nrnon in Hawaii according,to census data and likely undertstimates daily vehicle trips attributable to burltiout of proposed project; d The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume of853 vehicles f()r Northbound Queer) Kaahurrmanu highway on She selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 201 S Wicher Engineering Traffic lmpact Analysis Repixt, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15. 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with I[giire 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact A.naIvsis 11eport, which shows a pp roKi in ate I y 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound. Queen Kaahumanu IIip,hway at 7 a.m The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10%variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable; e.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report Far a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road(Nomh) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor Intersections that pass warrants but remain rtnsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government; f.The re coin inendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of the intersection ofQueea Kaahutnanu.Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate_ Where, as here, an intersection passes inure than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installatiun. This circumstance.will be exacerbated by the pnapased project. 7. In sure,the Drdl Environmental Assessment and SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Rc-port does not present 3ulTicieri , credible facts and analysis such that the adverse irn.pacts on existing infrastructure and resulting From increased traffic can be fully understood and result in approprime gouemment planning and response. I declare under penalty of penury that the foregoing is true, Dated tiailua-Kona, Aawai°i, 6 October, 2020- Signature, l hn Cie ik-I alone] 11SA (retired) C Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Via email: kinaust24gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Miki: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 6, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: After retiring to our Komohana home off Lako Street in 1990, my wife and I watched the traffic turn into gridlock where Kuakini Highway intersects Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Using an outdated 1983 EIS, Kona Three request access through narrow residential streets in Kana Vistas and Pualani Estates. Issues not adequately addressed include traffic safety and density, emergency vehicle access, kids disembarking from school busses, the lack of curbs and sidewalks required by code, impatient drivers cutting through Pualani Estates, Kona Vistas, and Sunset subdivisions to bypass gridlock, and merging mauka and makai traffic from Lako Street onto Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. In addition, the original easement for Sunset Subdivision's Leilani Street was only 40 feet wide. It is hazardous if emergency vehicles, encountering traffic accident gridlock on Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway or Lako Street, are forced to enter the proposed Royal Vistas subdivision through Sunset's narrow portion of Leilani Street to quell a fire and/or save lives. Response 2: Kona Three is not requesting access through Pualani Estates. As described in Section 1.2 of the EA, Kona Three LLC would extend County-owned Kekuana`oa Place and construct a new intersection Royal Vistas Roadway at the project's intersection with Queen Kaahumanu. To ensure safety these roads would be built to County and State standards, and dedicated to the County. The Kekuana`oa Place extension constructed as part of this project would include sidewalks and curved gutters. To clarify when the Kekuana`oa Place September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Page 2 of 4 connection would occur, Figure 2 of the EA has been revised to show that access to the project site would be connected to Kekuana`oa Place from Lako Street during Phase II of the project. Therefore, at project completion, there would be two ways to access the project and would alleviate traffic (and safety) impacts to any one entrance. Comment 3: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 3: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 4: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 4: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 5: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Page 3 of 4 conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 5: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 6: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 6: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 7: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 7: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 8: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 8: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 9: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 9: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Page 4 of 4 to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 10: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 10: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: 11 ' ' P1.1 S ellt: ski I)jea' vII3!.-, HI-Al=i-l-1 FA cnmmF-nt,, ATT,-J,-WC,2 htry), impOG-' prtf: Al IOUO03.hLn)J 1, A' I OX0 1 1 Il T I' DL;CALARATION OF J01IN GE BALD MIKI 1, JOFCti GERALD MIKI,. declare: I arrl a resident of Kona Vistas subdivision, County or Hawaii, state of liawai`ii. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal.Vistas Housing,Project Tax Map Key Nos (3) 7.6-021.016, 7-6-021-017, 7-6-021°018, and 7-6-021 019 North Kona District, Hawaii, island, State of Hawaii atTeets me petsonally as well as affects my interest in real property. I reside within 100 Yards of the proposed land development project. In such capacities, I have firsthand knowledge. of the following facts and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2_ I have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONIvIENTALASSESSNENT and attachments. I am specifli;ally cQncerried about the destruction of Archeological Fcaturi s of the said Area being considered for extensive housing development 1 eerr7 82 years o[d, born and raised ire Hawaii,who spent summers living %vit]i cry grandparents is Kealia in Honaunau during WWII. During the school year, I attended weekly classes at the City Parks and Recreation Rr saurue Center at the McCoy Pavilion at Ala Moans Park where kids from l lonolulu were hussed Lo learn about Hawaii We were awed by tales of the holuaioa slides built throughout our islands, where warrior chiefs hurtled down rock courses at breakneck speeds up to 40 p1m, MP11 on skinnv 12 feat long by six-inch wide sleds on mamane hardwood runners, often wagering their lands, tvilvs and e,,en their lives again5r rival chiefs. The holualoa experience was a hair-raring but thrilling tale for us Yorangsters. The Holualoa Slide is an itnpwtant Hawaiian archaeological fUtsurc from pre-)XesMm contact times that cannot be replaced In [994. 1 teak a"Hawaiian Beliefs & I' actices" religion class taught by Pualarti Kanakaole, Hawaiian Studies instructor at University of Hawaii in Hilo She said that when pre-Contact Hawaiians needed to carve a canoe or a tiki god they Nvould take a human sacrifice(slave or captured enemy chief) up into the rainforest and search for a suitable tree. Capon finding one, the kahuna would sacrifice the human before felling the tree with adzes, and bury the hotly at the base of the tree (trading a Life for a life in thanks to the forest gods). Then they'd use holualoa, like the one in question at the Royal Vistas site, to slide the giant, now sacred log, down the mountain using rapes (ll'a violent Ownderstorrn and lightening occurred before the cutting, the life of the hurnan sacrifice was spared.) Twenty years ago, my %kife and I attended a lecture at the King Karnehanielta hotel by famed archeologist Dr Yosihiko 5inoto who told the audience that the largest archeological artifact in the entire Pacific Basin was the Great H,olualoa Slide built in Keauhou, Kona. Working with his mentor, the renowned Der. Kenneth Emory of the Bishop Muserim, they determined that the Keauhou Slide was 60 feet wide and 6,500 feet long, four to six feet in height and built on a 120DA_D. lava flow. Camrtloners smoothed the slide With ti leaf and banana f"rond4 but there were still hales on the rough surface that could kill chiefs apceding down its treacherous surface. When winter waves rase hiRli in Kona, a kahurra would stand on the beach axed signal with a white tapa liag for the race to the beach to suu.-.. The chief caught a big wave to rase against a competing chief speeding down the holualoa, the first chief to reach the beach and grab the white taps flab was the winner. Flawaai was a warrior society where meet died in such contests As%ye walked the Upper 20f l; foot slope, Dr Si nota told us that H ishop Estate had bulldozed the lower 4,500 }E' dic ? olualaa to build a golf course liich one can view today at the rut in the old goverrtinem road rnauka of the golf course's Vista Restaurant. This marked the destruction of an irreplaceable historical artifact. Awmt4 '. Haw much more of Hawaii must be destroyed'? We respectfully requo-i the T.eeward Planning Board defer approval of the Royal Vista project until a complete archeolraoical eValLeatic m ot the site is complete. 3. 1 do not consider that the archaeological studies atTered in support of the Draft Environmental Assessment are adequate 4 1 arm aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject land parcels includes features of the Holualoa Aide, including rack walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the Draft Environmental Assessment 5 1 base my corkers upon the evaluation and analysis peormed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. 6.1rn sum, the Dry ElIvironrnental Assessment does not discuss sufficient facts and trlalvsis such thac the important HaWai'iM cultural and arch aCD]0pical fearures can be understood, let atone properly preserved. 7. ,At a "IIHiTnLIM. the Draft Eavironniental :Assessment must be revised to address the location, data recover); and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. t declare:under penalty of perjury that the roregoing is true. Dated: Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, G October, 2020, I r Signature-. 1'nnt d ame: John a. iki Colonel USAF(retired) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Via email: kinaust24gmail.com RE: Comments on Cultural Resource Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Miki: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 6, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 am specifically concerned about the destruction of archaeological features of the said area being considered for extensive housing development. We respectfully request the Leeward Planning Board defer approval of the Royal Vistas project until a complete archaeological evaluation of the site is complete. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 and in Appendix 5 (Archaeological Inventory Survey [AIS] reports) in the EA, the entire project site has been recently inventoried for archaeological resources. One inventory covered 76.1 acres and the other covered 5 acres. Section 3.6 includes a summary discussion of the findings for both surveys that cover the entire site, as well as a discussion of how potential impacts would be minimized. The reports have been submitted to SHPD for review and acceptance. Comment 2: 1 do not consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. I am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 2: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Surveys (AISs) were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Page 2 of 3 Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1 .0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 3: I base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The IDEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The IDEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 3: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1 .0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. John Gerald Miki Page 3 of 3 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: Fra?iki_, H,!m)y ,fionkiq, hei-n I-: I r oni> Tops dEy. "'J-=oer X- J 4:52 PM lrltprl et Mail Subject: Royal Vistas I lousing Project EA comments Bclow 'i r2 ni v 4 clrl ]Ie 'V:11 'ul I Koll,l) I)[--i 1-1 F A. f 111C'11,1(l4' ;11 f?J M 1L:X1 W11:-7h Ill Ill L-1!L.-L1 or eVdA I:['CL I :k',' rUXt I I I'L1 irl ryt.illtliI[IS Ill ii p I Cture J1 I L ill i-()tC It 1.2 1OU 1.0 Ila JILUC W I d ILI I-11111C I C. I Ill? I 1(5 I;WILI%L' case acccpl -11: I, thlt- Clid as lily digital I I I,, k I I r"f 11 1'4 PkI, It 11'ck I 11v oni;I l 1 r I.:I r,I-)-,:f onl - or nl"or L' I,:, ; .I of 7l 7255. Ill I All.'A ] .4 01 \K'I I I i i.\1 1:Y 1.I liet pror—+ ':d !.-.111 fL` ulor'l"!J i,i:11L!c1 I -, 11,L- ofthepending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project I'ax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021:016, 7-6-0?1 (11 7Y. 7-6-021 :01 9. and 7-0-112l -oN N;Piih Kumi Dl,,ii clt- H,wl wI lslaikd. Statt'of m;I I,I 0'C%. I." llLC 110"OF:111,, Iw WC11 Al IM Wh.JV.S1 Ill I-C.-Ill [11'011 Th' :-':"]Jc within l I k' 17 1 '.Ak' Ili"Oposed I.Ind development project. In such capacities, I have firsthand kiu-. td-LLL7 lolhl-- Ei.t-, 111L:ts and could and would testify thereto if callodupon to do so, 2.1 have revilewcd the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT including the Traffic I I n pa,,-i analysis Report by SSFM Linlemational, dated May 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT lani specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within iihiw( Ilic K ,ii:[ lhat are not fully or accurately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Impict AiiaLysls Report, are discussed in the lardy of the DP,AF-T ENVIRONiNENTAL ASSESSMENT- at pp. 48-56, 67 and 711. 3.In the Kona ViAM SUI)tlk 1. 11;: [)I T'1-0.'Cot relik!-S c111 thc U.e of Ll SL[bstantlar(l R)"(1%k L}.V. K 1,Ll A;1.1 N;CC I 'Cl-, A L:"- 114A.i I-':'I I,!L:q I ,PLIJIT Sit 1:C i LC r: i curvc,, ri(1 IS L[iI['f1141' \i 11!:L ILL.I Title k.fIkc I IIL2 III11)'LLC` 0 1J)Crc`.&,Cd P-iltlIC ,LriSInla ii-0111 PITLL IC 1 :1W1 P11.14t' _' 11LLIiLI,"Lw, all the I{i',Ll 1'twt,lw i10USintj 1'k 'CL i lti inrLtic lli,I;c1 w d In 1 1e ""Y'°'V, I r.lt-lk 1r1111:1c" ln.li'`°si K,[J ol1. 1I1i4.111 focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kay'ahurnaau Highway. 1 aw P IF CLls;LClti +``01ICtr11Cd tll;li Ad(IIllg numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuana'oa Place. C ('I;>ici r thal the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. 4.The DRAFT LNVII.()Pw.'MI A'I .kl AS[ '_,--SN11:N_1 Ft!qulres .,.,u_LI S ct_ ad°c fsc c cr nccr xfrrrrprr ls- such aspopulatilm clrcmgvs wd pal,':, + r: : ;,t scc t ':I:,pror 11-2DO.I- 13, Hawaii Administrative Rulcs. Tnstead of squarely alciclressing these issues,however, the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT simply ignores them, lvlaiming"t "No advmc secondary 0_1LMs are l.t.wl41L'LD `,J11 . .f` ,.L4".' ::; I.:L'lli %4 Odd LA'111j.L L'.kl;}tl'i1; Ill.l.i?t,;l:t:III L, llrO lti'X 17':illl h0IL1,lFI-1. .;lld 1* lIo LlTlt'itf'LL to .' ll`I II'I .`:I11` , ,:'L !;II i,''lii;111+ 1 t: It is the ENVIRONMENTAL A SESSMENT to Lail to address t11L I I,t'! c .III;I',.C1 , all i11CI Ati 'IT 1!_I tl'E' lJ;0 4>I substandard existing;infrastructure, like Kekuana'oa Place, 5.Ill:• 1 )R`'l I I N II^'.I I'' MIi• w, I .\I 1 I `":" II ', I ,lLla!`t'4ti+' .Ik:V'I`.L' C;:.1 11k It1L1ti;1ita a.aiIIN ill the 4-L11-4.'lt ',i: ',ti1!'.t'I 11';,, ,:I'SF '_I 'sia',!1,1 1JA) ,1 .,!41.Yi'.'Y!f.1?? .fdilCO 5C L-MV? 011 1l-hC ,,Ij. TIio .`pplIcarlt cI"rllll7', Tlic Piv[)o c 1 F'Ila1u; t tit'ouhl. I101 :llttL'I J"L11-11i : Ils:,lilll [Li :InY ll',I4_ -4orl;1w;Llot 1k'i"_I l kc i:!ll)I,ll'11,110 r L ;P, of in drainage structures. Traffic mn1 10t I1JV 17Ce11 lak-CII 1[Ilk) k: 1,ALll C0115idL1-iltlalll ill 1110, L:t des i en." Emphasis addled. This bald con [union does trot address potential adverse irnpacts as required by Chapter 11-2W1-13, Hawaii Administrative Mules. fs.The Planning Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENrs reliance on the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which has the following deficiencies: 2 a.Li I"..': i.1' addruti" Alt 'A C:.iC .'L I AIL I I k 1"J"Lli '.kL" 14411 I,[-, I i\ i-'I..,:I •.I I; project; b,The SSFM TrufflQ Impact Amflv'ti',, Rcpo-t titic,4 .i Erovvih r:ifc of 1%, in ';,n-:-,:..,! 1,, growth rate employed by the 2018 WitcherEngineerinQ Traffic Lmpact Analysis Deport. Traffic coiu,-,`"-Jon k very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponciihal relation; 1+)kL '.01 11-JUlu—enerational housing 4:111wictcr1'.['C A 1:1 1 la'xx I d'A-_ _'t2Jl:-Us dataa.,.d I[IL't LIALI d,'J."i frips a[U-1hutable to 1ILLIMUL11 L)FAlic prorx)%ed project-, d,The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 953 veJ i tc les iul N v[1hbound Quccn Ka'ahuinanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019. a weekday and AUL-FLLN't 14. _N 119, a S<A€kirday. compared with ttic 'D I \%:i%:J)ci L i q,i i jj.'L'i J I I 'I I Li I I I:' I A 11,11 1 1 I C[101 whip:h roporicL]vohicle.,; f0i .1,111UMV [4 ;::id 15. 2016. h0111 Y, :CkdLVM 111C UIRL;L]J![N IM VC1 L volume of 953 is also at odds with Figure 4(if the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour 1112016 for Northbound Queen Ka'ahwnanu Highway at 7 a.un. The difference in volume is rnore than doul)lu the m.axirnLM 10% variation generally a+ p1cd. in day-to-day Se. Repon filr a roundabout at Queen1).\ 5; N1 Traffic Impact AnalysIis Ka'chum allU Hi.J],441'1 dill I!UL1101;11 Nllnhk 1 v. th ihe uiafw C11:11JOE. t1111L pass warrantor but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability con ccrns for the goveirimcnt; f.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring Of the intersectionn(ersection of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an in(ci-section passes morc than one warrant Linder all conditions.. it ShOUld be prioritUccl for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be cxacdbaled by the proposed project. 7.Our household has personally observed some very dangerous events and situations pertaining to traffic inside the Kona Vistas Subdivision and on roads and intersections in the project arca defined in the 3 I)I.1E 1."•`ti 1[1::Y`;'I 'w. I I ss , viE , I ,-;F°M Traffic; Impact Analysis Report. The following is just a r. l"'•.4'lll'• l;iw;i,.,' t`IL:M t i;i tl:?i:lt:wl.til'= 1, Many occasions of vchrcles rum ng the stop atgn at Kamehamalu and Leilani St.at full spe d- 2. Many orcatiions of vehicle~rt Ictking itwornplew stops at rUnacharna.lu and Leilani St. 3. Gardner and landscaping vehicles harked in the traffic lanes on Kamehsnralu St. 4. Sch( )l bus Crossing double yellow line and speeding on Karnehatrnatu St, 5. IConvnercial car hauling.gerni-tra der track crost+ing double yellow line on Kajuchaatalu St. Ftarced itrtu f ona VYstas frorn lack of apace to turn Westbound from l•''ord dealership- 6_ Building contractur parked in traffic lane on Leilani.St just off Lako St,As vvre turned the pick-up uas not visible but was left in traffic lane-q and we had to go around the empty truck. 7 Commercial vehicles speeding is wuhdivision,including but not limited to UPS,water delivery,peat control,pool cleancra,Clump trucks..vencrete trucks and real wiait agency 'vehiclea, h. Events outside Kona Visc'.Iw Subdivision in s1Ltlti arca of SSFM TIAR. 1. n .,;hi _Ilia ,. 1,•' 'xl .:., i l:l I.. - io turninglaneatQueen Ka.'ariumanu highway. Wt.4 '01.11iil ,11 I.AI, ',I .. ,.I ; I.I , , it II I r,l iCi'le lane at Qu"n Ka'ahumanu highway, 3. Latsl i'u:tEl on L-ako St, and uiwimi: Y, _'a l ,,flu Curning lane at Queen Ka'ahunbanu highway bui=se three r,li l:. UI' .'I•. to turning lade. 1 t ;Ykl E•..:,rtti l„ll.[.alas St.and unable to get into thru traffic lane at[queen Ka'ahumanu highway because left turn I.l l It ; .1* ;ill and blacking access to thru traffic, L3a:Lay was 2 cycles of else traffic signal which was an waiting home. 5. SOLI:'J" ..;I.. -t') I1'0.IEJ:-11 ? ; ' ;1:'.Y E Irn:highway and unable to get into Lurning lane at Lako St. because thru traffic V—V 1110CIIITI*:J1.c ti'E, turnil1L' taltif. 6, SQIL[h11A,11]1LI wJtt I ll:c`J7 KU'LLhi-CHILMLE high uy and unable to get into thru traffic lane because Icft turning lark wa,,full and additional vehicles turning left blocked aixe5s. 7. L-xpericnced:stop and go tl,lfl'. I 711' 11;•I,ry Si n, l:11nCrirr77EJJJhCE EEn I,II ;I p;tn&nuc wit3i very IL A'. LI.'1.,?1.tiI1''K" :I I.- tr.+ilkl. 8. l, Observed I.r`.la-•.1 t,'l'1i-k .il", - aa:'E...'E: '. .'I1 fwti.l!''".i 11-I 3 iL1157a:Yll "11_.11'AA.i' Xl4 II:It'I+.', I':' Ylw 3t r..iJLO St.w Kmaki-ni highway, f°t':.ipu i,t:, 11 4' 'I.I ``. 111 1,,:'.ItI'LE Di 14,6ci cciL5uw'I+ J;ad :,C a zpic rollcd -,Chicle-S. 9. Ob.ervcd the al'or.t :ri' s't re.lr,. nv r, a' E,I it ,wiri, 't I; I'.11,rLl 14 111 f, ,1t7u'lttah hti. 10 i1ollild 1w Lh -Sea View CiTC[L. 1" .1 I Jet':1:111] J I'- I I Ik: 'L' I I k',:, I X 7,',:j1 OT h.9 vt'w pRll in[D the I Ig.I "i I., Whi I I!st, I I ki I W_ J L`Al"-..' 12, 111M W:1-' III CAI J .,'-I I- U 1h.1 J 1:I.. and in one case caused neck and back injury tha(I-L'L.I ,.; I rf,Wii:-,[ :1 rid Logi -I.:, 13. 0b,,;Qrvcd drnv' .i.,:I t iliat 1„L I I 1 1 :!L k):- I.-ri". LL n ow as lld [tLjkllred_ A. ita.:141i'li 411:121 1', :T1 TOU'd -1.:L1 %k-QI'Q I—! k IS. FlearemMency vehicle m; 1"ol. 8, In sum, the Draft F11v1r`41WT1cnail Asse,s,mcnt and SSFM TrA`Ic [W!1aCL 2\1-,::,,wis MTart doe%not present sufficient, ci-Milble facts and allalvs-Is such that the 4111 VXiStlng infFaStr-UCtUrC and resulting from increased traffic can be fully understood and result S1'!U i Ll FC. L':LA' L'C A 111C hi'l. W' I I i! tj I Ni LI[lature MaryT. Hemby DLLtcd October 6, 2020 S Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Mary Hemby via email: frankie.hemby@gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Hemby: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 6, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Mary Hemby Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Mary Hemby Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Mary Hemby Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 10: Our household has personally observed some very dangerous events and situations pertaining to traffic inside the Kona Vistas Subdivision and on roads and intersections in the project area defined in the DEA's TIAR. Response 10: Unfortunately, these events are not unique to this neighborhood or this part of the island. The proposed intersection and minor connector roads would be built to County standards to ensure their safety. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: Mark Powell <rnarkp50Ca1att.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2020 4-33 PM To: Planning Internet Mail Subject: Royal Vistas Housing Project Attachments: Royal Vistas Traffic Pictures.pdf Attached is a brief description of the West side traffic issues. Jobn t To Whom It May Concern, All the residents on the West side of Hawaii lsl,nd have a major concern with traffic and safety. There is a proposers development called Royal Vistas Housing Project that will adversely affect the already backed up traffic situation, on the Queen Ka ahurnanu Highway and Kuakini Highway and could acid 1,000 car trips or more a day. Lako Street intersection is already a battle neck because of the 3 south bound lanes, 2 turning and 1 south on Kuakini. Picture#1 shows north bound traffic on Kuakini having to turn across south bound traffic on Queen K to head north on Kuakinj highway which is very dangerous. Picture #1 also shows 2 merge lanes from lower Kuakini onto the highway heading south with a rery short dista_n e to move into a left turn, right turn, or straight lane. All of this traffic movements causes backups and accidents. Picture#Z shows the lanes a little further south on the highway toward the Lako intersection. This area is a real battle neck with traffic having to move into a lanes depending where you are going. Picture#3 showers the rLakc Street intersection. This intersection is very congested because of all the movement there. Vehicles are heading north, south, turning left, right, in all directions. Adding to the problems is the fact that Mauka bound Lako there are 4 business commercial driveways located on the corner, the Shell Gay Station and the Ford Dealership. Also there is no merge or acceleration lane from west bound i!aka turning right (North Bound) onto the Highway. Because Lako Street is so busy iiow traffic knacks up on Lako to try and enter the highway in either direction. Adding this new development without proper planning will bring traffic to an even great backup and create a high danger of accidents. Part of the issues could be alleviated if the State, County, and developers would work together. Build a signalized intersection bringing all the Royal Vistas Housing Project traffic Mauka to Makai), Kuakini's, and the Queen K's into 1 intersection, This would be much safer than it is now and with what's being planned. This would also improve the Lako Street intersection because it would eliminate the 2 Kuakini merge Manes heading south, AIso the State and County must think about the full widening cf both the Queen K and Kuakini highways. If this development is approved before the highways are widened, the developers should be conditioned to widen the highway fronting there property frontage now. [ know this has been a requirement on the mainland in sorne cases, Summary Build 1 signalized intersection bringing Xuakini, Queen K highways, and all the Royal Vistas Housing Project traffic together in one place. This will help traffic flow and greatly improve safety for everyone. Require the developers to widen the highway along there project frontage. Require the developers maim road through the development go Mauka tc Makai so there is the dower way or an upper way out (safety). Mauka to Makai is an existing County requirement. Don't approve the development until the Highway is fully widened in all directions and a new intersection is built, Mahalo John P. m2u GDNL- ± L#,a rn more 3end feedback IIIIIIIIW d#&,&.e1OW"r s d&.372,#. m w,ge2020 eLa Lear more Send feedback 1 wWY d r, of nd a.l,• a wy ufi Yt " t Iwo e Fri y•i7. P° to, ram µ.. ++ w w Pl Yr w s: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell via email: markp50@att.net RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Powell: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 6, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: Lako Street intersection is already a bottle neck because of the 3 south bound lanes, 2 turning and 1 south on Kuakini. This intersection is very congested because of all the movement there. Adding to the problems is the fact that Mauka bound Lako there are 4 business commercial driveways located on the corner, the Shell Gas Station and the Ford Dealership. Because Lako Street is so busy now traffic backs up on Lako to try and enter the highway in either direction. Adding this new development without proper planning will bring traffic to an even great backup and create a high danger of accidents. Response 1: The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) in the EA acknowledges the bottleneck that occurs at Lako Street. The traffic signal timing and phasing can be changed in the interim from split phasing to protected or protected/permitted or permitted phasing on Lako Street. The long term solution is the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Kam III has been in the long-range transportation plan. Comment 2: Part of the issues could be alleviated if the State, County, and Developers would work together. Build a signalized intersection bringing all the Royal Vistas Housing Project traffic (Mauka to Makai), Kuakini's, and the Queen K's into 1 intersection. This would be much safer than it is now and with what's being planned. Response 2: There are plans to re-align Kuakini Highway at Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway as shown in Figure 6 of the TIAR. This shows a new intersection just south of Puapuaanui Street. The 2010 Kona Development Plan shows the roadway with bike lanes and pedestrian facilities. This new intersection, with a new intersection at Kona Vistas driveway, and the signal at Lako Street would need to be coordinated. This is outside the scope of this project. September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 2 of 2 Comment 3: The State and County must think about the full widening of both the Queen K and Kuakini highways. If this development is approved before the highways are widened, the developers should be conditioned to widen the highway fronting there property frontage now. Response 3: The development is building a dedicated right turn lane. From a traffic operation standpoint, widening a short section of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to 4 lanes (2 through lanes in each direction) is not justified. Vehicles would have to merge back after the short widened section, creating another bottleneck. Therefore, the project does not propose making these improvements. Comment 4: Require the developers to widen the highway along the project frontage. Require the developers main road through the development go Mauka to Makai so there is the lower way or an upper way out (safety). Mauka to Makai is an existing County requirement. Response 4: There would be a right turn into the development. In the professional opinion of the traffic engineer, widening Queen Kaahumanu for a short section, since vehicles will have to merge back into 1 lane. Therefore, widening the highway is not proposed. Comment 5: Don't approve the development until the Highway is fully widened in all directions and a new intersection is built. Response 5: The widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway has been discussed and planned for many years now. The completion of this project is not in Kona Three LLC's control. The TIAR in the EA includes analysis of future traffic projections and includes mitigations that show that while the delay would increase, the overall intersection level-of-service (LOS) would be acceptable. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From r P., s<MIl t To: 11171--rl A '1111 511bje(t: P. .! ,I 5, u.l H.: J,.:-; 7-::J,-c t FA Comments Attachments: 1;. 13 bara Repasky signed 2020 Oct 3,pdf I have arrachl-,, i i-ok I in,1 1,l j!1'11t'L I C,)IJ to 1 L W-Cllti 11-1thiselij,! I I tj'- Z;JTJJ 111 11 tbat N -;Carchi1:14: 1-11-11 1111:,kl. l. Bar bLI 1 L) DIJ 1 -%l?, I 1,' 01 BAIIJAI., I. BARkAll, A. il,'Hl-4 K1 oj hwal-11.jam a I :I I K .11- Ell' 'A "L, deN.-tAopint,,liT pvo.iz,cl Ill.i I I C `,1 I3 CCII 1:1 L' 1-1--hd 171 1 L I I il 1 I'L I Ill l'71 1; V I-,1:114 1 It llj-S 11 LP I'ro I i 1; 0" N4 I I I Y i1JlL1 I N 11 7 KoLia Di Lrjd, liam,,Wi o I'Hr4 i Ci It I I 11,ti ll.a I1R'I`•5'11,111k a. Illy I 111,'l Q'I'l 1:1 -k,.d I vesld .-- ".,11 -Fl 1-,.il I :1 1111 A: ,It'1 h': >y I I.jk I L, VC 11'H C,.iILJ Lipol; do-MM III 11'C Itllk-VAILI I L11 1, COLI!•d 11d -(.:I,J 2m 1" -1 2. 1 1,,:4 dic il,:mIfflu, DRAFT FNV I f)N\1 -1 A I S \-I I A il!i1,1A II1 k i 1.111-1 L; 1111 111wt A11-J.,,1-s Rt-pi.-I I)N S.'A-VI i.,114d i1lioclled ZL•, Alwclidk., " 1;, 11 e I)P, M. I. Ff\ INONNII-VI-AL ASL-,i- -,,VI11I 'N I I [,-Il oncemed 11:11[.L' ho!h with.111 i'h-u:. 1:c KonaVl,i.L-, I"loll s11.1.1 :Irc 11ol 1"I'11" JJLLL:,,Cd Ill (11C SS[ V l'i-IiAlc Impact Triitf'IL tIlld th" w"-IFV T['011' Al[!Lk>', ['VJILI[ Al \Y'd NA 4ti-,6, 6-- iii,l 1 3 1 c 1,, 1 1,4 1 1, u I it I I I E'I I I Uti'I),I tiCt I JV 0.1("1 1 Cl,' 1 C :I L! I 1; IT-If r 4 1:Li I wa IN'A t1,1 it j )A p K t'I, S!vt'I?. [Ulti 111111 1,CLI ti1aJII LII I.11ik4'tid Lll' k VA I k.::It Q VILI I iIJ ld I ti I I,;1-1 A Y w Ill nk I d L-,`':11 ks, I c i 11-p I i I t t I'aff][Q al'i SlDg f10111 Pha S C I WId 11;1; h 11,1; 1's 11 Ro, I V'LS1 I 110US111gPTC L.C1 mlidcqualely 2 1,111, Al L'L 11),adt i;ih"i. I iii,i LL d R IL-1 Queen I kv!I N.. I 11 1--L I F I I C L 1 m U-1 V Ll I I k:C!F I I L 1(11[1" 111 J I I',L't k I'; L'[11 11 Al 2XA1 a separate su,, P-:,-I,-JI 14.11, 1);,.-.141.A.: tLil:2:1': Kc`rIUJi1:I 0;1 411V V;m Im.- I ),'partment sh t.,1 i'q I !',-,jLII[V 1111fl t* jij1 711L - 4. '1 1i,: DP AFT FNVIRUNNIATAL ICUILJJ-,, .L1.,::i Ja 01 L11110 !.11 OLLL::,- Jd%CI1,-: t,C.'011dary OF 11 1. K I 1 1 \.IFNTAL ASSI SS\11 VI -,Ik dl,:M. k1ii16JL111v tllikl "\0 tik2 A'i Ll P-'.L'ViT k, 4 kI I I I 1C II.iI-;vs11-LICIu;C- pll!l ldk:- nrfll 11olimilin- all'; I': Ill 1 k_`N,)C'-iCd ti) 1A.Std.( Ul h F 1 I L:LFLCLII: kll. :11C I)IR AI I I it V IUII11,1;11 k 1 L-1 t .A 1k: k i I'.I 1 %,'.,v 1 1,1%.-, A,)[, S'AILN I I.,,, 1,,11 I,l I:, JiL- 11,itk2m1i--L1 :Ldvc-:u;C of 11k., [L,;-' %-F-ioll i.111.1iLjd 411:1!j hirr,tire, like 1'.ACC Thc 1-ji".0-T ENVIROV\11 N [ .-\I 1 N11-N I d% hci I.1o. I 1-1c: n r, v"I'1"v :l -[Ili, ml L:1'1'L:L7r cm m;1,';L.- liu-Lilih, ThL' ILL ' I Ili 11 J.11.1 L: :,I FULAUFe-S. 11EtiIIC 1 1): 1( 1 14 11 1 w.:'l i II I I A I L LkI1kcn, mto caicHI .,iw,I 1dcIL potemial advt,i .L-, mpZ, 1 11 I,m- 1 15,, Ch,ip1u i 1-21 00.1-13.d- Ills bat d I 11" LRIIIIL27-.' t Fimv.i 1 A dw I R .leg. 3 6, The Planningp DePM1 T11 ell I should TI(It accopi flie DRAFT LNVIKONMFN I AI, ASSESSMEN I's reliance on 111c "'Y"N-1 'I riLCfic Imp,ct An-JIv,v, I qitsvi. , h: 1, Ila Ilic 1'0111lwin.s."dcl--IL 4"k 1. fdlki": 10 Ul.k Cl-.-A: 11 ill'[I C I Ill yILLL I`, VV 1'1.11-1 jjiC [.k I]IJ -N tj'.?k,P. [I_tiJij :I'- U1 1:L-:I I pro i cct-S ii. Tiw rratii:,, in,.pilC kt111'i1ti RC]1011 .1,4CS a gxrowfli raTc I . en i:ont,.,,Nstto t"1L2 2. IV the 211 IN W1,tCheT- 1 11 1 1; 1 v i port. 'Tra I'l'I L L,1114PeSttOn 1-S 1 L tO ill I:C--, :11 1(511 110,'11', CX I I L'I i L I L L 1 1-t2l I 11 C. ThQ I I AlnI]Vld - RePOI-1 JM2' com—,11 in I I Lw,lll data ,;il H:,L-I LIl ii4°ri'ti11:. _'.l `i. JMIti vehk .:)s attri h, ;akl -ki 1 1":1111[ OH11C 1Y,11)1 ISCd PYL I,,_ S FM T I'l I i-1 I I i; i`, R L I W I I LAI i I I 1 1: 1.!:•L: I IM ' Ch I C I C I.1 D-.0 0 1 L, L)11 'J 11 1!,1:1 Ll (111 i L--,-I! I\ 11111.:1 1.1 Ili -11,%,! 1 11 1, I k 1 1; I A 16 1 - 7019, L J:I L I t.: i, 1 9. LA 111'AA 0 P'll 1%R:1 i V, v 111,., I 'N W 1010.: 1 1) 1 `.t 4 11-.: .-1 115:,.I All It 0.11017, Wh L+ r'L'I)k+1 I 14 15. ?III r1. 11:!l l T]L,: Ui[J."''jil 1 ik"V, I i1 I LJ VO1UI11(: Ll-. is V I:1 i ik. 1111Imd A31-1!."., hl--h I 1!A. 'T111-kikillwtely I OJO N,Cll Irk 111L w 1-1ki n'l 1u I I 1 y al 1.1-1 lic '11[,levcn Ce 111 volume is 1110'U i11,111 .',!A:--k.- t 11L i I I'll aT I 1-1L:I)O1A! ALt 11) md 111U5 C I I L 1!1 1k.I I l-,I I I ki j I I ,!I 42L,:n K I:fli-1:11-1.-111 J 4 oorrldor Intersections that Vass warrants but remain un i.gnahzed present traffic safety liability concerns for the L 1 1 Tra IT c Impact A Tl;1 I%m k eporl fot mov,I or'ng(51. 1 lie iv t orsw ion t kf Queen I 1 11[A21'. itill I)Jsses 1110re thall LilleKaI"i I'14-%k,1" ;-,kl lk 1 1 I I i'llwLiv 1" 1 j k -111d a silv i, 1''r ins-tallal'oll- "I'll'YJI(ll L 1 1'1:1. [It I)k- I'!;11'i'Uk'k illy I I I S d I 1'.ti 7, 1 Ioi:-- i1w Dr.ili and S I'A'I 'I CAI 1'.L 11,.1IIICI A,11:1'.'. ,Y, k '1101 C dOUS 110( P1'CSC11L Ili L—,,d hic 1.. '111;1 ';h;1. N L 7 ;11 ThO 111 . I[iJ),'-L Lill d residum, from inLI CaSCl trill'll C C;11 1 1-34' fi-111% ',JUILN I,`[Wd iIrld FL:AIII -1 7 pl-ri,.-,mi:, .-wd 1 -'ipo1:1se- HULA.I:L2 .mdcl p:Ewlt\11mit ?11 Ls Ll-ui . D,i'12 k 1' 1,L!I 111 a-K OMi, 1141 WL L 1'1, Octo b et 3), 2 0 2 11. Pnn[L6 ;iLime: Bait-ldi'a Kcpasky 2 DF-CLARATION OF BARRA-R-A REPASKY 1. BARBARA RHIPASKY, declare: am a resident of Hawaii / Kona Vistas subdivision, Cuunly of Ilawai'i, State of Hawai'i. The proposed land development project Lhat is the Subject Of the Pmdirig Drall Environmental Assessmert sithiln-Itted by Royal Vistas Housing 11toect'rax Map Key Nos, (3) 7-0-021:016, 7-6-021:()17, 7-6-J 02 1:0 19, and 7-6-()21,1119 North Kckni District, Hawai-i Island, Stag: of Hawaii ate` cLs ine personally as well as affects my interest in real property. I reside within half a ntile of the proposed land development project. In such eapaLl ties. I have firsthand knokG Ldge of the following foL;N and could and would wsfify thereto if called upon i o do so. the-d pcitding ASSESSW.N.TIhavercviewL including the Traffic Impact Analysis kepuri by SSW International, dated Mav 2020 acid attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENV IRONWNTAL ASSFSSMENT. I am specifically concerned about adverse Lraffic innpa"s bolh N%ifhin and wirhoul the Kona Vistas SLIhdiViSiOn that ire not fully or accurately addressed in the SSFMTruffic Impact Analysis Report. Tr-affic and [lie SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. are discussed in the holy of the DRAFJ E,NVIRON-MENTAL ASSESS M ENT. at pp. 48-9i,67 sand 7l. In tfie Kona Vistas-qi6klivisJon, the proposed projec(refici on the wse ot'a uhslandai-d roadway, K,ekuana'()a Place. Kckuanwoa Place is very steep.has limited sight di st uiix-i duo Lo cxtrerne curves and is nnr-row wi th no sidewalks: The impact of'iriurva-wd I raffic ansini) floni I'llase I and Phaw 2 build'OLItS ofthe Royal Vistas 1-folusling Prcj,ct is inadequately addres,wd in We SSFNI Trafflic Impact analysis (deport. which t'creusxs instead can impacts along C,)u"rt Kaahumanu lligjhw+ iy. 1 am particularly coneemed that adding numcrtILB vehicle trips to and lroin a:ee xtrate iabdivision gill present d.anOcrs and congcstlon to residents along, Kckuwiu`ua Placc. 1 uunsider that the Pluming Dcpa"ient should require Lhi applicant to address these concems. 4. Thy!DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires cvAua.tion of among. others. ail verse se•cemidaru irrFpr co?, siwh as jmpulotion changer or cJfec is ors pteblic ic'iiides. Sec Chapter 1 1-?l1t}_1-1__3, I lawaii Administrative Rotes_ Instead of squarely addressing iliesc issues. however. the DRAFT EN-VIRON IENTAL ASSESSMENT simply ignores them, k tanning that "No aalvcrsk;scuondary° cffects are cxpccwd slncc the.devclopment would utilize existirir retsastructure, provide infill laattsua , anti is riot expected to result in substantial dcman& to County -.mess," It is a scriou omission for the 'I)RAFT EN. -V IRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT to rail to address Lhi Nwntial advursc impacts ofincrew4ing the use of substandard exx Aing infra,struclure. like Kelkuana`oa Place. 5, The DRAFT t:NVIRONMF:lw TAI_ ASSFSSMF.NT addresses adverse trat'hic imposts caul} in the cuntuxt caf wwhether the; prOjW tiuokald Have a suh,xra'nftul dredger" effied on puhlrc healilt: The Applic.wt claims, "I"he Proposed PR)ject would not affect public health in any w et ;storrnwrxter wsrLticl be ttpprctpriau:ly disposed of ill clr,Lii9 eke SV'Ll lure,;. Tralllic iiiw..aL L: laayu 2e It taken iratta careful consideration in project clesi ;i." EU-1 a5 5i acicicrl. This bald concIusian does not address potonLiaI.adVeme impacts as required by Chapter 11-200-1-1+, llawtrii Admini.gmtive Rules. 6.I.l`, Plannintio 1)cl.u-tnimt should not accept the DRAFT ENV IRO NMFNTAL ASSESSMLN I's reliance on tha: SSFM I'niffic Ianpaci Analysis Report, 'which has Ilse following, deficiencies: a_failure to address arciversW rraffilc impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising frurn tfie prg'[ect; 1}_ -Che SSFN4 Traffic Impact Analysis kerxsrt uses a.growth rate of I%. to contrast to the 2% growth rate enxployed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impavt Analysis Report. -fraflie cun,,,cstinn is ver-,• scns.itive tea growth r<1te ire a iron linear, exponential relatl4)n: C.The SSFM Frat iic Impact Analysis Report does not recognize multi-generational housirig ch=deHb6cN common in Htiwaii according to census datar and likely underesunaates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project, d. The SSrM I'tafFic Irrspact Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahurnanu highway on the selected dates of April :30, 2019, a weekday and August 24,20l9.a Saturday.. compared with the 2018 Witcher l:ng'sneering Traffic Lmpact.Analysis Report,vr•lvr.) Tgporiod 1057 vehicles forJ anuaryr 14 and 15.-r)(6, both wcckdays. The uvustW l-v low rely rrtL:d volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure I of the SSYM fraliic 1teport. kvhich shaves approximaieiv 1050 vehicles per hour in 211 lei for Northbound Queen Kaahuinanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in tltty-tea ciao measurements and thus unreliable: C;The:recommendation by SSFM T'rrifFc Impact Arrailysir Report fora roundabout at Chu n Ra Wiwa wiu HighiAdy and Hualalai Road!north) is inconsistent with the Ire fflo I corridor. Intersections that imsss wvrr!nr hill rc nld.In utt;ignalircd present traffic }afely Habilky f".lie ccc,ommendatitxn by SSFM Fraftic Impact Aivilysis Report for monitoring o the intersection of Queci, Kwil ujiiarlu 1 lighway antl. Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where. w; here,an intersection p iLses more than urte warm it under all wriditions, it should he prioriti7.ed for study and design ofa signal for installarinn. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed pmjcct. 7. In sum, the Draft Environmental Assessment and SSFM Traffie [nipact Analysis Report does not present sufficient,credible facts and analysis such that the adverse impacts can cNisting infrastructure and resulting from incrcasud trafie cmi bu fully understand mid result in upprupriatt:pov orttment planning and response. 1 de'c.laue under pcnulty of perjury that the foregoing is true. Dated: Kailua-Knna, H,11v,Ji L ( clollcr 3. 2020. Printed name. 13a7bam Repalsky 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Barbara Repasky 76-152 Kamehamalu Street Kailua Kona, HI 96740 via email: wayne.hemby@gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Repasky: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 5, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Barbara Repasky Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Barbara Repasky Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Barbara Repasky Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: a:,-I I-r-'a I -z-[,)m Sent 4,,,,.-J I I , 1 4),. To: Flk-inn :nt,-r-r Subject: Kona V,s Las 110,A,. k.-c. Pill-, 1+ I'LINI 10 1112-0m) You 111:lt 11:, tl,-- hLviilg souLdil 11.1VC 1141 [CL'011eCtioll Inn doemiloill Wd L,-,ircly have not tiJ)Okkll ',Vith Lill)V 11C 011 fltl\ C011 ;L11!Al:1 011. mahulo Sent from PratonM.911 Mob-fle G G Cl, a ntec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Caleb Kekoa Nazara-Pelekikena Via email: knazara4 proton mail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Nazara-Pelekikena: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 7, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project stating that you had not been contacted for consultation. We apologize for any confusion, but attached please find attached an email chain between our cultural consultant (Mr. Glenn Escott) and yourself confirming communication, contact, and request for consultation during the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) process for this EA. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at 808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Kekoa Nazara To:Glem Escott Wed- Foh 19 at 10-45 AM 1:L I-11L-11" III,: I did 111-c I,q Ihni doll aiid DT,N7Z 117L'jccL I %C hLoll"J I h0VC!l'L h'h a JlklV:c I :,I him No f%%ji[Lhis and L ha,tik.Li%.Vl 11`21VO' Sent from mY Thone Ofl Feb 19,2 020.an 12:24 11 V c l I vrote: Al 0 11 U v K-4ko 1. A: :1 11 L',-v'l)I 1 I I I I:': 1 7 ,,1 1'.i P70 I LLl ll'.j Ill a:,Lm III \liul-!m 11 w,.-POOIJ 10 III wu mid I 111 7 1., 1"11'm II ar: 1w,2 m Caw,iilll' ou %II7;Lr'T 1:1,1d Please see Ili,_ u I;Jizd C I con i L 1 1;1 1 m I rt,quisf f o I, I I u I :i I rl- L1,1:1 Tfyou il"Iul 0.MA L .-iwlll,4 olstknrit Services.lnc. Mori, Ashl" F roffl: r I },-!ri',u: Sent:pii,daj- 'Ictobu! :'7. 11020 5-17 -M TO: Cc: Yee, Subject-HOUSinCI Project EA Corn"v_-W5 Attachments: 1`1`17t',ILJbMl;s101, R-CY131 ViMaS ID I'L;,p& Director Yee .t.tvil the Membors of the Hawai'r CuLifity 1`10f7rli,119 Deri",irtnieni, Please see ino auticnec, POF docurnerit containing my comments.que6tiot)s and Concerns regarding the Draft EA submitted by Ihe Royal Vistas Housing Project developers and their f onsullarils. As [tie EA is nuleo Is a "Draft"- it would be my hope illal. important op questions, IssuIC-S. QOPS and conc.erriti will be more hilly arld direUly addre5scd iri a Final versioll Thank yoo for the Opportunity to cummQnt Rene- lwjhii ATTACHM.-..') :PDF Docwlient itiF skibr-nission of reqUOSted comments to Rannrog Dept. 1 13 66 G 4 Y 111-ANNINiC.; L-T- I WS ?0'0, RE: ROYAL VISTAS HOUSING PROJECT DKAF1 EA 1, Koiw4 L. Inaba, declarc: 1, 1 am a rcsid,.xt ol'Kiill,la Kona, of I lawai'i, SmIte of Hawai'i.The proposed land development project that is the subject of thepQn&nv Dnaft Envirouniental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021:016, 7-6- 021:017. 7-6-02 1'.01 iK, zaud 7 4-If.' I :,1'F th Komi D[strIM I-lawai'i Island, State, of Hawaii F1 I", i I In JnI,: ii personally as well as affects my interest in real property. I rc-Idc "''Llhiln 0A miles of the proposed land developmcm project. In such capacities, I have finihwid knowledge of the following facts and could and wQUld testify thereto if C.11:'Ll !.11 it o do so, 2. 1 have reviewLxl the pending DR-APT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachments. I arts specifically concerned about; the completeness, accuracy and adequacy of the information provided. 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL'H I STOR I C AUC ULTU R 6L, AND THOSE CONSULTED. It is not clear that the archaeological studies c)ffcr(Xi in support of the Draft Environmunial Assessment are fully complete or adequate- A) Sample size and cornplcWmcss: There are a number ki;'J'eaw i e I, ,:iaeplagicat, historical and cu ltur4l significance that are notD if i1eq I iii.r allir 11 1 ti r 1,, 1 k),:I i In I-n( ha Li d c I ro,s cd o r 1 y a small sample of the land and features as opposed to a full study for purposes of identification, iogging/cataloging,and Page 1 of 7 memorialization of key features of aoneeril tit local I lawaiian. kanla'airla. and stakeholder populations.. B) C'on,,ult i0o s and AQtual ('liltllut:'('r1MMUEi1,,: TIWlc Wk: JISR)1:luest elms that need to he hettoi ar1swcrcd about what constitutes"Consultation was M19111", see Page 42, as noted quolod 1-11-otn the SCS CIA for the Pr'ojcct- It is not clear what intonnatiion was provided. and if the parties Lhat %v,21c I iia(l aLkdluoii.,l slut:LLs that still stand uniin,,vL Ti_!11 ,Erin lUl ilLw ll1s'4k 6L1 111;w i1;1)1% f7]- :TL1 L Lill IE711mw ior] of Acceptance, agreement orcorlcLII-r,'llkti I L t11A."• a'=:r:Iti:ry ++" .11 i[ is not clearthat 11,11, (%:,U11-Ld, i.c-- in the absence of atfirmati,Q statements>by these individuals and related consliluencies. Tlikit said* a more complete understanding elf the nature of the inquiry, casual or significant, would be helpful as well as documentation from the parties listed asserting their actual positions anchor questions. 4, C UL.TI JR AI. AiND OTHER FEATURES AFFEAR NOT Iw ULLY DOCUMENTED t sl" l•.1) +.11, :1c IN1.1 %;IS-QDENTIRED FROM THE CULTURAL L A\f Y, ' ;'l- A: N'.,k}:,:n:lili,:l L'l i, ,,iiee exists That the land encompassed by the subject land in 1iv, 1, 11: 1LII IC ,I ,.L:I I.Ir.tI1-V sigllilica.nt HoluaJ Historic Slide, and rtx:k wads that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the aml>aeological studies offered in support of nt_ `I I-x i; a signili.-:iw difference .and clearly important to 11_t:Lh I`,uL21 h;.''ll!": ;J_-,,1, +L I t- r:;i414'r+..? L. r,,11 The Ih,hi-i Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and 1•.'V1,-'L-111 contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. l } o,t.. 1,:;.o I t,[ -!le evaluation and analysis performed by Ti,iri l'iiIM'&d S1;,10.: ,',e„ :1.i; :11L, 1, 11L1 lai ill LC:11111.-11 aboul Ibis particular land and the imj10!-1.iML:k: 01 FOILIZI, :111M:1 Wl1L 11.I, w11.:ir4'il th it 611i ' I1-111,):l .4 ILh focal community=rnhers. Was .Mr. Stone consulted about his concerns, knowledge and Rage 2 of 7 information'? C) Local hLN I,frjinj tjIL: j,.:k)jj I,:. O1,'Jd:k; L<;; including Yolaii,,,i 111H-2 Df : L i LA:tl Purcol,-, as desc'nbcd). I'llev [ilk'1 L111 fl j building materials brought down from the watika forests presumed duough this land, its p-Iths, holua, etc. by the early post-contact Hawaiians in the building of thk: iconic Kona Landmark Mokuaikaua Church. Was Ms. Olson consulted on this study'? D) Were the cultural sle,,N ard and c-arctakers of the Kealakowa'a 1,16au as WC11 as the CALLMi leaders of Kona Outdoor Circle notified of this work and proposed development?GIVCD the connection of1he HejaU to the land as outlined in the Draft EA, as well as its position directly below the property they would also be 1,-L'A--, .A. J. 0,1V A!C1-L;I 1'!-4: 11-0 transported reverently throwil,to Kealakmva'a, thought to be the Ins( remaining canoe building heiau in the State of Hawaii and directly connected to these upslope parcels and the slide. Materials,pt,,,lrlol It-1 IL ILLded timbers,canoe hulls, and other significant Im iirmka-inak.a lij ok,i,,ioi6n- A:i)- the Hawaiian's path through Lhe pi:vpk•ri.w rind this ahupua'a, would travel 1-1.11-11 W =,mllij. I lic-ni I d-I c.vcl 1-in& kvci-c %-er.v critical for life and food provisioning as these parcels were the I i to or i lie people and home to the: Koi La fides System. Tirnbci-5 that ROW SUPPOI-I OU r inc-ILi i con W. I CLndmw k I)LJ I IIJI JILI-; 1i i Kona 41L LU I]:!ALJU alld 11 It: ?;JI 111C l Lire I liou-jii to this route before being dropped in the oceari's salty,curing waters and floalcd tip ID 111C 1'tUjIdIT-1.2 sites, Tlw,c !tmds 4u-e pre unled linked to nn( only those post-contact icons but to the pre-Lontaci and nokI, ,:idly rare canoe hclau of Kca!,L'rX Ll I I Q1ULJ 'Ll--; %LCl I 1;11 L ti 114 1\ 11'L!L14 k,I dUk: ILI 1)L'1!,I IdO e14.Pj1111L1!1 E) Were lineal descendniiii %i ItF. CULTE '0 the il;L511.11 1HIJ die bones/iwi My afforded infbnnatian and notification? tt was noted in the study I I ia(paper media was used,but given the Page 3 of 7 i1npL.mirice of land issues here in I lawai'i and recent issues with C atina Kea, it would seem out of an 4bundanoe oCtransparency and -1nclusivcncsti ulectrunie notification would also he necessary if the idea is to awtU ally prr>it'isgc 1'La11 114,631 K s ion Wcr,ether methods used but not noxed fully in the report? 5. l of aiwcrcd LL4 [w.iFa; aul :'.:,4 s nl l;t x [,1} ,.1,. II1ti[e:'1;`I.'; Intl Mis-timeld. Assoricil i',I Ill: i'-l;i ail ,:.I'.:It was nC7wd in the study that there was an awtlr4 no-- of dii but it also u;,; 1•S':L::! L.lt :attldies, such as far the Endangered Hoary Bats, were trot conducted at a time when they are active- Thus. additional studies that cover ikc 1 iw,,,- ,l rare and endangered I't.L .., a;i I, II•,i. should be required. Thi., u.,,,.l`,I -I,I -;A:111 10 I 0.1 lx: ii 14'.4'1 .71'LS 11_'t3a :.1'.11 ',I.•.' t.,l native tin`-9 illil jiSEi?l:} I[1]I 41:11I1I I w,_I .^• ti'. . 1 {r:1,, 81 i'I.1: Tit' R211orl 11l acknowledge the concern and issues with such species including the lip,,,:'. I ;at , i there a plan to better evaluate all the native,rare, and endangered species prescnt on the panels? is there:a l.t:l 'l' ._:.'Llclukt :t AlI 1, -11IJ l cvi-,plete study of the population of Hoary Bats during a sufficient period of rime Ln4 iu,i', 4 1, 11 n!-lit three of day to fully assess the impact of any development on any endangered species? d. Enxironmental, Safety.Traffic, Waterflows, Water Sheds. A) Si&Ecant issues ll" 'i' "`"i4:'11 II'iS!I'li? "Llr' 15i:9'1;.1 ,S.11:il J1:k c[oj mc_I:r S;:' `'i l:1`. I ['!4rL:piInn is done withoul full k'I i51',5PO Li i .w tHitGiC al1'..Lire effects. These become both costly for the u>t[aty :nil ;I i11-'.'L,;':ti t: In2 t~tlb is at large. We have noted in W,-,t I[awai'i, inclusive of in and II:'lll1 .IA rIgtfllK Jrla, tl1:,Lt •,I;[1.I.L`a'Sil. Ili+ tilll5_ IIIti [it '._;21 i_[; 1ti I;c';l Ia9"_L'Y I:iCrlti?n are 7CCwtn1 I I1;' 11,u l i:I ltrtani ;,':':'4"L . ':16, ,lil...:d1'u 1ti LLS l are the Holualoa bitch and Horseshoe Bend, which culruntly manage water excess and tlu Page 4 of 7 when precipitation is hcavier, are eff"tive old histoi I,: ihl, and %k. wi- -"i 1 1111)..n.l 1 ,ILI;I lCd .I I LL I Ct J 11% 'LL'.'k:3 xIj'[h,-: , I I R j 4:1' 1 L:L I J I I I I J VI1'W0j i rid 011dl:'[-41'_'Ll w!%:I:I L:!, iSSUCS have been resolviW'nc d;.,111 I- rL+,A-cd , "11 11!,I)l III rile' i k)ULIt'llelli. Ulld this ill ',I C I I _'4111=11.1 B) Has the County orHawai'i developed a plan to Id -M jl ki _.. etc. and/or n)Aic Isions for any developer, II`:' LLiuld development adversely impact adjacent, u p s lopu an(1 4 1 IX!I;14)1 I-- ,I 1':,1 1,4!. V:1,:. L. I-1111., Cd fi-oln a I ter3l i 0 11 S D f pre-contact flows? Drallra!w and water flow disruptions need to be handled with n full and complete environmellUl Cl The Tral'fic Study, as rioted In in,;- I )!-,ill EA Inc hAing hC till 7.1020 dooi, roi L etn sufficleni it h Ih v7NJIII:L I L:d I Cli era] and significant levck oft!'Alk LW 0i OILT --cond-try and residellilid 11 I C l 9:_11d I I f11K I w,S. -11-11C commerit addressing that "Traffic impacts have bccr taken into careful consideration.- is not. ALIII,M11. ltt L111:1 Lvc k-alid 11 I,C 1,L:Ik1 Those L -ii I0oi)L L:i I icludc 114!` II[L J11 I rhl,fik. unw-111 I', LAI L-I-L I'M 0111 CUMMURity here In PULL_ZJAI found o vid time trafile to be increasingly risky and dangerous on all of slur streets Llj_,i3l VU 4:01111ILIULHIY i[ILLI LIJS(-' In the sett- ovnding area- Any increase in population or density or thl-01.1 Ll I i Lul g 1 ik-r I loods 1111"211(1 sorl.I 11hc, I ol.-Ii 1\vl". hr:.:'L` po Illu 1.11 Ion, P,i es credible risk 111 .!lthatshouldnotbeignored. 11 wa, i'i c al% itsi ai L d nco :,Lni in a m rt,2d forw us :jlk:JF1 C ly i ,ac d to our madways in and around Pualam Eml-LtCN_ 1.0_ lhUI. sCTIIIC 4 311d 7- Sigmirkara and Fe-thicalelling rkks that "eL ha t I&WItled Mer the 111X'I V HL-,csc be very conscious of these very significant safety and inf.ra.mrU:,1UI_Q QO[Ww.TW7. It would be prudent of the County to require any developer', as in this case or any other large scale proposal,to act Page 5 of 7 Iside significant esi;row or bend funds with the County to rcnulncrate for I—' lil envlronnl lt,1l l"`.CLj?tL.'JI, I?il'L!wlit l..ill4lL:'.1 11" i; "•.`, 4r; L'--,'. !Ilt :1. i.' l"iSSC {,' IIi.JLl,llil: USA strain additional costs that might otherwise tall can the( 4 L11"1y Cl)- I Ilk' IV,1171L h'" I:V {" ,il:l.lV 0- l-lawai'i. Issues left for future rernediation and reriedy rare[,,' .c ork out well for lh citi7o,. stakcholdcrs or for tllc (rCIvcl-let°cnia \L31llP7 iTV. It 1 1:11 t '.4I.:.<L-AL' :',Ukl l:I}`r;Ir111:1I I}tOVI-,'ions scl- lrl I1IaLxL . I IJti tlIC dCVC10I1CP' ;1dCCIL[.Ilwl P11.LSIti ICI"L t L1;14111`, 11) rl4;1111L:111i III :md around existing con1tl monies and ro:_d%k;j%,s to a-,, Luv sal'CLl', [`)C:ICC LL110 LILLEL:i i11 lti I}1 L_wti111 1191','s 011 our streels and infrastructure? Has the develDper set aside sufficient funds in.County LicL uLl:tts 4) Settle an., 1';',11 L'`- 111 Id i Ll '^I i l a l'fi tll," : 1`l:t.' I c° ill[ I n a poorly executed or inadequately completcd i1.L.11r, .lilt[ LJI'.wt; L!' tiicalti l4r' IP1 liL!(r"k'iLlr'l' Ch,,lIILiI!„ os.? It does not III w i—lImi 0iorr c were sufficiently LI0C LlM'.'l]-i J in II".L' r'-11011 I-mi ir'olit we anticipate additional information and thought on funding the County for these significant costs. risks, liabilities in the Final Version? 6. 111 tiUMIlIal-r`. the DrA EoIviroamcllt-al A tcs5,mc 3t does not discus:k sufficient facts and analysis concerning important Hawaiian cultural and arthaeologic,a!l leatures, avi duos it fully addresv.watertlnw concerns, infrastructure issues, traffic, environmental and Mated future: exists and liability to the County. We need to ;,4` .° •l I Ll '1 1 .1' 1: -:IL I`- i'.n° f.1I I'% 1!'IrI_ ;14".if9l Ii7 :I'ii}I{I 1t I4 :111iI iI;!P1 Lt.',l.ii flat: L' is ;l.". 11 4' .11 il:O1 1'. 1 dl 'llll4„ I4„ slll ,l P7L ti. 1.4 I`JL'titlxy .',I;cl 7J'.,IL4L llul' :5,`iJL I _LI_ L''.i, .,i 11 4. tl'1, I;.1i ',lttIIIl. ", Cll `!.L,i' L5TIt'. Il<11 can rievci f7l' IV'.107L1I f ! I'll' !1'11.11;1• [ilL' J yJ I I .Ile"I;L,I11.1L'I7LL1 r ti7i`ti.ti1;1:'L1L ilIL1ti1 rti"sLbl'iI iL! .41dLtiss wd of the Molua(Slide),and related artifacts and lineal ancestry components present on the subject parcels. All infrastructure concerns need to be fully Page 6 of 7 addresscd %vlill Tiublic, in permin n,cl;t;rgs.i.e., not Covid lockdown lirrtlied participation or ability to speak. Ourkupuna inn _:I nti,1T_1 lit, 1W11L111J11prl .t ill both %; :ml 311d l-iCVd ., i.lr-ethe-IT 41 I:•kl.lll'r1Y.111.., 1: Jr1El I i'L"4LML ti1111CCIK1 I)C101L! A1.1 ll:lrl_. I`, A,1110cl. I." 111iCk"l :11 .I i T1 With historil:aI preservat1on need to be done ili warii ctit a11(1 111c kc, is:;uus oI-safetY, p1m ee, and maintaining the aloha of the land and its current tlor' iik:cd to be hold as a priority to avoid issues 311]L1.11 1iI II'.l'74t 1%`L' Il1'ivL' ,cL':i i!n tillhs'I' l3 lris i.1'y tl]t' is!illlll. 111 iYll tI11110S 013tMIIL`Ss and. i lirr;•, ` Illy respectingourpast and those that canic berare us will hold us all in These are my thought L111(i or !h-.° i the Planning Commission to relay baA 11) ;III: lit l,. , r : , . 1 IkC ,-1':1'A', k, 11':1;' and their report and declarations. 1 apprt,i Uut Llh 01)1)111TL111111' to tl1lt:tt''mi" S'11 issue-,ofgteat importance for our jbhind ancl Car Kona- Dated: Kailua-Karla, Hawaii, Doobel T 2020. Signature: ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE,'di Printed name: Renee L. Inaba Page 7 of 7 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Renee Inaba Via email: inabaventures@yahoo.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Inaba: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 7, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: It is not clear that the archaeological studies offered in support of the Draft Environmental Assessment are fully complete or adequate. There are a number of features of archaeological, historical and cultural significance that are not documented. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 of the EA and included in Appendix 5, two AISs were prepared. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Comment 2: There are also questions that need to be better answered about what constitutes "consultation was sought", see Page 42, as noted quoted from the SCS CIA for the Project. It is not clear what information was provided and if the parties that were listed, as asked, had additional queries that still stand unanswered and not disclosed in this document. Response 2: The information regarding cultural consultations is included in the Cultural Impact Assessment including methodology in Appendix 4 of the EA. Comment 3: Substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject land parcels include a culturally significant Holua/Historic Slide, and rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the Draft Environmental Assessment. September 13, 2021 Ms. Renee Inaba Page 2 of 5 Response 3: Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 4: Concerns expressed are based upon the evaluation and analysis performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, who has much personal information about this particular land and the importance of Holua, and who has shared that information with local community members. Was Mr. Stone consulted about his concerns, knowledge and information? Was Ms. Olson consulted on this study? Were the cultural stewards and caretakers of the Kealakowa'a Heiau as well as the cultural leaders ofKona Outdoor Circle notified of this work and proposed development? Were other methods used but not noted fully in the report? Response 4: In the email provided from Mr. Stone by other commenters, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31 182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1.0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. A list of those consulted for the project are included in Appendix 4 of the EA. The information regarding cultural consultations, including who was consulted, is included in the Cultural Impact Assessment including methodology in Appendix 4 of the EA. September 13, 2021 Ms. Renee Inaba Page 3 of 5 Comment 5: Endangered Species Studies and Assessments Appear Incomplete and Mis-timed. It was noted in the study that there was an awareness of this but it also was noted that studies, such as for the Endangered Hoary Bats, were not conducted at a time when they are active. Thus, additional studies that cover the times of day assorted rare and endangered species are active should be required. Response 5: The EA includes a description potential habitat for native species including the hoary bat) in the existing conditions part of Section 3.3.4. The biological survey acknowledges that just because a species is not detected during the survey does not preclude its presence. In fact, the biological survey stated that the hoary bat should be presumed to be present. The impact discussion includes potential impacts to individuals and to habitat for native species (including those not directly detected during the survey). The impact discussion including protection measures to eliminate potential impacts to native species (including avifauana and bats) and their habitat in Section 3.3.4. Comment 6: Given that the report appears to acknowledge the concern and issues with such species including the Hoary Bats, is there a plan to better evaluate all the native, rare, and endangered species present on the parcels? Response 6: Since the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat is vulnerable to disturbance while roosting with its juveniles in the pupping season, the EA Section 3.3.4) includes a protection measure for all potential habitat. "To minimize impacts during construction, woody plants taller than 15 feet would not be removed or trimmed during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15). Additionally, Hawaiian hoary bats forage for insects from as low as 3 feet to higher than 500 feet above the ground and can become entangled in barbed wire, if used for fencing. The Proposed Project would not use barbed wire for fencing." So whether the species is detected or not, the applicant will adhere to this protection measure for the project. With these measures in place, the project would not result in impacts to bats. Comment 7: We have noted in West Hawai'i, inclusive of in and around Kuakini Highway, makai of this area, that significant flooding has occurred when larger and intermediate levels of precipitation are present. The two important waterways already noted are the Holualoa Ditch and Horseshoe Bend, which currently manage water excess and flow when precipitation is heavier, are effective old historic flows and watersheds. Was water flow impact fully studied should any alteration of the landscape and hillside occur after all cultural, archaeological and endangered species issues have been resolved? Response 7: A new drainage study must be approved by the County prior to construction of any improvements for the Project, ensuring review and approval of proposed drainage improvements. As discussed in the EA, the project would not contribute or exacerbate the flooding issues. Per Section 27-20 of the Hawaii County Code, the project is not allowed to increase any run-off onto September 13, 2021 Ms. Renee Inaba Page 4 of 5 neighboring properties, so there are no effects on any neighbors from project run-off including on the County-owned parcels. Comment 8: Has the County of Hawai'i developed a plan to deal with waterflow disruptions, flooding, etc. and/or made provisions for any developer, contractor, or agent to set aside significant funds to reimburse the County should development adversely impact adjacent, upslope and downslope areas that end up damaged from alterations of pre-contact flows? Response 8: Section 1.2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. It describes that on TMK (3) 7-6-21:19, "Infrastructure during Phase II of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the Kona CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Additionally, as described in Section 3.3.2, Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by Department of Public Works, and there would be no drainage interruptions. Comment 9: The Traffic Study, as noted in the DEA does not seem sufficient to deal with the overall and significant levels of traffic on any of our secondary and residential streets and roadways. Response 9: Existing traffic impacts were accounted for in baseline conditions. Traffic counts that served as baseline conditions were taken pre-Covid and, therefore, could be considered a conservative estimate of impacts compared to current conditions. The TIAR (Appendix 2) thoroughly analyzes traffic impacts from the project to relevant intersections at the project site and nearby intersections. Comment 10: Has the developer adequately made provisions to maintain safety in and around existing communities and roadways to assure safety, peace and quiet as is present now on our streets and infrastructure? Response 10: The proposed project would be built using best practices currently in place in the State and County of Hawaii, as well as all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Comment 11: In summary, the DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis concerning important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features, nor does it fully address waterflow concerns, infrastructure issues, traffic, environmental and related future costs and liability to the County. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Renee Inaba Page 5 of 5 Response 11: These impacts and protection measures are discussed in the EA in Sections 3.5 (Cultural Practices and Sites), 3.6 (Historic and Archaeological Resources), 3.3.2 (Water Quality and Water Quantity), 1.2 (Infrastructure), and 3.7.2 (Traffic). We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Design with community in mind Mori, Ashley Fr hn c rrlefl Sent ay, 0 C"C' To- rv.4 Subject w;7,,ji I- Pr To whom it ri-lay (7 nrcAP, In regards to the propo.-,ud land development pmjc-r.A that is 1-rr, cmlbject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment sub-nitted by Royal Vista°,- H:-)usinq Prajc,.-rt T3x Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6- 021-016F 7-6-021:017, 7-6-02 and 7-6-021:0191 Nor li Kcna 'Dif.;trict. H vvai'! Island, State of Hawaii. I have found the Envjronmenb{l A7,sessrnert of th- project inadequate. The Assessmc!it snows great dt,tall on a 5 acre portion of the prk)Peit t,)atwas performed in 2018, and a much lessc dc_-tail, as vch is dated, assessment of the rernaining 6.5 acres. Within the, Property are very likelv renn3nt> of cala a road ( path of the canoe'!. Kaa 7.ccs were harvesLcd joove Hc4ialoa aryl logged down to '-ic Kisalikokovia'a Hk iaii vvhinf 1.1 Kca Ings v.--ere carved and rraoe ready, A portion of the actual path xAs on the props _-ry of the Holualoa Inn bed and brcAf,5t. https:Uwwxv-hol ua loai nn.<_u; i_isLory-of-i-hr-hol Lia-slift Most 1-1 ol ua s were used for sport, howevx r this H010a was built for hauling Kaa wood to the sea. One unlc,ik-- aspcct of th s Holua is its parallel rock 44(i]- to help contain th,-, Kod at, li was ,u-unspL .orted cicroj:i tier_ h..Nua. In the Royal Vistas A5ses,--,rnent it shows these walls a-lu hc.,A- they were used f1)1_ i; the Iota I 800s and early 1900,,. 1r, 1he assessment core samples of the revealing kUkL11:Thr ancient Hawaiians usmed kukaui nuts and ti leaves to help lubricate the holua for sliding the logs. 1*,k.aloa is translated to, c.-iglish as Long Slid--", This is a serious emission in the assessment. It has be2en obser%,i d by me-, Ha-ivciicvi Hawks, Hoary Bats, and UvIlk-, li,,P ir~ pi-opr,,,.,_,d Cf evelopment. The assessment only suggested that they weld possil---fly res,dl- ir !Plt- proposed 3 i-ea. The traffic study miraculously claims that the tro ffic has gutter; 1,ette, th ci n is i Ulei, prevlcr_.s h-nffir study. The entire Kona population would agree v ithout hrz-sitati,')FI, much To suggest that adding 1000 cars to this area .,Jon't really have r-F LjY'ri cal fi I ill 1ptt(:t i.,, wishful Lhmking. Lastly, I find it very unnorvi-ic, thaL thie ovn rs (Y" ftis land that is currently zoned as mult fzJr*4y have been using it as a caul i ar(-h nlkcoJ!-ig cows to trample historical sights. The majority of the cattle have been removed retiently, but at 'east Z cows are still within the property. I think it a lack of respect for an owner to do as they !PIE-ase, Ag land for now, and Multifamily forior-rov%i. Laws do not allaw for this, yi2l, it appears KV3 do42sn't want to play by the same rules as V-,Lc rcst o' us. Thank you for for your time, Sincerely, Jonn Bennett Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Bennett Via email:jwb1266@gmail.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Bennett: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 7, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have found the DEA of this project inadequate. It shows great detail on a 5 acre portion of the property that was performed in 2018, and a much lesser detail, as well as dated, assessment of the remaining 65 acres. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 and in Appendix 5 (Archaeological Inventory Survey [AIS] reports) of the EA, the entire project site has been recently inventoried for archaeological resources. One inventory covered 76.1 acres and the other covered 5 acres. Section 3.6 includes a summary discussion of the findings for both surveys that cover the entire site, as well as a discussion of how potential impacts would be minimized. Comment 2: Within the property are very likely remnants of Kealakekowa'a road ( path of the canoe). Most Holuas were used for sport, however this Holua was built for hauling Koa wood to the sea. One unique aspect of this Holua is its parallel rock walls to help contain the Koa as it was transported down the holua. The DEA shows these walls and how they were used for cattle in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This is a serious omission in the assessment. Response 2: Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since September 13, 2021 Mr. John Bennett Page 2 of 3 the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 3: It has been observed by me, Hawaiian Hawks, Hoary Bats, and Owls live in the proposed development. The assessment only suggested that they could possibly reside in the proposed area. Response 3: The EA includes a description potential habitat for native species including the hoary bat) in the existing conditions part of Section 3.3.4. The biological survey acknowledges that just because a species is not detected during the survey does not preclude its presence. In fact, the biological survey stated that these species may occur in the project area, and the impact discussion includes potential impacts to individuals and to habitat for native species (including those not directly detected during the survey). The impact discussion including protection measures to minimize these impacts to native species (including avifauana and bats) and their habitat in Section 3.3.4. Comment 4: The traffic study claims that the traffic has gotten better than in their previous traffic study. To suggest that adding 1000 cars to this area won't really have much of an impact is wishful thinking. Response 4: Section 3.7.2 and the Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) in Appendix 2 of the EA include a discussion of current traffic conditions and analysis of predicted changes to traffic. The changes in level-of-service from projected growth with and without the project condition in the analysis is based on the results of modeling by a professional traffic engineer, not wishful thinking. Comment 5: I find it very unnerving that the owners of this land that is currently zoned as multi-family have been using it as a cattle ranch allowing cows to trample historical sights. The majority of the cattle have been removed recently, but at least 2 cows are still within the property. Response 5: In response to neighboring community concerns, Kona Three LLC ceased cattle grazing in the proposed project site in 2019. To their best knowledge, Kona Three LLC knows of no cattle on the project site. However, it is possible that cattle grazing from the adjacent Gomes' property temporarily moved to the project site. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. John Bennett Page 3 of 3 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Design with community in mind Mori, Ashley Fro rn: n Ili-I I r I f seill: To: Plarr ri.; lv'-i I Subject-.vi,-ti nq FA(ornments 1, yUl Vi-A. 1 U, 4 rrMolts by C I vd P I I o-vi I-v.p o S S F M till's I J-1 r Y SDI Ivi Vision Zero S',Ldy I sJ "0 l"nve "bttl-'hefl the fllo which contain my cornryicjits on the Royal Vistas Draft Enviroiiro,ntal AssL,,morlr '1116 A me it the 4MB size of ihe SSFY Vision ZuporefereFICedinmycomments. Please contof ThlLam or if any of the attachments arrive dawaCed Gr unreadable- The 55FrA '.'i-Aon Zero i, k ,'e b It that is th,-i r origi ni I file which I d i d riot want to modify_ All the files except I h P Comment sCt I it,-,,If mc -!vailabllc on vin lnt-,-rne', and I can provide. links. Clyde Herl,I)v 3 6 FIGURE 1. LIEVEL OF SERVICE{LUST DEF1N[ IONS 1 Level of ,Sore'wG4..S{: '"I:••. ou I.;I'I. a,..m! I< .: . Lc'vcl_af_Seevrce 0. 11 p-denslt flog+i, 'ohich spa€c and Oki., y 11.1r-I' [:1! 1 I)Y 'ia :,i 1:"erl a: if .•I ,I :Ir II 01.. i i1•r i,..l I. r dv @rB C9':I':ed erC co-Oor1 I: T:T erce^aye dechried wiles !hfW,f f'°:4'rn`F":1lr1 w i r tr E. j Level €f Seryipe B: Stable traffic `low with a Ngh degree of Leyvl 4` 5 rviS Unstable Mawr at or n4ral a;aci:y freadc ik ! Ir' . %geed a•i.1 wurating Conditicm"vs but Mthi levels wiv%—oot'Nvels of com'ortand cwverrien-'e SGYi":!2 ifl':461':'I'Olil i..'Er.a drs. A Level of Senalcc C: I nl,i0ed flow that remaina stable but,velf, Lcv_el of Service f; +vte 11JI'l ..WN, r` vI' ,i lfle 3MOLIM r .Iw is a:p ca_hn = a p_,ii excE-eCs try 3,-curt 1 -ar+ r40! ::.rl •riA :A Cc IiY*t.lr.:r17a I'd t. .::.•.:ra..Llt c:: IOt t:,.:rt;y ;1t 7e 5rrwr;l t JS f rna:ac•::•nas 'v slc-aid-c v,ves ftrlslrat:il 1;r tr;a{e• ;.rne :',•. :cMfort and. acnvenience, and 1 HIGH INJURY NETWORK INSET MAP PAAUILO VdAIMEA V LAUFAI40EKVE n PEPEEHEO +°+' kIIL4 v ti WAIISIAlul, ZW i nYo k. y MLUA wow4- NkkMTI1N NH N ,,`., 1 CAPTAIN ' I COOK Pdewye YI Feeulinro+wnate . LEGM oAelrttt Rnl Ti M4nlln an 6eWY lon[ty 6ce[ y ao +s l 1 11 Ao bOy Q-W, i .as-aa a3u A5 nr,lra W-y yzs- grnnia w+ul Yrlk C-64— wrw. rm:s r.. CalevY'amia C4N wirya- ry) n 'Is ifeel4f.XEl1' dMYd Mi04 LFi IIIfYR1 5 la fytS V N I I.tna[iYn 4 Introduction wid Conclusion- Royal Vistas}lousing project p:A cornments In order to be efficient I have designed this document to convey the basic elements into two pages of reading. More detail with headings is supplied but the reader is not forced to scroll to the end for conclusions.Those headings will be arranged in order of importance. My name is Clyde Hemby and I live in the Kona Vistas subdivision about a half mile from the proposed Royal Vistas project. The Big Island is my home because it is mostly rural. It has some large hotels in appropriate tourist locations in Hllo, Kailua-Kona and Waikoloa.There are no skyscrapers full of apartments and hopefully never will be, because that would signal the end of the serenity and natural beauty that is the treasure of Hawai'i Island. Currently there are times when i can hear the crashing winter surf mixed with the sound of a cow mooing to the North along with the underlying and ever-present sound of traffic that seems to grew steadily worse. You can imagine my sorrow upon finding that Kona.Three LLC,a real estate developer from Honolulu, is proposing to build a high density 450 unit project just to the North. While Kona needs affordable and single family housing,this project is a bunch of duplex,4-plex and 6- plex clusters of two and three story buildings. it will resemble the"monster homes" which have}plagued Oahu and caused outrage and dissatisfaction within governing agencies to control there. It is like building a Blockbuster video store when we live in a digital age. It was evidently proposed in 1984 when Kona was a blank canvas with a single traffic light. In 2020 that is nc longer true_That blank canvas has been transformed into a paint-fey-numbers painting with just a few unpainted parts. Those parts should be used to fill the needs of the community and not some developer with dreams of dollar signs for motive.The development is designed to use the least amount of materials, the least amount of labor, and is a large urban project being stuffed into a place with insufficient infrastructure to support it.The schools are over capacity and projected to be for at least five years.The flood control is insufficient and will be made much worse by this development. Pages 36 and 69 of the .pdf file{pages 23 and 56 of the DEA)acknowledge that no Certificate of Occupancy can be issued without completion of drainage system im provements,so why is a building permit even being considered?The current roadway is a rural two lane road, with wide shoulders to allow vehicles to yield to the frequent emergency vehicles, and is not adequate for current traffic, under Hawaii County code Chapter 25-2-46(e)"Mitigation required"there can be no occupation until the unacceptable traffic conditions described in page 63 of the DEA are fixed,so why would a building permit even be considered? There will be a substantive traffic safety problem with more traffic congestion and more severe accidents if this development is allowed before the roadway is improved.The proposed Royal Vistas Roadway,an un-signalized intersection near the Lakes Street and the Kuakini highway intersections With a left turn across traffic to enter the development far southbound traffic will be disastrous considering most of it will be heavier and slawer commercial vehicles. 1 While it is tempting to accept a development for the econornic and property tax boast,the proposed development of Royal Vistas as specified will be hurtful to the community in the long run. It will not fit in with the spirit of the community in the way it leaks with clusters of multi-story buildings,especially the three story buildings which should be prohibited. It will adversely affect three or more established nearby subdivisions. It wf11 not be substantially cheaper for buyers. Market value will put the units out of reach of local families where the annual median household income is $C35,582 according to a Sept 8, 202a article entitled "The Pandemic-Driven Future Of Affordable Homes In North Ilona" on Civil Beat Honolulu. Most of the units will be sold to mainland investors or rented out by the Honolulu developer so money will not stay within the ElawaN island economy. It is even unclear if the project will use local labor or materials.The developer would have you believe this is a simple"infill"project but it is so poorly planned that they cannot complete the required roadways specified as requirements because they don't:own all the property.They are also not infilling with like and comparable properties but insist on loading the area with at least 450 units to utilize water commitments they may have purchased prematurely. By their own DEA '"Alternative design features were considered including wider access roads and stand-alone rather than clustered structures, but these features limited the amount of green space available for the Project". That also drives the requirement for the three story 6 plex clusters which Is not desirable to anyone but the owner or developer and not can the wish list of most families. They have raised disgust and anger from the surrounding suLdivisions which have endured years of Construction and When finally there seems to be an end, this developer comes along insisting on using the roads of those subdivisions as if they were unpopulated. Commuters from South of the project revile it as an additional obstacle to a difficult commute. Please consider that the best long term plan for this land might be tr leave it undeveloped. It could be set aside or acquired as open space land and used for a purpi.•_i_ th.it a light footprint.This Development might have been useful in 1934, but like that 61ockbuste- SJ:,leo stare it should No longer be considered. I urge you to reject the IDEA and the development because of the lack of infrastructure in the proposed location and because of incorrect or inadequate parts within the DEA, which I will highlight in the following pages. 7' d Y" Clyde Hemby 10/7/2020 2 Traffic Many pages of the DEA is devoted to a traffic study (see Appendix 2 of the DEA for this Traffic Impact Analysis Report)filled with industry jargon and diagrams which concludes the project will only make traffic a little worse.The study also has some serious mistakes, some suspicious data questions and lacks scope; Page 125 of the IDEA .pdf file(Page 9 of TIAR) cites data counted on Thursdoy,August 24, 2019, which was a Saturday Page 125 of the IDEA.pdf file (Page 9 of TIAR)tells us data collection was on Tuesday,April 30, 2019 and 4uFsday,August 24,2019 which are 116 days apartl Are they"cherry picking" data because of unfavorable results? Why was this done? The DEA is very inconsistent in reference to the very important TIAR, referring to it as a Traffic Impact Assessment Report in the table of contents and the cover page for Appendix 2 and a Traffic Impact Analysis Report elsewhere.With all the narrow scope and failure to address many important areas,this report actually is reduced to a Traffic Volume Study. Page 65 of the DEA .pdf file, numbered DEA Part I page 52 (Figure 9-Proposed Improvements to Project Intersection with Queen Ka'ahurnanu) is provided in very low resolution, making it difficult to see details tc evaluate problems with turning lane capacity, refuge lanes location and length,or dangers and conflicts with the Kuakini intersection_This deserves a very serious looks in order to plan fora signalized intersection when lanes are added. Planning,approvals,and installation for a signalized installation can take over three years. Intersections that pass warrants but remain uns ignal ized are a traffic safety liability for the agency in charge. The TIAR never examined traffic impact on Puaiani Estates or Kona Vistas rc lds even,as Phase II plans to use their streets. They also omitted La'aloa Ave and Sea View Circle which are signalized interseetlons between Lako Street and Kameharneha III which were stadIed_ Nani Kailua Drive was also left out. Had they been included I believe they would he found piolilerr Lit ic. The TIAR does not mention the new Niumalu Marketplace at Henry 5tree.-till-%61ill ope.n in 2020. This 22 acre shopping center with spaces for over 750 cars will have ar impact ail the Henry Street intersection, especially where the southbound two lanes quickly n-E urge inta a single lane at the Malulani Road traffic light which is also not considered in the I IAR. I wouldn't be surprised to seegridlock in this area because I've already experienced it when the rar W2iting capacity between Henry Street and Malulani has been full and the Henry Street sout bcunc signal turns green and there's nowhere to go.The problem will be worse when the old Safeway is repurposed. The TIAR does not mention the approved Homelands` Villages of La'i'Opua 2.00 unit project in Kealakehe.This would alter the results of the 5 year estimate at Malkala Blvd., Palani Road and Henry St. intersections. Safety and Health concerns were never mentioned and should be an important part of the evaluation. Mere traffic capacity is too narrow in scope. SSFM, which produced the TIAR in Appendix 2 should be well aware of safety problerns in the area because they produced a study and a set of crash maps of accidents from 2013-2017 for Vision Zero and classified every intersection in the Royal Vistas TIAR to be part of a"High Injury Network". On Wednesday, Feb 3 20, 2019 the Hawaii County Council Transportation Committee passed Resolution Number 38- 19 to adapt the goals, strategies and policies of the Zero Vision Task Farce to prevent traffic- related fatalities and severe injuries in Hawai'l County,by a vote of 8-1. Queen Kaahumanu highway south of Henry Street is not an urban roadway or freeway. It is a two lane undivided road and One slow vehicle or accident can take it from free flowing to stopped. This means infrastructure must come before the project $tarts building. it would be a disaster to have this project delay read improvements or try to do both projects at the same time. The draft DEA announces in six places Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Read will be widened by 2 travel lanes(Page30 of the .pdf NO page 17 of the DEA), page 68 of the .pdf file (page 55 of the DEA), page 133 of the.pdf file (Page 17 of the TIAR), Page 148 of the pdf file (page 32 of the TIARA, page 172 of the .pdf file (Page 56 of the TIAR) and page 173 of the pdf file (page 57 of the TIAR)). Most of these references indicate inclusion of bicycle facilities and sidewalks but West Hawaii Today reports in a September 29,2020 article that due to Covid- 19 state revenues are gone for road improvements, which rely on rental car Fees which is dawn 69% and gas tax which is also drastically short of projections. No Hawaii road projects will be approved for federal BUILD funds for 2020 which will make prioritl7aticin unlikely, The improvement will have to be treated as a new project instead of an improvement because right- of-ways and property must be acquired, according to Freshman Senator Dru Kanuha (D-Kona) who was trying to get the project back into consideration, as stated in a West Hawaii Today Newspaper article dated February 13, 2019 and titled"Dona JL8ffjc is a Nightmare", The revoew committee would be wise to consider the improvements will not happen in a timely manner and will be much harder than the recent widening project to the airport,which was over budget and severely behind schedule. As a resident that has lived with the traffic near the proposed project for years, I have tried W convey in layrnan's terms why the project will cause a substantive safety hazard and convince you further study is needed at best,and at worst this project should be delayed or abandoned until mitigation under Hawaii County Code Chapter 25-2-46 (e) is completed for the 5 LOS E&F deficiencies listed an pages 25-29 of the TIAR. The traffic study report has many references to Level Of Service or LDS,which is just a rating or a grade for the flow of traffic. LOS A is free flowing traffic,and LOS F is when traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway and usually includes waves of stop and go traffic_ I have included Figure 1-LC S Defined which is a visual depiction of the different traffic levels. Many of the state regulations, including Hawaii,accepts LOS D during peak hours as acceptable but you can see from Figure 1 that LOS C is where general level decline is noticeable. In Hawaii with many tourists on the read, it is important that roadway speed be stable in order to prevent accidents from distracted or inattentive drivers that are not familiar with the roads. As a driver, I have personally seen the aftermath of rollover accidents at Lako Street, Puapuaanui Street, and Mani Kailua Drive. I also have a neighbor that had a cherished vehicle totaled at one of the intersection in the study after being rear-ended by a driver suspected of being distracted by her phone. Another friend had her SUV totaled and suffered back and neck injury at a different intersection in the TIAR study. 4 The roadway section that is the key to the substantive safety hazard is state road 19 between Henry Street and Karnehameha 111. It is not an urban roadway,just a two lane undivided road with some turning lanes.. Some of this section of roadway.has wide shoulders which are used by scooters,joggers,, bikers and allow traff is to yield to the frequent emergency vehicles.The road from lake Street to ICarnehameha ill has only inches of shoulder which is often obscured by vegetation. In many places there are guard rails or rock walls.The only way vehicles can yield to the frequent emergency vehicles is to turn onto side streets or into private property parking lots,driveways, etc. It is no wonder that an October'30, 2019 SSFM International Study classified this entire section of road as part of a "High Injury Network' corridor. I will conclude the traffic comments with the following declarations which were professionally written:. I.I ana a resident of Kona Vistas sul)divislon. County offlawai`i, State ofHawai`i. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-0-21'-016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021:018, and 7- 6-02I:019 North Kona District, Hawaii Island, State of Hawaii affects me personally as well as affects ray interest in real property. I reside within half a mile of the proposed land development project, in such capacities, I have fiisiliand knowledge of the following facts and could ard would testifv thereto if called upon to do so. 2.1 have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSUS.SM ENT including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM International, dated May 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRC]NMENTAL ASSESSMENT. I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts butt) within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report.Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report are discussed in the body of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT at pp.49-S6, 67 and 71. 3.its the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanat`oa Place. Keluana`oa,Plarce is very steep, has limited sight 5 distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks_ The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and phase 2 buildouts of the Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadequately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report,which focuses instead can impacts along Queen Kaah-jnianu 1 Tighway. T 9m particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to a3-id from a separate SUbdivislon will present clangers and congestion to residents along Kekuana`oaPlace. Icon sider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. 4.The DRAFT FN VIRDNMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires -evaluation of, arnong others,af*erse econdao, impvcl-, .m,It as pol uAllion or fftcly on Jrrrl lic'Jcrcilific+. See Chapter l 1--200.I-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing these issues, however, the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT simply ignores their, claiming that "No adverse secondary effects are expected since the development would utilize existing infrastructure, provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County services-" It is a sofl'O S Uml$SI'On for the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substandard existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place, 5.The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Hme a_srrhstanfiaf ac#ve se q , on Iniblir health. The Applicant claims, +'The Proposed Project would.not affect public health in any way, storm water would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have-bee.". .when into Careful Consider ativn in project dei m" Emphasis added. This bald 6 conclusion does not address potential adver• e impacts as required by Chapter 1 1-200 1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. 6.The Planning Department should not acceptthe DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT's reliance on the SSFM Traffic.Impact Analysis Report,which has the following deficiencies: a.failure to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project; In,The 55FM Traffic Impact Analysis Report uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 7018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation; C.The SSFIM Traffic Impact Analysis Report does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project; d.The SSFM Traffic impact Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles far Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24,2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic impact Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the 55FM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 201E for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7" a.m. The difference In volume is more than double the maximum 10°/. variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable; 7 e.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for a roundabout at Queers Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but r2maln unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government; f.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumariu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here,an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal fcr installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. 7.In sum,the Draft Environmental Assessment and SSFIVI Traffic Impact Analysis.Report does not present sufficient,credible facts and analysis such that the adverse impacts on existing infrastructure and resulting from increased traffic can be fully understood and result in appropriate government planning and response. Flood Zones and Drainage l.I am a resident of Kona Vistas subdivision, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Daft Etzvironlnentai Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Ivey Nos. (3) 7-Er 021:016, 7-6- 021.017, 7-6-021,019, and 7-6-021:019 North Kona :District, Hawaii Island, Mate of Hawaii affects me personally as wrelI as affects my interest in real property_ I reside within a half mile of the proposed Iand development project, In such opacities, I have firsthand knowledge of the fallOw%ng facts and could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 8 2.1 have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachments. I am specifically concerned about: Floods similar or worse than those from 2015 which dammed Domes, exposed a critical -water main and posed danger to motorists on Kuakini highway. 3.The steep hi:starical rapid storm water run-off and associated daillage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. See pp. 36 and 69 thereof. It is clearly anderstood by the developer that no certificate of occupancy is expected to be issued Lwtil the completion of the drainage improvements are completed. Until that necessary and required infrastructure is in place no building permits should be issued. 4,l am aware that prize 21 of tine DEA in a conceptual drawing illustraites the larg.e flood plain that will be directed and concentrated into a Glitch that runs over or under two of the subdivision roads. With roofs anti pavement preventing any water absorption it will -worsen hooding as it proceeds downhill_ 5,In surn, the Draft Environmental Assessment does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis .such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood_ A proper environnicutal assessment cannot leave meaningful details to he taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances world lead to unlawful projectsegmentation, among other errors. 6.A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with ;government regulations is insufficient. At a ntiuinlum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tic into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Birds The QEA Table 2 Bird Species Observed In the Project She seems incomplete which fs not surprising if the field study only allocated an hour during daylight hours for bird observation. I have often heard the rooster from that direction and have observed Kalij pheasants coming from the direction of the proposed project several times, In the past I have heard the shrill cry of hawks and seen birds scatter that didn't want to be lunch. I've seen large wingspan owls swooping lour at night on the old trail. 1 can only suspect that they are also present in the nearby area of the proposed project. I have also seers Mack birds that didn't look like common myna but I have tic reason or expertise to think they were endangered or exti nct Hawaiian crows. The study for this QEA does however accept the responsibility to do a thorough and complete job and not just speculate,d2specially when it comes to endangered and migratory species. The review committee should reject this section of the IDEA and require a proper and thorough study be made. I am including a time stamped picture of a KaIij pheasant taken 5/5/2020 at the edge of the Calvary Cam rnunity Church property. Vr I. M W' 4, _ Blackbum's 5phjrrx Moth I have seen large moths resting in shady areas of our lanai and have always left them alone.They appear to be a match or similar to pictures of Internet images of Blackburti'5 5pbinx Maths, In the future I will try to take a picture from a distance when I see one. 10 It seems odd that an unmoriltoned survey that atone paint in time does not find evidence of the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth would then al low the developer to destroy food and habitat for the endangered species from that point in perpetuity for 70 acres.The DE review committee should examine this approach carefully and verify it is appropriate and supported by the governing agencies. Miscellaneous Infrastructure While the lack of infrastructure regarding roads,traffic,floods and drainage has been covered there is a shortage of school infrastructure to support such a large mediurn density project, because the schooiS are already over capacity and expected to remain over capacity for five years or longer(See Appendix 1 of the DEA).That will make it hard to attract buyers from other areas that commute to jobs around Kona but have school age children. No solution is offered for this problem.. On page 59 of the DEA.pdf file(page 46 of the DEA),a fictitious telephone and data supplier has been specified as"Hawaiian Telephone". Unanswered Questions There are so many aspects of this.,project where no information Is offered.The DEA Review Committee should be ovary of what is not in the DEA. Some of my questions: Will these units have photovoltaic panels to help with the Hawaii initiative for renewable energy?This should be required just as solar hot water is required. o Would any photovoitaic power be shared With a single resident that would own the system"? With the Building residents? With the entire development residents? o Will there be batteries at every buildlrtg in fire protected utility areas? Fire Protection on multi-unit clusters of buildings o Will there he 2- hour or better firewaft to protect individual units? o Will there be a shared attic space that will spread fire clanger? o Will there be sprinkler systems? o Will there be permanent fire hoses and risers for fire department use? o Will fire extinguishers be provided by the developer for each floor? o Will carports or garage structures be attached to the living spaces? o Could one bad turkey fry incident destroy a 6-plex or cluster of units? a Access Will the units be ADA compliant? 1i o Will the units have ramps? a Will the units have elevatars? Fees o Will there be a maintenance tee? o Will there be a HOA fee or an HOA ar just a management company? o Will there be a fee for satellite dish installation. Landlords cannot ban satellite dishes Thankyou for letting myvaice be heard on this Very important issue. I also wish that everyonethat gave me information r had an opinion would camrnerit, but sadlythey probably won't_ For every comment you receive there may be a hundred that stay in the silent majority. If there are any questions or if file attachments are damaged or missing, please contact me Sincerely, Clyde Hem by 10j7f2020 Attachments: LOS Defined ,pdf file SSFM October 30, 2019 map at highest resolution available Jpg file Vision Zero SSFM Oct 30 2019 Study .pdf file 12 l ollls[ i Island Vision Zero Traffic Ccsllislon Data&Mapping Page 1 October 30,2019 Hawaii Island Vision Zero Traffic Collision Data Vic. Mapping Traffic Collision Data Maps were prepared using the following data sources: NHTS.A Fatality Analysis Reporting System (TARS), years 2013 through 2017: Data includes the specific locations of fatal motor vehicle traffic collisions with pedestrians, bicycles, or other motor vehicles. Data include-s demographics of persons involved in the collision, transportation modes involved, day and time of collision, and potential causes of the collision (i.e,,drugs, alcohol, speed) notated by the collision report. NHTSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), years 2013 through. 2017: Average percentage of traffiic related fatalities within the state of llawaii and nationally,aSSOLIated with speed, alcohol, and time of day. County of Hawaii Police Department,years 2014 through 2018: Data includes location, when provided, ofmajer motor vehicle traffic collisions. Major traffic collisions are those in which the total property clarnage (damages to all involved vehicles,fixed objects, animals, etc.) on a public trafticway amounts to more than $3,000, ear one in which a traffic collision involves injury or death. Details on thecause or results of the traffic collision were not provided with this data. At times, locations wcrc represented anly by the road and nearest town in which the collision occurred. with no reference to Cross- street or read mile post. These limitations in the data reduce its utility for determining, high crash locations and identifying rlrifi atlerrr MeaSUI'CS, however, it still lends itself to all understanding,of high collision corridors. Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey o Years 2013 through 2017. Percentage of the poptllation, by census tract, whose income in the past 12 months was below the poverty level. This, in addition W a high percentage of minorities or persons of color, make up the federal definition firr FrivironrneaitaI Justice(FJ)populations. As a minority-majcarity state, use of high poverty popti[atious was determined to be most efFcctive in assessing EJ populations in Hawaii. o Year 2017: Ruportcd comtnutcr mode share. Hawaii Department of Trani pportxtiion: ]voles ofroadway owned by the State or Hawaii, County of Hawaii, Federal C.ioverrrrrrent, or other(often less-used roads, reflective of private roads or"roads in limbo").. Areas of discrepancy existed in the years of data used from F RS (2013-2017) and COH PD 201.4-2018). This was due to the desire to use the latest 5 years of data from each siource,with F RS data not being as recent as the data provided by the COH PD. Going Forward, it would be beneficial to work with C01 I PD to find a rrreans to record and providc more details on all involved,the potential catise,and specific locations of all collisions. This will help the evaluation portion orthe Vision Zero work with the hope of identifying,areas for increased engineering, errforcenrew, eucc uragement,and education. F Hawaii island Vision Zero 7`raff c Collision Data&Mapping I Page 2 Or-tober 30, 2019 Traffic Collision Map Er altiadc i 1. Fatal.Traffic Collisions, Vulnerable users were disproportionally billed (bicycle: 5%; pedestrian: 12%; motor vehicle: 83%) an Hawaii Island as compared to the latest reported commuter mode share (bicycle: 0.4°X,, walk; 2..2%- personal vehicle: 97%). This indicates a higher likelihood of people dying on Hawaii Island roads iftraveling by foot or by bicycle. The majority of all fatalities (68%) occurred ail State owned roads even though the State awns only 28% of all government (StatelCc Lill ty/Federat) owncd roads on island. The highest concentration (37%) of bicycle(2) wid pedestrian (5) fatal traffic collisions occurred in Hilo. Df those, 5 (20'/o) fatal traffic collisions fell within areas where greater than 30% of the population's income is below the poverty level. Village and town centers expectedly haw., the highest number of people walking and bicycling due to the ease of traveling short distances by means other that personal vehicle. This is why L coritext matters iiU roadway design, and safety of pedestrians and bicycles shOUld he prioritized in these pGpulation centers_ Over the 5-year study period(2013-2017), fatal traffic collisions increased steadily fallowing a low in 2014(13). Further research into historical NHTSA l~ARS data shows that I:aflowing a high number of fatal traffic collisions in 2006(35), collisions gradually reduces to a 19- year low in 2014 (13). Total fatalities resulting frorn those collisions similarly reached a 19- year low in 2014 (13), following a high in 2004 (41). When comparing; trend lines from annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the state of Hawaii to fatal traffic collisions for Hawaii Island, it can be seen that as VMT increased gradually from 20DO, fatal traffic. collisions have not increased at the same rate. This is indicative of the improvements to vehicle safety. However,the significant reduction in.VMT realized in 2014 directly correlates with the reduction in traffic related fatalities. Thereby, suggesting that a transition to more sustainable transportation modes, such as hus transit, bicycling,and walking, in addit:nn to mare compact development and land use, can have the intended result of reduxtion in traffic related fatalities. Hawaii Island Vision hero TrafficCollision Data & Mapping Page 3 October 30,20113 Fatal Traffic Year Traffic belated Collision$ Fatalities 2000 34 38 2001 29 30 2002 27 28 2003 30 33 2004 33 41 2005 33 40 2006 35 39 2007 34 38 2008 2 29 2009 24 27 2010 29 31 2011 23 23 2012 34 38 2013 21 26 2014 13 13 2015 16 21 2016 27 32 2017 33 35 2018 30 32 During the work on this project, 2018 NHT A FAR", data was made available and included in this table for comparison but not included in the morc detailed analysis. Hawaii Island VISIF= Yrafl'ic Cn111sEean Data Mapping& Page 6 October 30, 2019 5. Residing Lip Cade of Motorist Involved in Fatal Traffic Collisions: The overwhelming majority (87%) of all motor vehicle drivers involved in a fatal traffic collision were residents of Hawaii Island. Other drivers involved were from neighbor islands (4%) and other states 6%). Ofthosc drivers from Hawaii Island, the largest percent.ige were froin zip codes 96720 Kilo, 33), 96740 (Kailua Ions, 14), 9 749 (Keaati, 1_;). 96778 (Pah.oa, 13), and 96737 Ocean View, 7). Parts of.zip code 96720 (1111o), 96778 (Pahoa), and all of 96737(Ocean View)have areas where greeter than 25°Ira of the population is below the poverty level, This shows that the problem of motor vehicles kil ling people on Hawaii Island roads is one that needs to be addressees through the education and encouragement er local residents. 6. High Fatality Network: IIigh Fatality Corridors are reflects-vc ef'contirtuous roadway segments with the highest percentage of fatal traffic collisions per mile on Hawaii Island. Fnd points were chosen at likely tennini SLEch as intersections or changes in road typulog,ylgeornetrics. Where clusters offatal traffic collisions were found to be isolated from all major traffic collisions, the area was considered a I IigIi Fatality Location. In general, the roadways with the highest percentage of fatal traffic collislons per mile also had the highest density of major traffic collisions. These tendcd ro he on the high-speed, high-volume arterials. However, there were some :5k F}:io,r. ImJh are likely to he more a result of roadway geometry or topography, In summary, 14%of all State-owned roads and 1%cif all County-owned roads fell along a High Fatality Corridor, Darts of the High Fatality Corridor crass through populations with the highest percentage€afpoverty, such as in Borth Hilo and Hawaiian Paradise: P{ark, The area adjacent to Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. a location with a high percentage ofthe population below the poverty level,was also identified as a High Fatality Location. Specific locations of the High Fatality Network are as follows: a. Hawaii Belt Road(Route 19), in the vicinity of Paauilo b. Hawaii fie1t Read(Route 19), in the vicinity ofFepeckeo c. l lawaii Belt Road (Route 19), from Ilonolii Bridgc (N-IP 4,5) to Wailuk.0 1311idge (M. ?0.5) d. Volcano Road (Re?ut c 11), from Kahaualeai Road (M? 22,5)to Kipimana Street (MP 6.2) e. Kcaau-Pahoa Road (Route 130), froni Route 1 I to Ainaloa Boulevard (MP 7.7) f Hawaii Belt Road (route 11), in the vicinity of Glenwood g. Hawaii Belt Road(Route 1I),in the vicinity ofVolcano h. Hawaii Belt road(Route 1 I), in the vicinity of 1-1awa11an Ocean View Estates i. 1,1awaii Belt Road (Route I l),from.Ke Alanui 0 Aoi (MP 101,I) to Ohia.MaIu Load MP 92,9) j. Hawaii Belt Road (Route: I1)IQueen Kaahurn:anu Highway (Route 19), from Kealaola Road(Route 11, 1' P 111.87)to Route 19 (MP 9.5) k. Hawaii Belt Road (Route. 190). from Milepost 31 to Hina Lani Street (MP 35,1) 1. Kaiminani Drive, from Queen K aahuananu Highway (Route 19)to Hawaii Belt Road Route 190) m. llina Lauri Street, from Queen Kaahutnanu Highway (route 19) to Hawaii Belt Road Rotate 190) Hawaii island Vision hero Traffic Collision Data&Mapping I Page 5 October 30,2039 2. Fatal Speed-Related Traffic Collisions: Tta.ffiiC collisions where speed was considered a factor mare up 41%of all fatal traffic collisions. In the state of Hawaii, that percentage is 44%. Nationally, the average is 28% of all fatal traffic collisions. The percentage for Hawaii Island is lrt line with the state of Hawaii however both are significantly higher than the national average, suggesting a problem throughout Hawaii that should lro addresst--f thrcatigh education, enforcement, and engineering. The highest percentage ofspeed-related fatalities on Hawaii Island occurred on roads with posted speed Limits of 30-35mph (4fto). This is true for all fatal traffic collisions on Hawaii Island as well,where 351/6 of fatal traffic collisions were on roads with posted speed limits of 30-35niph. Nationally, the highest pti-tentage of fatalities is can roods with posted speed limits of 50-55mpli (31%). Roads wil[i posted speed limits of 30-35niph made up 17%of all traffic related fatalities rationally.. The higher percentage offatalitics on 30-35mph roads on Hawaii Island is potentially due to a lower number of road miles that have speeds higher than 35niph. However,the geometries and design of these roads may be a factor irk inducing speeding. 3. Fatal Alcohol/Drug-Related Traffic Collisions: The majority (55%)of fatal traffic collisions were noted to he alcohol alld/sr drug-related. Of those fatal traffic collisions where alcoliol sand/or drugs were a factor, speed was also considered a factor in 43%. When separating, mit traffic collisions where aleoliol (not includint, drags alone) was a factor, 29% of all fatal traffic collisions involved alcohol. In the state of I lawaii, the percentage of traffic related fatalities associated with alcohol is 35%. Nationally, the average is 30% of all traffic related faftilities which is in line with the numbers I:rom I Iawaii Island. More signifiLrHntly, the 20-25%dil,f'erence when considering all turns of inebriation (drugs and/or alcohol), points towards a greater need for cultural change through education, as well as a need for increased enforccment. Over the 5-year stretch that FARS data was anaiyzed,fatal drug and/or alcohol related traffic Collisions have increased steadily following a lour in 2014. This is in line with all fatal traffic collision trend. Year Fatal Tragic Collisiuns Difference Alcohol Drug(only) Total 2013 7 3 10 2014 3 4 7 30% 2015 li 4 10 1, 2016 7y 9 1i 2017 J 9 is i ail i 4. Fatal Traffic Collisions During Day/Night.- The majority (55°!a) of fatal traffic collisions on Hawaii lsk< nd occurred at nighttime. Nationally, the average is 47% of all fatal traffic callisicarrw. Willi liiziit'ations oil s[reetlight lt_inlinesr.: oe levels, and hundreds of miles of rural, unlit, roadways. it iti not unexpected to have a :slightly higher than normal percentage of fatal trafha collisions on Hawaii Island occurring at nighttime. FEawail island Vision Zero Traffic Collision Data&Mapping Page 7 October 3D,2019 7. Traffic Collision Density (beat ]Maps): The highest density of traffic collisions occurred in and around the most populated village and town centers. Crash density was highest in and around Hilo town, Crash density in and around Kailua-bona was less concentrated, likely due to the limited road grid network, resulting in collisions being concentrated on maJor roads in the area. Similarly, major arterials south of Hilo, which constitute the majority of commuter traffic in the region; had high densities of crashes. Waimea and Hon kaa reflected smaller, yet concentrated, densities of traffic collisions. Y Cta n L}e Stantec Consulting Services Inc. J P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Via email: wayneh72@hotmail.com RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Hemby: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 7, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The development is designed to use the least amount of materials, the least amount of labor, and is a large urban project being stuffed into a place with insufficient infrastructure to support it. Response 1: The project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. The proposed action being considered in the EA is the proposed development project within the current zoning. The project is consistent with medium density zoning and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP). Comment 2: The schools are over capacity and projected to be for at least five years. Response 2: As described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA, the project would be constructed in phases, and occupancy would occur over time. Additionally, it is expected that the project would provide mid-market, including workforce housing for the local community. The project's first phase would construct rental units, and it is expected that occupants of these units would be local and many of the students already attend local public schools. Section 3.7.1 has been revised to clarify that since the project would be constructed in phases, all 99 students would not all arrive at once and occupancy would occur over a longer period of time. This is consistent with predicted rates of growth for the area which are considered by the Hawaii State Department of Education in their forecast planning for public schools. Comment 3: The flood control is insufficient and will be made much worse by this development. Response 3: There is no history of flooding on this property. As discussed in the EA, the project would not contribute or exacerbate the flooding issues. Per Section 27-20 of the Hawaii County Code, the project is not allowed to increase any run- L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 2 of 12 off onto neighboring properties, so there are no effects on any neighbors from project run-off including on the County-owned parcels. Comment 4: The current roadway is a rural two lane road, with wide shoulders to allow vehicles to yield to the frequent emergency vehicles, and is not adequate for current traffic. There will be a substantive traffic safety problem with more traffic congestion and more severe accidents if this development is allowed before the roadway is improved. Response 4: The other two options would be to (1) add a signal at the proposed project and (2) distribute the inbound project volume to make a south-bound SB) left turn (LT) at Lako Street, and a mauka bound LT onto Kekauna`oa Place to enter the development. Alternative 1 would add a signal, increase delay on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Alternative 2 would increase delay at Lako Street, and would add considerable travel time for the inbound traffic. A SB LT at Kona Vistas would be basically waiting for a gap provided by the Lako Street intersection. A vehicle in alternative 2 using Lako Street would need to wait for a protected green arrow at Lako Street. Basically, the southbound left is waiting for a gap provided by the Lako Street intersection, it is more reasonable to provide and allow for left turns in at the roadway. Comment 5: While it is tempting to accept a development for the economic and property tax boost, the proposed development of Royal Vistas as specified will be hurtful to the community in the long run. Response 5: The project is consistent with medium density zoning and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona CDP, and is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents. Comment 6: It will adversely affect three or more established nearby subdivisions. It will not be substantially cheaper for buyers. Market value will put the units out of reach of local families. Most of the units will be sold to mainland investors or rented out by the Honolulu developer so money will not stay within the Hawai'i island economy. Response 6: The intent for the project as described in the EA is to address housing shortages in Kona (Section 1.2). "To address housing shortages in Kona, the Kona CDP identifies Objective HSG-4: Build More Units and Policy HSG-4.2: Workforce Housing. The workforce gap group (up to 180% of median income) includes the part of the population that earns too much to qualify for affordable housing programs, yet too little to buy or rent decent housing close to their jobs. The Project would build units that offer a variety of housing types for both the rental and buyer segments of the mid-market which includes the workforce group. Although the Project is not specifically a workforce project, it would provide a housing option for the workforce gap group." As evidenced by resort projects on the Big Island, as well as communities such as Waikoloa and lower Kalaoa (Ka`iminani Street and environs), different housing L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 3 of 12 product types targeting different socio-economic built in close proximity do not necessarily adversely affect property values or quality of life. Comment 7: Please consider that the best long term plan for this land might be to leave it undeveloped. It could be set aside or acquired as open space land and used for a purpose that has a light footprint. Response 7: Comment noted; however, the applicant action being considered and analyzed on private land in the EA does not include a proposal for change in zoning or creation of a public park. Although the project site has been nominated for PONC acquisition twice, both times the Committee declined. Comment 8: Page 125 of the DEA .pdf file (Page 9 of TIAR) cites data counted on Thursday, August 24, 2019, which was a Saturday. Response 8: The TIAR states Thursday, August 24, 2019. The wrong date is written here. It should be Thursday, August 29, 2019, as shown in the data sheets in the appendix and has been corrected. Comment 9: Page 125 of the DEA .pdf file (Page 9 of TIAR) tells us data collection was on Tuesday, April 30, 2019 and Thl,lrsday, August 24, 2019 which are 116 days apart! Are they"cherry picking" data because of unfavorable results? Why was this done? Response 9: Based on the numbers for the 2018-2019 monthly tourism numbers, August 2019 had the 4th highest visitor total and April 2019 had the 1 Oth highest visitor total. This is consistent with the information you provided. For all islands, the pattern is similar with high visitor volume in June-August, December, and March which corresponds to summer break, winter break, and spring break. These are when school is not in session, so visitor traffic is high as people travel more. When school is out, typically the overall traffic volume during the AM and PM peak hour is lower. Generally, traffic counts are taken during "worst case" scenarios, which are historically on Tuesday through Thursday during school days. This is information we know, and we purposely target school days as when we take our traffic counts. While tourism numbers may be low, the intensity of the peak during the AM and PM school day peaks are generally more intense than the AM and PM peak during non-school days. Here is the HDOT station on Queen Kaahumanu Highway in 2016. It shows that the monthly weekday average is very close to the yearly weekday average. The standard that traffic engineers use is the school day peak; therefore, the counts taken in April and August are defendable. Comment 10: The DEA is very inconsistent in reference to the very important TIAR, referring to it as a Traffic Impact Assessment Report in the table of contents and the cover page for Appendix 2 and a Traffic Impact Analysis Report elsewhere. With all the narrow scope and failure to address many important areas, this report actually is reduced to a Traffic Volume Study. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 4 of 12 Response 10: The acronym has been added to the table of contents and Appendix 2 cover page. The report does more than account for volumes, it analyzes the impacts on traffic from the proposed project. Comment 11: Page 65 of the IDEA .pdf file, numbered IDEA Part I page 52 (Figure 9- Proposed Improvements to Project Intersection with Queen Ka'ahumanu) is provided in very low resolution, making it difficult to see details to evaluate problems with turning lane capacity, refuge lanes location and length, or dangers and conflicts with the Kuakini intersection. Response 11: The MUTCD states: "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention that where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. The EA has been updated to include a higher resolution Figure 9. Comment 12: The TIAR never examined traffic impact on Pualani Estates or Kana Vistas roads even as Phase II plans to use their streets. They also omitted La'aloa Ave and Sea View Circle which are signalized intersections between Lako Street and Kamehameha III which were studied. Response 12: Most of the proposed project's traffic would be going to and coming from the north and would not affect developments south of Royal Vistas. Laaloa Avenue and Sea View Circle would not be impacted significantly from the inbound and outbound traffic south of the development. Not more than several vehicles would be added to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway through movement at these intersections, and those would be 'through' vehicles which have very little impact on an intersection. Comment 13: The TIAR does not mention the new Niumalu Marketplace at Henry Street that will open in 2020. Or the approved Homelands' Villages of La'i 'Opua 200 unit project in Kealakehe. Response 13: The TIAR does not include the Niumalu or La'i 'Opua projects. It included the Henry Street intersection, which is over 2.5 miles away from the proposed project's access, for an in-depth look at the potential regional effects on the roads. The analysis showed that, as traffic to/from the proposed project disperses, there will be very little effect at these far away intersections due to the project's traffic. As for the two SB LTs from Henry that need to merge into one lane, this problem has existed for a while. This is not a result of any particular development. This is the start of the bottleneck in the SB direction because of the L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 5 of 12 merge, and realistically will only be improved by then widening of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Comment 14: Safety and Health concerns were never mentioned and should be an important part of the evaluation. Mere traffic capacity is too narrow in scope. SSFM, which produced the TIAR in Appendix 2 should be well aware of safety problems in the area because they produced a study and a set of crash maps of accidents from 2013- 2017 for Vision Zero and classified every intersection in the Royal Vistas TIAR to be part of a "High Injury Network". On Wednesday, Feb 20, 2019 the Hawaii County Council Transportation Committee passed Resolution Number 38-19 to adopt the goals, strategies and policies of the Zero Vision Task Force to prevent traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries in Hawaii County, by a vote of 8-1. Response 14: While the TIAR did not include an in-depth crash study, as this was not scoped, SSFM did do a cursory review of the FARS website and did not note any recent fatal crashes in the vicinity of the proposed project's access. Comment 15: Queen Kaahumanu highway south of Henry Street is not an urban roadway or freeway. It is a two lane undivided road and One slow vehicle or accident can take it from free flowing to stopped. This means infrastructure must come before the project starts building. It would be a disaster to have this project delay road improvements or try to do both projects at the same time. Response 15: While the widening of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway would help out traffic, the timing of this improvement is not known and is outside the scope of this project. Comment 16: The project will cause a substantive safety hazard and further study is needed, or this project should be delayed or abandoned until mitigation under Hawaii County Code Chapter 25-2-46 (e) is completed for the 5 LOS E&F deficiencies listed on pages 25-29 of the TIAR. Response 16: The LOS E/F on these pages refer to left turns from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway or movements from minor streets. These are typical of left turns on major highways or minor streets. Even the installation of a traffic signal would still likely result in LOS E/F for these movements. Comment 17: The traffic study report has many references to Level of Service or LOS, which is just a rating or a grade for the flow of traffic. Many of the state regulations, including Hawaii, accepts LOS D during peak hours as acceptable but LOS C is where general level decline is noticeable. Response 17: The analysis has been completed per State regulations regarding Level of Service, and has taken into account the peak traffic numbers. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 6 of 12 Comment 18: The roadway section that is the key to the substantive safety hazard is state road 19 between Henry Street and Kamehameha III. The road from Lako Street to Kamehameha III has only inches of shoulder which is often obscured by vegetation. Response 18: Although the condition of the Lako Street to Kamehameha III roadway is currently very narrow and offers little room to move over for emergency vehicles, this is a current need of the roadway and is out of scope for the project. Comment 19: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 19: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 20: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 20: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 21: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 21: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 7 of 12 Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 22: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 22: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 23: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 23: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 24: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 24: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 25: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 25: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 8 of 12 Comment 26: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 26: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 27: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 27: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Comment 28: 1 am specifically concerned about floods similar or worse than those from 2015 which damaged homes, exposed a critical water main and posed danger to motorists on Kuakini highway. Response 28: Flooding has occurred makai of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway from waters in the County-owned Holualoa Ditch and the Horseshoe Bend Ditch, and as described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA the proposed project would not September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 9 of 12 increase the amount of water carried by these ditches from the entire drainage basin extending miles up-hill as the project is not allowed to do so. Comment 29: The steep topography, historical rapid storm water run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the DEA. Response 29: As noted, the steep topography results in rapid runoff during heavy rain events. There is no record of damage to the project site or adjacent properties from said runoff, which is carried away by the two County-owned ditches and State-owned culverts. Comment 30: 1 am aware that page 21 of the DEA in a conceptual drawing illustrates the large flood plain that will be directed and concentrated into a ditch that runs over or under two of the subdivision roads. With roofs and pavement preventing any water absorption it will worsen flooding as it proceeds downhill. Response 30: Any increase in drainage from improvements would be directed to alternative run-off or storage facilities such as dry-wells, as approved by a County-reviewed drainage plan, and would not flow onto adjacent properties. Comment 31: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. Response 31: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase 11 of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona CDP "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21 :18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the Kona CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by DPW. Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 10 of 12 Comment 32: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 32: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. Comment 33: The DEA Table 2 Bird Species Observed in the Project Site seems incomplete which is not surprising if the field study only allocated an hour during daylight hours for bird observation. The study for this DEA does accept the responsibility to do a thorough and complete job and not just speculate, especially when it comes to endangered and migratory species. Response 33: The biological inventory report documents the species detected which took many hours and many avian species were detected) and potential habitat at the project site. The Biological Survey Report in Appendix 3 of the EA acknowledges the limitations of a biological survey of a large project area and the absence of any particular species cannot be warranted from the survey's results. While additional species may be present, it is the professional opinion of the Hawaiian biologist that there is no possibility that the Hawaiian crow is present in the project area. Therefore, the EA includes a description of species detected as well as potential habitat for native species in the existing conditions part of Section 3.3.4. The impact discussion includes potential impacts to individuals and to habitat for native species (including those not directly detected during the survey). The impact discussion including protection measures to minimize these impacts to native species (including avifauana and bats) and their habitat in Section 3.3.4. Comment 34: It seems odd that an unmonitored survey that at one point in time does not find evidence of the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth would then allow the developer to destroy food and habitat for the endangered species. Response 34: During the survey, none of the host plants for either the adult or larval stages of the moth are present. As stated in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, to prevent potential impacts to the Blackburn's sphinx moth, the project would include the following protection measures. A biologist familiar with the species would survey for Blackburn's sphinx moth and its larval host plants (tree tobacco and native 'aiea) between November and April or several weeks after a significant rain and within four to six weeks prior to construction. Surveys should include searches for eggs, larvae, and signs of larval feeding (chewed stems, frass, or leaf damage). If moths or native 'aiea or tree tobacco over three feet are found during the survey, Kona Three would coordinate with the USFWS for guidance to avoid impacts. L September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 1 1 of 12 If no Blackburn's sphinx moth, 'aiea, or tree tobacco are found during pre- disturbance surveys, Kona Three would ensure that measures are taken to avoid attraction of Blackburn's sphinx moth and prohibit tree tobacco from entering the site. Tree tobacco can grow more than three feet in approximately six weeks, and above three feet in height the tree tobacco can become a host plant for Blackburn's sphinx moth. The Proposed Project would remove tree tobacco less than three feet tall and monitor the Project Site for new tree tobacco grown before, during, and after Project construction. Monitoring for tree tobacco after construction, can be completed by any staff, such as regular maintenance crew, provided with pictures of tree tobacco at different life stages. Comment 35: While the lack of infrastructure regarding roads, traffic, floods and drainage has been covered there is a shortage of school infrastructure to support such a large medium density project, because the schools are already over capacity and expected to remain over capacity for five years or longer. On page 59 of the DEA .pdf file (page 46 of the DEA), a fictitious telephone and data supplier has been specified as Hawaiian Telephone". Response 35: As described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA, the project would be constructed in phases, and occupancy would occur over time. Additionally, it is expected that the project would provide workforce housing for the local community. The project's first phase would construct rental units, and it is expected that occupants of these units would be local and many of the students already attend local public schools. Section 3.7.1 has been revised to clarify that since the project would be constructed in phases, all 99 students would not all arrive at once and occupancy would occur over a longer period of time. This is consistent with predicted rates of growth for the area which are considered by the DOE in their forecast planning for public schools. Regarding telephone and data provider, the text has been revised to clarify that telephone and data services are provided by local utilities. Comment 36: There are so many aspects of this project where no information is offered. Response 36: These details would be identified during final project design, which would be completed close to project development. For the purposes of the EA, potential impacts from the project to the environment are disclosed. Comment 37: Fire Protection on multi-unit clusters of buildings. Response 37: The project would be compliant with all applicable codes and standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1, Uniform Fire Code, 2006 Edition (which is the Hawaii State Fire Code). September 13, 2021 Mr. Clyde Hemby Page 12 of 12 Comment 38: Will the units be ADA compliant? Will the units have ramps? Will the units have elevators? Response 38: Text has been added to the EA to clarify that the development would be compliant with American with Disabilities Act Standards for accessible design. Comment 39: Will there be a maintenance fee? Will there be a HOA fee or an HOA or just a management company? Will there be a fee for satellite dish installation. Response 39: Consistent with standard practice for housing developments, for Phase I of the project the rental units would not have any separate maintenace fees since these would be incorporated into the rental costs. For Phase 11 of the project, an Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO) would be established and that group will determine fees. Regarding satelitte dishes, in Phase I the owners would likely provide reception to the tenants and in Phase 11 the installation of satellite dishes would be regulated by the AOAO. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department DATE: October 8, 2020 TO: Michele Lefebvre Stantec Consulting Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Email: michele.lefebvre@stantec.com CC: County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Email: planning@hawaiicounty.gov FROM: Janice Kerr 76-4320 Leilani St. Kona Vistas Subdivision Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 808-938-1185 RE: Project: Royal Vistas Housing Project Island: Hawaii District: North Kona TMK: 3rd) 7-6-021:016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021:018 and 7-6-021:019 I have reviewed the Proposal provided to the County of Hawaii Planning Department by the Developer of Royal Vistas. I currently live on Leilani Street in the Kona Vistas Subdivision, and have resided here since 1994. I have some serious concerns about the negative impacts of this proposed development: I have watched the traffic at the intersection of Lako Street and Queen "K" Hwy increase exponentially over these past 26 years. It is now at the point where the volume of West-bound traffic down Lako Street backs up from the intersection at the Highway to the extent that the signal turns RED, before all the backed-up vehicles turning NORTH OR SOUTH onto Queen "K" can proceed through the intersection. They are forced to endure a lengthy wait for another green light. Per the Proposal, this intersection's traffic flow grade is currently rated "C" and "D". The impact of Royal Vistas will cause deterioration to "E" and "F". The same is true of East-bound traffic coming up Lako Street to Queen "K". The volume of vehicles on Queen "K" North-bound AND South-bound is increasing at an alarming rate, and soon we will not even be able to turn onto Lako Street from Leilani Street (and other streets in Kona Vistas), due to the volume of vehicles backed up from the intersection. The additional traffic from Royal Vistas pouring onto the Queen "K ', increasing the existing volume, will worsen every direction of travel significantly more than the models show. That is because the models do not depict the ACTUAL - on the street - difficulties of travel present now due to the current degree of congestion. Most likely the proposed subdivision will generate more traffic than presented in the Proposal because there will be more significantly more delivery vehicles, which are not considered in the Proposal. There will be more personal vehicles, also - - houseguests, rentals and purchased units with multiple families, vacation rentals with multiple parties per unit, to name just a few of the possibilities. In addition, the north end of Leilani Street (from Lako Street to the Church) is a quiet (quasi-cul-de-sac), used by a significant number of Kona Vistas' families with children and pets, for walking, running, biking, etc. There are no curbs, everyone is on the street pavement. My driveway is less than 25 feet long, my only option is to back out of the driveway onto Leilani Street, which would be close to impossible with traffic. It would be very unsafe to add any volume of traffic to Leilani Street as it is. It would also add enormous vehicular noise pollution. This Proposal will significantly lower my property value and that of most of my neighbors in Kona Vistas. It is unacceptable and very unfair to lose the value of our collective investment in order to make money for the Developers. We have all worked hard to keep Kona Vistas quiet, healthy and safe for Families and Seniors. Please do not destroy the good environment so many of us strive so hard to maintain here, merely for the benefit of a few greedy people. I strongly recommend denial of this proposal. Sincerely, Janice Kerr Mari, Ashley From: J_7 'iv_ K,e jkk,)na@c1)Aw.9 l«n Tr-l r.P' Sent October GS. tt ,,0 2:-6 ,-lv" To- CC.- Su bje ct- VF' ]JLC : R y I V H_,Lisifig Projee ;isIand of Hawaii; District of North Kona Attachments:ni:' :ire x Ple:,syr•s +, s#t ched rr,:sii i; la,uiI1(m si-Icur inc.ad RcivaI Vi5tes i-,D sirry Praje_t, E IJ,int!. IWawli K,7na District 116976 DATE: October 8, 2020 TO: Michele Lefebvre Stantec Consulting Inc. P.O. Box 191. Hilo, ail 96721 Email: ni-ic- ele.It,fehvi (_Dstantec_corn C(7: County of I-iawai'i Planning Department. 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 9 720 LmaiL plannin hawaiicount av FROM:Janice Kerr 76-4320 Leilani St. Kona Vi,,ta-, Suhdivisinn Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 808-938-1185 RF: Project: Royal Vistas Housing Project Island: Hawaii District: North Kona TIVIK: 311) 7-6-021:016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021:019 and 7-6-021:019 1 have reviewed the Proposal provided to the County of Hawaii Planning Department by the Developer of Royal Vistas. I currently live on Leilani Street in the Kona Vistas Subdivision, and have resided here since 1994. l have some serious concerns about the negative impacts of this proposed development: I have watched the traffic at the intersection of Lako Street and Queen "1<" Hwy increase exponentially over these past 26 years, It is now at the point where the volume of West-bound traffic down Lake Street backs up from the intersection at the Highway to the extent that the signal turns RED, before all the backed-ul) veh,cle turning; NORTH CtR SOUTH onto Queen `•K" can proceed through the into}rscction. They are forced to endure a lengthy gait for another green light. Per the Propu-sal, this intersection's traffic flow gr)dc, is currently rated "C" and "D'. The impact of Royal Vistas will cause dotono ration to "'E" and "F` The same IS U LAC of East bOUnd traffic corning up Liku Street to Queen `K" k Thr, volumo of vehicles on Queen "K" North-bound AND South-bound is MC11,011"lri at an alarming rate, and soon we will not even be able to turn ootn A ako Street from Leilani Street (and other streets in Kona Vistas), due to the volurric of vehicles backed up from the intersection. The additional traffic from Royal Vistas pouring onto the Queen 'W', increasing the existing volume, will worsen every direction of travel significantly more than the models show. That is because the models do riot depict the ACTUAL - on the street - difficulties of travel present nc w duc to the current degree of congestion. Most likely the proposed ,u lid ivision will generate more traffic than presented in the Propu al because there will be more significantly more delivery vehicles, which are not considered in the Proposal. There will be more personal vehiclt s, fl o houseguests, rentals and purchased units with multiple familiesi vticLitinn rentals with multiple parties per unit, to name just a few of the pas ibiIItWs. In additiun, tuts narth end (if I_eilani Strout (from Lako Street to the Church) is a quiet cif de-sac), kjwd by a significant number of Kona Vistas' families with children and pats, for walking, running, biking, etc_ There are no curbs, everyone is on the street pavement. My driveway is less than 25 fuel Ionp rrry only option is to back;. out of the driveway onto Ledani Street, vjhi( lh koulcl be {_lose to impossible with traffic. It would be very unsafe to acid 117yV011,1111cy of traffic: to Leilani Street as it is. It would also add enormo vehICLAlar noise pollution. This Proposal will significantly low-Ir- my propertyr value and that of most of my neighbors in Kona Vistas. It is unacceptable and very unfair to lose the value of our collective investment in order to make money for the Developers. We have all worked hard to keep Kona Vistas quiet, healthy and safe for Families and Seniors. Please do not destroy the goad environment so many of us strive so hard to maintain here, merely for the benefit of a few greedy people. I strongly recommend denial of this proposal. Sincerely, Janice Kerr Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Janice Kerr 73-4320 Leilani Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Email: jkkona@hawaiianintel.net RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Kerr: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: Traffic at the intersection of Lako Street and Queen "K" Hwy has increased exponentially over these past 26 years. Per the Proposal, this intersection's traffic flow grade is currently rated "C" and "D". The impact of Royal Vistas will cause deterioration to "E" and "F". Response 1: This traffic signal is long due to the split phasing, and the volume on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which is still two lanes at this intersection. A short term, interim improvement can include the changing of the phasing at Lako Street from split to protected, protected permitted, or permitted, and changing the cycle length. It is known that this cycle length is very long, shortening the cycle length could provide shorten waiting times for the minor street approach. Also, the widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway would improve the LOS at Lako Street. These improvements are discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR). Comment 2: Most likely the proposed subdivision will generate more traffic than presented in the Proposal because there will be more significantly more delivery vehicles, which are not considered in the Proposal. Response 2: The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Handbook referenced in the TIAR (Appendix 2 in the EA) used for the traffic analysis uses housing units, and it does not assume one person per unit. This is taken from the ITE trip gen handbook regarding land use 220: 2.72 residents are assumed for each unit. There is no trip generation for number of bedrooms. It is difficult to analyze and make projections based on number of bedrooms, or how many people we expect in bedrooms. The ITE trip generation for land use 220 collected data on low-rise multi-family housing, and based on that data, the traffic model came up with a best fitted curve, which discussed below, has a very low standard deviation, and a very high R squared value, which indicated September 13, 2021 Ms. Janice Kerr Page 2 of 2 that the data collected is not scattered. The TIAR assumes a land use that is typical, and with the best possible data, captures the number of project generated trips. Comment 3: In addition, the north end of Leilani Street (from Lako Street to the Church) is a quiet (quasi-cul-de-sac), used by a significant number of Kona Vistas' families with children and pets, for walking, running, biking, etc. There are no curbs, everyone is on the street pavement. Response 3: While it is possible that after Kekuana`oa Place is connected in Phase II of the project, some residents could travel into the project site from the south by turning onto Sunset Avenue, then north on Leilani Street (or Pualani Street), then east on Lako, and then west on Kekuana`oa Place, this would represent the majority of traffic or where backups could occur. This is why the traffic study focused on impacts at the intersections identified in Section 3.7.2 and in Appendix 2 of the EA. Comment 4: This Proposal will significantly lower my property value and that of most of my neighbors in Kona Vistas. It is unacceptable and very unfair to lose the value of our collective investment in order to make money for the Developers. We have all worked hard to keep Kona Vistas quiet, healthy and safe for Families and Seniors. Please do not destroy the good environment so many of us strive so hard to maintain here, merely for the benefit of a few greedy people. Response 4: The project is consistent with medium density zoning and conforms to the guiding principles regarding urban growth patterns as defined by the Kona Community Development Plan. The analysis in the EA cannot speculate on property values. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashle From: r e ras ma P I:1 0 a-cc M- Sent: October 7'—C I. I M To: Subject: F rd V 'a z7, 1, 1! % i': FA uii,werits 1 k I 11 A 1(1 L"'A S 1.I All! :1 U1-kTo-l1. '.'!'K dIll.-I ofHawai'-I, State of Hawai'i- The proposed land development project drat is the wLat,l4 .1 OftilL pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map key [dos, (3) 7-6-021:016, 7-6-0211-017, 7-6-021:018, and 7-6-021:019 North Kona District, Hawaii W.-wd- Stdli2 uiIVLAN nic rL'5Ofially,1s well as affects rny intcrcst in real property. I t LIQ %k 1 7! i I.i 11111 Cw 11I ,-, lwcl of 01C ar l pio Jcct. In such ti:ipacttles, I 1111--d11,111d kTIOMCLI'C ortlic tilct> and 'ok&i 31111 WOUld 1C-StVF8- 1110FOO 11',:LL11CLl upovi to do so, 2 1 have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and attachments. I am specifically concenied about: Arch alq i L fl tires. 3.1 4,10 jw cowi.dur ffii[L the srtldles in :iq)pori ofthe Drat[ Ewhonric[ital A L:A'Mellt al-tf :Ldcqu,::ic I iw i.A %%Llti d011L Jil only a VT'RY SMIALL I)Llrli(w of 1I1i2 1arL1ea4:rca,,2,4- irca. 'The Nor'.11wVt'i Llld "orfll al-L"ll k-I'LlIC [11 iFJICIIN; I the b0i7le of—,w rtncieiit lioluo and was NOT iv,;;cs-sed or documented. 4.1 dt)] J)afeeh' i 1-.L,:1 L I.-i C , i k..:It I I I--- ,I t I I' 0.! I k 1 C. I I 'Ad I I I u 1.1:041'1,11 4 1- i%L I L V1 'L11tUFJ1 walls in the archaeologic; i,i W C1 i i, Support of di v Draft E nviro ii n 1 1!1 clit- I lie I lolualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological lifaiure from pre-Western contact tinics that cannot he replaud if damagcd OT destroyed. n I IN I5.1 base my conL_ w).1. I ;L :\;I _j j,,,jj j I j j: hy Tent I L C.I.. j-..i I I I I 11" ;w(:1 .-III I:: .III LI'Ll L1111';D'a site. 6.j LkA, and analvsis sincb thritInsum, the Draft Em IYA)'A"AAL A'' the important Hawai'lan cultural and archaeological features can be understood, let alone properly preserved. 7.AC i mttunlunl. the Draft EmIlrormenial mmt be rcvlsed ro address the location, data recovery and A'AW lik&LUILKI Shdc ;ompon nts prese.lit (in t1w sub1ccl parcels. 8. The developer's report states that they consuitcd many parties frorn 0I[A, etc, whom I personally know are against this desecration, The devc[oper's repots scorns to allude that they had consent from these parties, ftorn whom they d6initely DO NOT have consent. I dcciai-- III Iwo-IiI1 i.\ of I ille f'C I C.2,)1111-1. L- I I .Iv Dated: Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, October 8, 2020, Sincerely, Marta Barrcras 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Marta Barreras via email: barrerasmarta@yahoo.com RE: Comments on Cultural Resource Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Barreras: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 do not consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. The EA was done on only a very small portion of the large acreage area. The northwest and north area of the property is the home of an ancient holua and was not assessed or documented. Response 1: Numerous archeological studies were performed, covering 100% of the entire project's land area. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) 3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 2: 1 am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 2: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) reports were prepared for the project. September 13, 2021 Ms. Marta Barreras Page 2 of 3 As part of the AISs, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 3: I base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, I have spoken with him personally and he has statements regarding the ancient historic holua running through this site. He is very interested in the restoration of this site. Response 3: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1 .0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Marta Barreras Page 3 of 3 Comment 4: The developer's report states that they consulted many parties from Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), etc, whom I personally know are against this desecration. The developer's report seems to allude that they had consent from these parties, from whom they definitely DO NOT have consent. Response 4: Section 3.5 of the EA states that consultation was sought from OHA and other parties. Consultation does not imply consent. As described in Section 3.5, consultation means gathering input in an effort to assess impacts. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. i- f Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mort, Ashley I% II.k sIt,I Al 1,71, r Sent; JK C 1,27 PM To: Subject- Attachments- KV Declaration rtF, on kw ownerspdf W-ConGepts 75.6130 Pa Oahla St- Kall ua-Kona, Hi 96740 p-808-990.2049 1-808217,9942 116 6G 0 Dt"CLARATION OF 1, A NGFLA CH EISIA:R.declare: 1. 1 am a resident or[Pualani Estatcs subdivision],County of llawai'i, State oHawaii. The proposed [and development project that is the subject of the pending, Draft Ein inamicrit,31 As_wsqrncni I kf117. 7.6, 02 1:01 S.and 7-6-021-019 North Kona District. Hawai'i Island, State of fiawai-i affects me pell'SUngily as well as affects my interest in real property. I residL Bile IdisLancel aFthe proposed land development project. In 1-.k JL_L t Ud llx-rcl., if ca I'M 11pon L45 do &o- 2. 1 have reviewed th , p-nti:wg DWAI I I'-N 1RON",d I 'J I 'd A 1;11-, sis Rcp.w. 1,% w ,l .\1 InternW."-,11:.d. 11:1-1 .1 d 11,L, li,,J as Append 7 1 dh ORAF I ENVIRONMI'NITAL I..'k,1,!IQd about advctse crLiffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that art J)0 t I U Hk in 1110 1 V I :Ij I I,: 1111111LA Analysis Report. Traffic and the SSFV, I I I J'I, I Ar III% :1-, I";.i Iv CI ji h" -wdk 11, I)f \F 7 4111<i 3, 1 n the Kona Vistas subdivision, thu proposed project relics can di c Use Ufa substandard KALUMU'011 Place. Kckuana-oa Place is very steep. has limited sIgllt distances due io exannne curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increa;ed traffic a r i si n V front Phase I and Phase 2 bu i I d,ou ts of the R oya I Vistas Hovs i n g Project is inadeq Uatc I 1 addressed in the SSW Traffic Impact Analysis Report, wh[ch focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly eonce'rneei that adding numermiq vehicle trips to til.'I 17L3LZ7 ;i l . rate ubditi i4,Ion v ill 1 r,e 1t. L1.Y11L:1 tilllt c; I : .,I ,, 1{ r4 i icnts alaln Kektiana`oa Place. 1 i:i'I:`IIIL:I II:iLC ll": lti.:'. 'L„Its_ l)t'I311-"'-L.11f •Ii-,i:l.i 'i't1;1;1"t' If ,'.11l,Ylll.:ii%i [,I address these concerns. 4. The DRAFT ENVII," 11 S,-1 1.1:':1 .1:1 '.tip. j11 othcr& crc tire°.ticSti rr"'2 r,+! ', iL l' ii L7' .f', 77r 1i' Id 7t:itl '7 dd 1: y'S' ,!7' i lit a f'. 1!71 i7 d'?.d :ed -'.k, l apLer 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Instead er squarely addressing these: issuL,. I',,°,,.ever, the U)RA17T ENV1RONMENTA1. ASS F SSMENT simply ignores them. secondary effects are:expected since the dcvelupntertt would utilize 1 :I lI§ 1111 r lstructure. provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial demands to C€lunty services," It is a serious ornission for the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substandard existing infrastructure. like Kekuana"oa Place. 5. The DRAFT ENVIRONMEN,rAl. AS ESSMENT addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have er substruilial adverse efjecr on ptihftc heallh, The Applicant claitns. `7ILe Propk,,se4l I'r4,j.1 11 ould not affect public health in any N'ay ,torjn1 %ater w4,ould be a17171':'j)1'I'L111:1S LI141111;d ,.11 III t l;1;I1:iYc' S1I'[ItiMFLC ;. II'A"IL ' 11JV@ been_take n WIP careful consideration it1_flrrp c'_t_cle il;" Emphasis added, This bald cvnclusiun tleres noL address potential at >v°er r1 gmred ljti ( 1wpiL:r I 1-200.1-t3, iawaii Administrative Rules. 6. The P I an n i n g De parlin e nt should not accept the DRA I-'T l"N VI 4 1 I N-Ps LII C I I:i L C I E)1 k,;I k I A I I L I I a.failure to address adversL- 17C 1111P;1,,1:, I ' ik, '1.- IAA, L, )J WiSiOn arising from the project, b. 'I],,c '-',,'FM Traffic Impact r- n-LOs:s L'%%III iate of 1 in contrast I `: '' 11i: 2N 'A itcher Engi11,:,:iri- Tiiit'l'ic [11111,LL I Lk, E_'T_(M th 1',1 IL' Ill A I),11 1 iio1i r- eN pi, ,cni i al I-C Lit 1011 C. The SSF 1YI J cal'llc Impact Analysis Reporl d0c,, not 1,111,Jilti-gorcrai iorial C IS-11L" C.CL111,111 in Hawaii according to census data aaJ RON k I J.,_- ,i I r 11,1,t]1,1,` (,- 1);,!I 1J:,I"1 C I Ilk" Ist"I 1r, L,(I I'l q pllcc I' d.the ssw Traffic Impact Annl%.,uls Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 851 vehicles fDr Nonhhound (ILICk:11 Kaa0111111UI1Lt highway On the sclecLed dates of Pi 10. 2019 1CWIINJildALI;u L 24. 20 11).a Satur1n 6th We 20 IN' %Vitcher 1-,ni_,1vccr'Mg Tral'11L; lw[)zwt Analysis Rtepksrl. i%hich reported 1057 vehicle.; for January 14 and 15,2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the SSFMTraffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles Per 11OUr In 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahamanu Highway at 7 a.m. Tile difference in volume is more than dolihic Lho 111,1XI1111mi 10% 11 accepted in day-to-day MCaSUrCMCntS and thus Unreliable: C. The reCOMMC11LILt101' I'V I AI 1 1-:11 1_1. 1111[1,sJ AlLlk.%SlB for a roundabout hl I ILI;Ih':l i -UkL ;N,1,1-h) is inconsistent with the tratfir, corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignafted present traffic Safety liability conc rn fik-r the ri,iu,,I-.i- I 11 ' rails-, 1!1117.Lcl -11,; 11 1.;1 InolU1Z, :I'V I), Lk 1.1 L k 11, the untersection ot Quo-i- K,<;il,I,!i I I 1A I I I.—PA-J.% ,I!Ll VI-11,P11 I 1ti Where, as liere-all intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditiGns, it should be prioritized 1'()r study and design Gf a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed prk?ject. 7. In sum, the Draft Environmental Assessment and SSFM Traffic Impact Arialysiq Report does not present sufficient, credible facts and analysis such that the adverse impacts, on frolli incremsed traffic can he fully undcrstood and result in t:: 1 1-11 1; 1 il JJ,: Ill,!1-- '111d I L*P03a4`, I Lk!,IJIC J.k: IL.h.% ''I J%J.jury that tic forui--o':1t.v, i trw2. Dated Kailua-Kona, 10,8.. 2020. S-1 gnaftl M.CIMS114wr printed name: Angela Chesler 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Angela Chesler via email: Angy@vipconcepts.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Chesler: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms.Angela Chesler Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms.Angela Chesler Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms.Angela Chesler Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Law Offices Of STEV N D. STRAUSS Puss Office Box 11817 Telephone {BU8)969-6684 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Facsimile (808)930-3882 Steven D. 5lrauss e-mail:steverrstraursslarvyerqggniaii_ccm Li,ensed in California a Hawai) Cavil and Criminal Trials 1r Intellectual Property 1 Business Duveloprnent T Environment&Land Use TT T'rt4'"T T7 RTTTTTTITTT'!'"M'"'!`"M"F7 T'r'f7TT7 T 7 Y''ItTT77TTT TTT T7 TT4"'11'1 TT TTT'fT T"4"1''TTT TTT TTT TT Ir'4'7TT October 8, 2020 Michael Yee, Director Hawaii County Planning Department 101 P'auahi Street. Suite 3 Hite, Hawaii 96720 Re: pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project lax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021 016, (3) 7-6µ021:017, (3) 7-6-021*018, and 3) 7-6-021:019 North Kona District, Hawal`I Island, State of Hawaii Dear Mr. Yee-. represent Kona Vistas Association, Inc., a non-profit corporation comprising an assoclativn of homeowners and residents of real properties located within the Kona Vistas subdivision adjacent to the proposed development project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding the draft Environmental Th...; submission addresses three main issues: traffic. impacts; archaeologi •al information and stormwalter drainage_ These issues must be addressed individuaily Lvr,d cumulatively. For the reasons stated below, my client considers that draft Environmental Assessment is deficient in each of these areas. Accordingly, the Planning Department should not accept the draft Environmental Assessment in its present form. See, e.g., Kalelkina v. Yoshioka, 128 Hawaii 53, 283 F.2d 60 (2012) (in context of accepted EIS, a reviewing court uses the 'rule of reason' to determine whether an EIS is legally sufficient in adequately disclosing facts to enable a decision- making body to render an informers decision. Udder the "rule of reason," an EIS need not be exhaustive to the point of discussing all possible details bearing on the proposed action but will be upheld as adequate iir ii has been compiled in -good faith and sets forth sufficient information to enable the deci,=.term-maker to consider fully the environmental factors involved and to make a reasoned decision after balm c. n . the risks of harm to the environment against the benefits to be derived from th(.s proposed action as well as In Ariake a reasoned choice between alto rnntive:, (E7-n-iha s:s added.) i ; G 96 October 8, 2020 hrlichael Yee, Director Hawaii County Planning Department Page 2 Traffic Impacts The Traffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM International, dated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the draft Environmental Assessment does not fully or accurately address traffic: impacts likely to result from the proposed development both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision. Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report are discussed in the body of the draft Environmental Assessment at pp. 48-50, 07 and 71. First, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuan.a`oa Place- Kekuana'oa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the Royal Vistas Housinq Project is inadequately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact.Analysis Report, which 'iccUsOs instead on impacts along Queen Kaahurnanu Highway. Of particular corv:ern art: I'ri1 reselling addition of numerous vehicle trips to and from the Royal is!t.s He}u iriy Project separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residr r,tr al+Dora Kekuana'oa Place. Kona Vistas Association, Inc. considers that the PI-n--iing Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Second, the draft Environmental Assessment requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. See Chapter 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing these issues, however, the draft Environmental Assessment simply ignores them, claiming that "No adverse secondary effects are expected since the development WOUI l utilize existing infrastructure, provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County services." It is a serious omission for the draft Environmental Assessment to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project"s increased use and reliance upon substandard existing infrastructure. like Keku,ana'oa Place. Thirst, the draft Environmental Assessment addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect or) 1)ubFic health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in croiect design." Emphas- 3 added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as regiJr-,--i :-)y Chapter 11-200.1-13, Hawraii Administrabve Rules. The Planning De,r_ariment should October 8, 2020 Michael Yee, Director Hawaii County Planning Department Page 3 require the applicant to specifically address adverse traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project in the context of adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities as required by Chapter 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Fourth, the Planning Department should not accept the draft Environmental Assessment reliance on the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which has the fallowing deficiencies'; a. fa lure to address adverse traffic impacts within the bona Vistas subdivision arising from the project: b. The S SFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report uses a gro wth rate; of I%, iri contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic: i-onc,4:st c n is Seery sensitive to growth rate in a non- linear, exponential relation; c. The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis report does not recognize multi- generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project; d. The SSFM Traffic. Impact Analysis Report ern plays an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected states of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low report.-Hd ',,ehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis} RB I cA. miich shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 201E for Northbaunc Oueen Kaahurnanu Highway .at 7 a-m. The difference in volarne is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-'day measurements and thus unreliable; e. The recommendation by SSF= d Traifit, lnip ict Ari flys: , Rep0i I fry' :-3 roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highl,+t-jy and Hualnla. Road Nort ) is incc siwJ7 ll with the traffic corridor, Intersections thatpass warrants but remain Linsignali-eri present traffic safety liability concerns for the governmelit; ls' s•, e Lit!:Lic'iud Asses sent Or t4:c i IAR for the Royal Viglas a K_)i lfi V.1 k,LSE, Ids vidi.on-it:;A D_ Prevpd ouros', Ph.D. October 8, 2028 Michael Yee, Director Hawaii County Planning Department Page 4 f.The recommendation by SSPM Traffic Impact Analysis REpcort for monitoring of the intersection cf Queen K ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where_ as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. In sum, the draft Environmental Assessment and SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report does not present sufficient, credible facts and anafysis such that the adverse impacts on existing infrastructure and resulting from increased traffic can be fully understood and result in appropriate government planning and response. 2. Archaeolggical Information The draft Environmental Assessment at pp. 42 - 43 recites tliat the applicant's experts sought conSUltation from, Inter alia. J. Curtis Tyler III. cultural descendent, and from Keko,a Nazara, Kona Hawaiian Civic Club President_ Supposedly, Mr. Tyler provided srwAr if'r: Information that was not included with the draft Environmental Assessment. Kona Vis as Association, Inc., however, is informed that neither Mr. Tyler nor Kekoa Nazara were contacted. Kona Vistas Association. Inc. is presently investigating tl7er.e discrepancies and will seek to supplement this input statement. In the interim, the Planning Department ;should require the a^plicant to verify the information presented in the draft Environmental Asscssrnont and the June, 2020 Cultural Impact Assessment For A 78.122-Acre Property In Hialualoa 1 st Ahurpua'a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, Hawaii [TMK: (3) 7-0-021:016-0191 attached to the draft. An open question exists whether the draft Environmental Assessment has been compiled in good faith and sets forth sufficient information to enable the decision-maker to consider fully the erivaronmental factors involved. Ni---xt the draft Environmental Assessment only lightly touches on potentially important r,ulti.v ril A,,chaeologlcal Resources at pp. 71-73, Chapter 11-200,1-13, HAR, however, rc.quires agencies to consider irrevocable commitments of natural, cultural or historic resources when determining whether an Action has significant effects. Although the draft Environmental Assessment claims that "no valuable natural or cultural resources would be committed or last as a result of the Propose(] Project" and "No impacts to archaeological resources would occur wit"-the planned preservation of the railroad berm and petroglyph.", Kona Vistas Association, Inc. is informed to the contrary Acror+ng to an evaluation and analysis performed by Tcrn Pchaku Stone, substantial Ei;_ir. 7rr exists that the land encompassed by the subject land parcels includes October 8, 2020 M chael Yee, Director Hawaii County Planning Department Pace 5 featurc s of tno Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as xl• ,-LiItur•:;i %,,,.gills in the archaeological studies offered in support of the draft Assessment. The Holualoa Slide is an impartant Hawaiian cultural and irc h I eologicai toature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if cam aged or destroyed. See correspondence and figures attached hereto, It appears that the draft Environmental Assessment identifies the Holualoa slide parallel wLdls only as walls used for agricultural / ranching. Kona Vistas Association, Inc. is presently seeking to verify the information attributed to Mr. Stone and will seek to supplement this input statement upon receipt of such vehfication. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holuaioa Slide components present on the subject parcels. 1 Drainage The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the draft Environmental Assessment. The draft Environmental Assessment does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future, whioh would lead to unlawful project segmentation, arnoncg other errors. A loan-: conclidsion by the applicant or accepting aLjLhority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically ghat infrastrLioture improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those impec,rernents will function. 1.Cumulative Effects aw n,-e t!r)c three areas identified above are properly and fully addressed, the cumulative of adverse impacts in these areas and all others must also be addressed. Ctok cI" +`, iJ,1.K M1(;1,,itA Yr-e. Director Hawaii Planning Department pa Thank you for your consideration of this input from Iona Vistas Association, Inc. arend , s Enclosures pc: client TRAFFIC IMPACTS Assessment of two TIAR for the Royal Vistas J Kona Village Development r.; •.:'.. ;.:, I,I I. I _Ir rs, PhD. Prc ip.ssr,r nT Tr,-insportation Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa r_f7 1l'u, Wc ''is.7'L? r25, 2020 I.hc CurrerrtTIAR(by 55FNI Antcrnatsur'al, ddv od-J,7.y and the u ; 1'_.`^::l ilia dated October 18, 2018.) a{',t'1 I :+t i• '? it ,'i'-Ilai I i' I+'i Ya lrl l'.`-r,•r r} "'1':, FI '-,-.: v Capp-ity M1anual(HCM)for as`Pstiirlt; :r Elf6c 11 ar ti, tivl,r III .:,.I•:.:I,, Ir .. _t.Nr+.L; in Flaw'::i, 'arr ; ,I ,. a .t r:;•rri:)ljtorofspeclf cations in the R,ram j;Id Lea& It roului;dy II. i:iy CEO 462—Traffic r Ir .f marlaa. A critical CUrr.l.Fvliu:,I 'n ,-I I!An is rile r7urr,bcr :if trips r;!n+3rtated by the pre>ji,d during the AM and PM peak hour;. baih 1 IAR 1,swd the standard ITE Trip riDde:Js:arid carve to very similar results as shown below. Table 9. Estimated Trips Generated - phase 1 AM pM Lane~? Usu [ITE Code Equation j Equations IVlulti-f imiiy Hoejsinrs Ln D.95 Ln L! {T 0.8911 r,rl - Q. 2 Low Rise) [2.20] 0.51 I6,Dwelling Units 253 258 Netiv Trips °: 117 13Y Iin Clot in Out L nitsT = TuW;I is lrllLiCI- ;fir tries 9C'.rler- t0d, X = Dtivt~II r' r°p 1715tr bution W" r I,,ltiull f ,v Lx rs "t rnaasurd le Impacts vvhen n prn!,7 '-V '-':•.t : . ;',F it lC'I t' p},Tong the peak I d rpctiml. Irkip. project d04 ! --ol [.'1 Ph•-''C.' 1, Ir. pW".Isc. 2 I'l`ce I I;";li: r,,, i rl,lll Koriu V,ilt r°.::. :-' i.[G k;r1 II.I ,ant, 'w°r will be vehicics pier hour in the-AW pe.A. Ir!0a:::: I'I he notccl ;;a.l, ;umale li.f,I[1 j.ijl'i.ci, ir, LLIla bCLLMILI IJr vl`-_Ilu..111d.Icwit-I In [JI Ik.'vvervo r'i-ic),er crltlti 1 cnr'.'peri L,1t is the 'L1.ckground pr 1'.VTh•" ''.'V:"l l,:.i I7:?t'. 1t?.'S the. d'.Il i;ll i,-c v,ih of traffic du to ,(,r.-'ral pia Iati,:j-; grrowth, othor rl a,I:;:Ir1:, r!•,i ) ;':r Ii_r i,a.a, ,ar. 1111' n,.n[IIJ -.1 ;yi.,,I,,l!y r:77%ce5 vith I%Io ,,6 i . y t eL. I L• , %.. i i:llr , rllt'4 $c;ll ,1t,.. Or.Jr . f`.C.k Y0.'.ril':"1:.1 • x I.,li;l.rll, •,:rl ';rh i I w tr. iiA estimates are available from a regional plannir)R model.The latter are preferred to an assumed I Ce. k- o growth rate; it incr VY10c, I ht'VLY!LX11'm the Volume-to Capacity Iju, 75,the existing capacity is 751r`n It is ii i•o-idire_ar xpone5tiali dit!ifare deiays "skyrocket"when the V/C ri100 .,XU"!tAS 0-9. A growth ra '•' I%rnean5 th;ii:a roitid that carriris 1,000 vplik-les now will carry 1.1`-)1)vtd idt_-s in 15 y a ars. A ,Ii j,';Le of 219 me;;:'I, t C:11- vc icjc.5 'I.-A%.,i w- I :.drri 1,300 ve I-,ic!es in 1; -.:.lF, CaP7.- -Y 01-h.- : --.:I: k-, 'p-1 hn cu'rJ;ii. Liji-diti.-m-s am i-OCA Thu V/C IS C hi;, tnefiltUl e L-fI IL: %-I:-, ,,iLl Lj-u v I cunrc!rmirp,IThIr v/C iriiliu i;77',,'", and the future cc i 10 itkons with 2 1,, z €--j I I c ill he poor I I(, If one were to add jusL SO I i:A,I:on, _,Fi:,Jes from H dn-:rC.ln Went, they: :"I;-,ur oi Jit 4}-., ,ViLh 1% growth rate will be coricernint_-, f ii io. is S.O:A) ar.d tHP 4UNRO 4.01 iditl Al 2%growth rate will C"bi:-'pour(the V/C ratio is r 'j, :):J'i I %,:-i:ch I exac&i 1),11 il ki,,;I I I rinu IL. !.rj I f ic LcrigLi-t,un which In TI A R is re pre.s F!n r,-d ,v t I*, ,J,-1:t p e v kh"!r;P I riterestingl[y,the Ucl TIAR used a growth rate of 2%and the Current TIAR rawth 'rite of 1%, tea n tl-p ,iar.-Iri lli;; -:ifference. iysVnrtated LJSt:fiL611011 !iven in lhu Current TZAR is credibk,, Old TAR: "Thor -_%„eral other developri: iit III pkv, 11,rdo herr i I variouf of pl;nnning for some tin -tl2 P q_JI,:", ITI...- r ):I: i:,y i r-j ceede d v3ry from not oblari I ivj; grope, zo,Wi to ruqu I r Laient.:- et by -. I` F I.,I u Ii De partn-, 1,1 repast. It C,rl I[lot[)I._, Ojufted VA-LAI,or if, Lhu cr o ects wi I proceed. Th l in the^ LrJi[. volL,iiiu rL!L;uj:cd ,iy Lhr'., hould ufffice 1711I5 drv--I:,pi :;W., IVH 'fhio 2035 Federal Aid Ludt--,ays Lon-7 RSaeTr-,)n.qif.)Ftaflnn Pl.in Finw, i,,i I'l :'GY1a J'ld- I I_c1VVJIi Eelt RoA to ae-1',.9CO 1'S t,-).71 w -11 rrcwJ, ra nVer 'I i Ycr-,i-, ri L'Ic Kona ar=?a_ IFCI'Nt HLe Of 1% per W dCUDLI"t rc)r addi.noT)a[tr,&ir.:-,I:tn,? tudy Relying nn a regin nal modt ! for forecasts is pirefr!f._,di Le Ti I a k:r 6 an ;iss'Umptic n. TZAR analysis depeir6-,on traffic volu rrl-.s col i;.::_t,f. tI i-I_I IJ to form the basf,cond In onS LJj_.XY% VJ 1:. fI AJ F ml r icv. D'I U.W[I_.C,L. P,'Fj I Both I IAA i15 Ccvi i,.' f i.1, 01c.I E.I c-.r L. C:J:,` VO.All le; I-Fe fairly rePFCSe;.: ti'ae at a r)c:- I m7onomy,and norwa I travel activity conditions.I I :: I'`•.fk IIto, tU JLi 12ro ki ersec r;i- I I, il y u-:e :ii 1crsection in cam mcn; I i,I 5L, vJ I']i QLc-en K.-IL 11 L"I'Ll nij Hwy, 11 it:I (21)CY 'd d r e "AI :,-I :i w-rpen ca pture for I--' L.r I s:; L IAA, ,Ind '.II ny f I;)ii dwr-tirp. tnr-i j I I.dd f D,w o-J ly v i riation,a nj!,'ch ,ri the vol i mo cJ PN_k 1 Y'C""o jI `Vj'o v,uver, one 13T.'*-- ,I,`Vi-)TiO I k %onrrkoni I--- 1-i c vo k I iiiv ori Norl.'i I.iA I-d U 11)-i.-I Bath TIAR show Level of Service C or the traffic(movements at the intersections, The A to F scale is easy to comprehend. In Iui,. aLi a°I, LOS of 8 and C shnulri nn-rw rrrd to LOS D and E which are common in btJsy r.11ies, I-ic.w vur. In noth PAR severe To improve my understal1c:II -,of '!;IW :L,I ILIsE litl i di I. I I{.'I tO r.v.: .•_. I.!I, ,_ ::'s ,;se 'CJ:rne_to_ C,,pacity r atlo repurlc:rl ih:- v/_ ill r,I!-(Urrrcn_ FIAJ L,.'; w rtiorec ie rli:_r, :9ais d:• i'T al iiij1 ,ber i_presents thc' I';-ii€i l ::f li.lcat'.hci'r'LdIJckL'I .'`h " __: p,:r i"kaur) tl- _t ln.. lJilii7e_ }ICaIly r ffic impaM fa-ld delays are beco,i-frig uL, 1 . 1 :.: cl,I, ., 7 ,-,.., .Ir (I hoserr3l1.,1 ., ir'r r l ,:..,. 1 . r irlsrtanco,; ,ii7ca!aJ:'Imarfzed below. i riki_ i--o ('I"d - I.;I I;i i i, v.c vements had j v; r r.-fir :,f G.73 of 0-74, sa J ircItidl,d those a15w,_'I . Ir± .- `_r',:'i:r:l`. J• is i l :.. ,,,..11)I'iPC: C.7.,-nr. LoJoking atrl,4r c lkirni In :)nIdfaGC, in 20 . J 01 11 1:, iI .iV" I _Ill_, J!i 'Z:d wvere 5ub5tantially busy, that is, utihet:d 1L r$>'i 01 Ldpacat or. I-ox±_'. Tho buay r !,,ti";'IFi l t)clry to --riore than cauhlr in 2D29 without the project, and ne,ii:y t-ip _ 1. 2039, On t.,Ra :-:tfl' I„ r:rl, thy inc,eirr r:I.,II affect of the traffic added by the PFOji-Ct IS 5M.--i 1, :I'; 11r 'o."Jj1wnt 2%,51"..I 2% >:I in ii,tes indlClii;.' ; Y Lhu butlr rn of the last coluln l•) w ni nn•;r:'nr•ntS wlLlr I:.,h v{r: U'L:ulne l 1pacayr;"ie'y dlff.Wilb with v{I; w€th VA PM r=17.75 and Tablesuf a Utrr r:T7 tiR 71 0.75 0.73.D.74 ,Son,, Total WIftut. Table L:ExisImS 2('r',9lnierwction S y u 6 0 6 mn 2 Table 12'ruLute 2C124 Wlai,nut 6 4 SO B 2 10 20 45% 32%Fra'ect 111LINSeCdOrl Level of Table M Future 2029 Without Project€ntersecticn Level 4Yf 11 3 ld 11 2 13 2'7 61% SAS Ta€iE!n5 Ftlture 2039 WYlthaut ralr tt Inl{•r':r+?Inn Level of 35 IF, 1B 1 20 36 E2% 75% Tatale 14 F.il,r•_.,4LI Po'rth Prffje. 1-5 2 10 23 495'. 31% 2%r, rn1-7-F,-,..nn Le.•.I„'Servl ce I r di.hPrr.jwr: 16 1 17 11 S 15 32 0% 716: 5% I''I 17 0 17 22 1 23 4b 83% 811A 79ciaaler5ect*v Luvc UI S'_'Is .L This outcarine is in agrepmr_nt vAth the following concluding ciucte from the Old TEAR: "It can be seen from tl.j'; : is its ir,rl '-.gal. LhI_ inp::r:'_ or exi_.,i._- raffic byt iis :eve=opmew, IS rnia,imal. However,with ther dte",- '1C7PMtT nts €a trired in w;-v tl a _! , I c i annun gi-colwh rate there can be s,gnvicant Ir}pact of the trn ftic if no mitigating Mea 5u Firs I i ern KJ€Jc.0 rJ.11 The Current TIAR provides arterial speed est )'c.'v 'cr SoullIbuurr,'< ,d fl:jrI.i; r, r! Queen Kashurttanu Hwy,;see Table 30 an page 55.The Northbourlu is Px,,3e(-t.7,d tr) ape rate substantially slower than current conditions.The estimated i'y.€) r i.oh `oa-€n- AN-1 Peril:d is r:oir.par-able to busy arterials In 41 an c- COUriqn-,cm-AlTions, I otors(,c-[ioj-5 that pass warrants but remain unsignalized area traffic safety IJj ]L it iui Lill' ogcacy in chargc, i --Jiiti i,a nL I lighway ard Rozid I:.--iluvl) SQ, dfiVU May deCk.'C' tC use Puepuaanui Street to access Queen K i,ll 1 n%.y., i., _u I L rj LUL31d dire :-!r,. L-'.7s d,n the existing volumes,this i I I.u rsec L I,-i i (.'I. I s I I. A i s r i;j. -,I, warr ji,.t.This Intersection did pass the Peak-Hour zi- i- it 1,:i;i,i k h,7jLJI_wo I. r I if1r'i:' ,,mld hp monitored- Thisis an appropr ivLL: rU(:QrT1FTIuiicLi Lion. Rccall that Northbound Queen lCinhumnnti Hirhwty volUrne rnny he-low ill -,h i-TI J\P, tiuni il d c o 11 cr-'i I I poretl t ja I ly F1 1 0 blern. 5. Queen Kaah u wanu Higfim-.y J I If i F L t;[.A.d L'1 r1i StI C_`Lt Signal timing should, be nionitored zind adjusted as needed to increase the probability that queues an Queen i(aahumanu Flie:iway can clear ilie iris SCLtiW1 in "Cycle. This is an apprupriate rucornmendaCan. However, it Is not clear whether there 15 enough space to accornni odate the waiting flueup of vehicles turning left. 6.01".t.!, h:-I 111,1111"rij 1111 R'w& 11-A'I., RCIA-;!'.-,..:v This intemer,-,Ini-, -Mll thrmj& flj;' f'Ill P-jn,LL 5- any Phase 2 residences are cocupied, it is rcct-1,7 -rc-ndcd V-,,7t rlic cc.i- V-1 is that Royal Vistas Phase 2 'tef' ou'' ',i '-III aICCC55 the Lomo 'SLrc-ct This is an appropriate recornmendaticin. 7. queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway hi}. [nI:erserJnn pas5ps Aw.- Fox.1 IL-ur vva-r.irft orc- Pcak-H4:--Lj[-v."(j, dur :-,t, ,,,I IA-;"II( hoUl", ICA ll: S,-.Pnar'c)s. Futi,i[f? m iitrjrEA, md r4f!c: SIP.I"LL' 01-r t-'ft tUM MLIVPj-jj.Ijj'- P" Lr, H139 wLh ;r)i,J-W)O 1 3vji ji _-5e ly cLipui-Ay.Thk.. .ji, ;i loft 4 rn. vv iilo s!-nal I.. s ] rcindy ova,;- :anacit,,y in 2C ED I be-a r cvor c lj DO L-.( U i ;i-, .ery I i Lt.I o I lft,-t--,n t h i intersf(-."(-'F..a r.c -.-,I I. . This is ii vvq:-i k r,'c n m rnnndation. An ime rsf_,c:Cciii I hol s more than one 'warrant wider all conditions should be on a priority I for Study aiA di-;jCn of-s signal For 11 can take over 3 years to install a new signalized intersection. Monitoring is not adequate. A detailed study and plan by Hawaii County is needed, regardless of the Kunv Vistals development. B.Queen KK,1,h4JmanL: HiG:I YoV I,,J Li :tiLIVCt The Lako SkI-i''f'1 [; !'t'f.(li.'!I` 17 1 1'.I3 Fi } I;; N'i'ph WICI'. or ,: I.hout the F;[ 'y,._, `4';•..;asi projKt In tl .,)-'•R: :,r I: :IIS°. C i il' ,,.IJr' i l 'i'' .'.I'. ;r.i.L71}a51f F 1[_'e tl rli _i tl-her , in CpnCLIJ Oflt)on tPje LakoStruc: L;I.:1xs:,!u!.-_.. _h:s , .IILi Lhi.. p—lamng fern 5p'i, «, protect ,:i;,,iR GLrn, .,,,'TI t f:-rlp lov., sr the delay,7h . ".ki''S'C: ,:In ,v,-! d also i—ior,,-)vo I'. ,,,:en IC:3hfurrlanu I-II f-i 4.'It _ e:l.Jti::. . '.'i kL, -i lanes as in t I--,YI',i:."'ri;l :`,I, ;.tl.r', Q.uartita.;v of tllw ir.lprov,uiu 1. rat khc: .jrr:'puLud phasing clhange Is neede4l. cs,c.:,rrymendation 6 on !hi: li ws:n.ry a:crd r,lore vrA, ,m(,to this intersection. 9,Q11''"'t K.i.71Y1J97 anu FIieYrway ar, (,t, ll. 'i :! Ili Roi d Signal timing should be munitored and updated as needed. This is an appropriate recommendation. Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL MF(JRN/lATIO GOMMMOD LJ s x aR' t 9 yy 4 1l 'Y' Ilk i P Hotualoa Inn 1.116a IniormaliDri HDlualaa Inn H a d,a u Holualoa .slide Walls of Slide Twin Wills of Slide Holual(ja ;lida Onlpw are i:amrounkatlone with Mi, Thm Pertlaku Slopes shout the twin waRs aftd tho alkle with a Kor1a Vista Board t'nimber15 Be?ikavr era mlimunkxations Willi Mr Tom POOku ftne at>wt the tvwtn+Aral Is and 1ha slide with ra Kona Vista Board rneii'ralvrs 4n Mon.Jul 1,2019,8:55 AM Tom fkihaku Suomi—wrote: To aiiswar the queMon negiwd*N the waillo-YES.Not all h6lusl alklen had walls Wl owanrly all i1+ma ran Haw l'l I>IvW do.The purpose was to lrakt the+crck in Ilia aigtler In across neulians aml ari;iraga6 lh2l nawJa l to bo raised.When you rrontlon mnwinp of 4u frcni rivauk)-ma$wi ttaral is an importaani paint hues ilia kpa torost line mNS at a IvOW 01L-r HGri when we w mrw,galbennq thn gtoal t tuns for our va'a,pepahOmAlu. ate_ This wall3 the rvain Purposn of She slides Itiaairorids of years no,whlt;h overtime ehanged to rim oct aan ammiation to the goda al than wean kblg{upland formal}and II)a spiriluelily we connemod with than mid ncrw The phyatcal cultist Wnftcepe found art the h0hia®lades Is the telling f tho attary what mide thmw sragrilwr; Maras Important t our cu Rural practlrAs espacielly sirlca this massIve mmpkrx ir:t-anfluctad Its pa'au,his hn[anip,and the preaert Apt Wail or triioa naokaapuni fhdanei).Piro were nova ml si¢ndi ,nt Ct]nllAAXA6 ak v INS txwatfino but riruau do giorldour. Kalieekb in Koauhrxi1Kvlko1u'u is anolbee.YVhha'ule,MO'aklnl,area Xalllklnul iuleul wage the earlier ocArivIvoos o rLabilM hard for migratilm puipr)m and the cliange in(ellglon.Tht 1F151rtahaa complex,mlldlllaas ihp curraplote adirplalion to the wtatfthad rallgion N Pa"ea: On Mesa,Jul t„2G'%9 M 8:15 AMJohn Tbm, hank y01U tar tklklar.1 tlhO tuna lu aducf,16 MR.11 1s gri9att,/ The hiatary of Na]uako is tl my TorrrftykohrCm,{slam I kiwile; i'I rivr i it Ily 5UTACiwel6t M6 ararfiNGO. Ohe rluss000 I:laaavdi.Itio LretoGI pprtlon of the holua at kilo Ilokma via Inn has a roltw*P on both Ste& V*cld lhkaa wah have Lmon bill it at Ow uatre We?Ps*Mopi to kW the IQge D Mrtahlad 89 OM Iravahed duwri,I haves found, in they proposed developmaM area a andion. of paNiW roi*weak.Cc any of ttwd othar I'foivas have walls? I spin thank you for all your hers.Vafy rsspoefful iiM gmteiltrl,Jahn cn Main,Jul 1,2010.6,36AM Tom warnster. Alohn Jotin, know I him riot teen ll'r contlrCl for aonia time but I have been(Ong[hrmQn all my newrtla a nd inf a for Na area.You sera nit"no to f rrd much in any literary atkoul that aride bacause rm the p mon who cud that rtuay art me]refit!-A tat ruf devalopmwt loam r.haa,oad lha cultural landecspe in to&"cvaf the yvem{past 200 ym.)and with It my rrcllva rultornl and srch1Ierdurat landsicepa sc Its a pU=W.HDIUe No beeil part of my'oharua and it bas bam my atcaiiernk:tom is aru haeobykamAy and cultuirally.I have apant years pfovldkro clAmral eduraatlon to Dili ccwimunldy iegardlm 91ae0gpglem"01,11 G ralrKa141lift awhltectutal tarmdgc".'nie alforl to to intcgr its lion camtlural lsndacni pis into this devobe:p nvrtt pmam If 11 wol jive(his phy5icni cdIttrr a laridar:iran.N.41h dial thrira iv n rfiror I ct1rreaQ110A be rtreen the Hbluatoa iiNde,6 eok;aoQhllai ICa bkaAliatalrrt,r,lrar KnTiwlrrrrit&in.a I+d-alraltowai'a.and Kwr4a(Lyn mir,The daviglo aarM of Kona over tuft ycimil has,xla[Lrarrr,1 tdvati iMdl ll'b6}illysL-al t'rPnn@C*0 of the flucr"In na s 47ACM IC Ir1-oar AYJ 3'MT Ynhok,Mrti'I-" ITwel :",..,Itolff h_of^jUkwklimr hops rd11if6.palxw.0nrtsId'seArcW-kcYw0r+i-subjce6'/63149a22kr3Mtl°b.. the 9f-@s10r Comglvas thek tWd exiab9-d,The WOMM Arvin of llrld complex h88 craw beeri prokeribd but not The Mauka sadiona that are still iarrdevaloped It's al this plaint the emphoshm dmullrt be do p(MftVmg Nm1aI is left of Nlkd,goat cm plex,We do know Ihlst K.ameharneho I walla ImI in this ar plax whtnh includoo Iearnlrtg to ll66a slide and surf I woukti adva&ia you In hxsk of the s ro"pittaml end Moos on what is Wit art the eantlrr:+tampkux and hm this would bernafik die u toad hotgky of Kw&Sorry I'M nal nn lGland to aralst,but al Nis polnl I behave[lka d&eelraprsinl vM destroy trt xw It you need ecrnserie rrlth 1Iawakm culturaYnditional architackurawarchaaodlogk:I bmk mrtd lei me knaadr,I can as"but if you maa4 sC+mo ome to do in-deplb resum ch,pi ire pfasantwians.nr Praulcie lJ[MMI,anll}f edueraklnai we CRII riis i-m thIs H+3riryr Kekrahtins rarovidisd No masi detsaim aiirrj:ia iugk,r rzctwrl at this ores+. Knowladge.iilteflAotalita+>'.and 1rn6aritandkrin ryf th—a r,-kn—i i+----I hqw r1'5 all ante hWned la slgnifirAnl me IKA WOWSS Trim Pbhaku Stour K*rWu(K 3A]Is a 501 G 3 clod profit arPn"dPn dedicated t+a cullum]F.oronn arju,Atkoy t1asmi no tf omonss ut lour kupuns.. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Steven Strauss P.O. Box 11517 Hilo, HI 96721 RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Strauss: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The submission addresses three main issues: traffic impacts, archaeological information and stormwater drainage. These issues must be addressed individually and cumulatively. Response 1: Specific comments on the various resource are addressed below. Comment 2: The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) included as Appendix 2 in DEA does not fully or accurately address traffic impacts likely to result from the proposed development both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision. Response 2: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 3: The proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuana`oa Place. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, and am concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 4: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 2 of 32 to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 4: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 5: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 1 1 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 5: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 6: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 6: Intersections within the proposed project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 7: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 7: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 8: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 3 of 32 Response 8: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1 .00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 9: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 9: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 10: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 10: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 4 of 32 Comment 11: The DEA recites that the applicant's experts sought consultation from, inter alia, J. Curtis Tyler 111, cultural descendent, and from Kekoa Nazara, Kana Hawaiian Civic Club President. Kona Vistas Association, Inc., however, is informed that neither Mr. Tyler nor Kekoa Nazara were contacted. The Planning Department should require the applicant to verify the information presented in the DEA and the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA). Response 11: In regards to the letter's statement that neither J. Curtis Tyler II nor Kekoa Nazara were contacted to provide, enclosed please find two email chains; one is between the project archeological consultant and Mr. Tyler and one between our cultural consultant and Mr. Nazara, confirming communication, contact, and request for consultation was made with both parties. Neither party chose to submit information to the consultant. In regards to the letter's assertion that portions of the "Holua Slide" may be on the property, a detailed investigation and analysis of this assertion was made copy attached) and it is confirmed that there is no evidence of any slide being on the subject property. Comment 12: Next, the DEA only lightly touches on potentially important cultural archaeological resources. Although the DEA claims that no impacts to archaeological resources would occur, Kona Vistas Association, Inc. is informed to the contrary According to an evaluation and analysis performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject land parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. Response 12: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua Inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31 182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1.0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. Comment 13: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the draft Environmental September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 5 of 32 Assessment. The draft Environmental Assessment does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future, which would lead to unlawful project segmentation, among other errors. A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 13: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase II of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the KCDP Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21 :18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the KDCP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three LLC would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by DPW. Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. Comment 14: Once the three areas identified above are properly and fully addressed, the cumulative effects of adverse impacts in these areas and all others must also be addressed. Response 14: There has been no substantive change in analysis as a result of the comments above. Cumulative effects are discussed under each resource in Chapter 3. September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 6 of 32 Traffic Supplement: Summarized Comments and Responses Summarized Comments Responses The internal study intersections were not a Failure to address traffic impact within the part of this TZAR; internal volumes are project area. expected to be small and not cause significant impacts at intersections. A better comparison for the project's numbers are historic HDOT counts rather 1%growth rate as opposed to the 2% than a TZAR done by another engineering used in the Witcher Engineering TZAR. firm. Our counts at the Hualalai (north) intersection were compared to HDOT counts between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai (north). It is the professional opinion of the traffic engineer that the ITE trip generation is the The report does not recognize multi- best source to determine the number of generational housing characteristics trips generated by the project, as it uses common in Hawaii data points from existing developments. Without justification, the analysis cannot depend on the use an arbitrary number, i.e., 3 vehicles per household. The traffic counts were taken on different SSFM traffic data seems to be lower than days, which can vary. However, the data the data in the Witcher Engineering TZAR. were taken on a typical school/work day, and is comparable to historic HDOT volumes. The roundabout recommendations has been removed from the TZAR. The satisfaction of a signal does not mean Recommendation for roundabout is not that a signal needs to be installed. There consistent with corridor. Intersections that are other factors, such as signal timing satisfy warrants but remain signalized and phasing that could cause delay and present traffic safety liability for the bottlenecks, rear end accidents that government occur more frequently at newly installed signals, and others. The recommendation includes monitored, and that a further study can be done for the signal. recommendation will be changed from Future traffic should be monitored, and a The recommendation for QK Hwy and traffic signal or roundabout should be Kuakini Hwy to be monitored is installed if needed"to"A future traffic inadequate. signal study should be done to determine if the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is appropriate". The TZAR counts are comparable to the The northbound volume seems low. It has HDOT historic counts. The counts used and much lower volumes than the old 2016 comparison to adjacent intersections are TZAR. defendable. At Kuakini Highway, the NB departing volume is 808, and the arriving NB volume at Pua uaanui is 877. The NB September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 7 of 32 at Kuakini Highway is a little less than 10% lower than the NB at Puapuaanui during the AM peak hour. During all other peak hours and at all other intersections, the difference volumes of the arriving and departing vehicles is really small. Also, our southbound volumes are a little higher than the historic HDOT counts, but our southbound volumes are correct as well. Recommendations for the current TIAR includes specific suggestions, but is See responses below. Additionally, as stated in the EA Section 3.7.2 and the lacking specific assessments on whether proposed improvements will actually TZAR, these are improvements for work. Comments were provided for each consideration by Hawaii County and the Hawaii Department of Transportation. intersection's recommendations. 1. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Palani Road: This is an appropriate Comment noted. recommendation. The TIAR does not propose a change from the split phasing. This intersection works 2. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and acceptably, it was merely stated that Henry Street: This is an appropriate changing the split phasing can help the recommendation. Quantitative overall intersection LOS.To clarify this, the assessment of the prosed phasing is recommendation for split phasing has needed. been removed in the TIAR and EA, and this intersection has the same recommendation as Palani Road. 3. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Roundabout recommendation removed Hualalai (north): Roundabout is odd for in the TIAR and EA. The signalization of the this corridor. Intersections that warrant a intersection should be further studied. The signal and remain unsignalized are a satisfaction of a warrant does not mean a traffic liability foragency in charge signal needs to be installed. 4. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Hualalai (south): This is an appropriate See response to comments above about recommendation. Recall that the NB QK traffic volumes. Hwy volumes may be lower in the TIAR. 5. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and The recommendation says that this Puapuaanui Street: This is an appropriate intersection works well, but just in case, recommendation. However, it is not clear the signal can be adjusted if future traffic if there is enough space to patterns change and signal retiming oraccommodatethewaitingqueueofmodificationisneeded. vehicles turning left. 6. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway: This is an Comment noted. appropriate recommendation. 7. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway: This is a weak Recommendation has been changed to recommendation. An intersection that recommend a traffic study be done for passes more than 1 warrant should be a installation of a traffic signal in the TIAR priority for study and design of a signal for and EA. installation. A detailed study and plan by klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr.Steven Strauss Page 8 of 32 Hawaii County is needed, regardless of KV development. 8. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Lako New Synchro analysis has been done and Street: Quantitative assessment of the added to the report. Table shows the improvements of the proposed phasing delay decreasing with protected, change is needed. protected permitted, and permitted phasing. 9. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road: This is an Comment noted. appropriate recommendation. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com Enclosures cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department J, C.Tyler III jct3kana gmail.coin To,Gletm Escott Wed,Feb 19 at 7:48 PM Altilia a Glean, Yes,1 mr.in in A7,wllem my wife and I are wrapping yup some medical consults and busirtess matters. 1 t' !II be hack r1l Kc-lia:Ind to taflt with you the week of March 9. In the meairtune, I u i rl41)Qt3 -ill Yi.dvlwrll': l I.}'III• 14}l. "or i t`YrI1'1III1:'.to keci,111, II' 1IIi Ioo,.) o11 1I1'A `.11a11 I J:I' ll'Y 1U11 Ildl•_ ::1r;•,} i?4Sllti tills Sill I ti '.' 11 i ' I 1.111. ` Ahui IloI . C urri 4 E)1Y k #: 1 X. zt)ci . a1 .i:.i} I' I. Cii'enn Estott t xc tllu7 'ahtw,C( -n > row: xy Aloha a Curtis, Hope you are doing well. I heard you were in Arizona. We are conducting a cultural impact assessment for Ric Wheelock-s property itt Holudea 1st.North Kona.11 includes the property with the burial for which you consulted on the BIP. Please sac the:attached CIA consultation request for lands ofHalualoa lst_ North Kona. fryou tyr 11r11'[}t._.,rr ltr3(114' lln nllcrntlatetan rz:lr{ldrtg past c z tangoing cultural 113;1,,`tic:: i1, I I. I 1 11i+.1 1st,picric lot contact me to consult. Mahalo Itiui Loa, Glenn Scientific Consultant 8Micim Inc. 7<Holualoa 1 CL4 Consult Letter.pdf7 Kekoa Nazara TwOlem Cott Wed- Foh 19 at 10-45 AM 1:L I-11L-Iln III,: I did 111-c I,q Ihni doll amid DT,N7Z 117L'jccL I %C hL111,,J 1ILM I h0VC!1'L h'h .1 JlkW'C 1:11 1611 IT-I.1 [%%ji[dJjS .1"Id :',-I %[J.',L1%.V1l 11`21V ,.% Sent from mY Thone Ofi Feb 19,2020.an 12:2y 11 V c It I Al 0 11 U v K-4ko 1. k. .1: :I I I I L,-1 i)I 1 I C>-. II .1:: 1 1 7 1,: 1 1 1'-70 1 LLl ill'ON i Ll 1 1 1 I J 11'I'T.., " Ill WU AtId II,I k I Ill l I ;.I ar: al Please sec Ili,_ u I;Jizd C I con s i L I i I m I rt,quisf f o I, I I u I :i ,1 1 rI- k u you Qr one VO I I t'I V 11:1 1 111 1 ITI::I I I' 1 1:1 1 ":"0 i Is'. I I I.:Li p I I k:,l, 11 MA L oistknrit Services.lnc. 7 k.1 1: k 17111 l B0111 LV.Kl'. 1 '1 AlL 11 HT U 111 961414 kidM111 14 E; V: i al ld W:i IN Sifi,0511-10-377-Y1595, A(MI A i q 1-31 T 82(Peattllv,w 2 LO I I i W,i 11 Tr I x, F H I I M il i 11 A 1111 A Lk, I W-Alvi 1 1111 7 fi.1_'2 i1 Ct W,4)1 1 11141 in H 0I LJ:1 1,1-.1 1 A l`1111311.1'M J<11ill ll;t-KI 111 L5. N1-11 1k IN I I n:1 11 i 11 H L, II i'i 1 11 s I I I L 1 P4,r-r.i{i n, I N I K: 7-6-M 1:I I 16 and(017(pll-.)I, Aloha c Richard, At I t,:I I K:I I CL I ( I'1 0 1 11 C:hC t I I I k L I I II I L'A 111)i L-1 1 I1 Cii k I I I.J,I L, It- r4 I';*1_1 I I 1:I L' I 1 1,-Ol 1-,' 1 12til-C I 11C !d i,'& L, 0 HILPC, 1i CL`ILV pi 1hl 1!: col Ic- ILI Ill,- D, A ,_11d 1,l--,.E:l-.,,1,:.: TVL i lll r!O! r> 11.,:1 1',1 11:1' 1.1% " r 17;1 1 P,'111 IQ 111'.1"A' li'Cil r1j:7! war,not 1-cuordcd m t11C Arl_11:[Ul-I-'-:.:l Prnjcrt Arcli;ieollojRical%iudws 11J,- pilx"l mc-_ %ticit:11 L'yA to an Alk- 1`2 Ille lk I-.:,;ol k-!1,l lWhil; I A I ll'111 J'Xk l'}A 1"2 111 llc,,m ;111L.Si 1-1 f,'X7 Q) 7-6 021 :'1 f M'd ill i aIZrCS 'Wi t1ji n t I I, "'nuthca 9 1. C-OMCT pf thiv I I I A project area i;c'14 i iol i-!,,I ,k,'' IIII he r!;,Ik E Ill- jt-,I ..- -.- sklbj-,4 of lo a 11Cd iar LUn:,: rflld 0%11_`;:7 L.!'L` J I k Ill. IN T 3 hClt 1WJIZ 11U hJiUC1 idVILtLfied LLL [JJaL S[Lld.k I k: IS JVC0311E[LCJK1l:1i :11) :.l';I: ".01, _:l Ud 21 sates, n LJxx l rgyun..S. urTTy aM ulW'a..{. uriY.'uv.,L. W:... aWsiaa! u ri1:SN9 I nNa 9La rJ lac.,t i H9 II A W A I I H KW'}tl C:40 ibN arir 1 P 55 ,• s FPH6l 11{ T%Rl' tiITI— S 1 1 e I t I 1'1gur 1, 5.500 r ti 11'i tihiil4'91l^ ;I.'llll'.II sl `Lr ,'i l .I'.',1 4aliaial Cieounph]ti I;i€w .. 2k)O.5. I)H7il 4; XL' -- i tima[III IL ti1147„1 iI j 1 1 }'Ap f 5 1 AS .ri .. i • TI F paw ry 11 .ilp d-F Nii 6i 4 Pitium2: 7.5-kliruttSene.LISGSTopogmphic,4AnpS3rcr,,,III--r11,:A-1, c'k`i1I.1FArcu.—J.J.c4uaC.lu;:J.[NKI.21)13 r7.;u 2 iziYl9rs 1.I in®w.u I IA rNni L I'YM11lni I. Pa r F Yxtur..i x`riRn J r 7hlulr nsln rk u ;ua ain wn aau mmaers I;itLtFW 3:. ul vjjl Photo rA{iGl E d l u:Ewe,I I E,Z,xw$North. BMS m E.ZE 71T4R cri N. {'f,`si#E.2{113 Inap., WEN tiounx'Z:thgo..ul ulob,:,c.1tvEu V,Exr&iar.UNDA,umd U XY S, 3 L.ti Lu_4 y a p 1 u 1911 ,IA ,.u• Aid• y l ti1;S'['q,i r:il,liiti%br,Shi-iiny l C-1 i,-'11,h 'i.•i r: L,ai i.:,l• ;i,.,';hneE".: :i<.:::..w; II I`i. At the r,-qij,:Nt of the State 1 DI.,1N .131 (SHPD), additional 110:LVIUMAOFI 10""1 1 1 M 12. I(K. I- Ili.-, I_;i-n-iix A al. 0 \TS J I-, 4 I P 1) -1'r I 11.11 -1 -11 'Al 11111.1-1 :11 i-I "I 1W.' ICi':I TfIL' i 1:1711:1 IZ[!' 1:111 Y1 IL k'lu'l 1 1,11.'1 1 1 I'M I - 1.1 1111' I.:L 'I 1111 A 1:1;1- t'l I I I IN I :,IL 1,1 [1W arL!u A%:crl III:11- I I the '%I" .111,'. I;II '-I.- I P"il II 'II-AI I r-I bWn M OVO C;' 16 :'11 I I I wher if I L ,:,1 .:11-i'l -I I:J I.,.-I III II I 111 Ir 111 11 1-kirm I,:II I x1d 2007-11). 17--'.'.k.T_11W a LI I h 11 - -A: I I I):I 1 1)1-1 k'r to 1'.11111 r 1:1 .,1 11.2 Ales- they 111 11111 1 11, ",A't:d 1-11 1 1 1112 11 t I[ji:1 I I I I I II"I I I I,?I I al Id 10 J, I I 9j.%r aj ling In a to the C01:3111 `f I I K-';I-MR)FIl Of PlftnT11I 12,11.% . . 2 111 Log- o 1•0 X I Me. No. 201 1"",- 1 M I II H 1-,:1 0 al. projel-L mm !o 1. I.) ii, Lh 1:,: v-d 111-1 I-ALL-1—. XI J:,,:< I I,,ir 'III.=,I I Jmld I,111, 7k,:Ll A-S .,1 71 .]71 1'Ll r-T:O I f!. Ij I I 11.I htic,"t :anti LJ 2f%. 1:1s :IC 4 ;Wilk = A-111 a kill d P Imir I lit- ;-Iimt liit IlLded all 1-0 -1— 1r (lie S010 :61'IL 11 1 fl area, The ': - 1 ,: t 4TVa WM%SL1l1jLLL:LI : 1'1:.-'7-11_1,1111 M;I V A I'. 1:1% I-I%1'. 1111'111111.'d C k,. i1cd 1.I. 1 1" %ki-I L,11- rId Ll 11% r_-irI.-rILNI IIII-F1115w:I in 1-1` I I r I I I I I-1 11 L: rL I I 1 110L I)rjICl!Wd f 1, 1 P011 LIA 1,1 10,.d k04),2).a mni'l J ?NLIr.' A,: 1111 1.X-: ral ranch ii 5 I- Awrowerg norernaimofi J._:J. L" 21II IL I.-J, bird ATS fffzcott and Fsooll 20f S.w2 FmIkirQ 4 study'-`3) xas Lx)nduot.d [Tr the 5.0 ai;,w Soul '.C:I],:-. ? Lh,: DJ'A I Mk: 7-is-U-7 I :.-1]7 111.11 i4iLl K,A [)II: 10AN" I ire ID r,C':1 sreaLwas to a Ndc.71i.;1 aild Jmcrty ITA'Q FigUIV 4..) N1;:N NN',m ,! . [Irfll.ILHI'l atlj 16T11 L::ir '.0'11`-(.:1111;IL I 'J: III 11-1rIL' c-I.f L:VL: I LH Jild C11A)!,L'%IcL,_ la,;l 11111-i I :1111 01 :11_ IJI-oad I!L'II f 1,.'1 :11115 ill thl' P1'1%-'I'I 31'1.-Il '.1 1' II'L 0VI-I1-I1I1':1 101 11 _- mr :I' iml the r-:I P., .,: 1,,ri : There 44vm no rom,;t)I%of a r t1w I I ro.j,2-.-I ;I-:;I iS uil c%i4 Am MIN 11 IAlIlLanuxuaYl , yam- ," I LL ",7ri s 1-- F' i.tCyiC kka u:tiW A 11111. 7 r .R,74RhL fF.hTl'YI 4 + y 1 1Ld r,. v rlrrw-rnrarrr 3r,xeie I,,.,, w,,, VA'I]IIWZ 5iM11.l.l 71 IY I v IiLr/14 T514y s1¢aaxl: r _ IloIP{7 D kin" Bull:g 1 a. Q1111H# sl,nx a RUNAj. S, a 4 ,11'+,1 111d11G ISIF.,yie..11,l r u'-r 514d k afiuGn l' Firarr'.61 7.5-SILIILL1,"'Oriel L"'f;ti L•`LI•Y;FBI I?I11t:Aip,SJ]u:i'ng Lacefion il_I:SII.-L I',Lt:IL .1Ct'i Wld I'!t,_IVtl. ;r a L'.SRL_Il! CLIfLY*'i':1 11075:II{!t't,l'I:IF:IIIi 4.?:r i k.l'4c i5.Lti,ceCxke4.Lax iel:ldrangEe},. KEV mmlCTBF-A RAID&a RE, ROCK WALL AlAl . qp m _ _ _ mEaw T Am A IT mk 3m,! . IE_1 j4 m , e+. F ue k = »VAS»Hang> Rw%mdw%ysQm, b mom:w w§ ewd» aklm3! m.m S0111CCh GnaGeR k& e>U & mak-kw Quwlm4. 7 FA idPTICII.fqji-a I Tr-oholuaCiturst-(Kaluw Tli)hda) olua,or Wlu a.cot I k o Is,,4 L I-;:I., L!o ir,C L:on,i it I-'lil..oi I 14 r -I-m:I-,-, [:ti-y 141`4:110 I l'L! 1'011eW 11 11 F,k:.)l:11 L ;I-'I 11.:1,1 I 1- '.1 1 N' 10.' .l Im I I I ',I I I I I I II L17 I L NIK1,1..:III I i L!C(jS :1114 1 1 1 1 11 1 I.:: I I 11. Ill.'mir lji,: couric I'll z,. i v,, I :-;-,. ? -1 I 111, .--- I.-,, I 1-1 1_,`L ' I I I I il II H-- %'.I-111'A IlLfW.I by IIAS MC11111d 01'MINI I Wl I- I w I , d , Oil 1 'I":11 t3s ve-Tv straight oourses AIIII 111d 111ev r:r,_,C in E% d-li 1:%mi 15 [,d near the(op.or',[;Ll Itf,:PoSitiolli.lk f,Ij +C.t ill 1111 1 1 11 I.I ,I 'ul 1110 rho. larp.or rock- MR10',A !0 Min the L`k III A Il'i,d -li,of Nw ,uijrc In some 11,: ' ill 11112 "I'MILl :-.11 h-: -,1114a_ .11,'% k ti A %kiih foeL In Stich 11,: )LIL'I r'11'. I-%,r,-.,%I-l% I'Ilr,:. Ili,- L'TM WOU1,I Arr,Mf Ili 'A.11k fiv,11 Ilw i?")Lwd Ll" 1-:17 11 ! i., 1['{,fll V-A-l" '.IvJl:-::." '11Al2', alwi.5, I--,% i "NW-C, I d) I-idCl-S Ofiv Of;(- , !", 11-1 -_%F i,,:i- I''LI7 I'I,: C . iX',.,: 4`,'L.- A,'.. :,.;Jl I[.% % ].% I 'I.d 11 wd ICI MCL 1 d I I,:[hat'L% ILI J,ALI lm:, 11 1110TC SU I id, 1-111LIP- to,:J,::,1:'`-Ll k I E.Vide]IC:` CI)l LL-.;L 00:`Ff:l 0CXk:C1 ill I 1-_1hIU1Q,t I 1., 2 ."1 .I-L m ahfqm :l 1.s!l I.-k ILIA IL',:. :111:1 dlJ 1 1,:.1 A'Alq` -11111,1.1 :i m.' 07 1: 1. :wd h.. ihL 10 m 11 C " ILI!— I I III-m I .:j I,:•-I JII 11 ilznw ck)111Cw Iftim"I .:1 7-.111:1 didle, I Lu,11 h. I I i J._- 1, .11-i I w:1 'A I:: il 1.1 .1 :11 h,.)CIS tjli:NJIU-;I '-1 111 1 101,L!1-1.3 ,iml I P..1 7 1, 1 11, 1-11 i -11,- I'l.I 1 11 -IA I.,I w as '.h5bA o uo I-.r A:1N0j 1117 iir4ji tfz ,l w-i III il .,r ii orii 11-11 1, 4: -..'1 11 OVII i l i A 01 M L 11,;11 doeum,1 I'S Or ArCllli Wl-A mI I lkll,:- & ,:FiN2!f.__ :1 U .111, I 1L:Iwon Or in IV,I.I -1, i :I I I,I .-,": V I I:[I:.'1 41. 1 ^C oqQ it I"C I I!;wn of a pi s i;)I C;-,7,Wa itill I I E.1 1 4Ia 1 .1 mi !1 I.P2!:l v" 1;1 1,I;I tQd in m N.f.k lllc I.S by 'I if.Iiias Kmll-LAwAui Slone (POIiAu) k Sto I r. Stone is an ICC0jn13115h,Cd JA i3%1:1 i jan C11 11:.0;I L,:'i z.on L!r sp,2 i:i i 11 i> 1r .1c h!v 11, C utirety of M m of I jI,-MIIL k ktCl ,"i 1:1c h-h PI(W]L CUI]Ows, '1110 Ill 111,:M()LIII.JIW,dlk :r:. "JowtIlli a1w 11_perhaps fid,' Ili,- imme r 1, I 1%C...;A 1 .1 m C f)aa 0 ffj,. ?Mr M o'Of 1h;-J?.ryt!im 10m,shyrfe., a1m)[a 0J -.-In 11, loo'llioll II'd 'I" "II '-'I ;1: 1%L ;I,''cur II7i I ol'il:%: :-7.',2auhoLk Ade 1..A., I nale 8 r r F F r e w uui.a—— d f'f•f to li,<:m!«i9r.•1 a MI li.ua xi.lnl r Ih,xvwss.I'wakr. to f r d d f f* #f f1 ' ff pa rli,tihl.l'nnl.n T..SiI f Y r r f r M ii..v.na ii.—,x, r f f f f ?f d v f 1 rx r r v 4nr,r«rH„Iwl,.x r,Tll f r ff r f F r f ,e. f°! I il lli 9l'uui+,I'rllill rf Iff rfr M e14fr,d,' f]m'd I..:I 41 I LJimlw In• I l.v 9",r4 I 5L1•,L,,,i•er'L•n t I'lla,alna lea,l Also l'i Il,lt_r Iln,xll Hill GJ uba I l l arr 7: H2Slueloa ina libp SEruU:ing Anciral4 Iis pualua Trnep• r} IhL,Ali is(::I i-, 6-w)iiju% I I;i . I!,k2-L-5,-1 ILI feet or more in lei L.-IL ..:L I I,, ,,id7'I rangilig fmit nh-Alt i?1 1--'I I 11 III,: .)I --..i n-Ii.illar Se j,r I CIA) to V:I I r! I r1mmm"I w nu U mme rl w, 1,0M, 11'. IJIW, il i- :.*..I'l I., Ili' 'IIL'I 'IW 'Iji(i.' I.::'. •I f.,:- .xI,1111 ." d".. Ilic lid, :I ... - ,I I''I I I:I :j, /'4PE'al i u.itf I proffflflee is th w M cr,I'.err r V ,fo fly ell q If-f'W? rl wd A J,ils j-e,,Yrj r1f eme. or ii-forto it veaved to be used, 1juidivd fie)iower. f1jea ii ii we rre to wred re,IMI'fl iWi,Wd. dllZdtlli:% lelfid 0111,141 d1t; el sire ifjspevlfrju- 13UL the oral 1:'r4lc)ry 01 the I:II ,'J,T i-,L? :Ml a 00% LAI . n"C ISM0 01 PnWW% M-%a 0 AM PLO wmuy w"W amw MmuSmi about Uus AM §Luno 2UO2: I Iv H 7 1 I wo AM s,.iN wat, on Ili,::'. . ra I il,:,I V II d 104,set, vu-!,: ' I .1nd cri Ilic -1 ir. I I.-"h.:I,:I 11-11 Ucii,.rrr, I I i!'ri. -L k;,iidy I- OW M7.1.I", L I 1'1 D 11",I 'IM: I i> 'Ili I'i.-' ";I r",:1d 0wi:,: :5:)- 1 r.,ml Lill-,11 .111LI ,•, .0-.:u a'. ;,r II. il.- h.:.-,.,' ,: k 11.I•.n i- nmr ;III umgQcMMuw rud hl WIT"E AV& X: J-1:ItU1-1-:M,:I.-- J,r l'i,61, :%—,ix..ionmd 1 c1l. hwr Ho Suem 11sw Awm'n I wc ]1:In,1"•c`rl:It .,I) Division fl': 111LI L"—d vI 111k: 1-1-i,: :-1J. 1 -,. X-IALL,m A S 211 F A -1 ' I- M[l pr0j)-11) <:ISW J J '.-d jdQllljl4 all} SiiCS 1c',alcd Is, a W 14, 74211) Iwykw Aml AnOrw WKI: 111,1 Ill, 1:10 -Ii.IIA ,'Il r, 110 1 .1 1 1 1 ILIN ;I fill I W I Is.. ellSz: Z I I r I i I l.1I I I:,,I I I.- 1 1; I a k P"L d W no d YOWe 1 W Qwd M ph=%dms wA am -I • I :-j,,- md I,-+1-, :, :iIIII is ilol i, ----:)uId k- cMwa2d it the the wav W, armiK Al',.151 The Ah " PC ptowk[ Imm"" 1 5m, Oman I' vj nib j - MAW-itv 1 :11.., LT-1111 i,iddi I -Cinumig 113 W dUnIch md Adumi i TO 1-1 h Hw PA. ,al:, the J,-JLd m.Ql;"'.a,1 IIQIOI -,I)001 1.11 I 11,'11:11!1 :17.- kirx-,,LwKQo.— 4k:ik, %%irli --bli. CUr,: lii[ ill J',I,L, .Ili Wall tL011LM LICY111 k M1.111-1 I-., rL)Ck' k%l1111, ollls[]Lwl,[ iijuliLl Hmlorw,orik T 0:11k 110-MICL1jCS. El-d 4.17 The )vc,,tcm lemwias 4A'Histoijc Rcacf Site 2-422 1 :11 Hu-451.4 Real, ilimud. iL njight have It 001 - Md WOU cn a FOS :%%'.: 1 t' al I W). 1111 uTmoT Ion its a' 0 m tw I A A a upm h •a I h a w A 1 -1, K 300.0 Ln east )J III e DEA NI-Q I,-. ',1 04 1 L--L- LL,il V1,-MI1111':ZILILII[rklil(see I i I r I i y-i j I,- I:I I. '.'I I i- M- Li F--i I- I v d II ,i I '-:I r- , I II II I I, I)I \ f!';1i d L"I :I r L'.l -nie 110171' 1';1 11-:31 I '.II J,' IF,-:!';I ]-I 1'] :1101 W '-',1 11 L!-J. 11c DF l r!-vj—:L s yll r"nw ii3y T; SIM"tiwc,'a}ay flu Y> f 4 S94rF'Lie 2q SaHP fiile?472q it 51411°Selz=*Y7? ld/ 5dH'P eNr 2W,R3 f 4! r R SITE 24211 i p HISTORIC ifiDAJI 5tltt rr291rx snip Su_ZWC9 SiHpsllk N,1i' i ARV Srte 297i3U r- 51k{F Wnv^rvdal sum s;uaa7,i N. frYNP SiIr?4'713 a 8r 7!7 a V lY:r uYi Scale in mclem 2W Sh.,;;715 Figure S. Holualoa Inn Property Map Showing Locations of Site 2421.1 Historic Road and Archaeological Sites 1]ls-umented in the Recknan(2013)AIS report(Reechtman 2013.23} 11 r x t p u. IL 1! i V7s,la. Sri. I' r' Sri 5il... - `` _ i Y4 `•1 i.r_ r 1 I X 471 r y iy. N u y 1 ti.f ram...«,.—.4 y . i FIrom9:7..54iimW Scrle'.•r l'l=wS-UPYb—mgL-1—ud:k,,h—bgm,,l'tiN,w_F-L,and P'.j,:A—,IISIM TJIL S—tiuCiuuul.G,..Willu,:.Su4w:Lti, Skig.l ril.ab.'Y-4,?uudnw4q ! 17 r l !' t""`III .` x,lll r•INnll.S I 1, f _ III . rr ITt Il+ 1 I*u 10 TkAll Oc I.1 ulIw 11 L' I'lw11lrLnl'1l-s*/IPk[ull'b'YiMti FIlL}1++aiba dl'killGlrli(told llr,l• , I 'r ip,. .,.! '.:I.lo l, .l I!..ri!.. i...._. r . '.I '. Ii L5 a IT f .. f 5 OP FYVitre LL TMK:(3)7-6-009 Map Showing Orimlatian afi5 i e 242.11 Historic Road(Heavy BlurL Lurid l4 SITE 2 21 HISTORIC 2 ()ADz 1%-- , —r _ rmrG: 1 Reyes.*J 'Cr(W(Western)Port 4 Site 24S, Historic Road_4 Gam ugdwt±y Ev>m&«1tx II 44 7 AT COT Q Ad P vn4 r yy 1 . L arir/w's 1 t SITE 24211 71,6 A— HISTORIC ROAD Sryer,^,,v'¢ "'N of A.L"kYW5 r ,a L.,7,0 Vj-G7 ar rr r F,,AIII'rsrr cx ra.rt. MILA-4LM:t'f,.LA/12 aa.a fcr'f.,x,Of R r'iti4::S.4,C Ar:'7!'1:4 1 to V.X.---4, 7 f.`Gc ud L.%, / P. fk-7,, e 9A,HA—dr, f"a.a+us's,,..`wrn,S dCarGY:.water¢¢ FillUl-e 13: 1` 551- LI['k :'hil ys. .sy1y r t 1.VF,:,lj; o:'liur c"l'S 4-1] 1 ir, r!i lii-.id a:ir l 17aWA,ai-i lklol ItOAd I" 11.:'.I a•. i. l: 1 1 1µ i AN Fl,uxold:ti6e!J_'II IidNark,RnalPbmYreshGpCilenl.eRindlRadMrrrw 0'4ii), iF Y ry sr r 7 x w, I Figure M Phowgnph aSkc 29211 Historic Road and Rick walls,Shoving Unsvcn 43round Surlacc Looking 2013-24)- 18 l`.!Qfe ate f10%1F,t 1 1 11 A I 4:,-I I I d i--I I-k On A115 1)1 area,sou-.'i trait xr-I li.m.that are rio" 1.,:,;1 I'L,I I - I!Ic I I.J I I -''i -L I I mi 111, ,-1 ,.cm end:, -C I-I arallel Sliv 9 i :I,,15 1,,% 1 Ir k,. I r41-I 1"1 —11, 1"1, ,%V,I .I -I' II`:: A I'1 :1 1 wl m IL .III II I I Or, I.'I III IiI I I I I.- I-` It I I I I I -II I I r c I iJ. h. I.LC d. -I I I :II or L: Ili I i i I I I. -L-11, E villk rl: 111,:d in rlwi 01,":L' ININ114: I ;kWaj'i. j'I`LV!'1:are ll.,l 11- _.I 1,&v. I I'p!)I-<11 L 7 r 111". I-i n A Iv- I I I-,,Ili d snrfitce-be't lwi i I I-,: ;%,.11- is uncv ui-%i,! I I Ili Il;LI II;I I'41..M O.d level avid is dotted Ild kJose 11,1-p lldl,l Y .k mieelaren BfQ Si'[L: 111!s2 ii 'li 'i. rhL ,I) -,w ii-r:); isI2-n rcrlions or 1111 Omoj,,,:i I d- I ;« nilu L I Lk:'::11':) I'. ':I I :.I', ]:I L -.'.o.l 1!011i 111C I Ioli ukhr.v o C Land I I I I i 1:, ,'I'I T-k LU'd I C. I "."('('I J IC I C 1111 4I. 1",1-1 1.1-I rckd to L:i% I- I I,:Li d ,a ;Ili :'L-t; till; 2 1 1'1:,Ll U lri 1 11 u Ll 111-Ll; I C A CLIMI'll •.',,LII -iiid Fcaturt,3 is the noli iQlil, LCA all, T'he Wc,-imi L:Ild A Fcmwl, 3 LLrI-,i%J 11 1 wrill N) Il )" a L: I I;I I f.i'.I J) :.nc -ll I, I ill tl'C f-.1ULF? 2 1VAI I At dl, dic cotubc 1icluid empty iato 't large P,L 1 211 11'd I 1;- :111 .all F:I I I-- ICI:.,:,: I4 I LIIIJ:Ia 55.I' 1 1.1 2 Cr:I J:.I LI I I--'I i: U. in an AT'S I I j I I IL 7 L', 1- 111 1 r r r 11 ill 1.--11"11, 11 . I 11 1 P,I.11 1 1 1 1 1 W l k 111 IL11 111;11 D P I I- I I I I I I I r 1111 11 1 A' 'I I I I ti.'. I I 1 11 1 I I I I I I 1 11 LI :1,Ill•i.JQl I Q I I I I IlQ 1. 1.11 nal.kil-al L:j Fl-: IL:;:I,A:I I 01111,111I.-- QI'A il.-`!. Al ILI widc sj]1,11 ill -:1 HLI 1:1--- )1 : -1-b-'- J114 ]}J-b 11A 'A OLI;C.' cwizrl;l 11!111 tile ljjjak L 11 irl - -.- 1'r jQCj V—1 ;Uld be Veld'' tiaN) IQ 111C10 dlt AD siwh surf]— : -;LLIF,: IkII:11 :1--c DL''k proj,2,:L are.L. 19 DD--E M,.a..E. i91 Lai: e v , a a .,g3i C _ y a J 4,a•. 5 1 ''-".F` ` 'fin I 'M I .. I I y r L 1 rl r pp y Iwwrl, w. it°yv.n..l.,. -"' i ^'-IJF^^" I9......J- - fJ 1 •l+ . 4, nn.wrc.N..wnn . Y 7 F k1 14 ` A V. I'iVu-16: 'i-Miuu[r Sc—,U.V iS I sir-,v°l'I°i..M:lp M11•.k551 B4;1 1.1614°•11 1.1°°ilt'niulri—k- ;--k.I'11h][;rvnk,_11LI111C NOj-1 AKcit(Nalioi°a1.fivsogiphx k-Tu',24-10i.hualak&'wa[ ws7. Dula Notll k:v \.11°.,°r°,°1(".5,__r,ll°hicSocm9 71:s6sf, D I Zt.pjrim-I qp 1 PEA wrikents Awertingthe PresLmcenfvii 1-folua V%4 1 kin I lit.,Prikiect A FTg on Form D—Anir;iii on, and ,,.I iir ,k ri,,ti?i L•,in 17s (nk'llbly 11'.1 IJ11 rT I .,I- I old Ol % -,I,! k,il n, I I. :-I I I I,J ml J. I Il I I r I 1 11-T Ii 11 h, I p ii I i, Lr: III;,W. Orw i I i, I F r; -I 1 -1 11 :1 1--,:11 :ho .,I I fiL, Komi % I -;I I I Ioard, c(Ynoucl r, N11-7-,111) ;:,u,"k h&-)Ill 1::4 -1SI, l."n i;ejiva Loi ir [IL:I)i 1 11:;.:::I..l 111;1111 1 AhIL"I 111L:1'jkl;li, ;L1 C b,iv,,:,n Tom lk,.r k.md a K&na f3oard ui doiN not 4ElC,lk 1h,: i maif or W l I-. w -I -Ii, :cv, 1--17r1 [n Oil.; -mnd lo-ii iv[',.*- W. "TA', of the io4l-1 ;I( CIIL, I lkl,7 Ill'i III:--III FOA, -.-'I I"Oh m-d I'A"I, .c fmi-AIJ ,%7111inihe L11 LL%-1,,-,-YI v-,! LCA I'l i Jj,-I JV. NIF, ki,: 1-,`lr 11.11 it, nin:', du Lill'111,01CQ 1.117 1'1,: 1- `.J .1111.1 1':' A'.:K 1-J`l 1hi Ll-, 1wmr- 11 11:,I 11:1 •.' 111, 1-1-11 :1-A 1.L:J11- ill rk, ll,: ;-Il:li I he --m.mi I, of mt-i" (if 1 1-Ir k% 1 1-1-1 1 1 and Soci;l 11111,ul-1.11 zL - I r: 'L :I -. i 1:, L.-1 1,1 1 lo tile SaVI-C.1 ind 111%-Il :J 11,!Tv-. 1;1.,, ,l , Irl II'.` 1],'11 0 lk 1 11!,- 111r1111 Ir IJ, kill Al.: N. " pl... I a :m,I di,: mQ Ill' r :;ILW 'Ill 1!,:L1I Il r1 .Ill,- I'A' I -- ..., 11 1 PI, ProI v amn Was a,",.,ile'lb% , i i I,I I wl hk Mr, Sii.-I,- A[,;IVV, 1115`le jsi 110 (1 OFA W40ty, RIU'll',d 1-1 Or ni-L' ce Lo SILEgs,:M A h5twj coll., 11 llh- Il.. I .r::L 21 REFERENCES Cff ED DL-,!ION M oi i(I R R,-T-JiTii:m I, wentork.A !gra(71-,gY7P rm:reo;1,-or R e wd Remnant Property Kane Districi,Island of Na ALi I--,nohdu-Hawni,i and Ranion Perez ci. Ayala- Dimka- 1 l.11jk :7 -!Jllj k. R.-Jawmi 2C I'k Hoh,;,`na J-2,4huptuT-a. 1 ai tc I Ir i,-a i Cui i,al ung Repoft RC-W56 p r-,-I)ar,d lo, Escon.G..o i S. Ahupua'a kow Pont.PrapAivd for Kona i[L Li C-SCti 1,'71-Honolulu. 2020 krr Ahnpua'a.NvrrhKowDi::re.;r T, !i..- J." "Jand.I .— 07-6-021:01- OJ9-j.P=parA ibrKona AL L! C. SC 4 23.'O. 11;I.-IQIblil. I Faunni att.f 1.11.,!V.T 1. Fn Ik. an:11).W. Yi i dol of 1932 Id,"d TAVSWtWk F)Q U e Feetz: N'i. IM !jIaIVd h.- C LI;L-III'LLI SM-%V).1, 7 T.-M Ii, 101-711C Ci:ridon Corl3oralikin. R:pon on file at the SH?D Library,E ij,A,7! I-1 1) W Yhid:-k.l k'. 7 1 1 r 1 -1 z 1.1 r iII I'! gical Sm:)a k :,,,,.„s:i and Their I-wa,-F,3) tpor.). RLP'A h-I"!I I Varowm LLC. Replan Lon l'I IL::11 1"1,.,M 111) LibnuN-Kapo],1. h I V 1, ti 1.1 Wit 4nd E.Mookini 1,74 22 RectlttiaiL R- 2013 A a.hwhaon'n- mi mioj- 3-x6- 1'7quWAVA"Ma Huai. Skmo IT N nnownw! I Pv 0.1i.1 !1:ryp"ermL?of m,;" 1,; 11hillo 1tio in illo 1;11 ;i%i:, -11 I 1, 111•,r I' I 1:i%%,ii j ;1 imrI A I1111ihvxt of I ho r.q i ks i i ift Pw i I i u,i Li--Ron Olt I It I. Mori, Ashley Frarn- J:t'Al I I Sent: Thou0i tAc i G8,2UL(.- To-. plj-•;l ll(j intempt Mail suh}ect; rT-,r T'Llil i S 0;1 pi c ed brit) division Attachments: F-1p.-I 5r"a'i n .2 1 Fatti-- r i ui 1 k v own e rs.do Lx 1 .19967 DECLARATION OF L, -THOMAS, Wnrr, declare: 1.I am a residew of Sunsct Vit,` v "I'vrra,:L! Tots subdiOLsion I, County of Alanddnelo-pn,,.=iii 11tor cl 11I 114 Ike by Royal Vistas Housing Pruject 1'ax Map Key Nos. (3)7-6-021:010, 7-6-021:017, 7-6- 021-LI)1 'm- jric 41-021 :019 North Kona District, Hawaj'i island, Stale of 1 .1,J L "Cl I v I I, I Cill [).":,l%". I Jk' kk J I'L! -, 1`11 !v-' Pj j,'111,1 ri?1,CC1 111 stI-h capacities, 1 ii.;.,,v !-:rsthand kF1L)WlCd1i,'C s11 '11U-lid k-ould and would testify thereto if cal I cd upon to do so. 2.1 have re-ic w ed di c pending D R,6&T I L'I I 11 E.NT I mt, A: k-,iffic Impact Analysis Report by SSP11 !11:,I. kj'j:JL%j 1[:i.) 'C ij 'jj qj J, I-AL A hat are not fatly or accLirately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and the SS FM Traffic Impact Atiak-si L, Rqlort. ar-,- c I i-cussed in the body of the DRAFT ENVIRO NNE FIN'l Al. A")')LSSNILN 1 . 1-z[ pp, 11L' koit., thc p;oro',L:C 1);ojec1 oil the use of a substandard roadway. Kckuana'ca I'Lice. Kekuana'oa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves wi6 is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of incroased U-afllc arising; From Pharr: I and Phase 2 buildLIUIS Of(I)C ROY il Vistas I lokiiing 1"Flj"l I.S 1RUdOLjLJL11U14 I addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which focuses instead on impacts along Qucen Kalahumanu Highway. I am particularly conc€med that adding numerous Vehicle trips to lI:'tl From Ot t }:iI L:L' ltlll'1;•Jon 4+r'91 l7:`tis'll!. t.iil'I ""t'I :I'.4.1 4.1':1 t';!" dents :iEllr I; ti'_l\l_I tl il:I" •.. l :l t:`C'. k •' l`:I;;l,'I- 1 '.::1 '."ti 1'lirl"ii7':I1". I'.j)a 'i 11 i.":1 '1a.-.: 41 Ct`:i'.II1." i ]t: ;,f i1? 14:.ISt I} address flicse coackmi . 4.The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requir s ev ltll-ltion of, among others, adi<etse secondary impacts such aspapielalivn Changes Or-e/jt f-! Inj fili zlic.rucibties. Sec Chapter 1 1-?00.1-13, H4tkk aj l -1,11,:1I i',:.-Aivc Rules. Instead of squarely addressing these til_ ",,.",,,I 11'\ k+ 1i,V \TALASSESSMENT simply Ignores them, cI:i1'!ll'l":{',t:1:'..! ti,rs rC ?.,% )ei'Tt'd ti--Cc tlli• ,:'(n, 4111111ent would 111111f.tr UKlw fill L, 1l Iil -II tic tll-u, I)I-O 'ItIw 1liil and is nol expected to r'c-iilt ill t:lntl:ll demands to C"aunty services." It is a serious omission for the DRAFT E1~~ '[ltON MENTAL 11 0 :111,11L'w,sdic potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of wJ11:iJi t1,II.,.1 L'';1y'11='? 111 1 1tilfll, ,:fit'. 1l11,.' 1.;,".111: i:f l"., I'I:aL 7,1 hi: 1 )1? .Al l I la:ill't'-,L` .I T•C t!"i1111C 1111!7Jct-,only III thu contC,.; of Mictlicl the I'11110k t WOLl:tl :'t,.; '; :r . ? '".afr,lPttr[7l adverse effect on i idWichealth. The Applicant chirris, "I'lit1 4,OUkj: ; ."I :11i'Cet publichealth in any Way1 storlllwdLer wtPuld he ilt1171-0111'1ilteI d Pl 1)0,Ct1 I I '.Il drainage st1lit `si14;4, Traffic Impacts I`. , ;''r•-,ii 1t;l:r fiin1 C',tl." _r..E..a iL 5i5C7(c14'. 1. by Chapter 1 l->a•1(1.1-1i, EIawaii 6. The l'lannitig I, ci I t Inuit should not accept the DRAFT EIN'IRON'NiENTAL ASSESSMENf's reliancc on the SS1.14 Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which has the following deficiencies: al.t'ailure to W1c1eIrCs ;>dvcr.;c imtfw 11'. ivi ra ,a WIM the Kona V1Stas subdivision arising [R,m the projcc.t; h.The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Rerwrt to the 2°rya growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engiiwenng 1 raffic. Impact Analysis Repon. Traffic congestion is very scnsitive to growth rate in a noii-Iiiicar, exponential relation; C. 1:;.1`, 1?C11t111 k 11,i,1t rccLif;riimmuItl-generational lI ,, i.`e L'l. JTCIL ,II.,4 Y IIICr:. I, .iI Ie.t:I a }; Ltll Il .i,l• ...;r.1 .lncl lil.l .:r .lLrc.'in.r s daily., i'I1 .:la`tiI7x .,,11•:hLitali14 tnbuiIdautcif the.proposedpraject; d,The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Repotl employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles I l!r Northbound Qut:cn Kaahurnanu highway on the selected daics of A : I 'I) 11 l I ,x;.: Is i.1t, mid August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 ' itchcr Tr.t f '. 1, 15, 2 (y kwf :'h ''s ,,tcktl I`.`: I I"G I.I 111 ,[ I '.' i''.'v `4';1 r1`;t'il t"11.'Ii' t.'ifI Ii11.' 11 `53 14 '!o'wl .I1 111.k L11111 I i.elre 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The dit erence in V111."r„C I'-. FIL1!C 01 1 d0l11-lt' rhC 11-'Y ':I1,.1''.`. 1"n k;111i111i 11 "'.C'.I1C:li1 I t ,w,.-,,,piL-d in day-to-day 11 4.''.`. vl'`11.:"Ili',. '111:1 fI'..C'• 41;1!l`I!.Ih v". c.The h' I ,,t Traffic Impact Analysis Repo!1 for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualialai Road(North) is inconsistent with the traffic 3 corridor. IntLii-seclions flial pass, warrants but reFtWill LLIISIL,111i1111cd Prescilit trafcl ziaiciy liability concerns for the government; r.Ti,: k- 1 .-cfic Impact Analysis Repot for monitoring of and Kuakini I i, Whe Ye,e, as f11,111 d11j(, k1JILLICI Lill C011(111'1011. It Sl:,'Ll';J 11C j,'I Wr 1;1 ecd forSTIL11,11, Mill Eltwlc,ls OJ ;I ThIs propowd pioject. 7.In sw-n,the Draft Envircrunental Assessment and SSFM Traffic Inipaut Analysis Report does not prescot sufficient. credible facts and analysis such that the adverw impacts on I I I V V I" It ire li I I,I !i, II "I r 1 1,1! 114!,k,i i 1 1-4,' I i be filly l]ndmL tood and result in 11--1::U -.1!d I-C J 01 LIC. I declarc tj I i,Jer penalty ofperintrk II I I 11,- I L-1-1': Dated: Kailua-Kona, HawaN, 10-08-2020. Tholn(--Is 14')hitc Priniod nainc: Thomas white 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Thomas White Via email: thomaskurtwhite@gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. White: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Mr.Thomas White Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Mr.Thomas White Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 1 Oho variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr.Thomas White Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From; n)>T'L) 11 yj j':'.> Sent: T-)uvscMY Ortc+pr -TI,d M To- Mar-I]If iLj I D k2'!IQ L V,c I I Cc-. inah.a:)FrA'K7C-1' A E-Ljnce 7--Maddock Subject- Ru-,:31 Vi a --uw w.i Pi -,p--t FA co-ivr)?nts Attachments, kv r.-, cjf,iHiage-noii kv ownews,docy, KV Declaration re Traffic-non kv Aloha, Attached are my Submittals rekii:-fi it; Ow ijhp( I- JamesH. Johnson 76-157 Kamehamalu St. Kailua Kona, H1 96740-8937 808-326-4600 DECLARATION OF FAMES 14-J01 INSON 1' . lames H. Johnson , declare: i I,r1wai'i, State of Ha ai'i. 1,incl rieo lr7F,wpnt projeft th.a' %the Sul, __I. _! r: -i l°rl i i l r,lil Envircnrnental ttitir.,5 .,I r J,r l,hr lilt r c t;y ttuyag Vistas Hr°,,s, ;- I rr,)!('r t I,, 9'' ,I K•,y h;C: i:.-021:C tl • r' h ':J21:017• 7-6-02111 18, ark•i % l .121 019 North Kona D,,triet, Ha'.A-,iI", 51,1ii,, , `_, I. " H' Iw.I 'i If(C.(ts olP r rs(In;l as 'Jvell a, effect: 1''r rr} icalI propeo-,, 1 r'F i' Itui• 7 1 k.ij tr 'r:J:;r:) l I.r:",' [!!., J OCCC5S Sr+-'PPt% 0 ')7•' ia,tlt15 t7 IC..,L:.` d ;t'ir L,'l lFr+ 'r L,1'. .r 1', Stlr I} rm iltiGlS atlr j, r h ivo ffrsshai J kriuwledge of Lhe flallowmnv fa r.s<and could wd 4r.i II J tent 1-v Ihf -i I upon w t1r su. i havo revkmed the pcndf'tiu DP:11" I i NIVI .;.;1': I ' I I MI I ,Intl ill..i 111i14'V':i• . ;i11'I - 't'.'Ifl4"iil' L'r'!:ti:a`'Cliial .r+.`..,: 1"t: r:i4_i] I:.}II,. I;I ,l[_ 'I'd,'s it p 'uL` 4`L41nlC' r I'rE'ICC L'cl 1 fFr.' ar i7'J}i,ir;l' 'I•i+iis ,rri4? i'J !' _ J'J r'C' Jr .rrJr++ , "1i^r' rT s+!, ,'r1 r V 17 v,: ars th al I haiv hl ic--d here. 1 have Observed vehacfCs coming to C alvary Cowm miry C'hw-ch, tirrjiarrafliar with Jho area, run the 51op sign. 3.g iv. ,iixp tc pogrziphy,historical rapid stormwater run-off and .rtitir)-i.[L%I i];>n1;lipc gJ]Q:,o t Imy.Litds t1wI =irL- nisi ,1&2glmICI id(I rc—cd 111 iIic Di-t:'t 1n[ Ii'{11711mLi,. ment. Sco Ply'' thereof 4.Additionally, }am }.';!)W Fhral the drainage area on West Side of Cafvwa ,,rs 15 acre properly. collects wcater.%rout ca farge area above. The addition of acres refpaverFrew and roofs collecting water than hasn't licc j resulting i r circa},'rtslc}c' 4.ti°ra:•, .;`' "'r• . i1 . , r ., .,'.r;'.rrl •:lrr ? , I ,J',. 5.I.I r lal !ll' ;;7r l't I 1F Lug tiu#fl.'ICIII fiiUI4 ill}1 analysis such that the nr4ces`;ary drainage improvemcats and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future, As f understand it, such efreurnstcanees would lead to unl ai4ful project segtmentarilon. among'other errors. The applic'cant, in rhv current lots remaining in Kona 1•fslas, has &xn (arced 1 to build a concrete dm magu,system, disguised as a ivall ,1"ith planrT in.kont, 10 take care of c-to-rent drainage issues. This ne-s ,area yvvuld resull it: addidionai gste ms. G. A haTe L:OhClu,JOJ1 la_, I lid -Ippli ant or accepting,authority that mcdcd infrastructure will comply with ,(--,v~'rlln,ciil regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft FirvIr(711t1!1e;nml f' ssesSmcnL mu1 ,[ '} t't Itii`a3 'ti `;". +: 144,!tl ':i; ', w i -,1 I1]II:e':',!tILAUIkk llTtlllll +kIlll'llt L111' rcquirod to ;le' Irr, wL, s`,il'1i'- ill'tllloaic't' .`," ,itl1'i t.]'rd will fLnctirrn. l declare under Penalty of peTj ury that the foregoing is true. D,j ed: Kailui:u-Kona, 1-lawai`i. October S. 2020, Printed Qarne: Jamv< if. 2 DECLARATION OF JAME:S 1-1. JOHNSON' 1,James H.Jiohnson, declare: i.1 am a resident of Kann J^tsfrts subdivision 7'hlrlti 3-7-6-026-017 County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. The proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending Draft Envirotunental Assessment submitted by Loyal Vistas Housing, Project Tax Map Kcy Nos, (3) 7-6-021:016, 7•6- 121,017, 7-(i-o21:{11 X, and 7-6-021.1114.) '•,orth I:<v':I D ' 1 i-ic'r I I. `,,I,'i [stand, sii31e of Ila,wat"i affects rr: 11--1 t:1I ;, .il'1 II I property. 1 kiiihin 200fi- i,lf i curs>es to fire Stop Sigrr.fr•orn Lako to the above infer-scc l on. Multiple times in Me over I7 Fears that I have lived here, I have obsen ed rehicler coming to Call-ar_> (.'oInR1unif7 (-'/?.rrch, rrgfi7miliar-with the area, run the:Stop rC")I distance] of'the proposed land development pmjmt. In such clapacities, I have firsthand knowledge oftho following facts and mould and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2.1 have reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT incltalill it L Traffic Impact Analysis Deport by SSFM International, dated July 2020 and flLiclic[I Iti API-1 ndix 2 to the DRAFT EN"VIRONMENTAI -'6' I•Y VIF T. l ant wl eL1f1Ga1ly 4' "F.A.'s'I':1:`' ftll +'l [11-Tl l&' 1R',}11; 111:Ili[I i I I I,.I -'b AI o'd ..'4': I`tl'`1.3 ;ti`'ti+.l`. w'.:I liYl'•.i`•1 +1 tbat are not fully or accurately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Aa .:I , ,I:; It4417~yrt. Trail is 1 € 11,c SNM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, are disctisse4l in the body of the DRAFT 1. ASl i•.SS-1vtENT. at pp. 48-56, 67 and 71. 1 3_In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the I1rt1P+9wL:,l 1)ro1c:t relic; Litt the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuana`oa Place. Kekuana`oa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to ex[rem e ,urvcs mitt Is nlarro ;. witll lio -1de Iks. No raoention isneade ofl eilatei St. s1 hich hers the xame issues with doia'nWil slope and via-vex. :tddirir>'n al1r, fisis arc to IIFax 11fx F!'!i'.k r e'ItCl':4' flli'IJ If(" "dd'f'0 M,111 Illi' dLbol.i' nol"d %11'e.'e:'a, t'('ti1'i If ±ld 111491"C' 1fi'r6'd'le'tdl.4' gh-l'e?wlr rd{'e'e";iS ro the s'7reet. The impact of;nCi-' 1s"c: 51- _ ili -.;11•;Ili 11,III 1 1 JJJ 1 2 buildouts of the Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadequately addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact An,ll.vsis Deport, whiJi it LiNCS i17 cL.i1l nn arnptL4 t, 6,.15'll. Lill L}sli:.l4'l"I 1L. _`1:;Isl'Ill. I Ill.li i i4ll'1 _ ?i1 9E'4'1''!Li ''*',' ,1, 1 rl ll' •; lil:1 I{1i11 :I IILI. .III1:1.: C•J''Il L!I,l L019_LA1011 It-I'I.'.,:ti Cl'.'*:.I: 111,1': 111t' lyi:ill'119 11t°iY,'1'lli' 'lll 41;;RLIr.I I t.` 11.I 9L' lal' .71>I.1L ,""I '++ .ICI Ir."; 111Ch1' '4'.:kt:1II 4,The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires evaluation of, among kil:,i". '; E ldiiG!!'1' ;r11 1c1C'fS, S'1fC'f1 el.} k fhlljges or I-Jf,'cfs on publ9:c,facilltles. PUIL" Ir',1;.:.1,i t i wl i;;.:tt.1 LtC.11li'L •il ':' llll;:4 I,It: .{,•,+.', ':': [7 ,.1:.. 9'`,4'EI.+ ''ti"ii . .'11.. ,.: _11f '11 ,!nla i e __ cYr.. tt crrt. ul aim ing th-Lo "N{' .ki '.ti`I'.L' t'.'s111, .I'. :' :CC]', ..'L' L",.)CC I d 'xi IIL:c 111,'d4.vL'Ioprnc:llt would utilize existing infrastructure. provide inftll housing,and is not expected to result in substantial demands to County setvicc4." It is a seriraus omission for Uii '::'1 I I' I V 1KON N11 ''y 1 AI. 5,1L I.'SS ,d LF%l !Lo I1ill iL, illy' 1101'ti111.I:1i 0" :I Lk;:v-:AI II' [Il_' LL-L' sub sta1dard ex1stIng IntTd5tructure.. 11kc I ek:9:11'::1`,Y'I lL :1 1ij'i ± C., '!1' 5.The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT addresses€tdv e traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substawial advea'°se gjfect on 2 public. health. The Applicant claims.. 'Tlic Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been tgh,,en nto carefulcansid ration in projectdesign_" latnpi,_I {(EcI ed This bald corclusiorl does not address potential adverse 1 c'c-JUII'Cd i)y C ]i:1p[ r 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. b.The Planning Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL F NT's rellance on ilie 5SFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. which has the following llu!ti, „ 1 ,1;. ,,. 1• 11;ltt:t: II a};1i_'` ^,k.,11'I11 31'' K:s11s1 arising from ti14' 1l1 oik.c.'t; b. The SS FM Traffic Impact Analysis R,iIxtrt uses a growth rate of l% in contrast to the 2%grawth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher LG ginc1='t:m-, Traffic Impact Analysis I', Iw} t ILCt%; J I.I'A' if; :1 11111 -Iiiii.ar, exponential relation; G.The Sal \'1 I I.'t l_ I 1;I ,11 L', 1101 :k'L,7 11 f4' [IM111-}'c'rl ri tllnt3! housiingcharacte }tip:. xI;.I1tlt,1 in Mr.x.sli lw .'Id i.,: k: ttiI :,1, .i:,L1 1)(1 lilwc9;, LIIld flutes daily vehicle trips attributable tc hui ldout of the proposed prc>*t; d. The SS Vr Trafi is Ilmpact Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle V0I_I ]le ky: S5 Chi L:1:S IOF N011i[.'11,11',1 1 LIC I1 L1.ILiIIL! 111 J1',%"iIv till the selected dIAl s (_li_ iIII I1 :!1. 2 cI{'. ,I 1;15' zi]l'.l :kUI 'W,'- 2 t I :114.: _;'.. ti ill I t1 a,11`; Wi' En6g'neerlil-T I1'ifi1i Iinp-Li0 Analy';Is Report, li'''lk,I-.-qno'rc.d 105+'J 1w'C111L"lc'1 1Ot .1.1!':li AN, 14 c61,11.1 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with. Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles a per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen ha{ryhuntaint Hlg.hway at 7 &m. The differcnce in volume is more than double the maximum 1 11% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable: The recon ii-Ill 11, -1 N1-M r; il:t: 111,I;:14'' :',:;,,iI'wis Roport fora roundabout it ty711[.'CII 1,11:"L] I11: 11`... :Iil1 t':l' t\il _1 11 ti'.'"I: ,I`Tt'!11. t,t II-.'J 111: II:Ji ;1'.. CWT1€1€ 1% 1T1tL'7°`-VCt10nS 11131 PASS 44.Ji1I.IlI. w I'''_I: I'+'II1:I!]' RI'I';;;'It i iA''d L rcw!ei it concerns for the gvvionunent; r The recommendation by S,,FNI Tiathic Impact Analysis Rgwrt for monitoring of ihi 111it'r:tiL't°':1 1iS +: [}Llt'E9; I"a:l'AhL]]1J,111L1 1-1 W, arld Kl.--: kIIn EI1 11 k:iv iti II'!:'Iilt°i iJ;"Itt`. Wh ru, as here, all inter Lxt1011 l^, 111t.11C 111,111 illl€; '4't": IT'LICit lllIdLt r _Ill COT1dJt,it:L:A. II :,I;SFl M I'L 1'ri( Htized for study and dQsiL-m +,t.,1 s 11,11 for i11st4LILtion. I I,IN s:Ir4:l1nI iIiIcc w ill I)V L , ','.0.071,1I,Cd 11 w' t!IC proposed project. 7.In stale,the Draft Envirolunental Assessment and SSFM Traffic Impact .Analysis kt_°11s Y'1 titll'--t J'lo1 .11 „;il.1 •LL:tlult :li. ] 'C1111" !t'Rti :.Il I ::11,1?ki:lti ,.Ich I hat the r`1dvene impacts on existing lllfrastrUi:i-1k- :i1'41 't.".I 11111.:'. '.I'ill: ,Ili';t.'ili"'d ll.'::.= Il L:;f. I1' f III 't` liilciiC"witli7i.j :'nid result in 11 11r:ri:;1.. l,".,t-1i11114 11 1.1111i!i' -LI:. r:•I tMl1,t' I declare under penalty €1t l", 111.11 11,E ' t Dated: Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, October 8, 2020, Printed 1rame: James f i. J 1,.1 . 11 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. James Johnson Via email:jjohnson424@outlook.com RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 am specifically concerned about increased traffic. Leilani St. from Lako to the above intersection, has a downhill grade and curves to the Stop Sign. I have observed vehicles coming to Calvary Community Church, unfamiliar with the area, run the Stop sign. Response 1: Unfortunately, these events are not unique to this neighborhood or this part of the island. The proposed intersection and minor collector roads in the project site would be built to County standards to ensure their safety. Comment 2: The steep topography, historical rapid stormwater run-off and associated damage present hazards that are not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. Additionally, I am aware that the drainage area on West Side of Calvary's 15 acre property, collects water from a large area above. The addition of acres of pavement and roofs collecting water hasn't been adequately addressed in the proposed project, resulting in downslope issues all the way to the highway, and beyond. Response 2: Flooding has occurred makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from waters in the County-owned Holualoa Ditch and the Horseshoe Bend Ditch, and as described in Section 3.3.2 of the EA the proposed project would not increase the amount of water carried by these ditches from the entire drainage basin extending miles up-hill as the project is not allowed to do so. Comment 3: The DEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the necessary drainage improvements and diversions can be understood. A proper environmental assessment cannot leave meaningful details to be taken care of in the future. As I understand it, such circumstances would lead to unlawful project segmentation among other errors. The applicant, in the current lots remaining in Kona Vistas, has been forced to build a concrete drainage system, disguised as a wall with plants in front, to take care of current drainage issues. This new area would result in additional systems. September 13, 2021 Mr. James Johnson Page 2 of 5 Response 3: Section 1 .2 of the EA describes the drainage improvements on the two County-owned parcels. The text in Section 1 .2 of the Final EA has been revised to clarify that on TMK (3) 7-6-21 :19, "Infrastructure during Phase II of the Proposed Project includes installation of a culvert system along with utilities and roadway across the ditch to extend Kekuana`oa Street, which would then be dedicated to the County as required by Ordinance and called for in the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) "Official Transportation Map." For TMK (3) 7-6-21:18, the project includes infrastructure for channelizing a portion of this ditch and includes a road and utility system crossing this ditch to provide the connector road required by Ordinance and the CDP's "Official Transportation Map." Figure 2 has been revised in the Final EA to clarify the locations of the two drainages in the Project Area. Additionally, the text in Section 3.3.2 of the EA describes that Kona Three LLC would prepare a Drainage Plan to ensure that development runoff would be contained onsite. The Drainage Plan which would be reviewed and approved by DPW. Text has been added in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EA to identify possible options for addressing the issues from existing flooding. There is no project segmentation since all the components of the project are described and impacts from implementation are analyzed in this EA. Comment 4: A bare conclusion by the applicant or accepting authority that needed infrastructure will comply with government regulations is insufficient. At a minimum, the Draft Environmental Assessment must be revised to show specifically what infrastructure improvements are required to tie into the County's drainage system and how those improvements will function. Response 4: The potential impacts from these improvements are discussed in the EA. Even though the final design of the onsite Drainage Plan would be identified at a later date, the potential impacts from their construction are analyzed. Comment 5: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 5: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 6: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents September 13, 2021 Mr. James Johnson Page 3 of 5 along Kekuanaoa Place and Leilani Street. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 6: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 7: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place and Leilani Street. Response 7: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase 11 outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 8: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 1 1 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 8: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 9: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 9: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local September 13, 2021 Mr. James Johnson Page 4 of 5 residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 10: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 10: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 11: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 11: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1 .00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 12: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 12: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 13: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. James Johnson Page 5 of 5 The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 13: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley Fi 0 ill' Serif 1 J8. 2JLO 4:24 PM To- I 11-f-i r ipl P,Iad Subject: 11 %:1 Project EA Comments Attachments, dt 1 .16969 DEC LARAIION OF HA81T:1'1'm1R1-AT1:1 LD&— 1, JOHN POWELL decl=: 1. l am a resit en(ul-Kema Vistas Subdivision, County or Ilawai`i. State 01'Flawai'i. The proposed land development prqject that is the subject of the pending Draft l rnvircnmetttal Asscssnicnt submitted by Royal Vistas Huusing Prgjec:t Tax Map Key Nos_ (3) 7-6-011.01 , 7-6-021:017. 7-6-02 1:01 S. and 7- h-021 O19 North Kona District. Ila-wji'i Isltu-id, State of Haw ni`i affects me pet,,..onally as l,vell as affects my inteivst in t i property,, 1 reside within 1hiff a Mile of the proposed [arid development project. In sttch csapacines. I have firsthand knowledge ol`the faillo%Ning facts and would arid would testify thereto if called upcxt trr du SO, 1 have reviewed the pending 1)R,AFFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMI It does not address die threatened orerdangered species or lass10fha6ital. I have personally witttessmi Hawks tined Owls cov ing this property. The appear to be living on the tipper end of Ibis property. l have seen I laww ks in tare early tnc ming hatirs leaving,the taller trees on the tipper side. Just before(lark l have seen Oww b; leaving from the upper area flying over and to the lower arcs+(if the property hultting. Also the '_''(9) tbol X 00 foot %vide by 40 foot+ tall build]ngs may i:ry Nvell h umper car hill protected llavv iijcut Seabirds. Complete test for the Hoary Bat Iivuld he done.. It appears that dw habitat Will he totally destroyed, Suurid test need to he pe601-11w l in May through September before any destruction of'habitat. 1 rr srrm, the Draft LIEIVIrUrinlental Asscssmerit xid lmpl t Analysis Rc° ,)rt does not present sufficient, credible facts, jilvestigatinn, Lind analysis such tliat the advcrtA: i3r7rxetct, jrn existing Habitat. T[weatened or Endangered Species. declare Linder pcnalty of pcduru that the foregoing is true, Dated: Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. J(-!2020. Signature: Printed name: Ll Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Via email: markp504att.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Powell: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: The DEA does not address the threatened or endangered species or loss of habitat. Response 1: The biological inventory report documents the species detected and potential habitat at the project site. The Biological Survey Report in Appendix 3 of the EA acknowledges the limitations of a biological survey of a large project area and the absence of any particular species cannot be warranted from the survey's results. Therefore, the EA includes a description of species detected as well as potential habitat for native species in the existing conditions part of Section 3.3.4. The biological section identifies potential habitat for protected species and the impact discussion includes potential impacts to individuals and to habitat for native species (including those not directly detected during the survey). The impact discussion including protection measures to minimize these impacts to native species (including avifauana and bats) and their habitat in Section 3.3.4. Therefore, no impacts to these species are expected from the project. Comment 2: In sum, the DEA does not present sufficient, credible facts, investigation, and analysis such that the adverse impacts on existing Habitat, Threatened or Endangered Species. Response 2: The analysis is based on the presence not only of species detected but also of potential habitat in the project site, and protection measures are proposed based on the potential presence of habitat and potential effects to the species. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. John Powell Page 2 of 2 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From. U-i4 Sent: 75. To.- j,,r r,U Ii;:Subject- I:.i I nk: P I I?k I I LJL*"'. SU ill n t'N-L R,oy'j I w Ll" I I(I Ll.,, I k i.k I I!I I IU«N,,i i 11 La,m i I I ig Dcparlmci it kcq_i, i Public Comment Attention.- County ,?' 1 11INi,-w-,- 11,L%'V I Lld 11 l Op[)'. U I I 1,_• v"'l. v;I I I i 1 I I-,,I I I ii cii 111 A L t il'71 t 11 11 L,yL'- 111'k_ 1 14 :4 1 4VAI' t-VI 111MI"I k 1!. A 1'. -JI I 1 :1OHl. Z JILl -VIL' lk Ili.' 112'C11111 I kv-1111 kkild 11.1'.1' IA. FJVCCki 11PL I I:I i I R I I 'Li I I: LA ,. :IL!': 1.1 Ll. 441th I k.I rv,lc,v &,4 well as jm,i I,, ;iiid Kona and Hul_doi.li" t' In I'Lialani Uswte5- Ill L k''.-,I'i we h-I%k: :I I; -<-.: )--TA I-I!.:i I ti.,MCS XO I h W I I 1 11 1"! :11111 1_t I,.],:I m 'LLC to I I-L I I `L,:I oi-, uj Id I I . 1). " < vu ns inIII': I,l [1'.I:I L'!'11.- V.:1-Cl A I'lld LA C J:,ill L!11;. %I i Inh i _,Imc :-u icei UtIJ L1i',I1k.J ZIJIILJ illl I II,Aj( Nt ki lild Ilk l", r:.;r>, 111:lk;IC J) C..%jljjjkl tfiC COUllt-V'S CallaCtly With SLI::11, A I it )D 11-j': A VC LICV001)[11k 1:1 Addition;!l i .II;,. ALI I-Al: -1;1 I :--C Litted IS 1,,: i:'(i :IT A 1 - x',. it 1,4 11o1 cicw that allN ot 1-11 A U I L' 1! -1 11 1",2- X`_.' C1 11.11:110A Lit all U1 k,'A Ill k_' 1,11 L'V CO 1111 IL ,L''(11111 ICE I,I L I I I I 1-,' 11 Lh All tk` I I :111ti C: I I I I I I I i 4.;41 1 "%"4.k2 L t tid t VS I did I Failure EL,Il(ntit <wd the-seY C,Iljd 1V,I,J; '11. !;It.-C Or 11111.1-aliv [I'd"o .)I- H;v. ill,-it up in HidliA-zi -ii:Jl K-.1ii-! 01' .111k11l 1.1' 1111 111- r v, I Ilic I or il-L-i land in i i I d also r-i l 1711; Ill I L 1a1.11(i Lddl_L2,ild Ili Ifil. I)l';,I I Ackvacjav- L,.v I ncj.g I I -I I I j k CI' l I I C j I I I I I I-L 1 4 J, L L I I I 11 1 1 1 1;1 0 ti,'LL Leem a 11 LI 1 Fv, Ill- CI pl,I I I Of n 1 rxil k: I Q1 'A I L'r'L' 1'11.1 ,I I.I I 1 1'. l !11ti riccd ti, 'K i k 71 4 1,1 1 1 ,%1 c, i I:I"i I m 11! aCAlon 1jerc poLuiMally po-c- _-n:L:ii risk Lo o,,i OI1L.h'4. JAL:, (.Ik'll 1101),'Ltics. We a I rc.%Y,I v have suh,,Tantlil tv:o'fi(. and :l` Ck I I)11'I 0':11* 1_1611F, in PLI.,11:1111 I t'.i L1,% t-1.-.L7 to L.'L;]l ',,:[I jljjji I NV1 I I 1 :111: it" ,.nd 11.d1l I'iS;W,Alil, h,: hewn an Ql-O'll) II-1-'i!.! 11 -'Vv);,1: a I I J1 1'. 1 Lli '1:1"4::.; A: !CIL!1111; ilk"'d "k C" I t,.j I I.I kA k:--''L C I I L!.L: ACL'IF MISWI.7) LUItEhl.9 dIIC ''I'ddC :I:Ikl X21C mii h1l[nd spol 1,I"L'.iit_'V.1 11 L, "% :I-1 :,.L-jV,, L"Ol'd 1-41 1 OP. 0111 111 Phtf" L-,:l I:Ll [1 1110 LlId I,jd I 1 111' )LI' I fl!kTL'I I AIAI. :Wd .Vl, L, :1;"" )A I. I-., 3-:1-1,11 11 fi:4 flows .vw i Id he esSCI)11;1 hU :C*'d"I t' 11.1 V, ILH 1:'I. L%(I I t 11', LI, 1111 111 1:AU ;11 I I V :h Vi',L' 1111i7ciLti I Ld;I Letl. 1,1 i LA traffic 611d fl"i,- I 1 1 v L,Cci I I.I.In- I L) e;I I,, 01 111,3!V l 1:111,:11!6, 111) Il,I' k.A I L', '-I:I I'L V A L'U-', YCO 'A' I! ,,. ,j,, FA['LL";tAl 10 11111% LlI-;C10SL:, 1CI 1%:%k 7 ind scel, pul)AC 18['U7 %111 k) pcople arc. -0 r.wrcd n-..v lie I C'k) ill I Vorum.ti 11 1"11-, : 10 `. k I V col I Is. 1 '1,k1 WOU I Li at;,)I,ki (All I I lk jLIjI J VU 0i :C;ti t1IC " [Y.)OT-i t I I I I' dl'.L1 allOY Lt111,,:C1 1%.-; LH-J F1111111MI I'C:1 :1 :111 L:j 11-1 lit" i.L; I As c tieen fi,4 c I I I,-; ef1011" 01u4 kjVc 111CL-d I 1k:-1 i1 III k hli'111-.11 l:Ps are it':Il. C Ii iMo ncal, sand archeOl 0P'1,:,I' I I I I-C :I ',N t211 1 1-1: f-, I Ilk.42 IICL'fi TO lie filily L P J1% I'':ffjj Ll :I °1(.111 11cril ,[-c I h A",;L.I I U LO t k-k In I I L 11'S T11V U11dCI'S%111dI rig thZit IlIeSe Step Lire 11L CLs',saj,y, Thank you J'Or I I i h : k i rn fl. Fni ;I I L-there are mall I I Want k;sues and f'!I"to rs YOU are reviewing or p I all tO I C I I k:U M, )(VC ,J(I d RN-Cd :11-12 ti L 1111111 1 C u J In".Ll.C 1,11 1 as yu U review thcse matters fui-thee. Rc.sp ectfi i I I Y su b ni j ttcd Derck Y, Inaba Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. Derek Inaba via email: markp504att.net RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Inaba: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: In West Hawai'i we have had substantial issues with water shortages and restrictions due to natural factors and also infrastructure failures with our numerous water well failures and repairs. Were infrastructure concerns in our district and in West Hawai'i fully reviewed and assessed and were plans made to expand the County's capacity with such a large prospective development? Response 1: As described in Section 3.3.3 of the EA, the water credits for this project have already been committed and paid for. DWS assigns credits based on capacity, so the infrastructure can provide the water for this project. Comment 2: Additional infrastructure and required services issues need to be addressed at all levels. It is not clear that any of our minimal infrastructure resources are equipped at all to handle a large condo development and influx of population. Response 2: Potential impacts to infrastructure including utilities and public services is described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. As described in Section 3.7.1, the project would be constructed in phases, and occupancy would occur over time. Additionally, it is expected that the project would provide workforce housing for the local community. The project's first phase would construct rental units, and it is expected that occupants of these units would be local and many of the students already attend local public schools. Section 3.7.1 has been revised to clarify that since the project would be constructed in phases, all 99 students would not all arrive at once and occupancy would occur over a longer period of time. This is consistent with predicted rates of growth for the area which are considered by the DOE in their forecast planning for public schools. Impacts to traffic are discussed in detail in Section 3.7.2. Water commitments for the project have already been secured as described in Section 3.3.3. Comment 3: The land addressed in the DEA contains two significant waterways that currently carry water safely away from the existing neighboring communities. If water September 13, 2021 Mr. Derek Inaba Page 2 of 2 flow is altered from the Holualoa Ditch and Horseshoe Bend, much damage could adversely affect all surrounding properties. Response 3: The County owns all of Holualoa Ditch and most of Horseshoe Bend Ditch in this area. The project would not increase the amount of water flowing in the ditches, nor would it change where the ditches enter or exit the project. Therefore, the project will not affect the existing drainage situation. Comment 4: We already have substantial traffic and safety concerns in our district. We already experience significant infrastructure capacity issues with our residential, secondary and main roadway arteries. Response 4: Section 3.7.2 and Appendix 2 (Traffic Impact Analysis Report) in the EA include a discussion of current traffic conditions and analysis of predicted changes to traffic. The EA includes a figure of the proposed intersection which is being developed in coordination with Hawaii Department of Transportation. The intersection is included as Figure 9 in the EA, and was available for public input during the public comment period for the EA. No comments were received during the extended comment period that resulted in changes to the design of the proposed intersection. Comment 5: 1 understand there are a number of historical and archeological features as well as at-risk and endangered species on the property as well. These need to be fully addressed, identified, and studied. Response 5: As described in Section 3.6 and in Appendix 5 (Archaeological Survey Reports) in the EA, the entire project site has been recently inventoried for archaeological resources. One inventory covered 76.1 acres and the other covered 5 acres. Section 3.6 includes a summary discussion of the findings for both surveys that cover the entire site, as well as a discussion of how potential impacts would be minimized. The reports have been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for review and acceptance. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: i-ii r:ii-2tt rile, nL:Iis=:ir:1>loI)M -n•r: yen#: I ,.r'kILjy, 0Cto a, f.i i:1 C.:tI F'Ia' To:1arining Inter;•„_i Mall SubjeCt:Vict + Ic: :-,i".g Pro?ct EA c,amment• rF A,- I';tapli i'11C.,i Oaildhie rrl;l Traffic Impact A101r1, t ri-ri v!r't.ng to you With respect to the proposed kaII'd Cl'U•el01)n'.[-'Ilr: l:)I r:jGt°I tl lL I; t'^if'_ yuh]vct of the e'r1(:Ir,l_J Graft Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal \,Ii4o-, tir}user ci Prolr,Ct Tcd3: Map Key Nod:.. ( ) 1-6-021:015, 7-6-021 ,017, 7-6-021.018, and 7-6-021:619 North K()[`ia District, Hawai'i islc r-d, State of Hawai'i. I have found that 1hc- Environmental Asscssment :f l_hi{ p.oject inadequately addresses its impact can Archeology, Wild lifr, and Traffic. The Assessment shows, q:-ea r d hail can a 5 acre portion of the property that was performed- it ?elf S. The assessment cif 1"ie remaining 65 acres included dated information anti riluch less detail th4m hc fJ1.8 version. Within idle prnpertv in quest C."1 OR' 'vi-ry likely rem -ants rJl Lt-io Kealakekowa'a (roili of ili .aiikjc) roc. Koa Teem :; •.•were harve, c-,;J .,[' a`J:' H alualcia and loggjcd f-luvin Lo _he Kealakekowa"a Heiau when(• the, Koa loci4 v.SJre carved &-id in:--J-.: rt:ady for canoe huiicing, A portion of the actual path exists can ncc: property of the Holualoa Inr; P-,,,c and Breakfast. $.o .+Ayww,holua Ig j®nn.comfhisto!y-Of-fhe 17:- .1 slide( . Historically, most Holua, +,,Yere used for sport. This Holua, however was specifically bLIQ h) haul Foa wood tc thJ sea. One Unique aspect of this Holua is its parallel rock walls that were us,.-'d L: contain hj Koa as I`transportecl ci,,),,vn the Huiva. The Royal Vistas AssLssrncnt strictly wllul i3 , the a Of W;-Ils fOr cattle in the JeLe I&OOs and early I af10;s. in the assessment, core scd nples of the reveal th , kilkui nut. The ancient Hawaiians usttd kUkui nuts and i c}47ti+-:_q to help lubric{.1 Uie Holua fni rrllriinq tho logs, This VVauld indi a` I the walls are Ea 1} an,.] L:anq :D1 pi(--c:(-. -a)f Ancient Hawaiian Hah_,aloD i, transla`etl 'Fr; Lriglish as "Long Slit:". Lack or information regarding this pecc of Is a serin.Lls c iis.,.Juri _n the assessmenr. farri ,i ;i,, ), next to the Calvary Chun-, 1 iclnfC that I nire`dy adjacent to the proposed Royal Vistas Hiy t,in'_l PioJ We enjoy seeing the cop I-a'j1, dlife that lives on this land. We regularly see Fvijltipli Havw, =ice i Hawks, Hoary Bats, and &.: -7-1 The d,ssessrnent merely suggests that these riirr il{, ::i.iu'd Js(;)SSil)ly reside in the proposed area. They DEFINITELY make their home on the pro,posed S ".e- Thr traffic study is also Flared, lnt(v,rpst ugly enough, the study claims that the traffic has improved slnrc th4: previous traffic study. The entire bona population would r7yrf:e witluout he-sltation, that rrztric has cert ainlyr not improved. In fact, it has become much o~,,., :sir 4 t.„i it~aitlal study. To sur1ct Est th t adding 106Ct cars to tf i5 area won't have much of an il"1112 I : ; V.,IS)ful th,rlking, Imagine the traff c a: Lake and the Hlgh,,vay during morning and evcnir7q ;-iJ_al-I-h0url t 15 o:ll;lili, rl 11,w srlrl ]'[]priate tllcl tl:k ;]°r'r'I'4 °`s or t its land, currently CGnia cl rT1JlLl family, have Keen to ire, Ir a {; caLUe ranch allow-Ing r.uV to trample archeological sigrt• the ;majority of the c_a`tle h i'rc lfrrl re 77rred recently, but r I le'u`t_ °s €=. at least two cows that are° still within the property. F.,r an c)'v rt!r to disregard the zoninc of trim land shows a lack of respect and indicates t .169 '71 hat •-ve -jre- dealing with an investment groin vvho will do as they please. Lags do not allow for this, het ip ep,uears KV3 doesn't wank to play by the same rules as the rest of us. This blatant disregard djes nut bode well for a responsible, vvell planned, well vetted and culturally sensitive project. This, p,jjeLt should NOT be allowed. Tharw: •yn;J ,r your consideration. r I T,holLC: I I 14ON1Ir+j _6271, Fivlrr C.rr IfTh fee 0rioer rrell M.rryor W t9 bl,sinpdgQM_,r 16m2i1;hnfpOghba FJrr!{leN." II'JPL' 010i-t Juua,! IVf?J Oft r wfLL•_'' 14 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Allison Bennett via email: info@blissinbloom.com RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Bennett: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have found the analysis of archaeology, wildlife, and traffic in the DEA inadequate. The DEA shows great detail on a 5 acre portion of the property that was performed in 2018, and a much lesser detail, as well as dated, assessment of the remaining 65 acres. Response 1: As described in Section 3.6 and in Appendix 5 (Archaeological Survey Reports), the entire project site has been recently inventoried for archaeological resources. One inventory covered 76.1 acres and the other covered 5 acres. Section 3.6 includes a summary discussion of the findings for both surveys that cover the entire site, as well as a discussion of how potential impacts would be minimized. Impacts and protection measures for wildlife are included in Section 3.3.4 and impacts from traffic are included in Section 3.7.2. Comment 2: Within the property are very likely remnants of Kealakekowa'a road ( path of the canoe). Most Holuas were used for sport, however this Holua was built for hauling Koa wood to the sea. One unique aspect of this Holua is its parallel rock walls to help contain the Koa as it was transported down the holua. The DEA shows these walls and how they were used for cattle in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This is a serious omission in the assessment. Response 2: Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1.0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. September 13, 2021 Ms.Allison Bennett Page 2 of 3 Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 3: We regularly see multiple Hawaiian Hawks, Hoary Bats, and Owls! The assessment merely suggests that these animals could possibly reside in the proposed area. They DEFINITELY make their home on the proposed site. Response 3: The biological inventory report documents the species detected and potential habitat at the project site. The Biological Survey Report in Appendix 3 of the EA acknowledges the limitations of a biological survey of a large project area and the absence of any particular species cannot be warranted from the survey's results. Therefore, the EA includes a description of species detected as well as potential habitat for native species (including protected species) in the existing conditions part of Section 3.3.4. The impact discussion includes potential impacts to individuals and to habitat for native species (including those not directly detected during the survey). The impact discussion including protection measures to minimize these impacts to native species (including avifauana and bats) and their habitat in Section 3.3.4. Therefore, no impacts to these species are expected from the project. Comment 4: The traffic study claims that the traffic has gotten better than in their previous traffic study. To suggest that adding 1000 cars to this area won't really have much of an impact is wishful thinking. Response 4: Section 3.7.2 and the Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) in Appendix 2 of the EA include a discussion of current traffic conditions and analysis of predicted changes to traffic. The changes in level-of-service from projected growth with and without the project condition in the analysis is based on the results of modeling by a professional traffic engineer, not wishful thinking. Comment 5: It is innapropriate that the owners of this land, currently zoned as multi family, have been using it as a cattle ranch allowing cows to trample archeological sites. The majority of the cattle have been removed recently, but I have seen at least two cows that are still within the property. Response 5: In response to neighboring community concerns, Kona Three LLC ceased cattle grazing in the proposed project site in 2019. To their best knowledge, Kona Three LLC knows of no cattle on the project site. However, it is possible that cattle grazing from the adjacent Gomes' property temporarily moved to the project site. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms.Allison Bennett Page 3 of 3 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Design with community in mind Mori, Ashley From: Vo Sent: Th i i r<;c'it v, o)u 1 08, 20 (1 3,49 11 M To: P j--Imt-q Inrei-ript MAII Subject: I''L'. Ro,/-.' VI —I:I l I 'I I I tip I f)i,,-.I Hrf,VA I 519nd KCI)A Eli S"-,,--T Attachments- KV OWNERS Declara,Pn re I raffi .do x PEease see attached Qcc;laration with signature. swcarely, Janice Kerr 7 DECLARATION OF JANICE KERR 4'. sul}di vision l, f. 17l'.;]r'v y}I l.'4 5':11', ,f.l:u' 111 11i1k'<L41 1. l lls:' Illtll ll*E'.11 lililLl ill:k'14?r1 1`]ll r{1 L;;4 11,11 IS 111L" .4jj JCCt of the pelli1il-:. I)I';ll; ) ml1 Ilt11111ik:jgslj ,wwt 3 117CitL su1imitt€'d by Royal Vistas Housing ProJect Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7µ6-021:016, 7-6- 021:01.7. 7-6-021 -.013. Ll>i d 7-o-Q-11 :l(I t? '` or.h 1~tio niA District, Hawaii Island, rSto of HaNvai'I affects me pcnsanall' ;.1' "C1I 1eS[ it IQUI m,,-.'1-I`,, I _:lls: t m...'L1"e .li.` m'tll w" o.'I f1lW 1:1'',519..•;c:.l .;Il1.1 ,1'k, .L.j..°1i 1 Ltti, ,L'I. In such capacities, l ha c tir than ki>IowI edge lei'ilia could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2.l have reviewed the ponding DRAFT F-\' °l k I ?I''~`,'I N I A l InuludIng LheTraltic- Impact !\ralysls Repc!rI by ",SF.M Lied J4,1_.. 'I }il 1!rj k) lk C1R:1FT I'.NV IRON111: 7, I `1] il`w l' '1E" 1 I LII: ,17.311tic:li ' coneemed about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Koiia V;I tas w4iI-)division that are not fully or acc:umtely addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and the SSFM 'rratfic Impact Analysis Report, are cli iu the body of The DRAF-F ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. at pp- -!,S-5 ," 1, Lmnd 71. 3.In thy: Kon:l S':ic piop[ wd.project relies on the use of e substandard roadway. Kckuatia`oa Placc, Kokuana`oa Placeis cic.'ry titceP. ha% limited sq,,hr distances due to extreim ourws and is riarrow with no SLi1e", 11KS. "' 11C 11-; Jl.:w't l•':Ll:!( arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 bwloou" ,§I'lily I addressed in the SS1=M Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which focuses instead can impacts aiDng Queen Kaahunianu Highway, i aril }particularly concerned that adding numcmus vehicle trips to and from a cpara,te subdivisirin will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuana`oa Place. 1 consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concems. 4.1'hc: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMLN'C requims evaluation of, among ethers. adverse secornd ar v irrrpacts, such a;aspopur"adon changes or•off cls on pefbltc J cllil'ies. Scc Chapter ] 1-100.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing these Ilot1'ev r. Tllti 0R.-U, I' 1-NV1k( ) 7,\ ,T1=.N7TA.I. ASSESSMENT simply ignom them, t:l.ki1'.i11 tlL11 "\M I'CLAL; ,11't, t xliwctod 5incc thedeveloprment would utilize xiisting infra5tructur , llrc, i{l ii1t111 houE ing. and 1w liot eNpected to result in substantial demands to County services." It is a serious omi'7slon for the. UIUFT ENVIRONMENTAL AS5LSSNILN I Lo [ail Lo ai.rllC '_11k' llol 'llt al sul) tIandard e.xis[ing inficistrUOUt-C, like Keku:iiia'a-ts 1''.UV •, 5. "rhel)I2.AI `1` F.1 1 IE ()C111NTAL } 9ENl' Trlclictictia l er etr.kc impacts only in the context of whether the project would flaw a subsramical adverse on public health. The Applicant claims, '"I"he Proprawd PrOjec:t would not atfect public health in any Mid be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have i)t't'11a,t 1, E't I.11t+_y i.11_fill C'f'T11_.tilijt`T';Tt ill' Ill ill'{}1F'i [,£F'.,tite'Ir 1:1 1:', '1cl l cil c d. hi) }cl C LUALlr.l iUll JUC—o 1`10L _IcldrUss potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11-200A-1.3, 11:a:t1r Nd:llinistratle,L; RuIcs. 2 6. The i'1iinnin LTOt <ICce pt the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNENT's reliance on the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which has the fallowing deficiencies: a.within the Kona Vistas subdivision r'kiBg 5-0111 tlIC. PrVICC : h.The SSFM Traf'iic 11T3PUL:1 A ,J.'C,;•• [,:p art ii s a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2%growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher E gineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sc;nsitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation; C.The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Deport does not rccognize multi-generational housing char d=isties common in Hawaii according to census data and likely rtn&Testimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposvd project; d.The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report employs€n unusually law vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumunu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018. Witcher Engineering Traffic impact Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually lour reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hoar in 2U16 for Northbound Queen K ial)umLrTIu Hip-IPA pry girt 7 a.m. The rlittc•!L`:IL C in volume -is more than double the mii, in 11111 measurements and thus unreliable; C.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis keport liar a r,i iirl l fll:gut at Queen Kaahurnanu Higbway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic 3 c rrr'dor. Intcrsections that pass warrants but relnain unsigrr;l i7ed pZ'CStl1l irllilic stlt+vty li lbility concems for the Lzoverrin1=, f Itic rcuornmetldation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report far 111"-rnitoring of 1 w i111Cr'tit ic}l1 of (x1.1Cr11 Kijatiitu 11i; f1way is Where, as here, an niic -.,e :tllrrl 111o1i: 1i1a111 OM2 14,11C:1C1C L11b[ l- :dI t;011L11114I11S, it S110Uld VIC E,': rlll[i%'.f for study and design of signal for installation. This c rcu111SU)11ck ,V'III 11C C%'J m1-1 ,, b .,1: proposed project. 7.In Burn, thv Draft Environmental Assessment and SSFNI Traffic Impact Analysis J CJ 1-1 1111k" not nre Cllt "Ll Cfi '.L rlt. tC k:lIilik: facts and analysis such That the adverse impacts on ex1St1114,. 1111ra-,1ruQhL1C ;I1-1d rwtiul i.0 tri,m 111C".n2a1 L'd tr'lt1ic 1',1'1 1-w fi-111%. 1!11d rqx116)d ."1111 'Q-Ult 1z1 1`•''l'{5111"1':t:' L!i1l"aril"llC`1'I _71.;I`.11111 ;Irlii 1":''?l'11,'-6`, t 1. eclaic under penalty of perjury that t11c D) itcd: Kailua-Kona, llawai`i, October 8, 2070 i 'Ilail1IV: 1;il°Id t' K' :'' Magi, Ashle From, I<Ir,iLe Kerr Sent: T1-1. md vv i ^tc,F2! 08. FV To: H"IIrsi!Itii m'Jil Subject; PR,-)JFCT F,,::yaI V,s*,, I I using Project;island of Hawaii; District of North Kona Attachments: Dig--IAu:tii,i i' :r '*I Please see attached declaration Sincerely, Janice Karr i 1 .16973 DECLARATION OF JANIC E KERR I.Janie Kerr. declare: 1.1 am a resident cat'( 70-4320 Leiltani St. / Kuria Vistas subdivision], County ofHawai`i, State of Iiawai`i_ The Proposed land development project that 1s the subject of the pending Dralf Environmental Assessment submitted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Ivey Nos. (3) 7-6-021:016, 7-6- 02l:017,7-t1-021:018, and 7-6-02 l: 19 North bona District, Hawaiii Island, st{ilc 17] H'Ikv'11' 1.11: PCf'51,ilia lI%, -a." I it my interest ill real I(J 2 E 111)111 LII1w '1111C i}! I.1L... 1`IiRe'. •w';I 1•l'1, fly.":4`;¢tl'lll; ;ll 1'r0JOc't, md cauld and would testify themto if called upon to do so. 1 1 have revfiewcd the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT filClUdill_ il1.c Tiuffic Lnpacl Analysis Report by SSFNI Laternalional,dated July 2020 and altadicd till+ Appeudix 2 to ihti I W. `,I'VI .'%I .%S,,0-Y NIENT. I and specifically c l lli_r..iiry(1 cl ii i.l. .,1:1 ti ti4" It"l P' Lllll!i L4„1M k'lll ti.5";I.IIi I .<l:t, . III+,'.Il lllk '•.',ill. : 4ri'.w 4i 1'lti. k ,1..1 thal dre 11'.iI iddrew,4cd in the SSF ke], im 1'1-affic and the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report. are discussed in the beady of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSI~SSMENT, ai pp. 48-56. 67 and 71. 3,111 dl1t K,111a lwlsl "LLjb ll'-L:,i h. III,- ¢7:-opoi -,cd ]1rolt L I ou IIt1 U.c of a substandard roadway, KelcUat a'cia I'l.'11 :a' 11,cl il:31':i•.¢:: 9',,wc i, 'icrN, 0I,cp. ]v;Lti limited sight distances duce to extreme curve's and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from phase I and Phase 2 buitdouts orthe Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadegalately addressed in the SSFN4 Traffic Impact Analysis Rcpvrt, which Focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahitrna1.u Highwak-, l tam particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and Fhini a separate suh tl1'Ls on 11 t Ltits along Kekuana`oa Place. I clonsiderthat the PI:I:LIu;I 1)'_'7)Ji ni lL Lit Ia 1 Li l'.t:Il r: 711,' adf:l3-cs', these Concerns- 4.The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires evaluation of, among ethers,adverse secondary impcactx• such as p'opulatiarr changes or c&crs on public,Jfacilirles. See Chapter 11-200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules, I>:ACad 01"s'Ll addl Ike [Sl..`,I I I A1 :I"tip VI N I AI M I I N I • III-: v 1<'L',,1 t', rl"IL' il. No :Lc%-cr,k :'{-' ,,,,1 .J t L :': r .1! L'.`,j'. t i1 '• If4.l li I` k:loplileiit ti, ".III- t,:l,i,'L' existing infrastructure,provide infill housing, and is nor C L)2VIL-Ll to iv I h III SLll,;I;11ltial demands to County services." it is a seriotis (omission for the DRAFT ENV IRON N1FNTA1, i 1 `T to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of Iti4ItI.,nII 5,the DI4 I l \54' II,()N;kl 1. Al;S!.SS VF NT :,ddres,: L{I e_' c tj:;t'fi i1npacts only in the ck-IJ i drk%I IcOIc +I I prirjcc1. would Have a suh,w¢,errlied advarse eflecron p tr1,'r'c health, The Applicant claims. 'The Proposed Project would not altect public health in any 4uV- ,7v 3::.'.L,r('7 ',S{{LIld h tLolv-111 iiut vdispc7xed of in drainage ktructuru:,. Traffic iinva°cts„have L`I':I ,.I.I:I-';1 :11T4'r L";,: ,'t'.JI L"rl.o4,,dt-I,It 10n_i13_.11 1-1Q Emphasis added. This bald Ill ,..,`•L{a1' °,il1 ", Il.{:. ,.I lilt{.. ;; I ua,:I-LLtII LIcl,°+'r',l.' l;;il] :CR` 't`L 111r'L'{I I,G' {'ll;liwt r l 1-2ftl-i3, HU`IxLsii AdliVIJi Ir,LtiveRules_ 6.The Planning Department should not accept the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT"s reliance on the SSFM Traffic lmpaot Analysis Report, which has the fallowing, defir;iencies: a. L:."k. iFafli-: Koll'L \).':.e' 5Llh'h i4'E:jj 1-ism tlr• I11CI.: ' '.. b.The S S FM Traffic lmpaet Analysis Report uses a growfli rate of I%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate empinyt d by the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very-sensitive to grawth rate in a non.-linear, exponential relation; C.The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report does not recognize: multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attrihuiiLble to buildout of the proposed project;. T c SSFM Traffic Impact ,Analysis Report employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Nordibound Queen Kaaliur7 u u highway an the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, c omparcd with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low rclsc„ CCI C111Clt t 011111ic ask ,953 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per lour in 2016 for Northbound Qum-n Kuhumanu Highway at 7 am. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 1tr1b variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable; e.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Unpact Analysis Deport for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Read(North) is imxinsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersc:ct1ow, CII.: -ti ','•',II-1-:1111 , 11UI 1-L'lll•1111 iil 1.CkI P'C`,C,1 T1-.iftiC q:,i-^Ty ''abiIity coneerm for the governaicnt; f The recornmendaltion by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of Cl1L' II:1 'lk;"= CI+.`tl +1. C 11L '11 l ;l:.11llllll;lll':I I1.'1;'.-i ,:iLd l` uakiri HlghE 4w. a5 inadequate. Where, as I1_':L: ::I! 1:`1vl , Iti'•;:• II i,1'i' if1:441 +'.:Yl.' 4k:lf" I''1 !allIi121 :.II ncI1'.I,'F11 it should be prioritized for5T11(k. 11111 s'.,_' ; !1 it !il.l, IM i!itiT„1f.1'w . ] w t'lfl-' 111iti1 !114't' 44'!° Ott° L' if:C'1"1•:1Es_`ij by the proposed project. 7.In sum.the Drall I-.n irkinnicntal Assessment and SSFM Traffic Lmpact Analysis Deport does not pr, sc::11 -LiI tic ic'17t, tircdible facts and analysis such that the adversc impacts on L'"A"IIIJIg 1 III 1;I',;rl,cAki :Intl It-iIIsIrg from increased traffic can be fully understood and result in Ild ['SFJxllse. declare under penalty cif perjury that the foregoing is true. Dawd- Kailua-Dana:, Hawaii, October S, 2020. S]S Ei itLll': Prilack-1 11,1.111C: T I11 L' }L4'p"I DECLARATIO-N OF JANICE KERR 1, .lance Derr,deeltrre: 1.I am a resident of L76-4320 Leilani St. 1 Kara Vistas subdivision], Coiinty of 1141wai`i. State of Hawai`i. The proposed land development project that is the s i d t. 1 ,if the pending Draft Environmental Assessment submiiffed by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos. (3)7-"21:016, 7-6- 021.01'7, 7-6-021:019, and 7•6-021:01,, No, 1', K -11a District, HawaN island, State of I1a xar[ ilfec;t- rirw 1}ir tFri,ill% ,- ,%-,:II :i, :tifectsrnlyinterc.st in r'• 11 property, I rc,,[Ac wilhlll oiic wile 4if line proposed land (! It IT)III:t1 I1! i4°4'l In such capacities, I have firsthand knowhAge of the f611c,vOnp f,-MS : T)d could and would testify thereto if called upon to do so. 7.l have reviewed the penclin MW'T ENVII, r' 1rlLN 1 ,',1 A,,SF,%SMENT ITwludir:- I1!4- I ,:kii_ic Impact AualVsis ltepott by 13SFM International, & ii .IPIk 'ryWtI ;IIld itt. h [l 10 the DRA17. I'NVIl(}`!11 N I -\I • S'1)1:' o';I3 ti.ri,- 1 „1" 1"1111 C trTW etS bath within and ,'.I1110L11 the Kc)ra Vistas subdivision Idoressed in the SSF1\4 1'raflic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic and the StiI-M I raffic .111111;'L. \A;Ilysis Report. are or, nsssed in the body of the DRAFT ENVIRC]NMENTAAL, ,"`,I .!,,)% I r i it pp. 1.Irlthe Komi 4+' 1.".I:1, il.11ryilI Itiilr i- tile propc,°,t•,.I I-I'iil,,c.t rcLIieso7i rhE w,c of a substandard roadway. Kekuana.`na Place. Keku imi'oa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to exbvrne curves and iw n rrow with 171 1 wI act of increased traffic arising from f hay e I :Mid ['13;r;w ? I uil is lrj,• o!'ilt,,• .al l'i t:t : loii,, o:. I'rc}jest is ilnade luza ly 136964 addressed in the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Repot which focu..%s instead On impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numcrou.s vehicle trips to and irein a separate Subdivision'Will present dainge*rs and,congestion to residents along kt*uana'ca Placc- I (;(insider that the Planning Department should xequire the applicant to add.resw these concerns. 4. The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEM rcquires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects an publiefiavdides. seec Chapter lI- l).1-13, Il k,lii alclLllillitiir;li '.t i?I.LI° ite,:tc:.I,;l ol'squarely addressinf, those d L. I)1 AI p 1 ' I1' ',[.`,;11 'A I AI I N,I1F I wirn111 i rHOI S Ihc'Lll, I;,iu ng*that "NO WilLif, i-°I:t>. :• IvL 4.`:Iwk4led silie'f the dt:V'c°lopillolt volild utilize c",.`• I,j infrastructure,provide infill housing, and is not expected to result in substantial J ruLmds it)County services." It is a serious onussion for the. DRAFT I:NV1RC3MWNTAI. 1 ' I1'' I to fail 1ci address [lic potential adverse: irnputs of increasing the use of I11dardcNiwitl,L: ei11. l:;:I"..tl '::11'ti_ II K 5.The DR A i i`.N IRONWlVTAL ASSESSMENT addresses ; vI ---roc trot E is impacts curtly in the context of whether the project would Have a substandal adperse e ecr on public hea8h. The Applicant claims, "'I Ile i 1,01.111 i•I,n ..','°; j li'1715: lj;uldt in any j 4 c1p T 7?rlul :,4`{1l J li li Li!'ilrlil,'d' lldl;'li:l'd I',ililt' fll,7] 7CA4 1-'f- I- <l':Lc kei.e.. + t r ft l I..1slti_rtj i l7 i j ;--I ja'•r-t cl. `,I;;II:" I;tl llii.til, ;Ic.leral_ 'I'lrl , l,,rltl t'ii:l .l lti!P]rJ{lill` . r141 :iil:i!t``+ ;i1l t'.€rtle3l c3[3l+''I •.L' Ilill.[ L4 ,1~wll.11iL•,'+4'11 li'ti•f 11ir1 ter l-2I7l1.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules, 6.The Planning Depaftment should not accept the DRAFT F. IIRONMENTA,L ASSE SMEN`I`s reliance on the S FM Traffic Impact Analysis Report,which hall the following deficiencies: a.failure to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project; b. 1-he SS M TraMic Impact Aiial.y4ii Report uses a growth rate of 1%,in contrast to the 21/a growth rate ernployed by the 201 S Witcher Enginelering.Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation; C. dt i 1 1 r;l;'i : I I II[%L,:1 . l r l',•:i,- Report does not recognize rnulti-gencrational 1'4'ml-;'l li' 11 sJl ilk:!.C-1::E ll;ti =_'t•I!l 111 s.5ii lI 1 :.il'1'I!33 .11'i`.a.el`klll1 v. C 7 (w! till C_1rl .lrcl iks 1 I:...c`l f;.C lllilt_S daily vehiJ;,: !1i}'. t'•irlt,t i;,lai ty Niik1A1114 .11 1i _ i.;I,,,,t.'al pro t; d. The SSIl Traffic Impact Analysis Repart employs an unusually low vehicle volutnevf853 v lli 1 ' 101 l Ihlc selecteddatesof Apr ;4} ?{ll , a ct:kc}uy Elul ltk >tii ? , i J`` , ..t olcl w, Oilli},L]--J kil >_he Ml>3 Witcher l.s1 :11 t i:: F!-t)il C 111r acI 1r aI v Is R epor'- ,,N h°k h repo ri ed 1057 I k'•r .1Lis,UL,1,, } d 15, 2016, hilil: lil 1a,k"• rar;lc_ ried vehicle volume of 853 i!, .11,„d at odds with Figurer 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Anal,,L i s Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016. for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.rn. The difference in volume is more 11"1;.` lA'.1.4UiWlll {"r ea '. fI-'I Oil a '!1i'I"L11ti 111ti ?l1T"t`C11R'C71` 9°.Its I);U •.1 !' ':'.aldlc; e.11 4 r; , c 1r9111 lti, :iatn by S I M 'I r ilk Irrll,9Ct .1l aiti tii w Rct9cdrl at Queen Kauhunianu Highway and Hualalai Read Northl is inconsistent with ilic Ir il l corridor, )ntcrsections that pet, V,ar Fill'B bw rrain iin unsignalitzed present traffic safety liability conc ems for the government; f.The recommendatiion lw S'SIA1 I raf*1ic fiiipaci A' nr jly-,&N Rel,01-( li.rr rtt0tlilr7t T111, (it' the intersection of Queen K umanu IIiL),]IVtiLL . a11)d I'.tlkl II I IiLdlh N tr iS iry.sti tilu t ,, 'Itcr. as here,an inte1rsect'0J1 XIS;t q mnre then I)TIC t U[Idk:r aL)I COIIdII iI.-rIS, it SIl 011lal bC 111-10ritiZed for study and dcsi+=.n (if i ,i4gna I llof irrl t ll:rti+n. l'lriscircur )stance ticill arc ex.acorhated by the proposed project. 7.In sum, the Pi-i I t I-i i Id SNFM 'h-LI i C 11-11pa<t Attalysis i tl3lli'itil3itijltli1)' " ,'ti "tell'LALr- f,Bata and analysis su,;h that the adverse impacts on existing inftrastrmture ati,i rt,•1 it a;i ! 1 roll, ins rt tk..{f fr;71'1,c u:rt1 be fully undeistaod and result in appropriate government planning and response. I declare under penalty ofpedury that the foregoing is true, Dated: Ka lua-Kona.,Hawaii,October 8, 2020. Signature: Printed name: Janice Derr tr e J lw T} Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Janice Kerr 73-4320 Leilani Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Email:jkkona@hawaiiantel.net RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Kerr: Thank you for comment letters on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Since we received three letters (two by email one at 3:46 pm and one at 3:49 pm on October 8, and by mail post-marked on October 8) with identical comments, these responses address all three sets of your comments. Comment 1: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Janice Kerr Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Janice Kerr Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Janice Kerr Page 4 of 4 covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley Frcm: D. M iJjoc <J 1);1&-1 Split: Th L;, 1 1-1 er 0 8. 2(',w'0 '1-7 k' "I IvI To: Subject: f... ;71 if EACOMMENTS Attachinems; PATION 1e-08-2020.pdf ALOHA. Attached please find my declaration/can-iments to the Royal Vistas EA report, With aloha, David Blancett-kladdock 76-101 Kameha[Tlak St., Kallua Koila HI 96740 Kona Vistas 136974 D[:CI.ARr TIC i OF DAVID I3I. MNC F,. II-M.&DD(')c:,K L DAVID 1;3I AN1CI."I-I'-MADD0C'K, de c tare: I. I am rn resident art 76-101 Kwviehamalu Street. Kai Ina Iona, HI 96740 cif Ilona V istas 5LLb Iivision, ('ounty o f l Tawai`i. State of HaNvai'i.The proposed land development project that 1-% Lhe subject of tlac pe iding Graft Environmental Asscs49t1 -nt ,ubmitted by Royal Vistas HoLising Project "Ta.N Map Keys Nos. (3)7-fi-0212 O16,7-6-0211)17. 7-6-01-1-019, and 7-6-021:019 North KonaDistrict, Ha%ai`i Island, State of Hawaii affects Ric personally as wall as affects my interest in mal property.. I reside within less tlrart .5 roil Ofd1C prupOSCLI land develttil-jme:nt prajtct. In such capacities, 1 have firsthand knowledge of the follo"in- (sits ant could and wwoWd tcsth#, thereto il'called upon to dog sn_ 2. 1 hirwe reviewed the pending DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE'SSIVIYNT incl u irrL: Lh Trniflic Impact Analyst; Report by SSFM Iitteruationat dated July 2020 and attached as Aplvrdix 2 to the DR AFT ENV IRON MFNTA1, ASSFSSMENT. l ant spec i€ical.lw concerned about adverse tra111c, irnpacts tenth within and without the Kona Vistas subdIvisiDn that arc not fully car aecurawly addressed in the SSF M Tragic Impact Analysis Report. Trnffgc and the SSI'M[ 'ratfrc Impact Analysis Report. rare discussed in the holy of the DRAFT ENVIR{)NMEN l'AI. ASSEwSSMIEi'VT. at pp.48-56,07 and 7l. 1 am concerned that Enna Three, 1.I.0 (Developer) submits proposed findings of "no signiftc;am Impact (IDEA-AFNSI) is not supported by the facts. I am concerned that Dc eluper''s DE;A Study is pToforna, setting forth dcclarations in boilerplate fashion whits obfuscating, ornitthig or rmair riul facts and analysis. It appears that Developer ornits Material avnifahle local factival information from its analysis nccess.3ry to calculate the tnze cnvironraental impact_ 1 I believe that Developer has omitted key finding nccessary to I'Mr and 1 Iksis of CVNr]r(jTjMCJjftjl impact. I am concerned thal Developer Kl SHhstitured C-CkLTI.: i-.WdCline Lssumptions and iiiaccurate or outdaud infannaliDn in disregwd of knoA-ri local conditions and draws conclusions Nvithout valid IACLuftl stmpport in the record. 111'iteAd- It ap,,cjfs that Developer parrots Muck regulalor} agencies stated requircrneiiLsv-ith mere assur{lllo of future ConipliMICC. Omissiuns and unsupported Assumptions. In my opinion, this repon seems tellin,-J,, devoid ol: factuai statements of essential Foundational elements nceessary LO a valid aswsLnieni ol'ilic c-nvIror1T-ncF1iaI impact of this very large, high density project, Sonic primary examples of essential, missing ascertainable [oval factual claia include th'.' Following. Del,elopej omits Wry stated estimate 01'POpkLI;16011 demo-raphics or even t111 Cwth'iA%: of LhQ total expected population totals, either in aggregale or doloil. Developer arrills ITIti' M,'41ai dollar tnsLirnales LLY,1L-'M:k1 16r any &dies pricers or rental prices. Developer omits any clear vs-limatQ for Completion 11tc" for a prcjecl that has %panned almost three decades already. The submiss-Wil is devoid (411W it) Wcquutelr address recreational space or defensibility of living space- On Its Chce- Developers ,abinlssion appears to make only proforma rupons of contacts and filings with con7nll.111M rcprescntativos Lind gOVCMR1C1ItU1 avteiicies with bald assurance to comply, hur omits the i,i hL Dcvoloper ovilts nbservablo data of known flooding and fails, to M- Iress or adequately describc how his deve-lopment will addre.." the conscquenues to percolation and wat,>r run-ol'Frewhing thim cle-aning and altering and adding Too top runoff I o 74)acres of land with kno%k n 110t Idil 1r COndidons. Devrlo ivi sulis t 11 utes a single v4riabh;ruitional boilerplate model to esilwate traffic load impacts which ojinits and Wig to consider obwrvablc and ascertainable local data dead socinlog y that more accututc I retleas actual [ocal co-ndi lions and likely contradicts widerlying issuirrotions in tho hol lurpLite n.nq ii,fl models. which would likely render those tnode'ls47 inadetlooic to local applicaiiiin&%appfl:d An example of why failure to comildcr local sociological demogMphic d;Ata is inadequate may hell), Por example. I am com:crict] that Dt:,,t1opet relies exclusively on.a generic Lraffic impact nio(iel that mecharii(utlly aplilies a nUtiO[lal sWIKIJTO,vithout regard to obvious known and available am conccrucd that by kisiq- this model, lhe understates i mpam to our c oin in un 111 e5 ileCEILISc It 01)1tous or rcadil, a swrtain able data. In the instant case- there is evidence. that I obK-Tvc routinely, of a well-known and cmpirically obiervable gridlock that Occurs daily during, rush 11our (common time-, for comer utc to work). Any peTsort living on this side of the island, incluLfiris iugsclfl has ccmpetentl} observed that Kuakinil I IwN,f Quwn K highway is die prilliaty commuter highway for tnoming and evening comrnute.s to and from the proposed development to a resident's pla;cO of work. I have Oh.sm'ed the pre-covid gridlock of backed up 117:,Li7-11;during inorning and cvcrijm commute pcaks for ticveral miles sauth (often njore than u mile post King Kamehameha 111 road wh]Ji is, OL collple of Mil" I SlTec() and north a couple of miles into Kailua Kona at Henry street. If you need I' this fact than in)- testinnony. this Eact can easily been Confirtlied hY palling C-011,111ty COLUIC1l tMernbers and Mayor's StaffMcalbers %%-ho have COMMLIWd 41 hedlillg$ in the Wt!st flawaii Community Center for G I ITIcil hcuj,-,n.gs in 20 19 via South- This clearly observable fact i tlN,ali dates a primary assumption uI'Nisc:lint trall-ic congestion as sumcd by the m o&I and not adjustud. for obvivu5 wid know conditions. I am concerned that that blind application of uff-ffic shelf statistical based model fails to reflect c)hvicus exiAng traffic saturations at peak times, rendering it,%derivative calculations as invalid. (ic:on" saturation is apparent- mode Is can reflect no delta--charigc in comequcnec Iveause the rilax-linurn varlablr. has been met- if the model d0e.", not inearporate saturation as a base, the conclusion would he invalid), I;-,- mere vli-,ci ation. Deyvluper's base conOwsion that traffic saturation an this cssentia arjUrV is 11.0; it liable. Gridlock iscvidciwc,,,f U[)cj--LJ 0 'al Ion. Scoundly,Devclopcz applies "nationally accclpted lw-xi use rates from the Trip 6eneration, 1 Wh Fdifiort f,ITE.. 2016)",, Page I c) traffic. It uses the riumher the '-258 dWel litl@ LUJU" ill Phase as ihi.- -;tik, --ladependent variable"' to estimate new trips expended iioin the pre"mil prolect and 10 tl xcil og units-in Pha.w 2 as the sole'independent,variable"to estimate new I-Tom the proposed project. Pg5- 19. 34. This results in Maw I moming 12,IOUT rates ol'27,I)O, and evening IWOUT i-wes 8651. ArJ Phase 2 morning INIOUT rates of 20169 and evening IN)OUT rates 67/39. Accordingly. estimato ullilliate ,si proiects after all phases of the development to he FWOUT raWs LO t0lal 471 it) momln s and 153,90 e-venings, This boiler-plate mudel generated analy i,, convenIendV if roes Dcvclolw-r OW n estimates of automobile demand (aS exUaIVIA10 1roilk phillMd' parking spaces and ov-street I parking )as sell as lsno%"or asecrminable data spceific to r110 vAlrle owucrship and usage specific to Our west Hawaii t:otttrtttlnit}. Because Developer's reports disperse critical data thmughout the repon in a prafckrrrta3 Idisclopps44ure. rnttch of the data is obscured and hinders candid analysis rewired by the ruies and statutes. Fd r exarnplc.data that is di f'f icult tra extract from the narrati-a of the report wenis to dispute the ratode1 Generated results presented by the llevcloper as cited ahnve. V'i I I much critical data is suggested in the report, it takes a cc nsider{ahle cIvse reading of the entire: text of the r"ro crossareferinioc.I with manual reading of'the playas "ith at magnifying glass to c ertain the material facts. A casreftt)tnlalysis and reasonable infel-ences dra-wri Iron Ns daata.;t cst that even these included I-actS WO LiILd CL'•r1IFAIil:t thU C43:1C';tj,-,io s re€lchecl h% DL4.vc loper* halts application of'the national statistical model. If we considur the jimnher of cars l:cvt loper with designated parking spaces adore, this K-comes obvious. Consider the [i7lln irl f, t1rorn Lh rt pon - Developer appears to rcTresrnt irl lu plan neap,2 parking spaces per residential uni[.regardless ufthe size of'the unit, If one takes, the tired• it) piece together the data dispersed throughout the nw—native of the report. Developer proposes: 174 FOR WENT Units. All Lire,t,o12 s11'rie irl height. Al.I atrc" tuaits t%r iootprin1 122 are 2 Bedrooms 244 F3edrmin-is 61 Foal Punts but in multiple% side by, side like upartrnettt buildings 744 parking spaces 52 are-3 Bedroom 156 Bedrodan>s 26 knot Prints but in multiples, side by side like apartment buildings 104 parking spaces Caambined Totals FOR FEINT units 172 Units 400 Bedrooms 349 Parking Spaces 87 Grouped Lots 274 For Sale Units. 10 are.two(?) stories in height. 39 are three(3) stories in height. 4 All are 2 i .nits ILL',- I'Oolprin( 147 are 2 Bed room-s 11A Bcdroums t74'I I`om i'rlm brit iTti wuldplcN, side by -lido. like ipartmeril buildings 52 are 3 Bedrooms 156 Hc:dnx)rns 26 boot Prints but in mithiples, side b% :gidc like apartttncnt buildings 1(9 parking spaces Combined TWarls FOR SALE units 174 units 451) l"jCdr()()rrns tielb 1'arkirrs p:ttic 1 DO t IR)U rcd Lots 4 anafler Units l lnitq Unk Bcdrowns 4 Parkiii Spaaces t's) U-nahle io asccrta In— I appears accounted for in 2 bedreoonr For Sal Consider Phase I - Wveluper prupcxwes to Wild up to 258 units in Phase. L "Ph&& 1 will include aI1 Ken wI units and sonic. Sale units.,, l ising this extrapolated data ror parking spaces alone. Developer anticipates 348 parking sfraces for Phase l IU'ti'AI. s. and t 72 i86 t1TIItS i ?spaces) Phase I park]Tip srac: s for SAL E"Nigr uniT_s. That's 520 vchicles in Pharr I This number rives not consider the sig,nificaot street plil-king that DevelopcT ANO MrticipaLcs to accommodate additional resiil4tit owned vehicles or visetors. Reviewing Devtdopers projected ir.Al'I;c rates, Developers off-the shelf m tdcl projects. Phase l marni112 Niol f I ratcq of'27/90 aml c Lning IN/OUT rates 8(}i 1. The results from this nazi€and 1),,i 2 r-I):acc i110tlel expect us Lo believe that marly no more I of 5 of these, vehicles in Phase I will lc:jv Jor work at rush hour? And that doesn*1 even consider tit)asehoIds that nwn more than _ti,o cars or visitor- 5 This result is, of course compounded, for the saemr reasons, by the fact that it --ts used to reach SiMilar reSU115 tr1 )}MSO I Phase?has a remaining 186 emits with 2 parking spaces Twr unit for a total nfi`b76 park, spaces. Reviewing i evOopers pr(ccted traffic rates- lkvulciper's cafe-thc shelf model projects„ Phase morh-tiIng 1ltil{,}l11'rates af?a169 and evenistg 67139. This underscores wh. the: model analysis is inadequate where ob:s=able and ascertainable local regional data is;,available and would significantly cha ge the corclusions on tmpactran. PraAly, l laclieve that the Developer's natiOTMI NTilcr-Pkitt model conclusions fly ill 1110 face Of observable and aseenainahle local dale on vc hied tlsage maci local socirokrgical condilions, 1 have obwrved, •,rod anyone who cares to dri4c: a working-ulass neighborhood in the Kona area can ohs4rvc. .sii.]l thii-ok working-class residences routinely havc three (3) or fitOTC cars per residence. WL' cannol dismiss; oirr L)-wn local experience that workers renting often shnr, single hedronniw hoiween two or mare renters. Evert Census data from thc 2010 US Census that is sonie%hm outdarcd in Developer's fav r, shoves that single:-fainilN ho Lscholds in Kailu re-ported that mriltipk 114}r[Whcal€l mcnalaets were working, hOirsehOlcls with?vehicles was not rare,and 18% of the houschc Us had 3 or more vehicles According to the 10 year Bald Census 68%ofihe workers drove to work alone.. 17%e latavled and only _05% took public transportation. I l t leis curscary UUMPariSOn be.L n application of loc-a1 arialysis i.rnpacl model based on ii.tst the L)b7 t-rvable and inferred date contained in Devrelapers report could yield n conclusion of tmffic imll t jive (5)times That cal'ilic national hoi ler-plate rr Ddol conclusions, it is likely that a properly i:c,irdILcted stacioingic il tit11 a1ncl IIiodL I woki1J sh.)w even greater impact. I believe that omitting local soc;iologie.d dala from these calculations gfois lL Underestimates the traffic impact of this development and violuics the inicnded mandate of diti: I,-ti,Islation to provide Phase 2 ha$a remaining f86 unitr,with 2 parking spaces per Emit For a total of 276 parking spares, Reviewing De+rrint ears projected traffic€ate$,Developer' off vie shelf model projects.Phase I morning INJOLt7 rates of 2OJ69 and euenirkg 67139. 6 this dec:i7iccll, tx16 witia a rcf)rt aWeUr,ateIV rcfledl[V th4 cn ia`atiit11k2r';9.il inll3:ac t'; u 1 the law, I as!~ [Eris hody to foll(lW its duly tea enfibree, I I'lIoT tiIricIIy`— then rcasorabl .,requit:n-ic,It" that the environmental assessment report providc t Qumate. me{aningfut and data ajid analysis of the; physical, social,histericatl. ccum)tnic. and natural rrsOcarcc can-sequences of the:propgi-.tcd action. See HRS§k 3; COUNTY RULE 14) 3. In the Kona Vistas subdivision, tlie prc xsccl pr(?jcct relics on the use of a. saabstandard madway, Kelcatana`oa Place. Kekli ana' at Place is ver, steep,has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is taarro xr will no sidewalks, 1'he impact of'inemased mAfic arising from Phase I and phase 2 h!111c1+ u.ts ofthe Koval Vistas Housing Project is iaudequatcly addressed in the SSW Traffic IntpL. .Udlysis Repoft_ uvhiuh focuses instc%l un imps Wts Z110119 c)iivvr7 Kaahutr anu Highway. I ain particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle grips to and frcain a sejxv aie sribdivision will present dangers and utngesticn to residents along I ekuanwoa place. I consider that thc: Muminf llc:p€ar'line at si-could rucluire the applicant to address these coac ems. 4. The DRAFT' ENV]RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires cvaluatiun of aanlemg whers, u&,eme,secelraclwy irnpiut:t , siic h aw jwprrdmion changes or a(fevls on pgd?1ic JijciJifies. See Chapter 11-20[J.I-13. Hawaii Administratliv Mules. Instead of squarely addressing these issues_ however. the 171tf1.FT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT simply ignores them. claiming that "No adverse secondary effect--, are expected ;inee the development would uti liar existing infrastructure, provide infilt housing;.ak id it tic+t ex pet-tt cd t0 result in substantial demands io Caunty ser-,ices." It is a serious omission for the Ok A FF IA 1llRONNIE+°TAL ASSF'19SMF.NTto fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increas.ing the tine of substandard existing, intrastructurc. like KAuana`oa Place. 7 5.i lie J)KAP-T ENVIRONMENTAL ASS ESSM FNT MIJI E• SCS I)dvori;c I ra Flic inipacts on I y in the context of whether the project would Hit vt a ,,I I hN If jrfw wlkerw efteict on public heal(h, Tice Applicant claims, -1 he Rft)po sed.Project would not a I i ect p u b I ic LV al fli in @OkN way: sto rTn i a Ler wo til d be appropriately disposed of in d raj nage-structures. J nt I I lie inipacts have been Laker i[_VfLil in Dreigadesigm" Emphasis added. This bald conclusion doc,; noL address poLentiA adverse impacts as re(jUil'Od by('Dilater 1 I I-awi-Ii AdminisLr3tive Rules. 6. The Vlanniog DepartiTiCT11 should nort qcce[i ili,- 1)1ZAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM kNT's Miance on the SSFM Traffic Impact Pupw-!. which has the following failuTe teaaddrc s adverse 11affile impacts withinthe Kona Vistas iiubdi vision arising fTorn the prcjec(-. h-Fhe SSFM Traffic Jjjipaci _.Xnalysis kcpc)rL uses at grow-th rate of I%. in conlrw to the 1-91, groullt ratif employed by the 2019 Witchcr Engi*u erixig'rraffie Impact Analysis Report. Traffic conpestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation: C,The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Repon does neat recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in I lawaii according to censtis data and likely undcrestiniates daily vehicle trips attributable to bLHldOkA Of OC proposed project: d. 'rhe SSI'M J raffic Impact Analysis Report empli)ys an tmusuilly low N-ehicle volume of 853 vchicles liar NorthIK)uild Quccn Y,2dhumanu highway on the 4clecled dates of April 30, 2019, a wcckday and August 214,20191.a Saturday.compared with the 2M 8 Witcher Eiigineering Traffic Impact-Nimlysls Report, which rcjx)rted 1057 "ehicles ror Jantwry 14 and 15,20K boLh weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle VOILIMC LIJ 953 is also at odds with 8 Figure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Arutlysis,PWn which show-,approx imately I OiO vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahwnanu Ifighway at 7 a.m. The difk-rencein. volume is inore than double the maximuni 10%variation gencrally accepted in day-to-day treasurernents and thus unreliable- e. The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis kWirt for a rntmdabOL11 at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road jNorih) is inconsistent wish the iraffliL corridor intersections that pass warrants but reuriain wisignali7ed present traffic safety liability conccrris ror the govcrnmeat-, 17.The recommendmion by SSFM Traffic Impact ArAysis Report for monitoring of Ike intersection of Queen Kaahurnou Ifighway and Ku,,Lkini Highway is 'Inadequate, Whcri;. W here. an intersection p&sscs more than one warrcwt under all conditions,it should b,,- priori6zed Isis ti t ud v and design of a signal for i astal hat lon, Th 1 4 o i rC L11 11 SklInCe will be exacerbwi I rE I I Elie prupo Cj prqjec t, 7. In sum. tht: Draft Enviroamenud Assessment and SSFM 1'raffic Impact Analysis leport does not pre.wntstyfficient.,credible facts wid analysis such that the adveme impacts,on existing infrastructure Mid resulting firorn increased Lrafflc can be fully LuidejmocA and result in appruprkite gov42ointent planning and' msponsc. I d cc In re u nil k:r pen a I ty u C pc rj Lay that the to regaing is true. D.-ated, Kal[Lta-Komi. H; wai'i, OCTOBER $, 202 signati,Lre.- Printed name: DAVlD B1,.%N('FTT-1NLADDOCK 9 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Mr. David Blancett-Maddock 76-101 Kamehamalu Street Kailua Kona, HI 96740 Via email: dbmkona@aol.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Mr. Felix: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: I have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: 1 am concerned that the findings of "no significant Impact (DEA-AFNSJ) is not supported by the facts. I am concerned that Developer's DEA Study is proforma, setting forth declarations in boilerplate fashion while obfuscating, omitting or material facts and analysis. Response 2: Please see detailed comments on specific resource sections below. Comment 3: The DEA omits an estimate of population demographics and the total expected population totals, actual dollar estimates assigned for any sales prices or rental prices, estimate for completion dates. The DEA does not address recreational space or defensibility of living space. The DEA omits observable data of known flooding and fails to address or adequately describe how his development will address the consequences. The traffic analysis omits and fails to consider observable and ascertainable local data. Response 3: Regarding population demographics, Table 3 in Section 3.4 Socioeconomics) of the EA includes existing population data for the state, county, and North Kona Census County Division which are the areas the project is located within. An estimate of occupancy at project completion would be speculative for 450 multi-family units. Justification for modeling inputs for the size and number of units are included in Appendix 2 (Traffic Impact Assessment Report). Regarding cost for sale and rental units, the units would be rented or September 13, 2021 Mr. David Blancett-Maddock Page 2 of 6 sold at market prices and cannot be determined at this time. Regarding construction schedule, Section 1 .2 states that construction could start as early as third quarter of 2021, following Plan Approval and construction permits, and would be expected to last 12 to 18 months. Regarding recreation, Section 1.2 describes that there would be two community centers including a pool and facilities and in Section 3.3.4 it states that landscaping would provide safe and adequate recreational space for residents. Kona Three has a long-standing record of coordinating with agencies to meet requirements for the project, and would continue to do so as stated in the EA. Regarding flooding and drainage issues, the EA explains existing conditions and how Kona Three is working with DPW to address these, and how the project would not exacerbate these issues see Sections 1.2 and 3.3.2). Per Section 27-20 of the Hawaii County Code, the project is not allowed to increase any run-off onto neighboring properties, so there are no effects on any neighbors from project run-off including on the County-owned parcels. Specific comments on the traffic report are responded to below. Comment 4: 1 am concerned that that blind application of off-the shelf statistical based model fails to reflect obvious existing traffic saturation at peak times, rendering its derivative calculations as invalid. Response 4: The methods for the traffic analysis completed in the TIAR for this project follows widely accepted industry standards - from the data collection, to the growth rate, to the use of HCM. Independent comments provided by Professor Prevedourous on the EA (which were included in a separate comment letter) agree with many of the traffic analysis methods and approaches for the project. The TIAR uses HCM methodologies to analyze the traffic impact in a numerical sense. There are limitations to the improvements that can be made. The northbound queue seems to be a comment made a lot by residents. Those comments are recognized. The adding of a few vehicles, or the modification of a traffic signal will have little impact to the network. Signalizing unsignalized intersections may cause more delay. The main problem is the capacity of a two-lane Highway, and if/when the widening will be completed. The widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway will likely lead to the most improvements in the delay, and this project has been planned for a while. The TIAR recognizes the impact of the widening, but Kona Three LLC does not control over that. Comment 5: The traffic analysis applies "nationally accepted land use rates from the Trip Generation, loth Edition OTE, 2016)". This boiler-plate model generated analysis conveniently ignores automobile demand, parking, traffic impacts, and data specific to the region about occupancy and vehicle ownership and usage specific to our west Hawaii community. Response 5: It is hard to predict if a 3 bedroom house will have 10 people with 2 cars, or 3 people with 4 cars, or be unoccupied with 0 people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip September 13, 2021 Mr. David Blancett-Maddock Page 3 of 6 Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low- rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R-squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection for the project. The ITE trip generation handbook is the accepted practice to develop trip generation and distribution and future projections. Although some units in the development could have more than 2 vehicles, not all units will be occupied or have vehicles. It is impossible to predict how many cars will be in the development. We can assume a max number, which would be the total number of stalls provided. But the parking capacity will probably never be at 100%. Also, not all vehicles will leave or enter the development during the AM and PM peak, which is when the TIAR is analyzing. The ITE trip generation handbook analyzes many developments and produces data points and a best fit curve. This is used for the traffic projection for this TIAR. Comment 6: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 6: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase II in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. Comment 7: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 7: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase 11 outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM September 13, 2021 Mr. David Blancett-Maddock Page 4 of 6 peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 8: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 8: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 9: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 9: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 10: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 10: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. Comment 11: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 11: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. September 13, 2021 Mr. David Blancett-Maddock Page 5 of 6 Comment 12: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 12: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 13: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 13: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. klqcp September 13, 2021 Mr. David Blancett-Maddock Page 6 of 6 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: Allison Bennett <irfo@bUssinb1aom-ccm> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 3:31 PM To; Pkannlnu 41ermn.-t Mail Subject Royal I Vistas Housing Prnject EA comments re:Traffic 1, A LL IS U k.1.I'l I J\t,:i., V15tas subdivision, County of Hawai*i, State of Hawail, The proposed land devel.OPITWI,: protect that is the subject of the pending Draft Environmental Assessment subiniLted by Royal Vistas Housing Project Tax Map Key Nos. 3) 7-6-021:016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-02 1:018, and 7-6-021-.019 North Kona District, Hawaii Island, State of Hawai'j affects me personally la, %ell -11:% 111N, I 111crest In rc,11 xlIlil-i 1(10 yiiL d, t;I'dw callocilics. I kI1,lw1cdgC 41[ Ific Ind lLvahl f111(1 wmild lc iti"v thereto if called upon to do so. 2.1 have re'tJewLd ACIFT FNV[R0N%-ll.1N`1 1 I .,\FSSMENT JIC[Udill^ tl1CTra1c Rcporl by SSHVI 111:cl-l] ll'cl 11, IJIV 2;0 1 111L1 2 ;L-) DRAFT 1',j 1"AL A1,S1. N I W! 1),)th within 1.houl IlA full. of accurately Iddrcs cd in the SSFM Traffic impact. AII.INiwRcpoii, Traffic Lmd the SSFM Traffir. Impact Analysis Report. are discussed in the hody of the DRAFT ENViRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. at pp. 48-56, 67 and 7l. 3.In the k431'd % P11.11 t' L- Iwcpposed project relies on the useof a substandard roadway, K F,1. K ck,-11.,1 U:L';-,;' i'l;I C C t V I L:k:p. I i.i.,4 Limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The irl of increased traffic arising from Phase I and Phase 2 huildouts of the Royal Vistas Housing Project is inadequately addressed in the SSFM Traffic ljnpl.t An:d I which focuser,in-stead on impacts alongQueen Kaahumanu Highway. I -,,in p,,1l-1k1'.];,;P', CIL'd Ila! J I lig C1LI9t7L1-L US LI-111,, Lo aml 1'r 101 a Separate subdi,,ision will present dangers and oongcstion to Tesidents along Kckuaucoa Ploo , I consider that the: Plari71i 1 cport11w11t ,hoLild 1-cyuil-0 Lllc applicant to address these 4,The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT requires e. !al LialInt1 of, among others, adi-er•_sc secondary impachi. srich cs popufation changes or e eas an publie facrlifles. See Chapter 1 I-200,1- 13, 1[awali Ad rninistrative Rules, i I i Lk!tld 11i-',LIUdl1 2 } acj.'sIL2,,I11,r I[kL: 1 I,,•1-112 I, r. 11-c DRAFT 4111'J 0 v ',L .'a;'.I:t 4'1i44,ti .r.. C-,[ UI,Cd :1II1L:t' 111e C10JpI111'I11 1117LLId LIILII,Lc .N I*tLnsz 1171r;; 1`I.It{'t 11re- 11rto%,Ide 1711;11 l'+y;; 'll .. :;1,: I I'.K1 4.'•11ti'.Y4'g1 to result in substantial demands to County services," it is a serious umi[,r 101: 1": tltc DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of Suhkt`1d141,f1:i 'h.i .lil ;. W.i L•:IrLiL:LLIre, like Kekurtna`oa Place. 5,I l', 1 1 .'tl I .''4s4-Ci[ C, [. . 1' ~ 11. * 1 .I,. .i ,,, , . .i 1. •; : II,II I , ;II7 ,'. t ;Fill\ :;7 T110 context of whether[he pro t'L I ,%O.;k! i t a'., The Proposed Pr-ojcct would not allcct public health in arty wwv; SWMIwater WOUld he appropriately disposed of In drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design,"l=.tuplla51,2 I4€si«1- -]:Lip l,tli'l c:, •,. tif: Id4"sr{•... 11, r,iv4rsc impacts as required by C°hapler 1 l-00.. , 11<l1k,L11 .e,4M1 t' I-IL". 6, The Planning Department should not nc,cpi the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT's reliance on the SSW Traffic Impact Analysis Deport. i%-hich has the following deficiencies: a.failure to address adverse traffic lnipal:.ts within Hie 14.omi Vistas sUl'7d1'4'lslon an'sing from the project- h 11:w till 1 r.-..ff..+: 111,["[:•T. .t.11,:1ti'w1, [e-PI rt u"C S :I :I, ,.t i , .:II4' f I i11 COFI1;L, I+F 117C " is 1F „ III LAL t' Il:i. s.s] ,, t11, .?01! witchc-: l:lm--r-crlml l r-,11Ii,. ]11711;Lj ',I:li'tiiy Rcport 'l raffic coun!eatlon is er) VC to growth rate in a non-Linea, exponential relation, 2 S FV; T Il 1_ I t I; I L.,I"Z I I I I L I L:,1 1114-I I 1 11111,L I I I I I III I I i 11.1 1 1 11 L I I 11 '1 V1 I I IIC L j I L, ;!-I Ill WC "ILI!Id,-Ul 11 ,' I C L d The SSFM TT-!i 'I' In',imcl AMIJI.,, 1, Pk 1101 i 41T';'. IiILJ"Wdl v low vehicle VOIl 'l 1,7 (If', 53 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaaliumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which reported 1057 vt hLL[ck; 10r.1,i il,,i m y I I and 1 5, 1)16, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicic approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 201 ro I'qlr- ",klr'1i1110LLIld OL1 :U11 K;t,JILL111,11111 HiL211%%ZL at 7 zi,ni. The d1ff4rcar,c M volume is more than double the maximum .011,, ' -.ui.mon generally Wiccepted in day-today measurements and thus unreliable-, e.The I I IL-L1,1_11 NA J1j 1'• 1:1j1'-I1'.1,1,,'LV-1 1i I I 11K, 11-di i C L'I I !k,hat 1).L;" irn i iir,- hi i SLw,cd jr-csoit trzil'fiu o!'--_., I a Ii f.The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact -Analysis Report for r oaitoring of the interscetion of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuaki in F1 ighway is inadequate, %% here, as here, an intersection passe%more flinn onQ wirn9w ,,,richr -ill conditzons. it shOUld L, 'I"°ki\ signal for ptoro--,2k: 7.In sum,the Drall. Fin-'i,ommatal Asscssment and present sufficteril, credible facts niic och thai the adverse impacts on existing infrastructure au:: resulting I 1U11', and result in appropriate government planning and I'[f k "01!IL! I 1Z I FLI C- Dated: Kx I 1;1" ''I'l. Respectfully, Allison Bennett 3 li,oll H, Irl., FA I i I-C 1,h I if rn. Ceplip"e, Chom. j ki ard TI'milo.sin, 2W4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Allison Bennett Via email: info@blissinbloom.com RE: Traffic Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Bennett: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms.Allison Bennett Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms.Allison Bennett Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms.Allison Bennett Page 4 of 4 covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvreMstantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Design with community in mind Mori, Ashley frow D. b lei nGe,'L Sent. T I ii i r-A I v, Oct.-)I FL,' 08, 3 1)'-1 To: 1 'FA i7D I'A,M F N Attachments: K V p F I P.%T,(7i rLJ DIAN: Uc-I GE.R f.pdf ALOHA, Attached please find my comments to the Royal Vistas EA report. VY 1 t h a I o1h a, Dinne Blnncett-Maddock Kona Vistas DECLARATION CAI DIANE BLANCETT-MADDOC,R I. f)iane 131,aneeit-Maddock. dtxlare: l. I arty a resident of Kona Vims stjbdir•ision j,County of Ilawai'i,State cat Eiawai'i. The proposed land developraaerrt project that is the subject af the pending Drab Fnvironmcnial Assessment submitted by. Royal Vistas F-I4ausin Project knx Map Key Nos, 0) 7-6-021:016, 7-6-021:017, 7-6-021.018,and 7- 6-021:019 North Kona District, I lawai'i Island,State of Hawaii affects nee personally as well as affle;ts my interest in real property'. 1 resider within.5 miles of lhti proposed land developnient project.. In such capacities. I have lirsthancl 1;n vvlcclge of The Collowing facts and cnuld 1d sau]d testify then—eto i l'callcd Fatah to du ;«. 2. 1 havo ivvie ed the pending [)RA F FNVIRONMENI I,AL ASSESSMENT including the Traffic Impact Analysis t efxprt by S.SFM International (TIAR),slated May 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMFNT. I am r:pCCif CtLily concerned ahout advc;rw tTatftc impacts tenth villiin and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that ais't last fulls' or accurately addre&wd in the.SSFM TrafLic Impact Analysis Report, Traffic and the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report.are discussed in the heady of the I-)RAFT ENV IR{lNNIT-,NTAL._ ASSESSMENT. at pp. 48-56. f 7 and 7l. When this multi-Family aotung, was created in 1984. land was vast and the impact.of adding 450+ multi-fancily wilts would not have been a traffic issue. However. in 20.10, the arca has been develaped and this proposed development will have an extrcmely negative impact uji. the already striesied infrastructure. The pnipos.ed dcvelopTi-i(ml inilacwcs a tacm-signaled right- I turn on]y cxit unto the highway. Ilo• -tv.cr, the 'l lAR rtrethodoIogy does not accurate Iy reflect or consider the fact thaxt the highway has already reached %aturated status. Nor does the FIAR does acl quitciv iddri: Ohe impact to (lie abutting neighborhood flint wm H c!Fw.wd When it sautes the ssnr Wtinc! tr rlfir , that cannot use this intersectiran tier n left 1unt, rhrOugh :1 1 rrr:rlf rarighborhood straw<t to the&iturated traffic signal at Laku Street.where it will stack up for a left turn. In short. tt)avoid proNr signalization at thc:primary highway intersection.developer shifts the burden. coasts and impavt onto its tteighburs and ttt irUIII,y1491k Count%1 signaliiation at I.,iko Strut, In 2U2,0, (;rrrrenI Co lid itions withcaLit tutrtism) 1 liavv pe rSion z t I I), observed on most weekday%the intersection of the highway at Lako street is gridlt-wked during rion-peak."rush hour-,such a, late morning. early ahcrnoon and early evenings. The ime—rsection at Lako is barely able to current loads and cannot e&Norb any additicanal traffic from this development. Because tftere is no acceleratian lanL in any direction at Lako`>trc-x`t intersect.all Lak"o Street [raffle must stop pricer to entering the highway. As a result. traffic already backs up into 71he adjacent tteighbuncclods. both mauka and makaL This can he ohwrved even now, even when we are not experiencing the pick-up and discharge cif children by schtrcrl buses. err the heavy tourist ,`:I 11i „t, ,ire i,;cut toin to umder non+.uarantine conditions- 1 In file ICima Vistas subdivisiQn. the pruNscd project relies on the use of'a sthhsuandard roadway, Kektranaw 'lace. Kekttana`a aa Place is very steep. has IImited ,ighl distances clue to extreme CUFF:s and is aam)w with no sidewalks. The imput of increased traffic arising from Aase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the Royal Visuts Housing Project is ina&quately 4 ticlr4 tied iFt the.SSF 1 Traffic Impact Analytiis Report, E, hich fog uses instead art impacts Belong i?ucen Kaahl.Unanu Highway_ I arnh p arwi id<arly c imwcrned that adding,nurneraus vehicle trips to and bran a separate suhdivisioai wil_C present dashgers and congestion to residents along 2 Ke'krt:tttta`oa P lac c. I c ousider that the P1annitiL) I1epar rent should require tilt applicant to addre." theses concerns. 4. The DRAFT l-:e~iVTR{ NIMENTAL ASNESSMEN f requires evaluation ol, among others,adverse secondary impacts, such ussl3opulaliem t-h all-E-S 1P) of ecis all p ihlic.f yeilitie.4_ 5t'C Chapter 1 I-200.1-13, 1lawaii Administr ikc Pcileas_ In4tead oI`gUHrely addressing these issues, however, the ITT ENVIRONMENTAI. ASSESSMENT simply ignore" the"I. c:lahning.that "No.11 i-ei-se eflccts are expected since the would utilize existing infrastrutiture_ provirie infill housing,awl is not expected to resent in substaritial cla tn lncls to(:flaunty sere ices." It is a serious ornission for the DRAFT I'sNV[RC)?t1VIRN TAL. ASSESS ENT to fail to address the px)tenliai -Atkerce impacts of increasing t1w use of sctbsrandard existing irjl[astruclw , IikC KCkLi,1VLU'0a 1' CC- 5. The DPAFI ENV IRON MENTAI- ASSI SSN4ENI- addresses adverse t ra I'fjC impacts Only ill the cm'ltext Of rvheether the project would Hone,a,subst armful aciverse effe c f on public health The Applic,artt claims, "1°he 4'mpised Project would not all"ect pubic health in arty s,dy stormwater would he apprmpriatcly disposed of'in drainage structures, 7 ratlic impacts have bg! s t_alcgli into careful raonslder0on in prui{act design."" Emphasis added. This bald c:011CILIsinrt dues riuLaddres:s pwenlial adverse impacts as required by Chapter I 1-2t] U-13, 1 itmaii Administralkc pules. 6, The Planing Depuitnient should not accept the DltAUT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT', reliancenn thehSS1aAr Trailk Impact hich has the tollowing deficiencies: R.t4ilure to address adverse trallic impacts wilhin the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project; h. The SSFM'I'm e lrnpact Analysis Deport uses a grommh rate of I%, in contrast to the )N',grwxth rare cniploved by the 2018 Witcher Lngineering Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear,, exponential relation: C. The 5s1=m Traffic: Impact Analysis Report dews not recognize multi-gcncrational housing chatr•acteristics eommori in Hawaii according,to cen.Ais data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of'the proposed project: d. The S'*M Traf'itc Impact Analysis Deport einpluys an unusually low vehick 101ume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahtutianu highway on Lhe selcat ed dates of April 30. 20 N, a weekday and August 24. ill9.a Salurday. compared with the 20,I8 Witcher I..ng itcemi; 1 rallic Impact A.nulysis Report, v hich reported 1057 vehicles tbrlantinry 14 and 15. 2016 hotli wwe kdays. The mtusuully ltn,w- r,1porivd vL hich; volutne ofN5:3 is also aa(c s111 with Figure 4 ol-The S.ISY I FraLic: llrnpacl An'Aysis Report, which shows approxi-tuately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound QLwen Ka nhurttanu Highway zit 7 a.m. The difli:reri c in volume is more f m double the rnrviimtun t OS'lP variation g,encrally aces-pted in dewy-rn-drty measurernenti tutcl thus unreliahk e, The recommendation by SSFM Traffic Inipact Analysis Report for a rutin fiabout at Queen KaahunM;tu I Iighway and HuaIalai Road (INct1b)is ino: n.sisient wwith the traffic corridor. lhs tr pass w arsons but remain unsig alized presum tralfic sal-ety liability eoncems for The government; t'the rMOnImCnclaition by `~'firm 'yraffics impact :1nal}'sis i op rt for monitoring o the intersection of Queen Kaaltumanu Highw,iy and Kuulcini Highway is inadequate. WIere,as 4 licre. an inter5eown passes more than one warm,nt under all c-undillons. it should K, priorilired 1'ur study and deli,,n(if a signal f`i),r installation. This circtanstancC will Iv ex.accrbated by the proposed prgjea. 7. In sum, the Draft E:nvimtlrlrrtiental Assessment and S5l" Traffic Impact Analysis Report dLw,, not present sufficient,ercdible Facts and analysis such that the adverse impacit on existing infrastructure and resulting from incretlsed traffic can be full; understand and result in appropriate govermaieni planning and w.spnnse_ l declare under penalty- cif pcoury that the foregoing, is tmdR.7-1 Dated: Ka lua-Krrna, Flawai'i.October 7, 202f1. Signature: Printed narne— Dlayte Blancot-Maddock Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Diane Blancett-Maddock Via email: dbmkona@aol.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Blancett-Maddock: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 8, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Diane Blancett-Maddock Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Diane Blancett-Maddock Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 10% variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Diane Blancett-Maddock Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From: Sent: rrldal. tii l r " )C20 8.33 AM To: Plirw rl:a ii,,c-r )ot `ti Ail Subject: F, ;i [)e-.I-iE 3.ii--r1 RE. Rr;r; I VI t .9 Attachments:R7 [-r;-J" I mistakenly sent my declaration only to the person supporting our responses from Pualani Estates, Please accept my apologies and my declaration submission this morning . Thank your Peri Puri Stefferihagen I WiSrkim eaQee 1 1.1. mobi€e 408-85.9-3249 cct: I •:' C] f l:,i°i . tl-ir,l,l,lt tx xlw italCc axi[rl.euitt Pori Stefienh en 141f[srJ rrr i,uur e wrr r:r I i , ,r,l m°it iJrr 40FI•t 9 3 4 3 i e7U L DECLARATION OF 1'ERI STEFFENHAG£ 1, PFRJ STl FFENI IAG1>• N declare: I. 1 am a msident of[ Puslarii Estates subdivision]. County of Flawai`i, State of I lawai-i, The pror iced land development prijjcct that is the subject ofthe pending Draft Environmental Assessment submitted by Rpyal Vistas Hausirtg Priajcct Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 7-6-021:016. 7-6- 011,017, 7-6-021:(118, and 7-6-02.1 :019 North Kona District, Iiawai'i Island. State of Ha wrai'i affects ire personally as well as afficts my interest in real prope4. I reside within__100 Yards distaneej of the pv,iposed land development project. In such capacities- l have firstha id knowlcdgc of the l'cal Itav,ink facts and could and would testify thereto if called upon tta do so. 2. 1 have rcviewed the pending DRAF1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report by SSFM International. dated July 2020 and attached as Appendix 2 to the DRAFT' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS FNT_ I am spt6fically cony°erred aNwt adverse traffic impacts both within and without the bona Vistas siM, ivl iran that are rot fully or accurately ad&Lsscd in the 5SFM'1`raffic Irr put Analysis Report. 'Traffic and the SSl"M Traffic Impact Analysis Report. are discussed in the heady of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. at pp.48-5b.67 and 71. 3, 1n the Kona Vistas subdivision.the proposW project relies on the use of substandard roadway. Kckuun`oa Place. Kck+.u=a'on PIaLv is very steep, Iaaa<s 11mitcd sight distances due to extivmg can, , sand is narrow with no side,warks. The impact ofincremed traffic arising froin Phwsc I and Phase 2 bitildouts of the Royal Vistas Homing Pruj= is inadequately uddrk*sed in the SSFM Traffic Impact An alb pis Report, which focu.ses instead on impacts along Queen, Kaabummiu Ifigbway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous yeblele trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kckajara-oa Place. I consider that the 11huming Department.should rcquire the applicant to OIL:,-,Q Corwerns. 4. The DRAFT'ENV IRONMT-.NTAL ASSESSMENT requires evaluation of, among others,adverse secondarv,impacts, such a,s population changes orqffects nPipublic hicifines. See Chajk r I 1-2100.t-13. 1 lawaii Administrative Rules. Instead of squarely addressing these issues. however. the DRAM*I"ENVIRONMENTAI. ASSESSMENT simply ignores them, claiming that "No adverse.wcondary effects are expected since the developnicint would utilize CXiSting ini-F-WitrUCtUrC. provide infill hovsing. and is not expected to rCqU]t in iubstan-tial demands to CuLnity services.' It is a serious omission for the DRArT ENVIRONMENTAL AS S ESWE N T to fail to address the potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substandard existing inft-astructurc, like KekUmia oa Place. 5- 'rhe DRAFF ENVIRONMU.NTAL ASSESSMENT Wdressei adverse traffic impacts ordy in the context of whether the pvo*t anould flave a substandal adverse effe-Cl on public &,allh. The Applicant claims. "nic Proposed Project would n0L affect public health in any way; sturmwater would he approptiate[y disposed of in drainage structures. 'Fmffl c in3pacts have waken into careful consider-afion irl Pruieut design" Emphasis added.. This bald conclusion dries nf)t ad d re ss potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 1 Hawaii Admiaistrative Rules. 2 61 I hi i tAl sting Dcpwirnent should not accept the DP AFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS ENT's reliance on the SSFM Traffic lmpact Analysis Report_, which has the fallowing deficiencies: a,frti1ure to address advwrse traffic impacts viithin tltc Kona Vistas subdivision arising i om the project, b. The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Repon uses a gro%lh rate af 11J4. in contras( m the?°1/u gr+owt=tb rate employed by the 2018 Witcher'Engineering Traffics Impact Analysis Rcrort. Traffic congestion is vcry w sitive tv growth rate in a rtc)n-lincar, exlx)ttcntia.l relation; C. The SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report dues not=GUntzc multi-generational hauling characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely UndereSti-Mat S daily veluele trips attri1xi Lable to huiIclout of the proposed project; d. The SSFM Frafl'rc Impact Analysis Repast employs an unusually low vehicle vvlurrte of 85}vehicle* fur Nurthbotind Queen Kaahumanu highway on the Selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and A,trL--t-4t 24.2419,ax Saturday,compared With the 2018 Witcher l nginec:ring Frafic Impact Analysis Repast, wwh6ch reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15. 2016,both %%-rekdays. Tht unusually low reported vehicle volume of 953 is t h-w at odds with l"igure 4 of the SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queon Kaahumanu Highway at 7 am. The difference in vDlurrme is snore Lhan double the rja sxi1nrtE7t I!Fla 'vurialiOn gc lleral1v accepted in day-today meosuremimts and thus tuveliable: E.I'he recommendation by SSFM Tra.6fic 1trtpac:t ,Analysis Report for a roundabout at Quecn Kaadl umaru Highway rind Pualalai R (North)is inconsistent with the traffic 2 corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain urtsign lized present traffic safety liability concerns for the govermnent; f.Ile recommendation by SSFM Traffic Impact Analysis Report for monitoring of the intcrsection of Queen lKaahumarnu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate_ Where,as here,an intersection pames mom than one warrant under all conditions, it should be plriodtized for study and design of a signal for instal lalion. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the ptoixysed pmjea 7. In gust, the Draft Environmental Assessment and SSFMTraffic Impact AnAysis Report does w)l present sul`facient,c-redible fa uts and analysis such that the adve=i mpac is on existing infrmstructum and resting from increased traffic can be fully unders"and resat in appropriate govermnent planning and nnpctn%e. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true. Dated: Kailuak-Kona., Hawaii, (ktober g 2n20. Signature.: Printed name: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Via email: pesteffe@gmail.com RE: Comments on Traffic Concerns in the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Steffenhagen: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 9, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment including the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Appendix 2 of the DEA). I am specifically concerned about adverse traffic impacts both within and without the Kona Vistas subdivision that are not fully or accurately addressed in the TIAR. Response 1: Specific comments for traffic impacts are discussed below. Comment 2: In the Kona Vistas subdivision, the proposed project relies on the use of a substandard roadway, Kekuanaoa Place. Kekuanaoa Place is very steep, has limited sight distances due to extreme curves and is narrow with no sidewalks. The impact of increased traffic arising from Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildouts of the proposed project is inadequately addressed in the TIAR, which focuses instead on impacts along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. I am particularly concerned that adding numerous vehicle trips to and from a separate subdivision will present dangers and congestion to residents along Kekuanaoa Place. I consider that the Planning Department should require the applicant to address these concerns. Response 2: Kekuana`oa Place is a County-owned road built to County standards, with the same specifications as all other Kona Vistas roads, including paved swales as sidewalks. There will be no traffic impact on Kekuana`oa Place from Royal Vistas Phase I as designed as the connection of Kekuana`oa Place to Royal Vistas is not planned until Phase 11 in 2029. After that, once full build-out is completed, the TIAR estimates a total of 30 additional vehicles on Kekuana`oa Place during the AM Peak period, and 25 additional vehicles during the PM Peak period. This is roughly one additional vehicle on Kekuana`oa Place every 4 minutes for the peak periods, which would not cause congestion. September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Page 2 of 4 Comment 3: This DEA requires evaluation of, among others, adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Instead of separately discussing these issues, however, the DEA ignores them. It is a serious omission to fail to address potential adverse impacts of increasing the use of substantial existing infrastructure, like Kekuana`oa Place. Response 3: Secondary effects are indirect effects, or effects that would occur at a different place or time than the proposed project. These effects are not expected since the project is expected to provide infill housing for on-island residents as described in Section 3.7.1 of the EA. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Kekuana`oa Place, the number of vehicles projected to use Kekauna`oa Place is the Phase II outbound traffic (22 and 9, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively). The traffic analysis includes a detailed analysis of secondary traffic effects impacts (Section 3.7.2 of the EA). Comment 4: The DEA addresses adverse traffic impacts only in the context of whether the project would Have a substantial adverse effect on public health. The Applicant claims, "The Proposed Project would not affect public health in any way; stormwater would be appropriately disposed of in drainage structures. Traffic impacts have been taken into careful consideration in project design." Emphasis added. This bald conclusion does not address potential adverse impacts as required by Chapter 11 .200.1-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Response 4: The EA describes potential impacts under respective resource sections as they could impact human health. The summary statement quoted is included in Part 5: Findings and Reasons, and accurately summarizes the impacts detailed and analyzed above in the body of the EA. Comment 5: The Planning Department should not accept the DEA's reliance on the TIAR, which fails to address adverse traffic impacts within the Kona Vistas subdivision arising from the project. Response 5: Intersections within the Kona Vistas project were not analyzed since those internal intersections are probably stop controlled and have only local residential traffic. Delays to these intersections are not expected to be significant. Comment 6: The TIAR uses a growth rate of 1%, in contrast to the 2% growth rate employed by the 2018 Witcher Engineering TIAR. Traffic congestion is very sensitive to growth rate in a non-linear, exponential relation. Response 6: Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) counts did not show an increase in traffic volume. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecast projections for 2020 and 2035 were used to come up with the 1% growth rate. Although we are not certain how Witcher Engineering got 2%, our traffic engineers used 1% from the 2025 LRTP forecast. September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Page 3 of 4 Comment 7: The TIAR does not recognize multi-generational housing characteristics common in Hawaii according to census data and likely underestimates daily vehicle trips attributable to buildout of the proposed project. Response 7: It is hard to predict whether a 3-bedroom house will have 10 people with two cars, or three people with four cars, or be unoccupied with no people and no cars, or if residents will use the bus. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook was used and low-rise and mid-rise was considered. Low-rise multifamily housing was used since it provided a higher volume output. This land use has a very low standard deviation and an R- squared value very close to 1.00, so statistically this is the best projection used by the traffic engineer. Comment 8: The TIAR employs an unusually low vehicle volume of 853 vehicles for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu highway on the selected dates of April 30, 2019, a weekday and August 24, 2019, a Saturday, compared with the 2018 Witcher Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis Repol 1, which reported 1057 vehicles for January 14 and 15, 2016, both weekdays. The unusually low reported vehicle volume of 853 is also at odds with Figure 4 of the TIAR, which shows approximately 1050 vehicles per hour in 2016 for Northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at 7 a.m. The difference in volume is more than double the maximum 1 Oho variation generally accepted in day-to-day measurements and thus unreliable. Response 8: The most recent Historic HDOT count available in the study area was the 2016 Queen Kaahumanu Highway section between Nani Kailua Road and Hualalai Road (north). Our traffic count taken in August of 2019 was compared to the 2016 HDOT count and was found to be fairly comparable. It is hard to say if the Witcher Engineering report is overcounting, or if the project's TIAR is undercounting, but the TIAR for the project does use numbers similar to those provided in the 2016 HDOT Count. Comment 9: The recommendation by the TIAR for a roundabout at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) is inconsistent with the traffic corridor. Intersections that pass warrants but remain unsignalized present traffic safety liability concerns for the government. The recommendation by the TIAR for monitoring of the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway is inadequate. Where, as here, an intersection passes more than one warrant under all conditions, it should be prioritized for study and design of a signal for installation. This circumstance will be exacerbated by the proposed project. Response 9: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states, "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." There are other considerations that need to be done before installing a signal, such as the increase in delay, the likely increase in rear end accidents, geometric feasibility, and others. The scope covered in this TIAR does not include that analysis. The TIAR does mention where klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Page 4 of 4 an intersection may warrant a signal, and that further study may be needed. It should also be noted that many of these intersections currently warrant a signal without the proposed project. The proposed project is not necessarily triggering the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department Mori, Ashley From:I 3 Lc-if L-nl-i-jer, si e lfe(c,g rna I I co ii i Sent: Fndiy WL-ci 01-'4. 2020 8.36 AM To: Subject: f r_i. !ic,vr,td ;)o, t:wv-w hi-ga-A rci Poyfl V-Sta5 Attachments: R(-.Vll V,s!3s Docur-eri; 1-pdf I mistakenly sent my declaration only to the person supporting our responses from Pualani Estates. Please accept my apologies and my declaration submission this morning . Thank you ' Peri Sbeffenhager I Vvisdurn Course ! i,-!adef rIiihq 4W859-3248 0 at 4:56 PIM C1. VI C,I F14,,luneitt Regat-ding Royal Vistas 1 l I d oc <d h in k 0 ra;`ii,ao I ck)m> Sending this one separately as I may not get the other ore to you by 5 PM . Pori SteffLiihaat-: m ri b i le,4'Ja-8 59-324fj 1 1 .16965 DE.C'I A ATION OF PURI N'I t,I,l"l Ii r1.t:.U PUALANI =•:S'I'A"T"E FIt7W, VVNEI 1, PER] STEFFENBAGEN declare: 1. 1 am a resident of Kailua-bona County ol'Hawai'i, Statc of]I;v tli`i. ['he proposed land development project that is the subject of the pending I)nalt l".nvironl!nesttw Assessment submitted by Royal Vitas Housing Project Tax rviap Key NDs. (3) 7-6-021:01 b, 7-6- fl2l:017, 7-fa-021,018, and 7-6-021:019 Nunh Kona Districl, fiawai`i Is1wid, State ofHawai'i affects me personally as well as affects my interest in rail property. I reside within—1 00 yards— distance] of the proposed land development project. In such capacities,I have firsthand knowledge of the 1564lowing fa+ct&and could and would testify thereto if called upon to slit sc}„ 2. 1 have re-viewed the pending DRAF'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES SM ENT and attachrnents. I am specificall)- + oucrmed about: cultural artifacts and native fatirto habitat, specifically lhc puco(owls) turd bats that I see 1pwly nightly from my lanni. 3. 1 de not caw sider that the archaeological studies offered in support of the Draft l nvironnzental Asscmrmnt are adequate. See pp. thereof: 4. 1 am aware that substantial evidcnee exists that the land encompassed by the suhject land parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including racy walls that are. inadequately described as agriettltnral walls itt the archaeailogic:al studies offcTed in support of the Drafl Environmental Asscssmrnt, The Holualoa Slick i, ;ail iTT1Pc7rt=t,H,avtu-aiian cultund wid archaeological future from pm-western contact tinges drat mot be replaced if damaged or dcst oyekl. 5. I base my Concerns ulx)n the evaluation and analysis perforrned by Tom Pohaku Store,a copy of which is attached_ 6. In sum, the Draft Environmental Asse-4srnent dms not discuss sufcieht facts and analysis such that []1e important 1-la ai`ian cultural,archaeological.and nature fauna features can he ttfld mtood,let alone prolxrly prc.ticrved.. 7. At a mirtimarni, th.0 I)r-ilt FTivironniental Assessment rnusi be revised to address the location,daM recovery and t.r sei-VUt 0fi art`t1ILr f11,11 UaIOA tilt€]c cnrnponents present on the subject parcels. l declare under penally k4 penuy that the foregoing is true. ed_ Kail -Kot HaWaN, 020Ogl Signature; Printed rtarne- Pen Stefte Stantec Consulting Services Inc. P.O. Box 191 Hilo, HI 96721 Tel: (808) 494-2039 September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Via email: pesteffe@gmail.com RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Anticipated FONSI for Royal Vistas Housing Project, North Kona District, Hawaii Island Dear Ms. Steffenhagen: Thank you for the comment letter dated October 9, 2020, on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed project. Please find responses below to your substantive comments. Comment 1: 1 have reviewed the pending Draft Environmental Assessment and attachments. I am specifically concerned about cultural artifacts and native fauna habitat, specifically the pueo (owls) and bats that I see nearly nightly from my lanai. Response 1: The EA discusses cultural resources including how impacts to cultural resources would be minimized in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The presence and potential habitat for biological species are included in the existing conditions part of Section 3.3.4, and potential impacts to habitat for native species including protection measures to minimize these impacts are discussed in the impacts part of Section 3.3.4. Any owls observed at night are not pueo, but are non-native barn owls which prey on native species including Newell's shearwaters, Hawaiian stilts, Bulwer's petrels, brown noddies, Hawaiian ducks, and n6n6 goslings. Comment 2: 1 do not consider that the archaeological studies in support of the DEA are adequate. I am aware that substantial evidence exists that the land encompassed by the subject parcels includes features of the Holualoa Slide, including rock walls that are inadequately described as agricultural walls in the archaeological studies offered in support of the DEA. The Holualoa Slide is an important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological feature from pre-Western contact times that cannot be replaced if damaged or destroyed. Response 2: As described in Section 3.6 and included in Appendix 5 of the EA, two Archaeological Inventory Surveys (AISs) were prepared for the project. As part of the AIS, sites in the project area were documented and evaluated for their significance. The AISs were conducted following Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-276 and were evaluated according to the process required by 13-284-6. All 40 sites were considered significant under criterion d because of the information that was learned during the study. Documentation of these sites as part of the September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Page 2 of 3 AISs ensures that their information is not lost. The documentation done was adequate to mitigate the project's effects to the sites. Regarding the rock walls within the project site, there is a historic era road (Site 2421 1) documented. This road is not very straight, has obtuse angle turns, the ground surface is not smooth, as would be expected if the site were the remains of a holua. Also, the walls were 1 .0 meter in height and is similar in constructed to similar historic era rock walls constructed along historic-era roads, property boundaries, gardens, and cattle pastures. The only other parallel walls within the project site are Site 31182, Features 2 and 3, walls located in the northern and northeastern portions of the project site. These two walls are located along the boundary of a Land Commission Award (LCA) #3660. Additionally, the western end of Feature 3 ends in a gulch and there is a gap in the Feature 2 wall at the same gulch. It is unlikely that this is a holua course since the parallel walls empty into a large gulch. Therefore, there is no evidence of a holua in the project site. Comment 3: I base my concerns upon the evaluation performed by Tom Pohaku Stone, a copy of which is attached. The IDEA does not discuss sufficient facts and analysis such that the important Hawaiian cultural and archaeological features can be understood let alone properly preserved. The IDEA must be revised to address the location, data recovery and preservation of the Holualoa Slide components present on the subject parcels. Response 3: In the email provided, there is reference to "the portion of the holua at the Holua inn [that] has rock walls on both sides" and refers to parallel walls within the proposed development area, possibly Site 31182 Feature 2 and Feature 3 walls which are LCA #3660 boundary walls. Primarily, Mr. Stone's email responses provide accurate information concerning the cultural importance of the royal and religious complexes along the coast and within the near-coastal region between Kailua to the north and Keauhou to the south. The remains of many of these complexes were first mapped by Henry Kekahuna. Mr. Stone correctly states the religious and social importance of he`eholua and its connection to the sacred and sociopolitical structures along the coast and in the near coastal region. However, the complexes are located more than 1 .0 km west of the project area and there are no remains of royal, sacred or sociopolitical complexes, or a holua, within the project area. The existence of a holua within the project area is not asserted by Mr. Stone. As discussed above, there is no documented oral history, archival documentation, or archaeological evidence to suggest a holua course existed within the project area. klqcp September 13, 2021 Ms. Peri Steffenhagen Page 3 of 3 We sincerely appreciate your review of the document. If you have any additional comments or questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 494-2039 or by email. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Michele Lefebvre, Ph.D. michele.lefebvre@stantec.com cc: Richard Wheelock, Kona Three LLC Maija Jackson, County of Hawaii Planning Department APPENDIX 2: Traffic Impact Assessment Report Royal Vistas SSFM International FINAL Royal Vistas Tax Map Key (3) 7-6-021: 016, 17 Traffic Impact Analysis Report Kona, Island of Hawaii May 2020 Prepared for Kona Three LLC. Prepared by 1=M International Royal Vistas SSFM International Table of Contents I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................................1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................................4 A. Geometric Configuration ..................................................................................................................4 1. Roadway Configuration.................................................................................................................4 2. Study Intersections .......................................................................................................................4 3. Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................................7 4. Bike Facilities.................................................................................................................................7 5. Bus Stops and Bus Routes.............................................................................................................7 B. Volumes ............................................................................................................................................7 1. Vehicular Volume..........................................................................................................................7 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes...................................................................................................9 C. Traffic Operation Analysis...............................................................................................................11 1. Level of Service Methodology.....................................................................................................11 2. Existing 2019 Intersection LOS....................................................................................................12 3. Existing 2019 Traffic Signal Warrant...........................................................................................13 III. Near-Term (2024)—Completion of Phase 1.......................................................................................17 A. Surrounding Areas ..........................................................................................................................17 B. Volumes ..........................................................................................................................................19 1. Future 2024 Without Project Volumes.......................................................................................19 2. Project Related Volumes.............................................................................................................19 3. Trip Distribution..........................................................................................................................19 4. Future 2024 With Project Volumes.............................................................................................21 C. Future 2024 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis......................................................................25 1. Future 2024 Without Project Intersection LOS...........................................................................25 2. Future 2024 With Project Intersection LOS................................................................................27 3. 2024 Traffic Signal Warrant........................................................................................................30 4. 2024 With Project Segment LOS.................................................................................................31 IV. Mid-Term (2029)—Completion of Phase 2.........................................................................................32 A. Surrounding Area Conditions..........................................................................................................32 B. Volumes ..........................................................................................................................................32 1. Future 2029 Without Project Volumes.......................................................................................32 ii Royal Vistas SSFM International 2. Project Related Volumes.............................................................................................................34 3. Trip Distribution..........................................................................................................................34 4. Future 2029 With Project Volumes.............................................................................................34 C. Future 2029 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis......................................................................39 1. Future 2029 Without Project Intersection LOS...........................................................................39 2. Future 2029 With Project Intersection LOS................................................................................41 3. 2029 Traffic Signal Warrant........................................................................................................44 4. 2029 With Project Segment LOS.................................................................................................45 V. Long-Term (2039)................................................................................................................................46 A. Surrounding Area Conditions..........................................................................................................46 B. Volumes ..........................................................................................................................................46 1. Future 2039 Without Project Volumes.......................................................................................46 2. Project Related Volumes.............................................................................................................46 3. Future 2039 With Project Volumes.............................................................................................46 C. Future 2039 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis......................................................................49 1. Future 2039 Without Project Intersection LOS...........................................................................49 2. Future 2039 With Project Intersection LOS................................................................................51 3. 2039 Traffic Signal Warrant........................................................................................................54 4. 2039 With Project Segment LOS.................................................................................................55 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................56 VII. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................58 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location Map.....................................................................................................................2 Figure2: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Existing 2019 Lane Configuration ..................................................................................................6 Figure 4: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy(Nani Kailua Dr to Hualalai Rd), 24-Hour Volume Distribution (2016) ..8 Figure 5: Existing 2019 Peak Hour Volumes ...............................................................................................10 Figure 6: Kona Community Development Plan...........................................................................................18 Figure 7: Future 2024 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................20 Figure 8: Expected Future Lane Configuration ...........................................................................................22 Figure 9: Phase 1 Project Related Trips ......................................................................................................23 Figure 10: Future 2024 With Project Peak Hour Volumes..........................................................................24 Figure 11: Future 2029 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................33 Figure 12: Future Lane Configuration for Phase 2......................................................................................35 iii Royal Vistas SSFM International Figure 13: Phase 2 Inbound Project Related Trips......................................................................................36 Figure 14: Phase 2 Outbound Project Related Trips...................................................................................37 Figure 15: Future 2029 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................38 Figure 16: Future 2039 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................47 Figure 17: Future 2039 With Project Peak Hour Volumes..........................................................................48 List of Tables Table 1: Roadway Traffic Volumes................................................................................................................7 Table 2: 2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes ............................................................................................9 Table 3: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections...................................................................................11 Table 4: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections.......................................................................................12 Table 5: Existing 2019 Intersection Level of Service...................................................................................14 Table 6: Existing 2019 Intersection Level of Service (continued) ...............................................................15 Table 7: Four-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes......................................................................16 Table 8: Peak-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes .....................................................................16 Table 9: Estimated Trips Generated - Phase 1............................................................................................19 Table 10: 2019 Volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Puapuaanui St and Kuakini Highway 21 Table 11: 2019 Outbound volumes at Puapuaanui Street..........................................................................21 Table 12: Future 2024 Without Project Intersection Level of Service........................................................26 Table 13: Future 2024 Without Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) ....................................27 Table 14: Future 2024 With Project Intersection Level of Service .............................................................29 Table 15: Future 2024 With Project Intersection Level of Service (continued)..........................................30 Table 16: 2024 Peak-Hour Warrant............................................................................................................31 Table 17: 2024 with Project Segment LOS..................................................................................................31 Table 18: Estimated Trips Generated by Project—Phase 2........................................................................34 Table 19: Future 2029 Without Project Intersection Level of Service........................................................40 Table 20: Future 2029 Without Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) ....................................41 Table 21: Future 2029 With Project Intersection Level of Service .............................................................43 Table 22: Future 2029 With Project Intersection Level of Service (continued)..........................................44 Table 23: 2029 Peak-Hour Warrant............................................................................................................45 Table 24: 2029 with Project Segment LOS..................................................................................................45 Table 25: Future 2039 Without Project Intersection Level of Service........................................................50 Table 26: Future 2039 Without Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) ....................................51 Table 27: Future 2039 With Project Intersection Level of Service .............................................................53 Table 28: Future 2039 With Project Intersection Level of Service (continued)..........................................54 Table 29: 2039 Peak-Hour Warrant............................................................................................................55 Table 30: 2039 with Project Segment LOS..................................................................................................55 iv Royal Vistas SSFM International List of Appendices Appendix A—24-Hour and Peak Period Traffic Counts Appendix B— Bus Route Schedule and Map Appendix C—Analysis Reports Existing(2019) Conditions Appendix D—Analysis Reports Future (2024) Without Project Conditions Appendix E—Analysis Reports Future (2024) With Project Conditions Appendix F—Analysis Reports Future (2029) Without Project Conditions Appendix G—Analysis Reports Future (2029) With Project Conditions Appendix H —Analysis Reports Future (2039) Without Project Conditions Appendix I —Analysis Reports Future (2039) With Project Conditions Appendix J —Traffic Signal Warrant—Peak Hour and 4-hour Warrants v Royal Vistas SSFM International I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION Kona Three LLC is planning to develop a Multi-family residential subdivision named Royal Vistas in Kona, on the Island of Hawaii. The property is located on the mauka side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway at TMK (3) 7-6-021:016, 17 between Kona Vista Subdivision and Pualani Estates Subdivision. Only one roadway is planned to provide access for Phase I of the property. This roadway intersects with Queen Kaahumanu Highway, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Kuakini Highway. For this traffic impact analysis report (TZAR), this access is referred to as "Royal Vistas Roadway". The project location, along with the study intersections associated with this TZAR, are shown in Figure 1. The proposed site is 70-acres and zoned "RM-5". Even though the new development's total buildout is estimated as 450 units, only 258 units are planned as Phase 1. Phase 1 is expected to be completed by 2024. Phase 2 will include the full buildout of the remaining 192 units. Phase 2 is expected to be completed by 2029. The Royal Vistas proposed conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. The intent of this TIAR is to evaluate existing conditions and assess impacts in the surrounding areas as a result of the proposed development. 5-year (Phase 1 completion) in 2024, 10-year (Phase 2 completion) in 2029, and 20-year future scenarios in 2039 will be analyzed. Future years will be evaluated with and without the Royal Vistas project. 1 a a. Al I A®r H,j1' !oa Poiani Rd Henry St Hualalai St Worthl Huarafal St(South) Puapuaanui St a kin!Hwy r y i iCaniehameha li!Rd Neelartahr State iri ta,r t a Study Intersectlori F Royal Vistas SSFM International 13 icer y]1'E IP RJ a L! 1 48 1 i Y W w- 0+ r Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan 3 Royal Vistas SSFM International II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Geometric Configuration 1.Roadway Configuration a) Queen Kaahumanu Highway Where it intersects with Royal Vistas Roadway, Queen Kaahumanu Highway(Route 19) is undivided,two- lane, State-owned arterial, oriented in the north-south direction. Queen Kaahumanu Highway extends from Kawaihae Road (Route 19) in the north to the intersection with Palani Road (Route 130) where it turns into State Route 11. The posted speed limit varies from 45-55 mph. At the future Royal Vistas Roadway, the posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Queen Kaahumanu Highway opens to 4-5 lanes with dedicated left turning and right turning lanes at major intersections northwest of Henry Street. 2.Study Intersections The study intersections include the following: 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is predominantly oriented in an east-west direction and Palani Road is predominantly oriented in a north-south direction. b. Four-leg signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes and channelized right turn lanes for all approaches. The Queen Kaahumanu Highway approaches and the northbound Palani Road approach have double left turn lanes. c. All left turns are protected (have green arrow phases). d. The north leg of the intersection extends and connects with Mamalahoa Highway, another state-owned facility. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in an east-west direction and Henry Street is oriented in a north-south direction. b. Four-leg signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes and channelized right turn lanes for all approaches. The Queen Kaahumanu Highway approaches have double left turn lanes. c. Left tuns from Queen Kaahumanu Highway onto Henry Street are protected. The Henry Street phases are split(sequential rather than concurrent). d. The north leg of the intersection extends and connects with Ane Keohokalole Highway, another state-owned facility. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in a north-south direction and Hualalai Road is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, STOP sign controlled intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for the northbound and eastbound approaches. c. Channelized right turn lanes exist for the eastbound and southbound approaches. d. A refuge lane is provided for the eastbound left turns onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 4 Royal Vistas SSFM International 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in a north-south direction and Hualalai Road is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, STOP sign controlled intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for the southbound and westbound approaches. c. Channelized right turn lanes exist for the northbound and westbound approaches. d. A refuge lane is provided for the westbound left turns onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in a north-south direction and Puapuaanui Street is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for the southbound and westbound approaches. c. The southbound left turn is protected. d. Channelized right turn lanes provided for the northbound and westbound approaches. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in a north-south direction and Kuakini Highway is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, STOP sign controlled intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for northbound and eastbound. c. Channelized right turn lanes exist for the eastbound and southbound approaches. d. A refuge lane is provided for the eastbound left turns onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. e. Kuakini Highway is a state-owned facility. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in a north-south direction and Lako Street is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Four-leg, signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for each approach. c. Left turns from Queen Kaahumanu Highway onto Lako Street are protected-permitted. This is the only intersection in the project area on Queen Kaahumanu Highway that uses protected-permitted phasing. The Lako Street phases are split. d. Channelized right turn lanes exist for each approach. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is oriented in a north-south direction and Kamehameha III Road is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Four-leg, signalized intersection with dedicated left turn lanes exist on northbound, and southbound approaches. c. Left turns from Queen Kaahumanu Highway are protected. The Kamehameha III Road phases are split. d. Channelized right turn lane exists for southbound and eastbound approach. Existing(2019) lane configurations and traffic controls at the study intersections are shown in Figure 3. 5 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd Henry St North E E s S Y III Illif i TT 1 T T (AY U Palani Rd Henry St Cf Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy U U T n`' Illl lfllll_ u 1 Lr' U oc e =5 @ illlllllllll r T M, 5 ,. Mill IF E Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Legend Signalized Unsignalized Stop Sign IIIIIIIIIII Crosswalk I ntersection `= Intersection Figure 3: Existing 2019 Lane Configuration 6 Royal Vistas SSFM International 3.Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided on each corner of Palani Road and Henry Street. A sidewalk is provided on the south side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Palani Road and Henry Street.Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Puapuaanui Street and stopjust before the intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The crosswalks provided at each intersection are shown in Figure 3. 4.Bike Facilities Marked bike lanes are provided on Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Henry Street and extend north. There are no marked bike lanes south of this intersection. There are bike lanes on Lako Street east of Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Hualalai Road. Based on the State Route System, marked shoulders along Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the study area range from 6 feet to 10 feet. S.Bus Stops and Bus Routes The County of Hawaii's transit system (Hele-on Bus) doesn't have bus routes that travel along Queen Kaahumanu Highway near the study area. The closest bus stops to the proposed facility are located at Kona Commons Shopping Center, more than 3 miles away. The Intra Kona bus route serves this stop and operates between 6:55 AM to 8:30 PM, Monday to Saturday. Appendix B includes the detailed bus route schedule and map for this route. B. Volumes 1.Vehicular Volume a) Roadway Traffic Volumes Historical average daily traffic (ADT) and peak hour volumes along Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the study area are shown in Table 1. The ADT is based on Hawaii DOT traffic counts included in Historical Traffic Station Maps. Table 1: Roadway Traffic Volumes Roadway Location ADT Year Queen Between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai 25,800 2016 Kaahumanu Road. 25 900 2015 Highway Source: Historical Traffic Station Maps (HDOT) The 24-hour traffic volume distribution along Queen Kaahumanu Highway (see Figure 4) at the traffic count station shows a variation in travel patterns throughout the day with prominent morning and afternoon commuter peak periods. Detailed 24-hour counts are included in Appendix A. Along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, during the morning peak hour of 7:00 - 8:00 AM, there were approximately 1,083 vehicles per hour(vph)travelling northbound and 765 vph travelling southbound for a total of 1,848 vph. During the afternoon peak hour of 3:45 —4:45 PM, there were approximately 914 vph travelling northbound and 1,017 travelling southbound for a total of 1,931 vph. 7 Royal Vistas SSFM International 0oQ o0I It 1 ooQ OQ i i I Oe i h 10 i Q too a 0 a Cl. m j OP I 1 o. P i I o0 1 O° o P II, OIi1RZ p Q 0 o aCD p a O o C' Pati1, 00 1 LAP{ P 1 OQ 0 0 0 0 0 N N r Volume(vehicles per hour) Figure 4: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy(Nani Kailua Dr to Hualalai Rd), 24-Hour Volume Distribution (2016) 8 Royal Vistas SSFM International b) Existing 2019 Intersection Peak Hour Volumes Manual intersection turning movement traffic counts were taken at the eight study intersections: 1) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road, 2) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street, 3) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road(north),4)Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road(south), 5) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street, 6) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway, 7) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street, and 8) Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Counts were collected during the peak periods on Tuesday, April 30, 2019 and Thursday, August 24, 2019. Counts included tabulation of passenger vehicles, heavy trucks, pedestrians, and bicycles. The Existing (2019) peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 5. Detailed peak period counts are included in Appendix A. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes Queen Kaahumanu Highway is a frequently used training route for Ironman and therefore has regular bicycle activity.Table 2 shows the 2019 pedestrian and bicycle volumes. Most of the observed pedestrian activity occurred at Henry Street. Bicycle counts were higher in the AM peak hour than the PM peak hour. Table 2:2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes Study Intersection AM PM Ped Bike Ped Bike Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd 1 3 4 3 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St 9 4 12 4 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai Rd (N) 0 3 0 1 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai Rd (S) 0 4 0 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St 0 2 1 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy 0 2 0 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St 1 2 1 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kamehameha III Rd 1 10 0 2 9 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd Henry St n R C - m N 4\ 1— 23(41) m 467 (314) 2 North 163 (223) I `52(72) 1 S 5 • L— - Y71 (250) j 107(190) # M 457 '877 I 359 663 218 (503)^ w N W 124(291) ^\ w. r n CU a+ 1 w a Palani Rd r jb I;F:i-iI , 5t Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Qi,e r. :=.I -!.-I-Q] 14wy a Lcc ik o m rry LO r• CC U U 44(I0) 7(13) TY169 (372) 00 V 00 v n j o u n4 00 CO- tt w L v 267 (193)a m n v 140 (71) p 36(39) d. U 1 0: p r+)251 (127) CG 4S 3Q) 0 U1 h4 i .' cD 0 3 Q N 7 vain S" 0 15(18) Mnv I•"5 'n7} ? 12(11) 87 16(7) M S t' T E n7 (290)T a5(11)— CU w Em A 26(52) v ` "' M if Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Legend Peak Hour Volumes 11(0) AM(PM) Signalized Unsignalized y Stop Sig Veh/hri Intersection 1 Int r«et o Figure 5: Existing 2019 Peak Hour Volumes 10 Royal Vistas SSFM International C. Traffic Operation Analysis 1.Level of Service Methodology Level of service (LOS) is an operational analysis rating system used in traffic engineering to measure the effectiveness of roadway operating conditions. There are six LOS ranging from A to F. LOS A is defined as being the least interrupted flow conditions with little or no delays, whereas LOS F is defined as conditions where extreme delays exist. Guidelines from the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) state that an"Acceptable level of service" means that the level of service of a transportation facility at the a.m. and p.m. peak hour is"D" or better. Level of service, or LOS, means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and shall be determined using the procedures in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board. Intersection LOS and delay were determined for the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro 10 traffic analysis software and analyzed using HCM 61h Edition (TRB, 2016) methodologies. As stated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 61h Edition (TRB, 2016), LOS for a two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection is determined by the measured control delay (see Table 3) and is defined for each movement. Vehicles traveling along the major, free-flow road, of a TWSC intersection, proceed through with minimal delay or no delay at all.Those vehicles approaching the intersection along the minor movement are controlled by a stop sign and thus experience delay attributable to the volume of vehicles passing along the free-flow road and the gaps available. Table 3: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Average Control LOS by v/ cRatio Delay (s/veh) 1.0 >1.0 10.0 A F 10 and :515 B F 15 and :525 C F 25 and :535 D F 35 and :550 E F 50 F F Source: HCM (TRB, 2016) The LOS analysis for signalized intersections is based on average total vehicle delay based on the methodologies of the HCM (TRB, 2016), as shown in Table 4. The HCM 61h Edition doesn't support the analysis with both exclusive and shared lanes. In those cases, methodologies from HCM (TRB, 2000) are used. Another measure of intersection delay is the volume to capacity(v/c) ratio.This is the ratio of the volume of traffic utilizing the intersection compared to the maximum volume of vehicles that can be accommodated by the intersection during a specific period.A v/c ratio under 0.85 means the intersection 11 Royal Vistas SSFM International is operating under capacity and excessive delays are not experienced.An intersection is operating near its capacity when v/c ratios range from 0.85 to 0.95. Unstable flows are expected when the v/c ratio is between 0.95 and 1.0.A traffic movement can have a poor LOS but low v/c,which suggests that the traffic volumes along that movement are low but must wait a long time to make the movement.This is common for low volume protected turn movements or side streets that must wait through a long cycle length for their split to come up. Table 4: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS by LOS by Average Control Delay v/c s/veh) v/c Ratio Ratio 1.0 1.0 10.0 A F 10 and :520 B F 20 and :535 C F 35 and :555 D F 55 and :580 E F 80 F F Source: HCM (TRB, 2016) Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 miles apart, the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities(HCM,Chapter 16). For Urban Street Facilities,through vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS.This speed reflects the factors that influence running time along each link, and the delay incurred by through vehicles at each boundary intersection. This performance measure indicates the degree of mobility provided by the facility. 2.Existing 2019 Intersection LOS Existing intersection and movement LOS and average delay(in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.31 and 0.23 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 12 Royal Vistas SSFM International 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.18 and 0.31 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street Overall Intersection LOS=A/A(AM/PM) The AM left turns operate at LOS E.The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle.These delays are due to the cycle length. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.08 and 0.46 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=C/C (AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Lako Street,the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. This delay is attributed to the high eastbound left turn volume, and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= B/C(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. Tables 5 and 6 show the existing vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix C. 3.Existing 2019 Traffic Signal Warrant Four-Hour and Peak-Hour traffic signal warrants were evaluated at the unsignalized intersections. The 2009 MUTCD states: "At an intersection with high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left- turn volumes as the 'minor-street' volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the 'major-street"volume' For analysis purposes,the Queen Kaahumanu Highway left turn was considered the minor street approach, and the opposing through volume was considered the major street approach.The satisfaction of a warrant does not necessarily require installing a traffic signal. The single Peak Hour warrant especially is not a good measure of whether or not a traffic signal should be installed in this setting. It is being evaluated and provided only as an indicator of when an intersection should be monitored. Traffic Signal Warrant analysis can be found in Appendix J. For the Four-Hour warrant, Figure 4C-2 (MUTCD) was used since the posted speed limit on Queen Kaahumanu Highway is over 40 MPH. The "1 Lane & 1 Lane" curve was used for analysis. Table 7 shows the Four-Hour warrant analysis. 13 Royal Vistas SSFM International For the Peak-Hour warrant, Figure 4C-4 (MUTCD) was used since the posted speed limit on Queen Kaahumanu Highway is over 40 MPH. The "1 Lane & 1 Lane" curve was used for analysis. Table 8 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) This intersection passes the Four-Hour warrant and the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM peak hour. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) This intersection does not pass either warrant. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway This intersection passes the Four-Hour warrant and the Peak-Hour warrant in both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5: Existing 2019 Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 23.7 C 26.1 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 38.6 0.45 D 38.0 0.74 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 14.1 0.30 B 17.9 0.57 B Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 38.9 0.67 D 38.8 0.72 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 14.2 0.42 B 16.4 0.41 B Palani NB Left 37.4 0.72 D 39.1 0.73 D Palani NB Through 25.8 0.25 C 28.8 0.42 C Palani SIB Left 47.7 0.50 D 48.3 0.68 D Palani SIB Through 33.7 0.66 C 33.6 0.62 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 31.8 0.62 C 32.6 0.65 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 43.6 0.50 D 46.7 0.65 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 24.6 0.34 C 27.8 0.57 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 22.0 0.08 C 23.1 0.19 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 45.0 0.37 D 48.4 0.52 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 30.5 0.60 C 31.0 0.56 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 26.9 0.31 C 26.7 0.21 C Henry NB Left 34.9 0.46 C 35.9 0.41 D Henry NB Left-Through 35.8 0.58 D 37.1 0.56 D Henry NB Right 31.0 0.03 C 32.5 0.02 C Henry SIB Left 38.3 0.72 D 1 39.3 1 0.73 1 D Henry SIB Left-Through-Right 34.6 0.69 C 34.2 0.67 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall)10.3 1.0 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 10.8 0.22 B 11.2 0.13 B Hualalai EB Left 429.0 1.31 F 107.3 0.23 F 14 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 6: Existing 2019 Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall) 3.3 1.7 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 11.5 0.13 B 10.8 0.09 B Hualalai WB Left 87.5 0.18 F 112.5 0.31 F Hualalai WB Right 35.8 0.58 E 20.4 0.24 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall)9.7 A 9.8 A Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 60.4 0.71 E 53.1 0.81 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 3.3 0.50 A 3.0 0.57 A Puapuaanui WB Left 55.4 0.78 E 56.0 0.62 E Puapuaanui WB Right 7.9 0.64 A 8.5 0.63 A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 7.7 2.8 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 17.6 0.67 C 12.1 0.33 B Kuakini EB Left 1035.4 1.08 F 208.2 0.46 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall) 30.6 C 21.8 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 12.8 0.10 B 12.8 0.14 B Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 30.4 0.87 C 18.8 0.75 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 21.9 0.58 C 13.5 0.51 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 19.2 0.68 B 20.1 0.82 C Lako EB Left 60.2 0.88 E 44.3 0.76 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.1 0.16 C 35.7 0.17 D Lako WB Left 50.5 0.66 D 45.9 0.64 D Lako WB Through-Right 44.5 0.33 D 41.2 0.39 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 17.7 B 22.0 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 43.5 0.79 D 47.2 0.75 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 12.4 0.55 B 17.4 0.60 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 42.2 0.46 D 45.7 0.48 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 10.3 0.27 B 14.0 0.34 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 32.0 0.73 C 34.1 0.84 C Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 41.4 0.66 D 44.9 0.61 D 15 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 7: Four-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes Existing- 4-Hour Warrant Hualalai (N) Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 776 164 YES 7:45-8:45 AM 692 145 YES 3:00-4:00 PM 1005 84 YES 4:00-5:00 PM 926 74 YES 5:00-6:00 PM 986 58 NO Existing- 4-Hour Warrant Hualalai (S) Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 1006 70 YES 7:45-8:45 AM 1030 26 NO 3:00-4:00 PM 940 59 NO 4:00-5:00 PM 864 64 NO 5:00-6:00 PM 765 56 NO Existing- Kuakini 4-Hour Warrant Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 776 335 YES 7:45-8:45 AM 683 467 YES 3:00-4:00 PM 881 224 YES 4:00-5:00 PM 872 264 YES 5:00-6:00 PM 1 870 217 YES Table 8: Peak-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes' Peak Hour Warrant Existing AM PM Major I Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 776 164 YES 1005 84 NO Hualalai (S) 1006 73 NO 940 61 NO Kuakini 733 517 YES 1 887 1 243 1 YES Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 16 Royal Vistas SSFM International III. Near-Term (2024) — Completion of Phase 1 A. Surrounding Areas Phase 1 is expected to be completed by 2024, representing the 5-year future forecast. Phase 1 will contain 258 dwelling units, and the only point of access will be the Royal Vistas Roadway intersecting with Queen Kaahumanu Highway, about 600 feet north of the Kuakini Highway intersection. The official Transportation Network Map—Nani Kailua Area from the Kona Community Development Plan shows future connections of 'minor collectors' running parallel to Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the location of Royal Vistas, extending Hoomama Street to Leilani Street and Paulehia Street to Kekuanaoa Place, as shown in Figure 6. The timing of these improvements is undetermined, but it is not expected they will be completed prior to 2024. The most likely scenario is that the developers of Royal Vistas will complete a collector to the south before Phase 2 is occupied. Based on the HDOT Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii(July 2014), Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will be widened by 2 travel lanes and include bicycle facilities and sidewalks. Bike Plan Hawaii (2003) references several near-term projects. Two of the projects nearby are: a signed shared road on Kuakini Highway from Lako Street to Hualalai Road, and a signed shared road on Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Kuakini Highway. The 2011 Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan does not include any pedestrian facility upgrades or construction in the project area. No other significant developments or future construction projects are expected in the surrounding area that would significantly affect the roadway geometrics or traffic volumes at the study intersections. This is based on research completed on October 10,2019 at the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) website and the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program (STIP). The projects referenced in the long-range transportation plan and Bike Plan Hawaii are not found in the STIP. The impacts of these projects were not considered in this TZAR. 17 Royal Vistas SSFM International NZ t F3. 1 fir.". p,. i s a - f.. aSEhr w r. 1 l 1L. OL Id ti• LAge 1ra ppr. 7a..]. :.la;•,.f rYkion'1'r V'•nscd Tr.rlsrt L,ne' as f F TYPE J,. J a ath 6®, khans I I+bar Any' 1. h.; MRIYi.TC'VM T tIV G7J Sv1iT iv]'+r.'fy J - M '• Yr Peli;,y Laycr It's, F eet r tFyT Source: County of Hawwa r The Cowdy U"Hawar; Piarmin Departmew is the revository of the, n frcm'm ap f:cnL3 Cornmunrty Deve,ojomernt Han Figure 6: Kona Community Development Plan 18 Royal Vistas SSFM International B. Volumes 1.Future 2024 Without Project Volumes The project study area within Kona has been experiencing modest growth. HDOT ADT counts on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road didn't show any increase in vehicular volumes from 2015 to 2016. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts average daily traffic in Kona on Hawaii Belt Road to be 41,900 vehicles in 2020 and 48,000 vehicles in 2035. This equates to a 1%annual growth rate over 15 years in the Kona area. A background growth rate of 1% per year was assumed, to account for additional traffic at the study intersections. The estimated future volumes without the project for the future year 2024 are shown in Figure 7. 2.Project Related Volumes The proposed Royal Vistas include 258 multi-family residential dwelling units for Phase 1. All of these are expected to be low rise units with two or three stories. Trips generated from the proposed facility were estimated using nationally accepted land use rates from the Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE, 2016). ITE defines the Multi-family Housing(Low Rise) Land Use [220] as follows: "includes apartments,townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units"The analysis used 258 dwelling units as the independent variable to estimate new trips expected from the proposed project. The estimates for new trips generated by the project are shown in Table 9. Table 9: Estimated Trips Generated -Phase 1 AM PM Land Use [ITE Code] Equation Equation Multi-family Housing Ln (T) = 0.95 Ln (X) — Ln (T) = 0.89*Ln (X) -0.02 Low Rise) [220] 0.51 Dwelling Units 258 258 New Trips 117 137 in Out In Out 23% 77% 63% 37% 27 90 86 51 T = Total number of trips generated, X = Dwelling Units 3.Trip Distribution Trips generated by the Royal Vistas Phase 1 will enter and exit at the Royal Vistas Roadway and be distributed onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The trips were distributed according to existing travel patterns. The segment volumes between Puapuaanui Street and Kuakini Street were used to determine the inbound percent distribution. z In and Out split provided by Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE 2016)for Land Use 220 19 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd Henry St CP Ln M M 24(43) Ln m 491 (330)North C 713 (640) 631 (576) 171 (234) 55(76} E P. S y S + r Y 480(922)-4 377(697) - 229 (529) - N ro 130(306) wLn a Cf Pa l F ?n., ti Henry St ' w°' d Queen Ka.-I i i_ i f-=r, Kaahumanu Hwy th 1 r u dou 5 ?1}/ 3 7(14) M JO(74) 178 (391) A AwwIQ pp Ln q ODipCn p n 281 203) 1,17 !75) D Lt 38 (41) 73 (65) u 14 264 (1331ca 0 T50 (32) w m 73 (50) " hi V Ln `Ln 00Q L 16(19' CCLn 00 194(112, 13 (}.2j — 91(36) 17(7) 1 "`"`iii S a 4 E S z 165 5 (12) i u° vn' 27(55) 71 ZJ 14 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Legend weak Hour Volumes f#( }AM(PM) Signalized U Unsignalized y Stop Sign veh/hr} Intersection Intersection Figure 7: Future 2024 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes 20 Royal Vistas SSFM International Based on the existing traffic volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Puapuaanui Street and Lako Street, the AM peak hour direction is northbound, and the PM peak hour direction is southbound. Table 10 shows the directional percentages at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street that were used to determine the inbound trip distribution. Table 10: 2019 Volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Puapuaanui St and Kuakini Highway AM PM NB SB NB SB Volume 8773 805 [:873 940 Percent 52% 48% 8%52% The outbound volumes at Puapuaanui Street were used to determine the outbound percent distribution. Royal Vistas will have the same land use as Pualani Estates,which isjust north of Royal Vistas and currently uses Puapuaanui Street as the main access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Outbound traffic distribution for Pualani Estates at Puapuaanui Street is anticipated to have a similar outbound distribution at Royal Vistas Roadway. Table 11 shows the existing outbound volumes for Pualani Estates at Puapuaanui Street during the AM and PM peak hours. The percentages shown in Table 11 were used for the outbound trip distribution at the Royal Vistas Roadway intersecting Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Table 11: 2019 Outbound volumes at Puapuaanui Street AM PM WBR WBL WBR W B L Volume 185 87 107 34 Percent 68%32%76%24% The future 'with project' scenario analyzed the Royal Vistas Roadway approach to have a left turn and a right turn lane. Turn lanes are provided for the southbound left turn and northbound right turn into Royal Vistas. Right turns are channelized. A peak hour traffic signal warrant and a 4-hour traffic signal warrant were conducted for the new Royal Vistas Roadway.The new roadway intersection did not warrant a signal during the AM or PM peak hour.This intersection was analyzed as a two-way stop-controlled intersection. A crosswalk would be provided on the east side of the intersection for pedestrian connectivity. A refuge lane for westbound left turns onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is recommended as this is an unsignalized intersection and will make this turn easier for the driver. The expected future lane configuration is shown in Figure 8. Project related trips for 2024 (Phase 1) are shown in Figure 9. 4.Future 2024 With Project Volumes Phase 1 project related trips were added to the Future 2024 Without Project volumes to estimate Future 2024 With Project peak hour volumes (see Figure 10). s Hourly Volumes taken from 2019 intersection counts at Puapuaanui Street. 21 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd HenrySt North E Queen Lms5 m i T P TaniRd Henryst To Royal Vistas Roadway HUa9alai Rd (Narth) L LA Ucc l m 0 JS 9 S Tr W s 3 m Tr m m le 1 14 Queen KaahUmanu Highway To KuakiniHighway Legend 11 (#) Peak Hour Volumes DS Signalized Unsignaliaed Stop Sign AM P M I (ve ifnr,"Intersection 1 Intersection Figure 8: Expected Future Lane Configuration 22 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd HenrySt a 5(5) m 4—21(14} 4---27[20} North 1(1) 1 2[s} E 4., Queen 5(75) Tr c r d Palam Rd Henry St U To Royal Vistas Roadway Hualalac Rd (Narth) L Y J;Z C DL w U f. 42 F m 7} r PI r N Lr) I 1(z) 3 Q0 •w 5 ` c it 4- 9 g ca CC a(1) m 4 63[39} + ro2902) E S r E ti Queen Kaahumanu Highway To Kuakini Highway Legend Peak Hour Volumes ( 5 Signalized U), Unsignalized Stop Sign h1; (ven!nr Intersection Intersection Figure 9: Phase 1 Project Related Trips 23 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd Hen St 29(48) up 512(341) 734(654) 658(596 N o rt h E 172(235) A 57(79) Queen M Y 75(273)-17 T 112(200)"f S C C 484(941) I 382(722) 4 229(52g) I30(346) 3i I Z Palani Rd " tVLn Henry St ==' I U To Royal Vistas Roadway HUalalac Rd (Nartli) 46(11) s1(77) 0 147(75) 0 a 7(1aI TC1??l'Ij^ EA c, V 4 p I'V V V V lP 2941210) 38141) 194(112) N 73(65) lie S ca 264(138) Z 50(32)--- 73(5d) t o .`_ Tr M y R - 16(20) cc w 4 13(12) 61(39) to S U 167(31 O T r ng 7- C7 Q 5(12)— cc rO AC E 27(55) E SAC v Queen KaahUmamfHighway To KuakiniAhway Legend It (#) Peak Hour Voiurnes ', Signalized U Unsignalized -. a- Stop Sign AM P M I (venfnr; Intersection Intersection Figure 10: Future 2024 With Project Peak Hour Volumes 24 Royal Vistas SSFM International C. Future 2024 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis 1.Future 2024 Without Project Intersection LOS The 2024 Without Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.65 and 0.30 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.22 and 0.39 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS= B/B (AM/PM) The AM westbound left turn movement from Hualalai Road and southbound left turn movements from Queen K Highway operate at LOS E. The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. These delays are due to the cycle length. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.51 and 0.62 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS= D/C (AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Lako Street,the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. This delay is attributed to the high eastbound left turn volume, and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= B/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 25 Royal Vistas SSFM International Tables 12 and 13 show the expected 2024 vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix D. Table 12: Future 2024 Without Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 24.3 C 27.1 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 39.2 0.47 D 39.3 0.76 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 14.8 0.32 B 19.2 0.61 B Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 39.3 0.68 D 40.1 0.73 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 14.9 0.45 B 17.4 0.44 B Palani NB Left 37.8 0.73 D 40.5 0.74 D Palani NB Through 25.7 0.26 C 28.9 0.42 C Palani SB Left 48.1 0.51 D 49.8 0.71 D Palani SB Through 34.0 0.66 C 33.9 0.63 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 32.9 0.65 C 33.8 0.68 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 45.2 0.53 D 49.7 0.69 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 25.7 0.37 C 29.3 0.60 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 22.8 0.09 C 24.0 0.20 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 46.1 0.40 D 50.9 0.57 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 32.3 0.65 C 32.6 0.60 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 27.9 0.33 C 27.6 0.22 C Henry NB Left 35.4 0.48 D 36.3 0.42 D Henry NB Left-Through 36.6 0.60 D 37.9 0.58 D Henry NB Right 31.3 0.03 C 32.8 0.02 C Henry SB Left 39.3 0.74 D 40.2 0.75 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 35.2 0.71 D 34.8 0.69 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall) 14.1 1.2 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 11.2 0.24 B 11.5 0.14 B Hualalai EB Left 603.1 1.65 F 135.9 0.30 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall)4.0 2.0 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 12.0 0.14 B 11.1 0.10 B Hualalai WB Left 105.7 0.22 F 143.3 0.39 F Hualalai WB Right 43.7 0.65 E 22.1 0.27 C 26 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 13: Future 2024 Without Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall) 10.2 B 10.5 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 61.3 0.73 E 54.4 0.81 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 3.6 0.52 A 3.3 0.60 A Puapuaanui WB Left 55.2 0.78 E 56.2 0.63 E Puapuaanui WB Right 8.1 0.68 A 9.4 0.66 A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 9.8 3.5 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 20.4 0.73 C 12.8 0.36 B Kuakini EB Left 1546.3 1.51 F 302.1 0.62 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall) 35.4 D 24.5 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 14.1 0.12 B 14.8 0.17 B Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 38.0 0.93 D 21.4 0.80 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 30.1 0.70 C 16.0 0.58 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 21.3 0.72 C 23.8 0.87 C Lako EB Left 63.7 0.89 E 44.5 0.77 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.1 0.16 C 35.7 0.17 D Lako WB Left 51.1 0.68 D 46.1 0.65 D Lako WB Through-Right 44.9 0.33 D 41.4 0.40 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 18.2 B 23.3 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 43.1 0.79 D 49.0 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 13.3 0.58 B 19.0 0.64 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 42.1 0.47 D 46.1 0.49 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 10.8 0.28 B 14.8 0.36 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 32.0 0.74 C 35.7 0.85 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 42.1 0.68 D 45.7 0.63 D 2.Future 2024 With Project Intersection LOS The 2024 With Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. NOTE: All Royal Vistas vehicles are routed through the one Royal Vistas Access Roadway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway for purposes of the Phase 1 analysis. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) 27 Royal Vistas SSFM International At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.98 and 0.34 respectively) during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.24 and 0.34 respectively) during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F(v/c of 0.71)during the AM peak hour.The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS= B/B (AM/PM) The AM left turns operate at LOS E.The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle.These delays are due to the cycle length. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway At the proposed unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Royal Vistas Roadway,the southbound left turn movement from Queen Kaahumanu Highway into Royal Vistas Roadway functions well, with minimal delay, an average of 10 to 11 seconds during both peak hours.The westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.41 and 0.27 respectively) during both AM (29 vehicles)and PM (12 vehicles) peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The intersection functions acceptably, with an average of 2.0 seconds of delay per vehicle in the AM peak hour and 1.2 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.88 and .68 respectively) during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS= D/C (AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Lako Street,the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. This delay is attributed to the high eastbound left turn volume, and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 9. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= B/C(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. Tables 14 and 15 show the expected vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix E. 28 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 14: Future 2024 With Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c I LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 24.2 C 27.2 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 39.2 0.47 D 39.3 0.76 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 14.9 0.33 B 19.5 0.62 B Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 39.3 0.68 D 40.2 0.74 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 15.1 0.46 B 17.6 0.45 B Palani NB Left 37.8 0.73 D 40.5 0.74 D Palani NB Through 25.7 0.26 C 28.9 0.42 C EalanlBLeft 48.1 0.51 D 50.0 0.71 D Through 34.0 0.66 C 34.0 0.63 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 33.2 0.66 C 34.1 0.69 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 45.5 0.54 D 49.8 0.69 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 26.1 0.38 C 30.0 0.63 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 23.1 0.09 C 24.1 0.20 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 46.5 0.42 D 52.5 0.59 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 33.4 0.68 C 33.2 0.62 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 28.5 0.34 C 27.8 0.22 C Henry NB Left 35.7 0.48 D 36.4 0.42 D Henry NB Left-Through 36.9 0.60 D 38.0 0.59 D Henry NB Right 31.5 0.03 C 32.9 0.02 C Henry SB Left 38.4 0.72 D 40.4 0.76 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 34.8 0.70 C 35.0 0.70 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall) 17.7 1.3 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 11.3 0.26 B 11.9 0.15 B Hualalai EB Left 789.5 1.98 F 163.1 0.34 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall) 4.5 2.2 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 12.4 0.15 B 11.3 0.10 B Hualalai WB Left 121.6 0.24 F 172.6 0.44 F Hualalai WB Right 52.8 0.71 F 23.3 0.28 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall) 10.8 B 10.8 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 61.3 0.73 E 54.5 0.81 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 3.7 0.53 A 3.6 0.63 A Puapuaanui WB Left 55.1 0.78 E 56.4 0.64 E Puapuaanui WB Right 9.8 0.73 A 10.1 0.69 B 29 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 15: Future 2024 With Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kona Vista Rdwy(overall) 2.0 1.2 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 10.0 0.02 A 10.5 0.07 B Kona Vista WB Left 81.0 0.41 F 105.9 0.27 F Kona Vista WB Right 18.8 0.20 C 19.0 0.14 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 11.4 3.7 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 21.8 0.75 C 12.9 0.36 B Kuakini EB Left 1998.6 1.88 F 344.6 0.68 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall) 36.9 D 25.9 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 14.6 0.12 B 15.3 0.18 B Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 40.4 0.94 D 23.5 0.83 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 34.2 0.74 C 18.5 0.62 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 22.2 0.74 C 24.9 0.88 C Lako EB Left 65.4 0.90 E 44.5 0.78 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.1 0.16 C 35.5 0.17 D Lako WB Left 51.3 0.68 D 46.2 0.65 D Lako WB Through-Right 45.1 0.33 D 41.5 0.40 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 18.3 B 24.1 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 43.1 0.79 D 49.3 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 13.5 0.59 B 20.1 0.67 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 42.2 0.47 D 46.5 0.49 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 10.9 0.29 B 15.2 0.37 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 32.0 0.74 C 36.7 0.85 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 42.2 0.68 D 46.3 0.64 D 3.2024 Traffic Signal Warrant Peak-Hour volume traffic signal warrants were evaluated for the 2024 with and without project scenarios. Table 16 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis in 2024 with and without the project. Traffic Signal Warrant analysis can be found in Appendix J. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM and PM peak hour with and without the project. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM peak hour with and without the project. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway This intersection does not pass the peak hour warrant in either peak hour. 30 Royal Vistas SSFM International 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM and PM peak hour with and without the project. Table 16: 2024 Peak-Hour Warrant Peak Hour Warrant 2024 Without Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 816 172 YES 1056 88 YES Hualalai (S) 1057 77 YES 988 64 NO Kuakini 842 543 YES 1 932 1 255 1 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2024 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 827 180 YES 1096 91 YES Hualalai (S) 1117 77 YES 1025 64 NO RKV Roadway 819 13 NO 912 45 NO Kuakini 856 543 YES 944 255 YES 4.2024 With Project Segment LOS Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Hualalai (north)to Lako Street. Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through- vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS.Analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix E.The arterial LOS can be found in Table 17. This segment of Queen Kaahumanu Highway operates at LOS C in the northbound direction and LOS B in the southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, satisfying the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 Concurrency Requirements) regarding "acceptable level of service"for transportation facilities. Table 17: 2024 with Project Segment LOS Northbound Southbound Speed (mph) LOS Speed (mph) LOS AM Peak Hour 18.3 C 25.3 B PM Peak Hour 20.7 C 24.6 LJI 31 Royal Vistas SSFM International IV. Mid-Term (2029) — Completion of Phase 2 A. Surrounding Area Conditions Phase 2 is expected to be completed by 2029, representing the full buildout 10-year future forecast. Phase 2 will contain 192 dwelling units. Inbound trips and Phase 1 outbound trips continue to use the Royal Vistas Roadway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection. Based on the HDOT Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii(July 2014), Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will be widened by 2 travel lanes and include bicycle facilities and sidewalks. No other significant developments or future construction projects are expected in the immediately surrounding area that would significantly affect the roadway geometrics or traffic volumes at the study intersections. This is based on research completed on October 10, 2019 at the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC)website and the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program STIP). The current STIP has a 4-year outlook, from Fiscal Year 2019-2022. Future projects may impact roadway geometrics or traffic volumes. The Mid-Term future analysis may need to be reanalyzed and updated if the Kuakini Highway widening project is scheduled.This project was not included in the analysis. B. Volumes 1.Future 2029 Without Project Volumes The project study area within Kona has been experiencing modest growth. HDOT ADT counts on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road didn't show any increase in vehicular volumes from 2015 to 2016. Similarly, the 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts average daily traffic in Kona to be 41,900 vehicles in 2020 and 48,000 vehicles in 2035. This is approximately equal to a 1% annual growth rate. The estimated future volumes without the project for the future year 2029 are shown in Figure 11. 32 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd yHeiir y St M i ram, ,-. m N 25(45) ry r w ;' = North 749 (573)ns3 ^ E 180 (246) C) EIIA "`11s 5 x78(287) 118 (210)—17 r 505 (969) . _.14 397 (732) 241 (556) 137(321) Z m y 4Y r. cr PaIi[iI Rd Ile n ySt QLfeiL-n Kc,17UWc;t!L] HViy Queen KaahLim,a3u Hwy o 47 m CCO o C U U M 53 (77) Y187 (411) r jr 00 io ..oa ufi o W o 00 C+i N Goo W oo us car 295 (213) 00 155 (78) p 40(43) 10 (15) Vl 76(68) U 0:JU S 275(140) 2: 53 (33) w 00[[v 76(53) Y a 00 ID Ln 17(20) oc 204 (118) _ 13(12) 96(38) R rS g E. 173 (320)( U)-- 7 a Tr E Ln le Ln Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Legend Peak Hour Volumes 5i ns nalixedAM(PM) Signalized Ui g Stop Sign Veh/hr) Intersection Int-r—r-tior Figure 11: Future 2029 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes 33 Royal Vistas SSFM International 2.Project Related Volumes The proposed Royal Vistas include 192 multi-family residential dwelling units for Phase 2. All of these are expected to be low rise units with two or three stories. Trips generated from the proposed facility were estimated using nationally accepted land use rates from the Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE, 2016). ITE defines the Multi-family Housing(Low Rise) Land Use [220] as follows: "includes apartments,townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units"The analysis used 192 dwelling units as the independent variable to estimate new trips expected from Phase 2 of the proposed project.The estimates for new trips generated by Phase 2 are shown in Table 18. Table 18: Estimated Trips Generated by Project—Phase 2 AM PM Land Use [ITE Code] Equation Equation Multi-family Housing Ln (T) = 0.95 Ln (X) — Ln (T) = 0.89*Ln (X) -0.02 Low Rise) [220] 0.51 Dwelling Units 192 192 New Trips 89 106 In Out In Out 23% 77% 63% 37% 20 69 67 39 T = Total number of trips generated, X = Dwelling Units 3.Trip Distribution The trips were distributed according to existing travel volumes. The segment volumes between Puapuaanui Street and Kuakini Street were used to determine the inbound percent distribution. Future inbound trips will continue entering at the Royal Vistas Roadway at Queen Kaahumanu Highway. It is expected that once a connection to Lako Street is provided, Phase 2 left out(southbound traffic)will utilize the Lako Street intersection during the peak hours, since the traffic signal will provide guaranteed exit opportunities and drivers will not have to wait for a gap at the stop-controlled Royal Vistas driveway. Figure 12 shows the Future lane configuration. It is the same as Phase 1 lane configuration. Figure 13 shows the Phase 2 inbound project generated and distributed trips. Figure 14 shows the Phase 2 outbound project generated and distributed trips. 4.Future 2029 With Project Volumes Phase 1 (Figure 9) and Phase 2 project related trips (Figure 13 and Figure 14) were added to the Future 2029 Without Project volumes (Figure 11) to estimate Future 2029 With Project peak hour volumes (see Figure 15). 4 In and Out split provided by Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE 2016)for Land Use 220 34 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd HenrySt North E Queen Lms5 M i T P TaniRd Henryst To Royal Vistas Roadway HUa9alai Rd (Narth) L LA Ucc l M J 0 9 S Tr W s W 3 M 1T,, Tr E M M le 14 Queen KaahUmanu Highway To KuakiniHighway Legend 11 11 ?eakHourVolumes Signalized Unsignalized 5 U Stop Sign AM(PM)(veh/hr)Intersection Intersection Figure 12: Future Lane Configuration for Phase 2 35 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd k-:r-IYSt N o rt h s 5 s Queen m TrI s= 3[15y Tr N o Fn is qw- 1(2) Palarli Rd HenryStTaRoyalVistasRaadwayFiva9alacRd (Narth) Cn 0 L w U Tr 2{6) m 3 w 5 ` c 111 4- 9 g ca Z(4)-17 IJ Tr W J v tl 4 j f° E -s u zs m M03{81 Jrd cc E Tr E l W N WA y Queen Kaahumanu Highway To Kuakini Highway Legend #(#) Peak hour Volurnes ' Signalized U Unsignalized i stop Sign AM PM I (vet f nr; a Intersection Intersection Figure 13: Phase 2 Inbound Project Related Trips 36 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd HenrySt 4(4) 16(4) 16(10) North s 5 s Queen r Tr T r r d Palam Rd i lenrySt U To Royal Vistas Roadway Hualalai Rd (North) L Si t w T Tr 4(1) 4 3(1) u , Ln N o0 •w 5 ` c 4- 9 S ca Tr 0 4 47(34) toI f0 E f 04 i 0 cc E E he Queen Kaahumanu Highway To Kuakini Highway Legend #(#) Peak Hour Volu[nes 1 Signalized U,, Unsignalized Stop Sign AM PM}(venfnr; a1 Intersection Intersection Figure 14: Phase 2 Outbound Project Related Trips 37 Royal Vistas SSFM International Palani Rd Henry St i s 71F 74 ++ R 34(54) 4 554(367)—. 787(697) North711(64(}) y v rt h 181(247) 1 61(SS) Queen;,r, 5e 7F r2ST T 118(210) C C 512 m 3; I 4s76(777) 241(SSfi) Y" _ J I37(321)mrgm r Palani Rd'=- Henry St --- u To Royal Vistas Roadway Hualalai Rd (Nortli) 49(11) sa(az) fq Q °° 155(78) L a trn F4 n 303(228) m w 44) 00 204(118) c'rrJ 91(75) t 282(I49)a 76(53) rid 17(21) M 1418(68) cn da S N E f E I77(339) W 6(12) E 29(57) TO L- H E IF SAC Queen KaahUmamfHi hwa To KLiakini f:i•-f legend II (#) Peak Hour Volumes ', Signalized U i Stop Sign AM G P M I (vellfnr," Intersection In'k_r_, Figure 15: Future 2029 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes 38 Royal Vistas SSFM International C. Future 2029 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis 1.Future 2029 Without Project Intersection LOS The 2029 Without Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS= C/D (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 2.20 and 0.37 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.28 and 0.47 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F (v/c of .74) during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS= B/B (AM/PM) The southbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hour.The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.These delays are due to the cycle length.The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 2.87 and 0.79 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS= D/C(AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Lako Street,the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. This delay is attributed to the high eastbound left turn volume, and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. The southbound left also operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= B/C(AM/PM) 39 Royal Vistas SSFM International All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. Tables 19 and 20 show the expected vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix F. Table 19: Future 2029 Without Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 24.9 C 28.3 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 39.8 0.49 D 40.7 0.77 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 15.7 0.35 B 20.7 0.65 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 39.8 0.69 D 41.6 0.75 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 15.7 0.47 B 18.5 0.47 B Palani NB Left 38.3 0.74 D 42.0 0.75 D Palani NB Through 25.5 0.26 C 28.9 0.43 C Palani SIB Left 48.5 0.51 D 51.3 0.73 D Palani SIB Through 34.2 0.67 C 34.3 0.64 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 34.0 0.67 C 35.2 0.71 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 47.6 0.58 D 53.1 0.74 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 27.2 0.40 C 31.0 0.65 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 23.9 0.09 C 24.8 0.21 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 47.3 0.42 D 53.8 0.60 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 34.0 0.67 C 34.2 0.64 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 29.4 0.34 C 28.5 0.23 C Henry NB Left 35.9 0.49 D 36.7 0.44 D Henry NB Left-Through 37.4 0.62 D 38.4 0.60 D Henry NB Right 31.6 0.03 C 33.0 0.03 C Henry SIB Left 39.9 0.75 D 1 42.1 1 0.78 1 D Henry SIB Left-Through-Right 35.6 0.72 D 35.8 0.72 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall)20.8 1.4 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 11.6 0.26 B 12.0 0.16 B Hualalai EB Left 893.5 2.20 F 177.1 0.37 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall) 5.1 2.3 Queen Kaahumanu SIB Left 12.5 0.15 B 11.4 0.11 B Hualalai WB Left 133.6 0.28 F 187.7 0.47 F Hualalai WB Right 56.7 0.74 F 24.1 0.30 C 40 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 20: Future 2029 Without Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall) 10.9 B 11.3 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 62.3 0.74 E 55.9 0.82 E Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 3.9 0.55 A 3.6 0.63 A Puapuaanui WB Left 54.9 0.78 D 56.5 0.65 E Puapuaanui WB Right 9.8 0.72 A 10.6 0.70 B Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 16.1 4.3 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 25.0 0.79 C 13.6 0.40 B Kuakini EB Left 2938.5 2.87 F 429.8 0.79 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall)43.7 D 28.7 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 15.5 0.14 B 17.4 0.21 B Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 51.3 0.99 D 25.1 0.85 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 56.6 0.87 E 21.0 0.67 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 23.7 0.77 C 29.5 0.92 C Lako EB Left 67.3 0.91 E 44.7 0.78 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.2 0.16 C 35.7 0.17 D Lako WB Left 51.7 0.68 D 46.3 0.65 D Lako WB Through-Right 45.5 0.34 D 41.6 0.40 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 18.8 B 24.7 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 42.7 0.79 D 48.8 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 14.3 0.62 B 20.0 0.69 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 42.5 0.47 D 46.6 0.50 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 11.3 0.30 B 15.7 0.39 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 32.0 0.75 C 37.5 0.86 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 42.8 0.69 D 46.8 0.64 D 2.Future 2029 With Project Intersection LOS The 2029 With Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C (AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS= C/D (AM/PM) The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The overall delay and LOS have gradually gotten worse due to the increase in background volume and the trip generated by Royal Vistas. The westbound left during the PM peak hour has a volume of 85 vehicles. This volume will clear the intersection in 1 cycle. The delay increases from 53.8 seconds without the project,to 57 seconds with the project. The Royal Vistas traffic volume causes a slight increase in 41 Royal Vistas SSFM International the overall delay. Other factors that increase the delay are the increase in background volume and the split phase. All other movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 2.93 and 0.45 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.35 and 0.57 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.86) during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS= B/B (AM/PM) The southbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hour.The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.These delays are due to the cycle length.The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway At the proposed unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Royal Vistas Roadway,the southbound left turn movement from Queen Kaahumanu Highway into Royal Vistas Roadway functions well, with minimal delay, an average of 12 to 13 seconds during both peak hours.The westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.53 and 0.48 respectively) during both AM (29 vehicles) and PM (12 vehicles) peak hours due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Phase 2 left turns exiting Royal Vistas are expected to use Lako Street to access Queen Kaahumanu Highway.The intersection functions acceptably,with an average of 3.1 seconds of delay per vehicle in the AM peak hour and 2.3 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour.The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.89 during the PM peak hour) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hour are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway.The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS= D/C (AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Lako Street, eastbound left operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.96) during the AM peak hour. The westbound left operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour.The eastbound left and westbound left operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This delay is attributed to the high volume and the split phasing for the Lako Street 42 Royal Vistas SSFM International approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 9. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C The westbound approach operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the westbound approach,the northbound left,and the southbound left operate at LOS E.All other movements during both peak hours operate at LOS D or better. Tables 21 and 22 show the expected vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix G. Table 21: Future 2029 With Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 24.8 C 28.4 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 39.8 0.49 D 40.8 0.77 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 15.7 0.35 B 21.2 0.67 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 39.7 0.69 D 41.8 0.75 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 16.1 0.50 B 18.8 0.48 B Palani NB Left 38.3 0.74 D 42.0 0.75 D Palani NB Through 25.5 0.26 C 29.0 0.43 C Palani SIB Left 48.5 0.51 D 51.8 0.74 D Palani SIB Through 34.2 0.67 C 343.0 0.64 C Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 34.7 0.70 C 35.9 0.73 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 48.0 0.58 D 53.9 0.74 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 27.5 0.41 C 32.4 0.69 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 24.0 0.09 C 25.1 0.21 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 47.7 0.45 D 57.0 0.64 E Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 36.7 0.75 D 35.6 0.68 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 29.9 0.37 C 29.0 0.24 C Henry NB Left 36.1 0.49 D 37.0 0.40 D Henry NB Left-Through 37.5 0.62 D 38.8 0.60 D Henry NB Right 31.7 0.03 C 33.3 0.03 C Henry SIB Left 39.9 0.75 D 42.4 0.78 D Henry SIB Left-Through-Right 35.7 0.73 D 32.0 0.73 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall) 28.5 1.6 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 12.0 0.29 B 12.7 0.18 B Hualalai EB Left 1310.5 2.93 F 237.0 0.45 F 43 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 22: Future 2029 With Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall) 6.8 2.7 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 13.4 0.17 B 11.9 0.12 B Hualalai WB Left 173.5 0.35 F 251.0 0.57 F Hualalai WB Right 83.5 0.86 F 26.7 0.33 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall) 12.6 B 12.5 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 78.0 0.78 E 69.0 0.84 E Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 3.9 0.56 A 3.8 0.67 A Puapuaanui WB Left 65.9 0.80 D 72.2 0.74 E Puapuaanui WB Right 11.4 0.77 B 11.1 0.72 B Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kona Vista Rdwy(overall) 3.1 2.3 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 10.4 0.04 B 11.7 0.14 B Kona Vista WB Left 118.2 0.53 F 228.2 0.48 F Kona Vista WB Right 24.9 0.40 C 25.2 0.29 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 21.8 4.6 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 27.4 0.82 D 13.7 0.40 B Kuakini EB Left F 507.5 0.89 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall) 43.4 D 28.0 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 16.6 0.13 B 17.7 0.18 B Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 42.8 0.94 D 23.9 0.82 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 50.2 0.84 D 23.9 0.68 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 23.8 0.74 C 24.1 0.85 C Lako EB Left 88.4 0.96 F 60.4 0.83 E Lako EB Through-Right 41.9 0.17 D 45.7 0.17 D Lako WB Left 62.1 0.75 E 59.3 0.71 E Lako WB Through-Right 53.6 0.33 D 52.7 0.41 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 20.8 C 27.9 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 52.9 0.79 D 57.3 0.78 E Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 12.6 0.55 B 21.4 0.67 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 54.6 0.50 D 57.0 0.52 E Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 11.0 0.27 B 16.7 0.36 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 43.3 0.79 D 45.9 0.88 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 61.8 0.79 E 60.1 0.71 E delay exceeds 1,000 seconds per vehicle 3.2029 Traffic Signal Warrant Peak-Hour volume traffic signal warrants were evaluated for the 2029 with and without project scenarios. Table 23 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis in 2029 with and without the project. Traffic Signal Warrant analysis can be found in Appendix J. 44 Royal Vistas SSFM International 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM and PM peak hour with and without the project. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM peak hour with and without the project. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM and PM peak hour with and without the project. Table 23: 2029 Peak-Hour Warrant Peak Hour Warrant 2029 Without Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 857 181 YES 1110 93 YES Hualalai (S) 1111 81 YES 1038 67 NO Kuakini 885 571 YES 980 1 268 1 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2029 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 876 196 YES 1181 98 YES Hualalai (S) 1216 81 YES 1103 67 NO Kuakini 810 579 YES 980 1 271 YES 4.2029 With Project Segment LOS Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Hualalai (north)to Lako Street. Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through- vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. Analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix G. The arterial LOS can be found in Table 24. This segment of Queen Kaahumanu Highway operates at LOS C in northbound direction and LOS B in the southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, satisfying the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 Concurrency Requirements) regarding "acceptable level of service"for transportation facilities. Table 24: 2029 with Project Segment LOS Northbound Southbound Speed (mph) LOS Speed (mph) LOS AM Peak Hour 18.6 C 25.2 B PM Peak Hour 20.4 C 24.5 B 45 Royal Vistas SSFM International V. Long-Term (2039) A. Surrounding Area Conditions No other significant developments or future construction projects are expected in the surrounding area that would significantly affect the roadway geometrics or traffic volumes at the study intersections. This is based on research completed on October 10, 2019 at the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) website and the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program (STIP). B. Volumes 1.Future 2039 Without Project Volumes The project study area within Kona has been experiencing modest growth. HDOT ADT counts on Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road didn't show any increase in vehicular volumes from 2015 to 2016. However, the 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts average daily traffic in Kona on Hawaii Belt Road to be 41,900 vehicles in 2020 and 48,000 vehicles in 2035. This is approximately equal to a 1%annual growth rate over 15 years in the Kona area. Since there is a scope for development and to acknowledge all other projects which are in planning stage, a background growth rate of 1% per year was assumed, to account for additional traffic at the study intersections. The estimated future volumes without the project for the future year 2039 are shown in Figure 16. 2.Project Related Volumes Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be completed by 2024 and 2029, respectively.The trips generated and distributed by Phase 1 and Phase 2 will not change. 3.Future 2039 With Project Volumes Project related trips from Phase 1 (Figure 9) and Phase 2 (Figure 13 and Figure 14) were added to the Future 2039 Without Project volumes(Figure 16)to estimate Future 2039 With Project peak hour volumes see Figure 17). 46 Royal Vistas SSFM International Paiani Rd Henry St N w ID 11 M c 4\ 1— 28 (50) u 4 A. 570 (383) 2 North N M 4 827 (743) 4.--. 732 (669) E 199 (272} r 1) E11s 5 5 Y87(317)—,7T(4 131 (232) 558 (1070)1 438 (809) 266 (614) U LA) 355) pj 3) r a Pa l im Rd = :- C Henry St t ire rt K ah,rt rau HViy+ Queen Kaahumanu Hwy ry a m (A M Q l cc U 44 U 59(8M) 206 454 T Rs o w 14 y N N V N Ln 326 (235) d0 171 (87)44(48) 11 (17) p 30 (155) 5 Tr59(37) m 84(59) m n L i ono N s S ' E Tr 92 r-'154} 13) 1 Tr a.. g Queen Kaahumanu Hwy queen Kaahumanu Hwy Legend Peak Hour Volumes 0) AM(PM) Signalized Unsignalized Stop Sign Veh/hri Intersection 1 Int r«et o Figure 16: Future 2039 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes 47 Royal Vistas SSFM International Pala ni Rd Henry St IN n 37(59) F 608(4a3) 4 965(767) 784(704) 1 v o It h 200(274) 67(93) Queen 7z Y 87(317) Y3Y{232)" r C C 565(1104) I 7{854} 266(614)151(355) N m}4t i d Palarli Rd--.. HenrySt U To Royal Vistas Roadway HUa9alai Rd (Nor-tli) 60(90) Cr it 5 I m 0I 171(87) :3 C U 11(17) Vd"Y 9(16) Ucc 206(454)'' w 3ccImo..++ W F. pp ' 1 O5 W l7] NJ 33-,250) LA226(131) N Lr) 108(44) :3 lie S ca 3Y1(164) C9 59(37) 84(59) N W. y Q rl 13. IfZ—108(68) LM S f 17 C E 196(373) J Q 6(13) r y 1 CC E 32(fi3) E Cx Y 14 QUeerl KaahUmanl Highv,a To KLiakini 1 :1-;1 Legend ea Hour tdIIIIPkH Signalized J f S : U J- Stop Sign AM (: _ ,'r' intersection In'_r_, i;10n Figure 17: Future 2039 With Project Peak Hour Volumes 48 Royal Vistas SSFM International C. Future 2039 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis 1.Future 2039 Without Project Intersection LOS 1. The 2039 Without Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle)were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. NOTE: 2039 Future projections assume 1% annual growth rate for 20 years, which is a conservative assumption. Tables 25 and 26 show the existing vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C. The PM southbound left turn operates at LOS E. At 62 vehicles in the PM peak hour, this results in about 1 vehicle per minute. This movement should clear every cycle. The increase in delay is based on the increase of the background traffic volume. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS= D/D. The PM eastbound and westbound left turns operate at LOS E. The overall delay and LOS have gradually gotten worse due to the increase in background growth rate. The increase in delay is based on the increase in background volumes. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), the delay at this intersection is 41 seconds per vehicle. This is due to the high delay in the eastbound left turn volume.The eastbound left turning movement has LOS F(v/c of 0.59 during the PM peak hour) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.46 and 0.76 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.97) during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS= B/B. The southbound left turns operate at LOS E during both peak hours. The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour.These delays are due to the cycle length.The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, eastbound left turning movement has LOS F and long delays during the AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS= E/D. At the signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Lako Street,the eastbound left turn, northbound through, and southbound left turn operate at LOS F (v/c of 1.01, 1.1, and 0.99 49 Royal Vistas SSFM International respectively). The PM southbound through operates at LOS F (v/c of 1.03). The delay increase is caused by the volumes generated by the background volume and the split phasing. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/B. All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. Tables 25 and 26 show the expected vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix G. Table 25: Future 2039 Without Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 26.3 C 31.1 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 41.4 0.53 D 44.2 0.80 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 17.7 0.40 B 24.6 0.74 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 40.8 0.71 D 45.3 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 17.9 0.54 B 21.1 0.54 C Palani NB Left 39.7 0.77 D 45.8 0.78 D Palani NB Through 25.3 0.27 C 29.2 0.44 C Palani SIB Left 49.6 0.53 D 55.2 0.78 E Palani SIB Through 34.6 0.69 C 35.1 0.67 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 37.5 0.74 D 38.9 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 53.9 0.67 D 65.5 0.84 E Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 29.9 0.46 C 35.6 0.74 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 25.7 0.10 C 26.8 0.23 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 50.0 0.49 D 62.2 0.69 E Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 40.8 0.80 D 39.0 0.73 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 32.7 0.42 C 30.6 0.25 C Henry NB Left 37.2 0.52 D 37.6 0.46 D Henry NB Left-Through 38.9 0.65 D 39.9 0.64 D Henry NB Right 32.2 0.04 C 33.4 0.03 C Henry SIB Left 43.4 0.79 D 46.0 0.82 D Henry SIB Left-Through-Right 37.8 0.77 D 37.8 0.77 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall)41.0 2.1 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 12.7 0.32 B 13.1 0.19 B Hualalai EB Left F 316.3 0.59 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall) 9.2 3.7 Queen Kaahumanu SIB Left 13.7 0.19 B 12.3 0.13 B Hualalai WB Left 229.1 0.46 F 345.7 0.76 F Hualalai WB Right 109.5 0.97 F 30.3 0.39 D delay exceeds 1,000 seconds per vehicle 50 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 26: Future 2039 Without Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall) 13.0 B 13.3 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 64.1 0.78 E 58.4 0.83 E Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 4.8 0.62 A 4.6 0.70 A Puapuaanui WB Left 54.5 0.79 D 57.1 0.67 E Puapuaanui WB Right 13.0 0.80 B 13.8 0.79 B Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 11.3 8.6 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 46.0 0.95 E 15.8 0.48 C Kuakini EB Left F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall) 64.6 E 48.8 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 18.2 0.19 B 22.6 0.32 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 85.1 1.10 F 44.8 0.98 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 93.0 0.99 F 57.0 0.90 E Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 29.4 0.85 C 52.9 1.03 F Lako EB Left 92.7 1.01 F 46.1 0.80 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.6 0.19 C 36.5 0.18 D Lako WB Left 51.6 0.70 D 47.7 0.67 D Lako WB Through-Right 45.3 0.35 D 42.8 0.41 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 20.4 C 28.3 B Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 42.0 0.79 D 51.0 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 17.0 0.70 B 25.7 0.78 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 42.6 0.48 D 47.9 0.51 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 12.6 0.35 B 17.8 0.44 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 32.1 0.76 C 41.9 0.88 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 44.7 0.73 D 49.3 0.68 D delay exceeds 1,000 seconds per vehicle 2.Future 2039 With Project Intersection LOS Existing intersection and movement LOS and average delay(in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C. All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS= D/D. All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 51 Royal Vistas SSFM International 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Street (north), the delay at this intersection is 50.6 seconds per vehicle, a slight increase from the 2039 Without Project scenario. The eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.73 in the PM peak hour) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Hualalai Road (south), westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.56 and 0.97 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F (v/c of 1.14) during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS= B/B. The southbound left turns operate at LOS F(v/c of 0.78 and 0.87, respectively) during the AM and PM peak hours.The westbound left turn operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.77)during the PM peak hour. These delays are due to the cycle length. The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway At the proposed unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Royal Vistas Roadway,the southbound left turn movement from Queen Kaahumanu Highway into Royal Vistas Roadway functions well, with minimal delay, an average of 11 to 13 seconds during both peak hours.The westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.70 and 0.69 respectively)during both AM (29 vehicles)and PM (12 vehicles) peak hours are due to high through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Phase 2 left turns exiting Royal Vistas are expected to use Lako Street to access Queen Kaahumanu Highway.The intersection functions acceptably,with an average of 4.1 seconds of delay per vehicle in the AM peak hour and 2.9 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour.The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kuakini Highway, the eastbound left turning movement has LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound left turn operates at LOS F (v/c 0.98) during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS= E/D. The overall intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour.The delay is due to the increase in background volume,the traffic generated by Royal Vistas, and the split phasing. During the AM peak hour, the eastbound left turn, northbound through, and southbound left turn operate at LOS F (v/c of 1.04, 1.05, and 1.11 respectively). The PM eastbound left turn operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.87). 9. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS= C/C. 52 Royal Vistas SSFM International All movements at the signalized intersections of Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. Tables 27 and 28 show the expected vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Synchro output is in Appendix I. Table 27: Future 2039 With Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd (overall) 26.3 C 31.3 C Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 41.4 0.53 D 44.3 0.80 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 17.8 0.41 B 25.4 0.77 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 40.8 0.71 D 45.5 0.78 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 18.3 0.56 B 21.4 0.56 C Palani NB Left 39.7 0.77 D 45.8 0.78 D Palani NB Through 25.3 0.27 C 29.3 0.44 C Palani SIB Left 49.6 0.53 D 54.7 0.77 D Palani SIB Through 34.6 0.69 C 35.1 0.67 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St(overall) 38.6 0.76 D 40.2 0.80 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Left 53.9 0.67 D 64.6 0.84 E Queen Kaahumanu EB Through 30.2 0.47 C 41.4 0.84 D Queen Kaahumanu EB Right 25.8 0.10 C 28.1 0.23 C Queen Kaahumanu WB Left 50.6 0.51 D 51.3 0.56 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 44.3 0.85 D 42.4 0.80 D Queen Kaahumanu WB Right 35.0 0.51 D 31.4 0.26 C Henry NB Left 37.2 0.52 D 37.3 0.46 D Henry NB Left-Through 38.9 0.65 D 39.6 0.63 D Henry NB Right 32.2 0.04 C 33.2 0.03 C Henry SIB Left 43.4 0.79 D 44.6 0.82 D Henry SIB Left-Through-Right 38.0 0.78 D 37.2 0.77 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(N) (overall) 50.6 2.5 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 13.2 0.35 B 13.9 0.21 B Hualalai EB Left F 425.9 0.73 F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai(S) (overall) 13.1 4.6 Queen Kaahumanu SIB Left 14.8 0.21 B 12.8 0.14 B Hualalai WB Left 308.6 0.56 F 495.2 0.97 F Hualalai WB Right 168.4 1.14 F 34.3 0.43 E):::]Il delay exceeds 1,000 seconds per vehicle 53 Royal Vistas SSFM International Table 28: Future 2039 With Project Intersection Level of Service (continued) AM PM Intersection Delay(s) v/c LOS Delay(s) v/c LOS Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St(overall) 15.7 B 15.3 B Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 91.4 0.78 F 82.9 0.87 F Queen Kaahumanu WB Through 4.9 0.62 A 4.6 0.72 A Puapuaanui WB Left 65.6 0.81 E 84.3 0.77 F Puapuaanui WB Right 16.1 0.85 B 14.0 0.78 B Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kona Vista Rdwy(overall) 4.1 2.9 Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 10.9 0.04 B 12.5 0.15 B Kona Vista WB Left 190.1 0.70 F 375.9 0.69 F Kona Vista WB Right 30.1 0.46 D 29.9 0.34 D Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy(overall) 12.7 9.3 Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 52.8 0.98 F 16.1 0.49 C Kuakini EB Left F Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St(overall) 65.7 E 37.0 D Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 20.1 0.19 C 25.9 0.26 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 72.4 1.05 F 29.0 0.86 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 141.3 1.11 F 46.1 0.87 D Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 29.2 0.83 C 30.6 0.91 C Lako EB Left 109.6 1.04 F 85.9 0.87 F Lako EB Through-Right 42.1 0.19 D 55.7 0.19 E Lako WB Left 62.3 0.76 E 73.0 0.76 E Lako WB Through-Right 53.6 0.34 D 64.5 0.44 E Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kam III Rd (overall) 22.5 C 33.1 C Queen Kaahumanu NB Left 53.6 0.80 D 66.8 0.79 E Queen Kaahumanu NB Through 14.9 0.61 B 25.8 0.71 C Queen Kaahumanu SB Left 55.9 0.51 E 67.8 0.56 E Queen Kaahumanu SB Through 12.4 0.31 B 19.8 0.39 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 44.4 0.81 D 53.5 0.90 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 60.4 0.78 E 73.2 0.77 E delay exceeds 1,000 seconds per vehicle 3.2039 Traffic Signal Warrant Table 29 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis in 2039 with and without the project. The Traffic Signal Warrant analysis can be found in Appendix J. 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM and PM peak hour with and without the project. 54 Royal Vistas SSFM International 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM peak hour with and without the project. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant in the AM and PM peak hour with and without the project. Table 29: 2039 Peak-Hour Warrant Peak Hour Warrant 2039 Without Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 947 200 YES 1226 102 YES Hualalai (S) 1228 89 YES 1147 74 NO Kuakini 894 631 YES 1082 1 297 1 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2039 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 966 215 YES 1297 107 YES Hualalai (S) 1333 89 YES 1212 74 NO Kuakini 894 639 YES 1082 1 300 YES 4.2039 With Project Segment LOS Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Hualalai (north)to Lako Street. Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through- vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. Analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix I.The arterial LOS can be found in Table 30. This segment of Queen Kaahumanu Highway operates at LOS D in the northbound direction and LOS B in the southbound direction in the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, both directions operate at LOS C. The arterial LOS for the AM and PM peak hours satisfies the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding"acceptable level of service"for transportation facilities. Table 30: 2039 with Project Segment LOS Northbound Southbound Speed (mph) LOS Speed (mph) LOS AM Peak Hour 15.6 D 24.2 B PM Peak Hour 18.6 C 23.6 C 55 Royal Vistas SSFM International VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii (July 2014) includes improvements to Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road. Kuakini Highway will be widened by 2 travel lanes and include bicycle facilities and sidewalks.This project would have a significant impact on traffic operations. The installation of bike facilities and pedestrian facilities may lead to an increase in bicycle and pedestrian traffic, in which case bicycle and pedestrian safety will need to be further analyzed. Due to the difficulty of crossing a 4-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 MPH, stop-controlled intersections may need to be signalized or converted to roundabouts. Based on the existing traffic volumes and future projections of Royal Vistas on the surrounding roadways, the following system-wide intersection improvements are recommended for consideration by Hawaii County and HDOT: 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Palani Road Signal timing should be monitored and updated to ensure that left turn queues clear every cycle. 2. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Henry Street Signal timing should be monitored and updated to ensure that left turn queues clear every cycle. Henry Street approaches currently operate in split phases. Changing the split phasing to protected left turn phases on Henry Street will allow more green time on the major through movements, lowering the overall delay of the intersection. 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (North) Based on the 2019 traffic volumes, this intersection passes the Four-Hour warrant. This intersection passed the Peak-Hour warrant in the 2019 AM peak hour and for all peak hours in all future scenarios. Future traffic should be monitored, and a traffic signal or roundabout should be installed if needed, but priority should be given to keeping Queen Kaahumanu Highway traffic moving and not installing a traffic signal if not warranted by 4- or 8-hour warrants. The overall delay at this intersection is 41.0 and 50.6 seconds per vehicle in the 2039 AM peak hour, without and with the project, respectively. When the delay experienced by drivers reaches this level, the eastbound drivers are likely to find alternative routes. 4. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (South) As the westbound left turn delay gets worse, drivers may decide to use Puapuaanui Street to access Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the southbound direction. Based on the existing volumes, this intersection did not pass the Four-Hour warrant or the Peak-Hour warrant. This intersection did pass the Peak-Hour warrant for all future AM peak hour scenarios. Future traffic should be monitored. 5. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street Signal timing should be monitored and adjusted as needed to increase the probability that queues on Queen Kaahumanu Highway can clear the intersection in 1 cycle. 6. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas Roadway This intersection will function acceptably through the full Phase 1 buildout. Before any Phase 2 residences are occupied,it is recommended that the connection to Kekuanao'a Place is completed so that Royal Vistas Phase 2 'left out'traffic can access the Lako Street traffic signal. 7. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway 56 Royal Vistas SSFM International This intersection passes the Four-Hour warrant and Peak-Hour warrants during all peak hours for all scenarios. Future traffic should be monitored, and a traffic signal or roundabout should be installed if needed.The northbound left turn movement is very heavy(300-600 veh/hour by 2039 with project), which will be nearly at capacity. The westbound left turn, while small, is already over capacity in 2019 and will be far over capacity by 2039. Royal Vistas traffic has very little effect on this intersection. 8. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Lako Street The Lako Street intersection operates at LOS E/D(AM/PM)with or without the Royal Vistas project in the 2039 scenario. Lako Street currently has split phasing (sequential rather than concurrent) on the Lako Street approaches. Changing the phasing from split to protected left turns would help lower the delay. This intersection would also improve significantly if Queen Kaahumanu Highway is widened to 4 lanes as in the 2035 Transportation Plan. 9. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kamehameha III Road Signal timing should be monitored and updated as needed. Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Hualalai (north)to Lako Street. Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through- vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. This segment of Queen Kaahumanu Highway operates at LOS D or better for each scenario in the AM and PM peak hours. The arterial LOS satisfies the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding "acceptable level of service" for transportation facilities. 57 Royal Vistas SSFM International VII. REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 10th Edition:An ITE Informational Report, September 2017. Office of Environmental Quality Control. EA and EIS Online Library, Accessed July 2019. http://oegc.doh.hawaii.gov/default.aspx>. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Federal-Aid Functional Classification Update:Policy and Procedures, December 2012. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii, July 2014. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Historical Traffic Station Maps, 2016. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Historical Traffic Station Maps, 2015. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Historical Traffic Station Maps, 2014. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Historical Traffic Station Maps, 2013. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation.Statewide Transportation Improvements Program, Accessed July 2019. <http://hawaii.gov/dot/highways/STIP>. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation.Statewide Uniform Design Manual for Streets and Highways, 1980. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 61h Edition. 58 Appendix A 24-Hour and Peak Period Turn Movement Traffic Counts Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Palani Rd--Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972601 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 518 286 Peak-Hour:7:20 AM—8:20 AM 1.4 3.1 t Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM t t 1J 321 20 b L I * b L 1098 r 71 J 23 r 864 43 r 11.3 t 4.3 r 5.1 457 Q98 r 678 9 r r 5.5 746 218 ry ir 163 586 9.7 r 10.6 1 r 3.7 r 75 3.72; a:192 # F qq .}. y k'y + 0 2.8 702 544 aLi Ly Counts 5 2.2 DATA TRAT'rrNVES COMwrUNMIFS 1 0 0 0 J J } V LJ110 , q60 0 3 o 1 T 0 0 VA . NA NA y NA NA NA NA r 15-Min Count Palani Rd Palani Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:45 AM 48 18 28 0 7 57 28 0 17 76 31 0 48 175 2 0 535 7:00 AM 51 35 26 1 5 55 17 0 11 91 38 0 36 179 3 0 548 7:15 AM 51 39 27 0 4 78 33 1 20 122 38 0 41 157 1 0 612 7:30 AM 54 Si 26 0 8 91 38 0 13 131 1 58 0 40 163 11 0 684 2379 7:45 AM 63 55 28 0 1 80 49 0 23 102 59 0 45 144 7 0 656 2500 8:00 AM 68 39 29 0 7 70 51 0 12 111 53 0 44 184 3 0 671 2623 8:15 AM 58 34 27 0 5 61 29 0 22 129 51 0 38 223 5 0 682 2693 8:30 AM 1 55 48 35 0 8 69 28 0 25 136 75 0 61 187 4 0 731 1 2740 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 216 204 104 0 32 364 152 0 52 524 232 0 160 652 44 0 2736 Heavy Trucks 8 0 0 0 8 0 4 52 28 0 28 0 128 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:10 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Palani Rd--Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972602 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 471 582 Peak-Hour:3:45 PM—4:45 PM 1.5 1.7 r Peak 15-Min:3:45 PM--4:00 PM i t 107 31 `1L J * b L 944 r 260 R, 41 873 3.6 «2.7 1 i_2.4 r 3.4 877 Q98 609 2.6 r 4.4 1640.503 1 P 223 y 1175 2.1 r 1 r 0.9 r 2.2 2" 283 247F 1 t F.}, 0 1040 757 uaLity Counts 13 1.6 OgtA TFfA7 DAovE5 CLwh4uNmES 1 0 0 0 V LJ110o 1 1 L 1 0 rl 1 Z 1 1 1 o 0 0 NA NA j 16 r J 16 NA NA y NA NA w w 44 41 NA i F NAI I 15-Min Count Palani Rd Palani Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 66 67 66 0 10 102 35 1 52 189 93 0 54 184 18 0 937 3:15 PM 56 76 61 0 13 84 29 0 46 175 115 1 55 156 8 0 875 3:30 PM 77 61 59 0 15 94 27 0 53 193 114 0 52 158 4 0 907 3:45 PM 55 82 65 0 21 93 29 0 55 198 131 1 56 154 11 0 951 3670 4:00 PM 52 57 48 1 9 74 27 0 80 227 129 0 56 172 9 0 941 3674 4:15 PM 73 69 61 0 12 79 32 0 60 213 134 0 56 138 6 0 933 3732 4:30 PM 46 75 73 0 9 67 19 0 63 239 109 1 55 145 15 0 916 3741 4:45 PM 59 71 63 0 16 94 37 0 65 176 123 0 52 114 17 0 887 3677 5:00 PM 67 79 57 1 11 69 36 0 63 225 111 2 47 155 8 1 932 3668 5:15 PM 64 68 66 0 4 91 34 0 66 176 101 0 63 142 8 0 883 3618 5:30 PM 47 75 55 0 3 66 19 0 46 166 94 0 57 120 8 0 756 3458 5:45 PM 51 88 50 0 7 59 13 0 38 164 69 1 41 101 9 0 691 3262 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 220 328 260 0 84 372 116 0 220 792 524 4 224 616 44 0 3804 Heavy Trucks 16 0 4 0 8 0 12 20 8 0 44 0 112 Pedestrians 0 4 4 4 12 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:06 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Henry St--Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972603 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 825 912 Peak-Hour:7:20 AM—8:20 AM 3.9 3.8 Peak 15-Min:8:15 AM--8:30 AM t 124 339 362L I L4B4.4 3 J ; - U 870 r 107,r 467 1119 55 r 13.1 t 2.6 r 45 359 r 0.97 r 600 10.3 r r 5.8 590. 124 1 r 52 y 762 9.7 r 4.8 ry jr 5.8 r 6.7 qq aLi L 337 +2 nts+ t 515 525 y Comayu 4.7 3.6 DATA TRAT'rrNVES COMwrUNMIFS 0 1 0 0 I I J J } V L 0 J _ 16 1 4 3 0 r 1 0 f 0 2 2, 1 0 0 NANA J 16 • 1 L NA NA y i T r NA NA w NA f F A rI I 15-Min Count Henry St Henry St Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:45 AM 31 57 5 0 77 48 26 0 16 77 23 0 13 162 103 0 638 7:00 AM 32 40 13 0 109 69 20 0 19 86 16 0 7 170 89 0 670 7:15 AM 44 81 8 0 112 78 25 0 27 107 18 0 8 138 132 0 778 7:30 AM 24 81 7 0 78 68 35 0 32 105 40 0 14 160 124 0 768 2854 7:45 AM 34 82 7 0 82 93 31 1 23 79 27 0 14 142 110 0 725 2941 8:00 AM 40 83 15 0 86 85 26 0 27 93 30 0 15 165 117 0 782 3053 8:15 AM 1 50 81 12 0 89 77 37 0 25 97 37 0 19 184 86 0 794 1 3069 8:30 AM 46 68 14 0 84 63 40 0 45 90 35 0 16 163 91 0 755 3056 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 200 324 48 0 356 308 148 0 100 388 148 0 76 736 344 0 3176 Heavy Trucks 4 16 4 12 8 0 0 36 16 4 44 20 164 Pedestrians 0 0 12 4 16 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:10 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Henry St--Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972604 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 880 822 Peak-Hour:3:45 PM—4:45 PM 0.8 2.2 t Peak 15-Min:3:45 PM--4:00 PM t 190 42 348L I 1J * 0.9 L 4 r190_t fl.314 r 934 3.4 r4.7.1 i_1.9r 3.1 663 • Q98 r 548 23 r r 4.2 1144 291 ry jr 72 1045 2.2. 03 1 r 0 r 1.8 t 4- [- 3.21a:318 34 F t y.},+ 0.9 2.9 705 478 uaLity Counts 0.4 1.7 OgtA TPfA7DAm-5 CLwh4uNmE5 0 1 01 L Y 1 J 0 4 7 L 0 . 1 0 1 f 0 2, 1 ,F NANA 1 J * 4 J } 4 L J 16 + 16 NA NA y 1 I T r NA NA w 1 * NA r F NA 15-Min Count Henry St Henry St Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 43 74 9 0 91 93 61 0 48 148 51 0 8 152 85 0 863 3:15 PM 29 95 9 0 110 83 52 0 46 156 54 0 18 143 76 0 871 3:30 PM 42 85 20 0 84 73 41 0 56 156 58 0 29 145 82 0 871 3:45 PM 31 72 12 0 99 80 51 0 45 182 67 0 17 147 74 0 877 3482 4:00 PM 36 71 7 0 80 94 54 0 40 161 69 0 14 127 73 0 826 3445 4:15 PM 29 88 6 0 88 70 34 0 51 164 73 0 25 148 84 0 860 3434 4:30 PM 30 87 9 0 81 98 51 0 54 156 82 0 16 126 83 0 873 3436 4:45 PM 28 80 6 0 87 80 47 0 55 168 64 0 10 119 85 0 829 3388 5:00 PM 30 85 7 0 87 82 54 0 40 154 72 0 8 123 80 0 822 3384 5:15 PM 23 88 13 0 78 78 55 0 49 162 51 0 12 127 80 0 816 3340 5:30 PM 27 63 8 0 82 61 45 0 41 150 36 0 12 118 53 0 696 3163 5:45 PM 18 76 4 0 1 78 68 27 0 1 48 143 40 0 1 5 101 77 0 685 3019 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 124 288 48 0 396 320 204 0 180 728 268 0 68 588 296 0 3508 Heavy Trucks 8 0 0 4 4 0 4 12 0 0 36 0 68 Pedestrians 0 0 8 12 20 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:06 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Northern Most) 15039901 Kailua, HI r Thu,Aug 29 2019 806 1029 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM—8:00 AM 6 1.8 r Peak 15-Min:7:15 AM--7:30 AM r so 776 0 0 6.2 o 194 r 44 ,F t, 0 r 0 0 0 } 0 r 0 0 0 1 .. 0 0 92 y 48 7 0 y 0 0 r 0 0 r 0 164 985 r 1 F.}, 19 j 824 1149 uaLi y Counts 5.8 1.7 OgtA TFfAtDOvE5 CLwh4uNmEIS 0 0 1 0 J V L J1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Z r 0 o 1 0 0" 0' F- I ' NANALJ 4 J R - J L NA NA t NA r NA y 1 C y w w 4r NA r NA r 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 28 239 0 0 0 190 4 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 472 7:15 AM 36 263 0 0 0 212 11 0 9 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 549 7:30 AM 32 260 0 0 0 198 8 0 24 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 536 7:45 AM 68 223 0 0 0 176 7 0 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 490 2047 8:00 AM 38 229 0 0 0 164 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 442 2017 8:15 AM 36 232 0 0 0 168 3 0 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 454 1922 8:30 AM 34 231 0 1 0 178 1 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 462 1848 8:45 AM 37 254 0 0 0 182 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 487 1845 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 144 1052 0 0 0 848 44 0 36 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 2196 Heavy Trucks 0 24 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Northern Most)QCJOB#: 15039902 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1022 933 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM—4:00 PM 1.4 3.6 r L170 Peak 15-Min:3:30 PM--3:45 PM I 5.9 13 f01005 J ; k. J 4 4 101 r 10 J t. 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 r o97 r 0 ilk.. 0 r 0 80 70 ry r 0 • 0 0 . 0 f 0 4 0 84 923 # F 1 t Fey.}, 4 3.7 r 1075 1007 uaLity Counts 1.2 3.4 OgtA TFfA7URovE5 CCwh4uNmES 0 0 0 0 J V L J 1 q60 o , ro i r o F-IF010 NANAL1 # 4 J t j IL NA NA NA r NA y y f NA F A r 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 3:00 PM 27 219 0 0 0 247 5 0 3 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 525 3:15 PM 9 227 0 0 0 259 4 0 4 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 521 3:30 PM 22 261 0 0 0 242 3 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 546 3:45 PM 26 216 0 0 0 257 5 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 517 2109 4:00 PM 14 205 0 0 0 268 4 0 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 523 2107 4:15 PM 22 221 0 0 0 226 4 0 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 499 2085 4:30 PM 14 198 0 0 0 200 2 0 5 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 440 1979 4:45 PM 24 218 0 0 0 232 1 0 5 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 507 1969 5:00 PM 12 178 0 0 0 257 6 0 3 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 486 1932 5:15 PM 17 209 0 0 0 252 2 0 4 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 513 1946 5:30 PM 16 195 0 0 0 225 3 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 450 1956 5:45 PM 13 141 0 0 0 252 3 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 425 1874 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 88 1044 0 0 0 968 12 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 2184 Heavy Trucks 0 56 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad PC, pped Busesmments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Southern Most)QCJOB#: 15039911 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 821 1149 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM—8:00 AM 5 1.6 r Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM 0 ' L07487304.9 5.5 1 ;P v 0 r 0 j t 140 , 149 0 r 0 1.4 . 13 0 093 a- 0 ilk.. 0 r 0 0 0 ry r 9 . 85 0 0 f 0 r 7.1 1006 15 F 1 t F.}, 4 6 +3 757 1021 uaLity Counts 4.9 1.8 OgtA TFfAtDOvE5 CLwh4uNmEIS 0 0 1 1 I J J[ V L Y 0 , 16 1 0 Y, 0 0 r 0 0 r0 I 'F NANAL L J t, IL NA NA NA r NA r y r NA A F r 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 7:00 AM 0 241 3 0 9 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 448 7:15 AM 0 267 3 0 23 191 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 0 523 7:30 AM 0 267 8 0 23 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 37 0 535 7:45 AM 0 231 1 0 15 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 56 0 485 1991 8:00 AM 0 239 0 0 5 172 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 439 1982 8:15 AM 0 260 1 0 5 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 452 1911 8:30 AM 0 249 1 0 5 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 0 466 1842 8:45 AM 0 282 0 0 11 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 481 1838 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 1068 32 0 92 772 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 148 0 2140 Heavy Trucks 0 4 4 8 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 52 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Southern Most)QCJOB#: 15039912 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1076 ion Peak-Hour:3:00 PM—4:00 PM 1.9 3 I ; r Peak 15-Min:3:00 PM--3:15 PM I * t J O 115 1 J 2 j * v 0 r 0 t 71 « 85 0 r 0 1.4 r 2.4 0 r o97 r 0 ilk.. 0 r OAP w 0 0 r 0 ry 4r 14 y 63 0 0 r 7.1 r 7.9 910 4 F 1 Fey.}, t 1029 944 uaLity Counts 1.6 3.1 09tA 1r-MtUROVE5 CQr h4UNME'S 0 0 0 0 I V L Y 0 , 16 0 0 0 0 r t 0 0 , r 0 0 o 0 0 J NANAL4II * 4 L r t, j IL NA NA NA r NA r y I NA A F r 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 0 242 0 0 14 258 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 21 0 541 3:15 PM 0 217 2 0 17 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 0 519 3:30 PM 0 259 1 0 14 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 0 540 3:45 PM 0 222 1 0 14 245 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 18 0 505 2105 4:00 PM 0 202 0 0 25 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 511 2075 4:15 PM 0 242 1 0 10 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 505 2061 4:30 PM 0 207 2 0 14 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 441 1962 4:45 PM 0 213 5 0 15 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 497 1954 5:00 PM 0 199 1 0 18 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 495 1938 5:15 PM 0 205 0 0 25 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 0 503 1936 5:30 PM 0 198 1 0 6 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 458 1953 5:45 PM 0 163 1 0 7 247 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 421 1 1877 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 968 0 0 56 1032 0 4 0 0 0 0 20 0 84 0 2164 Heavy Trucks 0 12 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- PuapuaanuiSt QCJOB#: 15039905 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 761 1038 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM—8:00 AM 4.7 23 t Peak 15-Min:7:15 AM--7:30 AM t i r 4 r 0 r 0 t f6. 185 r 272 0 r 0 1.6 1.1 0 r a;. r 0 0 r OAP 0 0 r 0 ry jr 87 67 0 0 4r 0 r 15 805 977 uaLity Counts 43 2.4 09tA 1r4AtDAOVE5 CCWh4UNME'S 0 1 0 J # 4 1 0 J 16 0 0Y,0 0 . t 0 0 , f 0 I 'F NANAL r 16 + 16 NA r NA NA r NA r y l NA F A r 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Puapuaanui St Puapuaanui St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 7:00 AM 0 224 5 0 12 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 27 0 450 7:15 AM 0 246 3 0 8 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 48 0 509 7:30 AM 0 209 4 0 12 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 48 0 489 7:45 AM 0 174 12 0 11 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 62 0 462 1910 8:00 AM 0 218 10 0 9 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 39 0 459 1919 8:15 AM 0 213 15 0 19 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 30 0 440 1850 8:30 AM 0 220 11 0 16 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 31 0 468 1829 8:45 AM 0 245 11 0 14 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 23 0 469 1836 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 984 12 0 32 736 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 192 0 2036 Heavy Trucks 0 20 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 52 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- PuapuaanuiSt QCJOB#: 15039906 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1038 932 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM—4:00 PM 1.4 3 t Peak 15-Min:3:30 PM--3:45 PM tI -P U I - * U 0 • 0 J L 107 r 141 0 r 0 t 4.7 r 35 0 y Q97 r 0 0 r r 0 0 y 0 1 r 34 180 0 0 1 jr0 r 1.1 0 1*1 4r8 a:0 2.8 4.2 940 973 uaLity Counts 1.6 2.9 09tA 1r4AtDAOVE5 CCWh4UNME'S o 0 0 J # 4 1 0 J 16 0 0Y,1 0 . t 0 0 , r 0 0 o 0 O F NANALJ * 4 I J * 4 L J 16 + J lilwr 16NA r NA 1I NA r • r NA r y r NA F NA 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Puapuaanui St Puapuaanui St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 0 199 14 0 37 231 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 23 0 511 3:15 PM 0 205 14 0 27 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 23 0 524 3:30 PM 0 230 12 0 37 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 27 0 528 3:45 PM 0 191 8 0 31 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 34 0 489 2052 4:00 PM 0 192 7 0 34 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 16 0 496 2037 4:15 PM 0 207 15 0 38 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 35 0 515 2028 4:30 PM 0 187 10 0 22 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 427 1927 4:45 PM 0 208 15 0 30 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 29 0 512 1950 5:00 PM 0 159 7 0 49 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 17 0 454 1908 5:15 PM 0 195 11 0 36 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 23 0 491 1884 5:30 PM 0 177 16 0 24 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 22 0 469 1926 5:45 PM 0 131 8 0 29 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 23 0 419 1 1833 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 920 48 0 148 852 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 108 0 2112 Heavy Trucks 0 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 44 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 2 , o ::, ,, r n r f 0 ; a:s:lp / !P.oP.o, J,e R : 2 , &,!®, r :&@ o— .— f » w 2 L 3 ` r IWW F 00000000CL i mo I e X- rD i[ ====____§ 7 / w Q o 0 rt 0 GG\\Gwo\\} 8 ILq 2 2 @;—;:p fƒ ,,,,,,, »y{ ate ;\ 1j { JL —1\ J 00m ____====(k- mf \ f K(§\E 7 4 & 4 1p W-1 f e » ::, r n r f 11 T 5- ,,,,,,—www , o : 2 , ; ,I, _ ;:;e;:;e;:;e J r ! 7\ \\\\\\\\\\\\ { f/ 31L4,4\` Wow— \ ! y.I 7{\}r!\\ CL 0 0 I LO 00i [ ____________ M d I 4 o w:, :ww, ¥{( k \wG:\\\G®&2\\\} 8 ILq I z z E<a2E \ ow—! , 'a=>;t&&&e% ;\ 6 \ 2 ( ====____====(k r- :. p : r f 3EE / 2 ! fF \ ^ \ \j \ y§\/2§§\± 00 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy--Lako St QC JOB#: 15039907 CITY/STATE: Holualoa, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 913 1310 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM—8:00 AM 3.6 15 Peak 15-Min:7:45 AM--8:00 AM f t 125 17 141 2.4 3.4 5.7 194 r 251 267 r 372 1.5 2 J I_1.9 r 1.9 48 • Q94 r 36 2.1 r 0 368. 69 1 r 69 . 244 1.9 r 1.4 r 2.9 r 45 F785uaLityCounts3.2 1.3 OgtA TFfA7 DAovE5 CLwh4uNmES 1 0 0 0 J V L Y 1 Y 1 , 0 0 Z r 0 1 F NANAIJ 4 L r I + 1 16NA r NA q P 1I 1I q P NA r E-9 NA NA F k NA r 15-Min Count Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Hwy Lako St Lako St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 7:00 AM 13 221 15 0 34 152 28 0 41 4 13 0 9 6 53 0 589 7:15 AM 8 188 14 0 36 154 35 0 66 9 21 0 17 7 61 0 616 7:30 AM 6 202 15 0 34 171 36 0 67 11 19 0 16 10 67 0 654 7:45 AM 6 181 11 0 37 170 26 0 77 24 16 0 27 13 86 0 674 2533 8:00 AM 3 206 17 0 37 145 24 0 55 18 11 0 13 7 65 0 601 2545 8:15 AM 6 219 12 0 19 165 16 0 44 6 6 0 14 12 51 0 570 2499 8:30 AM 4 220 16 0 30 180 22 0 42 9 10 0 15 6 70 0 624 2469 8:45 AM 1 9 216 20 0 36 150 28 0 35 10 9 0 13 8 64 0 598 1 2393 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 24 724 44 0 148 680 104 0 308 96 64 0 108 52 344 0 2696 Heavy Trucks 0 8 4 16 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 80 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy--Lako St QC JOB#: 15039908 CITY/STATE: Holualoa, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1228 1074 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM—4:00 PM 1.2 3.6 t t Peak 15-Min:3:15 PM--3:30 PM 170 877 181 0.6 0.9 3.3 j 4 r 4 k' 246 r 127 , 193 r 294 1.6 r 3.9, i,4.7 . 4.1 30 • Q96 r 39 0 r 5.1 205. 48 ry ir 62 . 275 2.9 2.1 ry f 1.6 r 25 F997855uaLityCounts13.2 09tA 1r4AtDAOVE5 CCWh4UNME'S 0 0 0 0 J V LJ1q60 0 , r 0 0 o 0 0 NANA J * 4 1 # 4 L J 16 NA r NA NA r NA NA F A r 15-Min Count Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Hwy Lako St Lako St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 13 190 20 0 42 216 38 0 27 5 10 0 23 9 51 0 644 3:15 PM 7 192 18 0 51 243 45 0 28 8 14 0 12 9 46 0 673 3:30 PM 12 196 17 0 41 211 41 0 39 8 7 0 16 11 63 0 662 3:45 PM 5 176 9 0 47 207 46 0 33 9 17 0 11 10 33 0 603 2582 4:00 PM 13 181 12 0 57 220 33 0 33 10 12 0 17 8 35 0 631 2569 4:15 PM 19 201 22 0 51 223 60 0 25 9 14 0 21 11 43 0 699 2595 4:30 PM 10 177 20 0 42 202 39 0 31 10 7 0 20 8 41 0 607 2540 4:45 PM 12 199 22 0 52 240 41 0 30 10 7 0 18 8 36 0 675 2612 5:00 PM 10 168 20 0 30 225 57 0 31 6 8 0 7 8 39 0 609 2590 5:15 PM 12 177 13 0 55 242 53 0 28 11 13 0 10 10 34 0 658 2549 5:30 PM 6 167 9 0 60 209 44 0 20 11 6 0 11 11 38 0 592 2534 5:45 PM 5 136 12 0 32 215 50 0 28 15 10 0 13 7 23 0 546 2405 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 28 768 72 0 204 972 180 0 112 32 56 0 48 36 184 0 2692 Heavy Trucks 0 16 0 4 8 0 16 0 0 0 0 12 56 Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 2 , o ::, ,, r n r f 0 ; a:s:lp / !P.oP.o, J,e R : 2 , &,!®, r :&@ o— .— 7_7 ££££££££ #m M- ` www E, 7 a t & ,w„ k , m E= z r m- m, rr- « \) 4f7\ ! ^ y \ ai( Gw„G,=,\\}F o a 00000000 a J 0 = 7 a\ i ( rD i/ rD i}{/ @ ° I —W ,ww \2 \ T;t26; 5 ® f fƒ :gw-- f/{ P.L10 i I !\ . ' } ! R \m m- r, r @2 100 §} \ w I ID§ / 0 roD 11m 5- n AAWW M.'3 oon000 nam 02 J • J a a xm O p .x N N N W N O W W A In V In .x L_ N N Z N 1 C • x m NO o00A C oz I-+W lnA W I-+ln I- M-ow C 0 • 1 C • W S O CO AO N F O C 000000000 C0Qx d° C -N N d O 0M- m W-0-0--OD A 0000 C --ow-- C g I II CL crDQ c Q 3 wT 1 I r d fD O Oa S O O N S a N A N N A W l n A N l n l n N S byrt r o C 000000000000 C rt A W O 0'. m O p OONN y AONO A W N IF+NAN y A AACpal-+p W In I-+AA NNOIO C y 7 G O O m N O O AO O. AN lVn00 ONA W ONO a 4 0 n 0 c 00000 OOOOOOOC on n m O O A W N W W N W V W A lNn N fD 5 NN NNN NNN •C^= N N C OO W NWp N VNW AlWO IU+W S fCD y t n O ow 00 J I-+OI-+I-+NNAN WAW W m J D O Mo C 000000000000 C C N1 o C o• .a^', W m 1 T r 1 t r 1 4 r D?k OOW W O 0V l0n O N A N V W W O ID CY) 0WNLU 0 O5 4 N Traffic Data Service y Traffic Station Sketch N Island:Hawaii Area:Kona Section ID/Station#:B71001112038 Hualalai Road D2 4 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy D1 10 1 Nani Kailua Dr Meter# File Name GPS 1. bw67 D0910037_B71001112038 19.63455,-155.9779 2. D0910038 B71001112038 Station Description: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy: Hualalai Road to Nani Kailua Dr Survey Beginning Date/Time: Survey Ending Date/Time: 9/10/15@ 0000 9/11/15@ 2400 Survey Method: Road Tube Data Type: Class Survey Crew: LM C 1 B Sketch Updated: By: SR Remarks: 1302 FACILITY NAME JURI FUNC AREA ROUTE CLASS TYPE NO. MILE Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 14 0110 DI=Direction to End DI:Nani Kailua Dr/Palani Rd(Rte 190) D2=Direction to Begin D2:Hualalai Road/Kamehameha Ave(Rte 19) Run Date:2016/05/18 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section 2015 Program Count-Summary Site ID:B71001112038 Town: Hawaii DIR 1:+MP DIR 2:-MP Final AADT: 25900 Functional Class:URBAN:PRINCI PAL ARTERIAL-OTHER Count Type:CLASS Counter Type:Tube Route No: 11 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL DATE: 09/10/2015 12:00-12:15 20 18 38 06,00-06,15 62 184 246 12:00-12:15 203 233 436 06,00-06,15 240 193 433 12:15-12:30 17 5 22 06,15-06,30 95 223 318 12:15-12:30 226 228 454 06,15-06,30 235 168 403 12:30-12:45 19 7 26 06:30-06:45 108 276 384 12:30-12:45 229 244 473 06:30-06:45 226 175 401 12:45-01:00 15 11 26 06:45-07:00 121 284 405 12:45-01:00 217 275 492 06:45-07:00 211 161 372 01,00-01,15 12 3 15 07:00-07:15 168 242 410 01,00-01,15 211 248 459 07:00-07:15 201 129 330 01,15-01,30 8 9 17 07:15-07:30 233 279 512 01,15-01,30 225 213 438 07:15-07:30 177 98 275 01:30-01:45 8 6 14 07:30-07:45 190 278 468 01:30-01:45 217 209 426 07:30-07:45 172 82 254 01:45-02:00 8 11 19 07:45-08:00 184 263 447 01:45-02:00 256 264 520 07:45-08:00 137 78 215 02:00-02:15 6 4 10 08,00-08,15 157 298 455 02:00-02:15 248 254 502 08,00-08,15 134 113 247 02:15-02:30 9 3 12 08,15-08,30 172 273 445 02:15-02:30 254 267 521 08,15-08,30 119 69 188 02:30-02:45 4 4 8 08:30-08:45 136 274 410 02:30-02:45 243 238 481 08:30-08:45 131 77 208 02:45-03:00 4 6 10 08:45-09:00 155 278 433 02:45-03:00 259 271 530 08:45-09:00 93 75 168 03,00-03,15 2 9 11 09,00-09,15 170 229 399 03,00-03,15 261 225 486 09,00-09,15 108 70 178 03,15-03,30 4 8 12 09,15-09,30 153 254 407 03,15-03,30 262 253 515 09,15-09,30 111 55 166 03:30-03:45 8 10 18 09:30-09:45 187 227 414 03:30-03:45 237 239 476 09:30-09:45 108 52 160 03:45-04:00 4 24 28 09:45-10:00 175 273 448 03:45-04:00 244 270 514 09:45-10:00 106 47 153 04:00-04:15 4 23 27 10,00-10,15 162 256 418 04:00-04:15 222 240 462 10,00-10,15 92 41 133 04:15-04:30 12 33 45 10,15-10,30 178 266 444 04:15-04:30 226 248 474 10,15-10,30 93 54 147 04:30-04:45 6 39 45 10:30-10:45 188 263 451 04:30-04:45 249 252 501 10:30-10:45 81 44 125 04:45-05:00 14 69 83 10:45-11:00 202 277 479 04:45-05:00 259 237 496 10:45-11:00 66 39 105 05,00-05,15 14 62 76 11,00-11,15 197 216 413 05,00-05,15 252 194 446 11,00-11,15 61 27 88 05,15-05,30 23 97 120 11,15-11,30 203 197 400 05,15-05,30 233 222 455 11,15-11,30 53 29 82 05:30-05:45 37 127 164 11:30-11:45 210 222 432 05:30-05:45 217 176 393 11:30-11:45 40 24 64 05:45-06:00 40 152 192 11:45-12:00 242 207 449 05:45-06:00 223 196 419 11:45-12:00 37 14 51 AM COMMUTER PERIOD(05:00-09:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 PM COMMUTER PERIOD(15:00-19:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,15 AM to 08,15 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 03,00 PM to 04,00 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 764 1118 1882 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1004 987 1991 AM-K FACTOR(%) 6.86 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.26 AM-D(%) 40.60 59.40 100.00 PM-D(%) 50.43 49.57 100.00 DIRECTIONAL PEAK DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM 08:00 AM to 09,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 03,00 PM to 04,00 PM 03,45 PM to 04,45 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 775 1123 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1004 1010 AM PERIOD(00:00-12:00) PM PERIOD(12:00-24:00) TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,15 AM to 08,15 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 764 1118 1882 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1004 1030 2034 AM-K FACTOR(%) 6.86 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.41 AM-D(%) 40.60 59.40 100.00 PM-D(%) 49.36 50.64 100.00 NON-COMMUTER PERIOD(09:00-15:00) 6-HR,12-HR,24-HR PERIODS DIR 1 DIR 2 Total TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM 6-HR PERIOD(06:00-12:00) 4,048 6,039 10,087 PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM AM 12-HR PERIOD(00:00-12:00)4,346 6,779 11,125 PEAK HR VOLUME 1004 1030 2034 PM 6-HR PERIOD(12:00-18:00) 5,673 5,696 11,369 DIRECTIONAL PEAK PM 12-HR PERIOD(12:00-24:00)8,705 7,610 16,315 PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM 10:00 AM to 11,00 AM 24 HOUR PERIOD 13,051 14,389 27,440 PEAK HR VOLUME 1004 1062 D(%) 47.56 52.44 100.00 Run Date:2016/05/18 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section 2015 Program Count-Summary Site ID:B71001112038 Town: Hawaii DIR 1:+MP DIR 2:-MP Final AADT: 25900 Functional Class:URBAN:PRINCI PAL ARTERIAL-OTHER Count Type:CLASS Counter Type:Tube Route No: 11 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL DATE: 09/11/2015 12:00-12:15 17 6 23 06,00-06,15 69 181 250 12:00-12:15 191 203 394 06,00-06,15 220 159 379 1215-12:30 10 9 19 06,15-06,30 88 220 308 1215-12:30 194 214 408 06,15-06,30 204 143 347 12:30-12:45 9 7 16 06:30-06:45 102 254 356 12:30-12:45 218 190 408 06:30-06:45 162 122 284 12:45-01:00 8 5 13 06:45-07:00 136 271 407 12:45-01:00 214 209 423 06:45-07:00 176 130 306 01,00-01,15 7 2 9 07:00-07:15 174 263 437 01,00-01,15 210 202 412 07:00-07:15 173 133 306 01,15-01,30 5 4 9 07:15-07:30 214 287 501 01,15-01,30 230 209 439 07:15-07:30 155 106 261 01:30-01:45 3 2 5 07:30-07:45 195 299 494 01:30-01:45 231 208 439 07:30-07:45 151 87 238 01:45-02:00 2 5 7 07:45-08:00 174 258 432 01:45-02:00 242 192 434 07:45-08:00 139 102 241 02:00-02:15 1 7 8 08,00-08,15 154 280 434 02:00-02:15 210 203 413 08,00-08,15 131 71 202 02:15-02:30 6 5 11 08,15-08,30 188 276 464 02:15-02:30 241 227 468 08,15-08,30 132 72 204 02:30-02:45 4 6 10 08:30-08:45 161 242 403 02:30-02:45 241 229 470 08:30-08:45 145 64 209 02:45-03:00 11 2 13 08:45-09:00 168 237 405 02:45-03:00 230 260 490 08:45-09:00 131 88 219 03,00-03,15 9 10 19 09,00-09,15 196 242 438 03,00-03,15 218 260 478 09,00-09,15 110 54 164 03,15-03,30 5 10 15 09,15-09,30 151 234 385 03,15-03,30 224 265 489 09,15-09,30 97 57 154 03:30-03:45 7 21 28 09:30-09:45 185 264 449 03:30-03:45 220 254 474 09:30-09:45 82 66 148 03:45-04:00 1 18 19 09:45-10:00 170 261 431 03:45-04:00 190 223 413 09:45-10:00 89 30 119 04:00-04:15 7 19 26 10,00-10,15 156 249 405 04:00-04:15 195 218 413 10,00-10,15 74 51 125 04:15-04:30 2 27 29 10,15-10,30 176 267 443 04:15-04:30 219 256 475 10,15-10,30 62 39 101 04:30-04:45 15 45 60 10:30-10:45 168 257 425 04:30-04:45 239 228 467 10:30-10:45 66 39 105 04:45-05:00 12 66 78 10:45-11:00 206 246 452 04:45-05:00 257 249 506 10:45-11:00 51 26 77 05,00-05,15 10 68 78 11,00-11,15 164 243 407 05,00-05,15 253 229 482 11,00-11,15 46 38 84 05,15-05,30 23 102 125 11,15-11,30 204 249 453 05,15-05,30 248 190 438 11,15-11,30 28 26 54 05:30-05:45 33 130 163 11:30-11:45 230 235 465 05:30-05:45 250 199 449 11:30-11:45 30 26 56 05:45-06:00 39 161 200 11:45-12:00 191 230 421 05:45-06:00 215 175 390 11:45-12:00 30 26 56 AM COMMUTER PERIOD(05:00-09:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 PM COMMUTER PERIOD(15:00-19:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 04,15 PM to 05,15 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 757 1107 1864 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 968 962 1930 AM-K FACTOR(%) 7.13 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.38 AM-D(%) 40.61 59.39 100.00 PM-D(%) 50.16 49.84 100.00 DIRECTIONAL PEAK DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM 07:15 AM to 08,15 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 04,45 PM to 05,45 PM 03,00 PM to 04,00 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 757 1124 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1008 1002 AM PERIOD(00:00-12:00) PM PERIOD(12:00-24:00) TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 02,45 PM to 03,45 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 757 1107 1864 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 892 1039 1931 AM-K FACTOR(%) 7.13 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.38 AM-D(%) 40.61 59.39 100.00 PM-D(%) 46.19 53.81 100.00 NON-COMMUTER PERIOD(09:00-15:00) 6-HR,12-HR,24-HR PERIODS DIR 1 DIR 2 Total TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM 6-HR PERIOD(06:00-12:00) 4,020 6,045 10,065 PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM AM 12-HR PERIOD(00:00-12:00)4,266 6,782 11,048 PEAK HR VOLUME 922 919 1841 PM 6-HR PERIOD(12:00-18:00) 5,380 5,292 10,672 DIRECTIONAL PEAK PM 12-HR PERIOD(12:00-24:00)8,064 7,047 15,111 PEAK HR TIME 01,45 PM to 02,45 PM 09:30 AM to 10,30 AM 24 HOUR PERIOD 12,330 13,829 26,159 PEAK HR VOLUME 934 1041 D(%) 47.13 52.87 100.00 Run Date: 2016/05/19 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section Vehicle Classification Data Summary 2015 Site ID: B71001112038 Route No: 11 Date From: 2015/09/10 0:00 Town: Hawaii Direction: +MP Date To: 2015/09/11 23:45 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr Functional Classification: 14 URBAN:PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-OTHER REPORT TOTALS-48 HOURS RECORDED VOLUME NUMBER OF AXLES Cycles 263 0.49% 525 PC 45148 84.23% 90296 2A-4T 7438 13.88% 14876 LIGHT VEHICLE TOTALS 52849 98.60% 105697 HEAVY VEHICLES Bus 85 0.16%213 SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 2A-6T 96 0.18% 192 3A-SU 164 0.31%492 4A-SU 29 0.05% 116 SINGLE-TRAILER TRUCKS 4A-ST 266 0.50% 1064 5A-ST 50 0.09%250 6A-ST 30 0.06%180 MULTI-TRAILER TRUCKS 5A-MT 12 0.02% 60 6A-MT 1 0.00% 6 7A-MT 15 0.03%105 HEAVY VEHICLE TOTALS 748 1.40% 2678 CLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 53597(A) 100.00% 108375 (B) UNCLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 2 0.00% AXLE CORRECTION ROADTUBE A/C - EQUIVALENT(B/2)= 54187 (C)FACTOR A/C)- 0.989 TOTAL HPMS PEAK HOUR PEAK PEAK 24 HOUR K-FACTOR VOLUME : 2034 HOUR HOUR TRUCK OF (PEAK/AADT) TRUCK VOLUME VOLUME AADT AADT (ITEM 66) 2015/09/1014:00 VOLUME SINGLE UNIT 65A-1) 65A-2) TRUCKS(TYPE 4-7) 10 0.49% 187 0.72% 7.85% COMBINATION 65B-1) 25900 ( 6513-2) TYPE 8-13) 10 0.49% 187 0.72% 7.85% Traffic Data Service Traffic Station Sketch N Island:Hawaii Area:Kona Section ID/Station#: B71 001 1 1 2038 Hualalai Road D2 4 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Di 10 1 Nani Kailua Dr Meter# File Name GPS 1. bw67 D0503007_B71001112038 19.63455, -155.9779 2. D0503008_1371001112038 Station Description: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy: Hualalai Road to Nani Kailua Dr Survey Beginning Date/Time: Survey Ending Date/Time: 5/3/16 @ 0000 5/4/16 @ 2400 Survey Method: Road Tube Data Type: Class Survey Crew: LM C1B Sketch Updated:By: SR Remarks: 1302 FACILITY NAME JURI FUNC AREA ROUTE CLASS TYPE NO.MILE Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11 0110 D 1=Direction to End D 1: Nani Kailua Dr/Palani Rd(Rte 190) D2=Direction to Begin D2: Hualalai Road /Kamehameha Ave(Rte 19) Run Date:2017/08/08 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section 2016 Program Count-Summary Site ID:B71001112038 Town: Hawaii DIR 1:+MP DIR 2:-MP Final AADT: 25800 Functional Class:URBAN:PRINCI PAL ARTERIAL-OTHER Count Type:CLASS Counter Type:Tube Route No: 11 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL DATE: 05/03/2016 12:00-12:15 19 5 24 06,00-06,15 69 205 274 12:00-12:15 212 188 400 06,00-06,15 194 131 325 1215-12:30 16 3 19 06,15-06,30 79 226 305 1215-12:30 220 202 422 06,15-06,30 229 127 356 12:30-12:45 14 5 19 06:30-06:45 117 292 409 12:30-12:45 215 200 415 06:30-06:45 178 138 316 12:45-01:00 7 7 14 06:45-07:00 140 242 382 12:45-01:00 214 205 419 06:45-07:00 184 127 311 01,00-01,15 6 4 10 07:00-07:15 180 270 450 01,00-01,15 234 188 422 07:00-07:15 153 109 262 01,15-01,30 4 2 6 07:15-07:30 211 252 463 01,15-01,30 210 174 384 07:15-07:30 151 106 257 01:30-01:45 9 3 12 07:30-07:45 197 261 458 01:30-01:45 233 191 424 07:30-07:45 168 102 270 01:45-02:00 7 5 12 07:45-08:00 180 262 442 01:45-02:00 225 213 438 07:45-08:00 149 69 218 02:00-02:15 4 6 10 08,00-08,15 144 267 411 02:00-02:15 246 224 470 08,00-08,15 114 69 183 02:15-02:30 7 5 12 08,15-08,30 154 262 416 02:15-02:30 239 217 456 08,15-08,30 111 76 187 02:30-02:45 3 5 8 08:30-08:45 163 258 421 02:30-02:45 245 213 458 08:30-08:45 132 64 196 02:45-03:00 4 5 9 08:45-09:00 149 267 416 02:45-03:00 233 291 524 08:45-09:00 104 55 159 03,00-03,15 5 8 13 09,00-09,15 142 253 395 03,00-03,15 223 260 483 09,00-09,15 95 53 148 03,15-03,30 5 11 16 09,15-09,30 178 230 408 03,15-03,30 258 228 486 09,15-09,30 95 43 138 03:30-03:45 5 17 22 09:30-09:45 179 266 445 03:30-03:45 235 258 493 09:30-09:45 83 52 135 03:45-04:00 6 20 26 09:45-10:00 163 210 373 03:45-04:00 262 246 508 09:45-10:00 103 41 144 04:00-04:15 7 19 26 10,00-10,15 171 198 369 04:00-04:15 249 246 495 10,00-10,15 76 35 111 04:15-04:30 6 27 33 10,15-10,30 161 213 374 04:15-04:30 239 229 468 10,15-10,30 66 35 101 04:30-04:45 6 49 55 10:30-10:45 157 216 373 04:30-04:45 278 209 487 10:30-10:45 46 39 85 04:45-05:00 13 56 69 10:45-11:00 195 198 393 04:45-05:00 236 213 449 10:45-11:00 51 20 71 05,00-05,15 23 73 96 11,00-11,15 214 206 420 05,00-05,15 245 179 424 11,00-11,15 47 23 70 05,15-05,30 26 73 99 11,15-11,30 195 201 396 05,15-05,30 251 166 417 11,15-11,30 58 14 72 05:30-05:45 41 140 181 11:30-11:45 198 243 441 05:30-05:45 260 178 438 11:30-11:45 27 15 42 05:45-06:00 54 180 234 11:45-12:00 187 182 369 05:45-06:00 228 174 402 11:45-12:00 21 9 30 AM COMMUTER PERIOD(05:00-09:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 PM COMMUTER PERIOD(15:00-19:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 03,15 PM to 04,15 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 768 1045 1813 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1004 978 1982 AM-K FACTOR(%) 7.08 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.74 AM-D(%) 42.36 57.64 100.00 PM-D(%) 50.66 49.34 100.00 DIRECTIONAL PEAK DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM 06,30 AM to 07,30 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 03,45 PM to 04,45 PM 03,00 PM to 04,00 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 768 1056 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1028 992 AM PERIOD(00:00-12:00) PM PERIOD(12:00-24:00) TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 02,45 PM to 03,45 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 768 1045 1813 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 949 1037 1986 AM-K FACTOR(%) 7.08 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.76 AM-D(%) 42.36 57.64 100.00 PM-D(%) 47.78 52.22 100.00 NON-COMMUTER PERIOD(09:00-15:00) 6-HR,12-HR,24-HR PERIODS DIR 1 DIR 2 Total TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM 6-HR PERIOD(06:00-12:00) 3,923 5,680 9,603 PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM AM 12-HR PERIOD(00:00-12:00)4,220 6,408 10,628 PEAK HR VOLUME 963 945 1908 PM 6-HR PERIOD(12:00-18:00) 5,690 5,092 10,782 DIRECTIONAL PEAK PM 12-HR PERIOD(12:00-24:00)8,325 6,644 14,969 PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM 09,00 AM to 10,00 AM 24 HOUR PERIOD 12,545 13,052 25,597 PEAK HR VOLUME 963 959 D(%) 49.01 50.99 100.00 Run Date:2017/08/08 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section 2016 Program Count-Summary Site ID:B71001112038 Town: Hawaii DIR 1:+MP DIR 2:-MP Final AADT: 25800 Functional Class:URBAN:PRINCI PAL ARTERIAL-OTHER Count Type:CLASS Counter Type:Tube Route No: 11 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-PM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL DATE: 05/04/2016 12:00-12:15 13 2 15 06,00-06,15 63 185 248 12:00-12:15 241 185 426 06,00-06,15 209 143 352 1215-12:30 12 8 20 06,15-06,30 97 255 352 1215-12:30 253 224 477 06,15-06,30 200 169 369 12:30-12:45 9 4 13 06:30-06:45 122 249 371 12:30-12:45 259 198 457 06:30-06:45 183 139 322 12:45-01:00 12 5 17 06:45-07:00 138 242 380 12:45-01:00 229 219 448 06:45-07:00 187 86 273 01,00-01,15 11 6 17 07:00-07:15 193 278 471 01,00-01,15 227 205 432 07:00-07:15 161 88 249 01,15-01,30 8 1 9 07:15-07:30 197 284 481 01,15-01,30 213 216 429 07:15-07:30 148 102 250 01:30-01:45 6 7 13 07:30-07:45 203 292 495 01:30-01:45 236 202 438 07:30-07:45 141 79 220 01:45-02:00 6 3 9 07:45-08:00 168 265 433 01:45-02:00 213 215 428 07:45-08:00 134 86 220 02:00-02:15 0 6 6 08,00-08,15 148 249 397 02:00-02:15 219 215 434 08,00-08,15 127 70 197 02:15-02:30 5 11 16 08,15-08,30 154 253 407 02:15-02:30 245 236 481 08,15-08,30 130 69 199 02:30-02:45 8 5 13 08:30-08:45 155 233 388 02:30-02:45 226 233 459 08:30-08:45 125 67 192 02:45-03:00 6 3 9 08:45-09:00 147 234 381 02:45-03:00 230 258 488 08:45-09:00 105 65 170 03,00-03,15 7 7 14 09,00-09,15 169 207 376 03,00-03,15 245 220 465 09,00-09,15 127 63 190 03,15-03,30 7 7 14 09,15-09,30 136 231 367 03,15-03,30 262 212 474 09,15-09,30 102 57 159 03:30-03:45 5 17 22 09:30-09:45 197 227 424 03:30-03:45 238 197 435 09:30-09:45 93 50 143 03:45-04:00 3 21 24 09:45-10:00 168 239 407 03:45-04:00 257 217 474 09:45-10:00 92 28 120 04:00-04:15 8 12 20 10,00-10,15 155 214 369 04:00-04:15 256 227 483 10,00-10,15 66 38 104 04:15-04:30 4 40 44 10,15-10,30 167 262 429 04:15-04:30 215 231 446 10,15-10,30 69 30 99 04:30-04:45 11 50 61 10:30-10:45 180 242 422 04:30-04:45 275 221 496 10:30-10:45 63 27 90 04:45-05:00 15 64 79 10:45-11:00 203 191 394 04:45-05:00 260 213 473 10:45-11:00 49 15 64 05,00-05,15 26 75 101 11,00-11,15 202 209 411 05,00-05,15 249 197 446 11,00-11,15 42 14 56 05,15-05,30 21 88 109 11,15-11,30 200 173 373 05,15-05,30 253 175 428 11,15-11,30 57 23 80 05:30-05:45 38 127 165 11:30-11:45 210 207 417 05:30-05:45 251 151 402 11:30-11:45 25 13 38 05:45-06:00 46 178 224 11:45-12:00 228 189 417 05:45-06:00 240 179 419 11:45-12:00 35 8 43 AM COMMUTER PERIOD(05:00-09:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 PM COMMUTER PERIOD(15:00-19:00) DIR 1 DIR 2 TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 03,45 PM to 04,45 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 761 1119 1880 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1003 896 1899 AM-K FACTOR(%) 7.32 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.39 AM-D(%) 40.48 59.52 100.00 PM-D(%) 52.82 47.18 100.00 DIRECTIONAL PEAK DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 04,30 PM to 05,30 PM 03,45 PM to 04,45 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 761 1119 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1037 896 AM PERIOD(00:00-12:00) PM PERIOD(12:00-24:00) TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM-PEAK HR TIME 07,00 AM to 08,00 AM PM-PEAK HR TIME 03,45 PM to 04,45 PM AM-PEAK HR VOLUME 761 1119 1880 PM-PEAK HR VOLUME 1003 896 1899 AM-K FACTOR(%) 7.32 PM-K FACTOR(%) 7.39 AM-D(%) 40.48 59.52 100.00 PM-D(%) 52.82 47.18 100.00 NON-COMMUTER PERIOD(09:00-15:00) 6-HR,12-HR,24-HR PERIODS DIR 1 DIR 2 Total TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAK AM 6-HR PERIOD(06:00-12:00) 4,000 5,610 9,610 PEAK HR TIME 02,00 PM to 03,00 PM AM 12-HR PERIOD(00:00-12:00)4,287 6,357 10,644 PEAK HR VOLUME 920 942 1862 PM 6-HR PERIOD(12:00-18:00) 5,792 5,046 10,838 DIRECTIONAL PEAK PM 12-HR PERIOD(12:00-24:00)8,462 6,575 15,037 PEAK HR TIME 12,00 PM to 01,00 PM 09,45 AM to 10,45 AM 24 HOUR PERIOD 12,749 12,932 25,681 PEAK HR VOLUME 982 957 D(%) 49.64 50.36 100.00 Run Date: 2017/08/08 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section Vehicle Classification Data Summary 2016 Site ID: B71001112038 Route No: 11 Date From: 2016/05/03 0:00 Town: Hawaii Direction: +MP Date To: 2016/05/04 23:45 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kailua Dr Functional Classification: 14 URBAN:PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-OTHER REPORT TOTALS-48 HOURS RECORDED VOLUME NUMBER OF AXLES Cycles 338 0.66% 677 PC 35846 69.91% 71692 2A-4T 14198 27.69% 28396 LIGHT VEHICLE TOTALS 50382 98.25% 100765 HEAVY VEHICLES Bus 234 0.46%585 SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 2A-6T 157 0.31% 314 3A-SU 145 0.28%435 4A-SU 31 0.06%124 SINGLE-TRAILER TRUCKS 4A-ST 153 0.30%612 5A-ST 95 0.19%475 6A-ST 31 0.06%186 MULTI-TRAILER TRUCKS 5A-MT 14 0.03% 70 6A-MT 1 0.00% 6 7A-MT 33 0.06%231 HEAVY VEHICLE TOTALS 894 1.74% 3038 CLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 51277(A) 100.00% 103803 (B) UNCLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 1 0.00% AXLE CORRECTION ROADTUBE A/C - EQUIVALENT(B/2)= 51901 (C)FACTOR A/C)- 0.988 TOTAL HPMS PEAK HOUR PEAK PEAK 24 HOUR K-FACTOR VOLUME : 1970 HOUR HOUR TRUCK OF (PEAK/AADT) TRUCK VOLUME VOLUME AADT AADT (ITEM 66) 2016/05/0315:00 VOLUME SINGLE UNIT 65A-1) 65A-2) TRUCKS(TYPE 4-7) 33 1.68% 283 1.10% 7.64% COMBINATION 65B-1) 25800 ( 6513-2) TYPE 8-13) 27 1.37% 163 0.63% 7.64% Appendix B Bus Route Schedule and Map Operates 1londay through S2wrd-,,y E:Festive Y6/2017 ST4 R ^L '' • .` L C .Zi 'n 5; 5 5:55 6:00 6:{}5 6:10 6:2{1 6:30 - 6:45 -- 6:555 7:30 6:35 6:4a 6:45 03 --- 1 ?:35 sm S.-Ds $:15 8:20 --- 4.00 4:03 4:13 4:20 4;;5 z. ?:30 R:35 $:55 9;40 9:04 9:15 Y:25 9:30 9;35 9:45 9:55 9:57 10:00 10:02 10:U5 i H:Sp 19:1S 9;20 9:35 9:40 9:45 9:50 -- 9:55 10:60 10:05 --- --- --- --- --- gHonokaa Gvm Cnmpica 5:4`• 5:So 6:10 6:15 G:20 G:3G -- G:45 6:50....- I '•:0f1 _-_ --- --- ... --- L`pperPark;n;Lot 70 MINA nc , ` C{•C " i 42l 3:40 3:45 4:00 4:05 4:25 4:30 4:45 4r%- 5:10 "Honokaa Gym Cnrr,ple.K 08 9:10 9:13 9:15 9:25 9:35 9:40 9:45 9:50 9:55 10:05 14:20 t0:45 Upper Parkirt?1nt i;1. 1.717 3 ?D ]:?0 E'40 i:iq ]:SS ` '_: 0 2:[13 210 2?5 2:16 3:20 Y mac` t 4 5:35 5:40 s:45 5:55 6:p0 G:35 G:?0 U:dS 11:i}5 11:35 --- 1i:45 --- 1):5[1 .._ ; --- i -- --• -•- I --- --- I 4 4:_ 12r 4:2 a:;;] S:nS {5:10) 5:15 5:2C S:3G BOLD=MORNINGS COUNTY OF HAWAII KONAMILO MASS TRANSIT AGENCY N 961-8744 N Bus Route KONA TO HILO Honokaa Kona/Hilo BUS SCHEDULE KwY'9 Waimea Laupahoehoe a In consideration of others and for your safety: 1. Shirts and footwear are required. 1 2. No flammable,explosive or toxic material. 9 3. No smoking,consumption of food or beverage. 4. Discarding of litter. Honomu 5. Expectorating or spitting. 6. The playing of radios,tape players,dvd players, x Y 19 and cell phones are prohibited without headphones. 7. Refrain from horseplaying,yelling or talking loudly. S. The following items are prohibited unless prior permission is granted: SEE a. Bodyboards INSET 1 9. $1.00 charge for pets(except service animals) provided they are kept in an enclosed Hilo container or cage 10.$1.00 charge per item larger than 16"x 10"or SEE more than one item that cannot fit INSET 2 underneath your seat.$1.00 charge for bicycle. 11.Please utilize designated bus stop zones whenever possible. d How to board the bus: 1. Wait on the proper side of the roadway for the DEUAOASTST---INSET 2 INSET 1 bits. KEALAKAA ST xAMEHAMEHa 1 2. Flag the bus(please call for bras stop Kealakekua information). KAMAKAEHA 3. Walt mntll the bus makes a com lete t PALA IRD PAUAHIST P sop. Captain Cook MAKALA--- j 4. Boarding will be denied if passengers appear to wv I9-9 ,- AUPU ST be intoxicated on liquor or drugs;engaged in 99 W.akea activities that violate any other law or ordinance. Kailua-Pond How to exit the bus: Kona 1. Before reaching your desired"get off'spot,pull cord located by the window of the bus. Kealia 2. Remain seated until the bus comes to a complete d s top. E KAWILI 3. Exit from front of bus. ly Pouaxu KAMEHAMEHA IH RD 7 DISCLAIMER: The County of Hawaii will not be responsible for any inconvenience,expense,or may, 7o damages resulting from the failure to depart or arrive at stated times or for any items brought on the E MAKAA[.A bus. E PUAINAKO ST For more information visit www.heleonbus.org KALEIOPAPA ST-- Counry ofHmvaii is an Equal OppoHuniry Employer and Provider Appendix C Analysis Reports — Existing Conditions (2019) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r TIC ft r VRIC *+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 457 218 163 678 23 243 192 109 20 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 457 218 163 678 23 243 192 109 20 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 466 0 166 692 0 248 196 0 20 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 161 1537 249 1656 344 780 40 500 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 466 0 166 692 0 248 196 0 20 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 6.9 0.0 3.8 10.4 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 6.9 0.0 3.8 10.4 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 161 1537 249 1656 344 780 40 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.30 0.67 0.42 0.72 0.25 0.50 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 1537 445 1656 613 2108 123 1714 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.6 13.5 0.0 35.8 13.4 0.0 34.6 25.6 0.0 38.4 32.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.9 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 9.3 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 2.5 0.0 1.6 3.8 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 14.1 0.0 38.9 14.2 0.0 37.4 25.8 0.0 47.7 33.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 538 A 858 A 444 A 348 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.3 18.9 32.3 34.5 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.3 21.9 10.3 40.9 12.5 15.7 8.5 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.6 5.8 8.9 7.6 8.9 3.7 12.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 0.2 3.1 0.5 2.2 0.0 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 AM 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 107 359 124 52 600 467 146 337 42 362 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 359 124 52 600 467 146 337 42 362 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 370 128 54 619 481 151 347 43 373 349 128 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 336 0 0 35 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 370 42 54 619 145 136 362 8 283 544 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.6 30.6 4.1 28.1 28.1 17.5 17.5 17.5 23.1 23.1 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.6 30.6 4.1 28.1 28.1 17.5 17.5 17.5 23.1 23.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 219 1076 497 145 1025 466 293 627 278 394 785 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.11 0.02 c0.18 0.09 c0.11 c0.18 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.34 0.08 0.37 0.60 0.31 0.46 0.58 0.03 0.72 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 41.8 23.7 21.7 43.3 27.8 25.1 33.7 34.5 31.0 32.1 31.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.9 0.3 1.6 2.6 1.7 1.2 1.3 0.0 6.2 2.7 Delay(s)43.6 24.6 22.0 45.0 30.5 26.9 34.9 35.8 31.0 38.3 34.6 Level of Service D C C D C C C D C D C Approach Delay(s) 27.5 29.7 35.2 35.8 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 93.3 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 AM 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 10.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 48 164 985 776 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 48 164 985 776 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 52 176 1059 834 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2246 - 835 0 0 Stage 1 835 Stage 2 1411 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —46 0 798 Stage 1 426 0 - Stage 2 225 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —36 - 797 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —36 Stage 1 331 Stage 2 225 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s $429 1.5 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 797 36 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.221 1.314 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.8 429 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 5 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 AM 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1006 15 73 748 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1006 15 73 748 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1082 16 78 804 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2050 1090 0 0 1082 0 Stage 1 1090 - - - - - Stage 2 960 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 61 262 630 Stage 1 322 - Stage 2 372 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 53 262 630 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 53 - Stage 1 322 Stage 2 326 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 38.9 0 1 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 53 262 630 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.183 0.575 0.125 HCM Control Delay(s) 87.5 35.8 11.5 HCM Lane LOS F E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 3.3 0.4 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/28/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 87 185 853 24 43 718 Future Volume(veh/h) 87 185 853 24 43 718 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 93 0 907 0 46 764 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 120 1409 65 1536 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.04 0.84 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 93 0 907 0 46 764 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.1 0.0 22.7 0.0 2.5 11.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.1 0.0 22.7 0.0 2.5 11.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 120 1409 65 1536 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.64 0.71 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 325 1409 117 1536 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 47.0 2.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 13.4 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 0.0 7.5 0.0 1.4 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.4 0.0 7.9 0.0 60.4 3.3 LnGrp LOS E A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 93 A 907 A 810 Approach Delay,s/veh 55.4 7.9 6.5 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 79.4 87.5 11.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 72.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.5 24.7 13.3 7.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 9.3 7.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 AM 6: Kuakini Street 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 7.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 7 169 517 801 733 61 Future Vol,veh/h 7 169 517 801 733 61 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 8 182 556 861 788 66 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2761 - 788 0 0 Stage 1 788 Stage 2 1973 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 22 0 831 Stage 1 448 0 - Stage 2 118 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —7 - 831 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —7 Stage 1 148 Stage 2 118 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1035.4 6.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 831 7 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.669 1.075 HCM Control Delay(s) 17.6 $1035.4 0 HCM Lane LOS C - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.3 - 1.7 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 7: Lako Street 10/28/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 303 318 110 116 344 971 258 1016 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.06 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.0 2.2 0.0 3.9 1.9 0.0 0.9 37.7 0.0 3.8 25.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.0 2.2 0.0 3.9 1.9 0.0 0.9 37.7 0.0 3.8 25.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 303 318 110 116 344 971 258 1016 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.16 0.66 0.33 0.10 0.87 0.58 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 336 353 333 353 381 971 270 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 33.8 0.0 43.8 42.9 0.0 12.7 20.1 0.0 19.0 15.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 21.5 0.2 0.0 6.7 1.6 0.0 0.1 10.4 0.0 2.9 3.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.8 1.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.3 17.9 0.0 1.7 11.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.2 34.1 0.0 50.5 44.5 0.0 12.8 30.4 0.0 21.9 19.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C D D B C C B Approach Vol,veh/h 318 A 111 A 878 A 838 A Approach Delay,s/veh 56.0 48.4 29.7 19.6 Approach LOS E D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.2 54.1 20.7 7.5 56.8 10.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.8 39.7 16.0 2.9 27.5 5.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.4 0.2 0.0 5.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 157 5 26 16 12 15 76 475 15 14 417 285 Future Volume(veh/h) 157 5 26 16 12 15 76 475 15 14 417 285 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 169 5 0 17 13 16 82 511 16 15 448 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 230 7 26 20 24 103 933 29 32 1690 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1732 51 1459 598 457 563 1668 1745 55 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 174 0 0 46 0 0 82 0 527 15 448 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1618 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 12.8 0.6 5.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 12.8 0.6 5.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.37 0.35 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 237 0 70 0 0 103 0 962 32 1690 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.55 0.46 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 696 0 622 0 0 229 0 962 137 1690 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 10.2 32.3 9.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 2.2 9.9 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.3 0.3 1.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.0 0.0 0.0 41.4 0.0 0.0 43.5 0.0 12.4 42.2 10.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 174 A 46 609 463 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.0 41.4 16.6 11.3 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.3 8.6 37.1 7.4 5.7 40.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.1 31.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.2 5.2 7.1 3.9 2.6 14.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.8 0.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r VIC ft r )" *+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 877 503 223 609 41 227 283 247 51 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 877 503 223 609 41 227 283 247 51 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 895 0 228 621 0 232 289 0 52 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 357 1578 316 1521 319 691 76 512 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.45 0.00 0.09 0.43 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 895 0 228 621 0 232 289 0 52 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.0 15.1 0.0 5.2 9.8 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 2.3 6.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.0 15.1 0.0 5.2 9.8 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 2.3 6.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 357 1578 316 1521 319 691 76 512 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.57 0.72 0.41 0.73 0.42 0.68 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 533 1578 451 1521 448 1838 197 1767 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.0 16.5 0.0 35.5 15.6 0.0 35.5 28.4 0.0 38.0 32.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.1 1.5 0.0 3.2 0.8 0.0 3.6 0.4 0.0 10.3 1.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 5.9 0.0 2.2 3.8 0.0 2.3 2.4 0.0 1.2 2.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.0 17.9 0.0 38.8 16.4 0.0 39.1 28.8 0.0 48.3 33.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1160 A 849 A 521 A 371 A Approach Delay,s/veh 22.5 22.4 33.4 35.7 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 20.2 11.8 40.5 12.0 16.1 12.9 39.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.3 7.7 7.2 17.1 7.3 8.8 8.0 11.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.2 6.0 0.2 2.2 0.4 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 PM 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 190 663 291 72 548 314 126 318 34 348 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 663 291 72 548 314 126 318 34 348 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 677 297 73 559 320 129 324 35 355 349 194 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 197 0 0 228 0 0 29 0 47 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 677 100 73 559 92 116 337 6 302 549 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 32.3 32.3 3.9 27.6 27.6 16.9 16.9 16.9 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 32.3 32.3 3.9 27.6 27.6 16.9 16.9 16.9 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 300 1196 535 140 1003 451 282 598 271 411 815 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.19 0.02 0.16 0.07 c0.10 c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.57 0.19 0.52 0.56 0.21 0.41 0.56 0.02 0.73 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 42.0 25.9 22.3 44.9 28.8 25.7 34.9 35.9 32.5 32.6 32.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 1.9 0.8 3.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.0 6.7 2.2 Delay(s)46.7 27.8 23.1 48.4 31.0 26.7 35.9 37.1 32.5 39.3 34.2 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 29.8 30.9 36.5 35.9 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 95.5 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 PM 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 70 84 923 1005 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 70 84 923 1005 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 72 87 952 1036 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2162 - 1036 0 0 Stage 1 1036 Stage 2 1126 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 0 671 Stage 1 342 0 - Stage 2 310 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 45 - 671 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 45 Stage 1 298 Stage 2 310 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 107.3 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 671 45 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.229 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.2 107.3 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.8 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 PM 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 940 4 61 1015 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 940 4 61 1015 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 969 4 63 1046 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2143 971 0 0 969 0 Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 1172 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 307 688 Stage 1 360 - Stage 2 288 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 47 307 688 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 47 - Stage 1 360 Stage 2 262 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 35.6 0 0.6 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 47 307 688 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 0.238 0.091 HCM Control Delay(s)112.5 20.4 10.8 HCM Lane LOS F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 0.9 0.3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/28/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 34 107 825 48 132 906 Future Volume(veh/h) 34 107 825 48 132 906 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 35 0 851 0 136 934 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 57 1358 168 1634 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.09 0.87 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 35 0 851 0 136 934 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.8 0.0 21.6 0.0 7.1 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.8 0.0 21.6 0.0 7.1 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 57 1358 168 1634 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.63 0.81 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 337 1358 253 1634 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 0.0 6.3 0.0 42.2 1.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 11.0 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 3.6 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 53.1 3.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A Approach Vol,veh/h 35 A 851 A 1070 Approach Delay,s/veh 56.0 8.5 9.4 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.5 74.0 87.5 7.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 65.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.1 23.6 14.0 3.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 8.1 10.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.8 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 PM 6: Kuakini Street 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 13 372 243 854 887 36 Future Vol,veh/h 13 372 243 854 887 36 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 13 380 248 871 905 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2272 - 905 0 0 Stage 1 905 Stage 2 1367 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 43 0 752 Stage 1 385 0 - Stage 2 230 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 29 - 752 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 29 Stage 1 258 Stage 2 230 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 208.2 2.7 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 752 29 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.33 0.457 HCM Control Delay(s) 12.1 208.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 1.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 7: Lako Street 10/28/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 173 184 102 104 277 1050 373 1119 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.07 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 1.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.2 0.0 3.7 32.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 1.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.2 0.0 3.7 32.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 173 184 102 104 277 1050 373 1119 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.17 0.64 0.39 0.14 0.75 0.51 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 370 395 376 385 318 1050 426 1119 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 35.2 0.0 39.4 38.8 0.0 12.6 13.9 0.0 12.4 13.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.9 0.4 0.0 6.6 2.4 0.0 0.2 4.9 0.0 1.1 6.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.3 11.5 0.0 1.3 13.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 35.7 0.0 45.9 41.2 0.0 12.8 18.8 0.0 13.5 20.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 163 A 106 A 824 A 1103 A Approach Delay,s/veh 42.7 44.1 18.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.3 52.7 12.9 7.5 55.5 9.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.7 29.2 8.3 2.8 34.8 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.6 0.3 0.0 6.6 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tS Traffic Volume(veh/h) 290 11 52 7 11 18 64 495 11 17 511 284 Future Volume(veh/h) 290 11 52 7 11 18 64 495 11 17 511 284 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 305 12 0 7 12 19 67 521 12 18 538 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 364 14 11 20 31 89 862 20 37 1592 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1622 64 1535 313 537 851 1767 1806 42 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 317 0 0 38 0 0 67 0 533 18 538 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1686 0 1535 1702 0 0 1767 0 1848 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 15.8 0.7 7.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 15.8 0.7 7.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.18 0.50 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 378 0 62 0 0 89 0 882 37 1592 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.60 0.48 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 584 0 580 0 0 168 0 882 122 1592 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 35.1 0.0 14.3 36.2 13.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 3.1 9.5 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 6.2 0.4 2.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.1 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 47.2 0.0 17.4 45.7 14.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 317 A 38 600 556 A Approach Delay,s/veh 34.1 44.9 20.7 15.0 Approach LOS C D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 8.3 38.0 7.2 6.1 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 7.1 33.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 4.8 9.4 3.6 2.7 17.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Appendix D Analysis Reports — Future Without Project Conditions 2024) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r ft r )" *+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 75 480 229 171 713 24 255 202 115 21 337 186 Future Volume(veh/h) 75 480 229 171 713 24 255 202 115 21 337 186 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 77 490 0 174 728 0 260 206 0 21 344 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 164 1512 257 1634 355 807 41 518 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 77 490 0 174 728 0 260 206 0 21 344 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.9 7.6 0.0 4.0 11.3 0.0 6.0 3.8 0.0 0.9 7.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.9 7.6 0.0 4.0 11.3 0.0 6.0 3.8 0.0 0.9 7.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 164 1512 257 1634 355 807 41 518 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.32 0.68 0.45 0.73 0.26 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 247 1512 440 1634 605 2081 122 1692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.1 14.2 0.0 36.2 14.1 0.0 34.9 25.5 0.0 38.8 32.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.9 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 2.8 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.5 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 14.8 0.0 39.3 14.9 0.0 37.8 25.7 0.0 48.1 34.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 567 A 902 A 466 A 365 A Approach Delay,s/veh 18.1 19.6 32.5 34.8 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 22.8 10.6 40.7 12.9 16.2 8.6 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.8 6.0 9.6 8.0 9.4 3.9 13.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.4 0.2 3.3 0.5 2.4 0.0 5.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 AM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I10/ 28/2019 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 112 377 130 55 631 491 153 354 44 380 356 130 Future Volume(vph) 112 377 130 55 631 491 153 354 44 380 356 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 115 389 134 57 651 506 158 365 45 392 367 134 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 91 0 0 356 0 0 36 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 115 389 43 57 651 150 142 381 9 298 573 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.6 30.6 4.1 28.1 28.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 24.1 24.1 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.6 30.6 4.1 28.1 28.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 24.1 24.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 215 1058 488 142 1008 458 298 638 283 405 806 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.12 0.02 c0.19 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.37 0.09 0.40 0.65 0.33 0.48 0.60 0.03 0.74 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 24.7 22.4 44.2 29.1 26.0 34.2 35.1 31.3 32.5 32.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.0 0.4 1.9 3.2 1.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 6.8 3.0 Delay(s)45.2 25.7 22.8 46.1 32.3 27.9 35.4 36.6 31.3 39.3 35.2 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 28.6 31.1 35.9 36.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 94.9 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 14.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 46 50 172 1035 816 32 Future Vol,veh/h 46 50 172 1035 816 32 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 49 54 185 1113 877 34 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2361 - 878 0 0 Stage 1 878 Stage 2 1483 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —39 0 769 Stage 1 406 0 - Stage 2 208 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —30 - 768 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —30 Stage 1 308 Stage 2 208 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$603.1 1.6 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 768 30 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.241 1.649 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.2 -$603.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 5.7 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 147 1057 16 77 786 Future Vol,veh/h 9 147 1057 16 77 786 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 158 1137 17 83 845 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2157 1146 0 0 1137 0 Stage 1 1146 - - - - - Stage 2 1011 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 243 600 Stage 1 303 - Stage 2 352 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 45 243 600 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 45 - Stage 1 303 Stage 2 303 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 47.3 0 1.1 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 45 243 600 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.215 0.65 0.138 HCM Control Delay(s)105.7 43.7 12 HCM Lane LOS F E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 4 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/28/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 91 194 897 25 45 755 Future Volume(veh/h) 91 194 897 25 45 755 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 97 0 954 0 48 803 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 125 1404 66 1532 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.04 0.84 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 97 0 954 0 48 803 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.3 0.0 25.5 0.0 2.6 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.3 0.0 25.5 0.0 2.6 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 125 1404 66 1532 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.68 0.73 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 324 1404 117 1532 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 0.0 6.0 0.0 47.1 2.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.9 0.0 2.7 0.0 14.1 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 0.0 8.5 0.0 1.4 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.2 0.0 8.7 0.0 61.3 3.6 LnGrp LOS E A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 97 A 954 A 851 Approach Delay,s/veh 55.2 8.7 6.8 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 79.3 87.5 11.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 72.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.6 27.5 14.5 7.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 10.2 7.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM WO 6: Kuakini Street 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 9.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 7 178 543 842 770 64 Future Vol,veh/h 7 178 543 842 770 64 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 8 191 584 905 828 69 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2901 - 828 0 0 Stage 1 828 Stage 2 2073 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 17 0 803 Stage 1 429 0 - Stage 2 105 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —5 - 803 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —5 Stage 1 117 Stage 2 105 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1546.3 8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 803 5 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.727 1.505 HCM Control Delay(s) 20.4 $1546.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.5 - 1.8 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 7: Lako Street 10/28/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 264 50 73 73 38 281 35 832 58 148 680 131 Future Volume(veh/h) 264 50 73 73 38 281 35 832 58 148 680 131 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 281 53 0 78 40 0 37 885 0 157 723 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 314 330 115 122 313 955 225 1003 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.06 0.54 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 281 53 0 78 40 0 37 885 0 157 723 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.9 42.7 0.0 4.1 28.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.9 42.7 0.0 4.1 28.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 314 330 115 122 313 955 225 1003 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.16 0.68 0.33 0.12 0.93 0.70 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 330 347 328 347 346 955 231 1003 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.1 33.9 0.0 44.4 43.3 0.0 13.9 22.1 0.0 21.5 16.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 24.6 0.2 0.0 6.7 1.5 0.0 0.2 16.0 0.0 8.7 4.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.6 1.1 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 21.6 0.0 2.3 12.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.7 34.1 0.0 51.1 44.9 0.0 14.1 38.0 0.0 30.1 21.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C D D B D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 334 A 118 A 922 A 880 A Approach Delay,s/veh 59.0 49.0 37.1 22.9 Approach LOS E D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.5 54.1 21.6 7.7 57.0 10.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.1 44.7 17.0 2.9 30.5 6.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.0 5.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.4 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 165 5 27 17 13 16 80 499 16 15 438 300 Future Volume(veh/h) 165 5 27 17 13 16 80 499 16 15 438 300 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 177 5 0 18 14 17 86 537 17 16 471 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 239 7 27 21 25 108 924 29 34 1665 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1735 49 1459 595 462 562 1668 1745 55 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 182 0 0 49 0 0 86 0 554 16 471 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1618 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 14.0 0.6 5.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 14.0 0.6 5.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.37 0.35 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 246 0 72 0 0 108 0 953 34 1665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.58 0.47 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 689 0 616 0 0 226 0 953 136 1665 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 30.9 0.0 10.7 32.5 10.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 2.6 9.6 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.8 0.3 1.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.0 0.0 0.0 42.1 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 13.3 42.1 10.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 182 A 49 640 487 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.0 42.1 17.3 11.8 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.8 8.9 36.9 7.5 5.8 40.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.1 31.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.6 5.4 7.5 4.0 2.6 16.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/29/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r VIC ft r )" *+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 273 922 529 234 640 43 239 297 260 54 329 112 Future Volume(veh/h) 273 922 529 234 640 43 239 297 260 54 329 112 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 279 941 0 239 653 0 244 303 0 55 336 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 369 1553 325 1493 330 717 78 530 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 279 941 0 239 653 0 244 303 0 55 336 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.5 16.7 0.0 5.5 10.8 0.0 5.7 6.1 0.0 2.5 7.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.5 16.7 0.0 5.5 10.8 0.0 5.7 6.1 0.0 2.5 7.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 369 1553 325 1493 330 717 78 530 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.61 0.73 0.44 0.74 0.42 0.71 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 524 1553 444 1493 440 1808 194 1739 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 17.5 0.0 36.0 16.5 0.0 36.0 28.5 0.0 38.6 32.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.9 1.8 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.0 4.5 0.4 0.0 11.2 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 6.5 0.0 2.4 4.2 0.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.3 19.2 0.0 40.1 17.4 0.0 40.5 28.9 0.0 49.8 33.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1220 A 892 A 547 A 391 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.8 23.5 34.0 36.2 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 21.0 12.2 40.5 12.4 16.7 13.3 39.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.5 8.1 7.5 18.7 7.7 9.3 8.5 12.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.1 0.2 6.1 0.2 2.3 0.4 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 PM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I10/ 29/2019 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 200 697 306 76 576 330 132 334 36 366 359 200 Future Volume(vph) 200 697 306 76 576 330 132 334 36 366 359 200 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 204 711 312 78 588 337 135 341 37 373 366 204 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 208 0 0 241 0 0 30 0 46 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 204 711 104 78 588 96 121 355 7 317 580 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 25.4 25.4 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 295 1176 526 138 985 443 286 607 275 422 836 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.20 0.02 0.17 0.08 c0.10 c0.20 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.06 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.60 0.20 0.57 0.60 0.22 0.42 0.58 0.02 0.75 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 42.9 27.0 23.1 45.7 29.9 26.5 35.3 36.4 32.8 32.8 32.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 2.3 0.8 5.2 2.7 1.1 1.0 1.4 0.0 7.4 2.5 Delay(s)49.7 29.3 24.0 50.9 32.6 27.6 36.3 37.9 32.8 40.2 34.8 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 31.4 32.3 37.1 36.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.9 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 11 74 88 970 1056 18 Future Vol,veh/h 11 74 88 970 1056 18 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 11 76 91 1000 1089 19 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2271 - 1089 0 0 Stage 1 1089 Stage 2 1182 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 44 0 641 Stage 1 323 0 - Stage 2 291 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 38 - 641 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 38 Stage 1 277 Stage 2 291 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 135.9 1 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 641 38 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.142 0.298 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.5 135.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 1 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 15 75 988 4 64 1067 Future Vol,veh/h 15 75 988 4 64 1067 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 15 77 1019 4 66 1100 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2253 1021 0 0 1019 0 Stage 1 1021 - - - - - Stage 2 1232 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 44 287 658 Stage 1 340 - Stage 2 269 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 40 287 658 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 40 - Stage 1 340 Stage 2 242 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 42.3 0 0.6 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 40 287 658 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.387 0.269 0.1 HCM Control Delay(s)143.3 22.1 11.1 HCM Lane LOS F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 1.1 0.3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/29/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 36 112 867 50 139 952 Future Volume(veh/h) 36 112 867 50 139 952 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 37 0 894 0 143 981 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 58 1348 176 1632 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.10 0.87 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 37 0 894 0 143 981 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 7.5 13.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 7.5 13.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 58 1348 176 1632 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.66 0.81 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 337 1348 253 1632 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 0.0 6.9 0.0 42.0 1.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.8 0.0 2.6 0.0 12.4 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 3.9 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.2 0.0 9.4 0.0 54.4 3.3 LnGrp LOS E A D A Approach Vol,veh/h 37 A 894 A 1124 Approach Delay,s/veh 56.2 9.4 9.8 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.9 73.6 87.5 7.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 65.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 26.2 15.4 4.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 8.8 11.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM WO 6: Kuakini Street 10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 391 255 898 932 38 Future Vol,veh/h 14 391 255 898 932 38 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 14 399 260 916 951 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2387 - 951 0 0 Stage 1 951 Stage 2 1436 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 36 0 722 Stage 1 366 0 - Stage 2 212 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 23 - 722 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 23 Stage 1 234 Stage 2 212 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$302.1 2.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 722 23 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.36 0.621 HCM Control Delay(s) 12.8 -$302.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 1.8 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 7: Lako Street 10/29/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 133 32 50 65 41 203 39 792 67 190 922 179 Future Volume(veh/h) 133 32 50 65 41 203 39 792 67 190 922 179 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 139 33 0 68 43 0 41 825 0 198 960 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 180 192 105 108 242 1037 343 1109 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.07 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 139 33 0 68 43 0 41 825 0 198 960 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.6 1.4 0.0 3.2 2.0 0.0 0.8 30.4 0.0 4.0 37.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.6 1.4 0.0 3.2 2.0 0.0 0.8 30.4 0.0 4.0 37.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 180 192 105 108 242 1037 343 1109 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.17 0.65 0.40 0.17 0.80 0.58 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 367 391 373 382 281 1037 389 1109 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 35.3 0.0 39.6 39.0 0.0 14.5 15.1 0.0 14.4 14.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.8 0.4 0.0 6.5 2.4 0.0 0.3 6.3 0.0 1.6 9.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.3 13.2 0.0 1.8 16.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.5 35.7 0.0 46.1 41.4 0.0 14.8 21.4 0.0 16.0 23.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B C B C Approach Vol,veh/h 172 A 111 A 866 A 1158 A Approach Delay,s/veh 42.8 44.3 21.1 22.5 Approach LOS D D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.5 52.6 13.3 7.6 55.5 9.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.0 32.4 8.6 2.8 39.0 5.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.5 0.3 0.0 5.9 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/29/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 305 12 55 7 12 19 67 520 12 18 537 298 Future Volume(veh/h) 305 12 55 7 12 19 67 520 12 18 537 298 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 321 13 0 7 13 20 71 547 13 19 565 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 379 15 11 21 32 91 849 20 39 1566 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1620 66 1535 298 553 851 1767 1805 43 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 334 0 0 40 0 0 71 0 560 19 565 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1686 0 1535 1702 0 0 1767 0 1848 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 17.5 0.8 8.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 17.5 0.8 8.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.17 0.50 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 394 0 64 0 0 91 0 869 39 1566 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.64 0.49 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 574 0 571 0 0 165 0 869 119 1566 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.8 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 15.3 36.8 14.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 3.7 9.3 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 7.0 0.4 2.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 0.0 0.0 45.7 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 19.0 46.1 14.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 334 A 40 631 584 A Approach Delay,s/veh 35.7 45.7 22.4 15.8 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 22.3 8.4 38.0 7.4 6.2 40.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 7.1 33.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 16.4 5.0 10.0 3.8 2.8 19.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Appendix E Analysis Reports — Future With Project Conditions (2024) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/29/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r TIC ft r r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 75 484 229 172 734 29 255 202 116 21 337 186 Future Volume(veh/h) 75 484 229 172 734 29 255 202 116 21 337 186 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 77 494 0 176 749 0 260 206 0 21 344 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 164 1509 259 1634 355 807 41 518 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 77 494 0 176 749 0 260 206 0 21 344 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.9 7.6 0.0 4.1 11.8 0.0 6.0 3.8 0.0 0.9 7.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.9 7.6 0.0 4.1 11.8 0.0 6.0 3.8 0.0 0.9 7.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 164 1509 259 1634 355 807 41 518 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.33 0.68 0.46 0.73 0.26 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 247 1509 440 1634 605 2081 122 1692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.1 14.3 0.0 36.2 14.2 0.0 34.9 25.5 0.0 38.8 32.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.9 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 2.8 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.5 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 14.9 0.0 39.3 15.1 0.0 37.8 25.7 0.0 48.1 34.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 571 A 925 A 466 A 365 A Approach Delay,s/veh 18.1 19.7 32.5 34.8 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 22.8 10.6 40.7 12.9 16.2 8.6 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.8 6.1 9.6 8.0 9.4 3.9 13.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.4 0.2 3.3 0.5 2.4 0.0 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 AM W 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I10/ 29/2019 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 112 382 130 57 658 512 153 354 45 385 356 130 Future Volume(vph) 112 382 130 57 658 512 153 354 45 385 356 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 115 394 134 59 678 528 158 365 46 397 367 134 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 91 0 0 373 0 0 37 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 115 394 43 59 678 155 142 381 9 298 579 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.5 30.5 4.1 28.0 28.0 18.1 18.1 18.1 24.7 24.7 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.5 30.5 4.1 28.0 28.0 18.1 18.1 18.1 24.7 24.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 214 1049 484 141 999 454 296 635 282 412 821 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.12 0.02 c0.20 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.38 0.09 0.42 0.68 0.34 0.48 0.60 0.03 0.72 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 42.9 25.1 22.7 44.5 29.7 26.5 34.5 35.3 31.5 32.2 32.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 1.0 0.4 2.0 3.7 2.0 1.2 1.5 0.0 6.2 2.8 Delay(s)45.5 26.1 23.1 46.5 33.4 28.5 35.7 36.9 31.5 38.4 34.8 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 29.0 32.0 36.1 36.0 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 95.4 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 17.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 46 51 180 1086 827 32 Future Vol,veh/h 46 51 180 1086 827 32 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 49 55 194 1168 889 34 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2446 - 890 0 0 Stage 1 890 Stage 2 1556 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —34 0 761 Stage 1 401 0 - Stage 2 191 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —25 - 760 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —25 Stage 1 298 Stage 2 191 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$789.5 1.6 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 760 25 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.255 1.978 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.3 -$789.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 6.1 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 147 1117 16 77 798 Future Vol,veh/h 9 147 1117 16 77 798 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 158 1201 17 83 858 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2234 1210 0 0 1201 0 Stage 1 1210 - - - - - Stage 2 1024 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 47 223 567 Stage 1 282 - Stage 2 347 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 40 223 567 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 40 - Stage 1 282 Stage 2 296 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 56.8 0 1.1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 40 223 567 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.242 0.709 0.146 HCM Control Delay(s)121.6 52.8 12.4 HCM Lane LOS F F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 4.6 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/29/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 92 194 957 27 45 767 Future Volume(veh/h) 92 194 957 27 45 767 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 98 0 1018 0 48 816 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 126 1403 66 1531 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.04 0.84 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 98 0 1018 0 48 816 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.4 0.0 29.4 0.0 2.6 12.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.4 0.0 29.4 0.0 2.6 12.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 126 1403 66 1531 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.73 0.73 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 324 1403 117 1531 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 0.0 6.5 0.0 47.2 2.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.9 0.0 3.3 0.0 14.2 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 0.0 9.9 0.0 1.4 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.1 0.0 9.8 0.0 61.3 3.7 LnGrp LOS E A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 98 A 1018 A 864 Approach Delay,s/veh 55.1 9.8 6.9 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 79.3 87.5 11.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 72.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.6 31.4 14.9 7.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 11.4 7.9 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 6: Kuakini Street 10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 11.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 7 178 543 856 797 66 Future Vol,veh/h 7 178 543 856 797 66 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 8 191 584 920 857 71 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2945 - 857 0 0 Stage 1 857 Stage 2 2088 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 16 0 783 Stage 1 416 0 - Stage 2 104 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —4 - 783 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —4 Stage 1 106 Stage 2 104 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1998.6 8.5 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 783 4 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.746 1.882 HCM Control Delay(s) 21.8 $1998.6 0 HCM Lane LOS C - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.9 - 1.9 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 7: Lako Street 10/29/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 267 50 73 73 38 284 35 841 58 152 699 135 Future Volume(veh/h) 267 50 73 73 38 284 35 841 58 152 699 135 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 284 53 0 78 40 0 37 895 0 162 744 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 316 332 115 122 298 952 218 1002 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.06 0.54 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 284 53 0 78 40 0 37 895 0 162 744 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.2 2.3 0.0 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.9 43.9 0.0 4.3 30.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.2 2.3 0.0 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.9 43.9 0.0 4.3 30.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 316 332 115 122 298 952 218 1002 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.16 0.68 0.33 0.12 0.94 0.74 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 329 345 326 345 331 952 222 1002 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 33.9 0.0 44.5 43.5 0.0 14.4 22.5 0.0 21.9 17.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.3 0.2 0.0 6.7 1.5 0.0 0.2 17.9 0.0 12.3 5.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.8 1.1 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 22.6 0.0 2.5 13.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.5 34.1 0.0 51.3 45.1 0.0 14.6 40.4 0.0 34.2 22.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C D D B D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 337 A 118 A 932 A 906 A Approach Delay,s/veh 59.7 49.2 39.4 24.3 Approach LOS E D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.7 54.1 21.8 7.7 57.1 10.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 45.9 17.2 2.9 32.0 6.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 5.3 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/29/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 167 5 27 17 13 16 80 505 16 15 449 307 Future Volume(veh/h) 167 5 27 17 13 16 80 505 16 15 449 307 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 180 5 0 18 14 17 86 543 17 16 483 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 243 7 27 21 25 108 922 29 34 1661 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1735 48 1459 595 462 561 1668 1745 55 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 185 0 0 49 0 0 86 0 560 16 483 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1618 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 14.3 0.6 5.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 14.3 0.6 5.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.37 0.35 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 250 0 72 0 0 108 0 951 34 1661 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.59 0.47 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 688 0 614 0 0 226 0 951 135 1661 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 10.8 32.6 10.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 2.7 9.6 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.0 0.0 0.0 42.2 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 13.5 42.2 10.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 185 A 49 646 499 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.0 42.2 17.5 11.9 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.9 8.9 36.9 7.5 5.8 40.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.1 31.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.7 5.4 7.7 4.0 2.6 16.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 9: Kona Vista Roadway 10/29/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it t r t Traffic Vol,veh/h 29 61 849 14 13 846 Future Vol,veh/h 29 61 849 14 13 846 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 585 695 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 32 66 923 15 14 920 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1871 923 0 0 923 0 Stage 1 923 - - - - - Stage 2 948 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 79 327 740 Stage 1 387 - Stage 2 377 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 77 327 740 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 77 - Stage 1 387 Stage 2 370 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 38.8 0 0.2 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 77 327 740 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 0.203 0.019 HCM Control Delay(s) 81 18.8 10 HCM Lane LOS F C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0.7 0.1 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 14 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/01/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r VIC ft r r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 273 941 529 235 654 48 239 297 265 55 329 112 Future Volume(veh/h) 273 941 529 235 654 48 239 297 265 55 329 112 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 279 960 0 240 667 0 244 303 0 56 336 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 369 1552 326 1493 330 715 78 530 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 279 960 0 240 667 0 244 303 0 56 336 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.5 17.1 0.0 5.5 11.0 0.0 5.7 6.1 0.0 2.5 7.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.5 17.1 0.0 5.5 11.0 0.0 5.7 6.1 0.0 2.5 7.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 369 1552 326 1493 330 715 78 530 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.62 0.74 0.45 0.74 0.42 0.71 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 524 1552 444 1493 440 1808 194 1738 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 17.6 0.0 36.0 16.6 0.0 36.0 28.5 0.0 38.6 32.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.9 1.9 0.0 4.2 1.0 0.0 4.5 0.4 0.0 11.4 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 6.7 0.0 2.4 4.3 0.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.3 19.5 0.0 40.2 17.6 0.0 40.5 28.9 0.0 50.0 34.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1239 A 907 A 547 A 392 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.9 23.6 34.1 36.2 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 21.0 12.2 40.5 12.4 16.7 13.3 39.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.5 8.1 7.5 19.1 7.7 9.3 8.5 13.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.1 0.2 6.2 0.2 2.3 0.4 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 PM W 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 01/2019 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 200 722 306 79 596 341 132 334 37 379 359 200 Future Volume(vph) 200 722 306 79 596 341 132 334 37 379 359 200 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 204 737 312 81 608 348 135 341 38 387 366 204 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 209 0 0 249 0 0 31 0 44 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 204 737 103 81 608 99 121 355 7 321 592 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 25.6 25.6 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 25.6 25.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 295 1173 524 137 983 442 285 606 275 424 841 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.21 0.02 0.18 0.08 c0.10 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.06 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.63 0.20 0.59 0.62 0.22 0.42 0.59 0.02 0.76 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 43.0 27.4 23.2 45.8 30.2 26.6 35.4 36.5 32.9 32.9 32.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 2.6 0.8 6.7 2.9 1.2 1.0 1.5 0.0 7.5 2.7 Delay(s)49.8 30.0 24.1 52.5 33.2 27.8 36.4 38.0 32.9 40.4 35.0 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 31.7 32.9 37.2 36.8 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 97.1 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 11 77 91 1004 1096 18 Future Vol,veh/h 11 77 91 1004 1096 18 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 11 79 94 1035 1130 19 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2353 - 1130 0 0 Stage 1 1130 Stage 2 1223 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 39 0 618 Stage 1 308 0 - Stage 2 278 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 33 - 618 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 33 Stage 1 261 Stage 2 278 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 163.1 1 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 618 33 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.344 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.9 163.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 1.1 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 15 75 1025 4 64 1110 Future Vol,veh/h 15 75 1025 4 64 1110 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 15 77 1057 4 66 1144 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2335 1059 0 0 1057 0 Stage 1 1059 - - - - - Stage 2 1276 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 39 273 636 Stage 1 326 - Stage 2 256 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 35 273 636 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 35 - Stage 1 326 Stage 2 229 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 48.2 0 0.6 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 35 273 636 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.442 0.283 0.104 HCM Control Delay(s)172.6 23.3 11.3 HCM Lane LOS F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 1.1 0.3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 5: Puapuaanui St II 11/01/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 38 112 904 52 139 995 Future Volume(veh/h) 38 112 904 52 139 995 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 39 0 932 0 143 1026 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 60 1347 176 1630 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.10 0.87 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 39 0 932 0 143 1026 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.1 0.0 26.4 0.0 7.5 14.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.1 0.0 26.4 0.0 7.5 14.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 60 1347 176 1630 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.69 0.81 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 337 1347 253 1630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 0.0 7.2 0.0 42.1 1.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 12.5 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 9.3 0.0 3.9 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 0.0 10.1 0.0 54.5 3.6 LnGrp LOS E B D A Approach Vol,veh/h 39 A 932 A 1169 Approach Delay,s/veh 56.5 10.1 9.8 Approach LOS E B A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.9 73.6 87.5 7.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 65.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 28.4 16.8 4.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 9.4 12.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 6: Kuakini Street 11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 391 255 939 944 38 Future Vol,veh/h 14 391 255 939 944 38 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 14 399 260 958 963 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2441 - 963 0 0 Stage 1 963 Stage 2 1478 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 33 0 715 Stage 1 361 0 - Stage 2 203 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 21 - 715 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 21 Stage 1 230 Stage 2 203 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$344.6 2.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 715 21 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.364 0.68 HCM Control Delay(s) 12.9 -$344.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 1.9 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 7: Lako Street 11/01/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 138 32 50 65 41 210 39 821 67 192 930 181 Future Volume(veh/h) 138 32 50 65 41 210 39 821 67 192 930 181 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 144 33 0 68 43 0 41 855 0 200 969 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 185 198 105 108 234 1032 322 1105 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.07 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 144 33 0 68 43 0 41 855 0 200 969 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.9 1.4 0.0 3.2 2.0 0.0 0.8 32.8 0.0 4.0 38.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.9 1.4 0.0 3.2 2.0 0.0 0.8 32.8 0.0 4.0 38.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 185 198 105 108 234 1032 322 1105 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.17 0.65 0.40 0.18 0.83 0.62 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 365 390 371 381 272 1032 366 1105 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 35.2 0.0 39.7 39.1 0.0 15.0 15.8 0.0 15.9 15.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.9 0.4 0.0 6.5 2.4 0.0 0.4 7.7 0.0 2.6 9.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.3 14.5 0.0 2.1 17.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.5 35.5 0.0 46.2 41.5 0.0 15.3 23.5 0.0 18.5 24.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B C B C Approach Vol,veh/h 177 A 111 A 896 A 1169 A Approach Delay,s/veh 42.8 44.4 23.1 23.8 Approach LOS D D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.6 52.5 13.6 7.6 55.5 9.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.0 34.8 8.9 2.8 40.0 5.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.3 0.3 0.0 5.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/01/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 315 12 55 7 12 20 67 538 12 18 542 301 Future Volume(veh/h) 315 12 55 7 12 20 67 538 12 18 542 301 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 332 13 0 7 13 21 71 566 13 19 571 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 389 15 11 20 33 91 842 19 39 1551 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1622 64 1535 290 539 870 1767 1807 41 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 345 0 0 41 0 0 71 0 579 19 571 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1686 0 1535 1699 0 0 1767 0 1848 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 18.7 0.8 8.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 18.7 0.8 8.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.17 0.51 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 404 0 65 0 0 91 0 862 39 1551 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.67 0.49 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 569 0 564 0 0 163 0 862 118 1551 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.9 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 15.9 37.1 14.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.8 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 4.2 9.3 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 7.6 0.4 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 0.0 49.3 0.0 20.1 46.5 15.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 345 A 41 650 590 A Approach Delay,s/veh 36.7 46.3 23.3 16.2 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 22.9 8.5 38.0 7.4 6.2 40.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 7.1 33.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 17.0 5.0 10.3 3.8 2.8 20.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 9: Kona Vista Roadway 11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it * r t Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 39 912 41 45 988 Future Vol,veh/h 12 39 912 41 45 988 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 585 695 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 42 991 45 49 1074 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2163 991 0 0 991 0 Stage 1 991 - - - - - Stage 2 1172 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 299 698 Stage 1 359 - Stage 2 294 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 48 299 698 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 48 - Stage 1 359 Stage 2 273 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 39.4 0 0.5 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 48 299 698 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.272 0.142 0.07 HCM Control Delay(s)105.9 19 10.5 HCM Lane LOS F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.5 0.2 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Arterial Level of Service 2024 AM W 04/28/2020 Arterial Level of Service: NB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 41.2 75.9 117.1 0.32 10.0 F Puapuaanui St III 30 107.6 15.5 123.1 0.90 26.2 B Total III 148.8 91.4 240.2 1.22 18.3 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 5.6 99.9 0.79 28.3 B Lako Street III 30 107.6 31.9 139.5 0.90 23.1 C Total III 201.9 37.5 239.4 1.68 25.3 B 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service 2024 PM W 04/28/2020 Arterial Level of Service: NB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 41.2 46.5 87.7 0.32 13.3 E Puapuaanui St III 30 107.6 17.1 124.7 0.90 25.9 B Total III 148.8 63.6 212.4 1.22 20.7 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 5.9 100.2 0.79 28.2 B Lako Street III 30 107.6 38.1 145.7 0.90 22.1 C Total III 201.9 44.0 245.9 1.68 24.6 B 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Appendix F Analysis Reports — Future Without Project Conditions 2029) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r TIC ft r )" *+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 78 505 241 180 749 25 268 212 120 22 355 196 Future Volume(veh/h) 78 505 241 180 749 25 268 212 120 22 355 196 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 515 0 184 764 0 273 216 0 22 362 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 165 1481 267 1612 367 836 43 538 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.44 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.00 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 80 515 0 184 764 0 273 216 0 22 362 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.0 8.3 0.0 4.3 12.4 0.0 6.3 4.0 0.0 1.0 7.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.0 8.3 0.0 4.3 12.4 0.0 6.3 4.0 0.0 1.0 7.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 165 1481 267 1612 367 836 43 538 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.35 0.69 0.47 0.74 0.26 0.51 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 244 1481 434 1612 597 2053 120 1669 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 15.0 0.0 36.6 14.8 0.0 35.3 25.4 0.0 39.3 32.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.2 0.6 0.0 3.2 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 3.0 0.0 1.8 4.6 0.0 2.7 1.7 0.0 0.5 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 15.7 0.0 39.8 15.8 0.0 38.3 25.5 0.0 48.5 34.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 595 A 948 A 489 A 384 A Approach Delay,s/veh 18.9 20.5 32.6 35.0 Approach LOS B C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.5 23.7 10.9 40.5 13.3 16.8 8.7 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.0 6.0 6.3 10.3 8.3 9.8 4.0 14.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.5 0.2 3.4 0.5 2.5 0.0 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 AM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 118 397 137 57 633 516 161 372 46 400 374 137 Future Volume(vph) 118 397 137 57 633 516 161 372 46 400 374 137 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3347 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3347 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 409 141 59 653 532 166 384 47 412 386 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 97 0 0 379 0 0 38 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 409 44 59 653 153 149 401 9 313 604 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.4 30.4 4.1 27.9 27.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.4 30.4 4.1 27.9 27.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 211 1029 475 139 980 445 305 652 290 419 835 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.12 0.02 c0.19 0.10 c0.12 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.40 0.09 0.42 0.67 0.34 0.49 0.62 0.03 0.75 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 43.8 26.1 23.5 45.2 30.4 27.3 34.7 35.7 31.6 32.7 32.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 1.1 0.4 2.1 3.6 2.1 1.2 1.7 0.0 7.1 3.1 Delay(s)47.6 27.2 23.9 47.3 34.0 29.4 35.9 37.4 31.6 39.9 35.6 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 30.2 32.6 36.6 37.0 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.9 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 20.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 49 53 181 1088 857 33 Future Vol,veh/h 49 53 181 1088 857 33 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 53 57 195 1170 922 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2483 - 923 0 0 Stage 1 923 Stage 2 1560 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —33 0 740 Stage 1 387 0 - Stage 2 190 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —24 - 739 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —24 Stage 1 284 Stage 2 190 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$893.5 1.7 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 739 24 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.263 2.195 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.6 -$893.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 6.6 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 5.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 155 1111 17 81 826 Future Vol,veh/h 10 155 1111 17 81 826 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 11 167 1195 18 87 888 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2266 1204 0 0 1195 0 Stage 1 1204 - - - - - Stage 2 1062 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 45 224 570 Stage 1 284 - Stage 2 332 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 38 224 570 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 38 - Stage 1 284 Stage 2 281 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 61.4 0 1.1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 38 224 570 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.744 0.153 HCM Control Delay(s)133.6 56.7 12.5 HCM Lane LOS F F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 5.1 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/28/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 96 204 942 27 47 793 Future Volume(veh/h) 96 204 942 27 47 793 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 102 0 1002 0 50 844 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 131 1397 67 1527 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.04 0.84 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 102 0 1002 0 50 844 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.6 0.0 28.8 0.0 2.8 14.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.6 0.0 28.8 0.0 2.8 14.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 131 1397 67 1527 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 323 1397 117 1527 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 0.0 6.6 0.0 47.3 2.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.7 0.0 3.2 0.0 15.0 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 0.0 9.8 0.0 1.5 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 0.0 9.8 0.0 62.3 3.9 LnGrp LOS D A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 102 A 1002 A 894 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.9 9.8 7.2 Approach LOS D A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 79.3 87.5 11.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 72.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.8 30.8 16.0 7.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 11.1 8.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM WO 6: Kuakini Street 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 16.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 8 187 571 885 810 67 Future Vol,veh/h 8 187 571 885 810 67 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 9 201 614 952 871 72 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3051 - 871 0 0 Stage 1 871 Stage 2 2180 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 14 0 774 Stage 1 410 0 - Stage 2 93 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —3 - 774 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —3 Stage 1 85 Stage 2 93 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$2938.5 9.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 774 3 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.793 2.867 HCM Control Delay(s) 25 $2938.5 0 HCM Lane LOS C - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8.2 - 2.2 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 7: Lako Street 10/28/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 277 53 76 76 40 295 36 875 61 156 715 138 Future Volume(veh/h) 277 53 76 76 40 295 36 875 61 156 715 138 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 295 56 0 81 43 0 38 931 0 166 761 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 325 341 119 126 281 941 191 993 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.00 0.06 0.53 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 295 56 0 81 43 0 38 931 0 166 761 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.0 2.5 0.0 4.4 2.2 0.0 1.0 48.6 0.0 4.8 31.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.0 2.5 0.0 4.4 2.2 0.0 1.0 48.6 0.0 4.8 31.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 325 341 119 126 281 941 191 993 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.16 0.68 0.34 0.14 0.99 0.87 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 325 341 323 341 313 941 191 993 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.5 34.0 0.0 45.0 43.9 0.0 15.3 24.3 0.0 24.3 18.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 27.8 0.2 0.0 6.7 1.6 0.0 0.2 27.0 0.0 32.3 5.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.4 1.1 0.0 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 27.0 0.0 3.6 14.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.3 34.2 0.0 51.7 45.5 0.0 15.5 51.3 0.0 56.6 23.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C D D B D E C Approach Vol,veh/h 351 A 124 A 969 A 927 A Approach Delay,s/veh 62.0 49.5 49.9 29.6 Approach LOS E D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.9 54.1 22.5 7.7 57.3 11.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.8 50.6 18.0 3.0 33.9 6.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 173 6 29 18 13 17 84 525 17 15 461 315 Future Volume(veh/h) 173 6 29 18 13 17 84 525 17 15 461 315 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 186 6 0 19 14 18 90 565 18 16 496 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 249 8 27 20 26 114 915 29 34 1638 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1728 56 1459 602 444 570 1668 1744 56 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 192 0 0 51 0 0 90 0 583 16 496 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1616 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 15.4 0.6 6.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 15.4 0.6 6.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.37 0.35 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 258 0 74 0 0 114 0 944 34 1638 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.62 0.47 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 683 0 609 0 0 224 0 944 134 1638 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 11.3 32.8 10.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 3.0 9.6 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.4 0.3 1.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.0 0.0 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 42.7 0.0 14.3 42.5 11.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 192 A 51 673 512 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.0 42.8 18.1 12.3 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 14.3 9.1 36.7 7.6 5.8 40.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.1 31.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.0 5.6 8.0 4.1 2.6 17.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.1 3.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip+ r VIC ft r f+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 287 969 556 246 673 45 251 313 273 56 346 118 Future Volume(veh/h) 287 969 556 246 673 45 251 313 273 56 346 118 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 293 989 0 251 687 0 256 319 0 57 353 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 381 1527 336 1466 340 743 78 548 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 293 989 0 251 687 0 256 319 0 57 353 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.9 18.4 0.0 5.9 11.8 0.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 2.6 7.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.9 18.4 0.0 5.9 11.8 0.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 2.6 7.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 381 1527 336 1466 340 743 78 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.65 0.75 0.47 0.75 0.43 0.73 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 516 1527 437 1466 433 1779 191 1710 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 18.6 0.0 36.5 17.5 0.0 36.5 28.6 0.0 39.2 33.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.8 2.1 0.0 5.1 1.1 0.0 5.5 0.4 0.0 12.0 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 7.3 0.0 2.6 4.6 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 1.4 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.7 20.7 0.0 41.6 18.5 0.0 42.0 28.9 0.0 51.3 34.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1282 A 938 A 575 A 410 A Approach Delay,s/veh 25.3 24.7 34.8 36.7 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 21.9 12.6 40.5 12.7 17.3 13.7 39.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.6 8.5 7.9 20.4 8.0 9.8 8.9 13.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.2 0.2 6.2 0.2 2.5 0.3 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 PM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I10/ 28/2019 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 210 732 321 80 605 347 139 351 38 384 378 210 Future Volume(vph) 210 732 321 80 605 347 139 351 38 384 378 210 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3383 1537 1610 3193 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3383 1537 1610 3193 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 214 747 328 82 617 354 142 358 39 392 386 214 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 221 0 0 255 0 0 32 0 45 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 214 747 107 82 617 99 128 372 7 333 614 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 18.1 18.1 18.1 26.2 26.2 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 18.1 18.1 18.1 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 291 1158 518 136 970 436 293 622 282 428 850 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.21 0.02 0.18 0.08 c0.11 c0.21 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.06 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.65 0.21 0.60 0.64 0.23 0.44 0.60 0.03 0.78 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 43.8 28.2 23.9 46.5 31.1 27.3 35.6 36.8 32.9 33.4 32.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 2.8 0.9 7.3 3.2 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.0 8.7 3.0 Delay(s)53.1 31.0 24.8 53.8 34.2 28.5 36.7 38.4 33.0 42.1 35.8 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 33.1 33.8 37.6 37.9 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 98.4 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t t r Traffic Vol,veh/h 11 77 93 1020 1110 19 Future Vol,veh/h 11 77 93 1020 1110 19 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 11 79 96 1052 1144 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2388 - 1144 0 0 Stage 1 1144 Stage 2 1244 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 37 0 611 Stage 1 304 0 - Stage 2 272 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 31 - 611 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 31 Stage 1 256 Stage 2 272 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 177.1 1 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 611 31 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.157 0.366 HCM Control Delay(s) 12 177.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 1.2 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 15 78 1038 4 67 1121 Future Vol,veh/h 15 78 1038 4 67 1121 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 15 80 1070 4 69 1156 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2366 1072 0 0 1070 0 Stage 1 1072 - - - - - Stage 2 1294 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 37 268 629 Stage 1 322 - Stage 2 251 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 33 268 629 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 33 - Stage 1 322 Stage 2 223 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 50.5 0 0.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 33 268 629 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.469 0.3 0.11 HCM Control Delay(s)187.7 24.1 11.4 HCM Lane LOS F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 1.2 0.4 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/28/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 38 118 911 53 146 1001 Future Volume(veh/h) 38 118 911 53 146 1001 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 39 0 939 0 151 1032 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 60 1338 184 1630 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.10 0.87 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 39 0 939 0 151 1032 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.1 0.0 27.2 0.0 7.9 15.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.1 0.0 27.2 0.0 7.9 15.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 60 1338 184 1630 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.70 0.82 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 337 1338 253 1630 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 0.0 7.5 0.0 41.8 1.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 14.0 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 9.7 0.0 4.2 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.5 0.0 10.6 0.0 55.9 3.6 LnGrp LOS E B E A Approach Vol,veh/h 39 A 939 A 1183 Approach Delay,s/veh 56.5 10.6 10.3 Approach LOS E B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 14.3 73.2 87.5 7.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 65.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.9 29.2 17.0 4.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 9.4 12.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM WO 6: Kuakini Street 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 411 268 943 980 40 Future Vol,veh/h 14 411 268 943 980 40 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 14 419 273 962 1000 41 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2508 - 1000 0 0 Stage 1 1000 Stage 2 1508 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 30 0 692 Stage 1 347 0 - Stage 2 196 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 18 - 692 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 18 Stage 1 210 Stage 2 196 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$429.8 3 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 692 18 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.395 0.794 HCM Control Delay(s) 13.6 -$429.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 2.1 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 7: Lako Street 10/28/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 140 33 53 68 43 213 41 833 71 200 969 188 Future Volume(veh/h) 140 33 53 68 43 213 41 833 71 200 969 188 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 146 34 0 71 45 0 43 868 0 208 1009 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 187 200 109 112 206 1024 312 1099 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.07 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 146 34 0 71 45 0 43 868 0 208 1009 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.0 1.4 0.0 3.4 2.1 0.0 0.9 34.2 0.0 4.3 41.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.0 1.4 0.0 3.4 2.1 0.0 0.9 34.2 0.0 4.3 41.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 187 200 109 112 206 1024 312 1099 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.17 0.65 0.40 0.21 0.85 0.67 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 364 388 369 379 243 1024 352 1099 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.8 35.3 0.0 39.8 39.2 0.0 16.9 16.4 0.0 16.9 16.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.9 0.4 0.0 6.4 2.3 0.0 0.5 8.7 0.0 4.1 13.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 0.7 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.4 15.4 0.0 2.5 19.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.7 35.7 0.0 46.3 41.6 0.0 17.4 25.1 0.0 21.0 29.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 180 A 116 A 911 A 1217 A Approach Delay,s/veh 43.0 44.4 24.7 28.1 Approach LOS D D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.8 52.4 13.8 7.7 55.5 9.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 36.2 9.0 2.9 43.9 5.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.0 0.3 0.0 4.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 320 12 57 8 12 20 71 547 12 19 564 314 Future Volume(veh/h) 320 12 57 8 12 20 71 547 12 19 564 314 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 337 13 0 8 13 21 75 576 13 20 594 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 393 15 12 20 33 96 840 19 40 1537 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.43 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1623 63 1535 324 527 851 1767 1807 41 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 350 0 0 42 0 0 75 0 589 20 594 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1701 0 0 1767 0 1848 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 19.4 0.9 8.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 19.4 0.9 8.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.19 0.50 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 408 0 65 0 0 96 0 859 40 1537 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.69 0.50 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 564 0 560 0 0 162 0 859 117 1537 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 16.3 37.4 15.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.4 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 4.4 9.2 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 7.9 0.5 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 20.7 46.6 15.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 350 A 42 664 614 A Approach Delay,s/veh 37.5 46.8 23.9 16.7 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 23.2 8.7 38.0 7.5 6.2 40.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 7.1 33.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 17.4 5.2 10.8 3.9 2.9 21.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Appendix G Analysis Reports — Future With Project Conditions (2029) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W project 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft r TIC ft r )" *+ r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 78 512 241 181 787 34 268 212 122 22 355 196 Future Volume(veh/h) 78 512 241 181 787 34 268 212 122 22 355 196 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 80 522 0 185 803 0 273 216 0 22 362 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 165 1480 268 1612 367 836 43 538 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.44 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.00 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 80 522 0 185 803 0 273 216 0 22 362 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.0 8.4 0.0 4.3 13.2 0.0 6.3 4.0 0.0 1.0 7.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.0 8.4 0.0 4.3 13.2 0.0 6.3 4.0 0.0 1.0 7.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 165 1480 268 1612 367 836 43 538 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.35 0.69 0.50 0.74 0.26 0.51 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 244 1480 434 1612 597 2053 120 1669 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 15.1 0.0 36.6 15.0 0.0 35.3 25.4 0.0 39.3 32.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.2 0.7 0.0 3.2 1.1 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.8 3.1 0.0 1.9 4.9 0.0 2.7 1.7 0.0 0.5 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 15.7 0.0 39.7 16.1 0.0 38.3 25.5 0.0 48.5 34.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 602 A 988 A 489 A 384 A Approach Delay,s/veh 18.9 20.5 32.6 35.0 Approach LOS B C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.5 23.7 10.9 40.5 13.3 16.8 8.7 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.0 6.0 6.3 10.4 8.3 9.8 4.0 15.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.5 0.2 3.5 0.5 2.5 0.0 5.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 AM W project 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 118 406 137 61 711 554 161 372 47 409 374 137 Future Volume(vph) 118 406 137 61 711 554 161 372 47 409 374 137 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3347 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3347 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 419 141 63 733 571 166 384 48 422 386 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 97 0 0 407 0 0 39 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 419 44 63 733 164 149 401 9 316 612 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.4 30.4 4.1 27.9 27.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 25.7 25.7 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.4 30.4 4.1 27.9 27.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 210 1027 474 139 978 444 304 651 289 422 840 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.13 0.02 c0.22 0.10 c0.12 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.41 0.09 0.45 0.75 0.37 0.49 0.62 0.03 0.75 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 43.9 26.3 23.6 45.4 31.4 27.6 34.8 35.8 31.7 32.7 32.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 1.2 0.4 2.3 5.3 2.4 1.2 1.7 0.0 7.1 3.2 Delay(s)48.0 27.5 24.0 47.7 36.7 29.9 36.1 37.5 31.7 39.9 35.7 Level of Service D C C D D C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 30.4 34.4 36.7 37.1 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 97.1 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W project 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 28.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 49 54 196 1178 876 33 Future Vol,veh/h 49 54 196 1178 876 33 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 53 58 211 1267 942 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2632 - 943 0 0 Stage 1 943 Stage 2 1689 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —26 0 727 Stage 1 379 0 - Stage 2 164 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver — 18 - 726 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver — 18 Stage 1 268 Stage 2 164 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1310.5 1.7 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 726 18 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.29 2.927 HCM Control Delay(s) 12 $1310.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - 7.1 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W project 4: Hualalai Rd (South)03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 6.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 155 1216 17 81 846 Future Vol,veh/h 10 155 1216 17 81 846 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 11 167 1308 18 87 910 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2401 1317 0 0 1308 0 Stage 1 1317 - - - - - Stage 2 1084 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 37 193 516 Stage 1 250 - Stage 2 324 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 31 193 516 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 31 - Stage 1 250 Stage 2 269 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 89 0 1.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 31 193 516 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.347 0.864 0.169 HCM Control Delay(s)173.5 83.5 13.4 HCM Lane LOS F F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 6.4 0.6 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W project 5: Puapuaanui St II 03/13/2020 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r A r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 98 204 1047 30 47 813 Future Volume(veh/h) 98 204 1047 30 47 813 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 104 0 1114 0 50 865 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 130 1446 64 1557 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.04 0.85 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 104 0 1114 0 50 865 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.9 0.0 40.1 0.0 3.4 16.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.9 0.0 40.1 0.0 3.4 16.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 130 1446 64 1557 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.77 0.78 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 265 1446 96 1557 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.1 0.0 7.4 0.0 57.7 2.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.7 0.0 4.0 0.0 20.2 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.5 0.0 14.2 0.0 1.9 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.9 0.0 11.4 0.0 78.0 3.9 LnGrp LOS E B E A Approach Vol,veh/h 104 A 1114 A 915 Approach Delay,s/veh 65.9 11.4 8.0 Approach LOS E B A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.9 98.6 107.5 13.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 92.0 103.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.4 42.1 18.0 8.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 14.6 8.8 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W project 6: Kuakini Street 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 21.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 8 187 574 910 837 69 Future Vol,veh/h 8 187 574 910 837 69 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 9 201 617 978 900 74 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3112 - 900 0 0 Stage 1 900 Stage 2 2212 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 13 0 755 Stage 1 397 0 - Stage 2 89 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —2 - 755 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —2 Stage 1 73 Stage 2 89 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$4556.6 10.6 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 755 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.817 4.301 HCM Control Delay(s) 27.4 $4556.6 0 HCM Lane LOS D - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 8.9 - 2.3 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W project 7: Lako Street 03/13/2020 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 282 53 76 92 43 303 36 890 61 160 734 142 Future Volume(veh/h) 282 53 76 92 43 303 36 890 61 160 734 142 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 300 56 0 98 46 0 38 947 0 170 781 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 313 329 131 139 291 1008 202 1055 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.06 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 300 56 0 98 46 0 38 947 0 170 781 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 19.9 3.0 0.0 6.5 2.8 0.0 1.1 56.3 0.0 5.1 37.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 19.9 3.0 0.0 6.5 2.8 0.0 1.1 56.3 0.0 5.1 37.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 313 329 131 139 291 1008 202 1055 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.17 0.75 0.33 0.13 0.94 0.84 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 313 329 275 291 312 1008 221 1055 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.6 41.7 0.0 54.0 52.3 0.0 16.4 25.6 0.0 27.1 19.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 39.8 0.2 0.0 8.1 1.4 0.0 0.2 17.1 0.0 23.0 4.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 1.4 0.0 3.2 1.4 0.0 0.5 28.5 0.0 3.9 16.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.4 41.9 0.0 62.1 53.6 0.0 16.6 42.8 0.0 50.2 23.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E D B D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 356 A 144 A 985 A 951 A Approach Delay,s/veh 81.1 59.4 41.7 28.5 Approach LOS F E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.6 68.6 25.4 8.1 72.2 13.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 64.1 20.9 5.0 67.6 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.1 58.3 21.9 3.1 39.3 8.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.4 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W project 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 177 6 29 18 13 17 84 536 17 16 481 329 Future Volume(veh/h) 177 6 29 18 13 17 84 536 17 16 481 329 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 190 6 0 19 14 18 90 576 18 17 517 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 240 8 24 18 23 114 1052 33 34 1905 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.60 0.60 0.02 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1729 55 1459 600 442 568 1668 1745 55 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 196 0 0 51 0 0 90 0 594 17 517 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1610 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 17.7 0.9 7.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 17.7 0.9 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.37 0.35 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 248 0 65 0 0 114 0 1085 34 1905 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.55 0.50 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 527 0 454 0 0 266 0 1085 104 1905 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 10.6 43.9 10.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.6 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 2.0 10.7 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 6.3 0.5 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.3 0.0 0.0 61.8 0.0 0.0 52.9 0.0 12.6 54.6 11.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A E A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 196 A 51 684 534 A Approach Delay,s/veh 43.3 61.8 17.9 12.3 Approach LOS D E B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 17.0 10.7 54.6 8.1 6.2 59.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.7 14.4 45.4 25.5 5.3 54.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 11.6 6.8 9.1 4.8 2.9 19.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.1 3.4 0.2 0.0 3.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W project 9: Kona Vista Roadway 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it t r t Traffic Vol,veh/h 29 108 918 25 22 911 Future Vol,veh/h 29 108 918 25 22 911 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 585 695 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 32 117 998 27 24 990 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2036 998 0 0 998 0 Stage 1 998 - - - - - Stage 2 1038 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 62 296 693 Stage 1 357 - Stage 2 341 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 60 296 693 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 60 - Stage 1 357 Stage 2 329 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 44.6 0 0.2 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 60 296 693 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.525 0.397 0.035 HCM Control Delay(s)118.2 24.9 10.4 HCM Lane LOS F C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 1.8 0.1 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 14 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W project 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r TIC ft f+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 287 1003 556 248 697 54 251 313 283 58 346 118 Future Volume(veh/h) 287 1003 556 248 697 54 251 313 283 58 346 118 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 293 1023 0 253 711 0 256 319 0 59 353 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 381 1526 337 1466 340 741 80 547 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 293 1023 0 253 711 0 256 319 0 59 353 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.9 19.3 0.0 5.9 12.3 0.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 2.7 7.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.9 19.3 0.0 5.9 12.3 0.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 2.7 7.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 381 1526 337 1466 340 741 80 547 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.67 0.75 0.48 0.75 0.43 0.74 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 515 1526 436 1466 433 1777 191 1709 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 18.8 0.0 36.5 17.6 0.0 36.5 28.6 0.0 39.2 33.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.9 2.4 0.0 5.2 1.1 0.0 5.6 0.4 0.0 12.6 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 7.7 0.0 2.7 4.8 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 1.4 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 21.2 0.0 41.8 18.8 0.0 42.0 29.0 0.0 51.8 34.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1316 A 964 A 575 A 412 A Approach Delay,s/veh 25.6 24.8 34.8 36.8 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 21.8 12.6 40.5 12.7 17.3 13.7 39.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 8.5 7.9 21.3 8.0 9.8 8.9 14.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.2 0.2 6.2 0.2 2.5 0.3 4.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 PM W project 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I03/ 13/2020 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 6 Traffic Volume(vph) 210 777 321 85 640 367 139 351 40 408 378 210 Future Volume(vph) 210 777 321 85 640 367 139 351 40 408 378 210 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3383 1537 1610 3194 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3383 1537 1610 3194 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 214 793 328 87 653 374 142 358 41 416 386 214 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 221 0 0 270 0 0 34 0 42 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 214 793 107 87 653 104 128 372 7 341 633 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 18.1 18.1 18.1 26.8 26.8 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.5 27.5 18.1 18.1 18.1 26.8 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 289 1151 514 135 964 433 291 618 281 435 864 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.22 0.03 0.19 0.08 c0.11 c0.21 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.69 0.21 0.64 0.68 0.24 0.44 0.60 0.03 0.78 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 44.1 29.0 24.2 46.9 31.8 27.7 35.9 37.1 33.2 33.4 32.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.8 3.4 0.9 10.1 3.8 1.3 1.1 1.7 0.0 9.0 3.2 Delay(s)53.9 32.4 25.1 57.0 35.6 29.0 37.0 38.8 33.3 42.4 36.1 Level of Service D C C E D C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 34.1 35.1 38.0 38.2 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 99.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W project 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t t r Traffic Vol,veh/h 11 82 98 1079 1181 19 Future Vol,veh/h 11 82 98 1079 1181 19 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 11 85 101 1112 1218 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2532 - 1218 0 0 Stage 1 1218 Stage 2 1314 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 30 0 572 Stage 1 280 0 - Stage 2 251 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 25 - 572 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 25 Stage 1 230 Stage 2 251 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 237 1.1 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 572 25 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.454 HCM Control Delay(s) 12.6 237 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 1.4 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W project 4: Hualalai Rd (South)03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 15 78 1103 4 67 1197 Future Vol,veh/h 15 78 1103 4 67 1197 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 15 80 1137 4 69 1234 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2511 1139 0 0 1137 0 Stage 1 1139 - - - - - Stage 2 1372 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 30 245 593 Stage 1 298 - Stage 2 230 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 27 245 593 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 27 - Stage 1 298 Stage 2 203 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 62.9 0 0.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 27 245 593 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.573 0.328 0.116 HCM Control Delay(s) 251 26.7 11.9 HCM Lane LOS F D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.8 1.4 0.4 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W project 5: Puapuaanui St II 03/13/2020 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 41 118 976 57 146 1077 Future Volume(veh/h) 41 118 976 57 146 1077 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 42 0 1006 0 151 1110 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 57 1392 180 1665 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.10 0.89 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 42 0 1006 0 151 1110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.7 0.0 34.2 0.0 9.6 18.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.7 0.0 34.2 0.0 9.6 18.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 57 1392 180 1665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.72 0.84 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 277 1392 239 1665 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 0.0 7.9 0.0 51.1 1.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 17.9 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.5 0.0 12.6 0.0 5.2 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 69.0 3.8 LnGrp LOS E B E A Approach Vol,veh/h 42 A 1006 A 1261 Approach Delay,s/veh 72.2 11.1 11.7 Approach LOS E B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 16.2 91.3 107.5 8.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.5 83.0 103.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 11.6 36.2 20.5 4.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 11.4 15.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W project 6: Kuakini Street 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 411 269 1017 992 40 Future Vol,veh/h 14 411 269 1017 992 40 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 14 419 274 1038 1012 41 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2598 - 1012 0 0 Stage 1 1012 Stage 2 1586 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 26 0 685 Stage 1 342 0 - Stage 2 179 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 16 - 685 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 16 Stage 1 205 Stage 2 179 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$507.5 2.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 685 16 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.401 0.893 HCM Control Delay(s) 13.7 -$507.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 2.2 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W project 7: Lako Street 03/13/2020 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1.) A r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 149 33 53 75 44 228 41 885 71 202 977 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 149 33 53 75 44 228 41 885 71 202 977 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 155 34 0 78 46 0 43 922 0 210 1018 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 187 200 110 113 234 1125 307 1191 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.61 0.00 0.06 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 155 34 0 78 46 0 43 922 0 210 1018 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.7 1.8 0.0 4.8 2.7 0.0 1.0 43.4 0.0 4.8 48.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.7 1.8 0.0 4.8 2.7 0.0 1.0 43.4 0.0 4.8 48.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 187 200 110 113 234 1125 307 1191 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.17 0.71 0.41 0.18 0.82 0.68 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 283 302 288 295 255 1125 374 1191 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 45.3 0.0 51.3 50.3 0.0 17.3 17.2 0.0 20.1 16.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.6 0.4 0.0 8.0 2.3 0.0 0.4 6.7 0.0 3.8 7.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.9 0.0 2.4 1.3 0.0 0.5 19.1 0.0 3.4 21.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 45.7 0.0 59.3 52.7 0.0 17.7 23.9 0.0 23.9 24.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E D B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 124 A 965 A 1228 A Approach Delay,s/veh 57.8 56.8 23.6 24.0 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.6 72.1 16.4 8.2 75.5 11.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.3 64.7 18.0 5.0 71.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.8 45.4 11.7 3.0 50.4 6.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 7.3 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W project 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 339 12 57 8 12 21 71 579 12 19 574 319 Future Volume(veh/h) 339 12 57 8 12 21 71 579 12 19 574 319 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 357 13 0 8 13 22 75 609 13 20 604 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 406 15 11 18 31 96 915 20 38 1680 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.47 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1626 59 1535 316 513 869 1767 1810 39 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 370 0 0 43 0 0 75 0 622 20 604 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1698 0 0 1767 0 1849 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 1.1 10.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 1.1 10.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.19 0.51 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 421 0 60 0 0 96 0 935 38 1680 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.67 0.52 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 578 0 452 0 0 164 0 935 95 1680 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 34.6 0.0 0.0 45.8 0.0 0.0 44.8 0.0 17.7 46.4 16.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.3 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 3.7 10.5 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 10.0 0.6 3.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.9 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.0 0.0 57.3 0.0 21.4 57.0 16.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A E A A E A C E B Approach Vol,veh/h 370 A 43 697 624 A Approach Delay,s/veh 45.9 60.1 25.3 18.0 Approach LOS D E C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 28.4 9.7 49.8 7.9 6.6 53.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 32.9 8.9 44.7 25.5 5.1 48.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 22.2 6.0 12.4 4.4 3.1 26.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.7 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.0 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W project 9: Kona Vista Roadway 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it t r t Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 68 1031 74 79 1118 Future Vol,veh/h 12 68 1031 74 79 1118 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 585 695 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 74 1121 80 86 1215 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2508 1121 0 0 1121 0 Stage 1 1121 - - - - - Stage 2 1387 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 31 251 623 Stage 1 311 - Stage 2 232 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 27 251 623 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 27 - Stage 1 311 Stage 2 200 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 55.7 0 0.8 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 27 251 623 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.483 0.294 0.138 HCM Control Delay(s) 228.2 25.2 11.7 HCM Lane LOS F D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 1.2 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Arterial Level of Service 2029 AM W project 04/28/2020 Arterial Level of Service: NB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 41.2 71.0 112.2 0.32 10.4 E Puapuaanui St III 30 107.6 16.7 124.3 0.90 26.0 B Total III 148.8 87.7 236.5 1.22 18.6 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 5.8 100.1 0.79 28.2 B Lako Street III 30 107.6 32.4 140.0 0.90 23.0 C Total III 201.9 38.2 240.1 1.68 25.2 B 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service 2029 PM W project 04/28/2020 Arterial Level of Service: NB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 41.2 48.8 90.0 0.32 13.0 E Puapuaanui St III 30 107.6 18.1 125.7 0.90 25.7 B Total III 148.8 66.9 215.7 1.22 20.4 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 6.2 100.5 0.79 28.1 B Lako Street III 30 107.6 39.2 146.8 0.90 22.0 C Total III 201.9 45.4 247.3 1.68 24.5 B 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Appendix H Analysis Reports — Future Without Project Conditions 2039) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/01/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip+ r VIC ft r f+ r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 87 558 266 199 827 28 297 234 133 24 392 216 Future Volume(veh/h) 87 558 266 199 827 28 297 234 133 24 392 216 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 89 569 0 203 844 0 303 239 0 24 400 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 167 1420 285 1565 394 900 45 579 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.45 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 89 569 0 203 844 0 303 239 0 24 400 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.3 9.9 0.0 4.9 14.9 0.0 7.3 4.5 0.0 1.1 8.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 9.9 0.0 4.9 14.9 0.0 7.3 4.5 0.0 1.1 8.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 167 1420 285 1565 394 900 45 579 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.40 0.71 0.54 0.77 0.27 0.53 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 237 1420 421 1565 579 1993 117 1620 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 16.8 0.0 37.5 16.5 0.0 36.0 25.1 0.0 40.4 33.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.6 0.8 0.0 3.3 1.3 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 3.7 0.0 2.1 5.7 0.0 3.2 1.9 0.0 0.6 3.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.4 17.7 0.0 40.8 17.9 0.0 39.7 25.3 0.0 49.6 34.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 658 A 1047 A 542 A 424 A Approach Delay,s/veh 20.9 22.3 33.3 35.5 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.6 25.8 11.5 40.0 14.2 18.2 8.9 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.1 6.5 6.9 11.9 9.3 10.9 4.3 16.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.7 0.2 3.8 0.5 2.8 0.0 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 AM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/01/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 131 438 151 63 732 570 178 411 51 442 414 151 Future Volume(vph) 131 438 151 63 732 570 178 411 51 442 414 151 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 135 452 156 65 755 588 184 424 53 456 427 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 109 0 0 408 0 0 42 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 135 452 47 65 755 180 166 442 11 347 670 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.4 30.4 4.1 27.9 27.9 20.5 20.5 20.5 27.6 27.6 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.4 30.4 4.1 27.9 27.9 20.5 20.5 20.5 27.6 27.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 203 991 458 134 944 429 318 682 303 437 870 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.14 0.02 c0.22 0.11 c0.13 c0.22 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.12 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.46 0.10 0.49 0.80 0.42 0.52 0.65 0.04 0.79 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 45.9 28.4 25.3 47.2 33.8 29.7 35.7 36.7 32.1 33.9 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.0 1.5 0.5 2.8 7.1 3.0 1.5 2.1 0.0 9.6 4.3 Delay(s)53.9 29.9 25.7 50.0 40.8 32.7 37.2 38.9 32.2 43.4 37.8 Level of Service D C C D D C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 33.4 37.9 37.9 39.7 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.6 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 41 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 54 59 200 1202 947 37 Future Vol,veh/h 54 59 200 1202 947 37 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 58 63 215 1292 1018 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2741 - 1019 0 0 Stage 1 1019 Stage 2 1722 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —22 0 681 Stage 1 348 0 - Stage 2 158 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver — 15 - 680 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver — 15 Stage 1 238 Stage 2 158 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1804.9 1.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 680 15 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.316 3.871 HCM Control Delay(s) 12.7 $1804.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 - 8.1 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 9.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1 Traffic Vol,veh/h 11 171 1228 18 89 913 Future Vol,veh/h 11 171 1228 18 89 913 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 12 184 1320 19 96 982 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2504 1330 0 0 1320 0 Stage 1 1330 - - - - - Stage 2 1174 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 32 189 511 Stage 1 247 - Stage 2 294 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 26 189 511 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 26 - Stage 1 247 Stage 2 239 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 116.7 0 1.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 26 189 511 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.455 0.973 0.187 HCM Control Delay(s) 229.1 109.5 13.7 HCM Lane LOS F F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 8 0.7 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 5: Puapuaanui St II 11/01/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 106 226 1041 29 52 876 Future Volume(veh/h) 106 226 1041 29 52 876 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 113 0 1107 0 55 932 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 143 1382 71 1515 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.04 0.83 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 113 0 1107 0 55 932 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.2 0.0 37.7 0.0 3.1 17.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.2 0.0 37.7 0.0 3.1 17.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 143 1382 71 1515 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.80 0.78 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 321 1382 116 1515 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 0.0 8.1 0.0 47.6 3.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.3 0.0 5.0 0.0 16.5 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 0.0 13.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0 13.0 0.0 64.1 4.8 LnGrp LOS D B E A Approach Vol,veh/h 113 A 1107 A 987 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.5 13.0 8.1 Approach LOS D B A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.5 79.0 87.5 12.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 72.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.1 39.7 19.8 8.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 12.5 10.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM WO 6: Kuakini Street 11/01/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 11.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 206 631 977 894 74 Future Vol,veh/h 9 206 631 977 894 74 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 10 222 678 1051 961 80 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3368 - 961 0 0 Stage 1 961 Stage 2 2407 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —9 0 716 Stage 1 371 0 - Stage 2 71 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 716 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 Stage 1 20 Stage 2 71 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 18.1 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 716 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.948 HCM Control Delay(s) 46 0 HCM Lane LOS E A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 13.8 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 7: Lako Street 11/01/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 306 59 84 84 44 326 40 966 67 172 789 153 Future Volume(veh/h) 306 59 84 84 44 326 40 966 67 172 789 153 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 326 63 0 89 47 0 43 1028 0 183 839 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 323 339 128 135 228 935 184 983 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.50 0.00 0.06 0.53 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 326 63 0 89 47 0 43 1028 0 183 839 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 18.0 2.8 0.0 4.9 2.4 0.0 1.1 49.6 0.0 6.3 38.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.0 2.8 0.0 4.9 2.4 0.0 1.1 49.6 0.0 6.3 38.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 323 339 128 135 228 935 184 983 V/C Ratio(X) 1.01 0.19 0.70 0.35 0.19 1.10 0.99 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 323 339 321 339 255 935 184 983 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 34.4 0.0 44.9 43.8 0.0 17.8 24.8 0.0 28.1 20.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 52.2 0.3 0.0 6.7 1.5 0.0 0.4 60.3 0.0 64.8 9.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.5 1.3 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.5 36.0 0.0 7.8 18.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.7 34.6 0.0 51.6 45.3 0.0 18.2 85.1 0.0 93.0 29.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS F C D D B F F C Approach Vol,veh/h 389 A 136 A 1071 A 1022 A Approach Delay,s/veh 83.3 49.4 82.4 40.8 Approach LOS F D F D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.9 54.1 22.5 8.0 57.0 11.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.3 51.6 20.0 3.1 40.5 6.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/01/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 192 6 32 20 15 18 93 580 18 17 509 348 Future Volume(veh/h) 192 6 32 20 15 18 93 580 18 17 509 348 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 206 6 0 22 16 19 100 624 19 18 547 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 271 8 30 22 26 126 897 27 38 1580 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.46 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1733 50 1459 626 455 540 1668 1747 53 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 212 0 0 57 0 0 100 0 643 18 547 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1621 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.9 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 18.7 0.7 7.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.9 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 18.7 0.7 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.39 0.33 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 279 0 78 0 0 126 0 925 38 1580 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.70 0.48 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 669 0 598 0 0 220 0 925 131 1580 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.9 0.0 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 12.7 33.4 12.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.2 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 4.3 9.1 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.9 0.4 2.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.1 0.0 0.0 44.7 0.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 17.0 42.6 12.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 212 A 57 743 565 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.1 44.7 20.4 13.6 Approach LOS C D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 15.3 9.7 36.2 7.8 6.0 40.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.1 31.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.9 6.1 9.1 4.4 2.7 20.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.0 0.1 3.3 0.2 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r TIC ft f+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 317 1070 614 272 743 50 277 345 301 62 382 131 Future Volume(veh/h) 317 1070 614 272 743 50 277 345 301 62 382 131 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 323 1092 0 278 758 0 283 352 0 63 390 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 406 1472 358 1409 362 798 81 585 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 323 1092 0 278 758 0 283 352 0 63 390 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.9 22.5 0.0 6.8 14.2 0.0 6.9 7.4 0.0 3.0 8.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.9 22.5 0.0 6.8 14.2 0.0 6.9 7.4 0.0 3.0 8.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 1472 358 1409 362 798 81 585 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.74 0.78 0.54 0.78 0.44 0.78 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 497 1472 421 1409 418 1715 184 1649 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 21.2 0.0 37.7 19.6 0.0 37.6 28.8 0.0 40.7 33.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.2 3.4 0.0 7.6 1.5 0.0 8.2 0.4 0.0 14.5 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 9.3 0.0 3.2 5.7 0.0 3.3 3.1 0.0 1.6 3.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.2 24.6 0.0 45.3 21.1 0.0 45.8 29.2 0.0 55.2 35.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C D C E D Approach Vol,veh/h 1415 A 1036 A 635 A 453 A Approach Delay,s/veh 29.1 27.6 36.6 37.9 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.4 23.9 13.4 40.5 13.6 18.7 14.7 39.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.0 9.4 8.8 24.5 8.9 10.9 9.9 16.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.5 0.2 5.7 0.2 2.7 0.3 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 PM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I10/ 28/2019 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 232 809 355 88 669 383 154 388 41 425 417 232 Future Volume(vph) 232 809 355 88 669 383 154 388 41 425 417 232 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 237 826 362 90 683 391 157 396 42 434 426 237 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 248 0 0 286 0 0 34 0 45 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 237 826 114 90 683 105 141 412 8 369 683 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 32.0 32.0 3.9 27.3 27.3 19.5 19.5 19.5 28.3 28.3 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 32.0 32.0 3.9 27.3 27.3 19.5 19.5 19.5 28.3 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 282 1113 498 131 931 419 305 648 294 448 888 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.23 0.03 0.20 0.09 c0.12 c0.23 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.74 0.23 0.69 0.73 0.25 0.46 0.64 0.03 0.82 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 45.9 31.2 25.7 48.3 33.9 29.2 36.5 37.8 33.4 34.4 33.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.6 4.5 1.1 13.9 5.1 1.4 1.1 2.0 0.0 11.7 4.1 Delay(s)65.5 35.6 26.8 62.2 39.0 30.6 37.6 39.9 33.4 46.0 37.8 Level of Service E D C E D C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 38.4 38.0 38.9 40.5 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 101.7 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 85 102 1126 1226 21 Future Vol,veh/h 12 85 102 1126 1226 21 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 12 88 105 1161 1264 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2635 - 1264 0 0 Stage 1 1264 Stage 2 1371 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 26 0 550 Stage 1 266 0 - Stage 2 236 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 21 - 550 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 21 Stage 1 215 Stage 2 236 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$316.3 1.1 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 550 21 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.191 0.589 HCM Control Delay(s) 13.1 -$316.3 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 1.7 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 17 87 1147 5 74 1238 Future Vol,veh/h 17 87 1147 5 74 1238 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 18 90 1182 5 76 1276 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2613 1185 0 0 1182 0 Stage 1 1185 - - - - - Stage 2 1428 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 26 230 570 Stage 1 284 - Stage 2 216 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 23 230 570 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 23 - Stage 1 284 Stage 2 187 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 81.9 0 0.7 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 23 230 570 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.762 0.39 0.134 HCM Control Delay(s) 345.7 30.3 12.3 HCM Lane LOS F D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 1.7 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 5: Puapuaanui St II 10/28/2019 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 41 131 1007 59 161 1105 Future Volume(veh/h) 41 131 1007 59 161 1105 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 42 0 1038 0 166 1139 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 63 1320 200 1628 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.11 0.87 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 42 0 1038 0 166 1139 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.2 0.0 35.0 0.0 8.7 19.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.2 0.0 35.0 0.0 8.7 19.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 63 1320 200 1628 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.79 0.83 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 336 1320 252 1628 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 0.0 9.0 0.0 41.5 2.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.7 0.0 4.8 0.0 16.9 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.0 13.0 0.0 4.7 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.1 0.0 13.8 0.0 58.4 4.6 LnGrp LOS E B E A Approach Vol,veh/h 42 A 1038 A 1305 Approach Delay,s/veh 57.1 13.8 11.4 Approach LOS E B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 15.2 72.3 87.5 7.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 65.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 10.7 37.0 21.2 4.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 10.5 16.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM WO 6: Kuakini Street 10/28/2019 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 8.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 16 454 297 1042 1082 44 Future Vol,veh/h 16 454 297 1042 1082 44 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 16 463 303 1063 1104 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2773 - 1104 0 0 Stage 1 1104 Stage 2 1669 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 20 0 632 Stage 1 309 0 - Stage 2 163 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver — 10 - 632 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver — 10 Stage 1 161 Stage 2 163 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$ 1041 3.5 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 632 10 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.48 1.633 HCM Control Delay(s) 15.8 -$1041 0 HCM Lane LOS C - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.6 - 2.9 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 7: Lako Street 10/28/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 155 37 59 76 48 235 45 920 78 221 1070 207 Future Volume(veh/h) 155 37 59 76 48 235 45 920 78 221 1070 207 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 161 39 0 79 50 0 47 958 0 230 1115 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 202 215 118 121 147 979 256 1087 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.53 0.00 0.09 0.58 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 161 39 0 79 50 0 47 958 0 230 1115 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.1 1.7 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.0 1.1 45.5 0.0 6.8 52.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.1 1.7 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.0 1.1 45.5 0.0 6.8 52.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 202 215 118 121 147 979 256 1087 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.18 0.67 0.41 0.32 0.98 0.90 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 349 373 355 364 177 979 256 1087 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.0 36.1 0.0 41.2 40.5 0.0 21.3 20.8 0.0 25.7 18.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.1 0.4 0.0 6.4 2.3 0.0 1.2 23.9 0.0 31.2 34.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.8 0.8 0.0 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.5 24.3 0.0 4.7 30.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.1 36.5 0.0 47.7 42.8 0.0 22.6 44.8 0.0 57.0 52.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D C D E F Approach Vol,veh/h 200 A 129 A 1005 A 1345 A Approach Delay,s/veh 44.2 45.8 43.7 53.6 Approach LOS D D D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.8 52.2 14.9 8.0 57.0 10.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.8 47.5 10.1 3.1 54.5 5.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10/28/2019 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 354 13 63 9 13 22 78 604 13 21 624 347 Future Volume(veh/h) 354 13 63 9 13 22 78 604 13 21 624 347 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 373 14 0 9 14 23 82 636 14 22 657 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 423 16 13 21 34 105 817 18 43 1479 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.42 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1624 61 1535 333 518 850 1767 1809 40 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 387 0 0 46 0 0 82 0 650 22 657 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1701 0 0 1767 0 1848 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 23.9 1.0 10.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 23.9 1.0 10.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.20 0.50 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 439 0 68 0 0 105 0 835 43 1479 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.51 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 542 0 539 0 0 156 0 835 113 1479 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 28.6 0.0 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 37.3 0.0 18.7 38.8 16.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.4 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 7.1 9.1 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 10.4 0.5 4.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.9 0.0 0.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 51.0 0.0 25.7 47.9 17.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 387 A 46 732 679 A Approach Delay,s/veh 41.9 49.3 28.6 18.8 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 25.5 9.3 38.0 7.7 6.4 40.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 7.1 33.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 19.7 5.7 12.7 4.1 3.0 25.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.2 0.0 4.0 0.2 0.0 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Appendix I Analysis Reports — Future With Project Conditions (2039) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W project 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip+ r TIC ft r f+ r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 87 565 266 200 865 37 297 234 135 24 392 216 Future Volume(veh/h) 87 565 266 200 865 37 297 234 135 24 392 216 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 89 577 0 204 883 0 303 239 0 24 400 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 167 1419 286 1565 394 900 45 579 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.45 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 89 577 0 204 883 0 303 239 0 24 400 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.3 10.1 0.0 4.9 15.8 0.0 7.3 4.5 0.0 1.1 8.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 10.1 0.0 4.9 15.8 0.0 7.3 4.5 0.0 1.1 8.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 167 1419 286 1565 394 900 45 579 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.41 0.71 0.56 0.77 0.27 0.53 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 237 1419 421 1565 579 1993 117 1620 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 16.9 0.0 37.5 16.8 0.0 36.0 25.1 0.0 40.4 33.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.6 0.9 0.0 3.3 1.5 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 3.8 0.0 2.1 6.0 0.0 3.2 1.9 0.0 0.6 3.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.4 17.8 0.0 40.8 18.3 0.0 39.7 25.3 0.0 49.6 34.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 666 A 1087 A 542 A 424 A Approach Delay,s/veh 20.9 22.5 33.3 35.5 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.6 25.8 11.6 40.0 14.2 18.2 8.9 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.1 6.5 6.9 12.1 9.3 10.9 4.3 17.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.7 0.2 3.8 0.5 2.8 0.0 6.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 AM W project 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I03/ 13/2020 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 131 447 151 67 780 608 178 411 52 451 414 151 Future Volume(vph) 131 447 151 67 780 608 178 411 52 451 414 151 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 135 461 156 69 804 627 184 424 54 465 427 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 109 0 0 408 0 0 43 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 135 461 47 69 804 219 166 442 11 349 678 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 30.3 30.3 4.1 27.8 27.8 20.5 20.5 20.5 27.7 27.7 Effective Green, g(s) 6.6 30.3 30.3 4.1 27.8 27.8 20.5 20.5 20.5 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 203 988 456 134 941 427 318 682 303 439 873 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.14 0.02 c0.24 0.11 c0.13 c0.22 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.14 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.47 0.10 0.51 0.85 0.51 0.52 0.65 0.04 0.79 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 45.9 28.6 25.3 47.3 34.5 30.7 35.7 36.7 32.1 33.8 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.0 1.6 0.5 3.3 9.8 4.3 1.5 2.1 0.0 9.6 4.4 Delay(s)53.9 30.2 25.8 50.6 44.3 35.0 37.2 38.9 32.2 43.4 38.0 Level of Service D C C D D D D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 33.5 40.7 37.9 39.8 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.6 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W project 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 50.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 54 60 215 1292 966 37 Future Vol,veh/h 54 60 215 1292 966 37 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 58 65 231 1389 1039 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2891 - 1040 0 0 Stage 1 1040 Stage 2 1851 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver — 18 0 669 Stage 1 341 0 - Stage 2 136 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver — 12 - 668 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver — 12 Stage 1 223 Stage 2 136 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$2351.6 1.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 668 12 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.346 4.839 HCM Control Delay(s) 13.2 $2351.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 - 8.4 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W project 4: Hualalai Rd (South)03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 13.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 1 Traffic Vol,veh/h 11 171 1333 18 89 933 Future Vol,veh/h 11 171 1333 18 89 933 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 12 184 1433 19 96 1003 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2638 1443 0 0 1433 0 Stage 1 1443 - - - - - Stage 2 1195 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.254 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 26 — 162 462 Stage 1 217 - Stage 2 287 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 21 — 162 462 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 21 - Stage 1 217 Stage 2 227 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 176.9 0 1.3 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 21 162 462 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.563 1.135 0.207 HCM Control Delay(s) 308.6 168.4 14.8 HCM Lane LOS F F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 9.8 0.8 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W project 5: Puapuaanui St II 03/13/2020 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 108 226 1146 32 52 896 Future Volume(veh/h) 108 226 1146 32 52 896 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 115 0 1219 0 55 953 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 142 1428 71 1546 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.04 0.85 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 115 0 1219 0 55 953 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.7 0.0 53.6 0.0 3.7 20.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.7 0.0 53.6 0.0 3.7 20.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 142 1428 71 1546 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.85 0.78 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 264 1428 81 1546 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.1 0.0 9.4 0.0 57.9 3.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.5 0.0 6.7 0.0 33.5 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.9 0.0 20.1 0.0 2.3 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.6 0.0 16.1 0.0 91.4 4.9 LnGrp LOS E B F A Approach Vol,veh/h 115 A 1219 A 1008 Approach Delay,s/veh 65.6 16.1 9.6 Approach LOS E B A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.3 98.2 107.5 14.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 93.0 103.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.7 55.6 22.4 9.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 16.4 10.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W project 6: Kuakini Street 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 12.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t t r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 206 634 1002 921 76 Future Vol,veh/h 9 206 634 1002 921 76 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 10 222 682 1077 990 82 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3431 - 990 0 0 Stage 1 990 Stage 2 2441 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —8 0 698 Stage 1 360 0 - Stage 2 68 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 698 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 Stage 1 8 Stage 2 68 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 20.5 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 698 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.977 HCM Control Delay(s) 52.8 0 HCM Lane LOS F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 15 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W project 7: Lako Street 03/13/2020 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 311 59 84 100 47 334 40 981 67 176 808 157 Future Volume(veh/h) 311 59 84 100 47 334 40 981 67 176 808 157 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 331 63 0 106 50 0 43 1044 0 187 860 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 319 335 140 148 232 990 168 1039 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.06 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 331 63 0 106 50 0 43 1044 0 187 860 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 21.5 3.4 0.0 7.1 3.0 0.0 1.3 63.5 0.0 7.5 45.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 21.5 3.4 0.0 7.1 3.0 0.0 1.3 63.5 0.0 7.5 45.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 319 335 140 148 232 990 168 1039 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.19 0.76 0.34 0.19 1.05 1.11 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 319 335 287 304 250 990 168 1039 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 49.2 41.8 0.0 54.1 52.3 0.0 19.7 28.2 0.0 37.8 21.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 60.3 0.3 0.0 8.1 1.3 0.0 0.4 44.2 0.0 103.4 7.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.9 1.6 0.0 3.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 39.1 0.0 9.9 21.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109.6 42.1 0.0 62.3 53.6 0.0 20.1 72.4 0.0 141.3 29.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E D C F F C Approach Vol,veh/h 394 A 156 A 1087 A 1047 A Approach Delay,s/veh 98.8 59.5 70.4 49.2 Approach LOS F E E D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.0 68.0 26.0 8.3 71.7 14.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 63.5 21.5 5.0 66.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 65.5 23.5 3.3 47.6 9.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 65.7 HCM 6th LOS E Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W project 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 196 6 32 20 15 18 93 591 18 18 529 362 Future Volume(veh/h) 196 6 32 20 15 18 93 591 18 18 529 362 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1722 1781 1781 1781 1752 1811 1811 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 211 6 0 22 16 19 100 635 19 19 569 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 12 8 8 8 10 6 6 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 260 7 28 21 24 125 1035 31 37 1850 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.54 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1734 49 1459 623 453 538 1668 1748 52 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 217 0 0 57 0 0 100 0 654 19 569 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1615 0 0 1668 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 21.8 1.0 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 21.8 1.0 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.39 0.33 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 267 0 73 0 0 125 0 1066 37 1850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.61 0.51 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 493 0 439 0 0 222 0 1066 97 1850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 0.0 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.0 12.2 45.4 12.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.9 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 2.6 10.5 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 8.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.4 0.0 0.0 60.4 0.0 0.0 53.6 0.0 14.9 55.9 12.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A E A A D A B E B Approach Vol,veh/h 217 A 57 754 588 A Approach Delay,s/veh 44.4 60.4 20.0 13.8 Approach LOS D E C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 18.5 11.5 54.9 8.7 6.5 60.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 12.5 48.1 25.5 5.1 55.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 13.0 7.5 10.6 5.3 3.0 23.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.1 3.8 0.2 0.0 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W project 9: Kona Vista Roadway 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it t r t Traffic Vol,veh/h 29 108 1011 25 22 1004 Future Vol,veh/h 29 108 1011 25 22 1004 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 585 695 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 32 117 1099 27 24 1091 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2238 1099 0 0 1099 0 Stage 1 1099 - - - - - Stage 2 1139 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 47 258 635 Stage 1 319 - Stage 2 305 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 45 258 635 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 45 - Stage 1 319 Stage 2 293 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 64 0 0.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 45 258 635 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.7 0.455 0.038 HCM Control Delay(s)190.1 30.1 10.9 HCM Lane LOS F D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.7 2.2 0.1 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 14 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W project 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I. 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r TIC ft f+ Traffic Volume(veh/h) 317 1104 614 274 767 59 277 345 311 64 382 131 Future Volume(veh/h) 317 1104 614 274 767 59 277 345 311 64 382 131 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 323 1127 0 280 783 0 283 352 0 65 390 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 406 1471 359 1409 362 792 84 585 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 323 1127 0 280 783 0 283 352 0 65 390 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.9 23.6 0.0 6.8 14.9 0.0 6.9 7.4 0.0 3.1 8.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.9 23.6 0.0 6.8 14.9 0.0 6.9 7.4 0.0 3.1 8.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 1471 359 1409 362 792 84 585 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.77 0.78 0.56 0.78 0.44 0.77 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 497 1471 421 1409 417 1714 184 1648 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 21.5 0.0 37.7 19.8 0.0 37.6 28.9 0.0 40.7 33.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.2 3.9 0.0 7.8 1.6 0.0 8.2 0.4 0.0 14.0 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 9.8 0.0 3.2 6.0 0.0 3.3 3.1 0.0 1.7 3.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 25.4 0.0 45.5 21.4 0.0 45.8 29.3 0.0 54.7 35.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C D C D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1450 A 1063 A 635 A 455 A Approach Delay,s/veh 29.6 27.7 36.7 37.9 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.6 23.7 13.5 40.5 13.6 18.7 14.7 39.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.1 9.4 8.8 25.6 8.9 10.9 9.9 16.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.5 0.2 5.5 0.2 2.7 0.3 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 PM W project 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I03/ 13/2020 I. - 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r ft r 4+ r Traffic Volume(vph) 232 854 355 93 704 403 154 388 43 449 417 232 Future Volume(vph) 232 854 355 93 704 403 154 388 43 449 417 232 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3194 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3194 Peak-hour factor, PH 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 237 871 362 95 718 411 157 396 44 458 426 237 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 255 0 0 305 0 0 36 0 42 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 237 871 107 95 718 106 141 412 8 376 703 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 29.8 29.8 5.0 26.2 26.2 19.5 19.5 19.5 28.9 28.9 Effective Green, g(s) 8.6 29.8 29.8 5.0 26.2 26.2 19.5 19.5 19.5 28.9 28.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 283 1042 466 169 898 404 307 651 296 459 912 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.25 0.03 0.21 0.09 c0.12 c0.23 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.23 0.56 0.80 0.26 0.46 0.63 0.03 0.82 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 33.4 27.0 47.0 35.0 29.8 36.2 37.6 33.2 33.7 33.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.9 7.9 1.1 4.2 7.4 1.6 1.1 2.0 0.0 10.9 4.1 Delay(s)64.6 41.4 28.1 51.3 42.4 31.4 37.3 39.6 33.2 44.6 37.2 Level of Service E D C D D C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 41.8 39.4 38.6 39.7 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 101.2 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W project 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 90 107 1185 1297 21 Future Vol,veh/h 12 90 107 1185 1297 21 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 12 93 110 1222 1337 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2779 - 1337 0 0 Stage 1 1337 Stage 2 1442 Critical Hdwy 6.42 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 21 0 516 Stage 1 245 0 - Stage 2 218 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 17 - 516 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 17 Stage 1 193 Stage 2 218 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$425.9 1.1 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 516 17 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.214 0.728 HCM Control Delay(s) 13.9 -$425.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 1.9 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W project 4: Hualalai Rd (South)03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it Traffic Vol,veh/h 17 87 1212 5 74 1314 Future Vol,veh/h 17 87 1212 5 74 1314 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Stop Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 18 90 1249 5 76 1355 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2759 1252 0 0 1249 0 Stage 1 1252 - - - - - Stage 2 1507 - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 4.18 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 2.272 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 21 210 537 Stage 1 263 - Stage 2 197 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 18 210 537 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 18 - Stage 1 263 Stage 2 169 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 109.6 0 0.7 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 18 210 537 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.974 0.427 0.142 HCM Control Delay(s) 495.2 34.3 12.8 HCM Lane LOS F D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.5 2 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W project 5: Puapuaanui St II 03/13/2020 t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 44 131 1072 63 161 1181 Future Volume(veh/h) 44 131 1072 63 161 1181 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 45 0 1105 0 166 1218 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 58 1412 191 1686 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.11 0.90 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 45 0 1105 0 166 1218 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.4 0.0 48.0 0.0 12.5 25.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.4 0.0 48.0 0.0 12.5 25.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 58 1412 191 1686 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.78 0.87 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 235 1412 241 1686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 65.5 0.0 9.6 0.0 60.0 1.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 18.8 0.0 4.4 0.0 22.9 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.9 0.0 18.6 0.0 6.9 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.3 0.0 14.0 0.0 82.9 4.6 LnGrp LOS F B F A Approach Vol,veh/h 45 A 1105 A 1384 Approach Delay,s/veh 84.3 14.0 14.0 Approach LOS F B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 19.1 108.4 127.5 9.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 18.5 100.0 123.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 14.5 50.0 27.2 5.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 14.3 20.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W project 6: Kuakini Street 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 9.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations it t A, r Traffic Vol,veh/h 16 454 298 1116 1094 44 Future Vol,veh/h 16 454 298 1116 1094 44 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Free - None Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 16 463 304 1139 1116 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2863 - 1116 0 0 Stage 1 1116 Stage 2 1747 Critical Hdwy 6.48 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 18 0 626 Stage 1 305 0 - Stage 2 149 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —9 - 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —9 Stage 1 157 Stage 2 149 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1188.2 3.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 626 9 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.486 1.814 HCM Control Delay(s) 16.1 $1188.2 0 HCM Lane LOS C - F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.7 - 3 Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W project 7: Lako Street 03/13/2020 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations A Traffic Volume(veh/h) 164 37 59 83 49 250 45 972 78 223 1078 209 Future Volume(veh/h) 164 37 59 83 49 250 45 972 78 223 1078 209 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 171 39 0 86 51 0 47 1012 0 232 1123 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 196 209 114 116 184 1172 266 1240 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.06 0.66 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 171 39 0 86 51 0 47 1012 0 232 1123 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.2 2.6 0.0 6.5 3.7 0.0 1.3 60.7 0.0 6.1 69.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.2 2.6 0.0 6.5 3.7 0.0 1.3 60.7 0.0 6.1 69.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 196 209 114 116 184 1172 266 1240 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.19 0.76 0.44 0.26 0.86 0.87 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 230 245 234 239 195 1172 352 1240 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 60.0 55.3 0.0 63.2 61.9 0.0 25.2 20.5 0.0 29.5 19.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.9 0.4 0.0 9.8 2.6 0.0 0.7 8.5 0.0 16.6 11.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.3 1.3 0.0 3.3 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.6 0.0 6.3 31.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.9 55.7 0.0 73.0 64.5 0.0 25.9 29.0 0.0 46.1 30.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E E E C C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 210 A 137 A 1059 A 1355 A Approach Delay,s/veh 80.3 69.8 28.9 33.2 Approach LOS F E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.0 91.2 19.9 8.7 95.5 13.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.1 80.9 18.0 5.0 91.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.1 62.7 15.2 3.3 71.5 8.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.4 8.2 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W project 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 03/13/2020 I- 4--- t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations S Traffic Volume(veh/h) 373 13 63 9 13 23 78 636 13 21 634 352 Future Volume(veh/h) 373 13 63 9 13 23 78 636 13 21 634 352 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1767 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 393 14 0 9 14 24 82 669 14 22 667 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 437 16 12 18 31 104 936 20 39 1706 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1627 58 1535 325 506 867 1767 1811 38 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 407 0 0 47 0 0 82 0 683 22 667 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1698 0 0 1767 0 1849 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 26.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 32.6 1.4 13.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 26.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 32.6 1.4 13.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.19 0.51 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 453 0 61 0 0 104 0 956 39 1706 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.71 0.56 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 614 0 376 0 0 160 0 956 79 1706 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 0.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 53.4 0.0 21.3 55.7 19.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 4.6 12.1 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 14.1 0.7 5.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 0.0 0.0 73.2 0.0 0.0 66.8 0.0 25.8 67.8 19.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A E A A E A C E B Approach Vol,veh/h 407 A 47 765 689 A Approach Delay,s/veh 53.5 73.2 30.2 21.4 Approach LOS D E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 35.4 11.3 59.7 8.6 7.0 64.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 41.9 10.4 54.2 25.5 5.1 59.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 28.8 7.3 15.8 5.2 3.4 34.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 2.1 0.0 4.6 0.2 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W project 9: Kona Vista Roadway 03/13/2020 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations it t r t Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 68 1132 74 79 1225 Future Vol,veh/h 12 68 1132 74 79 1225 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 585 695 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 74 1230 80 86 1332 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2734 1230 0 0 1230 0 Stage 1 1230 - - - - - Stage 2 1504 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 22 217 567 Stage 1 276 - Stage 2 203 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 19 217 567 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 19 - Stage 1 276 Stage 2 172 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 81.8 0 0.8 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 19 217 567 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.686 0.341 0.151 HCM Control Delay(s) 375.9 29.9 12.5 HCM Lane LOS F D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 1.4 0.5 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Arterial Level of Service 2039 AM W project 04/28/2020 Arterial Level of Service: NB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 41.2 111.1 152.3 0.32 7.7 F Puapuaanui Street III 30 107.6 21.2 128.8 0.90 25.0 B Total III 148.8 132.3 281.1 1.22 15.6 D Arterial Level of Service: SB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui Street III 30 94.3 7.0 101.3 0.79 27.9 B Lako Street III 30 107.6 41.7 149.3 0.90 21.6 C Total III 201.9 48.7 250.6 1.68 24.2 B 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service 2039 PM W project 04/28/2020 Arterial Level of Service: NB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 41.2 65.6 106.8 0.32 10.9 E Puapuaanui St III 30 107.6 21.8 129.4 0.90 24.9 B Total III 148.8 87.4 236.2 1.22 18.6 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 7.3 101.6 0.79 27.8 B Lako Street III 30 107.6 47.5 155.1 0.90 20.8 C Total III 201.9 54.8 256.7 1.68 23.6 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Appendix J Traffic Signa I Wa rra nt Ana lysis Figure 4C-4. Warrapt. 3, Peak HOLK (70`0 Factor) LESSTH AN 10.v - PQ PULATION ORA BDVE4QP"IP F, ON fi,IAJ OR STREET) 400 2 OR MC:E LANES& 2 O R MORE LANES MINOR 01i MORE LANES& 1 LANE STREET HIGHER- d'JF—& I LANE VOI LJMF APPROACH - e'00 VPH 100 00* 75* 5: f) 601) 7nO w Q E)Q0 MAJOR STHL.E." T—TOTAL OF B071-1 A'7PK-)AL- 12 Ataninwncc0unwidij hwi! -dullIC01 ILII kl.l-! +r<d lie frnmih,, !IIAlOr-iLrCcr.the sigral war-rantanalysi% may be performed in a manner than,,!tisiders the h!- .1 C7,, 1101 L-[Urn V0JUnJeS'qS the"Minor-S(reedirectionvolumeandthecorrespondingsingivdirectionofoppo-siiiL trat itc cm the major street as the"major-street"Volume. For all unsignalized intersections, minor approach is QK left turn onto minor street For all unsignalized intersections, major approach is QK opposing thru Use I Lane & I Lane Peak Hour Warrant Existing AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)776 164 YES 1005 84 NO JHualalai (S)1006 73 NO 940 61 NO IKuakini 1 733 517 YES 887 243 YES 2024 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)816 172 YES 1056 88 YES Hualalai (S)1057 77 YES 988 64 NO Kuakini 842 543 YES 932 255 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2024 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)827 180 YES 1096 91 YES Hualalai (S)1117 77 YES 1025 64 NO KV Roadway 819 13 NO 912 45 NO Kuakini 856 543 YES 944 1 255 1 YES 2029 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)857 181 YES 1110 93 YES Hualalai (S) 1 1111 81 YES 1038 67 NO Kuakini 1 885 571 YES 980 268 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2029 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)876 196 YES 1181 98 YES Hualalai (S)1216 81 YES 1103 67 NO Kuakini 810 579 YES 980 271 YES 2039 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)947 200 YES 1226 102 YES Hualalai (S)1228 89 YES 1147 74 NO Kuakini 894 631 YES 1082 297 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2039 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N)966 215 YES 1297 107 YES Hualalai (S)1333 89 YES 1212 74 NO Kuakini 894 639 YES 1082 300 YES Figure C-2. Warrasit 2. Four-HOLD VehiCLIIar Volume (70% Factor) JCC%-'MUNITY LESSTHAN iU.I::.00 POPULA7,10 J CIR ABOVE 40 PAPH ON rIAJC)R STREET) Oq `V;OPF l_a.NF C s MOFIE LANESawI i M PJC,R F: R MORE LANES °& 1 LANE STHE-T I-I IG.I.1'.- 11 LAINE& 1 LAVE VCii lJVF AP 3RO CFI - VPH 1 300 400 500 600 700 d00 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— JFHICI. :; PER HnUR (VPH) lull l:.r . tra l lii I nnn 11,. ,,ir rr el.the SE Tl11 WaTTant anal}+si% Irr•;rl1IC:,111.2I k WI ai;;; II,;. ,. _;;;, 01 1:7k• i}r.:i ,::r,,r left-turn volumes its the"minor-street" 5;5_LI:"._ti .L;-11 111 L:4P I It I I I I` %I I..-L Li II Ir;o iic%m III major itree.t 3s the-knajor-itreet' volume- Use 1 Lane & 1 Lane Existing- Hualalai 4-Hour Warrant N) Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 776 164 YES 7:45-8:45 AM 692 145 YES 3:00-4:00 PM 1005 84 YES 4:00-5:00 PM 926 74 YES 5:00-6:00 PM 986 58 NO Existing- Hualalai 4-Hour Warrant S) Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 1006 70 YES 7:45-8:45 AM 1030 26 NO 3:00-4:00 PM 940 59 NO 4:00-5:00 PM 864 64 NO 5:00-6:00 PM 765 56 NO Existing- Kuakini 4-Hour Warrant Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 776 335 YES 7:45-8:45 AM 683 467 YES 3:00-4:00 PM 881 224 YES 4:00-5:00 PM 872 264 YES 5:00-6:00 PM 870 217 YES APPENDIX 3: Biological Survey Results Botanical Survey and Vertebrate Fauna Assessment TMK 3-7 6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 (78.324 acres) North Kona District, Island ofHawaii By Ron Terry, Ph.D. Geometrician Associates, LLC September 2017 Introduction This biological survey was prepared for Richard Wheelock, Member, KV3 LLC, to inventory the existing biological environment, assess the potential for biological impacts from proposed development in the survey area, and devise mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any impacts. The land in question ("the survey area") consists of four parcels situated mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, north of the Lako Street intersection, as shown in Figure 1. Two of the parcels are owned by KV3 LLC and are planned for residential and associated uses. The other two parcels are linear drainage ditches owned by the County of Hawaii. The objectives of the botanical survey component of this survey were to 1) describe the vegetation; 2) list all species encountered; 3) determine the likelihood of the presence of rare, threatened or endangered (RTE)plant species; and 4) identify the locations of any RTE individuals found. The area was surveyed by Ron Terry in September 2017. Plant species were identified in the field and, as necessary, collected and keyed out in the laboratory. Special attention was given to the possible presence of any federally listed USFWS 2017) threatened or endangered plant species, although the habitat did not indicate a high potential for their presence. The work also included a faunal survey restricted to a tally of birds and introduced mammals, reptiles, or amphibians observed during the botanical fieldwork, as well as one additional one-hour bird observation. The field survey also assessed the general value of the habitat areas for native birds. Although there were no radar or ultrasound observations conducted that might have detected the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the general value of the habitat for the Hawaiian hoary bat was evaluated. Generally not included in the survey was assessment of invertebrates, but the area was searched for the principal plant species in the area known to support the larvae and pupae of the endangered Blackburn's sphinx moth(Manduca blackburnii), the one listed endangered insect that is potentially present. Vegetation:Influences and Previous Studies The geologic substrate for most of the survey area is soil-covered pahoehoe lava flows from Hualalai dated between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago (Wolfe and Morris 1996). The soil here is classified as Waiaha medial silt loam, 2-10 or 10 to 20 percent slopes, depending on location. This soil forms on ash-covered pahoehoe flows and has a 10-25- inch depth to bedrock. It well drained but also has a high runoff potential (Sato et al 1973). The survey area varies in elevation from 330 to 690 feet above sea level, and receives an average annual rainfall of about 35-38 inches, increasing in the mauka direction(Giambelluca et al 2013). The pre-human vegetation was likely Lowland Dry/Mesic Forest(per Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). This consisted of an open canopy forest dominated by a wide variety of trees, shrubs, herbs, vines and ferns. It likely had a diverse cover of native dry-forest trees and shrubs including lama (Diospyros sandwicensis) and alahe`e (Psydrax odoratum), with a number of other species perhaps including now rare trees such as wiliwili Erythrina sandwicensis), halapepe (Pleomele sandwicensis) and uhiuhi (Mezoneuron kavaiense). However, the general landscape of the Kailua-Kona area has been radically altered by centuries of settlements, over a century of grazing, and particularly by the development since 1960 of hotels, condominiums, resort homes, commercial facilities and associated infrastructure. Even on properties that experienced no development, introduced plants, animals and pests profoundly altered the biota. Prominent species in the survey area's elevational zone now include the aliens haole koa (Leucaena leucocephala), opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce), and guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus). Although the survey area never underwent modern development except on its margins, archaeological studies (SCS 2016) indicate that it was used prior to Western contact for a variety of activities, leaving features associated with agriculture, habitation, burial, and transportation. In more recent times, the survey area was part of a large former cattle ranch and agricultural area started in the early 1900s. The lower portion of the project area is still used to pasture cattle, and extensive fencing, cattle walls, several corrals and cattle chutes are present. The project area and surrounding lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push piles. Archaeologists confirmed that the linear bands evident in aerial imagery are bulldozer- cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. RTE plants are well known from certain areas at this elevational zone in Kona, but, with few exceptions, they are generally found further to the north in slightly drier areas with more recent lava (Geometrician Associates 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2014a, 2014b; Gerrish 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009). RTE plants noted in the surveys above in the Kealakehe to Palama Nui area include the endangered plants uhiuhi, ko`oko`olau Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla), halapepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis), wahine noho kula Isodendrion pyrifolium —now extinct in the wild) and Fimbristylis hawaiiensis; the rare plants `ohe makki(Polyscias sandwicensis and maiapilo (Capparis sandwichiana) (both of which we also found to the south on the most recent lava in Kahalu`u); and the increasingly uncommon wiliwili. No surveys that we have conducted mauka of Kuakini Highway between Palani Road and Honalo—an area with abundant soil that has led to intensive farming, ranching and settlement—have found any RTE plants. In terms of RTE fauna, the most likely candidate would be the endangered Hawaiian hawk(Buteo solitarius). This wide-ranging raptor nests in large trees and forages in forests, farms and even residential neighborhoods, and is seen throughout forested areas of the island. Klavitter(2000) and Gorresen et al. (2008) summarized hawk sightings Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 2 around the island, finding instances in this area of Kona, but at generally low densities. According to one study: "Both native and exotic trees are used for nesting, but the majority of nests are built in mature `ohi'a trees. Other nest trees include lama, koa, kolea, eucalyptus, common ironwood, Christmas berry, coconut, macadamia nut, and mango" (USDA-NRCS 2007). A number of other RTE birds are fairly unlikely to be found in the survey area. The Hawaiian goose or nene (Branta sandvicensis) is an endemic, federally listed endangered species that is only occasionally observed in urban Kona, although it is more abundant at Big Island Country Club in the Kekaha region of Kona. Some endangered Hawaiian petrels (Pterodroma sandwichensis or `ua`u) and band-rumped storm-petrels Oceanodroma castro), as well as threatened Newell's shearwaters (Puffinus auricularis newelli), may overfly the area between the months of June and October. All three of these pelagic seabird species nest high in the mountains in burrows. There is no suitable nesting habitat for any of these seabird species within or near the survey area. The primary cause of mortality in all these seabird species in Hawaii is thought to be predation by alien mammalian species at the nesting colonies. Collision with man-made structures is another significant cause. Nocturnally flying seabirds, especially fledglings on their way to sea in the summer and fall, can become disoriented by exterior lighting. When disoriented, seabirds may collide with manmade structures. If they are not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets for feral mammals (Banko 1980; Day et al 2003). Although not an RTE species, the Hawaiian endemic sub-species of the short- eared owl or pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), a protected migratory bird, nests and hunts in tall grasslands and shrublands and could conceivably be occasionally present on the survey area. The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the only native Hawaiian land mammal, is found in most areas on the island of Hawaii and has been observed in the thorny forests of Kona. Hawaiian hoary bats are vulnerable to disturbance during the summer pupping season. Finally, the one endangered insect found in many parts of Kona is the Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca blackburnii). It is generally associated with drier environments and `a`a substrates. The native host plant aiea (Nothocestrum spp.) is extremely rare, but a substitute host, the prolific weed tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), quickly colonizes dry, disturbed lava flows. Neither host was considered likely to be within the survey area. In general, we concluded that the probability of encountering RTE plant or animal species in the survey area was low, because of substrate, topography, elevation, history of grazing and evidence of prior surveys. Vegetation:Results Our survey found two vegetation types that were distinguished primarily by management regimes (see Figure 2 for photos). The upper half of the survey area contains very few cattle and is intensely overgrown with guinea grass (Figure 2a). The area could be described as a scattered forest or thick savanna, dominated by koa haole, opiuma and Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 3 monkeypod (Samanea saman). These four plants compose most of the biomass and cover in this area. The lower half is moderately grazed and has a very similar but slightly more diverse tree flora, with kiawe (Prosopis pallida), klu(Acacia farnesiana), and several other non-native trees (Figure 2c). The understory contains a great diversity of non-native grasses, herbs, shrubs and vines, along with a very few natives, including `uhaloa Waltheria indica) and `ilima (Sida fallax). Although a highly intermittent stream traverses the property, no aquatic or true riparian vegetation is present(Figure 2b). Flora and Rare, Threatened or Endangered Plants All plant species found in the survey area during the survey are listed in Table 1. Of the 65 species detected, five were indigenous (native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere) and none were endemic (found only in the Hawaiian Islands). All native plants found are very common throughout the island of Hawaii and the State, and no rare, threatened or endangered plant species were present. No tree tobacco, significant for its role as a potential host for an endangered moth, was found in the survey area. Online maps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) depict no critical habitat on or near the survey area (http:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html accessed September 2017). Birds The 15 species of birds detected during the survey were all non-native and typical of those found in similar areas of lowland disturbed habitat in Kona (Table 2). Most common were spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis), northern cardinal(Cardinalis cardinalis), cattle egret(Bubulcus ibis) and parakeet(Aratinga sp.), Japanese white-eye Zosterops japonicus) and house finch(Carpodacus mexicanus). No native birds were detected, and it is generally poor habitat for most native birds. The short-eared owl may utilize the survey area for foraging. The trees in the survey area are generally too short to serve as typical Hawaiian hawk nests, but it probably forages at least occasionally in the area. Hawaiian Hoary Bat Hawaiian hoary bats may very well utilize the survey area, as they have been observed in surrounding and similar areas. This survey took place in daylight, did not use any detection equipment, and was not designed to detect bats. However, the Hawaiian hoary bat should be presumed to be present. Bats may forage for flying insects over portions of the survey area on a seasonal basis, and they may find some of the larger shrubs and trees suitable nesting habitat. Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 4 Introduced Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians The only live mammals seen during the survey were cattle (Bos taurus), feral pigs (Sus scrofa—which were abundant in the survey area), and small Indian mongooses Herpestes a. auropunctatus). It is likely that feral cats (Felis catus), mice (Mus spp.), rats (Rattus spp.) and domestic dogs, (Canis f.familiaris) are occasionally present. There are no native terrestrial reptiles or amphibians in Hawaii. The only reptile observed during the survey was the day gecko (Phelsuma sp.). It is likely that other species of gecko as well as anoles and skinks are present. No amphibians were seen or heard. None of these alien mammals or reptiles have conservation value and all are deleterious to native flora and fauna. Impacts and Mitigation Measures As discussed above, no threatened or endangered plant species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017) appear to be present in the survey area, nor are there uniquely valuable habitats. No existing or proposed federally designated critical plant (or animal) habitat is present in the survey area. There appears to be no potential to adversely affect RTE plant species. If the project incorporates additional outdoor lighting, it may attract threatened and endangered Hawaiian seabirds, which may become disoriented by the lighting, resulting in birds being downed. To avoid the potential downing of these threatened and endangered seabirds due to interaction with outdoor lighting, no construction using unshielded equipment maintenance lighting should be permitted after dark between the months of April and October. All additional permanent lighting should conform to the Hawaii County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance(Hawai`i County Code Chapter 9,Article 14), which requires shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting. The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat is vulnerable to disturbance while roosting with its juveniles in the pupping season. To minimize impacts, it is recommended that woody plants taller than 15 feet should not be removed or trimmed during the bat birthing and pup rearing season(June 1 through September 15). No tree tobacco, the principal current host for the endangered Blackburn's sphinx moth, was observed during our surveys. Because of the weedy, extremely fast-growing and spreading nature of the plant after landclearing and the difficult process necessary to determine if pupae are present in the ground under the plant after larvae have finished their life cycle, it is recommended that the landowner/developer prevent any infestations from growing. Although it is advisable to consult DLNR and or USFWS before removing any plants,juvenile plants less than two feet tall are not generally utilized by the larvae and may be safely removed, subject to discussions with these agencies. Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 5 Report Limitations No biological survey of a large area can claim to have detected every species present. Some plant species are cryptic in juvenile or even mature stages of their life cycle. Dry conditions can render almost undetectable plants that extended rainfall may later invigorate and make obvious. Thick brush can obscure even large, healthy specimens. Birds utilize different patches of habitat during different times of the day and seasons, and only long-term study can determine the exact species composition. The findings of this survey must therefore be interpreted with proper caution; in particular, there is no warranty as to the absence of any particular species. Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 6 Literature Cited Banko, W. E. 1980.Population Histories Species Accounts Seabirds:Newell's Shearwater (A `o). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report#5A. Day, R. H., B. Cooper, and T. C. Telfer. 2003. "Decline of Townsend's (Newell's Shearwaters (Puffinus auricularis newelli) on Kauai, Hawaii." The Auk 120: 669- 679. Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation,"pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai`i. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Geometrician Associates, LLC. 2004.Botanical Survey, Keauhou Mauka Lands, Keauhou, Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Prep. for Kamehameha Investment Corporation (KIC) and Tsukazaki Yeh&Moore. On file at KIC. 2005.Botanical Survey, Makalei Lands, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Prep. for PBR Hawaii. 2007.Botanical Survey Tv1K 7-2-5:01 (por.)Proposed Makalei Fire Station Site Kau, North Kona, Island ofHawai`i. Prep. for PBR Hawaii. 2009a.Final Environmental Assessment, Kaloko Housing Program. Prep. for Hawaii County Office of Housing and Community Development. 2009b.Botanical Survey of 1-acre (+/) Storage Yard, TAX 7-4-20:03 (por.). Prep. for Maryl Development. 2014a.Flora and Fauna Survey, Proposed Kealakehe Regional Park Site, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Prep. for Hawaii County DPW. 2014b.Biological Reconnaissance Report, Makalei Mauka Lands, North Kona District, Island ofHawai`i. Prep. for James McCully and RLH. Gerrish, G. 2006. Rare Plant and Botanical Survey ofLaVopua Village 5 and `Aupaka Preserve. Prep. for Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Homelands. 2007a.Final Report:Rare Plant and Botanical Survey of La'i'opua Village 1. Prep. for Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Homelands. 2007b.Rare Plant and Botanical Survey of LaVopua Village 4 and Park. Prep. for Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 7 2008.Botanical Survey of Temporary Haul Road. Villages of La'i'opua, Including Portions of Tv1K 7-4-21:1, 2, 3 and 20. Prep. for Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Homelands. 2009.Rare Plant and Botanical Survey of the Archaeological Preserve, Villages ofLa-`i-`opua. Prep. for Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte, 2013: Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10.1 175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1. Gorresen, P.M., R.J. Camp, J.L. Klavitter and T.K. Pratt. 2008. Abundance, Distribution and Population Trend of the Hawaiian Hawk: 1998-2007. Technical Report HCSU-009 Hawaii Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Hilo/PACRC. Klavitter JL. 2000. Survey methodology, abundance, and demography of the endangered Hawaiian hawk: is delisting warranted? MS Thesis, Seattle: University of Washington. Sato, H. H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawai`i, State of Hawai`i. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agriculture Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Scientific Consultant Services (SCS). 2016. Archaeological Sites Inspection Letter Report for 20 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Located on 66.039 Acres ofLand in Holualoa IstAhupua`a, Kailua Kona, North Kona District, Hawaii Island[Portions of Tv1K: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017]. Prep. for Richard Wheelock, East-West Realty. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Islands Area (USDA-NRCS). 2007.Hawaiian Hawk Habitat Enhancement and Management. Biology Technical Note No. 17 University of Hawaii at Hilo, Dept. of Geography. 1998.Atlas of Hawai`i. 3rd cd. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawaii. USGS Misc Investigations Series Map i-2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Biological Survey, TMK 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 8 ylun-3 asH SI`J a41 Puo'N`JI'0121`Jo ay'S`JSH VO$H'SO sn4fd/53N'sol4do Boa o1s4Vo3'aA3oa'agol`JIoy1B10'Ys3:ao noS All--o—nSI`J a41 Puo'v oyngl yuoo dOW aalfSuado(o)339N'(Puollo4l)Ys3'""A 1s fo—A BuoH)oul431s 'IAW'uodof 1s 'UDOMN'd1N]"AM3NI'dowjayul's9sn'ul-J-O'IMAH'Il]:sa—S:4lPa»JaAo1--S U N O C as E L D- o N i J Q J H / D O o H c O O V wov o w o m C O 0 a`) N O r J o w LL w03 0 OS a) CO o d o a) 0 O U o Al m P CO N o p a o 0 0 5 n o h a o o 0 0o-o ate N OT O O p O O O O O iF. O O a QO O r N O v NONOOT Q vN o O d U C N O c 1o114op14o:A9619CCZCZ toa["d LBH\sPw\s1B\Poo s1B\olnP EO\8E990 L\an W\ZCO\:A r k law414 77 , n N°{ tl 4 L ryn+ • t ''IF W +IN Ak o F• f' W a r r e e y 4.y.. a, yy W 1 1 4 q d z, a u 1 yS V' I. y"rid I 4 y w 4 n 7 r: i'.i. 1V 1b.C4'•M,14Y"a.. MO'+'"" ". d 4+ 4" CAM i i 1 x x y f i • A T o + e," I r^ r- fir,+,, ,V ., „ •_ a`"' Y r, , Sa M ,.. p ...' d I FyN t I ft ,sf. F m y} i Al w a If Table 1. Plant Species Observed in Survey Area Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Form I Status* FERNS: Ne hrole is multi flora Ne hrole idaceae Sword Fern Herb A Phymatosorus grossus Polypodiaceae Maile Scented Herb A Fern Pteris cretica Pteridaceae Oali Fern 1 FLOWERING PLANTS: Abutdon grandifolium Malvaceae Hairy Abutilon Herb A Acacia farnesiana Fabaceae Klu Shrub A Aleurites moluccana Eu horbiaceae Kukui Tree P Amaranthus viridis Amaranthaceae Slender Herb A Amaranth Bidens alba Asteraceae Beggar's Tick Herb A Bidens c na ii olia Asteraceae Blue Bidens Herb A Bidens pilosa Asteraceae Beggar's Tick Herb A Buddleia asiatica Scro hulariaceae Buddleia Shrub A Caesal inia deca etala Fabaceae Wait-a-bit Vine A Chamaecrista nictitans Fabaceae Partridge Pea Pea A Chamaes ce hirta Eu horbiaceae Garden Spurge Herb A Chamaes ce hypericifolia Eu horbiaceae Graceful Spurge Herb A Chloris barbata Poaceae Swollen Herb A Fin er rass Coccinia grandis Cucurbitaceae Ivy Gourd Vine A Crotalana s . Fabaceae Rattlebox Herb A C nodon dactylon Poaceae Bermuda Grass Herb A Desmanthus vir atus Fabaceae Slender Mimosa Shrub A Desmodium incanum Fabaceae Desmodium Vine A Di itaria ciliaris Poaceae Crabgrass Herb A Di itaria insularis Poaceae Sour ass Herb A Di itaria seti era Poaceae Crabgrass Herb A D s hania carinata Cheno odiaceae D s hania Herb A Eleusine indica Poaceae Goose Grass Herb A Era rostis tenella Poaceae Love grass Herb A H tis pectinata Lamiaceae Comb Hyptis Shrub A Indi o era suffruncosa Fabaceae Indio Shrub A Ipomoea obscura Convolvulaceae Obscure Vine A Morning Glory Kalanchoe pinnata Crassulaceae Air Plant Herb A Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana Shrub A Leonotis ne eti olia Lamiaceae Lion's Ear Herb A Leucaena leucoce hala Fabaceae Haole Koa Shrub A Malvastrum Malvaceae False Mallow Shrub A coromandelianum Me ath rsus maxi mus Poaceae Guinea Grass Herb A Melinis re ens Poaceae Natal Red Top Herb A Merremia tuberosa Convolvulaceae Woodrose Vine A Mimosa pudica Fabaceae Sensitive Plant Herb A Momordica charantia Cucurbitaceae Bitter Gourd Vine A Biological Survey, Tv1K 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 12 Table 1, continued Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Form Status* Paederia oetida Rubiaceae Maile Pilau Vine A Parthenium h steno horns Asteraceae Santa Maria Herb A Passi ora eduhs Passifloraceae Lilikoi Vine A Ph llanthus debilis Eu horbiaceae Niruri Herb A Pithecellobium dulce Fabaceae Dulce Tree A Plumbago auriculata Plumba inaceae Leadwort Shrub A Plumba o ze lanica Plumba inaceae `Ilie'e Herb 1 Portulaca pilosa Portulacaceae Hairy Pigweed Herb A Proso is pallida Fabaceae Kiawe Tree A Psidium guaj.ava Myrtaceae Common Guava Tree A Rivina humilis Phytolaccaceae Coral Berry Herb A Ricinus communis Eu horbiaceae Castor Bean Shrub A Schinus terebinthi olius Anacardiaceae Christmas Berry Shrub A Samanea saman Fabaceae Monkeypod Tree A Senna occidentahs Fabaceae Coffee Senna Shrub A Sida allax Malvaceae Ilima Shrub I Sida rhombi olia Malvaceae Sida Herb A Sida s inosa Malvaceae Sida Herb A Sonchus oleraceus Asteraceae Sow Thistle Herb A Solanum americanum Solanaceae Po polo Herb I Solanum seaforthianum Solanaceae Vining Solanum Herb A S athodea cam anulata Bignoniaceae African Tulip Tree A Thevetia peruviana A oc aceae Be-Still Tree Tree A Thunber is ra cans Acanthaceae White Thunber is Vine A Trium etta rhomboidea Tiliaceae Bur Bush Shrub A Waltheria indica Sterculiaceae Uhaloa Shrub I A=Alien E=Endemic I=Indigenous PI=Polynesian END=Federal and State Listed Endangered(none) Table 2. Bird S ecies Observed in Survey Area Scientific name Common name Status Acridotheres tristis Common Myna Alien Resident Aratin a s . Parakeet Alien Resident Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Alien Resident Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Alien Resident Car odacus mexicanus House Finch Alien Resident Francohnus pondecerianus Black Francolin Alien Resident Geo elia striata Zebra Dove Alien Resident Leiothrix lutea Red-billed Leiothrix Alien Resident Lonchura punctulata Nutmeg Mannikin Alien Resident Padda oryzivora Java Sp arrow Alien Resident Passer domesticus House Sparrow Alien Resident Serinus mozambicus Yellow-Fronted Canary Alien Resident Sicalis flaveola Saffron Finch Alien Resident Stre to elia chinensis Spotted Dove Alien Resident Zostero s a onicus Japanese White-eye Alien Resident Biological Survey, Tv1K 3-7-6-21:parcels 16, 17, 18 & 19 Page 13 APPENDIX 4: Cultural Impact Assessment SCS #2409 CIA-1 A CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A 78.122-ACRE PROPERTY IN HOLUALOA 1ST AHUPUA`A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI`I ISLAND, HAWAI`I TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-0191 Prepared By: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. Thomas Dols, M.A. JUNE 2020 DRAFT Prepared for: Kona Three, LLC 101 Hualdlai Street Hilo, HI 96720 SCIENTIFIC C+DNSVI.TAN'T SF RN ICT.'s Inc. S , 1347 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu,HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au,HI 96749 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................I LISTOF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................II LISTOF TABLES..........................................................................................................................II INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 7 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH.................................................................................................. 8 INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 8 PROJECT AREA NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................... 10 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS......................................................................... 11 PRE-CONTACT ERA...................................................................................................... 13 THE KONA FIELD SYSTEM......................................................................................... 14 POST-CONTACT ERA.................................................................................................... 15 THEMAHELE................................................................................................................. 17 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES............................................................................ 21 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ..........................................24 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY.................... 29 CULTURAL INFORMANT INTERVIEWS............................................................................... 38 GREGG KASHIWA CONSULTATION......................................................................... 38 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 39 CIA INQUIRY RESPONSE......................................................................................................... 40 CULTURAL ASSESSMEMNT................................................................................................... 41 REFERENCESCITED................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICES AND AFFIDAVITS............................................................. 1 I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)...........2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Project Areas and TMK Parcels (Kealakekua Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and County of Hawaii Planning Department, 2019).................................. 3 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area, H61ualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS). ........................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Close-Up Showing Project Area, H61ualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS).......................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Map of H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border(Alexander 1855).............................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928)..................................................................................... 16 Figure 7: Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952)........................................................................ 18 Figure 8: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards, Land Grants, and the Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, Kailua Quad. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). ...................................... 19 Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area (Kealakekua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)............................................................ 23 Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al. (1992) Sites and Current Project Area (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle)................................................. 30 Figure 11: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott 2018) AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle)................................................. 35 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Land Commission Awards Recorded in H61ualoa 15t and 2nd Ahupua`a. ..................... 20 Table 2: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations..................................................... 21 Table 3: Inventory of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Hammatt et al. 1992; Hammatt andShideler 2007)........................................................................................................ 31 Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area (Escott and Escott 2018). ............................................................................................................................ 34 Table 5: Inventory of Escott&Escott (2020)Archaeological Sites. ........................................... 37 II INTRODUCTION At the request of property owner Kona Three, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. SCS) conducted a Cultural Impact Assessment(CIA) of a 76.121 acres of land TMK: (3) 7-6- 021:016, 017, 018, and 019 located in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii (Figure 1 through Figure 4). The owner is proposing to develop the property and contracted the CIA as part of an Environmental Assessment(EA) as required for County of Hawaii Planning Department permit applications. The point of contact (owner) for the project is Mr. Richard Wheelock. The owner's mailing address is 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720. Mr. Wheelock can also be contacted by email at rihard@eastwestrealty.org or by phone at 808- 753-3167. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii clearly states the duty of the State and its agencies is to preserve, protect, and prevent interference with the traditional and customary rights of native Hawaiians. Article XII, Section 7 requires the State to "protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua`a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778" (2000). In spite of the establishment of the foreign concept of private ownership and western-style government, Kamehameha III (Kauikeaouli)preserved the people's traditional right to subsistence. As a result, in 1850 the Hawaiian Government confirmed the traditional access rights to native Hawaiian ahupua`a tenants to gather specific natural resources for customary uses from undeveloped private property and waterways under the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 7-1. In 1992, the State of Hawaii Supreme Court, reaffirmed HRS 7-1 and expanded it to include, native Hawaiian rights...may extend beyond the ahupua`a in which a native Hawaiian resides where such rights have been customarily and traditionally exercised in this manner" (Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw.578, 1992). 1 H A W A I I 4HAWA11 CO, F' Ilk(ki LC I AR VA w. f• y.-rc:. of o ... «.. . i h 7 r# r V ss s n..::. P ... - :07MarE. illf+cb.E. s31 E. KS E• s$6,'On e,E„ -.E,.:,::. Tly s ra, r• _L Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 s-iuum I. 16i5i 11 ,I. I>IRiMMhri Y 1'NNw.,I: Iv 11NW Y. P. r r t f i 11 'fill 1011 EIM7 8U11 MUw Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Project Areas and TMK Parcels(Kealakekua Quadrangle.ESRI,2013.Data Sources:National Geographic and County of Hawaii Planning Department,2019). 3 I"NNW.F IRRIMMIw f I"MMIa F 191HXIWu I i l • . KEY rw+e.rre r kr ti o 24141 Joo 6110 soil wooer. Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area,Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. (ESRI,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 4 KEY PROJWT AREA. U 50 100 150 200 r w. J.. Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Close-Up Showing Project Area,Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. (ESRI,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 5 Act 50, enacted by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii (2000) with House Bill 2895, relating to Environmental Impact Statements, proposes that: there is a need to clarify that the preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact statements should identify and address effects on Hawai`i's culture, and traditional and customary rights... [H.B. NO. 2895]. Act 50 requires state agencies and other developers to assess the effects of proposed land use or shoreline developments on the"cultural practices of the community and State" as part of the HRS Chapter 343 environmental review process (2001). Its purpose has broadened, "to promote and protect cultural beliefs, practices and resources of native Hawaiians [and] other ethnic groups, and it also amends the definition of significant effect' to be re-defined as "the sum of effects on the quality of the environment including actions that are...contrary to the State's environmental policies...or adversely affect the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State" (H.B. 2895, Act 50, 2000). Thus, Act 50 requires an assessment of cultural practices to be included in the Environmental Assessments and the Environmental Impact Statements, and to be taken into consideration during the planning process. The concept of geographical expansion is recognized by using, as an example, "the broad geographical area, e.g. district or ahupua`a" (OEQC 1997). It was decided that the process should identify `anthropological' cultural practices, rather than social' cultural practices. For example, limu (edible seaweed) gathering would be considered an anthropological cultural practice, while a modern-day marathon would be considered a social cultural practice. According to the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts established by the Hawaii State Office of Environmental Quality Control: The types of cultural practices and beliefs subject to assessment may include subsistence, commercial, residential, agricultural, access-related, recreational, and religious and spiritual customs. The types of cultural resources subject to assessment may include traditional cultural properties or other types of historic sites, both manmade and natural, which support such cultural beliefs OEQC 1997). 6 This Cultural Impact Assessment involves evaluating the probability of impacts on identified cultural resources, including values, rights, beliefs, objects, records, properties, and stories occurring within the project area and its vicinity(H.B. 2895, Act 50, 2000). METHODOLOGY This Cultural Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with the methodology and content protocol provided in the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (OEQC 1997). In outlining the "Cultural Impact Assessment Methodology", the OEQC states: ...information may be obtained through scoping, community meetings, ethnographic interviews and oral histories... (1997). The report contains archival and documentary research, as well as communication with organizations having knowledge of the project area, its cultural resources, and its practices and beliefs. This Cultural Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with the methodology and content protocol provided in the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (OEQC 1997). The assessment concerning cultural impacts should address, but not be limited to, the following matters: 1) a discussion of the methods applied and results of consultation with individuals and organizations identified by the preparer as being familiar with cultural practices and features associated with the project area, including any constraints of limitations with might have affected the quality of the information obtained; 2) a description of methods adopted by the preparer to identify, locate, and select the persons interviewed, including a discussion of the level of effort undertaken; 3) ethnographic and oral history interview procedures, including the circumstances under which the interviews were conducted, and any constraints or limitations which might have affected the quality of the information obtained; 4) biographical information concerning the individuals and organizations consulted, their particular expertise, and their historical and genealogical relationship to the project area, as well as information concerning the persons submitting information or interviewed, their particular knowledge and cultural expertise, if any, and their historical and genealogical relationship to the project area; 5) a discussion concerning historical and cultural source materials consulted, the institutions and repositories searched, and the level of effort undertaken, as well as the particular perspective of the authors, if appropriate, any opposing views, 7 and any other relevant constraints, limitations or biases; 6) a discussion concerning the cultural resources, practices and beliefs identified, and for the resources and practices, their location within the broad geographical area in which the proposed action is located, as well as their direct or indirect significance or connection to the project site; 7) a discussion concerning the nature of the cultural practices and beliefs, and the significance of the cultural resources within the project area, affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project; 8) an explanation of confidential information that has been withheld from public disclosure in the assessment; 9) a discussion concerning any conflicting information in regard to identified cultural resources, practices and beliefs; 10) an analysis of the potential effect of any proposed physical alteration on cultural resources, practices or beliefs; the potential of the proposed action to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting; and the potential of the proposed action to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place, and; 11) the inclusion of bibliography of references, and attached records of interviews, which were allowed to be disclosed. Based on the inclusion of the above information, assessments of the potential effects on cultural resources in the project area and recommendations for mitigation of these effects can be proposed. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival research focused on a historical documentary study involving both published and unpublished sources. These included legendary accounts of native and early foreign writers; early historical j ournals and narratives; historic maps and land records such as Land Commission Awards, Royal Patent Grants, and Boundary Commission records; historic accounts, and previous archaeological project reports. INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY Interviews are conducted in accordance with applicable state laws and guidelines. Individuals and/or groups who have knowledge of traditional practices and beliefs associated with a project area or who know of historical properties within a project area are sought for consultation. Individuals who have particular knowledge of traditions 8 passed down from preceding generations and a personal familiarity with the project area are invited to share their relevant information. Often people are recommended for their expertise, and indeed, organizations, such as Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Island Branch of Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), historical societies, Island Trail clubs, and Planning Commissions are depended upon for their recommendations of suitable informants. These groups are invited to contribute their input, and suggest further avenues of inquiry, as well as specific individuals to interview. If knowledgeable individuals are identified, personal interviews are sometimes taped and then transcribed. These draft transcripts are returned to each of the participants for their review and comments. After corrections are made, each individual signs a release form, making the information available for this study. When telephone interviews occur, a summary of the information is often sent for correction and approval, or dictated by the informant and then incorporated into the document. Key topics discussed with the interviewees vary from project to project, but usually include: personal association to the ahupua`a, land use in the project's vicinity; knowledge of traditional trails, gathering areas, water sources, religious sites; place names and their meanings; stories that were handed down concerning special places or events in the vicinity of the project area; evidence of previous activities identified while in the project vicinity. In this case, letters with maps and descriptions of the project area were sent to individuals and organizations whose jurisdiction includes knowledge of the area with an invitation for consultation. Consultation was sought from Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Kamakana Ferreira, OHA Compliance Officer; Nicole Lui, cultural descendant, Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division(SHPD) Hawaii Island Archaeologist; Kekoa Nezara, Kona Hawaiian Civic Club President; Shane Nelson, OHA West Hawaii Representative; and J, Curtis Tyler III, cultural descendant. Consultation was also conducted via telephone with Gregg Kashiwa who served as the project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s. Public notices (Appendix A)were placed in the December 2019 issue of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Ka Wai Ola Newspaper. Public notices were also published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, and the West Hawaii Today on November 17th, 20th and 21". 9 If cultural resources are identified based on the information received from these organizations and/or additional informants, an assessment of the potential effects on the identified cultural resources in the project area and recommendations for mitigation of these effects can be proposed. Public notices were not published in local and/or regional publications. PROJECT AREA NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The current project area consists of undeveloped land used as cattle pasture for several decades. Prior to that, coffee was grown in the northeast quadrant of the project area. The project area is situated on fairly steeply sloping land with level areas in between elevation breaks. The project area is between 360 and 660 feet(110 to 201 meters) above mean sea level (amsl). The project area lands are part of a large former cattle ranch and agricultural area that was started in the early 1900s. The project area is still used to pasture cattle. The project area lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile (see Figure 4). Pedestrian survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer-cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. The former Kona Sugar Company railroad bed is present along the eastern edge of the project area. The project area ground surface is a Hualdlai lava flow dating between 5,000 and 10,000 years before present(ybp) (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is Punalu`u Series (rPYD series) extremely rocky peat with six to twenty percent slopes Sato 1973:48). The majority of the project area has been bulldozed in the past and the present ground surface is rocky soil. Rainfall in the project area is very low, less than thirty inches per year. Parcel 018 and Parcel 019 are seasonal gulches that drain rainfall down slope to the west. This region is extremely dry, hot, and somewhat barren except for thick California grass Urochloa mutica), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and some koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and kukui nut(Aleurites moluccana) trees (Starr Environmental 2016). 10 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Kona is divided into two sections: North Kona or Kona `akau, and; South Kona, or Kona hema (Maly 1996). Kona `akau was further subdivided into north(called Kekaha-wai-`ole-o-na-Kona) and south(called Konakai`opua) areas, with the division between the two at the ahupua`a of Keahuolu. The project area is in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a (Figure 5) within the area of Kona kai`opua in Kona `akau. H61ualoa means literally) "long sled course" (Pukui et al. 1974:48). H61ualoa 1st is a traditional ahupua`a stretching from the ocean to the foot of Hualdlai in the uplands. The coastline of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a is primarily low rock cliffs. Very little is recorded of H61ualoa Ahupua`a in traditional oral accounts. The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka-Miki, published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii and translated by Maly (1993) contains the only description of H61ualoa. The legend is set in the 13th century but also reflects more recent influences (Maly and Maly 2002:17). According to the narrative, The lands of H61ualoa were named for the chief of that name; both H61ualoa and Puapua`a were high chiefs, who controlled the lands from mountain to sea, which bear their names... Kaluaokalani served as a priest of H61ualoa at the temple of Pdkiha. This heiau was near the contest field of H61ualoa... The lands of this region are named for various ah`i, all of whom were related. When the chief H61ualoa took up the challenge against Kepaka`ili`ula on behalf of the Kona chiefs, H61ualoa called upon his god Kalaipahoa to assist him in his battle... H61ualoa was the first chief to call upon the god Kalaipahoa, and this was the beginning of this god's use by the chiefs of Hawaii [Maly 1993:208-209]. 11 i r Na Figure 5: Map of Holualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border(Alexander 1855). 12 PRE-CONTACT ERA H61ualoa, Kona, and much of the leeward side of Hawaii Island, while well populated at the time of European Contact, were settled later than the windward side. This in part may be due to the fertile land, numerous streams, and abundant rainfall on the windward side (Maly 1996:3). Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; McCoy 2005 and 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). During early settlement of the leeward side permanent habitations were established in Kona concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes (Gordy 1981, 1995; Schilt 1984). Informal fields were cleared at higher elevations where rainfall was higher. Between AD 1200 and 1400, habitation and agriculture expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualalai (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995). The initial construction of the Kona Field System(KFS)began approximately between AD 1400 to 1600 (Schilt 1984). The development of these extensive formal walled fields coincides with a dramatic population increase and with the development of the stratified chiefdom structure which is reflected through large residential complexes and heiau (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1981; Haun et al. 1998; Hommon 1986; Schilt 1984). Thus, there was a need to expand the previously limited agricultural base. The royal centers and larger heiau were in place by AD 1600 to 1800 which reflect the growth in power of the rulers and chiefs in the region(Barrera 1971; Hammatt and Folk 1980). Royal centers are located at Kailua, H61ualoa, Kahalu`u, Kealakekua, and H6naunau (Gordy 1995). The region of H61ualoa developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine reigned 1700-1720) (Gordy 2000:244). Many `ah`i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites are known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The royal center at H61ualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu`u and Keauhou region. 13 THE KONA FIELD SYSTEM The Kona Field System extends north at least to Kau Ahupua`a and south to H6naunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy 1995). During his travels in 1823, William Ellis noted the extensive field system divided with"low stone walls, made of fragments of lava", producing"bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, tapa trees, melons and sugar cane" and"flourishing luxuriantly in every direction" (Handy and Handy 1940:114 and 162). Many of the archaeological projects conducted within Kona deal with components of the Kona Field System(Cordy 1995; Newman 1970; Schilt 1984). The kula zone of the Kona Field System is from sea level to 150 m amsl. This zone is associated with habitations along the shoreline and cultivation of sweet potatoes uala), paper mulberry(wauke), and gourds (ipu). Clearing mounds, planting depressions, planting mounds, planting terraces, and modified outcrops are common agricultural features in the kula zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Folk 1980; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). Permanent habitation including royal and high chiefly centers as well as non-agricultural activities such as fishing, ceremonies and burial practices were usually concentrated along the shoreline zone portion of the kula zone. The higher elevation zones are the kalu`ulu zone, `apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone. The current project area is in the kalu`ulu zone. This wetter region is above 150 m amsl where bread fruit, sweet potatoes Qpomoea batatas), ki, (Cordyline fruticosa) wauke Broussonetia papyrifera), kayo (Colocasia esculenta), sugar cane (Saccharum sp.), and other arboreal crops were grown (Kelly 1983, Menzies 1920). The `apa`a zone is above the kalu`ulu zone. Hawaiians cultivated melons, sweet potatoes, ti, bananas, taro, wauke and sugar cane in fields with low stone walls. The highest zone, the `ama`u zone, was used to grow bananas and plantains in walled fields. The `apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone were also used to collect timber and catch birds therefore temporary habitations were constructed. 14 POST-CONTACT ERA During the post-contact era, the Kona Field System was exploited and the planting of coffee, sugar, sisal, citrus, and cotton took over original Hawaiian crops until eventually the land was used for cattle pasture. The first cattle and sheep were brought to the island by Vancouver in 1793 and 1794 (Vancouver 1967). Horses, mules, oxen, goats, and donkeys were brought shortly after. Feral cattle, sheep, and goats overran agricultural fields by 1813 to 1815 (Ellis 1963: 291; Wilkes 1970: 204). By 1848, in the Kona District, a Great Wall (the Kuakini Wall)was constructed from Lanihau to `Onouli to keep them away from homes and agricultural areas (Maly and Maly 2001:286). Formal cattle ranching began in the Kona region in the mid-1800s. The Kona landscape evolved rapidly with the turn of the century. The rapid growth of the sugar industry produced the Kona Sugar Company in 1899. A railroad was built in 1901 to help sustain this influx in produce. It was later used to haul lumber and freight along with the sugarcane. The rail line was seven miles long and extended from H61ualoa to Ka`awaloa (Figure 6). Cotton, tobacco, and sisal were grown in the dryer lands below the railroad (Kelly 1983). The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at middle and upper elevations, and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Cattle ranching and clearing for sugar cane and coffee removed many of the endemic species of plants. The suite of vegetation that existed prior to the pre-Contact era were replaced by koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and other newly introduced invasive plant species. 15 i a d'• P P i •a r rfl rl r rl, r of J V. wSfM d A iAr 1 µ • ,.f LP ', r I Y. t Figure 6: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928). 16 Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, coastal Kona was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. It became a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou(Tomonari-Tuggle 1993:15). Homesteads, ranches, and plantations developed in the uplands during this period as reflected in the pattern of Land Commission Awards (LCA) and Land Grants (LG) recorded during the Mahele Escott and Escott 2018). The project area is just makai (west) of most of the land commission awards and is at the same elevation as portions of the land grants in the region. Based on historic documents, the project area and surrounding lands were likely being used for subsistence and commercial agriculture, as well as for cattle pasture from the mid to late 1800s. The project area might have been used later than surrounding lands because of its steep slopes and very rocky soil, but based on aerial photographs, the project area was bulldozed sometime around the 1950s through the 1970s in preparation for commercial agriculture. THE MAHELE The Land Commission awarded the majority of H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a to Victoria Kamamalu Ka`ahumanu IV, Kuhina Nui of Hawaii Island and Crown Princess of Hawaii as Land Commission Award (LCA)Number 7713, `Apana 43 (Figure 7). Several smaller LCA and LG properties were also recorded in the upland region of H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a(Figure 8). Twenty four Land Commission awards were recorded in H61ualoa I" Ahupua`a, the ahupua`a where the project area is located (Table 1). A portion of LCA#3660 to John G. Munn makes up a thin strip of land located through the center of the current project area. With the notable exception of LCA#3660 and a few other large LCAs, the average award was 2.8 acres, most (n=16) were for less than 3.0 acres. Three Land Grants (LG#1592, 1602, and 3630) were also recorded in H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a. LG#1592 was a 25.0-acre parcel sold to Kealalio and LG#3630 was a 38.2-acre parcel sold to W.H. Cromwell. Almost all of the awards and grants were used as subsistence and commercial farm land, and some were used to pasture cattle (Escott and Escott 2018). 17 1 Jam•^- -f ". _ _-_. v 1•- IZ fir r- y - i p f, S " o. 'ram - y n." U M Figure 7:Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952). 18 Yy f°U IA P A ox Y\N a.. ... J: r SW KEY fit. ..-^k 0 t1 0TM I'INl lift MA i 1 Cr, t 11 t •err N I, 1 -, 1 rr r.Y x 1 J e.t - e 1 'tl`tll A XFOLONAMM STATE IIISTLIRI[ALI'AAX rr y t 7 R tin•I?urle^tickERFfR4-.:-.... r- i.l': E. 1 c J.. 7— Figure 1: xptl lr Figure 8: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards,Land Grants,and the Project Area(National Geographic Topo!,2003,Kailua Quad. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 19 Table 1: Land Commission Awards Recorded in H61ualoa I" and 2nd Ahupua`a. LCA#AWARDED TO AHUPUA`A ACRES 3660 John G. Munn H61ualoa 1" 111.5 4395 Kekoi H61ualoa 1" 1.7 5552 Kauila H61ualoa 1" 1.9 5554 Keawekolohe H61ualoa 1" 11.27 5795 Kehikanakaole H61ualoa 2°d 2.2 5810 Kaopukauila H61ualoa 1" 1.74 5993 Leipalapala H61ualoa 2° d 2.0 6063 Hana H61ualoa 1" 2.9 6107 Naai H61ualoa 1" 3.94 7339 Kuaana H61ualoa 1" 4.15 7340 Kama 2 H61ualoa 1" 2.5 7340:B Kama 1 H61ualoa 1" 1.3 7443 Kahmapaa H61ualoa 1" 1.94 7713 Kamamalu H61ualoa 1Sn& Large H6lualoa 2 7746 Kamahalo H61ualoa 1" 5.0 7794 Kauakini H61ualoa 1" 1.8 7990 Pu uka H6lualoa 1" 1.1 8015 Aipo H61ualoa 2° d 1.4 8151 Hehena H61ualoa 1" 2.3 8223 Ikaiaka H61ualoa 1" 3.5 9915 Limahana H61ualoa 1" 2.42 9932 Lumaawe H61ualoa 1" 2.98 10770 Puuone H61ualoa 1" 3.06 10400 Naaimakaohi H61ualoa 1st& H6lualoa 2nd 3.5 20 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES There are at least 26 previous archaeological reports for lands near the current project area, including studies in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ahupua`a Table 4 and Figure 9). The studies were conducted from the coast to roughly 1,460 ft amsl and encompass the kula region (0-500 ft), the kalu`ulu region (500-1,000 ft), and the lower portions of the `dpa`a region (1,000-2,500 ft). Results of the previous archaeological studies are summarized below by elevation: studies numbered 1 through 15 in Table 2 and Figure 9 are situated from the coast to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway 0-360 ft amsl), studies 16 through 21 are located from above the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to just below Hualalai Road (306-760 ft amsl), and studies 22 through 24 are above Hualalai Road to just above Mamalahoa Highway (1,100-1,460 ft amsl). Table 2: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations. Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) 1 Landrum et al. 1990 Archaeological N/A 46 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Calis et al.2004 Archaeological Data N/A 10 Sites Recovery 2 Carlson&Rosendahl Archaeological 65 64 Sites 1990 Inventory Survey 3 Haun et al. 1998 Archaeological 15 31 Sites Inventory Survey 4 Hammatt&Folk 1981 Archaeological Survey 20 20 Sites 4 Hammatt et al. 1986 Archaeological Survey 20 21 Sites Excavations 5 Haun&Henry 2001 Archaeological Data 1.59 1 Site Recovery 6 Escott 2013 Archaeological 1.962 2 Sites Inventory Survey 7 Sinoto 1979 Archaeological 6 Rock Walls Reconnaissance Survey 8 Hammatt 1979b Archaeological Survey 22 3 Sites 9 Hammatt 1979c Archaeological Survey 23 39 Sites Conolly&Gunness Archaeological 10 1979 Reconnaissance Survey 46.8 80 Sites 10 Hammatt 1979a Archaeological 46.8 11 Sites Inventory Survey 10 Hammatt 1980 Archaeological Survey 103 88 Sites Excavation 11 Nelson et al.205 Archaeological 28 22 Sites Inventory Survey 12 Rosendhal 1978 Archaeological 2.5 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 21 Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) 12 Soehren 1980a Archaeological n/a 7 Sites Reconnaissance Survey 12 Wolforth et al.2000 Archaeological 8 7 Sites Inventory Survey Archaeological 17 3+several ag.13 Barrera 1995 Reconnaissance Survey mounds Archaeological 12(104 Features, 13 Haun&Henry 2000 Inventory Survey 17 82 of Which Were Agricultural) Archaeological Field Modified 14 Rosendahl Inspection 6 Outcrops 15 Schilt 1984 Archaeological Study 17 134 Sites 16 Walker&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 1988 Reconnaissance Survey 16 Graves&Goodfellow Archaeological Data 104 58 Sites 1993 Recovery 16 Maly&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 2006 Preservation Plan 17 Hammatt et al. 1992 Archaeological Survey 174 71 Sites 18 Soehren 1980b Archaeological 16 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 19 Rechtman 2006 Archaeological 1.008 2 Sites Inventory Survey 20 Rosendahl 1988 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Reconnaissance Survey 20 Fager&Graves 1993 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Site(149 21 Dircks et al.2013 Archaeological 10.266 Historic to Inventory Survey Modern Farming Features) 22 Desilets et al.2004 Archaeological 11.7 1 Homestead Inventory Survey Features 23 Rechtman 2013 29 24 Sites Clark&Rechtman Archaeological 6 Historic Era 24 2006 Inventory Survey 2'7 Sites Archaeological 22 Pre-Contact 25 Escott&Escott 2018 Inventory Survey 5.0 and Historic Era Sites 18 Pre-Contact Archaeological and Historic Era 26 Escott&Escott 2020 Inventory Survey 73.122 Sites 1 Isolated Find Petroglyph) 22 lilox aNl 4 iNnl•.m.n I N'N'1'I n.l M:Mlllil.l f 1VI1111F. ti6 Y J ARFA 7f1 r r 44 A L s r 01, I I4 y i r L. I KE) El• PHWF.lT H h 11141 11n n 2mn 4W1 niwl NINh KFOLONAHIM STAT} t a YM1 _•'^ HISTORICAL.PARR IX-VIINvn P IKVIAP.,1 IxvINNh,N11 144'..1'.h MINH,-k. Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area Kealakekua Quad,ESRI,2013. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 23 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES 1. Landrum et al. 1990, and Calis et al. 2004. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey(Landrum et al. 1990) and SCS, Inc. conducted data recovery investigations (Calis et al. 2004) at the Kahakai development project. The project area is located within the lower elevations of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era cave shelters, agricultural rock clearing mounds, burials, shrines, and a possible heiau were identified during the AIS study. A heiau complex, several burials, and five permanent habitation sites were recommended for preservation. All of the preservation sites are near the coast. 2. Carleson and Rosendahl 1990. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 65 acres between Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways in Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Their study recorded 64 archaeological sites including pre-Contact era habitation, agricultural, and burial sites. Seven sites were assessed as significant and recommended for preservation (Carleson and Rosendahl 1990: 34). 3. Haun et al. 1998. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the proposed Ali`i Drive corridor through several ahupua`a. Numerous pre-Contact era site complexes were recorded in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa I"through 4th Ahupua`a. The site complexes included a large number of agricultural features, as well as habitation, burial, and ceremonial features. 4. Hammatt and Folk 1981, and Hammatt et al. 1986. Two archaeological surveys were conducted on a 20-acre parcel of below Kuakini Highway. The first study recorded 20 sites, and the second recorded 21 sites. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt and Folk 1981: ii, and Hammatt et al. 1986: 87). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated. 5. Haun & Henry 2001. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological data recovery study at a c-shaped enclosure located on 1.59 acres of land below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway 6. Escott 2013. SCS conducted an archaeological study onl.962 acres of land near the intersection of Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways. Two historic era ranch walls were recorded during the study. 24 7. Sinoto 1979. Aki Sinoto recorded several Historic era ranch rock walls on a six acre parcel of land just mauka of Ali`i Drive. 8. Hammatt 1979b. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 22 acres just south of Kuakini Highway. Three archaeological sites were recorded during the study. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt 1979b: ii, and 10). 9. Hammatt 1979c. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 23 acres located in the near coastal portion of Holualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Thirty nine archaeological sites were recorded during the study. The report recommended that all burials, including a known cemetery site be relocated Hammatt 1979a: 5). None of the remaining sites (pre-Contact era habitation and agriculture sites) were recommended for preservation in place. 10. Conolly and Gunness 1979, and Hammatt 1979a and 1980. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 103 acres within the near coastal portions of Holualoa 1st through 4th Ahupua`a(Hammatt 1980). One hundred and thirty six archaeological sites were recorded on the project area. They included pre- Contact era habitation, agriculture, burial, and a ceremonial sites. The Hammatt report recommended that a heiau(Site 6661)was significant and should be preserved in place Hammatt 1980: 4). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated to the perimeter of heiau (Site 6661) and preserved. No other sites were recommended for preservation. 11. Nelson et al. 2005. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting on 28.0 acres located in the near coastal portion of Holualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 22 sites containing 150 features were recorded. The sites were primarily pre- Contact era agricultural and habitation sites, though five burial sites, a possible heiau, and a trail were also documented within the project area. 12. Rosendahl 1978, Soehren 1980a, Wolforth et al. 2000. PHRI conducted an archaeological inventory survey of eight acres of coastal Holualoa 3rd Ahupua`a and recorded seven archaeological sites including three Historic era rock walls, three residential sites, and Hikapaia Heiau. 25 13. Barrera 1995, Haun & Henry 2000. Barrera (1995) recorded a possible burial platform, two habitation site, agricultural rock clearing mounds and modified outcrops during a reconnaissance survey of 17 acres in near coastal H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the property and recorded 12 sites with 104 features (Haun and Henry 2000:14). The majority of features n=82) were pre-Contact era agricultural rock clearing mounds. Eleven permanent habitation and one temporary habitation feature were also recorded during the study. 14. Rosendahl 1989. PHRI conducted an archaeological field inspection of 6.0 acres of land just below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Several modified outcrops were recorded in the letter report. There were no other archaeological features identified on the project area. 15. Schilt 1984. The Bishop Museum conducted an archaeological study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Project located roughly along present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and recorded 39 sites Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Twenty two of the sites were pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural gardens and modified outcrops (rock clearing). There were also traditional habitation platforms and trails, as well as Historic era roads and walls recorded during the study. 16. Walker and Rosendahl 1988, Graves and Goodfellow 1993, and Maly and Rosendahl 2006. An archaeological reconnaissance survey(Walker and Rosendahl 1988), an archaeological data recovery study(Graves and Goodfellow 1993), and an archaeological preservation plan (Maly and Rosendahl 2006)were conducted by PHRI, Inc. for 104 acres in the upland region of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 67 sites were documented within the project area, including traditional (KFS) sites, temporary habitation sites, three burials, and a heiau. The archaeological preservation plan recommended that the three burials be relocated to the heiau site, and that the heiau be preserved as a formal historic preservation area(Maly and Rosendahl 2006). 17. Hammatt et al. 1992. An archaeological survey was conducted by Cultural Surveys Hawaii on 174 acres of land in the upland region of H61ualoa 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ahupua`a. The project area lands had been heavily bulldozed during the modern era for ranching and agricultural purposes. Despite the bulldozing, seventy one sites were recorded during the study, including temporary habitation features, rock walls, agricultural features, and 26 three burial sites. Many of the sites were determined to be associated with Historic era ranching and agriculture. 18. Soehren 1980b. Soehren conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey of 16.0 acres above Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the inland region of H61ualoa I" Ahupua`a (Soehren 1980b). A single enclosure was identified during the survey. 19. Rechtman 2006. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting, LLC on a roughly one-acre parcel located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Two rock walls were recorded on the project area. The report recommended no further work at the wall sites. 20. M. Rosendahl 1988, Fager & Graves 1993. Fager and Graves (1993) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 17.0 acres just mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 3rd Ahupua`a. Seventeen sites containing 27 pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural features, including rock mounds, modified outcrops, C- shaped enclosures, terraces, walls, and rock enclosures, were recorded. 21. Dircks et al. 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 10.266 acres of land located between 840 and 920 ft amsl in H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. One Historic era to modern era homestead/agriculture site (Miyose Farm) containing 149 features was recorded during the survey. 22. Desilets et al. 2004. Desilets et al. (2004) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 11.7 acres of land in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. A single site associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture (coffee), and ranching was recorded. Features included rock walls, roads, coffee terraces, and buildings. 23. Rechtman 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted and archaeological inventory survey of 29 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. Twenty four sites were recorded. The majority of the sites were associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture. Features included rock walls, roads, and remnants of structures. A single pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era residential and agricultural site was also recorded. 27 24. Clark& Rechtman 2006. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 2.7 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. Six sites were recorded, including five ranch walls and an area of coffee terraces. A number of conclusions can be made from the previous archaeological studies. A primary conclusion is that the majority of habitation features, especially permanent habitation features, are located from the coast to about 360 ft amsl, below the present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The same is true of ceremonial features, burials, and, to a lesser extent, agricultural features. The density of agricultural features and habitation features, mostly temporary habitation features, in the upland regions between 360 ft amsl and 700 ft amsl is much lower than the site density in the coastal kula and lower kalu`ulu regions of the KFS. The pre-Contact traditional Hawaiian settlement and agricultural patterns are strongly oriented to the kula and lower kalu`ulu regions. Even though cattle ranching and commercial agriculture may have removed some archaeological sites from the ground surface in the kalu`ulu region, there appear to be fewer sites than at lower elevations. The majority of sites in the kalu`ulu region are KFS agricultural sites including rock clearing mounds, modified outcrops, garden enclosures, and low garden walls. Within the lands of the current project, it is clear that ranching and commercial agricultural practices have removed and damaged many of the pre-Contact era sites from the ground surface (see the Hammatt et al. 1992 summary below). Moreover, many of the sites identified near the current project area are associated with Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture. A second conclusion is that the establishment of Historic era homesteads, ranches, and commercial agriculture seems to have removed, or obscured, the majority of pre- Contact era sites in the upper kalu`ulu and lower `apa`a regions. It might be that pre- Contact uses in these regions did not involve the construction of large or permanent features, as in the lower regions of Kona. It is also likely that Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture in the lower `apa`a region have caused large scale land alterations through the use of bulldozers for pasture and garden. It is possible that traditional features were disassembled to build rock walls and coffee terraces. 28 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 26. Hammatt et al. 1992. Lands of the current AIS study were subject to an AIS study conducted by Hammatt et al. (1992). That study encompassed 66.039 acres of land within the current project area located between 320 to 690 feet (98 to 210 meters) amsl [TMK: 3) 7-6-021:016 and 017] (see Figure 9, Project#17). The current project area is located within the northern portion of the Hammatt et al. (1992)project area. Twenty one archaeological sites and two areas of bulldozed modern planting terraces" were recorded in the AIS report (Figure 10 and Table 3). Eight of the 21 archaeological sites (SIHP #50-10-37-10015, #50-10-37-10017, #50-10-37-10018, #50- 10-37-10020, #50-10-37-10031, #50-10-37-10033, #50-10-37-10034, and#50-10-37- 10049, hereafter abbreviated to the last five digits)were recorded by CSH in tabular format only. Written descriptions of the remaining 13 sites are in the CSH AIS report. Excavations were conducted at ten of the 13 sites. The AIS report included plan view figures for four of the 13 sites. At the request of SHPD, additional site documentation for Sites 10011, 10012, 10031, 10049, and 10071 was submitted to SHPD in a letter report Hammatt and Shideler 2007). Six of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, four associated with habitation, one with agriculture, and one single feature site (Site 10012) contained two burials. Fifteen of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Two Historic era habitation sites were also documented in the AIS study. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1983. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. The AIS recommended no further work at all 21 sites documented in the current project area. The Hammatt and Shideler(2007) letter report repeated the AIS recommendation that"all surface sites in the area were documented" in the AIS report and that"significant material from the study area has been recovered and that further investigation would be of minimum productivity" (Hammatt and Shideler 2007:11). However, the authors recommended that the sites should be located to document their current conditions and to document the sites to prevailing SHPD AIS standards. 29 PRIMECT AREA p l l TMK BOUNDARY111117 11l11711q r El S ACRE EXCLUSION 4• .. C? p -ARCHAEO11A)GICALSII'F BULLDOZEDSIT O 40904R.III.RALFF.ATL`.RF 4 IWILMRAILROADr1Y071 -ti1111'tilTF till 1RFR Pl x` 11 l i 4 II i[I 1110 fill x1111 lU9 11 Oil Ui'70 w, 1!1{I14 11iKr 04--021. 211 Ib 1BF1130RIAI- j 117A11O OIINIF4 W.h. 4•. ' f1 r 1.11 d T 41R1i67 1114131 Q I F-1 Po 049 I UU71 Q 4 o..+ Ilrwullnn F. Figure 10:7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al.(1992)Sites and Current Project Area(ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 30 Table 3:Inventory of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites(Hammatt et al. 1992;Hammatt and Shideler 2007). SIHP CSH TYPE FUNCTION AGE EXCAVATION CULTURAL MATERIAL SITE# 10011 9 Platform Ag.Clearing Prehistoric 1.5 m long trench 3 cowrie shells 10012 10 Platform&Wall Burial Prehistoric Entire Feature Burial reinterred off-project 10013 11 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Prehistoric 4.5 m square total Fire features&Prehistoric artifacts 10015 13 Terrace Road Bed Historic 10017 15 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic 10018 16 Enclosure Habitation Historic 10019 17 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic 3 1.0 m wide Metal File trenches 10020 18 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic 10031 110 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic 10033 112 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic 10034 113 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic 10049 216 Terraces Agriculture Historic 10067 232 Terraces Habitation Prehistoric 1.0 X 1.0 m VG&a small amount of midden&fire feature 10068 233 Enclosure Habitation Prehistoric 0.5 X 0.25 m small amount of midden 10069 234 Modified Habitation Historic 0.5 X 0.5 m VG&a small amount of midden Bluff/Platform 10070 235 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic 1.0 X 0.5 m No artifacts 10071 237 Platform Habitation Prehistoric 10072 238 Modified Bluff Ag.Clearing Historic 7.0 m square total No arts Small amount of MS in TU-2 10073 239 Platforms Ranching/Ag. Historic 10074 240 Enclosure Coffee Work Historic 1.25 m square total 1 VG,little MS,historic artifacts Shed 10075 241 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic 31 In a letter to the County of Hawaii Department of Planning dated July 30, 2018, Log. No. 2018.00878 Doc. No. 1807SN01), SHPD requested a new pedestrian survey to identify all archaeological historic properties present on the project area, and to update previous archaeological documentation to include site plans for each site with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance. 25. Escott & Escott 2018. SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey on a 5.0- acre portion of Parcel 017 in the southeast portion of the current project area (Escott and Escott 2018) and recorded twenty-two new archaeological sites within the project area Table 4 and Figure 11). Fifteen of the sites are single-feature sites. The remaining seven agricultural sites contained two to seven features. A majority of the sites are agricultural terraces and complexes dating to the pre-Contact era to the Historic era. The agricultural complexes are located in the lower kalu`ulu zone, between 600 and 700 feet 182 to 213 meters) amsl. Three of the ranch walls (Site 30595, 30601, and 3065) are the primary dividers of the five-acre project area. These Historic era walls have typical characteristics of ranch walls including cobble core fill and bi-faced inward sloping walls toward the top. They are approximately 1.0 meter tall. Site 30602 and Site 30603 are Historic era ranching and agricultural enclosures constructed along wall Site 30595 and wall Site 30601. These two wall sites are constructed onto the west edge of the Site 30592 railroad berm and post-date the railroad berm. The northern third of the project area only has two sites (Site 30591 and 30956). Site 30591 is an agricultural complex with six terraces. Portions of the sites were bulldozed in the early Modern era. Both sites date to pre-Contact to early Historic era. The terraces reflect Kona Field System features but are roughly constructed that more closely resemble Historic era commercial agriculture. Site 30956 is a rectangular Historic style hearth. The middle one third of the project area between wall sites 30595 and 30605 is within the bulldozed"terraces" portion of the project area. Site 30593 is a pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era lava tube burial. The burial will be preserved in place in accordance with a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan. Site 30594 is an 32 agricultural terrace complex that resembles the Kona Field System but is more roughly constructed. Artifacts recovered from subsurface testing at Site 30604 suggest it is a Historic era agricultural terrace. The southern third of the project area, south of wall Site 30605, contained six primarily agricultural sites (Site 30598, 30600, 30606, 30607, 30610, and 30611) and four Historic era sites (Site 30599, 30608, 30609, and 30612)with functions other than agriculture. The agricultural features included rock walls (Site 30598 and306O6), terraces (Site 30600 and 30610), and agricultural complexes with terraces (Site 30607 and 30610). The non-agricultural features included three enclosures (Site 30599, 30608, and 30609), and a refuse disposal area lava blister (Site 30612). The cluster of these sites indicates their use for Historic era commercial agriculture. Twenty-nine shovel probes and two excavation units tested the sites. Marine shell fragments, a basalt flake and volcanic-glass flakes recovered during testing indicate that Hawaiians likely used the area for limited agricultural purposes. However, the agricultural terraces more closely resemble the remains of Historic era commercial agriculture. All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study were assessed significant under criterion"d" as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria"a" and"c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The railroad berm was recommended for preservation with preservation measures outlined in an archaeological preservation plan(Escott and Mello 2019b). The rest of the sites require no further work. The burial is also significant under criterion"e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial was recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan(Escott and Mello 2019a). 33 Table 4:Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area(Escott and Escott 2018). Site# Site Type Features Site Function Age Testing 30591 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SPA,2,3 30592 Railroad Bed and Berm 1 Transportation Historic Era 30593 Lava Tube Burial 1 Burial Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era 30594 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1&2 30595 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30596 Hearth 1 Food Preparation Historic Era TU-1 30597 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30598 Rock Wall 1 Agriculture/Ranching Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30599 Platform&Enclosure 2 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2,TU-1 30600 Terrace 1 Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 30601 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30602 Enclosure 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1,2,3&4 30603 Enclosure 4 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2 30604 Agricultural Complex 4 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30605 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era 30606 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30607 Agricultural Complex 7 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 to SP-10 30608 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30609 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30610 Terrace 1 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30611 Agricultural Complex 3 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1,2,3 30612 Lava Blister 1 Refuse Dump Historic Era 34 KEY Sill.' 591 PRomcr AREA 51" ,3r,519h IM SITE. r SITE BOUNDARY RAILROAD BFP ROCK NV ALLhtiALL tiftF 3t18{iP r tti STTF MIMI till 41 211 111 rrll KEf 1F=IERN w l'I F:3I[el13 SI I E 3L16111 f:3r15y3 r r. 594 r sly 1:3wJe,lri SI I I 31k,ir SI TIC 305" t rNITV3!!fm ti17 F {ri Yr SI I F 3NSIO 11 F R1rrrl r r Il F ,rh1 9t tiI It r M I I'F:30404 r rI i Figure 11: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott(2018)AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). 35 26. Escott & Escott 2020. SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey on a 73.122-acre portion of the current project area in Parcel 016, 017 (por.), 018, and 019 to identify all archaeological historic properties present on the project area, and to update previous archaeological documentation(see Figure 10). Seventeen of the twenty-one sites previously identified in Hammatt et al. (1992) were located during the course of the archaeological inventory survey study(Figure 10 and Table 5). Two of the previously documented sites (Site 10020 and Site 10034) relocated by SCS are natural bedrock outcrops and one site former burial site (Site 10012). The burials at Site 10012 were reinterred off-project in 1983. The four remaining previously documented sites (Sites 10017, 10033, 10049, and 10071) were bulldozed prior to the SCS fieldwork and the remains of the sites are no longer present on the ground surface. Three previously undocumented sites were also recorded, including a portion of the railroad berm(Site 30592), a small coffee shed enclosure (31181), and several ranch walls (31182). A single petroglyph on a loose cobble was recorded as Isolated Find 1 (IF-1). A total of 21 sites, 17 previously documented and four newly documented, were identified on the project area and are documented in this report. Two of the sites (Site 10020 and Site 10034) were determined to be natural geological features. Six of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, three associated with habitation, one with agriculture, a single petroglyph site, and one single feature site (Site 10012) formerly contained two burials. Twelve of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Two Historic era habitation sites were also documented in the AIS study. One site (Site 10015)was determined to be a short segment of modern bulldozer road. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1983. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. 36 Table 5: Inventory of Escott & Escott(2020)Archaeological Sites. SIHP# TYPE FUNCTION AGE 10011 Platform Ag. Clearing Pre-Contact 10012 Platform&Wall Burial Prehistoric 10013 Enclosure &Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact 10015 Bulldozer Road Transportation Modern 10017 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic 10018 Enclosure Agricultural Historic 10019 6 Rock Mounds Ag. Clearing Historic 10020 Bedrock Outcrop Geological Feature Natural 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic 10033 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic 10034 Bedrock Outcrop Geological Feature Natural 10049 Terraces Agriculture Historic 10067 Terraces Habitation Prehistoric 10068 Enclosure Habitation Prehistoric 10069 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic 10070 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic 10071 Platform Habitation Prehistoric 10072 Modified Bluff Ag. Clearing Pre-Contact 10073 Platforms Ranching/Ag. Historic 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic IF-1 Petroglyph Marker Prehistoric 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 31182 Rock Walls Ranching&Agri Historic Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. 37 CULTURAL INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Consultation was sought from Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Kamakana Ferreira, OHA Compliance Officer;Nicole Lui, cultural descendant, Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)Hawaii Island Archaeologist; Kekoa Nezara, Kona Hawaiian Civic Club President; Shane Nelson, OHA West Hawaii Representative; and J, Curtis Tyler III, cultural descendant(Table 4). Consultation was also conducted via telephone with Gregg Kashiwa who served as project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s. Table 4: Individuals Responses to CIA Consultation Request. Name Affiliation Responded Has Cultural Knowledge Practices Jordan Kea Calpito SHPD Burial Sites Specialist No Kamakana Ferreira OHA Compliance Officer No Gregg Kashiwa Former Property Manager Yes Yes No Nicloe Lui Cultural Descendant Yes Yes No Sean Naleimaile SHPD Archaeologist No Kekoa Nazara Kona Hawaiian Civic Club Yes Some No Shane Nelson OHA West Hawaii Rep. No J. Curtis Tyler III Cultural Descend Yes Yes No GREGG KASHIWA CONSULTATION Gregg Kashiwa was interviewed by phone on April 19, 2016. Mr. Kashiwa was the project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s and was present during AIS work documented in the Hammatt et al. (1992). He is originally from Oahu but lived in Kona for several decades. Mr. Kashiwa remembered that the 5-acre portion of Parcel 017 in the southeast portion of the project area was excluded from the original AIS because the property owners were planning to give the five acres to a group to use as an agricultural preserve. The five acres and the property below (to the west) had already been bulldozed for agricultural use. Mr. Kashiwa knew that there were ranch walls and Historic era agricultural features on the project area, but did not know how they were used, as they were no longer in use during his time in Kona. He also remembered the old railroad bed and berm and that there was a small railroad stop along the track just south of the project area. 38 SUMMARY The"level of effort undertaken" to identify potential effect by a project to cultural resources, places or beliefs (OEQC 1997) has not been officially defined and is left up to the investigator. A good faith effort can mean contacting agencies by letter, interviewing people who may be affected by the project or who know its history, research identifying sensitive areas and previous land use, holding meetings in which the public is invited to testify, notifying the community through the media, and other appropriate strategies based on the type of project being proposed and its impact potential. In the case of the present parcel, consultation was sought from Jordan Kea Calpito, SHPD Burial Sites Specialist; Kamakana Ferreira, OHA Compliance Officer;Nicole Lui, cultural descendant, Sean Naleimaile, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)Hawaii Island Archaeologist; Kekoa Nezara, Kona Hawaiian Civic Club President; Shane Nelson, OHA West Hawaii Representative; and J, Curtis Tyler III, cultural descendant. Consultation was also conducted via telephone with Gregg Kashiwa who served as project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s. Public notices (see Appendix A)were placed in the December 2019 issue of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Ka Wai Ola Newspaper. Public notices were also published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, and the West Hawaii Today on November 171h, 20th and 21st Historical and cultural source materials were extensively used and can be found listed in the References Cited portion of the report. Such scholars as I`i, Kamakau, Chinen, Kame`eleihiwa, Fornander, Kuykendall, Kelly, Handy and Handy, Puku`i and Elbert, Thrum, and Cordy have contributed, and continue to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of Hawaii, past and present. The works of these and other authors were consulted and incorporated in the report where appropriate. Land use document research was supplied by the Waihona Aina 2007 Data Base. 39 CIA INQUIRY RESPONSE As suggested in the"Guidelines for Accessing Cultural Impacts" (OEQC 1997), CIAs incorporating personal interviews should include ethnographic and oral history interview procedures, circumstances attending the interviews, as well as the results of this consultation. It is also permissible to include organizations with individuals familiar with cultural practices and features associated with the project area. As stated above, consultation was sought from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the SHPD Burial Sites Branch, the SHPD Archaeology Branch, families associated with Kaloa 5tn Ahupua`a, and long-time Kona residents. There were no responses to the public notices published in the OHA Ka Wai Ola, West Hawaii Today or the Honolulu Star-Advertiser newspapers. J. Curtis Tyler III,Nicole Lui and Greg Kashiwa did provide information concerning lands of Holualoa lst Ahupua`a. There were no past or ongoing cultural practices identified with lands of the current project area. An analysis of the potential effect of the proposed construction of residences on cultural resources, practices or beliefs, its potential to isolate cultural resources, practices or beliefs from their setting, and the potential of the project to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place is a requirement of the OEQC (No. 10, 1997). Based on historical research and responses from the above listed contacts, it is reasonable to conclude that, there will be no traditional cultural practices affected and there will be no direct adverse effect upon cultural practices or beliefs in the broader project area region. 40 CULTURAL ASSESSMEMNT Based on the results of an Archaeological Assessment of the project area, the results of previous archaeological studies, as well as organizational response, individual cultural informant responses, and archival research, it is reasonable to conclude that, pursuant to Act 50, the exercise of native Hawaiian rights, or any ethnic group, related to gathering, access or other customary activities will not be affected by development activities on this parcel. The proposed project is not a location for past or ongoing cultural practices. The proposed undertaking will not produce adverse effects to any native Hawaiian cultural practices within the project area or in the broader region. 41 REFERENCES CITED Aki, H. 1952 Map of Kailua Section, North Kona, Hawaii, Land Titles. Survey and Map by J.S. Emerson. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1280. Alexander, J. 1855 Map of Holualoa 1 & 2, Kona Hawaii. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1450. Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaii. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Bergin, Dr. B. 2004 Loyal to the Land:The Legendary Parker ranch, 750-1950. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Barrera, W. Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 71-10. Submitted to Kamehameha Development Corporation. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1995 North Kona, Hawaii Island: Archaeological Reconnaissance of Seven Parcels. Prepared for County of Hawaii Planning Department. Burtchard, G. C. 1995 Population and Land-use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Lands Inventory Survey, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawai`i Island, the Narrative,part 1. Submitted to Belt, Collins and Associates and Kamehameha Investment Corporation. IARII, Honolulu. Calis, I., M.T. Carson, M. Dega and R.L. Spear 2004 Data Recovery at the Phase I and II Portions of the Kahakai Development Project Area TAM(3) 7-5-20:1. SCS Report 209-1. Prepared for Stanford Carr Development, LLC. SCS, Honolulu. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Carlson, A.K., and P.H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Development-Phase II, Lands of Puapuaa Is and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Development Company. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 42 Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawai`i. Clark, M., and R. Rechtman 2006 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAM:3-7-6-004:003, Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0360 prepared for Mr. Phil Tinguely, H61ualoa Village Partners, LLC, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Conolly III, R.D., and J.L. Gunness 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey at the Komohana Kai Subdivion (Unit 1) Site (TMK.• 3-7-6-13:31). Report prepared by Science Applications Inc., Honolulu for G.C. Development Co., Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Cordy, R. 1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press,New York. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Honolulu. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Daws, G. 1968 Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Island. Macmillan,New York. Desilets, M., and R. Rechtman 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Grant Increment Road Remnant Property TMK.•3-7-6-08:005 por.), Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0244 prepared for Curt A. Cottrell, Nd Ala Hele Program Manager, Honolulu, Hawaii and Ramon Perez de Ayala, Pua`anui Partnership, Honolulu, Hawaii. Dircks, A., L. Zenobi, and R. Rechtman 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Miyose Farm Subdivision TMKs:3-7-6-001:003, 009, and 019), H61ua1oa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0856 prepared for Edward Rapoza, Kailua-Kona. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. 43 Ellis. W. 1963 Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing, Honolulu. Escott, G. 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Tower (HAW 301) Site Located in Holualoa Is'Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK; (3) 7-6-024:032]. SCS Report#1340-2 prepared for Ace Environmental, Las Vegas. Escott. G., and S. Escott 2018 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 5.0 Acres Located in Holualoa Is' Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Haw ai`i Island, Haw ai`i[TMK: (3)7-6-021:017 Por.]. Prepared for East West Realty. SCS Report 1871, Honolulu. 2020 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 76.121 Acres Located in Holualoa Is' Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK: (3)7-6-021:016- 019]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2330, Honolulu. Escott, G. and N. Mello 2019a Burial Site Component of a Burial Treatment Plan for Burial Site #50-10-57- 30593 Located in Holualoa 1 sc Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, Hawai`i[TMK: (3)7-6-021:017]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2137, Honolulu. 2019b An Archaeological Preservation Plan for Site #50-10-57-30592 Located in Holualoa I st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, Hawai`i[TMK: 3)7-6-021:016-019]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2137, Honolulu. ESRI 2013 Arc GIS Explorer. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Ca. Fager, M., and D. Graves 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Holualoa 3rd Development Parcel, Land of Holualoa 3rd North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-7-04:35). PHRI Report 1231-073092 prepared for Dillingham Partners. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. 44 Graves, D.K., and S.T. Goodfellow 1993 The Gardens of Kona Revisited: Pualani Residential Community Phase II- Archaeological Data Recovery, Lands of Puapuaa I sr and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17.•por.28, 29). PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Estates, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Han, T. L., S. L. Collins, S. D. Clark, and A. Garland 1986 Moe Kau a Ho`oilo:Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Ke6pu, Kona, Hawai`i. Chapter VII. Artifacts and Manuports from the Ke6pu Burial Site. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 86-1. Submitted to Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Handy, E.S. 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume L B.P. Bishop Museum bulletin 161. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hammatt, H.H. 1979a Archaeological Survey of a 22 Acre Parcel at Holualoa Ahupua`a, Hawaii. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 1979b Archaeological Survey of a 22 Acre Parcel at Holualoa Ahupua`a, Kona, Hawaii Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for Kalani Sunset Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 1979c Archaeological Survey and Excavation at the Proposed Komohana Kai Subdivision, Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Manuscript. Prepared for G.C. Development Co., Inc. 1980 Archaeological Survey and Excavation at the Proposed Komohana Kai Subdivision Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for G.C. Development Company, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammat, H.H., D. Borthwick, and D. Shideler 1986 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on a 20-Acre Parcel Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for Maryl Investments, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H. H., and S. D. Clark 1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre (Ginter)Parcel in Na ahupua`a Pahoehoe, La`aloa, and Kapala`alaea, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-152 III. Submitted to Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc. 45 Hammatt, H.H., and W.H. Folk 1980 Archaeological Survey, Phase L• Portions of Keauhou-Kona Resort, Keauhou and Kahulu`u, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-177 ILI. Submitted to Kamehameha Investment Corporation. 1981 Archaeological Survey of a 20 Acre Parcel, Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for Kalani Sunset Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H.H., W.H. Folk, and D.W. Shideler 1992 Archaeological Survey Testing and Excavation of a 174-Acre Parcel, Holualoa, North Kona, Hawai`i. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for the Gamlon Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 2007 Letter Report Documenting Archaeological Study Conducted, Finds, and Their Treatment at a Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Holualoa Ahupua`a, North Kona, Hawai`I, TMK• (3) 7-6-021:016(por.). Report prepared by Cultural Surveys 1250 Oceanside Partners, LLC. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei Hammatt, H. H., and V. W. Meeker 1979 Archaeological Excavations and Heiau Stabilization at Kahalu`u, Kona, Hawaii Island. ARCH Report 14-172(II). Submitted to Gerald Park, Urban Planner. Haun, A.E., and D. Henry 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey TMK• 7-7-04:56, Holualoa 3, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Haun &Associates report prepared for Mr. Sidney Fuke, Hilo, Hawaii. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 2001 Archaeological Data Recovery Site 14130 TMK• (3) 7-5-17:Por. 1. Prepared for Inaba Engineering. Haun & Associates, Kea`au. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Haun, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Ali`i Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I-Archaeological Intensive Survey, Summary, vol. 1. PHRI Report 1320-052798. Submitted to County of Hawaii. PHRI, Hilo. Hommon, R. J. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 55-88. University Press, Cambridge. 46 Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La E Pono Ai? Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mala o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Dept. of Anthropology Report Series 83-2. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks:An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa dune site (MO-Al-3), Moloka`i Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. Kirch, P.V. and M. Sahlins 1992 Anahulu. Vol. 1 and 2. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vol. 1. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Landrum, J., A.E. Haun, P.H. Rosendahl, and K. Delimont 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Test Excavations Kahakai Development Project Area. PHRI Report 157-070185. Prepared for Wilson Okamoto & Associates. PHRI, Hilo. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Maly, K 1993 Ka`ao Ho`oniva Pu`uwai No Ka-Miki, The Heart Story Story of Ka-Miki. Published in Hawaiian, in the newspaper "Ka Hoku o Hawai`I(Hilo) January 8, 1914 through December 6, 1917. Translated by Kepa Maly for Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 1996 Historical Documentary Research. In Archaeological Inventory Survey Proposed Henry Street Extension Road Corridor, by Wulzen, W., T.R. Wolforth, and L.J. Franklin, pp. 9-19. PRHI Report 1465-092696. Prepared for Maryl Development, Kailua-Kona. PHRI, Hilo. 47 Maly, K. and O. Maly 2001 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Nd `Mina, A Me Nd Ala Hele I Hehi 7a, Mai Keauhou A I Kealakekua, Ma Kona, Hawai`i (A Historical Overview of the Lands, And Trails Traveled, Between Keauhou and Kealakekua, Kona, Hawai`i. Kumu Pono and Associates report prepared for Na Ala Hele Program Manager(Hawai`i Island), State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hilo. 2002 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Ka`Mina A Me Nd `Ohana O Waiki`i Ma Waikoloa Kalana O Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka `Mina Mauna:A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki`i at Waikoloa Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawai`i TMK Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates. Hilo. Maly, K., and P.H. Rosendahl 2006 Phase III Archaeological Site Preservation Plan, Pualani Residential Community Mitigation Program, Lands of Puapuaa Is'and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-5-17:28, 29). PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Schuler Homes. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. McCoy, M. 2005 The development of the Kalaupapa field system, Koloka`i Island, Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:339-58. 2007 Revised late Holocene culture history for Molokai Island, Hawaii. Radiocarbon, 49(3):1273-1322. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W.F. Wilson. New Freedom Press. Honolulu. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E192-E194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. Nelson, D., L. Bulgrin, and R. Rechtman 2005 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAM:3-7-6-013:008, H61ualoa 1st& 2nd Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0251. Prepared for Nearon Enterprises, LLC, Danville, California. (Revised 2006). 48 Newman, T. S. 1970 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island ofHawaii A.D. 1778. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K., S. Elbert and E. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Rechtman, R.B. 2006 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TNIK•3-7-013:017, Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Report Prepared by Rechtman Consulting, LLC for Geometrician Associates, LLC. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Rosendahl, M. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Holualoa 3rd Development Parcel, Land of Holualoa 3rd North Kona, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-04:35). PHRI Report 400-122287 prepared for Dillingham Trust. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Rosendahl, P. 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the 72-Unit Development Site (TAM:3- 7-6-14:3 and 3-7-7-04:22,23,27,47) Kailua-Kona Island ofHawai`i. PHRI Report 5-122078. Prepared for Gray, Rhee and Associates. 1989 Archaeological Field Inspection, Komohana Kai Subdivision Parcels, Land of Holualoa Is`and 2na North Kona, Island ofHawai`i (TMK:3-7-6-22:49,84). PHRI Letter Report 44-121181 prepared for Clyde Coatney. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R Paeth, R Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai`i: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Report prepared for the Hawaii Department of Transportation. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 49 Sinoto, A. 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Six Acres in the Ahupua`a of Holualoa I and 2, North Kona, Hawaii. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Brehm Construction Company. Soehren, L 1979a Letter Report: Parcels 10, 12, and 13 of TMK.•7-6-14, in Holualoa, North Kona. Prepared for Mr. Hiroshi Kasamoto. 1979b Letter Report: TAX.-7-6-15:15, Holualoa, North Kona. Prepared for Zuzak and Associates. 1980a Letter Report:Archaeological and Historical Features on the Parcel Identified by Tax Map Key 7-6-21:14, Situated at Holualoa 2, North Kona, Hawaii. Prepared for Golden Triangle Real Estate. 1980b Letter Report:Archaeological and Historical Features on the Parcels Identified by Tax Map Keys 7-6-14:2,3 at Holualoa 2, and 7-7-04:22,27,47 at Holualoa 3, North Kona, Hawai`i. Prepared for BA and M Corp. Starr Environmental 2016 Botanical and Faunal Surveys in the State of Hawaii. Makawao. www.starrenvironmental.com. Tainter, J. A. 1973 The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at Kaloko,North Kona, Hawaii. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8(1):1-11. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Development Parcel 26 of the Keauhou Resort, Ahupua`a of Kahalu`u, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Prepared for Belt Collins and Associates. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu. U.S. Geological Survey 1928 15-Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.govlplsltopomapsl. Vancouver, G. 1967 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. 1984 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. 50 Waihona `Aina 2014 Mahele online database. www.waihona.com. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision. Lands of Puapuaa Is'and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Development Company. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Wilkes, C. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. 1970 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 201 lb Reply to Mulrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108T195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Wolforth, T., J. Henry, and R. Rechtman 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Two Parcels in Holualoa 2nd and 3rd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. PHRI Report 1941-080999 prepared for Mr. Ralph Berezan. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 51 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICES AND AFFIDAVITS A-1 HOLUALOA Inforntation requested by 5cicn ific C_on ul- tant Sm ices,Inc.of past and ongoing ru ltUF;d practices on 76.122 acres ofland in HOlualoa 1st Ahupua'a.North Kona District. Island of Hawaii.TM K:(3)7-6-02 1-016.017.018 and 019. Please respond within 30 days to Glenn E cott at (808) to{8-0968 or at ggescom-a, G.!hOO cram December 2019 Ka Wai Ola Public Notice. A-2 AYRDA rIT OT PURIJCAI'IUN IN IME MxrIFlt OF Y C AJURL.MPACTAME36MM,W011C£.-WREELdCR.MAILL'AMONA HI i F 1 i S FA 1 L Uf''1t1{1'A II t Or,II4 COMAI-yet l fog"Ulm I k11]r, J'Itc. My t IInIq Paw: t Notriry Nnrn,::cau,Mne:*nMiww Rat.rwicidl'Ip+cult nfiI JEVk©1 NOT-EtE. S r` r, t TUp IKPAV 433tS.srk NOT-Etucue5er1p1tn: --rGt1 a . q I Cdt10n. y G. F. IdnmsUan rcq%-4',Dd by UI0p'j jI t:tesalU" ti SlMaa lre 9 salt i+e uto ig wstrrw:ar4ren s rNOTARY _ .n12?m.ri d:a d IR haw iii:q Mt g&2?OM 1,rye+ { hn+fl - PURI..1 110 DWd N$1r10 of 0IVBI1 TMK 11)7 3t71: I'U M L L U 77' Ar 018,1:7 CJS ud 019 Lear rrsrn-A A hA 31 dsrs•c offT jsrntt wl(FM)90-C95a or at onto s No.90.283 F 1;rrs"Mahwwr.. i. ary L;y s.ra 1,1!6,rphrly rurn.4rgaicsmif als e'st rtc isq :rk.al#+m;W AtMJ r r•r, iiisaflickwitatrOskrpt>flliomiortsInr: publisher)rnt ici loin Star-,Adresgtstt..Mduper-TIrC,ardegt Lsttt 4 West liawu Ircla'/,ani"gome lnbuae-NnW4,shst sasd nempapers ara newspaper;of gar ov;:iculAbon rn the Stoic Ix 144aw4 am ttct t1eo IAMOtaa Rauae 11 uua Robot as W13 putt Orcw Ir ryea Hon-r;ell1j Sh •A(°«rl:wr 3 r1inesun• 11!t7-1112C,1?017C,19 ltifidtvrec 0 tireson The GueEn N,4-isd 0 1igm ow Ha"i 1'rilsu:re.lielalel 1) titsoes On st I Immii 7aday 0 tiarag nn And IJW Wiwi it rwx a party to M er any way insaree; '. I't Z. , L>r SsYakrda I ICI S uptcrsMd M iKe1 euOr*e!rrlare wa ikis tib,I t Af We(f-hEN A n 2C r'irT acu aanA N- y PR l o4the Fwst lu iad Cucyit,9i.: 1 r,rplj MN comet ssidn msp x3;Jon 06 2007 i a. Ad N OU012454gIltl I„• ICSP NO.. No.90.2633 F` r tr C3F HP A1 November 2019 Honolulu Star-Advertiser Public Notice. A-3 AFFIDAvrr oFrv$uctrioN IN TitF MATIFIt OF C1UL7LrR1t IMpAiC1AGSESBM0q N0TfCE•WHEELOM KAII AJ,k KOM Ill P I ATE Or ITAWA f 158. t.:ify ad 4'erely of lincrelefu I Doc Date:21 7r1° Nptaf Nil fillE'_4 w•tCr.t.aJ.` f' -' :r' _CUIIiaFY!IkIPlGt,lt4E1aIWCNTH4A I:. Ir0 mrllnn aystud} y :: W ' bl'Sa nt lc'Gzrad art 5srMcei lst:sf Ply and rcl lrg clrrJnl pnttlJpr m1 -0 263 7E.27 tree 9f IfM nNo[,Wce 1a dlu10 a Ji7cllt1MY018rteturarsae I{car 4b"JIct.wip.,d o'Hawrfl,THE(3)7 6-M:S,? yA 016 0.7,0J3 aid Qf9 Pieaw ns0orrl am 30 ti days rr Glens ecm t at;8CI8 gle 0J38 u at6Bpr ?bcr,oa. Lr,rrk+JAY IWX t,ll MSCSZM ra a rirjr 51Y s.:rfer fu y-,wbxeied WM12eS9C7 11?17]J,f.0,11,'21;f7; fU rrcaarr.ihtc;MMAv I w I kok IrUbrrt ufi8lon% aC F4,lr' erolTFe iftnvl ru Star.Advormr,d•'Jid%vwk,l'lreGwori r:,;i,:.."r lrfaaaii]a Y.JJn3flaM rfiLals-110414,chat Sold neW5pnpfr, •sr f ;nil Us sfgcrclal circu]etim reo dhe StaDe Af Hawmi,Lad[hart the at ubiiiS c',cu:. c,;c r ta.c saw }rs61 ts!ac n r Lhr lloaalulu SW-AdveltiSrr l r tlW au: Midmck J linats ar Me taitnlem Island 0 tirrtcJ an; lawili'ldbuae-Herald CI I rir'UL, westNatraii'itttley 3 11ruson; 11117,MD,11127M19 Other Publieafinns.- l times on: AM Ihod afriw is rwt QAAY L]Qro cT iin MY wGY IMMAcd al the abuve etualkd rnrta_ r v I rsa Sakakada 10 mid ssnxrrrf br-etc me tNir 'of..._ A.1) 20 Xlpk&rc Jadcral['I tetlt i]flidf/eMo r rt Jan(X 2020 Vo i NOTARY 7 Y r PUBLIC ICSP No: No.90-263 November 2019 West Hawaii Today Public Notice. A-4 A-5 APPENDIX 5: Archaeological Inventory Survey Reports SCS Project Number 1871-2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY REPORT FOR 5.0 ACRES LOCATED IN HOLUALOA 1ST AHUPUA`A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI`I ISLAND, HAWAI`I TMK: (3) 7-6-021:017 POR.] Prepared By: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. Suzan Escott, B.A. MAY 2018 FINAL Prepared for: East West Realty 700 Bishop St. Suite 1000 Honolulu, HI 96813-4112 SCf1 N`IFIC CONSULTANT SERVICES lnc_ 1347 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu,HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au,HI 96749 ABSTRACT At the request of property owner Kona Three, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey(AIS) of a 5.0-acre portion of land TMK: (3)-7-6- 021:017 located in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. The owner is proposing to develop the property and contracted the archaeological study in anticipation of County of Hawaii Planning Department application requirements. The owner's contact mailing address is 181 Kalanianaole Street Hilo, HI 96720-4703. Prior to fieldwork, a search of geological maps, aerial photos, historical maps, historical documents, and archaeological reports was conducted. A pedestrian survey and site recording were conducted in March and April 2016 by Joe Farrugia, B.A., Suzan Escott, B.A, Tomasi Patolo, B.A., and Glenn Escott, M.A. A series of north/south transects spaced 2.0 to 4.0 meters apart were walked across the entire project area. Ground cover consisted of tall California and Guinea grass, koa haole, kiawe, and several kukui nut trees. Ground visibility was fair to poor. The project area lands were used for cattle ranching and commercial agriculture from the early 1900s until the present. The majority of the project area has been bulldozed. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile. Pedestrian survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer- cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. Twenty two newly identified archaeological sites were recorded during the course of the archaeological inventory survey study. The sites are primarily agricultural terraces associated with pre-Contact era to Historic era agriculture. Several rock walls and enclosures are associated with Historic era agriculture and ranching. A pre-Contact era to later post-Contact era lava tube burial and a portion of the old railroad berm were also recorded. All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study were assessed significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria"a" and "c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The burial is also significant criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial is recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments to be outlined in a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (BSCPP). The railroad berm is recommended for preservation with preservation measures to be outlined in an archaeological preservation. Archaeological monitoring is recommended for initial grubbing within the five-acre project area and for any proposed ground disturbance in the vicinity of Site 30592 and Site 30593 to ensure interim construction preservation measures are in place and to prevent disturbance of the two archaeological sites. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................i LISTOF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................iii LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................I METHODS................................................................................................................................................... I ARCHIVALMETHODS............................................................................................................ 1 FIELDMETHODS..................................................................................................................... 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................................7 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS.........................................................................................8 PRE-CONTACT ERA.............................................................................................................. 10 TheKona Field System......................................................................................................... 11 POST-CONTACT ERA............................................................................................................ 14 THEMAHELE......................................................................................................................... 15 EARLY POST-CONTACT ERA AND HISTORIC ERA....................................................... 20 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES..........................................................................................23 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES .................................................. 26 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY............................ 31 EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS.....................................................................................40 RESULTS OF FIELDWORK.....................................................................................................................41 SITE 30591 Agricultural Complex.................................................................................... 41 SITE 30592 Railroad Berm................................................................................................ 53 SITE30593 Lava Tube...................................................................................................... 53 SITE 30594 Agricultural Complex.................................................................................... 57 SITE30595 Rock Wall...................................................................................................... 66 SITE30596 Hearth............................................................................................................ 69 SITE30597 Rock Wall...................................................................................................... 73 SITE30598 Wall ............................................................................................................... 77 SITE 30599 Platform with Enclosure................................................................................ 77 SITE30600 Terrace........................................................................................................... 88 SITE30601 Rock Wall...................................................................................................... 90 SITE30602 Enclosure....................................................................................................... 90 SITE30603 Enclosure....................................................................................................... 96 SITE 30604 Agricultural Complex.................................................................................. 105 SITE30605 Rock Wall.................................................................................................... 113 SITE30606 Rock Wall.................................................................................................... 115 SITE 30607 Agricultural Complex.................................................................................. 117 SITE30608 Enclosure..................................................................................................... 133 SITE30609 Enclosure..................................................................................................... 135 SITE30610 Terrace......................................................................................................... 136 SITE 30611 Agricultural Complex.................................................................................. 141 SITE 30612 Lava Blister.................................................................................................. 147 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 152 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................... 152 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS..........................................................................................................154 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 156 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................................. 157 APPENDIX A: ARTIFACT INVENTORY................................................................................................. I ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Island Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................... 2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Project Area Kealakekua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)........ 3 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area (within Red Boundary), Holualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (Google Earth, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS). ..................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Map of Holualoa 1 st and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border(Alexander 1855)........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5: Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952). ............................................................................... 17 Figure 6: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards, Land Grants, and the Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, Kealakekua Quad. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................................................ 18 Figure 7: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928)............................................................................................. 22 Figure 8: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area (Kealakekua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................................................................................... 25 Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al. (1992) Sites and Current Project Area (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle)......................................................... 32 Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle).......................................................................................................43 Figure 11: Site 30591 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 44 Figure 12: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 1 Looking Northeast............................................ 46 Figure 13: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 2 Looking North.................................................. 47 Figure 14: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 3 Looking Northeast............................................ 48 Figure 15: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 4 Looking Southeast............................................ 49 Figure 16: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 5 Looking South.................................................. 50 Figure 17: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 6 Looking North.................................................. 52 Figure 18: Photograph of Site 30592 Looking East..................................................................... 54 Figure 19: Site 30593 Plan View Sketch Map............................................................................. 56 Figure 20: Site 30594 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 58 Figure 21: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 1 on Left and Feature 2 on Right Looking South.60 Figure 22: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 1 in Top Left, Feature 2 at Center, Feature 3 at Far Right, Looking South............................................................................................................ 61 Figure 23: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 2 on Left and Feature 3 on Right Looking South.62 Figure 24: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 5 Looking Northeast............................................ 64 Figure 25: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 6 in Foreground and Feature 5 in Background, LookingNortheast. ............................................................................................................... 65 Figure 26: Photograph of Site 30595 Wall Looking North. ........................................................ 67 iii Figure 27: Photograph of Site 30595 Wall Collapse Showing Cobble Core Fill, Looking North. 68 Figure 28: Site 30596 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 70 Figure 29: Photograph of Site 30596 Hearth Looking West. ...................................................... 71 Figure 30: Site 30596 TU-1 North Profile................................................................................... 72 Figure 31: Photograph of Site 30596 TU-1 Top of Layer II, Looking West............................... 74 Figure 32: Photograph of Site 30596 TU-1 Base of Excavation, Looking West. ....................... 75 Figure 33: Photograph of Site 30597 Wall with Gulch in Background, Looking South............. 76 Figure 34: Photograph of Site 30598 Wall Overview Looking West.......................................... 78 Figure 35: Site 30599 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 80 Figure 36: Photograph of Site 30599 Feature 1 Platform with Top Cleared of Debris Showing Stacked Stone Construction, Looking West. ........................................................................ 81 Figure 37: Photograph of Site 30599 Feature 1 Platform Showing West Side Collapse, Looking East........................................................................................................................................ 82 Figure 38: Photograph of Site 30599 Feature 2 Enclosure Looking East.................................... 83 Figure 39: Photograph of Surface Artifacts Collected at Site 30599........................................... 84 Figure 40: Site 30599 TU-1 South Profile................................................................................... 86 Figure 41: Photograph of Site 30599 TU-1 Base of Excavation Looking East........................... 87 Figure 42: Photograph of Site 30600 Looking Southeast............................................................ 89 Figure 43: Site 30602 Plan View Map Showing Portions of Site 30592, Site 30595, and Site 30601..................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 44: Photograph of Site 30601 Rock Wall Looking North................................................ 92 Figure 45: Photograph of Site 30602 West Wall(Left)and Site 30595 Wall (Right) Looking East........................................................................................................................................ 94 Figure 46: Photograph of Site 30602 Enclosure Wall and Bottle................................................ 95 Figure 47: Site 30603 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 97 Figure 48: Photograph of Site 30603 Southwest Corner of Enclosure Feature 1, Looking Northwest.............................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 49: Photograph of Site 30603 Western South Wall of Enclosure Feature 1, Looking Southwest.............................................................................................................................. 99 Figure 50: Photograph of Site 30603 Middle Corner of Enclosure Feature 1, Looking South. 100 Figure 51: Photograph of Site 30595 Wall Portion of Site 30603 Enclosure Feature 1, Looking North. .................................................................................................................................. 102 Figure 52: Photograph of Site 30603 Feature 2 Terrace Looking Southeast............................. 103 Figure 53: Photograph of Site 30603 Feature 2 Terrace (Center) and Feature Retaining Wall Left), Looking Southeast................................................................................................... 104 Figure 54: Site 30604 Plan View Map....................................................................................... 106 Figure 55: Photograph of Site 30604 Feature 1 Looking Southwest......................................... 107 Figure 56: Photograph of Site 30604 Feature 2 Looking Southeast.......................................... 108 Figure 57: Photograph of Site 30604 Feature 3 Looking Southeast.......................................... 110 Figure 58: Photograph of Artifacts Recovered from Site 30604, Feature 3, SP-1. ................... 111 Figure 59: Photograph of Site 30604 Feature 4 Looking South................................................ 112 Figure 60: Photograph of Site 30605 Wall Looking Northeast. ................................................ 114 Figure 61: Photograph of Site 30606 Rock Wall Looking North.............................................. 116 Figure 62: Site 30607 Plan View Map....................................................................................... 118 Figure 63: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 1 Terrace Looking Southeast............................. 119 iv Figure 64: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 2 Terrace (Background) and Site 305956 Wall Foreground), Looking West. ............................................................................................. 120 Figure 65: Photograph of Site 30607, Feature 2, Western Area Looking East. ........................ 122 Figure 66: Photograph of Site 30607, Feature 2, Eastern Area Looking East........................... 123 Figure 67: Photograph of Site 30607, Feature 3 Looking South............................................... 124 Figure 68: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 4 Eastern Area Looking North. ......................... 126 Figure 69: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 4 Western Area Looking Northwest.................. 127 Figure 70: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 5 Looking South................................................ 129 Figure 71: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 6 Looking South................................................ 130 Figure 72: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 7 Looking North................................................ 132 Figure 73: Photograph of Site 30608 Enclosure Looking Southeast......................................... 134 Figure 74: Photograph of Site 30609 Enclosure Looking East.................................................. 137 Figure 75: Photograph of Site 30609 Enclosure Looking Northeast......................................... 138 Figure 76: Site 30610 Plan View Map....................................................................................... 139 Figure 77: Photograph of Site 30610 Terrace Looking Southwest............................................ 140 Figure 78: Site 30611 Plan View Map....................................................................................... 142 Figure 79: Photograph of Site 30611 Feature 1 Looking Southeast.......................................... 143 Figure 80: Photograph of Site 30611 Feature 2 Looking South................................................ 144 Figure 81: Photograph of Site 30611 Feature 1 Looking Northeast.......................................... 146 Figure 82: Photograph of Site 30612 Blister Opening Looking North...................................... 148 Figure 83: Photograph of Site 30612 Historic Era Bottles and Plateware................................. 149 Figure 84: Photograph of Site 30612 Soldered Cans................................................................. 150 Figure 85: Photograph of Site 30612 Historic Era Bottles. ....................................................... 151 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Inventory of Subsurface Testing...................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Land Commission Awards Recorded in H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a. ..................... 19 Table 3: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations.................................................... 23 Table 4: Inventory of Hammatt et al. (1992)Archaeological Sites Inspection and Assessment Results................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 5: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area. ........................ 42 Table 6: Site 30591 Shovel Probe Results................................................................................... 51 Table 7: Site 30594 Shovel Probe Results................................................................................... 66 Table 8: Site 30599 Shovel Probe Results................................................................................... 85 Table 9: Site 30602 Shovel Probe Results................................................................................... 96 Table 10: Site 30603 Shovel Probe Results............................................................................... 101 Table 11: Site 30607 Feature 2 Shovel Probe Results............................................................... 121 Table 12: Site 30607 Feature 3 Shovel Probe Results............................................................... 125 Table 13: Site 30607 Feature 4 Shovel Probe Results............................................................... 128 Table 14: Inventory of Project Area Archaeological Sites, Significance Assessments and Site Recommendations............................................................................................................... 155 v INTRODUCTION At the request of East West Realty, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey (AIS) of a 5.0-acre portion of TMK: (3)-7- 6-021:017 located in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The owner is proposing to develop the property and contracted the archaeological study as in anticipation of County of Hawaii Planning Department application requirements. The project area is bounded on the north and west by undeveloped cattle pasture, on the south by a seasonal gulch, and on the west by developed residential and farm land(Figure 3). The project area lands were used for cattle pasture and agriculture from the early 1900s to the present. The property is owned by Kona Three, LLC. The owner's mailing address is 181 Kalanianaole Street Hilo, HI 96720-4703. METHODS The archaeological inventory survey was undertaken in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-284 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports contained in Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-276. ARCHIVAL METHODS In addition to referencing available resources at SCS, archival research was conducted in the State Historic Preservation Division(SHPD) report database and library facility(Hilo, HI), the Hawaii County land records office, the Waihona `AinaMahele database website, Ulukau database website, the Papakilo database website, the Hawaiian collections holdings at the University of Hawaii-Hilo Library, and the Hawaii State Library system. Archival work consisted of research on the history and archaeology of the project area, as well as specific searches of previous archaeological studies in and around the current project area. Historic land use data, land ownership, maps, and narrative information were obtained from the Hawaii County land records office, Hawaiian internet sites, and the University of Hawaii, Hilo. FIELD METHODS Inventory survey field work was conducted March and April 2012 (140 Man- hours total)by Joe Farrugia, B.A.; Tomasi Patolo, B.A.; Suzan Escott, B.A.; and Glenn 1 Escott, M.A. Glenn Escott provided overall project direction and is the principal investigator for this study. tp7.i•..-. r ,.... :)rseie.t f?1C..r;.c..f wx;SM,qer Saa?flu:::.. H A W A I I 1riAWik1a COO It— Ar P r W A I n P tfa,liC I tHF, r As ' A,^ ' i a'p r r,a 7u.w49 i14—4 a r :;y7: 1' dy 3ao-o,. Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Island Showing Location of Project Area National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 IV'IIIMIai f IAINr.Mi! 1N'Nwn:im I I•I In..I I"I.Inle.II a 1 r w F.. 1,3 a h.."A r N TRCIJFA'-T AREA I%IR'INN NDAR1 r I M'glwn I• 11dgNlr 6 Iwon.f. 1•+"Ilinnw.! I^Ylw nail Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Project Area(Kealakekua Quad,ESRI,2013. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 3 w. Y y k Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area(within Red Boundary),Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. Google Earth,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 4 There were three main field components to the Inventory Survey process: pedestrian survey of the entire project area; plotting located sites on a project area map with Global Position System (GPS)Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)units (Zone 5 North) using WSGS84 datum; and individual site mapping and recording. A series of north/south transects spaced 2.0 to 4.0 meters apart were walked across the entire project area. Ground cover consisted of tall California and Guinea grass, koa haole, kiawe, and a few kukui trees. Ground visibility was fair to poor. Site boundaries were determined by the aerial extent of features and by feature function and temporal association. Features that were in close proximity to each other and that appeared to have functional and temporal associations suggesting they were constructed and used as a functional set of features--those features were included together as a single site. Features that were beyond twenty to thirty meters away from each other, or that were constructed at very different times, or for different very purposes, were separated into individual sites. Age determinations were expressed in terms of recognized formal eras including pre-Contact era(before 1778), early post-Contact era 1778-1850), Historic era(1851-1965), and Modern era(post-1965). Age was interpreted on the bases of feature construction and artifacts recovered from excavations. Features at eleven of the twenty two sites were selected for test excavation to determine site function, construction method, and age. Two types of hand excavations, shovel probes (SP) and test units (TU), were used depending on the size of features, percentage to be excavated, percentage of screening, and overall goals of excavation. A total of 29 shovel probes and two test-units were excavated at eleven sites (Table 1). Table 1: Inventory of Subsurface Testing. Site# Site Type Features Site Function Testing 30591 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture SP-1, 2, 3 30594 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture SP-1 &2 30596 Hearth 1 Food Preparation TU-1 30599 Platform&Enclosure 2 Ranching/Agriculture SP-1 &2, TU-1 30600 Terrace 1 Agriculture SP-1 30602 Enclosure 1 Ranching/Agriculture SP-1, 2, 3 & 4 30603 Enclosure 4 Ranching/Agriculture SP-1 &2 30604 Agricultural Complex 4 Agriculture SP-1 30607 Agricultural Complex 7 Agriculture SP-1 to SP-10 30610 Terrace 1 Agriculture SP-1 30611 Agricultural Complex 3 Agriculture SP-1, 2, 3 5 Test-units were excavated as 0.5 x 1.0 meter or 1.0 x 1.0 meter units, dug in natural stratigraphic layers. These were excavated at features that were thought to have a high potential to yield functional and temporal diagnostic artifacts, and used where vertical control would contribute to this data. Shovel probes (SP)were units that were roughly 0.4 x 0.4 meters square, and were used to examine stratigraphy, and assess the presence or absence of cultural deposits. Test-unit and shovel probe excavations were screened for cultural material through 1/8th inch mesh. Stratigraphic profiles were drawn for test-units. Disarticulated human skeletal remains were identified within a lava tube during the field survey. The skeletal elements were partially covered in shallow sediment. Sediment was cleared in small increments from a partially covered pelvis to aid in identification. SHPD was notified and approved of the clearing of sediment from the pelvis. Cultural material was recorded by type on standard SCS excavation forms and collected. Soil colors were recorded using Munsell color charts, soil composition was recorded with the aid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Manual on standard soil stratigraphy forms, and profiles were drawn. Overview photographs were taken of individual site features, sites, excavations, and the project area using a 1.0 meter measuring tape. LABORATORY METHODS Inventory of midden and artifacts collected from the test excavations were weighed and analyzed by layer of provenience within each excavation unit. Appendix A contains a tabular inventory of all artifacts collected during archaeological excavation. Volcanic-glass and basalt debitage was counted and described in terms of core, primary, secondary, interior, exterior, or non-diagnostic flakes. For all other artifacts, dimensions, weight, count, and diagnostic characteristics were recorded. All artifact data were tabulated. Field notes, maps, cultural material, and photographs pertaining to this project are currently being curated at the SCS facilities on the Island of Hawaii. 6 ORAL INTERVIEW Gregg Kashiwa was interviewed by phone on April 19, 2016. Mr. Kashiwa was the project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s and was present during AIS work documented in the Hammatt et al. (1992). He is originally from Oahu but lived in Kona for several decades. Mr. Kishawa remembered that the current 5-acre project area was excluded from the original AIS because the property owners were planning to give the five acres to a group to use as an agricultural preserve. The five acres and the property below (to the west) had already been bulldozed for agricultural use. Mr. Kishawa knew that there were ranch walls and Historic era agricultural features on the project area, but did not know how they were used, as they were no longer in use during his time in Kona. He also remembered the old railroad bed and berm and that there was a small railroad stop along the track just south of the project area. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The current project area consists of an undeveloped 5.0-acre portion of TMK: (3) 7- 6-021:017. The project area is situated on fairly steeply sloping land with level areas in between elevation breaks. The project area is between 600 to 680 feet (183 to 207 meters) above mean sea level (amsl). The project area lands are part of a large former cattle ranch and agricultural area that was started in the early 1900s. The lower portion of the project area is still used to pasture cattle. The project area and surrounding lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile (see Figure 3). Pedestrian survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer-cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. The former Kona Sugar Company railroad bed is present along the western edge of the project area. The project area ground surface is a Hualalai lava flow dating between 5,000 and 10,000 years before present(ybp) (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is Punalu`u Series (rPYD series) extremely rocky peat with six to twenty percent slopes Sato 1973:48). The majority of the project area has been bulldozed in the past and the present ground surface is rocky soil. Rainfall in the project area is very low, less than thirty inches per year. There is a seasonal gulch along the southern edge of the project area. This region is extremely dry, 7 hot, and somewhat barren except for thick California grass (Urochloa mutica), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and some koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe Prosopis pallida), and kukui nut(Aleurites moluccana) trees (Starr Environmental 2016). HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Kona is divided into two sections: North Kona or Kona `akau, and; South Kona, or Kona hema (Maly 1996). Kona `akau was further subdivided into north(called Kekaha) and south(called Konakai`6pua) areas, with the division between the two at the ahupua`a of Keahuolu. The project area is in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a (Figure 4) within the area of Konakai`6pua in Kona `akau. H61ualoa means (literally) "long sled course" Pukui et al. 1974:48). H61ualoa 1st is a traditional ahupua`a stretching from the ocean to the foot of Hualalai in the uplands. The coastline of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a is primarily low rock cliffs. Very little is recorded of H61ualoa Ahupua`a in traditional oral accounts. The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka-Miki, published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii and translated by Maly (1993) contains the only description of H61ualoa. The legend is set in the 13th century but also reflects more recent influences (Maly and Maly 2002: 17). According to the narrative, The lands of H61ualoa were named for the chief of that name; both H61ualoa and Puapua`a were high chiefs, who controlled the lands from mountain to sea, which bear their names... Kaluaokalani served as a priest of H61ualoa at the temple of Pakiha. This heiau was near the contest field of H61ualoa... The lands of this region are named for various ah`i, all of whom were related. When the chief H61ualoa took up the challenge against Kepaka`ili`ula on behalf of the Kona chiefs, H61ualoa called upon his god Kalaipahoa to assist him in his battle... H61ualoa was the first chief to call upon the god Kalaipahoa, and this was the beginning of this gods' use by the chiefs of Hawaii [Maly 1993:208-209]. 8 w ' S r' O 1 P2081rT AMA Figure 4: Map of Holualoa ls`and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border(Alexander 1855). 9 PRE-CONTACT ERA H61ualoa, Kona, and much of the leeward side of Hawaii Island, while well populated at the time of European Contact, were settled later than the windward side. Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; McCoy 2005 and 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). An article published in the Journal of Archaeological Science reviewing radiocarbon dates recovered at archaeological sites on the Island of Hawaii suggests that, by relying on only carbon samples from short-lived plant remains, the most reliable dates point to initial Polynesian colonization of Hawaii Island occurring between A.D. 1220 and 1261 (Rieth et al. 2011:2747). Early settlers founded settlements on the windward shores in likely places such as Waipi`o, Waimanu, and Hilo Bay. The windward, or ko`olau shores receive abundant rainfall and have numerous streams such as the Wailuku, Waiolama, `Alenaio, and Wailoa that facilitated agricultural and fishpond production (Maly 1996:3). The windward shores also provide rich benthic and pelagic marine resources. The dry leeward shores of Hawaii Island presented a very different environment requiring a modified set of subsistence strategies. Archaeologists and historians are uncertain about the exact motives that lead to the establishment and spread of settlements on the leeward side of Hawaii, but some suggest population pressure, dwindling fertile land, growing socio-political stratification, or simply the opportunity for a new start might have lead to new communities developing on the dryer west side of the island Gordy 2000:130). The process was likely underway soon after initial settlement of Hawaii Island (Gordy 2000). During this period, areas of permanent habitation were established in Kona Gordy 1981, 1995; Schilt 1984). Habitation was concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes, and informal fields were cleared at higher elevations where rainfall was higher. Agricultural fields and habitation areas expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualalai during the period between AD 1200 and 1400 (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995). 10 The development of extensive formal walled fields likely began sometime around AD 1400 to 1600. This period marks the initial construction of the Kona Field System KFS) (Schilt 1984). The development of the KFS may be, in part, a by-product of the need to extract more subsistence resources from an increasingly limited agricultural base. The population in Kona increased dramatically during this period, as reflected in the abundant radiocarbon dates from habitation structures, shelter caves, and agricultural soils of this period(Burtchard 1995; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). During this period, the stratified chiefdom structure becomes clearly developed in the archaeological record. Large residential complexes and heiau reflect the segregation of places and power for the growing hierarchy of high and lower chiefs, and ceremonial stewards (Cordy 1981; Haun et al. 1998; Hommon 1986). The produce from the formal walled fields were distributed to higher chiefs through a hierarchy of lower chiefs responsible for management and collection of the cultivated and wild resources. By the time of the Competition Period (AD 1600 to 1800), the royal centers and larger heiau were in place, reflecting the growth in power of the rulers and chiefs in the region (Barrera 1971; Hammatt and Folk 1980). Resources may have reached their maximum carrying capacity, resulting in social stress between neighboring groups. Hostility between groups is reflected archaeologically with the development of refuge caves during this period (Schilt 1984). This volatile period was probably accompanied by internal rebellion and territorial annexation(Hommon 1986; Kirch 1985). Royal centers are located at Kailua, H61ualoa, Kahalu`u, Kealakekua, and Honaunau (Cordy 1995). The region of H61ualoa developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahinc reigned 1700-1720) (Cordy 2000:244). Many `ah`i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites are known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The royal center at H61ualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu`u and Keauhou region. The Kona Field System During his travels in the region in 1823 William Ellis noted that the area above and south of Kailua was: 11 quite a garden compared with that through which they had passed on first leaving the town. It was generally divided into small fields, about fifteen rods square, fenced with low stone walls, made of fragments of lava which had been gathered from the surface of the enclosures. These fields were planted with bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, tapa trees, melons and sugar cane, flourishing luxuriantly in every direction [Handy 1940:114 and 162]. Rocky lands in the olden days were walled up all around with big and small stones of the patch until there was a wall about 2 feet high and in the enclosure were but weeds of every kind, ama`u tree ferns and so on, and then topped well with soil taken from the patch itself to enrich it [Handy 1940:147]. These gardens have been studied in some detail, and are often referred to as the Kona Field System". Many of the archaeological projects conducted within Kona deal with components of the Kona Field System (Gordy 1995;Newman 1970; Schilt 1984). This area extends north at least to Ka`u Ahupua`a and south to Honaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy 1995). A large portion of this area is designated in the Hawaii SIHP (State Inventory of Historic Places) as Site 50-10- 37-6601. The basic characteristics and general locations of the zones within the system as presented in Newman (1970)have been confirmed and elaborated on by more intensive and extensive ethnohistorical investigations (Kelly 1983). The kula zone of the Kona Field System is the area from sea level to 150 m amsl. This lower elevation zone is traditionally associated with habitation and the cultivation of sweet potatoes (uala), paper mulberry(wauke), and gourds (ipu). Agricultural features, such as clearing mounds, planting mounds, planting depressions, modified outcrops, and planting terraces, are common throughout much of this zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Folk 1980; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). Dwellings are often scattered throughout the agricultural portion of the kula, but they are commonly concentrated along the shoreline subdivision of the kula zone (Cordy 1981). The shoreline zone, extending inland approximately 200 m, was used primarily 12 for permanent habitation and other non-agricultural activities, such as canoe storage, ceremonial and burial practices, recreation, and fishing-related activity. Royal centers and high chiefly centers were also situated within the shoreline of the kula. These complexes include dwellings for rulers, chiefs, and the supporting populace, places of refuge, and other structures. Single, or clustered, burials are also situated in the shoreline, and near-shore kula(Han et al. 1986; Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Meeker 1979). Burials occur in caves, within finely built platforms, cruder rock mounds, and houses in the shoreline, and are more often in the near-shore kula Gordy 1995; Han et al. 1986; Schilt 1984; Tainter 1973; Tomonari-Tuggle 1993). The large, and densely populated, royal centers were situated at several locations along the shoreline between Kailua and Honaunau(Cordy 1995; Tomonari-Tuggle 1993). The residential areas, large and small heiau, sporting areas, and burial clusters, are present continuously farther inland than the usual 200 meters for the shoreline habitation portion of the kula. Consequently, a variety of non-agricultural features are present in the kula near royal centers. The kalu`ulu zone above 150 m amsl is a wetter region above the kula where bread fruit and other arboreal crops were cultivated (Kelly 1983). Sweet potatoes Qpomoea batatas), ti, (Cordyline fruticosa) wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera), taro Colocasia esculenta), and sugar cane (Saccharum sp.), planted among the arboreal crops, were mulched with grass (Menzies1920:75-76). The current project area is in the kalu`ulu zone. Above the kalu`ulu zone, in the `apa`a zone, fields with low stone walls were cultivated with bananas, sweet potatoes, taro, wauke, melons, ti and sugar cane. The apa`a zone was notable for fresh water springs. Above the `apa`a zone was the `ama`u zone where walled fields were created to grow plantains and bananas. Timber from various tree species was collected from the `apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone. Bird catching and other forest resources extraction activities were conducted in these upper two zones. Temporary habitations were constructed to be used seasonally when working in the uplands. In the region, people initially moved into coastal settings and more upland settings (e.g., the `apa`a agronomic zone) at the same time, essentially ignoring the drier intermediate zone (except, of course, as a throughway between their gardens and the sea). In this way, the first settlers could immediately plant seedlings in the wetter uplands, 13 knowing the crops would succeed. Permanent settlement would have first been restricted to the coast, but the same people would have also been occupying the uplands (at least temporarily) as well. It is only later that the `intermediate zone'(and the kalu`ulu agronomic zone), would have been utilized for planting. POST-CONTACT ERA The extensive features of the Kona Field System were exploited and altered during the post-contact era. Walls, kua`iwi, springs, and pathways created generations earlier were used and planted with alien cultigens (coffee, cotton, sugar, citrus, and sisal) and ultimately used as pastures for cattle. Ranching has its roots in the first cattle and sheep brought to the island in 1793 and 1794 by Vancouver. Two cows, three bulls, five ewes, and five rams were released to prosper in the region of Kealakekua in 1794 (Vancouver 1967:(3)11). Kamehameha placed a ten-year kapu on the killing of cattle so that they would have the opportunity to multiply. A 486-acre stone corral was built in the uplands of Lehu`ula-Honua`ino, above Kainaliu where they were raised (Bowser 1880, cited in Maly and Maly 2001:285). Two American captains, William Shaler and Richard Cleveland presented two horses to John Young in 1803. Cleveland later returned with more than 200 horses brought from California. Donkeys, mules and oxen were also imported for transportation and hauling. Goats were also brought to the island and left to multiply in the wild. By 1813 to 1815 cows began overrunning agricultural fields and became a danger to travelers and residents (Ellis 1963: 291; Wilkes 1970: 204). A number of walls were commissioned to keep feral sheep, goats, and cattle out of agricultural areas and away from homes. By 1848, in Kona District a Great Wall(the Kuakini Wall)was constructed from Lanihau to `Onouli (Maly and Maly 2001:286). In 1830 Governor Kuakini moved to oversee and improve government cattle by constructing corrals. Liholiho visited the same year to witness strides made in the nascent cattle ranching industry. It was hoped that the exportation of tallow, hides, and salted beef would supplant the defunct Sandalwood trade as a major source of income. Several ventures related to ranching, including tallow making, tanning, saddle making, and blacksmithing were initiated (Bergin 2004: 156). Cowhide was tanned using the astringent bark of local trees (Wilkes 1970: 218). The lion's share of commercial 14 enterprises on the island involved supplying whaling ships and the local market with beef. The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at middle and upper elevations, and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Cattle ranching and clearing for sugar cane and coffee removed many of the endemic species of plants. The suite of vegetation that existed prior to the pre-Contact era were replaced by koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and other newly introduced invasive plant species. Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, coastal Kona was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. It became a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou(Tomonari-Tuggle 1993:15). Homesteads, ranches, and plantations developed in the uplands during this period as reflected in the pattern of Land Commission Awards (LCA) and Land Grants (LG)recorded during the Mdhele. THE MAHELE With the coming of the Great Mdhele (1848), the Alien Land Ownership Act 1850) and the Kuleana Act(1850), the traditional Hawaiian archetype of land-use was essentially deconstructed and replaced with the European concept of fee-simple land ownership. Article IV of the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles was passed in December 1845 and began the legal process of private land ownership. Through the Mdhele of 1847-48 the Alien Land Ownership Act of 1850 and the Kuleana Act of 1850, land was made available for private ownership. The Mdhele established a board of five commissioners to oversee land claims and to issue patents and leases for valid claims. Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha I11) established and ratified laws to protect Hawaiian crown lands as foreigners began claiming ownership of land they were granted permission to use for homes and business interests Daws 1968:111; Kame`eleihiwa 1992: 169-70, 176; Kelly 1983: 45; Kuykendall 1938(1): 145 footnote 47, 152, 165-6, 170;). Among other things, foreigners were demanding private ownership of land to secure their island investments (Kame`eleihiwa 1992: 178; Kuykendall 1938(1): 138, 145, 178, 184, 202, 206, 271). 15 Under the Mahele and subsequent acts (the Kuleana Act of 1850 and the Alien Land Ownership Act of 1850), the lands of the kingdom of Hawaii were divided among the king (crown lands), the ah`i and konohiki, and the government. Once lands were thus divided and private ownership was instituted, the maka`dinana (commoners), if they had been made aware of the procedures, were able to claim the plots on which they had been cultivating and living as stipulated in the Kuleana Act(1850). These claims, however, could not include any previously cultivated or presently fallow land, okipu`u, stream fisheries, or many other resources traditionally necessary for survival (Kame`eleihiwa 1992:295; Kelly 1983:45-76; Kirch and Sahlins 1992 vol.1:3, 135-137, and vol.2:2). The right of claimants to land was based on the written testimony of at least two witnesses who could corroborate the claimant's long-standing occupation and use of the parcel(s) in question. The claimant might have been awarded a patent for the property, subsequently called Land Commission Awards (LCAs) (Chinen 1961:16). The Land Commission awarded the majority of H61ualoa lst and 2nd Ahupua`a to Victoria Kamamalu Ka`ahumanu IV,Kahina Nui of Hawaii Island and Crown Princess of Hawaii as Land Commission Award(LCA)Number 7713, `Apana 43 (Figure 5). Several smaller LCA and Land Grant(LG)properties were also recorded in the upland region of H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a(Figure 6). Twenty four Land Commission awards were recorded in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, the ahupua`a where the project area is located (see Figure 6 and Table 2). All but two of the LC awards (LCA#3660to Munn and LCA#7713 to Kamamalu)were mauka (east) of the current project area. With the exception of these LC awards, the average award was 2.8 acres, most(n=16) were for less than 3.0 acres. Three Land Grants (LG#1592, 1602, and 3630)were also recorded in H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. LG#1592 was a 25.0-acre parcel sold to Kealalio and LG#3630 was a 38.2-acre parcel sold to W.H. Cromwell. Almost all of the awards and grants were used as subsistence and commercial farm land, and some were used to pasture cattle. 16 4 IA vAv?RIl1F(`7`ARE' rra n. x''• r yam. `e. f 1 Y f( f ApwN Ir Li rl y, r,L.pA•- y^.K,p.' J ..._ Ye..w_ rs3' A• W J y k ^ Yin s > ".• d,i: f' J. w 3 a'r•.P Figure 5: Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952). 17 i a r q - iw Z • 1 i ll 1 I51 1 I Lk l . tlr=. •If.L 3ypIL If L 55:.^• 14.Li4a 4 a, d r . 1` It 1 S a q V LASS t OM Ni'x51ON AMAWI. 4 Y 1 L. k 1y.,„ w{. I..kN114:NM1x1 Iap.nneM+lOf KV.01:o NAHR11 STATt ti HISIORIC.AL YANIt Ya•4'. l y r I REo c. F y7' T iSBoaa F. I... 191060-E. Ip° n l,i lfTi po l.'.- 5----r- --- I.'t rpRS Figure 6: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards,Land Grants,and the Project Area(National Geographic Topo!,2003,Kealakekua Quad. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 18 Table 2: Land Commission Awards Recorded in H61ualoa I" and 2nd Ahupua`a. LCA#AWARDED TO AHUPUA`A ACRES 3660 John G. Munn H61ualoa 1" 111.5 4395 Kekoi H61ualoa 1" 1.7 5552 Kauila H61ualoa 1" 1.9 5554 Keawekolohe H61ualoa 1" 11.27 5795 Kehikanakaole H61ualoa 2°d 2.2 5810 Kaopukauila H61ualoa 1" 1.74 5993 Leipalapala H61ualoa 2° d 2.0 6063 Hdna H61ualoa 1" 2.9 6107 Naai H61ualoa 1" 3.94 7339 Kuaana H61ualoa 1" 4.15 7340 Kama 2 H61ualoa 1" 2.5 7340:B Kama 1 H61ualoa 1" 1.3 7443 Kahmapaa H61ualoa 1" 1.94 7713 Kamamalu H61ualoa 1Sn& Large H6lualoa 2 7746 Kamahalo H61ualoa 1" 5.0 7794 Kauakini H61ualoa 1" 1.8 7990 Pu uka H6lualoa 1" 1.1 8015 Aipo H61ualoa 2° d 1.4 8151 Hehena H61ualoa 1" 2.3 8223 Ikaiaka H61ualoa 1" 3.5 9915 Limahana H61ualoa 1" 2.42 9932 Lumaawe H61ualoa 1" 2.98 10770 Puuone H61ualoa 1" 3.06 10400 Naaimakaohi H61ualoa 1st& H6lualoa 2nd 3.5 19 EARLY POST-CONTACT ERA AND HISTORIC ERA Formal cattle ranching began in the Kona region in the mid-1800s, but wild cattle may have been in the area as early as the late 1700s. The pd `dina (`walls of the land'), native tenants' wall enclosures, were prevalent in the area, as indicated by their inclusion in many local Mahele testimonies. These were used to mark the boundary of properties and to keep livestock out of crop areas (Kuykendall 1957:318 note 76). Later, cattle ranchers built walls to control their cattle. In the early 1840s, cattle were said to be "maintained on the kula," a mile from the coast where the ground was "covered with herbage" (Wilkes 1845:4, 95). Cattle, introduced to Kona by Vancouver in 1794, became a nuisance later, when their numbers increased. They fed on the grass of the kula and from time to time on the thatch of Hawaiians' homes and on vegetables in their gardens. The open upland fields, bounded only by low earth and stone walls, were in full cultivation in the 1850s [Kelly 1983:76]. Ranchers leased land below the railroad to graze cattle that they owned(Kelly 1983:111). Higher walls were built in the 1920s and 1930s to control animals. According to Joe Gomes, a longtime rancher in the area, Walls about 3 ft high can keep donkeys penned. The usual wall is about 4 1/2 ft high and keeps cattle in. For goats you need a wall 6 to 8 ft high. For wild pigs you need a 6 to 8 ft-high wall. They climb over lower walls easily. They come down from the mountains for macadamia nuts and also in mango season for mangoes [Kelly 1983:112]. Sugar was a major crop in Hawaii as early as signing of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1876 (Kelly 1983:90). The sugar industry grew rapidly, and by 1899 the only sugar mill in the Kona area was built by the Kona Sugar Company. Many Chinese worked on the sugar plantations (Kelly 1983:111). They built a railroad in 1901 to haul cane from the fields to their mill site along the Wai`aha stream, north of the current project area. The stream did not provide enough water to mill cane year round and company failed in 1903. The Kona Sugar Company was bought by James Castel in 1906 and was later purchased by Japanese investors. The Kona Sugar Company continued to operate until 1926. 20 The railroad was bought by Kona Development Company, and was used for freight, sugarcane and by the Hawaiian Lumber Company. Sugar was grown above the railroad line. The cut sugar was delivered to the tracks with the assistance of gravity, by wire cables and flumes. The rail line was seven miles long and extended from Holualoa to Keopuka(Figure 7). Cotton was grown on lands below the railroad tracks (Kelly 1983:111). Cotton gins were located south of the project area. Cotton was being picked as late as the 1930s. Other plants grown below the tracks in the dryer lands were sisal and tobacco (Kelly 1983:112). Traditional Hawaiian subsistence practices, including the rights to collect resources from all ecological zones of one's ahupua`a, were challenged, restricted, or prevented. As private land owners considered their property off limits to others, cultivation and collection of resources on private land diminished. Individual Hawaiian cultural beliefs, specialized knowledge, and practices associated with the use of the different ecological resource zones also diminished. The development of cattle ranching and commercial crops, such as sugar cane and coffee, removed traditional cultigens and resources from large swaths of the lands of Kona. The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at lower elevations and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, Holualoa was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. The coastal area of Holualoa had become a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou. The project area is just makai (west) of the majority of land commission awards and is at the same elevation as portions of the land grants in the region. Based on historic documents, the project area and surrounding lands were likely being used for subsistence and commercial agriculture, as well as for cattle pasture from the mid to late 1800s. The project area might have been used later than surrounding lands because of its steep slopes and very rocky soil, but based on aerial photographs, the project area was bulldozed sometime around the 1950s in preparation for commercial agriculture. 21 J` A rwilr',dfiyl'. w dti r V, i 4{aii xe•ml Y 1 1'3, 1 , 1w7 1 r III(f , K sr it muq r i A It awR.au 1 hKMr i Lµ1 iM a. K k` Y, !b Figure 7: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928). 22 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES There are at least 33 previous archaeological reports for lands near the current project area, including studies in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ahupua`a Table 4 and Figure 8). The studies were conducted from the coast to roughly 1,460 ft amsl and encompass the kula region (0-500 ft), the kalu`ulu region (500-1,000 ft), and the lower portions of the `dpa`a region (1,000-2,500 ft). Results of the previous archaeological studies are summarized below by elevation: studies numbered Ithrough 15 in Table 2 and Figure 8 are situated from the coast to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (0- 360 ft amsl), studies 16 through 21 are located from above the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to just below Hualalai Road (306-760 ft amsl), and studies 22 through 24 are above Hualalai Road to just above Mamalahoa Highway (1,100-1,460 ft amsl). Table 3: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations. Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) 1 Landrum et al. 1990 Archaeological N/A 46 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Calis et al.2004 Archaeological Data N/A 10 Sites Recovery 2 Carlson&Rosendahl Archaeological 65 64 Sites 1990 Inventory Survey 3 Haun et al. 1998 Archaeological 15 31 Sites Inventory Survey 4 Hammatt&Folk 1981 Archaeological Survey 20 20 Sites 4 Hammatt et al. 1986 Archaeological Survey 20 21 Sites Excavations 5 Haun&Henry 2001 Archaeological Data 1.59 1 Site Recover 6 Escott 2013 Archaeological 1.962 2 Sites Inventory Survey 7 Sinoto 1979 Archaeological 6 Rock Walls Reconnaissance Survey 8 Hammatt 1979b Archaeological Survey 22 3 Sites 9 Hammatt 1979c Archaeological Survey 23 39 Sites Conolly&Gunness Archaeological 10 46.8 80 Sites 1979 Reconnaissance Survey 10 Hammatt 1979a Archaeological 46.8 11 Sites Inventory Survey 10 Hammatt 1980 Archaeological Survey 103 88 Sites Excavation 11 Nelson et al.205 Archaeological 28 22 Sites Inventory Survey 12 Rosendhal 1978 Archaeological 2.5 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 12 Soehren 1980a Archaeological n/a 7 Sites 23 Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) Reconnaissance Survey 12 Wolforth et al.2000 Archaeological 8 7 Sites Inventory Survey Archaeological 17 3+several ag.13 Barrera 1995 Reconnaissance Survey mounds Archaeological 12(104 Features, 13 Haun&Henry 2000 Inventory Survey 17 82 of Which Were Agricultural) Archaeological Field Modified 14 Rosendahl Inspection 6 Outcrops 15 Schilt 1984 Archaeological Study 17 134 Sites 16 Walker&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 1988 Reconnaissance Survey 16 Graves&Goodfellow Archaeological Data 104 58 Sites 1993 Recovery 16 Maly&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 2006 Preservation Plan 17 Hammatt et al. 1992 Archaeological Survey 174 71 Sites 18 Soehren 1980b Archaeological 16 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 19 Rechtman 2006 Archaeological 1.008 2 Sites Inventory Survey 20 Rosendahl 1988 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Reconnaissance Survey 20 Fager&Graves 1993 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Site(149 21 Dircks et al.2013 Archaeological 10.266 Historic to Inventory Survey Modern Farming Features) 22 Desilets et al.2004 Archaeological 11.7 1 Homestead Inventory Survey Features 23 Rechtman 2013 29 24 Sites Clark&Rechtman Archaeological 6 Historic Era 24 2006 Inventory Survey 2'7 Sites 24 I Yi1Yin1 f IKxYFHIiY{1 1K'Khilin.I I!inMl!vn f I^1!Irl#ni I Yla ay 01 I 1 pK KEY PTl kwA-r AREA Im 2:9 a'L} TN<TJF:t'Y NY.iF.NF:M1[:F;N 12 a µy.; .. a 200 40 GIM 1i71€1 ar RM rcra.1.` 3 d46m Ism 6a7MN I': t/MIa T" I F: iMFMIw F. 1 om 1 Figure 8: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area Kealakekua Quad,ESRI,2013. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 25 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES 1. Landrum et al. 1990, and Calis et al. 2004. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey(Landrum et al. 1990) and SCS, Inc. conducted data recovery investigations (Calis et al. 2004) at the Kahakai development project. The project area is located within the lower elevations of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era cave shelters, agricultural rock clearing mounds, burials, shrines, and a possible heiau were identified during the AIS study. A heiau complex, several burials, and five permanent habitation sites were recommended for preservation. All of the preservation sites are near the coast. 2. Carleson and Rosendahl 1990. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 65 acres between Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways in Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Their study recorded 64 archaeological sites including pre-Contact era habitation, agricultural, and burial sites. Seven sites were assessed as significant and recommended for preservation (Carleson and Rosendahl 1990: 34). 3. Haun et al. 1998. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the proposed Ali`i Drive corridor through several ahupua`a. Numerous pre-Contact era site complexes were recorded in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa I"through 4th Ahupua`a. The site complexes included a large number of agricultural features, as well as habitation, burial, and ceremonial features. 4. Hammatt and Folk 1981, and Hammat et al. 1986. Two archaeological surveys were conducted on a 20-acre parcel of below Kuakini Highway. The first study recorded 20 sites, and the second recorded 21 sites. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt and Folk 1981: ii, and Hammatt et al. 1986: 87). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated. 5. Haun & Henry 2001. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological data recovery study at a c-shaped enclosure located on 1.59 acres of land below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway 6. Escott 2013. SCS conducted an archaeological study onl.962 acres of land near the intersection of Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways. Two historic era ranch walls were recorded during the study. 26 7. Sinoto 1979. Aki Sinoto recorded several Historic era ranch rock walls on a six acre parcel of land just mauka of Ali`i Drive. 8. Hammatt 1979b. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 22 acres just south of Kuakini Highway. Three archaeological sites were recorded during the study. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt 1979b: ii, and 10). 9. Hammatt 1979c. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 23 acres located in the near coastal portion of H6ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a. Thirty nine archaeological sites were recorded during the study. The report recommended that all burials, including a known cemetery site be relocated Hammatt 1979a: 5). None of the remaining sites (pre-Contact era habitation and agriculture sites) were recommended for preservation in place. 10. Conolly and Gunness 1979, and Hammatt 1979a and 1980. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 103 acres within the near coastal portions of H61ualoa 1st through 4th Ahupua`a(Hammatt 1980). One hundred and thirty six archaeological sites were recorded on the project area. They included pre- Contact era habitation, agriculture, burial, and a ceremonial sites. The Hammatt report recommended that a heiau (Site 6661)was significant and should be preserved in place Hammatt 1980: 4). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated to the perimeter of heiau (Site 6661) and preserved. No other sites were recommended for preservation. 11. Nelson et al. 2005. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting on 28.0 acres located in the near coastal portion of H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 22 sites containing 150 features were recorded. The sites were primarily pre- Contact era agricultural and habitation sites, though five burial sites, a possible heiau, and a trail were also documented within the project area. 12. Rosendahl 1978, Soehren 1980a, Wolforth et al. 2000. PHRI conducted an archaeological inventory survey of eight acres of coastal H61ualoa 3rd Ahupua`a and recorded seven archaeological sites including three Historic era rock walls, three residential sites, and Hikapaia Heiau. 27 13. Barrera 1995, Haun & Henry 2000. Barrera (1995) recorded a possible burial platform, two habitation site, agricultural rock clearing mounds and modified outcrops during a reconnaissance survey of 17 acres in near coastal H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the property and recorded 12 sites with 104 features (Haun and Henry 2000:14). The majority of features n=82) were pre-Contact era agricultural rock clearing mounds. Eleven permanent habitation and one temporary habitation feature were also recorded during the study. 14. Rosendahl 1989. PHRI conducted an archaeological field inspection of 6.0 acres of land just below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Several modified outcrops were recorded in the letter report. There were no other archaeological features identified on the project area. 15. Schilt 1984. The Bishop Museum conducted an archaeological study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Project located roughly along present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and recorded 39 sites Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Twenty two of the sites were pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural gardens and modified outcrops (rock clearing). There were also traditional habitation platforms and trails, as well as Historic era roads and walls recorded during the study. 16. Walker and Rosendahl 1988, Graves and Goodfellow 1993, and Maly and Rosendahl 2006. An archaeological reconnaissance survey(Walker and Rosendahl 1988), an archaeological data recovery study(Graves and Goodfellow 1993), and an archaeological preservation plan (Maly and Rosendahl 2006)were conducted by PHRI, Inc. for 104 acres in the upland region of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 67 sites were documented within the project area, including traditional (KFS) sites, temporary habitation sites, three burials, and a heiau. The archaeological preservation plan recommended that the three burials be relocated to the heiau site, and that the heiau be preserved as a formal historic preservation area (Maly and Rosendahl 2006). 17. Hammatt et al. 1992. An archaeological survey was conducted by Cultural Surveys Hawai`i on 174 acres of land in the upland region of H61ualoa 1", 2" d, and 3rd Ahupua`a. The project area lands had been heavily bulldozed during the modern era for ranching and agricultural purposes. Despite the bulldozing, seventy one sites were recorded during the study, including temporary habitation features, rock walls, agricultural features, and 28 three burial sites. Many of the sites were determined to be associated with Historic era ranching and agriculture. 18. Soehren 1980b. Soehren conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey of 16.0 acres above Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the inland region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a (Soehren 1980b). A single enclosure was identified during the survey. 19. Rechtman 2006. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting, LLC on a roughly one-acre parcel located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Two rock walls were recorded on the project area. The report recommended no further work at the wall sites. 20. M. Rosendahl 1988, Fager & Graves 1993. Fager and Graves (1993) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 17.0 acres just mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 3rd Ahupua`a. Seventeen sites containing 27 pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural features, including rock mounds, modified outcrops, C- shaped enclosures, terraces, walls, and rock enclosures, were recorded. 21. Dircks et al. 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 10.266 acres of land located between 840 and 920 ft amsl in H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. One Historic era to modern era homestead/agriculture site (Miyose Farm) containing 149 features was recorded during the survey. 22. Desilets et al. 2004. Desilets et al. (2004) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 11.7 acres of land in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. A single site associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture (coffee), and ranching was recorded. Features included rock walls, roads, coffee terraces, and buildings. 23. Rechtman 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted and archaeological inventory survey of 29 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. Twenty four sites were recorded. The majority of the sites were associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture. Features included rock walls, roads, and remnants of structures. A single pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era residential and agricultural site was also recorded. 29 24. Clark& Rechtman 2006. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 2.7 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa I" Ahupua`a. Six sites were recorded, including five ranch walls and an area of coffee terraces. A number of conclusions can be made from the previous archaeological studies. A primary conclusion is that the majority of habitation features, especially permanent habitation features, are located from the coast to about 360 ft amsl, below the present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The same is true of ceremonial features, burials, and, to a lesser extent, agricultural features. The density of agricultural features and habitation features, mostly temporary habitation features, in the upland regions between 360 ft amsl and 700 ft amsl is much lower than the site density in the coastal kula and lower kalu`ulu regions of the KFS. The pre-Contact traditional Hawaiian settlement and agricultural patterns are strongly oriented to the kula and lower kalu`ulu regions. Even though cattle ranching and commercial agriculture may have removed some archaeological sites from the ground surface in the kalu`ulu region, there appear to be fewer sites than at lower elevations. The majority of sites in the kalu`ulu region are KFS agricultural sites including rock clearing mounds, modified outcrops, garden enclosures, and low garden walls. Within the lands of the current project, it is clear that ranching and commercial agricultural practices have removed and damaged many of the pre-Contact era sites from the ground surface (see the Hammatt et al. 1992 summary below). Moreover, many of the sites identified near the current project area are associated with Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture. A second conclusion is that the establishment of Historic era homesteads, ranches, and commercial agriculture seems to have removed, or obscured, the majority of pre- Contact era sites in the upper kalu`ulu and lower `apa`a regions. It might be that pre- Contact uses in these regions did not involve the construction of large or permanent features, as in the lower regions of Kona. It is also likely that Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture in the lower `apa`a region have caused large scale land alterations through the use of bulldozers for pasture and garden. It is possible that traditional features were disassembled to build rock walls and coffee terraces. 30 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Lands of the current AIS study are most closely related to sites identified in the northern portion of the archaeological study conducted by Hammatt et al. (1992). The northern portion of that study encompassed 66.039 acres of land located between 320 to 690 feet(98 to 210 meters) amsl [TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017] (Figure 9). The current project area is located at the southeastern corner of the northern portion of the Hammatt et al. (1992)project area. In August of 2016, SCS conducted an archaeological sites inspection (Escott 2016) of the 20 previously recorded archaeological sites and the remains of two modern agricultural areas (Table 4) identified in the northern portion of the Hammatt et al. (1992)project area. The project area and surrounding lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile. Pedestrian survey confirmed that the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer-cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. Seven of the 20 archaeological sites (SIHP #50-10-37-10015, #50-10-37-10017, 50-10-37-10018, #50-10-37-10020, #50-10-37-10033, #50-10-37-10034, and#50-10- 37-10049, hereafter abbreviated to the last five digits)were recorded by CSH in tabular format only(Table 2). These are sites identified during the pedestrian survey that were determined to be associated with modern clearing and agricultural activities, or were natural geological features, and no written description or plan maps were generated. Written descriptions of the remaining 13 sites are in the CSH AIS report. Excavations were conducted at ten of the 13 sites. There are plan view figures for four of the 13 sites. SIHP #10011 (CSH Site 9) Site 10011 is a rectangular platform on slightly sloping bulldozed pasture land. As described by CSH, the feature has formal construction elements suggesting possible use other than agricultural rock clearing, including larger rocks (small boulders) forming an outer perimeter with smaller rocs (cobbles) forming the interior top surface. The outer perimeter is stacked one to two courses high and is roughly faced along the south side. The top surface of the platform is a slightly uneven and level rock paving. 31 I XUWIIm f yAAT KEY 11UM H'S PR111FC'T mow. w S I M7; TA1K BOUNDARY CPROE:[-1 AREA Ry Irl13i J PLANTING 010017 0 0 -111i1'Umv.F.Pti1TF T\ FRRhCfSi 1 • 1011 0 NA'rVRALFEAWRE SHIP STTF WUfN11F.R L U Sa 100 M 200 a ItlAFIb 1" m1 yf` 71A1 '+(11'7.5.624: t 7'117K:1317.k-IRtiti 100200 a 100120 10ar3v, RNACE, BI RI AL D109f9 T 100110 1 rp1111X1w F: Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al. (1992)Sites and Current Project Area(ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 32 Table 4: Inventory of Hammatt et al.(1992)Archaeological Sites Inspection and Assessment Results. S1HP# CSH Site# Type Function Age Excavation Level of AIS Site Assessment Recording 10011 9 Platform Ag.Clearing Prehistoric Tested Description AIS Site Description Correct 10012 10 Platform&Wall Burial Prehistoric Excavated Description, AIS Site Description Correct Planview,&Profiles 10013 11 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Prehistoric Excavated Description&AIS Site Description Correct Planview 10015 13 Terrace Road Bed Historic No Tabular AIS Site Description Correct 10017 15 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic No Tabular Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10018 16 Enclosure Agricultural Historic No Tabular Natural Bedrock Outcrop 10019 17 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic Tested Description AIS Site Description Correct 10020 18 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic No Tabular Natural Bedrock Outcrop 10033 112 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic No Tabular Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10034 113 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic No Tabular AIS Site Description Correct 10049 216 Terraces Agriculture Historic No Tabular Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10067 232 Terraces Habitation Prehistoric Tested Description AIS Site Description Correct 10068 233 Enclosure Habitation Prehistoric Tested Description&AIS Site Description Correct Planview 10069 234 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic Tested Description AIS Site Description Correct 10070 235 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic Tested Description AIS Site Description Correct 10071 237 Platform Habitation Prehistoric No Description Relocated-Bulldozed 10072 238 Modified Bluff Ag.Clearing Historic Tested Description AIS Site Description Likely Correct 10073 239 Platforms Ranching/Ag. Historic No Description Relocated-Bulldozed 10074 240 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic Tested Description AIS Site Description Likely Correct 10075 241 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic No Description, AIS Site Description Likely Correct Planview,&Profile Historic Planting Terraces Agriculture Modern No On Project Map AIS Site Description Likely Correct Bluff Terraces Agriculture Modern No On Project Map AIS Description Correct 33 CSH excavated a 1.5 m wide trench through the platform and recovered three cowrie shells, suggesting the platform is a rock clearing mound. The location of the trench within the feature, the length of the trench, and the methods used to recover cultural material are not described in the CSH AIS. While the form, construction method, location of the feature suggest it is a temporary habitation feature or a feature used for activities associated with agriculture, the small amount of cultural material recovered from subsurface excavation suggest it is a rock clearing mound. The platform appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. SIHP #10012 (CSH Site 10) Site 10012 is a rectangular burial platform(mound) and rock wall segment on slightly sloping bulldozed pasture land. The platform was excavated by CSH and the iwi were reinterred at Pu`uhonua o H6naunau National Historic Park (NHP). The platform has been bulldozed and only the base of the feature remains. SCS excavated a 1.0 m by 1.0 m test-unit in the center of the feature during the sites inspection and assessment work Escott 2016) to determine the presence or absence of iwi. The test-unit was excavated to bedrock and all material was screened through 1/8th inch mesh screen. There were no iwi fragments and no other cultural material recovered from the excavation. The platform has been bulldozed and is in poor condition. The L-shape rock wall segment was located approximately 95.0 meters southwest of the burial platform. It is roughly 23.0 m long (NE/SW)by 1.0 m wide and between 0.5 and 0.9 m in height. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders. It is cobble core filled and bi-faced. The wall is partially collapsed in places and is in good condition. SIHP #10013 (CSH Site 11) Site 10013 is a roughly square habitation enclosure and a small modified lava tube. The enclosure appears to have been partially bulldozed after the CSH AIS fieldwork was completed, as the wall heights are much lower than those described in the AIS report. Rocks from the bulldozed walls are piled along the edges of the enclosure. The base of the enclosure walls is still evident on the ground surface. The CSH AIS lava tube description was assessed to be correct. The interior of the short lava tube is not modified. Site 10013 has been altered by bulldozing and is in fair to poor condition. 34 SIHP #10015 (CSH Site 13) Site 10015 is a modern dirt road bed. SIHP #10017 (CSH Site 15) Site 10017 is described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as a cattle loading ramp. The area where Site 10017 was plotted on the project map is an area of bulldozed pasture with numerous large bulldozer push piles. CSH determined through consultation with SHPD and Hawaii County Planning that the feature did not warrant a written description in the CSH AIS report. It is possible that the feature was determined to be a bulldozer pile after CSH first identified it, or it might have been bulldozed later. The possible cattle loading ramp (Site 10017) appears to have been bulldozed or was originally a bulldozer push pile. SIHP #10018 (CSH Site 16) Site 10018 is described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as an enclosure. The area where Site 10018 was plotted on the project map is an area of natural bedrock outcrop surrounding a large tamarind tree. The bare bedrock outcrop encloses a roughly level area of soil. There are no modifications to the outcrop. CSH did not include a site description or map of the enclosure in the AIS report, likely because it was determined to be natural. There are no other archaeological features in the area around the bedrock outcrop. A final possibility is that the Site 10018 feature was bulldozed after the CSH AIS work was completed. SIHP #10019 (CSH Site 17) Site 10019 is six rock clearing mounds located along the southeast edge of a seasonal gulch. The presence of a metal file recovered during excavation of one of the mounds suggests the mounds are modern. The rock mounds, appear to have been impacted by flood events, they are partially collapsed, and are in fair to poor condition. SIHP #10020 (CSH Site 18) Site 10020 is described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as a platform. The area where Site 10020 was plotted on the project map is an area of bulldozed pasture with natural bedrock outcrops and loose rocks. A roughly rectangular pile of natural bedrock boulders was identified at the location of Site 10020. The boulders are naturally occurring bedrock small boulders and cobbles. There is a portion along the west side of the pile that appears to contain bulldozer push from a nearby wall 35 breach. The top of the rock pile is uneven but somewhat level. There is no stacking or facing apparent on the rock pile. The pile is natural, but its roughly rectangular shape and somewhat level top surface make it appear to be a possible archaeological feature. It is likely that CSH added the feature to their pedestrian survey summary table for these reasons. CSH did not include a site description or map of the feature in the AIS report, likely because it was determined to be natural. SIHP #10033 (CSH Site 112) Site 10033 is described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as a planting complex associated with modern coffee agriculture. There were coffee trees in the area when CSH conducted their AIS fieldwork. The area where Site 10033 was plotted on the project map is an area of bulldozed pasture along the southeast edge of a seasonal gulch. During the current sites inspection, it was apparent that the ground surface in this area has been impacted by flood events and bulldozing. There are no longer coffee trees and there is only a single short wall segment in the area where Site 10033 was previously identified. The planting features are no longer present. The L-shape wall segment is roughly 5.0 m long (N/S)by 1.0 m wide and is 1.0 m in maximum height. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders. It is cobble core filled and bi-faced. The wall has been bulldozed on both ends and is in fair condition. SIHP #10034 (CSH Site 113) Site 10034 was described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as a platform (rock mound). It was determined through consultation with SUM and Hawaii County Planning that the features did not warrant a written description in the CSH AIS report. During the current site inspection, the feature was identified along the north edge of a seasonal gulch. The platform appears to have been bulldozed. Currently, the feature is a roughly 2.5 m long (E/W)by 1.8 m wide by 0.35 m high concentration of rock. The base of the platform appears to be intact in the ground surface. It is possible that the feature was in this state when CSH first identified it, or it might have been bulldozed later. The feature is most likely a rock clearing mound. It has been impacted by bulldozing and is in poor condition. 36 SIHP #10049 (CSH Site 216) Site 10049 is described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as two linear agricultural terraces. The area where Site 10049 was plotted on the project map is along the bulldozed north bank of a seasonal gulch. During the current sites inspection, it was apparent that the ground surface in this area has been impacted by flood events and bulldozing. Site 10049 has been bulldozed and is no longer present. SIHP #10067 (CSH Site 232) Site 10067 is a rock wall and several soil retaining terraces constructed on the sloping north bank of a seasonal gulch. Cultural material recovered from excavations suggests the site is Prehistoric and is likely associated with temporary habitation and agriculture. The site appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. SIHP #10068 (CSH Site 233) Site 10068 is a small rectangular enclosure. Cultural material recovered from excavations suggests the site is Prehistoric and is likely associated with temporary habitation. The site has been bulldozed and only the base of the enclosure walls remain, with the exception of the southeast corner which is still intact. SIHP #10069 (CSH Site 234) Site 10069 is a modified bluff/platform. Cultural material recovered from excavations suggests that the site is a Prehistoric volcanic-glass tool working site associated with nearby agriculture. The site had been bulldozed prior to the CSH AIS. It is in poor condition. SIHP #10070 (CSH Site 235) Site 10070 is U-shaped enclosure. The feature construction, the lack of cultural material recovered from test excavation, and the enclosure's proximity to Historic era agricultural rock clearing mounds all suggest the enclosure is related to Historic era agriculture, most likely coffee growing. The site had been partially bulldozed prior to the CSH AIS. It is in poor condition. SIHP #10071 (CSH Site 237) Site 10071 was described in the CSH pedestrian survey summary table as a rectangular platform. The feature was relocated along the north edge of a seasonal gulch during the current site inspection and appears to have been bulldozed after the CSH AIS 37 fieldwork. The feature is now a roughly 5.8 m long (E/W)by 5.0 m wide concentration of loose rocks on the bulldozed level ground surface. There are bulldozer track marks on the loose rocks and on surrounding exposed bedrock. The feature is in poor condition. SIHP #10072 (CSH Site 238) Site 10072 includes two large modified outcrops, terraces, rock clearing mounds, and level soil areas. Test excavation of the largest modified outcrop did not contain cultural material. A small amount of sea urchin shell was recovered from additional testing of one of the rock mounds. The CSH AIS interpreted the site as associated with Historic era agriculture. It is possible that based on the feature types and construction method that the site is associated with pre-Contact era agriculture, though the limited subsurface test excavations to date do not support this interpretation. The site appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. SIHP #10073 (CSH Site 239) Site 10073 was described in the CSH AIS report as two platforms or cattle loading chutes or ramps. During the current site inspection, the features were identified along the edge of a mauka-makai ranch road and appear to be bulldozer push piles. It is possible that the features were in this state when CSH first identified them, or they might have been bulldozed later. The two features at Site 10073 appear to be bulldozer push piles. SIHP #10074 (CSH Site 240) Site 10074 is a roughly square rock enclosure likely used as a foundation for an Historic era structure associated with commercial agriculture. Cultural material recorded at the site included both Prehistoric and Historic era artifacts. The site was bulldozed at some point subsequent to the CSH AIS study. All that remains is the partially collapsed portion of what appears to be the southeast corner of the enclosure wall. The site is in poor condition. SIHP #10075 (CSH Site 241) Site 10075 is a roughly square rock enclosure interpreted as an Historic era pig pen. The site appears to have been partially bulldozed at some point subsequent to the CSH AIS study. Portions of the wall corners remain although the walls are no longer as high as they were described in the CSH AIS report. The site is in poor condition. 38 Historic Planting Terraces The CSH AIS identified an area containing Historic era planting terraces within the northeast portion of Parcel 016. The features were relocated exactly where they were plotted on the CSH AIS project map. The features included rock mounds, linear rock alignments, terraces, modified outcrops, and level soil areas. The features were not subjected to subsurface testing during the CSH AIS. It was likely determined through consultation with SHPD and Hawaii County Planning that the features did not warrant testing or written descriptions. The features might be Historic in age. Bluff Terraces The CSH AIS identified an area containing bluff terraces within the southeast portion of Parcel 017. The features were relocated exactly where they were plotted on the CSH AIS project map. The features were not described in the CSH study because it was determined that the features were modern bulldozer push piles. Pedestrian survey of the area during the current sites inspection confirmed that they are bulldozer push piles. All but three (Site 10017, 10033, and 10049) of the 20 archaeological sites recorded in the CSH AIS are still present on the project area. Two sites (Site 10071 and 10073) were present but bulldozed to the point that a precise assessment was not possible. Although the CSH AIS site descriptions for Site 10071 and 10073 appear likely correct. Two sites (Site 10018 and 10020)were determined to be natural geological features. Of the 13 sites that were not impacted beyond recognition by bulldozing, ten were determined to be correctly recorded in the CSH AIS report, and three were determined to be likely correctly recorded in the CSH AIS report. The Historic planting terraces recorded in the northeast portion of Parcel 016 were determined to be likely correctly recorded, and the bluff terraces recorded in the south east portion of Parcel 017 was determined to be correctly recorded in the CSH AIS report. Based on the CSH AIS report and a February 8, 1993 Gamrex, Inc. letter to SHPD, CSH recorded 20 archaeological sites and two Historic/Modern era agricultural areas during their initial pedestrian survey. These sites were described in tabular format and a pedestrian survey summary was given to SHPD and Hawaii County Planning for 39 review. SHPD and County Planning then made a site visit to consult with CSH on the preliminary site interpretations and the appropriate level of documentation for each site. CSH then returned to selected sites and recorded written descriptions and created site and feature plan maps for sites at which they were required to do so. The remaining sites were either determined to be natural or associated with Historic/Modern era commercial agriculture and no further documentation was required in the AIS report. Overall, based on the SCS sites inspection and assessment(Escott 2016), the CSH AIS report correctly identified project area archaeological sites and tested, recorded, and interpreted them correctly. All of the Parcel 016 and Parcel 017 archaeological sites documented in the CSH AIS report were recommended for no further work(Hammatt et al. 1984:38). The recommendation was made as "the significant material from the study area has been recovered and further investigation would be of minimum productivity" Hammatt et al. 1984:38). The majority of sites (n=14) documented in the northern portion of the Hammatt et al. (1992)project area were interpreted as Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture features. Only six sites were interpreted as pre-Contact era to early post- Contact era, four of them were associated with temporary habitation, one with agricultural rock clearing, and one with burial practices. EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS Based on previous archaeological studies, geological studies, historical research, interviews, and County Planning Department records it is expected that any archaeological sites remaining on the current project area will be related to traditional pre-Contact era agriculture, temporary habitation, burial practices, and to early post- Contact era and Historic era ranching and agricultural activities. It is likely that many of the pre-Contact to early post-Contact era sites have been removed or disturbed by Historic era and modern ranching and commercial agriculture. This is especially true because the area around the current project era was used as cattle pasture from the Historic era to the present. Additionally, the project area is in a location that was bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and the 1970s in preparation for a commercial agricultural project, most likely coffee growing. Aerial photos clearly show that bulldozer transects were cut north/south across the entire five-acre project area. 40 Archaeological sites and features that are likely to remain on the project area will likely include pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era rock clearing mounds, terraces, small enclosures, and burials. It is also likely that Historic era and modern features related to ranching and agriculture will also be identified on the project area. These include primarily rock walls constructed to confine cattle. RESULTS OF FIELDWORK Twenty two newly identified archaeological sites were recorded during the course of the archaeological inventory survey study(Table 5 and Figure 10). The sites are primarily agricultural complexes and terraces associated with pre-Contact era, through early post-Contact era to Historic era agriculture. Several rock walls and enclosures are associated with Historic era agriculture and ranching. A pre-Contact era to later post- Contact era single lava tube burial was also recorded. A portion of the old railroad berm was also recorded along the eastern edge of the project area. All site numbers are preceded by the prefix#50-10-37-. SITE 30591 Agricultural Complex FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era DIMENSIONS: 20.0 m(N/S)by 9.0 m by 0.95 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1, SP-2, SP-3) DESCRIPTION: Site 30591 is an agricultural complex located within the northern portion of the project area, immediately south of the north project area boundary see Figure 10). The site is situated at 650 ft amsl on a west facing slope, among koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover. The complex is six terraces and planting features (Features 1 through 6) constructed on a level area along a west facing slope (Figure 11). The site is approximately 20.0 m in length (N/S) and 9.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.95 m. There is a mauka/makai rock alignment at the center of the site and level terraces extending north and south from the rock alignment. Feature 1 through Feature 4 are south of the alignment and Feature 5 and Feature 6 are north. There are three pahoehoe 41 Table 5: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area. Site# Site Type Features Site Function Age Testing 30591 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SPA,2,3 30592 Railroad Bed and Berm 1 Transportation Historic Era 30593 Lava Tube 1 Burial Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era 30594 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1&2 30595 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30596 Hearth 1 Food Preparation Historic Era TU-1 30597 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30598 Rock Wall 1 Agriculture/Ranching Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30599 Platform&Enclosure 2 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2,TU-1 30600 Terrace 1 Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 30601 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30602 Enclosure 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1,2,3&4 30603 Enclosure 4 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2 30604 Agricultural Complex 4 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30605 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era 30606 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30607 Agricultural Complex 7 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 to SP-10 30608 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30609 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30610 Terrace 1 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30611 Agricultural Complex 3 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1,2,3 30612 Lava Blister 1 Refuse Dump Historic Era 42 KEY PROJECT AREA SITE SITE BOUNDARY y @ RAILROAD BED TV 3OW02 R(X'K WALL -mi 41 311641 11 201 40 60 N I METERS 3 SIT93," S I If 31160 SM 306114 I I F 30S94 SITE_406i)9 ITF 3(" ok ITV 34*117 y4 Iwo 1,1TE 31)mloi A 11,30599 11 E jolt,I I SITE 30"7 wv&m Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kea bat kua Quadrangle). 4 1-3 C of RSES HIGH E 1::T l ltl.-h FF till Itl-5 i ft Ii 4-3 f [kl H S Eil(.H 1111 Al KEV til'_1 r BANALT IR(X'K F II.E lr I Pl - TUMBLE 1 i A SLOPE BEDROCK TREE; III-AG114 IN eYYY.ABON I hl PAHOEH ESLAH FACING a SHM I I E'Ni U Figure 11: Site 30591 Plan View Map. 44 slabs along the south side of the central rock alignment that were placed with their longest axis oriented vertically. Feature 1 is an oval planting feature constructed along the central rock alignment and along the east side of the site (Figure 12). It is constructed of a single course of small basalt boulders and cobbles and is approximately 2.0 m in length(N/S)by 0.70 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.59 m. The feature is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 2 is a rectangular soil filled terrace located immediately west of Feature 1 Figure 13). It is constructed along the south side of the central rock alignment. The terrace is approximately 5.5 m in length(N/S)by 2.50 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.68 m. It is constructed of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders ranging in size from 0.20 to 0.50 m. The feature is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 3 is a small rectangular soil filled terrace located immediately south of Feature 1 (Figure 14). The terrace is approximately 3.50 m in length(N/S) and 1.40 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.70 m. It is constructed of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders ranging in size from 0.20 to 0.70 m. The feature is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 4 is a roughly rectangular terrace located immediately south of Feature 2 and Feature 4 (Figure 15). The terrace is approximately 5.0 m in length (NW/SE)by 3.40 m wide, narrowing slightly at the southern terminus, with a maximum height of 0.50 m. It is constructed of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders ranging in size from 0.25 to 0.50 m. The feature is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 5 is a roughly rectangular terrace located in the northwest corner of the site (Figure 16). The terrace is constructed along the northwest side of the central rock alignment. The terrace is approximately 8.0 m in length(N/S)by 4.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.70 m. It is constructed of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders ranging in size from 0.25 to 0.70 m. The feature is collapsed in some areas, generally where smaller rocks have been utilized, and is in fair condition. 45 w ry w. a . t e y Figure 12: Photograph of 1 •1 Feature I Looking Northeast. VA r- r ram, AbIL Figure 13: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 2 Looking North. 47 o' E w LookingFigure14: Photograph of Site 30591 Feature 3 r d.. e Figure 15: Photograph of 1 •1 Feature 4 Looking Southeast. W. yy 4 i, 1 N y s e w. J Looking Feature 6 is a roughly rectangular terrace located in the northeast corner of the site Figure 17). The terrace is constructed along the northeast side of the central rock alignment. The terrace is approximately 6.1 m in length(N/S) by 3.2 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.55 m. It is constructed of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders, some as large as 0.50 in. The feature is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. All of the terrace and planting features at Site 30591 are constructed of roughly piled rock. There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the feature construction. There were no cultural remains identified on the ground surface at the site. There is a fair amount of bulldozer pushed rock piled along the mauka (east) side of the site. Shovel Probe Testing Three shovel probes (SP)were excavated at Site 30591. The shovel probes were excavated within the soil area of Feature 2, Feature 4 and Feature 5 terraces. The shovel probes were dug to depths ranging from 6.0 to 32.0 cmbs, and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 5). Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I (0-13 cmbs) loose (10YR3/2) dark brown fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer II(13-32 cmbs) soft 10YR4/4) dark yellowish brown fine sandy silt. A single fragment of sea urchin spine was identified in SP-1 and was not collected. SP-2 and SP-3 did not contain cultural material. Table 6: Site 30591 Shovel Probe Results. Feature SP# Depth (cm)Layers BOE Artifacts 2 1 0 -32 cm I&II Basalt Rock Urchin Spine Fragment 4 2 0 -6 cm I Basalt Rock 5 3 0- 15 cm I& 11 Basalt Rock The piled rock construction of the site and the form of the terrace features suggest the site was constructed to retain soil for agricultural purposes. The lack of cultural material on the ground surface and the small amount of cultural material recovered from the shovel probes at Site 30591 supports the interpretation that the site consists of agricultural planting terraces and a small planting feature. Site 30591 has been slightly impacted by modern bulldozing, is partially collapsed in places, and is in fair to good condition. No further work is recommended at the site. 51 J 4x w w i i r r x _ i r a r y Photograph of 1 • Looking North. SITE 30592 Railroad Berm FUNCTION: Transportation AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 265.0 m(SE/NW)by 2.50 m by 1.5 m max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Modern Trash Debris EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30592 is an Historic era railroad berm located along the eastern boundary of the project area(see Figure 10). The railroad berm is approximately 265.0 m in length (SEN/W) and 2.5 m wide within the project area, continuing north and south beyond the project area limits. The railroad bed is a level dirt and rock surface, and the berm is located along the west side of the railroad bed. The berm is a retaining wall constructed of small boulders and large cobbles stacked up to nine courses high(Figure 18). The berm is well faced with fairly tightly fitted natural rock. The rock has not been worked prior to stacking. The berm face slopes slightly toward the east as it approaches the top to prevent collapse. The surface of the railroad bed has been bulldozed in the fairly recent past, likely during construction of the homes along the east edge of the project area property. Portions of the berm are partially collapsed. There is a fair amount of modern construction debris and refuse along the course of the railroad bed. The railroad berm is in good condition. SITE 30593 Lava Tube FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era DIMENSIONS: 60.0 m(E/W)by 9.0 m by 0.95 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30593 is a Lava tube located at 610 ft amsl along the central western portion of the project area, immediately east of the project area boundary see Figure 10). The site is situated on a western facing slope, among koa haole and trees with Guinea grass ground cover. 53 i I w' r" F 'F F L 4P Figure 18: Photograph of Looking The skeletal remains of a single individual were identified in a lava tube near the makai (west)boundary of the project area. The lava tube can be accessed through two openings, one at the makai end of the lava tube and a second, larger opening approximately 20.0 meters mauka (east) of the makai opening (Figure 19). The lava tube continues east 15.0 meters and east-southeast 25.0 to 30.0 meters from the mauka opening. A second tube, connecting to the east-southeast tube, continues west-southwest 30.0 meters. The makai entrance is an approximately 0.9 m long (E/W)by 0.7 m wide hole in the exposed pahoehoe ground surface. The floor of the lava tube is 0.5 to 0.9 cm below the opening and is primarily bare lava with deposits of natural pebbles, small cobbles, and fine sediment washed into the tube from the opening and a second point in the tube approximately 6.0 m east of the opening. The tube slopes gently upward in an easterly direction. Sediment from a collapsed point 6.0 meters into the tube covers the lava tube floor in thicker deposits nearer to the point of collapse. The distal end of a human femur, talus, metatarsal, and phalange were identified on the surface of the lava tube floor below the makai opening. The skeletal elements were small in size and were deteriorated, making positive identification difficult. The ilium of a small human pelvis was identified protruding from the sediment along the south wall of the lava tube, approximately 5.0 m mauka of the makai opening. Sediment was cleared in small increments to expose one half of a pelvis. Half of the ilium had deteriorated and was no longer present on the pelvis. More sediment(4.0 to 8.0 cm in thickness)was removed to expose additional human skeletal elements located within close proximity to the pelvis. These included lumbar, thoracic, and cervical vertebrae; ribs; both clavicles and shoulder blades; the left ulna and radius; several phalanges; and two incisors and a molar. The other half of the pelvis; cranium, mandible, other long bones, and remaining skeletal elements were not located in the limited removal of sediment. If these skeletal elements are buried beneath the sediment on the floor of the lava tube, they may no longer be articulated with the identified skeletal elements. It is possible that they have moved down slope of the in situ burial. This is likely, as a calcaneus, tarsals, and metatarsals were identified during a second, more thorough inspection of the lava tube floor under the makai openinga distance of 5.0 m down slope of the burial location. At 55 KEY In situ Burial 3 -Tube Opneing (60) - I1ei4;ht(Cm) Skeletal Elements J-- -Roof Fall slope ii 3 6 9 12 TN mete rs d551 Llaka 63) Entrance d 1115)llll) 120} 72) i} Figure 19: Site 30593 Plan View Sketch Map. 56 least a portion of the femur and several foot bones have moved down slope of the original burial location. Based on the limited removal of sediment from the skeletal elements, the burial is of a single individual in a supine position, arms at sides, with head located mauka(east) and feet makai. The size of the skeletal elements indicates a young adult of small stature or a subadult. The skeletal elements were fairly deteriorated so that sex and age could not be definitively ascertained. The burial appears to be only slightly altered by rainwater runoff flowing through the lava tube and is in good condition. Site 30593 is recommended for preservation. SITE 30594 Agricultural Complex FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 20.0 m(E/W)by 17.0 m by 0.70 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Heavy gauge wire, golf balls EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1, SP-2) DESCRIPTION: Site 30594 is an agricultural complex located at 600 ft amsl approximately 16.0 meters northwest of Site 30593, along the western project area boundary(see Figure 10). The site is situated on a west facing slope, among koa haole and trees with Guinea grass ground cover. The site is in an area of broken bedrock suggestive of an large outcrop or collapsed lava tube. The rock is mostly angular and slabby, though there are also subangular rocks at the site. The complex is six narrow terraces (Features lthrough 6) constructed on a moderately steep west facing slope (Figure 20). The site is approximately 20.0 m in length(E/W) by 17.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.70 m. Features 1 through 4 are roughly parallel and are situated with their long axis oriented north/south. Feature 1 is the uppermost terrace along the east side of the site. Feature 5 and Feature 6 are smaller terraces oriented northwest/southeast and are down slope of Features 1 through 4, along the west side of the site. 57 A 11 Ir 19 Qa a it T iF YF1 {{..r. 11'•II fl '. k111 W15 li•114d1 ' fC+trf r{ qDI I V II I.R1 1I '4 Inu K11 i) 0 K 11 I i I In c9 R x x x x x x x tlp KENxxxx " ry x x x BASALT ROCKS x nl s IlIti1BLF. til lePl: FFATURF-i III Ittl•OCCl1RRTNf;BOULDERS II ISO 111 1 11..,BAVII X2 IIF-IS,IIT IN cm ABOVE SURFACE r'ni 1 II I k WORN COUBLE F l Imm ti1 MA I,J-PROBF. Figure 20: Site 30594 Plan View Map. 58 Feature 1 is a roughly rectangular soil filled terrace on the east side of the site Figure 21). It is approximately 10.0 m long by 1.8 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.81 m. There is a retaining wall constructed of piled and stacked angular and subangular small boulders and cobbles along the west side of the level soil terrace. There is no formal facing evident in the retaining wall construction. There is another pile of rock mauka (east) of the soil filled terrace of Feature 1, constructed of piled angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and boulders. There is no formal facing evident in the rock pile. The retaining wall to the west and the rock pile to the east are partially collapsed in some areas. It looks as though Feature 1 has been impacted by bulldozing, especially along the north side of the feature. Feature 1 is in fair condition. Feature 2 is a linear soil filled terrace located west of Feature 1 (Figure 22). The terrace retaining wall trends N/S, curving down slope at its northern terminus. It is approximately 14.0 m in length by 1.20 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.70 m. The retaining wall of the terrace is constructed of piled angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders ranging in size from 0.40 to 0.75 m. There is no formal facing evident in the terrace construction. It looks as though Feature 1 has been impacted by bulldozing, especially along the north side of the feature. The retaining wall is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 3 is a linear soil filled terrace situated down slope, to the west, of Feature 2 (Figure 23). The terrace retaining wall trends N/S. It is approximately 14.0 m in length and 1.40 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.70 m. It is constructed of piled angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders, which range in size from 0.40 to 0.75 m. There is no formal facing evident in the terrace construction. The retaining wall is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 4 is a rectangular rock and soil filled terrace located on the south end of Feature 3. The terrace retaining wall trends N/S and is approximately 7.0 m in length by 2.90 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.70 m. It is constructed of piled angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders, which range in size from 0.40 to 0.75 m throughout the southern portion of the feature. The northern portion is composed of larger rock, incorporating what are likely in situ boulders that continue south to form portions of the soil filled terrace. The level soil filled terrace at the south 59 F R r a F n o w r WM R I 1 Figure 22: Photograph of 1 •4 Feature I in Top Left,Feature 2 at Center,Feature 3 at Far Right,Looking South. llll r k i f f x r end of the feature is approximately 5.0 m in length and 4.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.82 m, and contains rock. There is no formal facing evident in the terrace construction. The feature is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 5 is a soil filled terrace/enclosure situated down slope, to the west, of Feature 4 (Figure 24). It trends NW/SE, and is roughly oval. It is approximately 5.5 m in length by 3.40 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.60 m. It is constructed of piled and stacked angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders. The rock is stacked up to four courses high on bedrock along the westernmost perimeter of the feature. The eastern and southeastern portions of the feature incorporate naturally occurring small boulders into the construction. There is no formal facing evident in the terrace construction. Feature 5 is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. Feature 6 is a level soil filled terrace situated down slope, to the west, of Feature 5 Figure 25). The terrace retaining wall trends NW/SE curving up slope at either end. It is approximately 4.5 m in length by 1.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.80 m. It is constructed of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles and small boulders, which are stacked up to three courses high along the westernmost perimeter. There is some very rough facing evident in the terrace construction. The retaining wall is collapsed in some areas and is in fair condition. A strand of heavy gauge wire and two golf balls were encountered on the ground surface at the site. Shovel Probe Testing A total of two shovel probes were excavated within Site 30594 to determine site function and age. The shovel probes were excavated approximately 11.0 m from one another within the soil area of Feature 2 terrace (SP-1) and Feature 6 terrace (SP-2). The shovel probes were dug to depths ranging from 26.0 to 55.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 6). Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of three natural stratigraphic layers: Layer I (0-12 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam, Layer 11 (12-38 cmbs) soft brown(10YR4/3) sandy silt, and Layer III(38-55 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown(10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. There were no cultural materials recovered from the shovel probes. 63 I v n t J yk is. y.P _ 4 I a y f w Figure 24: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 5 Looking Northeast. 64 e t 4' i l vt .' r'•wry fit. t r Figure 25: Photograph of Site 30594 Feature 6 in Foreground and Feature 5 in Background, •• Table 7: Site 30594 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 1 0-55 cm I, II,III Basalt Rock 2 0-26 cm I& 11 Basalt Rock The terraces at Site 30594 are fairly crudely constructed and were not constructed with much formal stacking or facing. The Feature 1 through Feature 4 retaining walls resemble linear piles of rock left along the outside edges of a bulldozer transect. The rock appears to be from a large concentration of naturally occurring bedrock on the ground surface, possibly the remains of a collapsed lava tube. However, the features also appear as though they could have been constructed as agricultural terraces, especially Feature 5 and Feature 6. Subsurface testing did not recover any cultural material. Site 30594 is interpreted as a pre-Contact era to Historic era agricultural site. The site has been slightly altered by cattle ranching and agricultural activities, is in fair condition and no further work is recommended. SITE 30595 Rock Wall FUNCTION: Cattle Ranching AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 90.0 m(E/W) by 1.10 m by 1.31m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30595 is the remains of an Historic era wall located between 630 and 690 ft amsl within the northern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). The wall trends mauka/makai and is located on west sloping land with kukui nut and koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover. The wall has been breach by bulldozing in several places and portions of the wall continue to the east, beyond the project area. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, incorporating boulders as large as 0.60 m at the base (Figure 26). It is bifaced and cobble core filled (Figure 27). The wall is approximately 90.0 m in length(E/W) within the project area, by 1.10 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.31 m. The wall bisects the property east to west, terminating to the east at the Site 30592 railroad berm, where it is attached to the south face of the berm, continuing to the west beyond the 66 Y r h.. r f a, Aga?7''". i r i LookingFigure26: Photograph of Site 30595 Wall g w Y r 1 a 1 IJ W r s..e'yy w.r r r y f 1 y Figure 27: Photograph of Site 30595 Wall Collapse Showing Cobble Core Fill,Looking North. 68 property boundary. A portion of the eastern wall segment, approximately 18.0 m, constitutes the southern boundary of Site 30602 enclosure. There is a 1.0 m breach in the wall for access to the enclosure. There was no cultural material on the ground surface at the site. Site 30595 is a Historic era wall that has been altered by bulldozing, is partially collapsed in places, and is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30595. SITE 30596 Hearth FUNCTION: Possible Cooking AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 2.50 m(E/W)by 2.10 m by 0.85 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Test Unit(TU-1) DESCRIPTION: Site 30596 is a hearth located within the northwestern corner of the project area (see Figure 10). The hearth is situated on an exposed bedrock outcrop in a level area, approximately 10.0 m east of the top of a shallow west facing slope. There are koa haole and kukui nut trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The hearth is constructed on a narrow finger of hollow pahoehoe. The top of the small pahoehoe "tube" is broken open in places. The hearth is constructed within an opening in the top of the small "tube." It is constructed of cobble and small boulder size pahoehoe slabs positioned in a roughly rectangular configuration around the opening Figure 28 and Figure 29). The hearth is approximately 2.50 m in length(E/W) and 2.10 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.85 m. There was no cultural material identified on the ground surface at the site. A 1.0 m by 0.5 m test-unit(TU-1) was excavated in the hearth to determine feature function and age. TU-1 was excavated as two stratigraphic layers (Layer I and Layer II) and terminated on bedrock at 28 cmbs (Figure 30). 69 f'' r r f+rf nr r• r' i r"frfr 147 l fir. 45 T1'- t rr f f. i ar rrr.r rrr' PkII01.MI. r' r'• r r. arr 5IAR l f r !,. r rrrffr rr r•r.• r r 81 fr rr' rrf 4 l.1,1.1. I r fry lull 1 01-1 It r 3^, 1.11.1. FLAT f•.'•r• f PAHOEI c r SLAB 11 211 411 (III HII TMiaTsia C N'1 KEY ROCK CN1 :1,13{)VE CROUND SURFACE Pt IME11OF: S1,ABS PLACED ON ENDS DATL;NI Figure 28: Site 30596 Plan View Map. 70 W r r y¢ l0p1. w K r + . * ' .. r Mai{P r. a' 1 a, F a'C' .. kP 41 w y h i p Figure 29: Photograph of Site 30596 Hearth Looking West. 71 HIRICII1 PA)1[)r:1101:ii•11 C, n1i1T1!'iIC 3'h[_1H SLAB i r'r' r' r' r' r' r• r' r r r• r' r• r' , r• r' _ f } r r r•• r r• r 'r•• LJNEXC. b'A.rFI) C'hl K F Y ROCK LAYER 11 - EI:14Y1)•+ RK GRAN POI BItO%%h (1U) It312) IANLSILT LJ- 1)A-r E wl BY frIZO( Figure 30: Site 30596 TU-1 North Profile. 72 Layer I (0-20 cmbs) was loose angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders removed from the center of the hearth. The base of Layer I was roughly even with the top of Layer 11 (Figure 31). Layer II (20-40 cmbs) was loose (10YR3/2) very dark grayish brown fine sandy silt with less than 5%gravels and cobbles, and roughly 1% fine rootlets. Layer 11 terminated on bedrock(Figure 32). A small amount of midden (marine shell, bird bone, rodent bone, and burnt kukui nut shell) and charred material was recovered from TU-1, Layer I (see Appendix A). Based on the formal construction of the hearth, it is interpreted as a Historic era fire feature. The hearth appears to be unaltered, is in good condition and no further work is recommended at Site 30596. SITE 30597 Rock Wall FUNCTION: Cattle Ranching AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 145.0 m(E/W)by 0.90 m by 1.30 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30597 is an historic era rock wall located between 590 and 690 amsl along the southern boundary of the project area (see Figure 10). The mauka/makai wall is constructed along the north side of a seasonal gulch and marks the property boundary. There are koa haole and kukui nut trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The wall is constructed of stacked angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, incorporating small boulders as large as 0.50 m at the base (Figure 33). It is bifaced and cobble core filled. The rock wall is approximately 145.0 m long (E/W) where it crosses the project area, by 0.90 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.30 m. The east terminus of the wall is at the east end of the project area. The wall continues downhill beyond the west property boundary. Portions of the wall are no longer present, and may have been removed by flood events. Site 30597 is an Historic era ranch wall, and although it has collapsed in some areas, it is generally in fair condition. There were no cultural remains encountered on the ground surface at the site. Site 30597 appears to be slightly altered, is in fair condition and no further work is recommended. 73 e' y s W Figure 31: Photograph of Site 30596 TU-1 Top of Layer II,Looking West. 74 1 Or a hL Y"- N Of s "n n w G, A Yam : ik Figure 32: Photograph of Site 30596 TU-1 Base of Excavation, Looking West. 75 as'/ M' yoilI w' s. L. ` 0. W fir'• t e w a r Figure 33: Photograph of Site 30597 Wall with Gulch in Background,Looking South. 76 SITE 30598 Wall FUNCTION: Agriculture/Ranching AGE: Pre-Contact Era to Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 110.0 m(N/S)by 1.30 m by 0.80 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30598 is a segment of a rock wall located between 600 and 690 ft amsl in the southern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). There are koa haole and kukui nut trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The wall is constructed of piled and stacked angular and subangular basalt small boulders, incorporating small boulders as large as 0.50 m throughout (Figure 34). The wall is roughly faced and is not cobble core filled. The rock wall is approximately 110.0 m long (E/W)where it crosses the project area, by 0.90 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.30 m. The east terminus of the wall is along the east property boundary. The wall continues west beyond the west property boundary. The wall has been impacted by bulldozing and portions of the wall are no longer present. Site 30598 is a pre-Contact era agricultural wall or an Historic era ranch wall, and although it is collapsed in some areas, it is generally in fair condition. There were no cultural remains encountered on the ground surface at the site. No further work is recommended at Site 30598. SITE 30599 Platform with Enclosure FUNCTION: Agricultural AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 8.0 m(NW/SE)by 6.50 m by 1.40 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair, Slightly Altered INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Historic glass and metal EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1, SP-2); Test Unit(TU-1) DESCRIPTION: Site 30599 is an enclosed platform located at 670 ft amsl within the central eastern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). It is situated on a gentle west facing slope 20 meters west of Site 30592 railroad berm. There are koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. 77 M iY d e ypt UI w. ev Y. w roe: "r i- C e y '" w."'i„'. a M lot fly co Al Figure 34: Photograph of Site 30598 Wall Overview Looking West. 78 Site 30599 is a platform (Feature 1) and a roughly rectangular enclosure (Feature 2) measuring 8.0 m long (NW/SE)by 6.50 m wide (Figure 35). The Feature 1 platform is located at the north end of the site and the Feature 2 enclosure extends south from the platform. The Feature 1 platform is approximately 2.0 m long (N/S) and 1.8 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.40 m. It is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders stacked three to four courses high(Figure 36). The outer perimeter of the platform is constructed with larger rocks (small boulder slabs) stacked on their flat sides with their longest edge facing the outer edge of the platform. The interior of the platform is constructed of smaller subangular rocks placed inside the larger perimeter rocks. The north and east sides of the platform are well faced. The west side of the platform is collapsed (Figure 37). The feature construction is similar to Historic era rock clearing mounds and platforms documented in Kona and other places on Hawaii Island. A large water worn cobble, corrugated metal roofing, and bottle glass fragments were identified on the Feature 1 platform. The Feature 2 enclosure is rectangular and measured 5.10 m long (NW/SE)by 4.80 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.35 m. The enclosure walls are constructed of piled small boulders and cobbles, with some roughly stacked, one to two courses wide and one to three course high (Figure 38). The enclosure opens to the south. The interior of the enclosure is level soil. A screw top jar, a Bakelite pot, bottle glass fragments, and two pieces of sheet metal were encountered on the surface at the site (Figure 39). Two shovel probes and a test-unit(TU-1) were excavated at Site 30599 to determine the function and the age of the two features. Shovel Probe Testing Two shovel probes were excavated in the level soil interior of Feature 2. The shovel probes were excavated approximately 4.2 m from one another within the enclosure. They were excavated to depths ranging from 34.0 to 37.0 cmbs and terminating on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 7). 79 rI I II I{f 'kl 4d r+.srol I I 4 11 l 1 II; ell ld 4 1 d Z7 u 1. a* IF llil(} it 40 lilt i—'ii 14-A-0 S' hf 5 1 - It 1111 1 I IM.I W III a11WO1 11 11 I"al ti4ll I I RD aaP w1 _ t II %I TA to IN PAPA I\.uH it()%L ,, 14,M I I I scM I'p k i I F It.N%ORR i 01111 i f i I IM. Figure 35: Site 30599 Plan View Map. 80 G 4• .. tea ...w w v Figure 36: Photograph of Site 30599 Feature 1 Platform with Top Cleared of Debris Showing Stacked Stone Construction,Looking West. 81 t r r^ ' s- F ` of m fY r p v. Figure 38: Photograph of Site 30599 Feature 2 Enclosure Looking East. 83 a xy J 3 Figure 39: Photograph of Surface Artifacts Collected at Site 30599. 84 Table 8: Site 30599 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 1 0-34 cm I&11 Basalt Rock Glass and metal fragments 2 0-37 cm I& II Basalt Rock Donkey shoe, glass,metal and plastic fragments Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I (0-14 cmbs) loose dark brown 10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (14-37 curbs) soft dark yellowish brown(10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-1 contained a single bottle glass fragment, three pane glass fragments, and four rusted metal fragments. SP-2 contained a donkey shoe, a single piece amethyst bottle glass, a piece of plastic, and ten rusted metal fragments, three of which are nail fragments. Artifacts recovered from SP-1 and SP-2 were not collected. TU-1 TU-1 was a 1.0 m by 1.0 m test-unit excavated in the center of the platform (see Figure 35). TU-1 was excavated as two natural stratigraphic layers to a maximum depth of 1.45 cm below the top surface of the platform and terminated on bedrock(Figure 40). Layer I(0-90 cmbs)was loose cobbles and small boulders mixed with"O" Horizon organic detritus. A small amount of rusted metal fragments and modern bottle glass were recovered from Layer I. Layer 11 (90-145 cmbs) was loose 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown sandy silt, cobbles and small boulders, and loose bedrock slabs. A small amount of rusted metal fragments, a metal twist top bottle cap, a wire nail, and modern brown and clear bottle glass were recovered from Layer II (see Appendix A). Slabs of bedrock were also removed from the base of TU-1. TU-1 terminated on bedrock(Figure 41). Site 30599 is interpreted as an Historic era to Modern era commercial agriculture and ranching work area. Base on the platform construction, surface artifacts at the site, and the metal and glass recovered from TU-1, the site was likely constructed in the mid 1900s and was likely used for ranching and/or commercial agricultural activities through the 1960s. Site 30599 is slightly altered (Feature 1 partial collapse) and is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30599. 85 r it I} 40 [till 811 CNI KE,N 701-ROCK M- 1,.11'I:It II - DARK 'S VI,I ONNIISII 131tO NVN (11)V It 314) IIJ Figure 40: Site 30599 TU-1 South Profile. 86 m 4 t e6„ thN Figure 41: Photograph of Site 30599 TU-1 Base of Excavation Looking East. 87 SITE 30600 Terrace FUNCTION: Agricultural AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 4.0 m(E/W)by 4.30 m by 0.35m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1) DESCRIPTION: Site 30600 is a three-sided terrace located at 660 ft amsl approximately 35.0 meters south of Site 30599 (see Figure 10). It is situated on a gentle west facing slope with koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover. The enclosure is constructed of angular and subangular basalt small boulders piled one to two courses high and wide on the ground surface (Figure 42). It is approximately 4.0 m in length(E/W) and 3.30 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.35 m. There were no artifacts identified on the ground surface at the site. Shovel Probe Testing A single shovel probe (SP-1) was excavated within the level soil interior of Site 30600 to determine the function and age of the terrace. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 30.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. The shovel probe matrix did not contain cultural material. Based on the simple construction of the terrace, its size, and the proportionally large number of Historic era sites recorded on the project area, it is likely that Site 30600 is also an Historic era agricultural terrace, possibly associated with coffee growing. Site 30600 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30600. 88 r r f r SITE 30601 Rock Wall FUNCTION: Ranching AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 80.0 m(NW/SE)by 1.20 m by 1.50 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30601 is an Historic era wall located between 635 and 685 ft amsl within the northern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). The wall is oriented mauka/makai and is situated 10 meters north of and parallel to the Site 30595 wall (Figure 43). There are kukui nut and koa haole trees, and Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The wall bisects the property east to west, and is attached to the Site F2 railroad berm to the east. The wall continues west beyond the west project area boundary(see Figure 10). The wall is approximately 80.0 m in long (E/W)where it crosses the project area by 1.20 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.50 m. It is constructed of stacked angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders (Figure 44). The wall is bifaced and cobble core filled and is stacked up to seven courses high in some areas. A portion of the wall to the east, approximately 12.0 m, constitutes the northern boundary of the Site 30602 enclosure. There are sections of the wall which are reinforced with pig and barbed wire fencing attached to T posts. Site 30601 is an Historic era ranch wall, appears to be unaltered, and is in good condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30601. SITE 30602 Enclosure FUNCTION: Ranching/Agricultural AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 23.0 m(E/W)by 16.0 m by 2.10 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Historic era bottle EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, SP-4) DESCRIPTION: Site 30602 is an enclosure located between 680 and 685 ft amsl within the northeastern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). It is situated on a 90 SIT 311592 ft'111 itar Ir Iwl it'9 nn je`+n^` J SITE 39602 IXI 4 SITE 3IMS I L 10601 WALL a 4 tillil FI. II'.SI 1'ktrlil BEDROCK WINE BOTTLE Figure 43: Site 30602 Plan View Map Showing Portions of Site 30592, Site 30595, and Site 30601. 91 a DI IIWA tO t.1 fir, Figure 44: Photograph of Site 30601 Rock Wall Looking North. 92 gentle maukalmakai slope, within close proximity to the eastern project area boundary. There are koa haole trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The enclosure is formed by utilizing and modifying several existing walls (see Figure 43). It is bounded to the east by a 16.0 m section of Site 30592 railroad berm, to the north by a 21.0 m section of Site 30601 wall, to the south by a 23.0 m section of Site 30595 wall (Figure 45) and to the west by a wall which spans the distance between Site 30601 and Site 30595, approximately 10.0 m. The Site 30602 wall is constructed of stacked angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders. The western boundary wall of the enclosure varies in condition from good to almost nonexistent, with only the southernmost portion of the wall remaining. The intact wall segment is approximately 3.30 m in length and 0.90 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.30 m. There is a aqua colored bottle at the top of the wall segment(Figure 46). All other portions of the Site 30602 west wall have been altered to varying degrees. The mid section is completely gone with the exception of a few rocks, two of which remain in place. A section of Site 30595 wall has been removed to create an entrance to Site 30602 enclosure interior. Exposed bedrock is visible within in the northeastern portion of the enclosure interior, encompassing approximately one third of the total area. There is a section of galvanized pipe near the base of Site 30592 railroad berm. There is loose rock from collapsed portions of wall, which lie within the interior. The Site 30592 railroad berm portion of the enclosure to the east predates the other walls that form the enclosure and the western enclosure boundary wall is the most recently constructed. Shovel Probe Testing A line of four shovel probes spaced roughly 3.0 meters apart were excavated within the level soil interior of the enclosure. The shovel probe line extended from the southwest corner, toward the northeast corner, terminating midway at a bedrock outcrop. The shovel probes were excavated to depths ranging from 27.0 to 60.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 9). 93 T" h y r as Owl a Figure 45: Photograph of Site 30602 West Wall(Left)and Site 30595 Wall(Right)Looking East. 94 d4 i m r a t w r Figure 46: Photograph of Site 30602 Enclosure Wall and Bottle. 95 Table 9: Site 30602 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 1 0 -60 cm I,II,III Basalt Rock Kukui Nut Shell 2 0 -60 cm I, II,III Basalt Rock Kukui Nut Shell 3 0 -47 cm I, II,III Basalt Rock 4 0 -27 cm I& 11 Basalt Bedrock Two of the four shovel probes contained unburned kukui nut shell. No other cultural material was recovered from the shovel probes. There were no cultural remains encountered on the ground surface at the site, with the exception of the bottle and the section of galvanized pipe. Based on the construction style and the fact that the feature is constructed onto the Site 30592 railroad berm, Site 30602 is interpreted as an Historic era enclosure associated with ranching and commercial agriculture. The feature wall is partially collapsed and is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30602. SITE 30603 Enclosure FUNCTION: Ranching/Agricultural AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 35.0 m(NE/SW)by 24.0 m by 1.45 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1, SP-2) DESCRIPTION: Site 30603 is an L-shape enclosure (Feature 1) and three linear terraces (Feature 2, 3, and 4) located between 680 and 685 ft amsl immediately west of Site 30602 (see Figure 10). It is situated on a gentle west facing slope among koa haole trees with Guinea grass ground cover. The L-shape enclosure is constructed onto the south side of the Site 30595 rock wall and is approximately 35.0 m long (NE/SW)by 24.0 m wide (Figure 47). The enclosure walls are roughly 66.0 m long by 1.0 m wide with a maximum height of 1.45 m. The walls are constructed of stacked angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders and is bifaced and cobble core filled (Figures 48, 49, and 50). 96 f"i11 rT rr 111171 p r- II xFI 11 M It1A I11141 40% 1 51 I E .si ir,it.i I I-Al URE I In- li_'Il 7 1 r ktui I I E ,tllPriMl 11 al,l, 11 MI.I. I Y I.•I._ EI — III ii,kl I 1i,iIL I +N;(11 VI1 d l l; VRFF Figure 47: Site 30603 Plan View Map. 97 a.- M A r ' l c•. - ,` af. l yr,uM" a„j N r fii rip Figure 48: Photograph of Site 30603 Southwest Corner of Enclosure Feature 1,Looking Northwest. 98 1A op M All Ju y r 4 r xr.. '+n• k ice• w r' + v. i• r v' 14 ni1TVi. r r e tr v kpdo 04 r A 1. A' _n • fTTi"7x ,,,.. pC r n i 14 s Figure 50: Photograph of Site 30603 Middle Corner of Enclosure Feature 1,Looking South. 100 A roughly 35.0 m segment of the Site 30595 rock wall forms the north boundary of the enclosure (Figure 51). The eastern enclosure wall segment is approximately 24.0 m long (NW/SW) and is mostly collapsed. Portions of the southern and western wall segments have also collapsed, although the easternmost segment of the southern wall is still intact. There are three linear agricultural terraces (Features 2, 3, and 4) within the southeast corner of the enclosure (Figure 52 and Figure 53). The terraces are oriented NW/SE within the rocky soil interior of the enclosure. Feature 2 is furthest makai (west) and Feature 4 is furthest mauka(east). The Feature 2 retaining wall is approximately 4.0 m in length and 1.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.60 m. The Feature 3 retaining wall is approximately 6.0 m in length and 0.50 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.60 m. The Feature 4 retaining wall is a more substantial construct than the others. It is approximately 7.0 m in length and 1.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.90 m. No cultural material was identified on the ground surface at the site. Shovel Probe Testing Two shovel probes were excavated within the level soil surfaces of terraces Feature 2 (SP-1) and Feature 3 (SP-2) to determine function and age. The shovel probes were excavated approximately 4.0 m apart, were dug to depths ranging from 30.0 to 36.0 cmbs, and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 9). Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I(0-13 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (13-3 6 curbs) soft dark yellowish brown(10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. A small amount of unburned kukui nut shell was recovered from SP-2. Table 10: Site 30603 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 1 0 - 30 cm I& 11 Basalt Rock 2 0 - 36 cm I& 11 Basalt Rock Kukui Nut Shell 101 l 4 T' tF J- a 4 a 1 m <d Ir r a r A rhM r. 1 q4 1•, Photograph of 1.1 and Feature Retaining Wall(Left),Looking Southeast. 104 Based on the construction style of the enclosure and the fact that the enclosure walls are constructed onto the Site 30595 wall, and the Site 30595 wall is constructed onto the Site 30592 railroad berm, Site 30603 is interpreted as an Historic era enclosure associated with agriculture and ranching. Site 30603 has been impacted by modern land clearing activities and is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30603. SITE 30604 Agricultural Complex FUNCTION: Agricultural AGE: Pre-Contact Era to Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 12.0 m(NW/SE)by 5.0 m CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1) DESCRIPTION:Site 30604 is an agricultural complex located at 675 ft amsl 2.0 meters south of Site 30602 (see Figure 10). It is situated on a gentle west facing slope with koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. Site 30604 is a planting feature (Feature 1) and three terraces (Features 2, 3, and Feature 4) (Figure 54). Feature 1 is a possible oval planting feature located in the southeast corner of the site. It is constructed of angular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled one to two courses high and two to three courses wide on the ground surface Figure 55). The feature is approximately 2.50 min length(E/W) and 2.10 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.60 m. There were no cultural remains on the ground surface at Feature 1. Feature 2 is a small two-sided terrace located along the northwest edge of Feature 1. The terrace is 2.70 long (NW/SE)by 1.5 m wide. The terrace retaining wall is 2.70 m long by 0.60 m wide and is 0.62 m in maximum height above the ground surface to the southwest. It is constructed of basalt cobbles and small boulders piled up to three courses high on the ground surface (Figure 56). There were no cultural remains on the ground surface at Feature 2. 105 n; ENCLOSURE T.N. r. I ti P_I 0 N. I f r 1 I IVTF 30604 r CY OBI I° III I. rrrYF• I I I k I Rl: I 41 I } r H It yip I L )1 _ ROC K Figure 54: Site 30604 Plan View Map. 106 f 7fi t r/ r' ,, . s its" .• S A 9 / 1y / Y o, 4 V F 1 i - M .ID-- d Figure 55: Photograph of Site 30604 107 i y t e Figure e: Photograph of 0•0' Feature 2 LookingSoutheast. 108 Feature 3 is a linear terrace located along the northwest side of Feature 2. The terrace is 4.80 long (NW/SE)by 3.0 m wide. The terrace retaining wall is 2.70 m long by 1.0 m wide and is 0.85 m in maximum height above the ground surface to the southwest. It is constructed of basalt cobbles and small boulders piled up to three courses high on the ground surface (Figure 57). A section of galvanized pipe is situated along the easternmost portion of the terrace. There were no cultural remains identified at Feature 3. Shovel Probe Testing A shovel probe (SP-1) was excavated within the level soil of the Feature 3 terrace to determine function and age. SP-1 was excavated to a depth of 50.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of three natural stratigraphic layers: Layer I (0-14 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam, Layer II(14-41 cmbs) soft brown(10YR4/3) sandy silt, and Layer III 41-50 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown(10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. A railroad spike, a wire nail, and a volcanic-glass flake were recovered from SP-1 (Figure 58). The volcanic-glass flake was collected and the other artifacts were left at the site. Feature 4 is a two-sided terrace located along the north edge of Feature 1. The terrace is approximately 2.25 m long (NE/SW)by 2.0 m wide, and is 0.80 m in maximum height. It is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground surface (Figure 59). There is single strand wire within the western portion of the site. It is possible that Site 30604 is a pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural site. The single volcanic-glass flake suggests that area might have been used for agricultural and resource gathering. However, the proximity of Site 30604 to Site 30602 and the presence of the railroad spike and wire nail suggest that Site 30604 was definitely used during the Historic era. It is very likely that Site 30604 was an Historic era agricultural site associated with sugarcane or coffee growing. 109 7r it yg w v Figure 57: Photograph of 1.14 Feature 3 LookingSoutheast. 110 Figure 58: Photograph of Artifacts Recovered from Site 30604,Feature 3,SP-1. 111 4. t r a i* 4-2 lie a Figure 59: Photograph of Site 30604 Feature 4 Looking South. 112 SITE 30605 Rock Wall FUNCTION: Ranching AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 90. m(E/W)by 0.75 m by 1.0 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30605 is an Historic era wall located between 600 and 685 ft amsl through the center of the project area (see Figure 10). The wall trends mauka/makai across the west facing slope. There are kukui nut and koa haole trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The wall bisects the property east to west, terminating to the east near the Site 30592 railroad berm and continuing to the west beyond the project area boundary. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, incorporating some as large as 0.50 m (Figure 60). The wall is approximately 90.0 m long (E/W) where it crosses the project area by 0.75 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.0 m. It is a bifaced, cobble core filled wall and is stacked up to five courses in height. The condition of the wall diminishes near its western terminus where it has collapsed. There were no cultural remains encountered within the area of the site. Site 30605 has been impacted by modern land clearing activities, is partially collapsed in places, and is in good condition. No further work is recommended for Site 30605. 113 I JON I Figure 60: Photograph of Site 30605 Wall Looking Northeast. 114 SITE 30606 Rock Wall FUNCTION: Ranching/Agricultural AGE: Pre-Contact to Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 37.0 m(NW/SE)by 1.90 m by 1.30 m in max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30606 is an Historic era wall segment located at 620 ft amsl within the southwestern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). The wall trends northwest/southeast and is situated in an area with koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover. The Site 30606 rock wall segment is located between the Site 30605 wall and the Site 30597 wall, and is less formally constructed than either of the two (Figure 61). The wall is approximately 37.0 m in length (NW/SE) and 1.90 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.30 m. Site 30606 is presently a rubble wall consisting of angular and sub angular basalt cobbles piled three to six courses high and three to four courses wide on the ground surface. There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the wall construction, though it might have been a stacked and faced wall that has been disturbed by modern land clearing activities. The majority of the western (downhill) portions of the wall have collapsed, with an increase in collapse in low lying areas. There were no cultural remains identified on the ground surface at the site. Site 30606 is an Historic era rock wall associated with ranching. It has been altered by modern land clearing, is mostly collapsed, and is in poor condition. 115 4Ae+.4;+ td'b k, Yt per, y •m a""^ IF t p. W wti:z h r Yam . Jill v do Figure 61: Photograph of Site 30606 Rock Wall Looking North. 116 SITE 30607 Agricultural Complex FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Pre-Contact Era to Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 55.0 m(NW/SE)by 27.5 CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1 through SP-10) DESCRIPTION: Site 30607 is an agricultural complex located between 620 and 630 ft amsl within the southwestern portion of the project area, on a steep west facing slope (see Figure 10). There are koa haole trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The Site 30607 agricultural complex includes seven terraces (Feature 1 through Feature 7) located north of wall Site 30597, south of wall Site 30605, west of wall Site 30598 and on both sides of wall Site 30606 (Figure 62). Feature 1 is a three-sided terrace located in the northeast corner of the site. The terrace retaining wall is constructed primarily of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled up to four courses in high(Figure 63). It is approximately 3.70 m in length(N/S)by 1.40 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.05 m. There is no formal stacking or facing in the feature construction. There were no cultural remains on the ground surface at Feature 1. Shovel Probe Testing A shovel probe (SP-1)was excavated within the sloping soil interior of Feature 1 to determine function and age. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 37.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. SP-1 stratigraphy was Layer I(0-16 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (16-37 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-1 contained a total of five volcanic-glass fragments and several charcoal fragments. Feature 2 is a three-sided terrace located within the central western portion of Site 30607. The terrace is situated on a west facing slope and is constructed along the west side of wall Site 30606. The northwest and southwest corners of the terrace are curved and the terrace retaining walls are constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground surface (Figure 64). There is no formal stacking 117 slit YvmIq'11•I.I, t"III S11-1 XMIDIF.It.k1.-1 F O MITI 1EI612I 1%•1I RI', v sp.1 II'MIZI x M I F 14h;'08%A 1.1 1 s SP-8 FE.Il 34F J.ar_ li Cl 1 ?f1 con t KFt JA ®. Fi N-kI I ROCKS til 1 k ,.SIh54"N1,1.1. No Ell _ I I 'Mil-1 A- tiI nrF 4l I.t lk F±1- I.:1'A I I It ETHEIGH F-IN on ABO VIF%IIRF%(-F: 1,IIUV EF.PRO BF Figure 62: Site 30607 Plan View Map. 118 r fir r ll " iwa "" q•: py Y + r' v r I W w c-JA Figure 63: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 1 Terrace Looking Southeast. 119 oF.-Y 'gyp +q N' t Figure 64: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 2 Terrace(Background)and Site 305956 Wall(Foreground),Looking West. 120 or facing evident in the feature construction. The terrace is approximately 10.0 m in length(E/W) and 6.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.10 m. There are large quantities of rock within the soil area of the terrace. Piled rock combined with rock which has collapsed from surrounding areas (Site 30606 rubble wall and elsewhere) is approximately 1.10 m in height and 2.10 m wide, dividing the surface of the terrace to form two areas. The westernmost area is approximately 7.5 m in length E/W) and 5.5 m wide (Figure 65). The easternmost area is an enclosed area formed by rock piled on the surface of the terrace where it abuts Site 30606 (Figure 66). The enclosed area is approximately 5.0 m in length(N/S) and 2.5 m wide. There were no cultural remains at Feature 2. Shovel Probe Testing Two shovel probes (SP-2 and SP-3) were excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 2 to determine feature function and age. The shovel probes were excavated approximately 4.5 m from one another, within the western area (SP-2) and the eastern area (SP-3). The shovel probes were excavated to depths ranging from 34.0 to 43.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 10). Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of three natural stratigraphic layers: Layer I (0-16 cmbs) loose dark brown 10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam, Layer 11 (16-37 cmbs) soft brown(10YR4/3) sandy silt, and Layer III (37-43 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown(10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. The shovel probes did not contain cultural material. Table 11: Site 30607 Feature 2 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 2 0 -43 cm I, II, III Basalt Rock 3 0 - 34 cm I& 11 Basalt Rock Feature 3 is three-sided terrace located north of Feature 2. The terrace is situated on a west facing slope and is constructed along the west side of wall Site 30606. The northwest and southwest corners of the terrace are curved and the terrace retaining walls are constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground surface (Figure 67). There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the feature construction. Feature 3 is approximately 7.5 m in length (N/S) and 7.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.60 m. The western portion of the terrace retaining wall is mostly collapsed. There were no cultural remains at Feature 3. 121 5 rr Xls f r ram Figure 65: Photograph of Site 30607,Feature 2,Western Area Looking East. 122 h y Y-4 M` tfya..... t lu.,' ypii._Tll' r . y Figure 66: Photograph of Site 31 1 f • ,&^T°' f'.-} Wy ! " I' Y ... ,. a .. Shovel Probe Testing Two shovel probes (SP-4 and SP-5) were excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 3. The shovel probes were excavated approximately 2.5 m from one another. The shovel probes were excavated to depths ranging from 48.0 to 54.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 11). Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of three natural stratigraphic layers: Layer I (0-14 cmbs) loose dark brown 10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam, Layer 11 (14-38 cmbs) soft brown(10YR4/3) sandy silt, and Layer III (38-54 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown(10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-4 contained two volcanic glass flakes recovered between 0-15 cmbs, and small charcoal fragments recovered between 15-30 cmbs. SP-5 contained several very small charcoal fragments that were not collected. Table 12: Site 30607 Feature 3 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 4 0-54 cm I, II,III Basalt Rock Volcanic glass, Charcoal Fragments 5 0-48 cm I, II, III Basalt Rock Charcoal Fragments Feature 4 is a two-sided terrace located along the south edge of Feature 2. The terrace abuts the west edge of wall Site 30606. It is approximately 10.0 m in length E/W) and 6.5 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.94 m. The terrace retaining wall is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground surface (see Figure 62). There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the feature construction. There is piled rock near the center of the terrace that divides the surface of the terrace into two areas. The easternmost area is enclosed by rock piled near the center of the terrace and by wall Site 30606 (Figure 68). The enclosed area is approximately 5.5 m in length (N/S) and 2.5 m wide. The westernmost portion is approximately 7.5 m in length (E/W) and 5.0 m wide (Figure 69). The south edge of the terrace is partially collapsed. There were no cultural remains at Feature 4. Shovel Probe Testing Two shovel probes (SP-6 and SP-7) were excavated within Site 30607 Feature 4 to determine feature function and age. The shovel probes were excavated approximately 4.5 m from one another within the eastern area (SP-6) and the western area (SP-7). The shovel probes were excavated to depths ranging from 32.0 to 55.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or large basalt rocks (Table 12). 125 d ar Figure 68: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 4 Eastern Area Looking North. 126 J t x 1 i r. Figure 6': Photograph of 1.17 Feature 4 Western Area Looking Northwest. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of three natural stratigraphic layers: Layer I 0-12 curbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam, Layer II(12-38 curbs) soft brown(10YR4/3) sandy silt, and Layer III (38-55 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown 10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-7 contained a single fragment of dense crystalline basalt, possibly an unpolished exterior flake. Table 13: Site 30607 Feature 4 Shovel Probe Results. SP# Depth (cm) Layers BOE Artifacts 6 0-55 cm I,II,III Basalt Rock 7 0-32 cm I& 11 Basalt Rock Basalt Debitage Feature 5 is a three-sided terrace located in the southeast corner of Site 30607 (see Figure 62). The terrace is approximately 7.5 m in length(N/S) and 3.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.20 m. The terrace retaining wall is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground surface (Figure 70). There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the feature construction. The west terrace retaining wall is collapsed, potentially brought about by koa haole tree growth, as well as the steepness of the slope. There were no cultural remains on the ground surface at Feature 5. Shovel Probe Testing A shovel probe (SP-8) was excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 5. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 30.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. SP-8 contained several very small charcoal fragments which were not collected. Feature 6 is a three-sided terrace located east of Feature 2 and Feature 4 (see Figure 62). The terrace retaining wall is angled, situated cross-slope and constructed of angular and subangular basalt boulders piled on the ground surface (Figure 71). The terrace is approximately 7.6 m in length(NW/SE)by 3.5 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.20 m. Portions of the retaining wall to the east ere collapsed. There were no cultural remains identified on the ground surface at Feature 6. 128 k e r e " r Figure 70: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 5 Looking South. 129 x r a t r @ "+ „„,'' y,, s r ."` tin, '! yqg i ewwr•.r^'i' 4'... ram, .. Figure 71: Photograph of Site 30607 Feature 6 Looking South. 130 Shovel Probe Testing A single shovel probe (SP-9) was excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 6. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 33.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I(0-13 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (13-3 3 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-9 did not contain cultural material. Site 30607 Feature 7 is a three-sided terrace located west of Feature 1 (see Figure 62). The terrace is situated cross-slope and is constructed of piled angular and subangular basalt boulders piled on the ground surface (Figure 72). There is no formal stacking or facing evident in feature construction. The terrace is 8.60 m in length NW/SE) by 2.90 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.60 m. There were no cultural remains on the ground surface within the area of Feature 7. Shovel Probe Testing A single shovel probe (SP-10)was excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 10. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 37.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I (0-14 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (14-37 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-10 contained a single volcanic glass flake and five marine shell fragments which were recovered from 0-15 cmbs. Site 30607 Summary Sites 30598 (low piled wall), 30606, (low piled wall), and 30607 (agricultural complex) are all likely components of a single agricultural complex. This interpretation is based on their proximity to each other, their feature construction technique, and the fact that three of the Site 30607 terraces are constructed along the west side of the Site 30606 wall. In addition, it is very likely that the Site 306012 lava blister is also associated with these three sites. The small amount of traditional cultural material recovered from subsurface testing at Site 30607 is typical of traditional pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural features. However, it might be that the artifacts are not directly associated with these features, and that they are related to resource collection prior to the construction of the features. 131 Wk i a Yl r n J u r The terrace features themselves are somewhat similar to Kona field System features recorded at projects in the general area of the current project. They differ in that they are more roughly constructed. This might be a function of the available rock in this location—the rock is much larger than that found in other places. However, it seems just as likely, or more likely, that the features were constructed in the Historic era for commercial agriculture. Their somewhat rough and hasty construction is similar to other Historic era agricultural features, most notably coffee terraces, documented at nearby project area. In addition, the presence of the Historic era refuse dump at nearby Site 30612 further suggests the agricultural complex is an Historic era site. Site 30607 has been altered by ground clearing activities, the features are partially collapsed in places, and the site is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30607. SITE 30608 Enclosure FUNCTION: Temporary Dwelling and Storage AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 7.5 m(N/S)by 3.3 m by 1.20 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30608 is a rectangular enclosure located at 670 ft amsl within the southeastern portion of the project area, roughly 15.0 m west of the Site 30592 railroad berm(see Figure 10). It is situated on a moderate west facing slope in an area of koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover. The enclosure is rectangular and is constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, some of which are as large as 0.80 m (Figure 73). The wall is bifaced and cobble core filled. It is approximately 7.50 m in length (N/S) and 3.30 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.20 m. Portions of the walls to the north and southwest have collapsed, suggesting that the enclosure might have been impacted by heavy equipment. 133 Fes° « 4+' Y w w' aw'.., ..i_r.. •:r a t r x k rR wwn M n• i r _ r x It is possible that the enclosure was constructed by modifying a wall segment just west of the Site 30592 railroad berm wall. Rocks might have been removed from the ends of the wall to construct two walls (north and south walls)between the wall segment and the railroad berm to the east. The east wall of the enclosure is the railroad berm wall. There is single strand heavy gauge fencing wire within the interior of the feature. Based on construction method and proximity to the railroad berm, it is most likely that Site 30608is the remains of an Historic era structure. The enclosure has been altered by modern land clearing activities and is in fair condition. SITE 30609 Enclosure FUNCTION: Temporary Dwelling and Storage AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 6.6m (N/S) by 4.5 m by 1.20 m in max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30609 is a rectangular enclosure located at 680 ft amsl approximately 14.0 meters northeast of Site 30609 (see Figure 10). It is situated on a moderate west facing slope close to the eastern project area boundary and just west of the Site 30592 railroad berm. There are koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The enclosure is rectangular and is constructed of angular and subangular basalt boulders, some of which are as large as 1.05 m (Figure 74 and Figure 75). The wall is bifaced and cobble core filled. It is approximately 6.60 m in length(N/S) and 4.5 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.20 m. It is possible that the enclosure was constructed by modifying a wall segment just west of the Site 30592 railroad berm wall. Rocks might have been removed from the ends of the wall to construct two walls (north and south walls)between the wall segment and the railroad berm to the east. The east wall of the enclosure is the railroad berm wall. Portions of the walls to the east have collapsed, indicating that this structure may have been impacted by heavy equipment. Site 30609 is approximately 14.0 m northeast of Site 30608, and is similar in construction. A single strand of heavy gauge fencing wire 135 was found in the interior of this feature also. Based on construction method and proximity to the railroad berm, it is most likely that Site 30609is the remains of an Historic era structure. The enclosure has been altered by modern land clearing activities and is in fair condition. SITE 30610 Terrace FUNCTION: Agricultural AGE: Pre-Contact Era Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 6.75 m(NW/SE)by 3.0 m by 0.40 m in max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1) DESCRIPTION: Site 30610 is a three-sided terrace located at 675 ft amsl within the southeastern portion of the project area (see Figure 10). The site is situated on a west facing slope, to the southwest and down slope of Site 30608, within close proximity to the eastern project area boundary. There are koa haole trees and Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The terrace is approximately 6.75 m long (NW/SE)by 3.4 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.40 m(Figure 76). The interior soil surface of the terrace slopes slightly to the west. The terrace retaining wall is constructed of piled angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, some as large as 0.45 m (Figure 77). Portions of the retaining wall to the southwest may have been removed by modern land clearing activities. There were no cultural remains encountered on the surface in the area of the terrace. Shovel Probe Testing A single shovel probe (SP-1)was excavated within the soil filled interior of Site 30610. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 22.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I (0-13 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (13-22 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-1 contained several very small fragments of charcoal which were not collected. 136 t Ax a 4 u p ti °'+ Figure 74: Photograph of Site 30609 Enclosure Looking East. 137 4 P y A ' a+ I 11 f r~ r A 4 tl.p 5 v 1 OOV- OKA Al` i Q. Figure 75: Photograph of Site 30609 Enclosure Looking Northeast. 138 po- Ilal 0 121 sp-I 1271 CJJ i43l it :EI I iE11 I#I _'BPIi rill LAn SLOP[ BEDROCK FALLEN- FALLEN TREE. 1# HEIGHT IN ern ABOVE SURFACE H(A 1 1 1'f W"I Figure 76: Site 30610 Plan View Map. 139 r-`j r,-" r`' 5 k r/ "y' Alr' Pr `4 k a Y r x y"' '", 1r] Figure 77: Photograph of Site 30610 Terrace LookingSouthwest. SITE 30611 Agricultural Complex FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 10.0 m(N/S)by 7.0 m CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Shovel Probe Testing (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3) DESCRIPTION: Site 30611 is an agricultural complex located at 670 ft amsl in the southeast portion of the project area(see Figure 10). The site is three terraces Features, 1, 2, and 3) situated on a west facing slope in an area of koa haole and kukui nut trees with Guinea grass ground cover. Feature 1 is located at the northeast end of the site and is a roughly rectangular soil filled terrace approximately 6.5 m long (NW/SE) by 2.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.0 m along southwest edge (Figure 78). The terrace retaining wall is constructed of piled angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, some as large as 0.90 m(Figure 79). There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the feature construction. The northern portion of the terrace has collapsed in several areas. The southern portion is better preserved, where several large somewhat tabular boulders have been incorporated into the construction. There were no cultural remains identified at Feature 1. Shovel Probe Testing A shovel probe (SP-1) was excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 1. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 29.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I(0-13 cmbs) loose dark brown(10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (13-29 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-1 contained a single fragment of rusted metal. Feature 2 is a two-sided terrace located at the south end of the site. The terrace retaining wall is constructed of piled angular and subangular basalt boulders, some as large as 0.75 m (Figure 80). There is no formal stacking or facing evident in the feature construction. The terrace is approximately 3.5 m in length (NW/SE) and 2.5 m wide, 141 f F *,19 41F I I A I1°I GJ+y 11 i 1164 III INp cre, tTATI HI 4 3 BAN MI ida14 9. 142 116 y— y 1+ - T[Nit I I LLLJL. ILI Vif lr h JJ Lt111•I t 1 f II,T'LICF•2 I, III II.H I Iw +P+i\I .I Itl[ I f Y h9{irlii r~v l.i F. TTiT Figure 78: Site 30611 Plan View Map. 142 wr` ! Cpp T .. may x J 9 gyp" Yp 1y r a„.` r M , ^ +/ . Y A N,r, l f f y * r J Tl d y I r.:, ram ri k 1 I'F of J"^"" *Y f"'*`•' n r-," `, ^ w r r ' ,` Figure :I: Photograph of 1•11 Feature 2 Looking South. with a maximum height of 0.35 m, the surface of which slopes to the west. There were no cultural remains on the ground surface at Feature 2. Shovel Probe Testing A single shovel probe (SP-2)was excavated within the level soil interior of Feature 2. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 20.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I(0-12 cmbs) loose dark brown (10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam overlying Layer 11 (12-20 cmbs) soft dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) fine sandy silt. SP-2 did not contain cultural material. Feature 3 is a roughly rectangular terrace located between Feature 1 and Feature 2 see Figure 78). The terrace is approximately 3.40 m in length (NW/SE)by 2.25 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.52 m. The terrace retaining wall is constructed of piled angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, some as large as 0.75 m Figure 81). A partial wall along the southeastern boundary of the Feature 3 terrace separates it from the Feature 2 terrace, which is situated to the immediate south. The intact portion of wall is 1.50 m, although it likely formerly continued southwest the entire length of the terrace, forming two separate terraces. There were no cultural remains on the ground surface at Feature 3. Shovel Probe Testing A single shovel probe (SP-3) was excavated in the level soil interior of Feature 3. The shovel probe was excavated to a depth of 11.0 cmbs and terminated on bedrock or a large basalt rock. Shovel probe stratigraphy consisted of Layer I(0-11 cmbs) loose dark brown(10YR3/2) fine sandy silt loam. SP-3 did not contain cultural material. Site 30611 Summary The terrace features at Site 30611 are somewhat similar to Kona field System features recorded at projects in the general area of the current project. They differ in that they are more roughly constructed. This might be a function of the available rock in this location—the rock is much larger than that found in other places. However, it seems just as likely, or more likely, that the features were constructed in the Historic era for commercial agriculture. Their somewhat rough and hasty construction is similar to other Historic era agricultural features, most notably coffee terraces, documented at nearby project area. Site 30611 has been slightly altered by ground clearing activities, the 145 1yMf-,a . a Y }, • ^ m T. off r' 4 1 w , r• , tie n : a5h del--' y r ,:•.,. 1P'r.`*"' .. _ tr y! y y,ter, Yj' w..•. ' Lf ff r r 1 features are partially collapsed in places, and the site is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 30611. SITE 30612 Lava Blister FUNCTION: Refuse Disposal Area AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 3.40 m(NE/SW)by 3.40 m by 1.15 m in max. height INTEGRITY: Possesses Integrity of Location and Materials CONDITION: Good SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30612 is a small open lava blister located within the central southern portion of the project area(see Figure 10). The site is situated on a west facing slope approximately 10.0 meters east of wall Site 30598 (see Figure 37). There are koa haole trees with Guinea grass ground cover throughout the area. The lava blister is opening is directly above the blister and measures 1.0 m long N/S) by 0.65 m wide (Figure 82). The blister is approximately 3.40 m in length NE/SW) and 3.40 m wide, with a maximum ceiling height of 1.15 m. A fair amount of Historic era refuse is scattered on the floor of the blister. Some of the items collected and photographed included glass bottles, fragments of ceramic and stoneware bowls and plates, rusted solder top cans, a section of corrugated roofing material, cow bones, and various glass and metal fragments (Figures 83, 84, and 85). Site 30612 is an Historic era refuse disposal area. It is unaltered and in good condition. No further work is recommended for Site 30612. 147 wr 4' RN x w G. r r wb n i'•"daA ,e . m j$ YL"'F yam. Y'r.. f t 0 Figure 82: Photograph of Site 30612 Blister Opening Looking North. 148 d i a Y •1Y I t w r Figure 83: Photograph of Site 30612 Historic Era Bottles and Plateware. 149 n Figure 84: Photograph of Site 30612 Soldered Cans. 150 a 2<&2 /\ — • . Figure s: Photograph J Site kg2Historic Era Bottles. 151 CONCLUSION DISCUSSION Twenty two newly identified archaeological sites were recorded during the course of the archaeological inventory survey study. The sites are primarily agricultural terraces associated with pre-Contact era to Historic era agriculture and rock walls and enclosures associated with Historic era agriculture and ranching. A pre-Contact era to later post-Contact era lava tube burial and a portion of the old railroad berm were documented along the western and eastern edge of the project area, respectively. The five acre project area has three primary divisions created by ranch walls (Site 30595, 30601, and 3065). All three of the walls are Historic era ranch walls and have typical formal characteristics of ranch walls; they are bi-faced, cobble core filled, and their sides slope inward towards the tops of the walls. They are all approximately 1.0 meter in height. Site 30597, located along the south boundary of the property and along the north side of a seasonal gulch, is similarly constructed. Site 30602 and Site 30603 are enclosures constructed along wall Site 30595 and wall Site 30601. The latter two wall sites are constructed onto the west edge of the Site 30592 railroad berm and post-date the railroad berm. Sites 30602 and 30603 enclosures, as well as the wall sites, appear to be associated with both Historic era ranching and agriculture. The northern portion of the project area, north of wall Site 30601 is north of the bulldozed"terraces" (see Figure3). It is mostly open grassland that appears to have been bulldozed during the Historic era to early Modern era. There were only two sites (Site 30591 and 30956)recorded in this northern third of the project area. Site 30591 is an agricultural complex with six terraces. Site 30956 is a hearth. It is possible that the two sites are pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era in age. The terrace features are somewhat similar to Kona field System features recorded at projects in the general area of the current project. They differ in that they are more roughly constructed. This might be a function of the available rock in this location—the rock is much larger than that found in other places. However, it seems just as likely, or more likely, that the features were constructed in the Historic era for commercial agriculture. Their somewhat rough and hasty construction is similar to other Historic era agricultural features, most notably coffee terraces, 152 documented at nearby project area. The hearth at Site 30596 is similar to other Historic era rectangular hearths recoded at sites on Hawaii Island. The middle one third of the project area between wall Site 30595 and 30605 is entirely within the bulldozed"terraces" portion of the project area (see Figure 3). There are three small sites (Site 30593, 30594, and 30604)within the middle third of the project area. Site 30593 is a pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era lava tube burial. Site 30594 is an agricultural terrace complex. The agricultural terraces at Site 30594 are somewhat similar to Kona field System features, but are much more roughly constructed than the formal cross-slope terraces and mauka/makai kua`iwi walls documented in the KFS. Site 30604, based on artifacts recovered from subsurface testing and the site's proximity to Site 30602 and 30603, is an Historic era agricultural terrace site. It is interesting to note that there is a lower site density in the northern two divisions of the project area compared to the site density in the southern one third of the project. The northern two thirds likely were used primarily for cattle pasture. It is also likely that the two wall sites 30595 and 30601 formed a cattle chute or road leading to and from the two enclosures Site 30602 and Site 30603) and the railroad bed. The southern third of the project area, south of wall Site 30605, contained six primarily agricultural sites (Site 30598, 30600, 30606, 30607, 30610, and 30611) and four Historic era sites (Site 30599, 30608, 30609, and 30612)with functions other than primarily agricultural growing (see Figure 10). The nonagricultural sites are located closer to the railroad bed. The cluster of all of these sites together in this area seems to suggest that they are part of a Historic era commercial agricultural field. The proximity of this area to the seasonal gulch to the south might have influenced the decision to construct the agricultural features in this area. All of the agricultural complexes documented in the project area are located between 600 and 700 feet (182 to 213 meters) amsl, within the lower kalu`ulu zone. The region was traditionally used by Hawaiians for growing bread fruit and other arboreal crops, sweet potatoes, ti, wauke dryland taro, and sugarcane. Volcanic-glass flakes, a basalt flake, and marine shell fragments were recovered in small amounts from subsurface testing, indicating that Hawaiians did pass through and use the project area lands. The lack of temporary habitation features and the fact that there aren't more formally constructed agricultural terraces and rock clearing mounds suggests that they might not have 153 used the area for extensive cultivation. If so, the agricultural terraces documented during the current study are most likely the remains of Historic era commercial agriculture. SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS Sites identified during this project were assessed for their significance as outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-284-6. To be assessed as significant a site shall possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and shall meet one or more of the following five criteria: a) It must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or be considered a traditional cultural property. b) It must be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past. c) It must embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. d) It must have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. e) Have important value to native Hawaiian people or other ethnicities in the state, due to associations with cultural practices and traditional beliefs that were, or still are, carried out. All of the archaeological sites documented in this report were evaluated for their significance Table 14). All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study possess integrity of location and materials and were assessed significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield information important to prehistory and/or history. All of the sites, with the exception of the railroad berm Site 30592 and the burial Site 30593 provide information important to agricultural pursuits and cattle ranching. They provide data on pre-Contact era through post-Contact era and the Historic era features constructed to grow subsistence crops. They also provide data important to changing land-use as some farmers began to use land for cattle pasture in response to exposure to external trade routes and expanding markets on Hawaii Island and Oahu. 154 Table 14: Inventory of Project Area Archaeological Sites, Significance Assessments and Site Recommendations. Site# Site Type Site Function Age Significance Criteria Recommendation 30591 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30592 Railroad Bed and Berm Transportation Historic Era a,c,d Preservation 30593 Lava Tube Burial Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era d,e Preservation 30594 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30595 Rock Wall Ranching Historic Era d No Further Work 30596 Possible Hearth Food Preparation Historic Era d No Further Work 30597 Rock Wall Ranching Historic Era d No Further Work 30598 Rock Wall Agriculture/Ranching Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30599 Platform&Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era d No Further Work 30600 Terrace Agriculture Historic Era d No Further Work 30601 Rock Wall Ranching Historic Era d No Further Work 30602 Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era d No Further Work 30603 Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era d No Further Work 30604 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30605 Rock Wall Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era d No Further Work 30606 Rock Wall Ranching/Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30607 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30608 Enclosure Dwelling and Storage Historic Era d No Further Work 30609 Enclosure Dwelling and Storage Historic Era d No Further Work 30610 Terrace Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30611 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era d No Further Work 30612 Lava Blister Refuse Dump Historic Era d No Further Work 155 Ranch wall sites (30592, 30595, 30597, 30598, 30601, 30605 and 30606) and Historic era enclosure sites (30608 and 30609)provide information on how the land was altered and the types of features that were necessary to farming and ranching. Even the Historic era refuse dump (Site 30612)provides data on the types of items were available, useful and necessary to farmers and ranchers. The railroad berm Site 30592 is also significant under criteria"a" and "c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The burial Site 30593 is also significant criterion"e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. SCS consulted with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Kona representative Shane Nelson to ask for any input regarding Site 30592. RECOMMENDATIONS The burial Site 30593 is recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments to be outlined in a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (BSCPP). The railroad berm Site 30592 is recommended for preservation with preservation measures to be outlined in an archaeological preservation plan. No further work is recommended for the remaining 20 archaeological sites (Sites 30591and 30594 through 30612). Information recorded for all 22 archaeological sites during the current study has adequately ascertained their function and age. Archaeological monitoring is recommended for initial grubbing within the five-acre project area and for any proposed ground disturbance in the vicinity of Site 30592 and Site 30593 to ensure interim construction preservation measures are in place and to prevent disturbance of the two archaeological sites. 156 REFERENCES CITED Aki, H. 1952 Map of Kailua Section,North Kona, Hawaii, Land Titles. Survey and Map by J.S. Emerson. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1280. Alexander, J. 1855 Map of Holualoa 1 & 2, Kona Hawaii. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1450. Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaii. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Bergin, Dr. B. 2004 Loyal to the Land:The Legendary Parker ranch, 750-1950. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Barrera, W. Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 71-10. Submitted to Kamehameha Development Corporation. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1995 North Kona, Hawaii Island: Archaeological Reconnaissance of Seven Parcels. Prepared for County of Hawaii Planning Department. Burtchard, G. C. 1995 Population and Land-use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Lands Inventory Survey, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawai`i Island, the Narrative,part 1. Submitted to Belt, Collins and Associates and Kamehameha Investment Corporation. IARII, Honolulu. Calis, I., M.T. Carson, M. Dega and R.L. Spear 2004 Data Recovery at the Phase I and II Portions of the Kahakai Development Project Area TAM(3) 7-5-20:1. SCS Report 209-1. Prepared for Stanford Carr Development, LLC. SCS, Honolulu. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Carlson, A.K., and P.H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Development-Phase II, Lands of Puapuaa Is and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Development Company. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 157 Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawai`i. Clark, M., and R. Rechtman 2006 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAM:3-7-6-004:003, Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0360 prepared for Mr. Phil Tinguely, H61ualoa Village Partners, LLC, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Conolly III, R.D., and J.L. Gunness 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey at the Komohana Kai Subdivion (Unit 1) Site (TAM: 3-7-6-13:31). Report prepared by Science Applications Inc., Honolulu for G.C. Development Co., Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Cordy, R. 1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press,New York. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Honolulu. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Daws, G. 1968 Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Island. Macmillan,New York. Desilets, M., and R. Rechtman 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Grant Increment Road Remnant Property TMK.•3-7-6-08:005 por.), Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0244 prepared for Curt A. Cottrell, Nd Ala Hele Program Manager, Honolulu, Hawaii and Ramon Perez de Ayala, Pua`anui Partnership, Honolulu, Hawaii. Dircks, A., L. Zenobi, and R. Rechtman 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Miyose Farm Subdivision TMKs:3-7-6-001:003, 009, and 019), H61ua1oa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0856 prepared for Edward Rapoza, Kailua-Kona. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. 158 Ellis. W. 1963 Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing, Honolulu. Escott, G. 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Tower (HAW 301) Site Located in Holualoa Is'Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK; (3) 7-6-024:032]. SCS Report#1340-2 prepared for Ace Environmental, Las Vegas. ESRI 2013 Arc GIS Explorer. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Ca. Fager, M., and D. Graves 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Holualoa 3rd Development Parcel, Land of Holualoa 3rd North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-7-04:35). PHRI Report 1231-073092 prepared for Dillingham Partners. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Graves, D.K., and S.T. Goodfellow 1993 The Gardens of Kona Revisited: Pualani Residential Community Phase II- Archaeological Data Recovery, Lands of Puapuaa Is'and 2na North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TAM:3-7-5-17.•por.28, 29). PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Estates, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Han, T. L., S. L. Collins, S. D. Clark, and A. Garland 1986 Moe Kau a Ho`oilo:Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Ke6pu, Kona, Hawai`i. Chapter VII. Artifacts and Manuports from the Ke6pu Burial Site. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 86-1. Submitted to Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Handy, E.S. 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume L B.P. Bishop Museum bulletin 161. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hammatt, H.H. 1979a Archaeological Survey of a 22 Acre Parcel at Holualoa Ahupua`a, Hawaii. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 1979b Archaeological Survey of a 22 Acre Parcel at Holualoa Ahupua`a, Kona, Hawaii Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for Kalani Sunset Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 159 1979c Archaeological Survey and Excavation at the Proposed Komohana Kai Subdivision, Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Manuscript. Prepared for G.C. Development Co., Inc. 1980 Archaeological Survey and Excavation at the Proposed Komohana Kai Subdivision Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for G.C. Development Company, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammat, H.H., D. Borthwick, and D. Shideler 1986 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on a 20-Acre Parcel Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for Maryl Investments, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H. H., and S. D. Clark 1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre (Ginter) Parcel in Na ahupua`a Pahoehoe, La`aloa, and Kapala`alaea, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-152 III. Submitted to Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc. Hammatt, H.H., and W.H. Folk 1980 Archaeological Survey, Phase L• Portions of Keauhou-Kona Resort, Keauhou and Kahulu`u, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-177 ILI. Submitted to Kamehameha Investment Corporation. 1981 Archaeological Survey of a 20 Acre Parcel, Holualoa, Kona, Hawaii Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for Kalani Sunset Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H.H., W.H. Folk, and D.W. Shideler 1992 Archaeological Survey Testing and Excavation of a 174-Acre Parcel, Holualoa, North Kona, Hawai`i. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for the Gamlon Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H. H., and V. W. Meeker 1979 Archaeological Excavations and Heiau Stabilization at Kahalu`u, Kona, Hawaii Island. ARCH Report 14-172(II). Submitted to Gerald Park, Urban Planner. Haun, A.E., and D. Henry 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey TAM: 7-7-04:56, Holualoa 3, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Haun &Associates report prepared for Mr. Sidney Fuke, Hilo, Hawaii. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 2001 Archaeological Data Recovery Site 14130 TAM: (3) 7-5-17:Por. 1. Prepared for Inaba Engineering. Haun & Associates, Kea`au. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 160 Haun, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Ali`i Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I-Archaeological Intensive Survey, Summary, vol. 1. PHRI Report 1320-052798. Submitted to County of Hawaii. PHRI, Hilo. Hommon, R. J. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 55-88. University Press, Cambridge. Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La E Pono Ai? Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mala o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Dept. of Anthropology Report Series 83-2. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks:An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa dune site (MO-Al-3), Moloka`i Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. Kirch, P.V. and M. Sahlins 1992 Anahulu. Vol. 1 and 2. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vol. 1. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Landrum, J., A.E. Haun, P.H. Rosendahl, and K. Delimont 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Test Excavations Kahakai Development Project Area. PHRI Report 157-070185. Prepared for Wilson Okamoto & Associates. PHRI, Hilo. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 161 Maly, K 1993 Ka`ao Ho`oniva Pu`uwai No Ka-Miki, The Heart Story Story of Ka-Miki. Published in Hawaiian, in the newspaper "Ka Hoku o Hawai`I(Hilo) January 8, 1914 through December 6, 1917. Translated by Kepa Maly for Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 1996 Historical Documentary Research. In Archaeological Inventory Survey Proposed Henry Street Extension Road Corridor, by Wulzen, W., T.R. Wolforth, and L.J. Franklin, pp. 9-19. PRHI Report 1465-092696. Prepared for Maryl Development, Kailua-Kona. PHRI, Hilo. Maly, K. and O. Maly 2001 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Nd `Aina, A Me Na Ala Hele I Hehi 7a, Mai Keauhou A I Kealakekua, Ma Kona, Hawai`i (A Historical Overview of the Lands, And Trails Traveled, Between Keauhou and Kealakekua, Kona, Hawaii. Kumu Pono and Associates report prepared for Na Ala Hele Program Manager(Hawai`i Island), State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hilo. 2002 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Ka Aina A Me Nd `Ohana O Waiki`i Ma Waikoloa Kalana O Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka `Aina Mauna:A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki`i at Waikoloa Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawai`i TMK Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates. Hilo. Maly, K., and P.H. Rosendahl 2006 Phase III Archaeological Site Preservation Plan, Pualani Residential Community Mitigation Program, Lands of Puapuaa 1 S`and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-5-17:28, 29). PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Schuler Homes. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. McCoy, M. 2005 The development of the Kalaupapa field system, Koloka`i Island, Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:339-58. 2007 Revised late Holocene culture history for Molokai Island, Hawaii. Radiocarbon, 49(3):1273-1322. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W.F. Wilson. New Freedom Press. Honolulu. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E192-E194. 162 National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. Nelson, D., L. Bulgrin, and R. Rechtman 2005 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK.•3-7-6-013:008, Holualoa 1st& 2nd Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0251. Prepared for Nearon Enterprises, LLC, Danville, California. (Revised 2006). Newman, T. S. 1970 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island ofHawaii A.D. 1778. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K., S. Elbert and E. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Rechtman, R.B. 2006 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAX:3-7-013:017, Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Report Prepared by Rechtman Consulting, LLC for Geometrician Associates, LLC. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Rosendahl, M. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Holualoa 3rd Development Parcel, Land ofHolualoa 3rd North Kona, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-04:35). PHRI Report 400-122287 prepared for Dillingham Trust. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Rosendahl, P. 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the 72-Unit Development Site (TMK•3- 7-6-14:3 and 3-7-7-04:22,23,27,47) Kailua-Kona Island ofHawai`i. PHRI Report 5-122078. Prepared for Gray, Rhee and Associates. 1989 Archaeological Field Inspection, Komohana Kai Subdivision Parcels, Land of Holualoa Is'and 2nd North Kona, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-6-22:49,84). PHRI Letter Report 44-121181 prepared for Clyde Coatney. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R Paeth, R Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. 163 Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai`i: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Report prepared for the Hawaii Department of Transportation. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Sinoto, A. 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Six Acres in the Ahupua`a of Holualoa I and 2, North Kona, Hawaii. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Brehm Construction Company. Soehren, L 1979a Letter Report: Parcels 10, 12, and 13 of TMK.•7-6-14, in Holualoa, North Kona. Prepared for Mr. Hiroshi Kasamoto. 1979b Letter Report: TAX.-7-6-1 S:1 S, Holualoa, North Kona. Prepared for Zuzak and Associates. 1980a Letter Report:Archaeological and Historical Features on the Parcel Identified by Tax Map Key 7-6-21:14, Situated at Holualoa 2, North Kona, Hawai`i. Prepared for Golden Triangle Real Estate. 1980b Letter Report: Archaeological and Historical Features on the Parcels Identified by Tax Map Keys 7-6-14:2,3 at Holualoa 2, and 7-7-04:22,27,47 at Holualoa 3, North Kona, Hawai`i. Prepared for BA and M Corp. Starr Environmental 2016 Botanical and Faunal Surveys in the State of Hawaii. Makawao. www.starrenvironmental.com. Tainter, J. A. 1973 The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at Kaloko,North Kona, Hawaii. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8(1):1-11. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Development Parcel 26 of the Keauhou Resort, Ahupua`a of Kahalu`u, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Prepared for Belt Collins and Associates. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu. U.S. Geological Survey 1928 I5-Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.govlplsltopomapsl. 164 Vancouver, G. 1967 A Voyage ofDiscovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. 1984 A Voyage ofDiscovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. Waihona `Aina 2014 Mahele online database. www.waihona.com. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1988 Archaeol yical Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision. Lands of Puapuaa I sr and 2n , North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Development Company. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Wilkes, C. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. 1970 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 201 lb Reply to Mulrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108T195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Wolforth, T., J. Henry, and R. Rechtman 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Two Parcels in HNualoa 2nd and 3rd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. PHRI Report 1941-080999 prepared for Mr. Ralph Berezan. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 165 APPENDIX A: ARTIFACT INVENTORY A-1 Site FE# Unit Layer/Level Depth Identification Weight Count Remarks 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28 curbs Marine 2.56 g 11 Gastropoda:Cypraea sp. lnvertabrate 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28 curbs Marine 1.17 g 4 Gastropoda:Nerita sp. lnvertabrate 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28cmbs Marine 4.05 g 81 Echnoidea:Non-Diagnostic lnvertabrate 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28 curbs Bone 3.89 g 1 Bird 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28 curbs Bone 0.08 g 4 Rodent 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28 curbs Kukui 1.18 g 9 Charred 30596 1 TU-1 11 0-28 curbs Carbon 4.92 g 123 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Bottle Glass 9.01 g 1 Clear Fragment 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Jar Glass 2.35 g 1 Brown Fragment 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Nail Fragments 1.88 g 2 Wire Cut 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Bottle Cap 3.77 g 1 Rusted Metal 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Jar Lid 7.36 g 3 Rusted Metal 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Metal Fragments 48.69 21 Rusted 30599 1 TU-1 11 90-145 curbs Carbon 0.38 g 3 30604 3 SP-1 1&11 0-50 curbs Volcanic Glass 0.04 g 1 Flake A-2 Site FE# Unit Layer/Level Depth Identification Weight Count Remarks 30607 1 SP-1 1&11 0-37 cmbs Volcanic Glass 3.03 g 5 Debitage 30607 1 SPA 1&11 0-37 cmbs Carbon 83 g 30 30607 3 SPA 1 0-15 cmbs Coral Fragments 0.08 g 2 30607 3 SPA 1 0-15 cmbs Volcanic Glass 0.17 g 2 Flake 30607 3 SPA 11 15-30 cmbs Carbon 0.06g 7 30607 4 SP-7 1&11 0-32 cmbs Basalt Flake 2.14 g 1 A-3 SCS Project Number 2330-1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY REPORT FOR 76.121 ACRES LOCATED IN HOLUALOA 1ST AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAII ISLAND, HAWAI'I TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-0191 Prepared By: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. Suzan Escott, B.A. MAY 2020 DRAFT Prepared for: Kona Three, LLC 101 Hualdlai Street Hilo, HI 96720 SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT SFRVICF-S J,C- 4 .. ......2 t- 1i 7 1-7 1347 Kapi'olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu,HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kca'au,HI 96749 ABSTRACT At the request of property owner Kona Three, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey(AIS) of a 76.121 acres of land TMK: (3) 7-6- 021:016, 017 (por.), 018, and 019 located in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. The owner is proposing to develop the property and contracted the archaeological study required for an Environmental Assessment (EA) as required for County of Hawaii Planning Department permit applications. The point of contact (owner) for the project is Mr. Richard Wheelock. The owner's mailing address is 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720. Mr. Wheelock can also be contacted by email at rihard@eastwestrealty.org or by phone at 808- 753-3167. Prior to fieldwork, a search of geological maps, aerial photos, historical maps, historical documents, and archaeological reports was conducted. Pedestrian survey and site recording were conducted throughout 2020 by Joe Farrugia, B.A., Suzan Escott, B.A, Tomasi Patolo, B.A., Nicole Mello, B.A., and Glenn Escott, M.A. The project area lands were used for cattle ranching and commercial agriculture from the early 1900s until the present. The majority of the project area has been bulldozed. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile. Pedestrian survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer- cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. Sixteen archaeological sites were identified and recorded in the project. Fifteen of the sites were previously documented and two sites were previously undocumented (a small coffee shed enclosure Site #50-10-37-31181; ranch walls Site #50-10-37-31182). Five of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era habitation and agriculture sites. A single petroglyph(Isolate Find 1) was also recorded. Eleven of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with cattle ranching and coffee and sugarcane agriculture. All of the archaeological sites were assessed significant under criterion"d" as they are likely to yield information important to prehistory and/or history. The railroad berm Site 30592 is also significant under criteria"a" and"c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type,period, and method of railroad bed construction. A petroglyph(Isolated Find-1) is also significant criterion"e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The railroad berm Site 30592 and the petroglyph are recommended for preservation with preservation measures to be outlined in an archaeological preservation. No further work is recommended at the remaining fifteen sites. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................i LISTOF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................iii LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................I METHODS................................................................................................................................................... I ARCHIVALMETHODS............................................................................................................ 1 FIELDMETHODS..................................................................................................................... 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................................9 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS....................................................................................... 10 PRE-CONTACT ERA.............................................................................................................. 11 TheKona Field System......................................................................................................... 14 POST-CONTACT ERA............................................................................................................ 16 THEMAHELE......................................................................................................................... 18 EARLY POST-CONTACT ERA AND HISTORIC ERA....................................................... 22 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES..........................................................................................25 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES .................................................. 28 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY............................ 37 EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS.....................................................................................40 RESULTS OF FIELDWORK.....................................................................................................................41 SIHP10011 Platform......................................................................................................... 44 SIHP 10012 Former Burial Platform ................................................................................. 55 SIHP 10013 Enclosure & Platforms................................................................................... 60 SIHP 10015 Bulldozer Road Segment............................................................................... 66 SIHP 10018 Enclosure Remnant........................................................................................ 66 SIHP 10019 Rock Clearing Mounds.................................................................................. 67 SIHP10020 Bedrock Outcrop............................................................................................ 70 SIHP 10031 Enclosure Remnant........................................................................................ 71 SIHP10034 Bedrock Outcrop............................................................................................ 73 SIHP10067 Terraces ......................................................................................................... 73 SIHP10068 Enclosure....................................................................................................... 76 SIHP 10069 Modified Bluff............................................................................................... 78 SIHP 10070 Enclosure Remnant........................................................................................ 81 SIHP10072 Complex......................................................................................................... 85 SIHP10073 Complex......................................................................................................... 91 SIHP 10074 Enclosure Remnant...................................................................................... 105 SIHP 10075 Enclosure Remnant...................................................................................... 108 SIHP 30592 Railroad Berm.............................................................................................. 109 SIHP 31181 Enclosure Remnant...................................................................................... 116 SIHP 31182 Ranch Walls................................................................................................. 120 IF-1 Isolated Petroglyph.................................................................................................... 130 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 133 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS..........................................................................................................136 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 138 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................................. 139 APPENDIX A: REINTERMENT DOCUMENTATION............................................................................. I ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Island Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................... 2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Project Area Kealakekua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)........ 3 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area, Holualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS). ................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Close-Up Showing Project Area, Holualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS)................................................................................................. 5 Figure 5: Map of Holualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Yellow Alexander 1855). ................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952). ............................................................................... 19 Figure 7: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards, Land Grants, and the Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, Kealakekua Quad. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................................................ 21 Figure 8: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928)............................................................................................. 24 Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area (Kealakekua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................................................................................... 27 Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott 2018) AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). ........................................................................... 35 Figure 11: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al. (1992) Sites and Current Project Area (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle)......................................................... 38 Figure 12: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Archaeological Sites and Project Area (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle).......................................................................................................42 Figure 13: Site 10011 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 45 Figure 14: Photograph of Site 10011, Looking East.................................................................... 46 Figure 15: Photograph of Site 10011 Top Surface, Looking Southwest. ....................................47 Figure 16: Photograph of Site 10011 South Edge Construction, Looking North........................ 48 Figure 17: Photograph of Site 10011 West Edge Construction and Collapse, Looking Northeast. 49 Figure 18: Site 10011 Test Unit 1 West Profile........................................................................... 51 Figure 19: Photograph of Site 10011 Test Unit 1 West Profile Looking West. .......................... 52 Figure 20: Photograph of Site 10011 Test Unit 1 Overview Looking Northeast........................ 53 Figure 21: Site 10012 (CSH Site 10)Plan View Map and Excavation Profiles (Hammatt et al. 1992:65)................................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 22: Photograph of Ground Surface at Former Site 10012, Looking Northwest............... 59 Figure 23: Site 10013 Plan View Map Showing Test Units (Hammatt et al. 1992:69). ............. 61 iii Figure 24: Photograph of Site 10013 Enclosure South Corner and West Wall, Looking Northwest.............................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 25: Photograph of Site 10013 Enclosure South Corner and West Wall, Looking North. 63 Figure 26: Photograph of Site 10013 Northeast Platform (Left Top Corner) and Tube Opening Foreground), Looking Northeast. ........................................................................................ 64 Figure 27: Site 10018 Remnant Enclosure Wall Plan View Map. .............................................. 68 Figure 28: Photograph of Site 10018 Enclosure Wall and Site 31181 Feature 3 Ranch Wall CornerLooking Southeast. ................................................................................................... 69 Figure 29: Photograph of Site 10031 Remnant Enclosure Wall, Looking Southeast.................. 72 Figure 30: Site 10067 (CSH Site 232) Plan View Map (Hammatt et al. 1992:49)...................... 74 Figure 31: Photograph of Site 10067,North View...................................................................... 75 Figure 32: Site 10068 (CSH Site 233)Plan View Map Showing Test Trench(Hammatt et al. 1992:50)................................................................................................................................ 77 Figure 33: Photograph of Site 10068 Bulldozed Remnant Enclosure Wall, Looking Northwest. 79 Figure 34: Photograph of Site 10069 Remains Looking Northwest............................................ 80 Figure 35: Photograph of Site 10069 Remains Showing Bulldozer Disturbance, Looking Northwest.............................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 36: Site 10070 (CSH 235) Plan View Map...................................................................... 83 Figure 37: Photograph of Site 10070 Enclosure, Looking West. ................................................ 84 Figure 38: Site 10072 (CSH Site 238) Plan View Map (Hammatt et al. 1992:53)...................... 86 Figure 39: Photograph 1 of Site 10072 Feature 3 South Corner of Bluff, Looking Northeast.... 87 Figure 40: Photograph 2 of Site 10072 Feature 3 Southeast Edge Corner of Bluff, Looking North. .................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 41: Photograph 3 of Site 10072 Feature 3 East Corner of Bluff, Looking North. ........... 89 Figure 42: Site 10073 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 92 Figure 43: Photograph of Site 10073 Feature 1 Platform Looking South. .................................. 93 Figure 44: Photograph of Site 10073 Feature 2 Platform Looking East...................................... 94 Figure 45: Photograph of Site 10073 Feature 3 Enclosure Showing Interior Level Bedrock Outcrop, Looking Southeast. ................................................................................................ 96 Figure 46: Site 10073, Feature 1, TU-1 Southwest Profile.......................................................... 97 Figure 47: Photograph of Site 10073, Feature 1, TU-1 Southwest Profile.................................. 98 Figure 48: Photograph of Site 10073, Feature 1, TU-1 Northeast and Northwest Profiles......... 99 Figure 49: Site 10073, Feature 3, TU-2 Northeast and Southeast Profiles................................ 101 Figure 50: Photograph of Site 10073, Feature 3, TU-2 Southeast Profile Showing Base of Architecture......................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 51: Photograph of Site 10073, Feature 3, TU-2 Northeast Profile................................. 103 Figure 52: Photograph of Site 10073, Feature 3, TU-Bas of Excavation Looking Southeast... 104 Figure 53: Site 10074 Plan View Map (Adapted from Hammatt et al. 1992:9)........................ 106 Figure 54: Photograph of Site 10074 Rock Wall, Looking South............................................. 107 Figure 55: Site 10075 Plan View Map....................................................................................... 110 Figure 56: Photograph of Site 10075 Enclosure, Looking West. .............................................. 111 Figure 57: Photograph of Site 10075 Enclosure Southwest Wall, Looking Southwest. ........... 112 Figure 58: Photograph of Site 30592 Railroad Berm Rail Bed, Looking South. ...................... 113 Figure 59: Photograph of Site 30592 Railroad Berm Retaining Wall, Looking Southeast....... 114 Figure 60: Site 30592 Railroad Berm Retaining Wall Profile................................................... 115 iv Figure 61: Site 31181 Plan View Map....................................................................................... 117 Figure 62: Photograph of Site 31181 Enclosure Remnant, Looking Northwest. ...................... 118 Figure 63: Photograph of Coral Abrader Fragment at Site 31181............................................. 119 Figure 64: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 31182 Ranch Wall Features and Project Area (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). ....................................................................................... 121 Figure 65: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 Pin Pen Looking Southeast............................. 122 Figure 66: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 South End Showing Wall Construction, Looking North. .................................................................................................................................. 123 Figure 67: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 South End Showing Wall Construction, Looking North. .................................................................................................................................. 124 Figure 68: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 Showing Top of Wall Construction, Looking Northeast............................................................................................................................. 125 Figure 69: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 2 South End Showing Top of Wall Construction, LookingNortheast. ............................................................................................................. 126 Figure 70: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 2 South End Showing Wall Construction, Looking Southeast............................................................................................................................. 127 Figure 71: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 11 Showing Wall Construction, Looking East.. 128 Figure 72: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 11 North End Showing Top of Wall Construction, LookingNorth..................................................................................................................... 129 Figure 73: Photograph of Site 31181 Petroglyph. ..................................................................... 131 Figure 74: Site 31181 Petroglyph Plan View Drawing. ............................................................ 132 Figure 75: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Archaeological Sites and Project Area (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle)..................................................................................................... 134 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Inventory of Subsurface Test Excavations. ..................................................................... 7 Table 2: Land Commission Awards Recorded in H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a. ..................... 20 Table 3: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations.................................................... 25 Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area(Escott and Escott 2018). .................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 5: Inventory of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Hammatt et al. 1992; Hammatt andShideler 2007)................................................................................................................ 39 Table 6: Inventory of Hammatt et al. (1992)Archaeological Sites and Current AIS Results.....43 Table 7: Inventory of Archaeological Sites in the Current AIS Project Area. .......................... 133 Table 8: Inventory of Archaeological Sites in the Current AIS Project Area. .......................... 137 v INTRODUCTION At the request of property owner Kona Three, LLC, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey(AIS) of a 76.121 acres of land TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016, 017 (por.), 018, and 019 located in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii(Figure 1 through Figure 4). The owner is proposing to develop the property and contracted the archaeological study required for an Environmental Assessment(EA) as required for County of Hawaii Planning Department permit applications. The point of contact (owner) for the project is Mr. Richard Wheelock. The owner's mailing address is 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720. Mr. Wheelock can also be contacted by email at richard@eastwestrealty.org or by phone at 808-753-3167. METHODS The archaeological inventory survey was undertaken in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-284 and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports contained in Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-276. ARCHIVAL METHODS In addition to referencing available resources at SCS, archival research was conducted in the State Historic Preservation Division(SHPD) report database and library facility(Hilo, HI), the Hawaii County land records office, the Waihona `AinaMdhele database website, Ulukau database website, the Papakilo database website, the Hawaiian collections holdings at the University of Hawaii-Hilo Library, and the Hawaii State Library system. Archival work consisted of research on the history and archaeology of the project area, as well as specific searches of previous archaeological studies in and around the current project area. Historic land use data, land ownership, maps, and narrative information were obtained from the Hawaii County land records office, Hawaiian internet sites, and the University of Hawaii, Hilo. 1 ai H A W A I I w INA'W+AII Co. y i Y r Zdeti 14 41EOM..c ibyrr E, t{Ya=::.F -. --- - -.-r r :.----- _ ----- r v.l:.<x Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Island Showing Location of Project Area National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 It IWOIL E 11191Mm L 11100"Y E Mumm C I41111xIni 1 x r r Iv a e p y r r x E E M1U1TC1 AREA x . a4' r Mom'') W Cl r TV1X Ri(IIIV1rAR1 TM1At r•, .. r 0 200 JMIU INIII lWII L LA Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Project Area(Kealakekua Quad,ESRI,2013. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 3 f r. z PROJECTART.% TMKI1 11 NOAR1" Y\ SACRC.l.1CIA''S10% 0 2WI 4011 WO 9W MYnrr Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area,Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. (ESRI,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 4 KEY FRUM, i %REA TMKuiii NDARY T'y V U3 4\CLUS16X 0 54) l i E50 290 r.r Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Close-Up Showing Project Area,Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. (ESRI,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 5 FIELD METHODS The archaeological pedestrian survey included: 100%pedestrian survey of the project area, Global Position System (GPS)plotting archaeological sites on USGS and TMK maps; individual site mapping, photographing and recording; and subsurface excavation and recording. Pedestrian survey and site recording were conducted in throughout 2020 by Joe Farrugia, B.A., Suzan Escott, B.A, Tomasi Patolo, B.A.,Nicole Mello, B.A., and Glenn Escott, M.A. A series of north/south transects spaced 2.0 to 4.0 meters apart were walked across the entire project area. Ground cover consisted of tall California and Guinea grass, koa haole, kiawe, and several kukui nut trees. Ground visibility was good. The fieldwork totaled 208 person-hours. Glenn Escott was the Principal Investigator and Project Director. GPS points for sites were plotted in the field using a Garmin GPSmap 62 hand- held GPS unit. Site points were plotted in ArcGIS using Universal Transverse Mercator UTM)units (Zone 5 North) and NAD83/WSGS84 datum. Site boundaries were determined by the aerial extent of features and by feature function and temporal association. Features that were in close proximity to each other and that appeared to have functional and temporal associations suggesting they were constructed and used as a functional set of features--those features were included together as a single site. Features that were beyond twenty to thirty meters away from each other, or that were constructed at very different times, or for different very purposes, were separated into individual sites. Photographs were taken of sites and features using a 25 cm north arrow scale with 5 cm black and white increments. Representative plan view maps showing the location and morphology of identified sites and features were drafted using tape-and compass mapping techniques. Site documentation included site and feature type, function, construction method, and age. Feature type, function, and age were determined by observing environmental context and topographic location, feature size and shape, construction material, construction methods, and associated artifacts if present. 6 Table 1: Inventory of Subsurface Test Excavations. SIHP#* TYPE FUNCTION AGE CSH EXCAVATIONS SCS EXCAVATIONS 10011 Platform Ag./Temp Habitation Pre-Contact 1.5 in long trench TU-1(2.4 X 1.2 m) 10012• Platform&Wall Burial Pre-Contact Entire Feature Site No Longer Present 10013 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact 4.5 in sq.total Site Mostly Bulldozed 10017 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic Site No Longer Present 10018 Enclosure Agricultural Historic Site Mostly Bulldozed 10019 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic 3 1.0 in x 1.0 in long trenches Site Mostly Bulldozed 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic Site Mostly Bulldozed 10033 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic Site No Longer Present 10049 Terraces Agriculture Historic Site No Longer Present 10067 Terraces Habitation Pre-Contact 1.0 X 1.0 in 10068 Enclosure Habitation Pre-Contact 0.5 X 0.25 in Site Mostly Bulldozed 10069 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic 0.5 X 0.5 in Site Mostly Bulldozed 10070 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic 1.0 X 0.5 in Site Mostly Bulldozed 10071 Platform Habitation Pre-Contact Site No Longer Present 10072 Modified Bluff Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact 7.0 in square total Site Mostly Bulldozed 10073 Complex Ranching/Ag. Historic TU-1(2.3 X 1.2 m),TU-2(1 XI m) 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 1.25 in sq.total Site Mostly Bulldozed 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic Site Mostly Bulldozed 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic Site On Bedrock 31182 Rock Walls Ranching&Ag. Historic Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. Orange Shading-Site no longer present. Burial Site 10012 reinterred off prof ect prior to 1983. Feature types and functions were selected from a set of recognized formal archaeological types and functions developed within Hawaiian archaeology over many decades of research. Age determinations are expressed in terms of recognized formal eras including pre-Contact era(before 1778), early post-Contact era(1778-1850), Historic era (1851-1965), and Modern era(post-1965). Age was interpreted on the basis of feature dimensions, type, construction, and artifacts recovered from excavations. Many of the sites identified during the current AIS survey were bulldozed in the past (Table 1). In addition, many sites were previously excavated during the previous Cultural surveys Hawaii (CSH)AIS study(Hammatt et al. 1992). Sites that were mostly bulldozed or that did not have sediment deposits, or at which CSH had conducted adequate subsurface excavations to accurately interpret site function and age were not excavated during the current AIS study. SCS conducted test excavations at two sites (Site #50-10-37-10011 and#50-10- 37- 10073, hereafter site numbers are abbreviated to their last five digits) to better determine site function, construction method, and age. Test units (TU)were excavated in features at both sites. A total of 2.88 square meters were excavated in Site 10011 Feature 1. A total of 3.76 square meters Test-units were excavated at features that had a high potential to yield functional and temporal diagnostic artifacts, and where vertical control would contribute to this data. Test units were placed to expose the base of feature architecture. Test-units were excavated in natural stratigraphic layers and arbitrary 10 cm levels when natural stratigraphic layers were thicker than 10 cm. Sediment excavated from all units was screened for cultural material through 1/8th inch mesh. Stratigraphic profiles were drawn for test units and post-excavation photographs were taken. Cultural material was recorded by type on standard SCS excavation forms and collected. Soil colors were recorded using Munsell color charts, soil composition was recorded with the aid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Manual on standard soil stratigraphy forms, and profiles were drawn. 8 LABORATORY METHODS Inventory of midden and artifacts collected from the test excavations were weighed and analyzed by layer of provenience within each excavation unit. Weight, count and diagnostic characteristics were recorded for all artifacts. Field notes, maps, cultural material, and photographs pertaining to this project are currently being curated at the SCS facilities on the Island of Hawaii. ORAL INTERVIEW ANDCONSULTATION Gregg Kashiwa was interviewed by phone on April 19, 2016. Mr. Kashiwa was the project property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the early 1980s and was present during AIS work documented in the Hammatt et al. (1992). He is originally from Oahu but lived in Kona for several decades. Mr. Kashiwa remembered that five acres in the northeast corner of the project area were excluded from the original AIS because the property owners were planning to give the five acres to a group to use as an agricultural preserve. The five acres and much of the current project area had already been bulldozed for agricultural use and for cattle ranching. Mr. Kashiwa knew that there were ranch walls and Historic era agricultural features on the project area, but did not know how they were used, as they were no longer in use during his time in Kona. He also remembered the old railroad bed and berm and that there was a small railroad stop along the track just south of the project area. Mr. Shane Nelson, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) West Hawaii Representative was contacted to consult on the disposition and preservation of Railroad Berm Site 30592. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The current project area consists of undeveloped land used as cattle pasture for several decades. Prior to that, coffee was grown in the northeast quadrant of the project area. The project area is situated on fairly steeply sloping land with level areas in between elevation breaks. The project area is between 360 and 7000 feet(110 to 213 meters) above mean sea level (amsl). The project area lands are part of a large former cattle ranch and agricultural area that was started in the early 1900s. The project area is still used to pasture cattle. The project area lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile (see Figure 4). Pedestrian 9 survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer-cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. The former Kona Sugar Company railroad bed is present along the eastern edge of the project area. The project area ground surface is a Hualdlai lava flow dating between 5,000 and 10,000 years before present(ybp) (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is Punalu`u Series (rPYD series) extremely rocky peat with six to twenty percent slopes Sato 1973:48). The majority of the project area has been bulldozed in the past and the present ground surface is rocky soil. Rainfall in the project area is very low, less than thirty inches per year. Parcel 018 and Parcel 019 are seasonal gulches that drain rainfall down slope to the west. This project area region is dry, hot, and somewhat barren except for thick California grass Urochloa mutica), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), and scattered kukui (Aleurites moluccana) trees (Starr Environmental 2016). A fairly large number of introduced tree species associated with Historic era ranching and farming are present in the project area, including kiawe (Prosopis pallida), monkey pod (Samanea saman), opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce), tamarind (Tamarindus indica), coffee (Coffea arabica), and bamboo (Bambusa sp.). HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Kona is divided into two sections: North Kona or Kona `akau, and; South Kona, or Kona hema (Maly 1996). Kona `akau was further subdivided into north(called Kekaha) and south(called Konakai`6pua) areas, with the division between the two at the ahupua`a of Keahuolu. The project area is in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a (see Figure 1 and Figure 2)within the area of Konakai`6pua in Kona `akau. H61ualoa means (literally) long sled course" (Pukui et al. 1974:48). H61ualoa 1st is a traditional ahupua`a stretching from the ocean to the foot of Hualdlai in the uplands. The coastline of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a is primarily low rock cliffs. Very little is recorded of H61ualoa Ahupua`a in traditional oral accounts. The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka-Miki, published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii and translated by Maly (1993) contains the only description of H61ualoa. The legend is set in the 13th century but also reflects more recent influences (Maly and Maly 2002: 17). According to the narrative, 10 The lands of H61ualoa were named for the chief of that name; both H61ualoa and Puapua`a were high chiefs, who controlled the lands from mountain to sea, which bear their names... Kaluaokalani served as a priest of H61ualoa at the temple of Pakiha. This heiau was near the contest field of H61ualoa... The lands of this region are named for various ah`i, all of whom were related. When the chief H61ualoa took up the challenge against Kepaka`ili`ula on behalf of the Kona chiefs, H61ualoa called upon his god Kalaipahoa to assist him in his battle... H61ualoa was the first chief to call upon the god Kalaipahoa, and this was the beginning of this gods' use by the chiefs of Hawaii [Maly 1993:208-209]. PRE-CONTACT ERA H61ualoa, Kona, and much of the leeward side of Hawaii Island, while well populated at the time of European Contact, were settled later than the windward side. Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; McCoy 2005 and 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). An article published in the Journal of Archaeological Science reviewing radiocarbon dates recovered at archaeological sites on the Island of Hawaii suggests that, by relying on only carbon samples from short-lived plant remains, the most reliable dates point to initial Polynesian colonization of Hawaii Island occurring between A.D. 1220 and 1261 (Rieth et al. 2011:2747). Early settlers founded settlements on the windward shores in likely places such as Waipi`o, Waimanu, and Hilo Bay. The windward, or ko`olau shores receive abundant rainfall and have numerous streams such as the Wailuku, Waiolama, `Alenaio, and Wailoa that facilitated agricultural and fishpond production (Maly 1996:3). The windward shores also provide rich benthic and pelagic marine resources. 11 PM F.M AMA 4 Figure 5: Map of Ho-lualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Yellow(Alexander 1855). 12 The dry leeward shores of Hawaii Island presented a very different environment requiring a modified set of subsistence strategies. Archaeologists and historians are uncertain about the exact motives that lead to the establishment and spread of settlements on the leeward side of Hawaii, but some suggest population pressure, dwindling fertile land, growing socio-political stratification, or simply the opportunity for a new start might have lead to new communities developing on the dryer west side of the island Gordy 2000:130). The process was likely underway soon after initial settlement of Hawaii Island (Gordy 2000). During this period, areas of permanent habitation were established in Kona Gordy 1981, 1995; Schilt 1984). Habitation was concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes, and informal fields were cleared at higher elevations where rainfall was higher. Agricultural fields and habitation areas expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualalai during the period between AD 1200 and 1400 (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995). The development of extensive formal walled fields likely began sometime around AD 1400 to 1600. This period marks the initial construction of the Kona Field System KFS) (Schilt 1984). The development of the KFS may be, in part, a by-product of the need to extract more subsistence resources from an increasingly limited agricultural base. The population in Kona increased dramatically during this period, as reflected in the abundant radiocarbon dates from habitation structures, shelter caves, and agricultural soils of this period(Burtchard 1995; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). During this period, the stratified chiefdom structure becomes clearly developed in the archaeological record. Large residential complexes and heiau reflect the segregation of places and power for the growing hierarchy of high and lower chiefs, and ceremonial stewards (Cordy 1981; Haun et al. 1998; Hommon 1986). The produce from the formal walled fields were distributed to higher chiefs through a hierarchy of lower chiefs responsible for management and collection of the cultivated and wild resources. By the time of the Competition Period (AD 1600 to 1800), the royal centers and larger heiau were in place, reflecting the growth in power of the rulers and chiefs in the region (Barrera 1971; Hammatt and Folk 1980). Resources may have reached their maximum carrying capacity, resulting in social stress between neighboring groups. Hostility between groups is reflected archaeologically with the development of refuge 13 caves during this period (Schilt 1984). This volatile period was probably accompanied by internal rebellion and territorial annexation(Hommon 1986; Kirch 1985). Royal centers are located at Kailua, H61ualoa, Kahalu`u, Kealakekua, and Honaunau (Cordy 1995). The region of H61ualoa developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine reigned 1700-1720) (Cordy 2000:244). Many `ah`i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites are known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The royal center at H61ualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu`u and Keauhou region. The Kona Field System During his travels in the region in 1823 William Ellis noted that the area above and south of Kailua was: quite a garden compared with that through which they had passed on first leaving the town. It was generally divided into small fields, about fifteen rods square, fenced with low stone walls, made of fragments of lava which had been gathered from the surface of the enclosures. These fields were planted with bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, tapa trees, melons and sugar cane, flourishing luxuriantly in every direction [Handy 1940:114 and 162]. Rocky lands in the olden days were walled up all around with big and small stones of the patch until there was a wall about 2 feet high and in the enclosure were but weeds of every kind, ama`u tree ferns and so on, and then topped well with soil taken from the patch itself to enrich it [Handy 1940:147]. These gardens have been studied in some detail, and are often referred to as the Kona Field System". Many of the archaeological projects conducted within Kona deal with components of the Kona Field System(Cordy 1995; Newman 1970; Schilt 1984). This area extends north at least to Ka`u Ahupua`a and south to Honaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy 1995). A large portion of this 14 area is designated in the Hawaii SHIP (State Inventory of Historic Places) as Site 50-10- 37-6601. The basic characteristics and general locations of the zones within the system as presented in Newman (1970) have been confirmed and elaborated on by more intensive and extensive ethnohistorical investigations (Kelly 1983). The kula zone of the Kona Field System is the area from sea level to 150 m amsl. This lower elevation zone is traditionally associated with habitation and the cultivation of sweet potatoes (uala), paper mulberry(wauke), and gourds (ipu). Agricultural features, such as clearing mounds, planting mounds, planting depressions, modified outcrops, and planting terraces, are common throughout much of this zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Folk 1980; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). Dwellings are often scattered throughout the agricultural portion of the kula, but they are commonly concentrated along the shoreline subdivision of the kula zone (Cordy 1981). The shoreline zone, extending inland approximately 200 m, was used primarily for permanent habitation and other non-agricultural activities, such as canoe storage, ceremonial and burial practices, recreation, and fishing-related activity. Royal centers and high chiefly centers were also situated within the shoreline of the kula. These complexes include dwellings for rulers, chiefs, and the supporting populace, places of refuge, and other structures. Single, or clustered, burials are also situated in the shoreline, and near-shore kula(Han et al. 1986; Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Meeker 1979). Burials occur in caves, within finely built platforms, cruder rock mounds, and houses in the shoreline, and are more often in the near-shore kula Cordy 1995; Han et al. 1986; Schilt 1984; Tainter 1973; Tomonari-Tuggle 1993). The large, and densely populated, royal centers were situated at several locations along the shoreline between Kailua and Honaunau(Cordy 1995; Tomonari-Tuggle 1993). The residential areas, large and small heiau, sporting areas, and burial clusters, are present continuously farther inland than the usual 200 meters for the shoreline habitation portion of the kula. Consequently, a variety of non-agricultural features are present in the kula near royal centers. The kalu`ulu zone above 150 m amsl is a wetter region above the kula where bread fruit and other arboreal crops were cultivated(Kelly 1983). Sweet potatoes Qpomoea batatas), ti, (Cordyline fruticosa) wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera), taro Colocasia esculenta), and sugar cane (Saccharum sp.), planted among the arboreal 15 crops, were mulched with grass (Menzies1920:75-76). The current project area is in the kalu`ulu zone. Above the kalu`ulu zone, in the `apa`a zone, fields with low stone walls were cultivated with bananas, sweet potatoes, taro, wauke, melons, ti and sugar cane. The apa`a zone was notable for fresh water springs. Above the `apa`a zone was the `ama`u zone where walled fields were created to grow plantains and bananas. Timber from various tree species was collected from the `apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone. Bird catching and other forest resources extraction activities were conducted in these upper two zones. Temporary habitations were constructed to be used seasonally when working in the uplands. In the region, people initially moved into coastal settings and more upland settings (e.g., the `apa`a agronomic zone) at the same time, essentially ignoring the drier intermediate zone (except, of course, as a throughway between their gardens and the sea). In this way, the first settlers could immediately plant seedlings in the wetter uplands, knowing the crops would succeed. Permanent settlement would have first been restricted to the coast, but the same people would have also been occupying the uplands (at least temporarily) as well. It is only later that the `intermediate zone'(and the kalu`ulu agronomic zone), would have been utilized for planting. POST-CONTACT ERA The extensive features of the Kona Field System were exploited and altered during the post-contact era. Walls, kua`iwi, springs, and pathways created generations earlier were used and planted with alien cultigens (coffee, cotton, sugar, citrus, and sisal) and ultimately used as pastures for cattle. Ranching has its roots in the first cattle and sheep brought to the island in 1793 and 1794 by Vancouver. Two cows, three bulls, five ewes, and five rams were released to prosper in the region of Kealakekua in 1794 (Vancouver 1967:(3)11). Kamehameha placed a ten-year kapu on the killing of cattle so that they would have the opportunity to multiply. A 486-acre stone corral was built in the uplands of Lehu`ula-Honua`ino, above Kainaliu where they were raised (Bowser 1880, cited in Maly and Maly 2001:285). Two American captains, William Shaler and Richard Cleveland presented two horses to John Young in 1803. Cleveland later returned with more than 200 horses 16 brought from California. Donkeys, mules and oxen were also imported for transportation and hauling. Goats were also brought to the island and left to multiply in the wild. By 1813 to 1815 cows began overrunning agricultural fields and became a danger to travelers and residents (Ellis 1963: 291; Wilkes 1970: 204). A number of walls were commissioned to keep feral sheep, goats, and cattle out of agricultural areas and away from homes. By 1848, in Kona District a Great Wall(the Kuakini Wall) was constructed from Lanihau to `Onouli (Maly and Maly 2001:286). In 1830 Governor Kuakini moved to oversee and improve government cattle by constructing corrals. Liholiho visited the same year to witness strides made in the nascent cattle ranching industry. It was hoped that the exportation of tallow, hides, and salted beef would supplant the defunct Sandalwood trade as a major source of income. Several ventures related to ranching, including tallow making, tanning, saddle making, and blacksmithing were initiated(Bergin 2004: 156). Cowhide was tanned using the astringent bark of local trees (Wilkes 1970: 218). The lion's share of commercial enterprises on the island involved supplying whaling ships and the local market with beef. The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at middle and upper elevations, and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Cattle ranching and clearing for sugar cane and coffee removed many of the endemic species of plants. The suite of vegetation that existed prior to the pre-Contact era were replaced by koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and other newly introduced invasive plant species. Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, coastal Kona was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. It became a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou(Tomonari-Tuggle 1993:15). Homesteads, ranches, and plantations developed in the uplands during this period as reflected in the pattern of Land Commission Awards (LCA) and Land Grants (LG)recorded during the Mdhele. 17 THE MAHELE With the coming of the Great Mahele (1848), the Alien Land Ownership Act 1850) and the Kuleana Act(1850), the traditional Hawaiian archetype of land-use was essentially deconstructed and replaced with the European concept of fee-simple land ownership. Article IV of the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles was passed in December 1845 and began the legal process of private land ownership. Through the Mahele of 1847-48 the Alien Land Ownership Act of 1850 and the Kuleana Act of 1850, land was made available for private ownership. The Mahele established a board of five commissioners to oversee land claims and to issue patents and leases for valid claims. Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) established and ratified laws to protect Hawaiian crown lands as foreigners began claiming ownership of land they were granted permission to use for homes and business interests Daws 1968:111; Kame`eleihiwa 1992: 169-70, 176; Kelly 1983: 45; Kuykendall 1938(1): 145 footnote 47, 152, 165-6, 170;). Among other things, foreigners were demanding private ownership of land to secure their island investments (Kame`eleihiwa 1992: 178; Kuykendall 1938(1): 138, 145, 178, 184, 202, 206, 271). Under the Mahele and subsequent acts (the Kuleana Act of 1850 and the Alien Land Ownership Act of 1850), the lands of the kingdom of Hawaii were divided among the king (crown lands), the ah`i and konohiki, and the government. Once lands were thus divided and private ownership was instituted, the maka`dinana (commoners), if they had been made aware of the procedures, were able to claim the plots on which they had been cultivating and living as stipulated in the Kuleana Act(1850). These claims, however, could not include any previously cultivated or presently fallow land, okipu`u, stream fisheries, or many other resources traditionally necessary for survival (Kame`eleihiwa 1992:295; Kelly 1983:45-76; Kirch and Sahlins 1992 vol.1:3, 135-137, and vol.2:2). The right of claimants to land was based on the written testimony of at least two witnesses who could corroborate the claimant's long-standing occupation and use of the parcel(s) in question. The claimant might have been awarded a patent for the property, subsequently called Land Commission Awards (LCAs) (Chinen 1961:16). The Land Commission awarded the majority of H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a to Victoria Kamamalu Ka`ahumanu IV,Kahina Nui of Hawaii Island and Crown Princess of Hawaii as Land Commission Award(LCA)Number 7713, `Apana 43 (Figure 6). 18 H pa .r m y ..,,._ yWFy" .a''"""K,,,s 'F.r LJ y?• // y 5+.HW/' r o'w' 8 nor i rr-A— "7 AA LJ gad /» Figure 6: Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952). 19 Several smaller LCA and Land Grant (LG)properties were also recorded in the upland region of H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a (Figure 7). Twenty four Land Commission awards were recorded in Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a, the ahupua`a where the project area is located(see Figure 7 and Table 2). Table 2: Land Commission Awards Recorded in Holualoa lst and 2nd Ahupua`a. LCA#AWARDED TO AHUPUA`A ACRES 3660 John G. Munn H61ualoa 1" 111.5 4395 Kekoi H61ualoa 1" 1.7 5552 Kauila H61ualoa 1" 1.9 5554 Keawekolohe H61ualoa 1" 11.27 5795 Kehikanakaole H61ualoa 2 nd 2.2 5810 Kaopukauila H61ualoa 1" 1.74 5993 Leipalapala H61ualoa 2 nd 2.0 6063 Hana H61ualoa 1" 2.9 6107 Naai H61ualoa 1" 3.94 7339 Kuaana H61ualoa 1" 4.15 7340 Kama 2 H61ualoa 1" 2.5 7340:B Kama 1 H61ualoa 1" 1.3 7443 Kahma as H61ualoa 1 St 1.94 H61ualoa l st 7713 Kamamalu n& Large H6lualoa 2 7746 Kamahalo H61ualoa 1" 5.0 7794 Kauakini H61ualoa 1 St 1.8 7990 Pupuka H61ualoa 1 St 1.1 8015 Aipo H61ualoa 2° 1.4 8151 Hehena H61ualoa 1 St 2.3 8223 Ikaiaka H61ualoa 1 St 3.5 9915 Limahana H61ualoa 1 St 2.42 9932 Lumaawe H61ualoa lst 2.98 10770 Puuone H61ualoa 1 St 3.06 10400 Naaimakaohi H61ualoa 1st& H6lualoa 2nd 3.5 A portion of LCA#3660 to John G. Munn makes up a thin strip of land located through the center of the current project area. With the notable exception of LCA#3660 and a few other large LCAs, the average award was 2.8 acres, most (n=16) were for less than 3.0 acres. Three Land Grants (LG#1592, 1602, and 3630) were also recorded in Holualoa lst and 2nd Ahupua`a. LG#1592 was a 25.0-acre parcel sold to Kealalio and LG#3630 was a 38.2-acre parcel sold to W.H. Cromwell. Almost all of the awards and grants were used as subsistence and commercial farm land, and some were used to pasture cattle (Escott and Escott 2018). 20 y.. awn 1` M r r r. pp r M. o x„.,e. eT mE rvrr .•r Fr,.,,,....r c-.,. Figure 7: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards,Land Grants,and the Project Area(National Geographic Topo!,2003,Kealakekua Quad. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 21 EARLY POST-CONTACT ERA AND HISTORIC ERA Formal cattle ranching began in the Kona region in the mid-1800s, but wild cattle may have been in the area as early as the late 1700s. The pd `dina (`walls of the land'), native tenants' wall enclosures, were prevalent in the area, as indicated by their inclusion in many local Mahele testimonies. These were used to mark the boundary of properties and to keep livestock out of crop areas (Kuykendall 1957:318 note 76). Later, cattle ranchers built walls to control their cattle. In the early 1840s, cattle were said to be "maintained on the kula," a mile from the coast where the ground was "covered with herbage" (Wilkes 1845:4, 95). Cattle, introduced to Kona by Vancouver in 1794, became a nuisance later, when their numbers increased. They fed on the grass of the kula and from time to time on the thatch of Hawaiians' homes and on vegetables in their gardens. The open upland fields, bounded only by low earth and stone walls, were in full cultivation in the 1850s [Kelly 1983:76]. Ranchers leased land below the railroad to graze cattle that they owned(Kelly 1983:111). Higher walls were built in the 1920s and 1930s to control animals. According to Joe Gomes, a longtime rancher in the area, Walls about 3 ft high can keep donkeys penned. The usual wall is about 4 1/2 ft high and keeps cattle in. For goats you need a wall 6 to 8 ft high. For wild pigs you need a 6 to 8 ft-high wall. They climb over lower walls easily. They come down from the mountains for macadamia nuts and also in mango season for mangoes [Kelly 1983:112]. Sugar was a major crop in Hawaii as early as signing of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1876 (Kelly 1983:90). The sugar industry grew rapidly, and by 1899 the only sugar mill in the Kona area was built by the Kona Sugar Company. Many Chinese worked on the sugar plantations (Kelly 1983:111). They built a railroad in 1901 to haul cane from the fields to their mill site along the Wai`aha stream, north of the current project area. The stream did not provide enough water to mill cane year round and company failed in 1903. The Kona Sugar Company was bought by James Castel in 1906 and was later purchased by Japanese investors. The Kona Sugar Company continued to operate until 1926. 22 The railroad was bought by Kona Development Company, and was used for freight, sugarcane and by the Hawaiian Lumber Company. Sugar was grown above the railroad line. The cut sugar was delivered to the tracks with the assistance of gravity, by wire cables and flumes. The rail line was seven miles long and extended from Holualoa to Keopuka(Figure 8). Cotton was grown on lands below the railroad tracks (Kelly 1983:111). Cotton gins were located south of the project area. Cotton was being picked as late as the 1930s. Other plants grown below the tracks in the dryer lands were sisal and tobacco (Kelly 1983:112). Traditional Hawaiian subsistence practices, including the rights to collect resources from all ecological zones of one's ahupua`a, were challenged, restricted, or prevented. As private land owners considered their property off limits to others, cultivation and collection of resources on private land diminished. Individual Hawaiian cultural beliefs, specialized knowledge, and practices associated with the use of the different ecological resource zones also diminished. The development of cattle ranching and commercial crops, such as sugar cane and coffee, removed traditional cultigens and resources from large swaths of the lands of Kona. The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at lower elevations and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, Holualoa was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. The coastal area of Holualoa had become a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou. The project area is just makai (west) of the majority of land commission awards and is at the same elevation as portions of the land grants in the region. Based on historic documents, the project area and surrounding lands were likely being used for subsistence and commercial agriculture, as well as for cattle pasture from the mid to late 1800s. The project area might have been used later than surrounding lands because of its steep slopes and very rocky soil, but based on aerial photographs, the project area was bulldozed sometime around the 1950s in preparation for commercial agriculture. 23 ti 171 e, I w ra A i 0 IIfuMY i 4ilk1. K441 y, I Yj4'y,[ f•;. .tiiY,.. .,{ ` I i( Jim R1"" }+y '°. 1 pU t Figure 8: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928). 24 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES There are at least 33 previous archaeological reports for lands near the current project area, including studies in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1", 2" d, and 3rd Ahupua`a Table 4 and Figure 9). The studies were conducted from the coast to roughly 1,460 ft amsl and encompass the kula region (0-500 ft), the kalu`ulu region (500-1,000 ft), and the lower portions of the `dpa`a region (1,000-2,500 ft). Results of the previous archaeological studies are summarized below by elevation: studies numbered Ithrough 15 in Table 3 and Figure 9 are situated from the coast to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (0- 360 ft amsl), studies 16 through 21 are located from above the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to just below Hualalai Road (306-760 ft amsl), and studies 22 through 24 are above Hualalai Road to just above Mamalahoa Highway (1,100-1,460 ft amsl). Table 3: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations. Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) 1 Landrum et al. 1990 Archaeological N/A 46 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Calis et al.2004 Archaeological Data N/A 10 Sites Recovery 2 Carlson&Rosendahl Archaeological 65 64 Sites 1990 Inventory Survey 3 Haun et al. 1998 Archaeological 15 31 Sites Inventory Survey 4 Hammatt&Folk 1981 Archaeological Survey 20 20 Sites 4 Hammatt et al. 1986 Archaeological Survey 20 21 Sites Excavations 5 Haun&Henry 2001 Archaeological Data 1.59 1 Site Recover 6 Escott 2013 Archaeological 1.962 2 Sites Inventory Survey 7 Sinoto 1979 Archaeological 6 Rock Walls Reconnaissance Survey 8 Hammatt 1979b Archaeological Survey 22 3 Sites 9 Hammatt 1979c Archaeological Survey 23 39 Sites Conolly&Gunness Archaeological 10 46.8 80 Sites 1979 Reconnaissance Survey 10 Hammatt 1979a Archaeological 46.8 11 Sites Inventory Survey 10 Hammatt 1980 Archaeological Survey 103 88 Sites Excavation 11 Nelson et al.205 Archaeological 28 22 Sites Inventory Survey 12 Rosendhal 1978 Archaeological 2.5 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 12 Soehren 1980a Archaeological n/a 7 Sites 25 Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) Reconnaissance Survey 12 Wolforth et al.2000 Archaeological 8 7 Sites Inventory Survey Archaeological 17 3+several ag.13 Barrera 1995 Reconnaissance Survey mounds Archaeological 12(104 Features, 13 Haun&Henry 2000 Inventory Survey 17 82 of Which Were Agricultural) Archaeological Field Modified 14 Rosendahl Inspection 6 Outcrops 15 Schilt 1984 Archaeological Study 17 134 Sites 16 Walker&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 1988 Reconnaissance Survey 16 Graves&Goodfellow Archaeological Data 104 58 Sites 1993 Recovery 16 Maly&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 2006 Preservation Plan 17 Hammatt et al. 1992 Archaeological Survey 174 71 Sites 18 Soehren 1980b Archaeological 16 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 19 Rechtman 2006 Archaeological 1.008 2 Sites Inventory Survey 20 Rosendahl 1988 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Reconnaissance Survey 20 Fager&Graves 1993 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Site(149 21 Dircks et al.2013 Archaeological 10.266 Historic to Inventory Survey Modern Farming Features) 22 Desilets et al.2004 Archaeological 11.7 1 Homestead Inventory Survey Features 23 Rechtman 2013 29 24 Sites Clark&Rechtman Archaeological 6 Historic Era 24 2006 Inventory Survey 2'7 Sites Archaeological 22 Pre-Contact 25 Escott&Escott 2018 Inventory Surve 5.0 and Historic Era Sites 26 IX'r^!IVm 1 1%Klllib ni I I alMd u,e} IaVKRrlm V I'f4lllm I r, I n Ell KKV 1.X pp... I X fie. Y,; I I n m PRIIJUT AUr r, I1 1 r n-IM BOUNDARY '!N PRS1dECT REFERE^iCE M I:.I F r F3S70fiX11LPJItt#r 1. l li-iNMun! IXNbMIin f IErAlUllm}: IMIIIAII.ni V Failugai}, Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area Kealakekua Quad,ESRI,2013. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 27 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES 1. Landrum et al. 1990, and Calis et al. 2004. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey(Landrum et al. 1990) and SCS, Inc. conducted data recovery investigations (Calis et al. 2004) at the Kahakai development project. The project area is located within the lower elevations of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era cave shelters, agricultural rock clearing mounds, burials, shrines, and a possible heiau were identified during the AIS study. A heiau complex, several burials, and five permanent habitation sites were recommended for preservation. All of the preservation sites are near the coast. 2. Carleson and Rosendahl 1990. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 65 acres between Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways in Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Their study recorded 64 archaeological sites including pre-Contact era habitation, agricultural, and burial sites. Seven sites were assessed as significant and recommended for preservation (Carleson and Rosendahl 1990: 34). 3. Haun et al. 1998. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the proposed Ali`i Drive corridor through several ahupua`a. Numerous pre-Contact era site complexes were recorded in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa I"through 4th Ahupua`a. The site complexes included a large number of agricultural features, as well as habitation, burial, and ceremonial features. 4. Hammatt and Folk 1981, and Hammatt et al. 1986. Two archaeological surveys were conducted on a 20-acre parcel of below Kuakini Highway. The first study recorded 20 sites, and the second recorded 21 sites. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt and Folk 1981: ii, and Hammatt et al. 1986: 87). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated. 5. Haun & Henry 2001. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological data recovery study at a c-shaped enclosure located on 1.59 acres of land below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway 6. Escott 2013. SCS conducted an archaeological study onl.962 acres of land near the intersection of Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways. Two historic era ranch walls were recorded during the study. 28 7. Sinoto 1979. Aki Sinoto recorded several Historic era ranch rock walls on a six acre parcel of land just mauka of Ali`i Drive. 8. Hammatt 1979b. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 22 acres just south of Kuakini Highway. Three archaeological sites were recorded during the study. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt 1979b: ii, and 10). 9. Hammatt 1979c. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 23 acres located in the near coastal portion of H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a. Thirty nine archaeological sites were recorded during the study. The report recommended that all burials, including a known cemetery site be relocated Hammatt 1979a: 5). None of the remaining sites (pre-Contact era habitation and agriculture sites) were recommended for preservation in place. 10. Conolly and Gunness 1979, and Hammatt 1979a and 1980. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 103 acres within the near coastal portions of H61ualoa 1st through 4th Ahupua`a(Hammatt 1980). One hundred and thirty six archaeological sites were recorded on the project area, including pre-Contact era habitation, agriculture, burial, and ceremonial sites. The Hammatt report recommended that a heiau(Site 6661) was significant and should be preserved in place Hammatt 1980: 4). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated to the perimeter of heiau (Site 6661) and preserved. No other sites were recommended for preservation. 11. Nelson et al. 2005. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting on 28.0 acres located in the near coastal portion of H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 22 sites containing 150 features were recorded. The sites were primarily pre- Contact era agricultural and habitation sites, though five burial sites, a possible heiau, and a trail were also documented within the project area. 12. Rosendahl 1978, Soehren 1980a, Wolforth et al. 2000. PHRI conducted an archaeological inventory survey of eight acres of coastal H61ualoa 3rd Ahupua`a and recorded seven archaeological sites including three Historic era rock walls, three residential sites, and Hikapaia Heiau. 29 13. Barrera 1995, Haun & Henry 2000. Barrera (1995) recorded a possible burial platform, two habitation site, agricultural rock clearing mounds and modified outcrops during a reconnaissance survey of 17 acres in near coastal H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the property and recorded 12 sites with 104 features (Haun and Henry 2000:14). The majority of features n=82) were pre-Contact era agricultural rock clearing mounds. Eleven permanent habitation and one temporary habitation feature were also recorded during the study. 14. Rosendahl 1989. PHRI conducted an archaeological field inspection of 6.0 acres of land just below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Several modified outcrops were recorded in the letter report. There were no other archaeological features identified on the project area. 15. Schilt 1984. The Bishop Museum conducted an archaeological study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Project located roughly along present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and recorded 39 sites Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Twenty two of the sites were pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural gardens and modified outcrops (rock clearing). There were also traditional habitation platforms and trails, as well as Historic era roads and walls recorded during the study. 16. Walker and Rosendahl 1988, Graves and Goodfellow 1993, and Maly and Rosendahl 2006. An archaeological reconnaissance survey(Walker and Rosendahl 1988), an archaeological data recovery study(Graves and Goodfellow 1993), and an archaeological preservation plan (Maly and Rosendahl 2006)were conducted by PHRI, Inc. for 104 acres in the upland region of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 67 sites were documented within the project area, including traditional (KFS) sites, temporary habitation sites, three burials, and a heiau. The archaeological preservation plan recommended that the three burials be relocated to the heiau site, and that the heiau be preserved as a formal historic preservation area (Maly and Rosendahl 2006). 17. Hammatt et al. 1992. An archaeological survey was conducted by Cultural Surveys Hawaii on 174 acres of land in the upland region of H61ualoa 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ahupua`a. The project area lands had been heavily bulldozed during the modern era for ranching and agricultural purposes. Despite the bulldozing, seventy one sites were recorded during the study, including temporary habitation features, rock walls, agricultural features, and 30 three burial sites. Many of the sites were determined to be associated with Historic era ranching and agriculture. 18. Soehren 1980b. Soehren conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey of 16.0 acres above Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the inland region of H61ualoa I" Ahupua`a (Soehren 1980b). A single enclosure was identified during the survey. 19. Rechtman 2006. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting, LLC on a roughly one-acre parcel located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Two rock walls were recorded on the project area. The report recommended no further work at the wall sites. 20. M. Rosendahl 1988, Fager & Graves 1993. Fager and Graves (1993) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 17.0 acres just mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 3rd Ahupua`a. Seventeen sites containing 27 pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural features, including rock mounds, modified outcrops, C- shaped enclosures, terraces, walls, and rock enclosures, were recorded. 21. Dircks et al. 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 10.266 acres of land located between 840 and 920 ft amsl in H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. One Historic era to modern era homestead/agriculture site (Miyose Farm) containing 149 features was recorded during the survey. 22. Desilets et al. 2004. Desilets et al. (2004) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 11.7 acres of land in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. A single site associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture (coffee), and ranching was recorded. Features included rock walls, roads, coffee terraces, and buildings. 23. Rechtman 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted and archaeological inventory survey of 29 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. Twenty four sites were recorded. The majority of the sites were associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture. Features included rock walls, roads, and remnants of structures. A single pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era residential and agricultural site was also recorded. 31 24. Clark& Rechtman 2006. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 2.7 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. Six sites were recorded, including five ranch walls and an area of coffee terraces. A number of conclusions can be made from the previous archaeological studies. A primary conclusion is that the majority of habitation features, especially permanent habitation features, are located from the coast to about 360 ft amsl, below the present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The same is true of ceremonial features, burials, and, to a lesser extent, agricultural features. The density of agricultural features and habitation features, mostly temporary habitation features, in the upland regions between 360 ft amsl and 700 ft amsl is much lower than the site density in the coastal kula and lower kalu`ulu regions of the KFS. The pre-Contact traditional Hawaiian settlement and agricultural patterns are strongly oriented to the kula and lower kalu`ulu regions. Even though cattle ranching and commercial agriculture may have removed some archaeological sites from the ground surface in the kalu`ulu region, there appear to be fewer sites than at lower elevations. The majority of sites in the kalu`ulu region are KFS agricultural sites including rock clearing mounds, modified outcrops, garden enclosures, and low garden walls. Within the lands of the current project, it is clear that ranching and commercial agricultural practices have removed and damaged many of the pre-Contact era sites from the ground surface (see the Hammatt et al. 1992 summary below). Moreover, many of the sites identified near the current project area are associated with Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture. A second conclusion is that the establishment of Historic era homesteads, ranches, and commercial agriculture seems to have removed, or obscured, the majority of pre- Contact era sites in the upper kalu`ulu and lower `apa`a regions. It might be that pre- Contact uses in these regions did not involve the construction of large or permanent features, as in the lower regions of Kona. It is also likely that Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture in the lower `apa`a region have caused large scale land alterations through the use of bulldozers for pasture and garden. It is possible that traditional features were disassembled to build rock walls and coffee terraces. 32 25. Escott & Escott 2018. SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey on a 5.0- acre portion of Parcel 017 (Escott and Escott 2018) and recorded twenty-two new archaeological sites within the project area (Table 4 and Figure 10). Fifteen of the sites are single-feature sites. The remaining seven agricultural sites contained two to seven features. A majority of the sites are agricultural terraces and complexes dating to the pre- Contact era to the Historic era. The agricultural complexes are located in the lower kalu`ulu zone, between 600 and 700 feet(182 to 213 meters) amsl. Three of the ranch walls (Site #50-10-37-30595, #50-10-37-30601, and#50-10- 37-3065) are the primary dividers of the five-acre project area. All site numbers in this report are preceded by the numerical prefix#50-10-37, and hereafter only the last five digits of the site number is used. The Historic era walls have typical characteristics of ranch walls including cobble core fill and bi-faced inward sloping walls toward the top. They are approximately 1.0 meter tall. Site 30602 and 30603 are Historic era ranching and agricultural enclosures constructed along wall Site 30595 and wall Site 30601. These two wall sites are constructed onto the west edge of the Site 30592 railroad berm and post-date the railroad berm. The northern third of the project area only has two sites (Site 30591 and 30956). Site 30591 is an agricultural complex with six terraces. Portions of the sites were bulldozed in the early Modern era. Both sites date to pre-Contact to early Historic era. The terraces reflect Kona Field System features but are roughly constructed that more closely resemble Historic era commercial agriculture. Site 30956 is a rectangular Historic style hearth. The middle one third of the project area between wall sites 30595 and is within the bulldozed "terraces" portion of the project area. Site is a pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era lava tube burial. The burial will be preserved in place in accordance with a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan. Site 30594 is an agricultural terrace complex that resembles the Kona Field System but is more roughly constructed. Artifacts recovered from subsurface testing at Site 30604 suggest it is a Historic era agricultural terrace. 33 Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area(Escott and Escott 2018). Site#* Site Type Features Site Function Age Testing 30591 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SPA,2,3 30592 Railroad Bed and Berm 1 Transportation Historic Era 30593 Lava Tube Burial 1 Burial Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era 30594 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1&2 30595 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30596 Hearth 1 Food Preparation Historic Era TU-1 30597 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30598 Rock Wall 1 Agriculture/Ranching Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30599 Platform&Enclosure 2 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2,TU-1 30600 Terrace 1 Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 30601 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30602 Enclosure 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1,2,3&4 30603 Enclosure 4 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2 30604 Agricultural Complex 4 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30605 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era 30606 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30607 Agricultural Complex 7 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 to SP-10 30608 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30609 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30610 Terrace 1 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30611 Agricultural Complex 3 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1,2,3 30612 Lava Blister 1 Refuse Dump Historic Era Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. 34 KEY Sill.' 591 PRomcr AREA 51" ,3r,519h IM SITE. r SITE BOUNDARY RAILROAD BFP ROCK NV ALLhtiALL tiftF 3t18{iP r tti STTF MIMI till 41 211 111 rrll KEf 1F=IERN w l'I F:3I[el13 SI I E 3L16111 f:3r15y3 r r. 594 r sly 1:3wJe,lri SI I I 31k,ir SI TIC 305" t rNITV3!!fm ti17 F {ri Yr SI I F 3NSIO 11 F R1rrrl r r Il F ,rh1 9t tiI It r M I I'F:30404 r rI i Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott(2018)AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). 35 The southern third of the project area, south of wall Site 30605, contained six primarily agricultural sites (Site 30598, 30600, 30606, 30607, 30610, and 30611) and four Historic era sites (Site 30599, 30608, 30609, and 30612) with functions other than agriculture. The agricultural features included rock walls (Site 30598 and306O6), terraces (Site 30600 and 30610), and agricultural complexes with terraces (Site 30607 and 30610). The non-agricultural features included three enclosures (Site 30599, 30608, and 30609), and a refuse disposal area lava blister (Site 30612). The cluster of these sites indicates their use for Historic era commercial agriculture. Twenty-nine shovel probes and two excavation units tested the sites. Marine shell fragments, a basalt flake and volcanic-glass flakes recovered during testing indicate that Hawaiians likely used the area for limited agricultural purposes. However, the agricultural terraces more closely resemble the remains of Historic era commercial agriculture. All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study were assessed significant under criterion"d" as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria"a" and"c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The railroad berm was recommended for preservation with preservation measures outlined in an archaeological preservation plan (Escott and Mello 2019b). The rest of the sites require no further work. The burial is also significant under criterion"e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial was recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (Escott and Mello 2019a). 36 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY Lands of the current AIS study were subject to an AIS study conducted by Hammatt et al. (1992). That study encompassed 66.039 acres of land within the current project area located between 320 to 690 feet (98 to 210 meters) amsl [TMK: (3) 7-6- 021:016 and 017] (see Figure 9, Project#17). The current project area is located within the northern portion of the Hammatt et al. (1992)project area. Twenty one archaeological sites and two areas of bulldozed modern planting terraces" were recorded in the AIS report (Figure 11 and Table 5). Eight of the 21 archaeological sites (SIHP #50-10-37-10015, #50-10-37-10017, #50-10-37-10018, #50- 10-37-10020, #50-10-37-10031, #50-10-37-10033, #50-10-37-10034, and#50-10-37- 10049, hereafter abbreviated to the last five digits)were recorded by CSH in tabular format only. Written descriptions of the remaining 13 sites are in the CSH AIS report. Excavations were conducted at ten of the 13 sites. The AIS report included plan view figures for four of the 13 sites. At the request of SHPD, additional site documentation for Sites 10011, 10012, 10031, 10049, and 10071 was submitted to SHPD in a letter report Hammatt and Shideler 2007). Six of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, four associated with habitation, one with agriculture, and one single feature site (Site 10012) contained two burials. Fifteen of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Two Historic era habitation sites were also documented in the AIS study. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1983 see Appendix A Reinterment Documentation). The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. The AIS recommended no further work at all 21 sites documented in the current project area. The Hammatt and Shideler(2007) letter report repeated the AIS recommendation that"all surface sites in the area were documented" in the AIS report and that"significant material from the study area has been recovered and that further investigation would be of minimum productivity" (Hammatt and Shideler 2007:11). However, the authors recommended that the sites should be relocated to document their current conditions and to document the sites to prevailing SHPD AIS standards. 37 1 pvi uoo rn}. KEY PRCNECT'Allf•-A k r 17 •. r:41k OS7UhIlAH1' l,r -` 1111'FC 1 1011'L S ACRE FC(-LI•1(1% 0 6 10(173 0 40 -BUTA 11041*D sl k"F 0 1 rB5y2 NATURAL FEATURE F,: r RAILROAD ......rr i r f 101Y7i -Soup SITE Vl1+1}OF.k E~,/ ,: S 0 50 101) 15U 2410 I fltyJWl meters O I fiS170 a,. 111019 TMKOly-S-lI?f'°Tl h NFi:i3)7i-021:616 v r a a 1n11 a snfJ130 l BURIAL. OI.OIW!7 B tie"e1fT-zn1x R(11E(-T,11«.% 100110 111*31 Oil Oy9 0 Figure 11: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al. (1992)Sites and Current Project Area(ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 38 Table 5: Inventory of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites(Hammatt et al. 1992;Hammatt and Shideler 2007). SIHP# CSH TYPE FUNCTION AGE DOCUMENTATION EXCAVATION CULTURAL MATERIAL SITE# 10011 9 Platform Ag.Clearing Prehistoric Description&1.5 in long trench 3 cowrie shells Planview 10012 10 Platform&Wall Burial Prehistoric Description,Planview, Entire Feature Burial reinterred off-project Profiles 10013 11 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Prehistoric Description&4.5 in square total Fire features&Prehistoric artifacts Planview 10015 13 Terrace Road Bed Historic Description 10017 15 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic Tabular 10018 16 Enclosure Habitation Historic Description 10019 17 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic Description 3 1.0 in wide trenches Metal File 10020 18 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic Description 10031 110 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic Description 10033 112 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic Description 10034 113 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic Description 10049 216 Terraces Agriculture Historic Description 10067 232 Terraces Habitation Prehistoric Description 1.0 X 1.0 in VG&a small amount of midden& fire feature 10068 233 Enclosure Habitation Prehistoric Description& 0.5 X 0.25 in small amount of midden Planview 10069 234 Modified Habitation Historic Description 0.5 X 0.5 in VG&a small amount of midden Bluff/Platform 10070 235 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic Description 1.0 X 0.5 in No artifacts 10071 237 Platform Habitation Prehistoric Description 10072 238 Modified Bluff Ag.Clearing Historic Description 7.0 in square total No arts Small amount of MS in TU-2 10073 239 Platforms&Enclosure Ranching/Ag. Historic Description 1.0 X 1.0 10074 240 Enclosure Coffee Work Historic Description 1.25 in square total 1 VG,little MS,historic artifacts Shed 10075 241 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic Description,Planview, Profile Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. 39 In a letter to the County of Hawaii Department of Planning dated July 30, 2018, Log. No. 2018.00878 Doc. No. 2018.00878), SHPD requested a new pedestrian survey to identify all archaeological historic properties present on the project area, and to update previous archaeological documentation to include site plans for each site with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance. EXPECTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNS Based on previous archaeological studies, geological studies, historical research, interviews, and County Planning Department records it is expected that any archaeological sites remaining on the current project area will be related to traditional pre-Contact era agriculture, temporary habitation, burial practices, and to early post- Contact era and Historic era ranching and agricultural activities. It is likely that many of the pre-Contact to early post-Contact era sites have been removed or disturbed by Historic era and modern ranching and commercial agriculture. This is especially true because the area around the current project era was used as cattle pasture and coffee farming from the Historic era to the present. Additionally, the project area is in a location that was bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and the 1970s in preparation for a commercial agricultural project, most likely coffee growing. Aerial photos clearly show that bulldozer transects were cut north/south across the entire five- acre project area. Archaeological sites and features that are likely to remain on the project area will likely include pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era rock clearing mounds, terraces, small enclosures, platforms, and burials. It is also likely that Historic era and modern features related to ranching and agriculture will also be identified on the project area. These include primarily rock walls constructed to confine cattle. 40 RESULTS OF FIELDWORK Seventeen of the twenty one previously identified archaeological sites were located during the course of the archaeological inventory survey study(Figure 12 and Table 6). All site numbers in this report are preceded by the numerical prefix#50-10-37, and are abbreviated to the last five digits. Two of the previously documented sites (Site 10020 and Site 10034) relocated by SCS are natural bedrock outcrops and one site former burial site (Site 10012). The burials at Site 10012 were reinterred off-project in 1993. The four remaining previously documented sites (Sites 10017, 10033, 10049, and 10071) were bulldozed prior to the SCS fieldwork and the remains of the sites are no longer present on the ground surface. Three previously undocumented sites were also recorded, including a portion of the railroad berm (Site 30592), a small coffee shed enclosure (Site 31181), and several ranch walls (Site 31182). A single petroglyph on a loose cobble was recorded as Isolated Find 1 (IF-1). A total of 21 sites, 17 previously documented and four newly documented, were identified on the project area and are documented in this report. Two of the sites (Site 10020 and Site 10034) were determined to be natural geological features. Six of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, three associated with habitation, one with agriculture, a single petroglyph site, and one single feature site (Site 10012) formerly contained two burials. Twelve of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Two Historic era habitation sites were also documented in the AIS study. One site (Site 10015)was determined to be a short segment of modern bulldozer road. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1993 with the approval of the Hawaiian Island Burial Council (HIBC) and SHPD. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back- filled and leveled by bulldozer. The following site summaries include information from the CSH archaeological studies (Hammatt et al. 1992; Hammatt and Shideler 2007) and new information documented during the current AIS resurvey used to updated site documentation. 41 Ixawla f. t KEY rkultel aWf:,a 0311 1 111U7. M t« 100a3 AN(11 tF 44.04;1(Al.411E. 1#031 Wcl l unarn nl: Q 1 J]YSY2 ti tl l R.l4F k..tl l Nt. RAILROAD C PtRM r I~' H117, •4111P SITF."IIIiIBr. 9i570* sY f 6.i11 R7 MALLS T'1 0...... 30 .IMF tR1)...........21H1 IUD • mrrrn 10014 TMK4 I.INIl IIS1. M1I K:017{420II6 la plll!(i8 1Ud 1.10 t 1UD12p p1UUbv FSiU1781 a BURIAL g,SC17TT2DIW y. IU®11p r kWl•_C7 Akf... 10031 HAIL n IH-1 F 1 ND 10071® a IH9IWIIIw k: Figure 12: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Archaeological Sites and Project Area(ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 42 Table 6: Inventory of Hammatt et al. (1992)Archaeological Sites and Current AIS Results. SIHP# TYPE FUNCTION AGE DOCUMENTATION EXCAVATIONS DISPOSITION 10011 Platform Ag./Temp Habitation Pre-Contact Description,Plan&Photos 1.5 in long trench,TU-1 Recorded 10012 Platform&Wall Burial Pre-Contact Description,Plan,Profiles Entire Feature Removed—No Longer Present Photos 10013 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact Description,Plan&Photos 4.5 in square total Recorded 10015 Bulldozed Road Transportation Modem Description N/A Modem Road Bed 10017 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic Tabular N/A Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10018 Enclosure Agricultural Historic Description N/A Partially Bulldozed 10019 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic Description 3 1.0 in x 1.0 in trenches Recorded 10020 Bedrock Outcrop Geological Feature Natural Description N/A Natural—Not an Archaeological Site 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic Description&Photos N/A Recorded 10033 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic Description N/A Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10034 Bedrock Outcrop Geological Feature Natural Description N/A Natural—Not an Archaeological Site 10049 Terraces Agriculture Historic Description N/A Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10067 Terraces Habitation Pre-Contact Description,Plan,&Photos 1.0 X 1.0 in Recorded 10068 Enclosure Habitation Pre-Contact Description,Plan,&Photos 0.5 X 0.25 in Mostly Bulldozed 10069 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic Description&Photos 0.5 X 0.5 in Recorded 10070 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic Description,Plan&Photos 1.0 X 0.5 in Recorded 10071 Platform Habitation Pre-Contact Description N/A Bulldozed—No Longer Present 10072 Complex Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact Description,Plan&Photos 7.0 in square total Recorded 10073 Complex Ranching/Ag. Historic Description,Plan&Photos TU-1&TU-2 Recorded 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic Description,Plan&Photos 1.25 in square total Recorded 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic Description,Plan&Photos Recorded 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic Description,Plan&Photos N/A Recorded IF-1 Petroglyph Marker Pre-Contact Description,Plan&Photos N/A Recorded 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic Description,Plan&Pho Recorded 31182 Rock Walls Ranching&Ag. Historic Description,Plan&Pho N/A Recorded Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. Orange Shading-Site no longer present. Green Shading—Natural geological feature. Not an archaeological site. 43 SIHP 10011 Platform FUNCTION: Agricultural Rock Clearing/Temporary Habitation AGE: Pre-Contact era DIMENSIONS: 7.50 m in length by 5.0 m wide by 0.86 m in height(max) CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: CSH 1.5 m trench, SCS TU-1 2.4 m by 1.2 m DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10011 is a pre Contact era rectangular stone platform located at 405 ft amsl in the southern portion of the project area (see Figure 12). The platform is approximately 7.50 m by 5.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 0.86 m Figure 13). The platform is constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked two to three courses high along the perimeter and filled with large pebbles, cobbles and small boulders (Figure 14 and Figure 15). Portions of the perimeter are very roughly faced (Figure 16 and Figure 17). The top surface of the platform is slightly uneven and is paved with large pebbles, cobbles, and small boulders see Figure 13 and Figure 15). Portions of the north and west sides have collapsed. The CSH AIS interpreted that the platform to be a prehistoric agricultural rock clearing mound, based on formal construction and size, though they noted that the feature has formal construction elements suggesting possible use other than an agricultural rock clearing. CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: CSH excavated a 1.5 m wide trench through the platform (see Figure 13) and recovered three cowrie shell fragments. The form, construction method and location of the feature suggest that the feature could be a temporary habitation platform used periodically during agricultural activities. However, the near absence of cultural material recovered from the CSH excavation suggests the platform is a pre-Contact era rock clearing mound. 44 C? 14ol 1 0 C'QLLAUSE e+ a O 6 O 4 O a a a o 0 O c ae G c o a PAVING I'A,I N C041o0 i o Cis}i TU-I a 011'A C'?11,.V1`I O N 47 I S1 0 o ° o 0*17 a o v a C ° 0 O Q o o n o 1151 f Kfi 1 C3 L E 11 1 z 4m RNSA1:1 COHRI 11 O - I.L NIBLED B a UI,1'Rt SSION TF3LL El-ILIGH-1 ABO %'E tit 111-i[ L Figure 13: Site 10011 Plan View Map. 45 x k r w 4 r al r Figure 14: Photograph of Site 10011,Looking East. 46 OIL d...a TI IIA f of s A .rr i r Figure 16: Photograph of Site 10011 South Edge Construction,Looking North. 48 r w rb, ••' ia. e a q1 1- err r e -,,ty" Figure 17: Photograph of 11 11 West Edge •Collapse, •• • SCS EXCAVATION RESULTS: SCS excavated a 2.4 m long (N/S)by 1.2 m wide test unit(TU-1) in the southeast quadrant of the platform (see Figure 13). TU-1 was excavated as an architectural layer and three natural stratigraphic layers, and terminated on bedrock(Figure 18 through Figure 20). The natural stratigraphic layers were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels. The Architectural Layer(45 cm maximum thickness) consisted of angular and subangular pebbles, cobbles and small boulders with a small amount of decomposing organic detritus. There were no artifacts, cultural deposits or subsurface features in the architectural layer. The top surface of the architectural layer was a fairly level cobble paving. The architectural layer continued into Layer I and terminated on bedrock approximately 40 cm to 45 cm below the top surface of the feature. Layer I(0-10 curbs) was dark brown (10YR3/3) loose sandy silt loam with blocky peds and 40% cobbles, pebbles and small boulders. The rock excavated in Layer I was architectural rock. The architectural layer continued into Layer II below. Layer I terminated on bedrock on the northern half and the southern end of the unit. In the south half of the unit, the base of Layer I terminated on Layer II sediment and was fairly level and clear. There were no artifacts in Layer I. Layer 11 (10-26 cmbs) was very dark grayish brown(10YR3/2) soft sandy silt with 30% cobbles and small boulders excavated from the south half of TU-1. The rock excavated in Layer II was architectural rock and fragments of exfoliated bedrock. Layer II was excavated as a 10.0 cm Level 1 and a 6.0 cm Level 2. The bottom portion of Layer II, Level 1 (15-20 cmbs) contained a small amount of charcoal flecking, five small pieces of burnt wood(0.48 grams), a small coral fragment(4.9 g) and two very small fragments of vana shell(0.17 g). Layer II, Level 2 did not contain artifacts. Small, thin deposits of very fine Pahala ash were identified in portions of the base of Layer II. Layer II terminated on bedrock along the southern end of TU-1 and terminated on Layer III sediment near the middle of TU-1. The boundary between Layer II and Layer III was fairly level and clear. Layer III(26-90 cmbs)was yellowish brown(10YR5/4) loose fine silt with 50% bedrock cobbles excavated near the middle of TU-1. Layer III did not contain artifacts. 50 r I R1IS] FRUl RJ ILILI 100 Oe i P II 1 i MII l f 1 1 ZOO 1,1F A I 00l 1 f I i 111 t I fl.pie 121k 44) tip S) IUIY 121) 141) 11511 BI) I11-Y _N 2q5[I 3 his LAI ER I:I ARI] RROV%%I Ifl)k3?i SAMOI L ILI LVtAl m-1.%)FR 1h FFRS 1)Rk(;R%)KH RRt1R 1110R i?o'S.%ND"sII:r IAi7 If FI\F GRAF ISFi I.%%VR I117%FI I rl%%IM1 RH(M+ ,i ION IJ A4!1IVF 1,111 BF I)I)Mot k Figure 18: Site 10011 Test Unit 1 West Profile. 51 r r Ssko t o r 1 :' •! . I rt n a 1 f Al f v T Figure 19: Photograph of Site 10011 Test Unit 1 West Profile Looking West. 52 g w k A r. a e6 rii. hv e " I1 _ AL 40 1 Figure 20: Photograph of Site 10011 Test Unit 1 Overview Looking Northeast. 53 Site 10011 was interpreted by CSH as a pre-Contact era agricultural rock clearing mound(ACM)based on the limited amount of cultural material recovered from excavation. TU-1 artifacts recovered during the current AIS study were similar in type and numbers. However, the size and construction of the platform suggest a temporary habitation component. It is possible that the feature was originally constructed by clearing rocks from surrounding agricultural fields and piling them on an exposed bedrock outcrop. However, the completed platform is well constructed with a stacked rock perimeter and level cobble paved surface. The platform is similar to other temporary habitation platforms identified in North Kona. The small number of artifacts recovered from test excavations suggests the platform had limited use, likely as a location for resting and while conducting seasonal gardening. It is also likely that the platform is a late pre-Contact era, or even early post- Contact era feature that was abandoned soon after completion and use. The area surrounding Site 10011 has been impacted by grazing cattle and heavy equipment. The platform has been altered by pasture clearing, is partially collapsed and is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 10011. 54 SIHP 10012 Former Burial Platform FUNCTION: Burial (Reinterred Elsewhere) AGE: Pre Contact era DIMENSIONS: 26 ft. in long by 12 ft. wide, with a maximum height of 4 ft. CONDITION: No longer present INTEGRITY: Altered, does not retain integrity SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: Entire feature excavated DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10012 was an oval shaped platform located at 410 ft amsl approximately 50.0 m north of Site 10011 (see Figure 12). The following description is from Hammatt et al. (1992). The platform was 26 feet long by 12 feet wide with a maximum height of 4 feet(Figure 21). There was no clearly defined level upper surface, paved terrace or rock alignments. The surrounding area was been bulldozed adjacent to the site on all sides except the south side. The site appeared to have been disturbed by this grading and there were rocks bulldozed onto the feature from the north side. CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: The upper 2 to 3 feet of rock fill was removed from the mound and a rectangular alignment measuring 12 by 15 feet was exposed. At the base of the rock fill and partially burying the stone alignment was stratum I light brown silt loam containing organic debris containing volcanic glass, bone and coral artifacts, and adze flakes. On the makai or west side of the site were two stone cupboards with a corbelled construction. These cupboards measured 2 feet in diameter and the interior spaces were one foot high. They appeared to be contemporaneous with the construction of the rectangular alignment. After exposing the rectangular alignment and the cupboard, the interior of the rectangular alignment was excavated. Directly underlying Stratum I in the alignment interior and under the cupboards was a second stratum, designated Stratum IL This was a light grey unconsolidated silt loam which contained wood ash and cultural material including stone, shell and bone artifacts and midden. As this stratum was excavated, a 3 foot wide by 5 foot long stone crypt was exposed. The crypt consisted of a rectangular arrangement of squared boulders. 55 cupboards iKW bee-rock adult ra juvenile r ghh PLAN B a 1 2 a 4 be SECTION A cupboard burial till sir. I laedrrack r ; `` . ; `" -; :,=' ` 7 rLwarked) SECTION B Figure 21: Site 10012 (CSH Site 10)Plan View Map and Excavation Profiles (Hammatt et al. 1992:65). 56 The crypt fill was removed (Stratum II) and the skeletal remains of two individuals was uncovered at a depth of 2 feet below the top of the crypt and resting directly on bedrock. Two skulls were lying 1 inch apart at the northeast end of the crypt and in both cases were articulated to the vertebrae. The skull on the north side was of an adult female. [Hammatt et al. 1992:64] The unfused cranial sutures particularly the coronal suture also show a mature but young age. The skull was articulated to the vertebrae and the scapulae, the clavicles and the pelvis were all in articulated position. An examination of the sacrum and hip bone show characteristics of a female. All long bones were absent including tibia, fibulae ulna, radius and humerus. However, the articulated hands and feet had been placed on the pelvis with fingers and toes pointing upwards. The skeleton of the child immediately to the south was completely articulated and semi flexed. All skeletal parts were present but were in a partially decomposed state. It is clear from the stratigraphic context that both skeletons were buried at the same time. It was not possible to determine the sex of the child. The first molar had partially emerged indicating a child between the age of 4 and 6. There were no anomalies observed in the skeletal parts. A summary of the stratigraphic events which occurred at the site are as follows: 1. An enclosure was constructed with roughly stacked boulders on 3 sides and a double alignment of vertical slabs on the other. 2. The enclosure was occupied and used for every day work activities and food consumption. This resulted in the deposition of Stratum 11 which includes stone adze fragments and shell and bone artifacts. 3. A stone lined crypt was constructed at the base of the Site and intrusive into the occupation deposits of Stratum 11. 4. Two human skeletons were interred in the crypt, one child(6i-6 years) and one adult female (18-25 years). Before the adult female was interred and while she was still with musculature her long bones were removed and her separated hands and feet were placed on her pelvis. 57 5. Following the internment of the burial, the crypt was filled and covered with reworked deposits of Stratum 11. The two cupboards were constructed on the makai side of the crypt possibly for the purpose of marking the burial site. 6. Stones were piled on the crypt and on the cupboards to create a level living surface and the site was once again occupied resulting in the deposition of Stratum I which filtered through the rock fill. 7. During modern bulldozing of the area around the site rocks were piled on the top and sides giving what was a level platform a mound like appearance. A radiocarbon sample collected 30-40 curbs and associated with the burial returned a date of A.D. 1830±50 (Hammatt et al. 1992:107). The burial platform at Site 10012 was completely excavated and the remains were reinterred off-project (see Appendix A Reinterment Documentation). The excavated site was backfilled and leveled with a bulldozer. The site location was relocated by SCS during the current AIS study. The present ground surface is level bulldozed rock(Figure 22). Site 10012 is no longer present and no further work is recommended. 58 rds a SIHP 10013 Enclosure & Platforms FUNCTION: Habitation AGE: Pre Contact era DIMENSIONS: 18.3 m long (NW/SE)by 18.3 m wide, 0.9 m max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and some workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: CSH excavated seven test-units totaling 4.5 square meters DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10013 is a roughly square pre-Contact era enclosure and a small modified lava tube located approximately 200 meters northeast of Site 10011 see Figure 12). As indicated in the CSH AIS report and confirmed by SCS during the current AIS study, the enclosure is nearly square (60 feet long NW/SE by 60 feet wide, exterior dimensions) and is constructed roughly level ground (Figure 23). The enclosure walls range from five (5) feet wide on the mauka side to nearly ten 10) feet wide on the makai side where the outside facing is three (3) feet high relative to the exterior ground surface on the makai side of the structure. The enclosure walls were probably higher originally but at present they appear to have been knocked down by previous bulldozing operations. The walls are primarily 30 to 50 cm in height above the modern ground surface (Figure 24 and Figure 25). The walls are constructed of angular and subangular basalt large cobbles and small boulders stacked and piled two to three courses high on the ground surface. They are roughly faced in places. The northwest corner of the enclosure has been bulldozed. The enclosure interior(measuring 35 feet mauka-makai by 45 feet north-south) was predominantly dirt with a rock platform about 20 feet square situated near the center of the interior. Immediately mauka (5 feet) of the northeast corner of the enclosure was a low, boulder platform about 15 feet by 20 feet (see Figure 23). The platform appears to have been run over by a bulldozer and is no longer present. There is a one (1) foot square and one (1) feet deep opening in the east corner of the site (see Figure 23 and Trench 7 excavation description below). [Hammatt et al. 1992:68]. 60 r ubble Olt 'c- Tfi y B(JI.Y,DOZEDa—C'tL l d1Sr fcauflh kTA w a rr CD r u. P i Rl.'I,I,DOZF.D 1 y t tl cl Y> r"..C;'1 Via+`•'' c'.Gf`ri". gyp T 7 C>xza.,;XiD C. lava rt1 tube r l 0 Figure 23: Site 10013 Plan View Map Showing Test Units (Hammatt et al. 1992:69). 61 1 1 L kY i x W V a 01 r Figure 24: Photograph of Site 10013 Enclosure South Corner and West Wall,Looking Northwest. 62 q ,.i'' a fir*•* t .'1 r t' {ass- lop" ti. y 1 /v; "'"' 1"' ,`'. Md ref 1• dp. p, 7 :1 15 ' 1• {.(-' ' + i fj{PYc.r *,. rr N a I k ry. p w yS q, e r gRFe it Av 40 tw Figure 26: Photograph of Site 10013 Northeast Platform(Left Top Corner)and Tube Opening(Foreground),Looking Northeast. 64 CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: Close inspection of the dirt surface in the interior of Site 10013 showed that the makai area contained a dark grey to black dirt while in the mauka portion the dirt layer was a reddish brown and generally shallow with exposed bedrock. The makai portion of the site was chosen for the first excavation on the basis of sediment color(grey to black sediments in sites usually being a good indicator of human activity and potential depth. A total of 4.5 square meters (Trenches 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6)were excavated adjacent to the makai wall. Trenches 1 and 6 established the presence of a single cultural layer up to 30 cm. thick overlain by 10 cm. to 20 cm. of modern Al horizon. These two (2) trenches produced six (6)basaltic glass flakes, a polished adze flake and two (2) coral file fragments. Trenches 2, 3 and 5 adjoin one another and are situated in the northwest corner of the site interior. They defined the limits of a large rock lined hearth area with multiple ash lens contained in it. A substantial amount of midden material was present in the hearth(Refer to Table 8). A total of 33 items listed as artifacts included a one piece bone fish hook fragment, a piece of worked mammal bone, coral file, saw and abrader fragments, wana file fragments, polished adze flakes and basaltic glass flakes. Trench 4 was excavated into the platform in the center of the structure. Bedrock was present at a depth of only 20 cm. below the platform surface, that being at the level of the dirt surface of the site in the other trenches. Some midden was present in the gaps in the bedrock and one polished adze flake and one basaltic glass flake were also recovered from trench 4. Hammatt et al. 1992:68] A final excavation (Trench 7) was excavated in the platform just mauka of the enclosure. This involved removal of rocks to a depth of two (2) meters where a capped off entrance to a lava tube was found. The lava tube five (5) feet wide was accessible for fifteen(15) feet in a mauka direction. It was fully explored and was found to exhibit no signs of human use. A slight flow of cool air through the tube and the absence of cultural material within the tube suggest that its primary function may have been a source of ventilation for the platform built over it. On the basis of size, thickness of the cultural layer, complexity of the structural remains and the variety of cultural items present Site 10013 is a good example of a semi-permanent or permanent occupation site. The two (2) platforms (one inside and one outside of the enclosure) suggest the former presence of pole and thatch structures. The excavations clearly show the primary work area in the site was along the makai edge of the enclosure. [Hammatt et al. 1992:71] 65 Site 10013 has been impacted by heavy equipment prior to and following the CSH AIS study and is in poor condition. The majority of the walls of the enclosure have been impacted by bulldozing although portions of the base of the enclosure walls are visible on the ground surface. No further work is recommended at Site 10013. SIHP 10015 Bulldozer Road Segment FUNCTION: Transportation AGE: Modern DIMENSIONS: 12.0 m long (N/S)by 2.4 m wide CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: None, not an archaeological site SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: No DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10015 is a bulldozer road edge located 560 ft amsl in the center of Parcel 017 (see Figure 12). The site was recorded by CSH as a terrace. SCS relocated the feature and after clearing determined that it is the edge of a bulldozer road cut along a fairly steep slope. The earthen makai edge of the bulldozer road is similar in appearance to an earthen terrace. The feature is not an archaeological site and no further work is recommended. SIHP 10018 Enclosure Remnant FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 5.0 m long (N/S)by 1.0 m wide by 1.0 m height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: No DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10018 is a the remains of an enclosure located at 580 ft amsl 120 m northeast of Site 10015 (see Figure 12). The site was recorded by CSH as a rectangular enclosure with core-filled walls 0.6 m(2 to 3 feet) high and 3.0 m by 6.0 m 10 by 20 feet) across the interior dimensions. The walls were 1.8 to 2.4 m. (6 to 8 feet) thick and with much collapsed rubble. Based on the enclosure size and construction, and the presence of numerous coffee trees surrounding the enclosure, CSH interpreted the site to be associated with coffee agriculture. 66 SCS relocated a remnant of the west wall of the enclosure where it is constructed to abut onto the west side of the Site 31182 Feature 3 wall(Figure 27 and Figure 28). The wall segment is roughly 6.0 m long (N/S)by 1.3 m wide and is 1.4 m in maximum height. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders stacked on the ground surface. The wall is roughly bi-faced and is not core-filled. The north end of the wall has been bulldozed and the north and east enclosure walls have been bulldozed and are no longer present. Site 10018 was likely an Historic era enclosure likely associated with agriculture or ranching. All but a small portion of the enclosure west wall at Site 10018 has been bulldozed. The remaining wall has been altered by ranching and bulldozing and is badly collapsed. The site is in poor condition, contains very little integrity and no further work is recommended. SIHP 10019 Rock Clearing Mounds FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 5.0 m long (N/S)by 1.0 m wide by 1.0 m height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location and setting SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: No DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10019 is a complex of six rectangular and oval rock mounds (Features A through F) located between 490 and 500 ft amsl 120 m northeast of Site 10013 (see Figure 12). The rock mounds are located around a seasonal gulch and the site is roughly 20.0 m in diameter. The rock mounds are 2.0 to 3.0 meters in diameter and range in height from 0.6 to 0.9 m. The rock mounds are constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled on the ground surface. Several of the rock mounds were constructed by constructing an outside perimeter of slightly larger rocks and then infilling them with slightly smaller rocks. This type of rock clearing mound construction was commonly used in Historic to modern era coffee and sugarcane fields across Hawaii Island. 67 41 411 81) 1291 160 t III Lil. I.l.rlr l/4.11 o 1UI1.l LEVEL CC 01L.& It Il•31f1 1 1 fi 01 looll 1L r l 1 141, t C'tiPl'til f ffa'tiT1`t I ti 711 1 F\I1- R1 t 41.I ICOCK i\ol, I I AOLE Figure 27: Site 10018 Remnant Enclosure Wall Plan View Map. 68 4 i A Figure 28: Photograph of Site 10018 Enclosure Wall and Site 31181 Feature 3 Ranch Wall Corner Looking Southeast. 69 CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: Three of the mounds were cross sectioned by CSH with one meter wide trenches oriented mauka-makai. All of the trenches were excavated to bedrock with no midden material or artifacts occurring. However, in the excavation of feature B a rusted metal file was discovered under a large slab at the base of the mound. This find leaves little doubt that this feature is historic in age and this conclusion is applied to all other features in this complex. Site 10019 was relocated during the current study. The rock mounds are no longer intact and all that remains are scattered concentrations of rocks where the mounds were once located. The rock mounds were either altered by flooding or were knocked over by bulldozing. The location of the rock mounds adjacent to the stream channel indicates that they are stone agricultural clearing mounds likely constructed by coffee planters (Hammatt et al. 1992:27). Site 10019 has been altered by flooding and bulldozing and is in poor condition. The type, function and age of the rock clearing mounds was determined through feature construction and text excavations, and no further work is recommended for Site 10019. SIHP 10020 Bedrock Outcrop FUNCTION: Natural geological feature, not an archaeological site AGE: N/A DIMENSIONS: 2.4 m long by 3.0 m wide CONDITION: N/A INTEGRITY: N/A SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: No DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10020 is located at 450 ft amsl approximately 70 m north of Site 10013 (see Figure 12). The site is described in the CSH AIS table as a platform. The area where Site 10020 was plotted on the project map is an area of bulldozed pasture with natural bedrock outcrops and loose rocks. A roughly rectangular pile of natural bedrock boulders was identified at the location of Site 10020. The boulders are naturally occurring bedrock small boulders and cobbles. There is a portion along the west side of the pile that appears to contain bulldozer push from a nearby wall breach. The top of the rock pile is uneven but somewhat level. There is no stacking or facing apparent on the rock pile. 70 The rock pile is natural, but its roughly rectangular shape and somewhat level top surface make it appear to be a possible archaeological feature. It is likely that CSH added the feature to their pedestrian survey summary table for these reasons. CSH did not include a site description or map of the feature in the AIS report, likely because it was determined to be natural. No further work is recommended at Site 10020. SIHP 10031 Enclosure Remnant FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 12.2 m long (NE/SW)by 2.0 m wide by 0.8 m max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: No DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10031 is a the remains of an enclosure located between 380 ft and 390 ft amsl near the southeast boundary of the project area (see Figure 12). The site was recorded by CSH as a remnant enclosure wall 12.2 m long NE/SW). The wall is L-shaped and is likely the northwest side and north corner of an enclosure. Based on the enclosure size and construction, and its location, CSH interpreted the site to be associated with keeping cattle out of an agricultural field Hammatt and Shideler 2007:10). SCS relocated the wall and confirmed that the CSH documentation is correct. The L-shape wall segment is roughly 12.2 m long (NE/SW)by 0.6 to 1.0 m wide and is 0.8 m in maximum height. The wall is constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked on the ground surface (Figure 29). It is cobble and small boulder core filled and roughly bi-faced. The wall has been bulldozed on both ends and the other three sides of the enclosure have all been removed by bulldozing. All but a small portion of the northwest enclosure wall at Site 10031 has been bulldozed. The site is in poor condition, contains very little integrity and no further work is recommended. 71 w r' A Figure 29: Photograph of Site 10031 Remnant Enclosure Wall,Looking Southeast. 72 SIHP 10034 Bedrock Outcrop FUNCTION: Natural geological feature, not an archaeological site AGE: N/A DIMENSIONS: 2.5 m long by 1.8 m wide CONDITION: N/A INTEGRITY: N/A SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: No DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10034 is located at 475 ft amsl approximately 55 m northeast of Site 10020 (see Figure 12). The site is described in the CSH AIS table as a platform. The feature was relocated along the north edge of a seasonal gulch during the current AIS fieldwork. The feature is a natural bedrock outcrop roughly 2.5 m long E/W) by 1.8 m wide by 0.35 m high. The outcrop is a pile of exfoliated bedrock and is natural, but its shape and somewhat level top surface make it appear to be a possible archaeological feature. It is likely that CSH added the feature to their pedestrian survey summary table for these reasons. CSH did not include a site description or map of the feature in the AIS report, likely because it was determined to be natural. No further work is recommended at Site 10034. SIHP 10067 Terraces FUNCTION: Habitation AGE: Pre Contact era DIMENSIONS: 6.7 m long (E/W)by 5.8 m wide by 0.9 m max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Basalt Flakes EXCAVATION: CSH 1 X 1 m test unit DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10067 is three soil retaining terraces located at 440 ft amsl approximately 90 m southeast of Site 10013 (see Figure 12). The terraces are constructed on the south sloping bank of a seasonal gulch. As indicated in the CSH AIS and confirmed by SCS during the current study, the three small terraces are constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked on the ground surface (Figure 30 and Figure 31). 73 NI 1:IZ111-P 11 I 1 a CD 3111 III sEfl TRE:tiC'Fl I DIRTTERH.AC E 150 >, CC)( 60) eD191 Ili L UFFtI I f l{1L1C'L Irlu1 1 11 Q O 1110 1511 1011 ml UlkI I VI RAC b. 1:1:1 1 ItI}f li I R V'M It I IAF OLIA I 11 lil^:1}1 O h C}1 IT R(}I' e-1a 1 U FAI 1E1 `."i}1 1'l 11 1Neill III J•t Figure 30: Site 10067 (CSH Site 232)Plan View Map (Hammatt et al. 1992:49). 74 ice i w I . 9 a°I r I :.- . 'erg• ?':. : aR y v'' hrCrti a 1*,a.yr r, ca ¢ R d yj' ti 4,11 r x t tea. The terraces form three roughly level soil areas (0.9 m to 3.7 m across) along the south slope of a brick-a-brack pu`u (hill). H61ualoa School stream runs along the south flank of the pu`u. The southernmost rock ranch wall (Feature 2) at Site 31182 at least sixty(60) feet in length, runs along the north bank of the stream and connects to the terraces. The mauka(upslope) corner of the wall serves as the facing for a small black dirt covered terrace where basaltic glass flakes can be observed on the dirt surface. CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: A one (1) meter square trench (Trench 1) was excavated in the black dirt covered terrace where basaltic glass flakes were observed. The test unit contained large quantities of basaltic glass flakes (avg. 64 flakes/10 cm. level) to bedrock at a maximum depth of 30 cm. Midden material on the other hand was sparse consisting of some shell fragments and very few pieces of fish and mammal bone. A small hearth lens (30 cm. diameter by 20-30 cm. depth)was excavated in the northwest corner of the test unit. This terrace was clearly used for volcanic glass tool production. Other terraces in the proximity were interpreted as agricultural. [Hammatt et al. 1992:48] SIHP 10067 is a pre-Contact era site based on cultural material recovered from the excavation, and is likely associated with lithic tool production, possible limited use temporary habitation and agriculture. The site appears to be slightly altered by grazing cattle and is in good condition. No further work is recommended at Site 10067. SIHP 10068 Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation AGE: Pre-Contact era DIMENSIONS: 4.3 m long (NE/SW) by 3.7 m wide by 0.3 m max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY Altered: retains integrity of location and setting SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: CSH, 0.5 m X 0.25 m test unit DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10068 was a rectangular enclosure located at 470 ft amsl approximately 80 meters north of Site 10067 (see Figure 12). Site 10068 was documented in the CSH AIS study as a small rectangular enclosure 4.3 m long by 3.7 m wide with a maximum height of 0.3 m(Figure 32). The internal dimensions were 2.4 m by 1.5 m. The enclosure was constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked on the ground surface. The walls were core filled and portions of the enclosure walls were faced. 76 rr ova 4 '. O tic Ll p tibr test !rench BULLDOZED I . 17 f y .`t UuIIdozing 0 0,5 Figure 32: Site 10068 (CSH Site 233)Plan View Map Showing Test Trench(Hammatt et al. 1992:50). 77 The walls of the enclosure were removed by bulldozing after the CSH fieldwork and prior to the SCS resurvey fieldwork. A roughly 2.0 m long portion of collapsed enclosure wall still remained on the ground surface during the current study(Figure 33). CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: A one meter by 50 cm test trench was excavated in the center of the enclosure. The unit was excavated to bedrock at a depth of 35 cm. Although there was no distinct cultural deposit, a small amount of midden material was found including cowrie,pipipi, sea urchin and fragments of fishbone. Because of the scarcity of material and the disturbed nature of the deposits, the excavation was discontinued. However, the site probably functioned as a habitation enclosure. Hammatt et al. 1992:48] Site 10068 has been altered by bulldozing, is mostly no longer present and is in poor condition. No further work is recommended at Site 10068. SIHP 10069 Modified Bluff FUNCTION: Temporary Habitation Associated with Agriculture AGE: Pre-Contact era DIMENSIONS: 15.0 m long (N/S)by 6.0 m wide by 0.6 m max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location and setting SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: CSH 0.5 m x 0. 5 m test unit DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10069 is located at 460 ft amsl approximately 30 m northeast of Site 10067 (see Figure 12). The site is described in the CSH AIS report as a rock platform constructed against the south edge of a bedrock bluff north of H61ualoa School stream (Figure 34). The bluff top is roughly level with low linear bedrock outcrops. The site appears to have been scraped over during previous bulldozing leaving the rock platform and possible walls along the edge of the bluff collapsed, scattered and in a poor state of preservation. There is also a soil deposit approximately 3.0 m long by 2.1 m wide on the top of the bluff immediately north of the platform that was tested by excavating a 50 cm. square test unit. 78 r I Y y r 4 4 b Sri, I yI 3f Figure10068 Bulldozed Renmant Enclosure Wall,Looking Northwest. r, r. apt. " ,• w; stir w. Will! Figure 34: Photograph of Site 00.• RemainsLooking 0 CSH TEST RESULTS: The 50 cm by 25 cm test unit was excavated as a single stratigraphic soil layer extending to a maximum depth of 22 cm below surface. Midden recovered from the excavation consisted of few shell fragments and very small number of small animal bone fragments. Volcanic glass was relatively abundant (avg. 10 flakes/each in four 5 cm thick levels). A single basalt flake was the only other artifact recovered. The CSH report interpreted the site to be a temporary habitation feature used for tool production associated with nearby agriculture. [Hammatt et al. 1992:51] Site 10069 was relocated y SCS during the current AIS study. The site has been badly disturbed by bulldozing. The terrace retaining walls consist of dislocated and scattered cobbles and small boulders (Figure 35). Site 10069 was significantly altered by bulldozing and is in poor condition. No further work is recommended at Site 10069. SIHP 10070 Enclosure Remnant FUNCTION: Agriculture AGE: Historic era DIMENSIONS: 2.6 m long (N/S) by 2.5 m wide by 1.2 m max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY Altered: retains integrity of location, setting and materials and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: CSH 1.0 m x 0.5 unit DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10070 is a U- shaped enclosure located at 500 ft amsl approximately 15 meters east of Site 10019 (see Figure 12). As indicated in the CSH AIS study and confirmed by SCS during the current study, the enclosure is 2.6 long (N/S) by 2.5 m wide with maximum height of 1.2 m(Figure 36). The eastern side of the enclosure has been impacted by heavy equipment, although the remaining portions of the walls of the structure are well constructed and in good condition (Figure 37). CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: A 1.0 m by 0.5 m test unit(Trench 1) was excavated along the interior wall of the enclosure. The unit was excavated to bedrock at a depth of 15 cm. No cultural material was recovered from the excavation. The comparatively new condition of the stonework at the site and its proximity to other historic features (Site 10019) indicate that the enclosure is most likely of recent age and probably associated with historic agricultural activities such as coffee growing or grazing. [Hammatt et al. 1992:51] 81 ti. ' ., may• r: ACAt Nt 7" n sN 05) it ITI)OZI.I) 42) LEVEL SOIL 371 04) I) t 26) METE:itti Fo - BASALTRO( K FRENCH 1 10 -HEIGHT CM Figure 36: Site 10070 (CSH 235) Plan View Map, 83 x yw Figure 37: Photograph of Site 10070 Enclosure,Looking West. 84 Site 10070 was relocated by SCS during the current AIS study. Based on feature type, dimensions, construction, lack of artifacts recovered during excavation, and the features association with rock mounds at Site 10019, it is likely that the Site 10070 enclosure associated with Historic era ranching and coffee agriculture. Site 10070 has been altered by bulldozing and is in fair condition. No further work is recommended at Site 10070. SIHP 10072 Complex FUNCTION: Agricultural AGE: Late pre-Contact to Historic era DIMENSIONS: 38.8 m long (N/S)by 36.3 m wide by 1.3 max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: CSH TU-1 and TU-2, 7.0 m square total DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10072 was a modified bedrock outcrop bluff(Feature 1), a rock mound (Feature 2) and a series of level dirt terraces (Feature 3) located between 480 ft and 490 ft amsl along the central northwest boundary of the project area see Figure 12 and Figure 38). The site is bounded to the northeast by Site 31182 Feature 9 ranch rock wall (Figure 38). The features were constructed on a fairly steep southerly slope. The Feature 3 terraces were bounded by linear rock mounds and Feature 1 was called a large bluff. Site 10072 was 38.8 m long (NE/SW)by 36.3 m wide with a maximum feature height of 1.3 m. Feature 1 was a modified exfoliated large bedrock outcrop located at the center of Site 10072 (see Figure 38). The top of the outcrop was relatively level. The modified portion of Feature 3 was roughly 13.0 m long (NE/SW)by 8.7 m wide by 1.6 m in maximum height. The modified portions of Feature 3 were constructed by removing angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders from relatively level areas on the slope of the feature and piling them above and below the level cleared ground surface Figure 39 through Figure 41). Feature 1 was relocated by SCS during the current study. The CSH feature description and plan view map were correct. TU-1 was excavated by CSH on the level top surface of Feature 3 (see excavation summary below). 85 Y ISA I:1,ROCK 1120 III VAII q( ill U1 I.SI I \II CC'I ItfC 1r F A I IM I[ I IS I I RR 1( I.4 II lT 1 t,. C] t I I ti 11 I I pII"' [a 2 G i PHO Fo 3 Figure 38: Site 10072 (CSH Site 238)Plan View Map (Hammatt et al. 1992:53). Feature 2 was a rock clearing mound located 3.3 m north of Feature 1. The rock mound measured 3.7 m long (NE/SW)by 3.3 m wide. The rock mound was constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders piled and loosely stacked on exposed bedrock. There was no facing evident in the feature construction. TU-2 was excavated by CSH through the north half of the rock mound (see excavation summary below). Feature 2 was bulldozed and was no longer present during the current AIS survey. 86 r , 1 r f' sr w i o a wy A h. `., fir•A Mom.. r 10, 11 it l' 1 r r Tyt i..a14 g 17 d"Y"d f i r •'"i" srtrr s. G r•+ '-., a//+Y .: , 6 I T, F" a , e 7A t' ! ' yw per«.° ..i_.^9,•I AI le ti d- .. f-.l f q a ' r r, ..f..l 'y r.q ° +'' 1 :.. flad 4'. •+jx'•'R£ f I' ! f..' d h, J ro :" 1 A,..V•',:, !!";Y j R!. k;. A^ C t . r k i r f.X m r 11 i Feature 3 was three level soil-filled terraces (Terrace A, B and C) located along the east side of the site (see Figure 38). Feature was 20.0 m long (NE/SW)by 13.8 m wide. Terrace A was bounded on the north by a linear(NW/SE)bedrock outcrop and was bounded on the southeast by a linear (NE/SW) rock mound. There was a roughly oval clearing rock mound Feature 2) on the south end of the linear bedrock outcrop. Feature 3, Terrace B and Terrace C were two soil terraces south of Terrace A and along the east side of Site 10072 (see Figure 38). The two terraces were bounded on the west by Feature 1 and by exposed bedrock outcrop to the south. The two terraces were approximately 17.5 m long (NE/SW)by 14.7 m wide. There was a low linear rock mound that divided the two terraces. The upper (east) tier was approximately 1.0 m above the lower tier. The terraces and low liner rock mounds that formed the three terraces were constructed of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders piled and loosely stacked on exposed bedrock. There was no facing evident in Feature 3 construction. CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: Test Unit 1 (1.5 meters by 2 meters)was excavated on the middle of the top of Feature 1 to a depth of 0.5 meters. The unit was excavated as a single stratigraphic layer of basalt cobbles and small boulders, and less than 1 cm of soil. The unit did not contain artifacts or cultural deposits and terminated on bedrock. Based on the structure of the bluff, limited modifications and lack of artifacts, CSH determined that Feature 1 was an exposed bedrock outcrop with small areas of agricultural rock clearing mounds. [Hammatt et al. 1992:51] Test Unit 2 (2.0 meters by 2.0 meters)was excavated through the middle of Feature 2. The unit was excavated to the base of the feature and contained an architectural layer of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders and 40 cm of loose sediment. A few small fragments of cowrie and wana shell were recovered from the excavation. There were no other artifacts or cultural deposits in TU-2. The Feature was most likely an agricultural rock clearing mound. SCS relocated Site 10072 during the current AIS survey. The north and east portions of the site, including Feature 2 and Feature 3 and the Site 31182 Feature 9 ranch rock wall have been bulldozed and are no longer present. Feature 1 was the only feature remaining. Feature 1 is only slightly altered, is partially collapsed in places and is in fair condition. 90 Based on the types of features, their construction method and very limited amount of marine shell recovered from subsurface testing at Feature 1 and Feature 2, Site 10072 is most likely a late pre-Contact to Historic era agricultural site. The site has been altered by bulldozing, is in poor condition and no further work is recommended at Site 10072. SIHP 10073 Complex FUNCTION: Agricultural AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 15.0 m long (NW/SE)by 14.0 m wide CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered: retains some integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: TU-1 and TU-2 DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10073 is two rock clearing mounds (Featurel and Feature 2) and an enclosure (Feature 3) located at 575 ft amsl in the northeast quadrant of the project area see Figure 12). CSH recorded two platforms, one (Feature 1) measuring eight feet high on the downhill (makai) side. CSH interpreted the features as historic cattle loading ramps (Hammatt et al. 1992:23). SCS relocated Site 10073 and recorded two rock clearing mounds, Feature 1 and Feature 2, and an enclosure, Feature 3 (Figure 42). The site is approximately 15.0 m long NW/SE) by 14.0 m wide. Feature 1 is a platform shaped rock clearing mound constructed on a south slope along the southwest corner of the site (see Figure 42). The rock mound is 5.5 m long (NE/SW)by 5.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 1.40 m. It is constructed of angular and subangular large basalt cobbles and small boulders stacked and piled three to six courses on the ground surface Figure 43). The top surface is partially paved with small cobbles. The walls are faced. Feature 1 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Feature 2 is a linear rock mound located upslope to the northeast of Feature 1 (see Figure 42). The platform is approximately 6.5 m long (SE/NW) by 3.0 m wide, with a maximum height 0.81 m. Feature 2 is constructed of large basalt cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked two courses high on the ground surface (Figure 44). The southwest side of the platform is roughly faced. Feature 2 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. 91 0 Q 0 11. k 1'l lll. K r 0 tt Y o C6 97[ Z) F FATURF 3 a08 U c,a p 1 1 .1! I U[' 1 OQ op a o D O e O 0C3 0, k E:4 O `D B%SALT RUCK Q d B3 DROCK L'_`J- SLOPE El-HEIGHT ABOVE SURFACE IN cm Figure 42: Site 10073 Plan View Map. 92 A 1 r k r L u r per,y _ n r r. .' 1. ri ';-.. • r r`- ."r ',...._ r,..:_ A t w w I h e Figure 43: Photograph of 1173 Feature I Platform LookingSouth. bt p t d a'M yy'7.. wy. e AeW IA rt, r 31-:" ''_. ; y, - lei, , o".i ° ,; 4- a e M TA4,1 jn, '-y.i4Wr - a 1•.J yy" WOA'^ a+ii W ids e n_. ' R l —z- " i.-• • r 1 F 'Mi t4 *•4 k Y 6 ,, y_ xP+.' •i,..r",v'aa:y! UP j` +''q' ., 're`! • w.. r. '"- '/ ash• D• MIX k Figure 44: Photograph of Site 10073 Feature 2 Platform Looking East. 94 Feature 3 is an enclosure located southeast of Feature 1 and Feature 2 (see Figure 42). The enclosure is approximately 11.0 m Long (NE/SW)by 5.0 m wide, with a maximum height of 97.0 m. The enclosure walls are constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked one to three courses (0.9 m maximum height) on the ground surface (Figure 45). The interior of the enclosure is primarily pahoehoe bedrock outcrop with sediment built up along the interior of the enclosure walls. Feature 3 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. SCS EXCAVATION RESULTS: SCS excavated a test excavation unit (TU-1) in Feature 1 and a test unit (TU-2)within Feature 3. The test units were excavated to document feature construction and to determine feature function and age through diagnostic artifacts. TU-1 was a 2.3 m long (NW/SE)by 1.2 m wide test unit(TU-1) excavated in the southeast quadrant of the Feature 1 rock clearing mound (see Figure 42). TU-1 was excavated as an architectural layer and one natural stratigraphic layer, and terminated on bedrock at 97 cm below the top surface of the feature (Figure 46 through Figure 48). The natural stratigraphic layer(Layer 1) was not screened in arbitrary 10 cm levels. The Architectural Layer(38 cm maximum thickness) consisted of angular and subangular cobbles and small boulders with a small amount of decomposing organic detritus. There were no artifacts, cultural deposits or subsurface features in the architectural layer. The top surface of the architectural layer was fairly level cobbles and small boulders. The architectural layer continued into Layer I and terminated on bedrock approximately 75 cm to 100 cm below the top surface of the feature. Layer I (0-65 curbs) was very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) loose sandy silt loam 95% cobbles and small boulders. The rock excavated in Layer I was architectural rock. The architectural layer terminated on bedrock throughout the entire unit. There were no artifacts in Layer I. Based on feature shape, dimensions, construction, and the absence of artifacts recovered from TU-1, it is likely that Feature 1 is a rock clearing mound. The shape and construction method is similar to Historic era sugarcane rock clearing mounds documented in other parts of Hawaii Island. 95 jrwg.7SKr a t 74 m. 1 `;•.c3'' '\°`'L r ie „ tip , , ; e r l y 1 t r r 11 to • 1p 40 i. hlp IIw1„„ fl 111 411 Gip till 11111 1211 1411 11,11 17illc,ae h1 1 LAI LR E X I.121 1a.Aldli[.k.al Ivl1 19Itt1 S SP I1U71d?r p>.thlal [C.7 LI Taal 13FDROCK Figure 46: Site 10073,Feature 1,TU-1 Southwest Profile. 97 Figure 47: Photograph of Site 10073,Feature 1,TU-1 Southwest Profile. 98 I"r n 1F P ri rb i y JF x 406 40 Figure 48: Photograph of Site 10073,Feature 1,TU-1 Northeast and Northwest Profiles. 99 TU-2 was a 1.0 by 1.0 m test unit excavated within the southern portion of the Feature 3 enclosure (see Figure 42). TU-2 was excavated as four natural stratigraphic layers, and terminated on bedrock at 58 cmbs (Figure 49 through Figure 52). The natural stratigraphic layers were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels. Layer I(0-10 cmbs) was very dark brown(7.5YR2.5/2) loose sandy loam with 1% pebbles and cobbles. Layer I terminated on Layer II sediment below. The boundary between Layer I and Layer II was fairly level and diffuse. There were no artifacts in Layer I. Layer II (10-28 cmbs) was very dark brown (7.5YR2.5/2) soft sandy loam with 5.0 cm of black(7.5YR2.5/1) sandy silt loam mottling at its base. Layer II contained 5% gravels. Layer II was excavated as a 10.0 cm Level 1 and an 8.0 cm Level 2. Layer II, Level 2 contained a small amount of charcoal flecking and a cowrie shell fragment. The base of the enclosure wall architecture was 20-28 cmbs in Layer II, Level 2. Layer II terminated on Layer III sediment below. The boundary between Layer II and Layer III was fairly level and clear. Layer III(28-40 cmbs) was black(7.5YR2.5/1) soft sandy silt loam with 15%pebbles and cobbles. Layer III did not contain artifacts. Layer IV (40-58 cmbs) was dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) soft sandy silt with 5% bedrock cobbles. Layer IV was excavated as two levels, was terminated on bedrock and did not contain artifacts. The CSH AIS report interpreted Site 10073 to be a Historic era agricultural site. The dimensions, shape, and construction of Feature 1 and Feature 2 are similar to Historic era sugarcane rock clearing mounds documented in other locations on Hawaii Island. The absence of artifacts in test excavation units also suggests Feature 1 and Feature 3 are associated with agricultural use. Site 10073 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. No further work is recommended at Site 10073. 100 I1 NOR IIIEV+1%%%1..1. Sill. IIILIti1"%IA T U 4{I e Md l\FAf h1 11 P If 11MY rllr. Q 20 40 RII tM!160 12II 1411 16M 18II 201,nu k}1 1.t)FR is I FRY U IRA HROVkN 17.5-VR 2.ii:11 VQ11 OAM I.11 PR It'%P.M:S I:%Rh HRU111.1751R 5; }ti.%NM I[)[51 1\1)U 1..iL K 1-511t 2.+•I 1 ti%N DN Lf?A I 11 bit fD:Ki +lk l".51k?S:u 111.11 tr1111 1.%)FIt II':1)AItA YF.1.1(M 1511 RIAOM N 101It 1,•ll tihNM nll:1 BJk%. l-1 RO(KS I,N4 I oNt"I,WAI I RO(1%ti lj*,y 11•RF.DRf 1CK Figure 49: Site 10073,Feature 3,TU-2 Northeast and Southeast Profiles. 101 Figure m: Photograph w%lelm»,FeatUre\ 2So Ga Profile Showing Base o Architecture. to f wry r g m.. ti y n' o h• 4. Figure 51: Photograph of Site 10073,Feature 3,TU-2 Northeast Profile. 103 mM y-_ 77 AL Ot Figure 52: Photograph of Site 10073,Feature 3,TU-Bas of Excavation Looking Southeast. 104 SIHP 10074 Enclosure Remnant FUNCTION: Coffee Work Shed AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 16.5 m long (NE/SW) by 15.0 m wide CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY Altered: retains minimal integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Coral abrader and corrugated metal roofing EXCAVATION: CSH TU-1 and TU-2, 1.25 m square total DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10074 was a rectangular enclosure, a low rock wall and collapsed pig pen located at 640 ft amsl roughly 50 meters east of Site 10073 (see Figure 12). The site is on roughly level ground above a seasonal gulch to the southeast. There are several old growth ironwood trees at the site. The CSH AIS report site plan and description showed an 8.5 m long (NE/SW)by 8.2 m wide by 1.2 m high enclosure along the northeast side of Site 10074 (Figure 53). The enclosure was constructed of angular and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders stacked on the ground surface. The walls were bi-faced and pebble and cobble core-filled. The exteriors of the walls were neatly faced. The interior of the enclosure was level rocky soil with a remnant low rock wall 3.7 m long (NW/SE) that divided the center of the enclosure. There was a cobble paving between the west enclosure wall and the central dividing wall. The enclosure was likely used as a house foundation and the paved area might have functioned as a lanai outside of the house structure. A coral abrader was located on the surface of the cobble paving. There is a low rock wall along the southeast and southwest sides of the house enclosure. There was also a C-shape enclosure at the northwest end of the terrace. The rock wall was 19.7 m long total by 0.6 m wide and was constructed of a one to two courses (wide) of large cobbles and small boulders piled and stacked two to three courses high on the ground surface. There was a small rock mound on the southeast end of the wall. The collapsed C-shape enclosure (pig pen) was 4.0 m long (NE/SW)by 3.5 meters wide and opened to the north. The C-shape was constructed of angular and subangular cobbles piled and stacked on the ground surface. No heights were given for the terrace or C-shape. SCS relocated the site during the current AIS fieldwork. All but a portion of the rock wall (SE and SW segments) has been bulldozed(see Figure 53 and Figure 54). The rock wall matched the CSH AIS description and was also partially collapsed. 105 BULLDOZED BULLDOZED fS,• Ifi f"INJC"•L7 tree nleri r Ga t3` q . A ; BULLDOZED I rF ix-•f'• Munded Cur aI adrader A BULLDOZED gal ar'i CJ a af It'c PLAN Ircn,vood tf:re -- 4 2 4 ni i 0 f 16 ft C}Y• ter.3;'r_. D SECTION A Figure 53: Site 10074 Plan View Map (Adapted from Hammatt et al. 1992:9). 106 f a" p,: r '^4,v' *7 J z" q- a r• 0•'f°'' .. - r a ' q Y.. '* e 4i r i yyyy j r' vi yr y Y v i x r. mom f' 1 CSH EXCAVATION RESULTS: A 50 cm square test unit(TU-1)was excavated in the soil deposit in the center of the rectangular enclosure. The unit was excavated to sterile Pahala ash at a depth of 35 cm below the modern ground surface. The trench yielded a few fragments of cowrie shell and one volcanic glass flake. CSH suggested that the recovered artifacts were not consistent with what appeared to be the historic age of the foundation. CSH suggested that the artifacts might represent the scattered remains of a prehistoric occupation. A second test unit(TU-2) was excavated by CSH through the southwest wall of the rectangular enclosure. Artifacts recovered from the wall's architectural layer were fragments of bottle glass, glazed ceramic sherds, wire nails and fragments of redwood. Site 10074 was interpreted as most likely a small dwelling or work shed associated with coffee farming. Coffee trees were identified along the seasonal gulch to the south. [Hammatt et al. 1992:54] The site was bulldozed at some point after the CSH AIS study. When SCS relocated the site, it was almost completely bulldozed and is in poor condition. All that remains is the partially collapsed portion of what appears to be the southeast corner of the enclosure wall. Site 10074 has been altered by bulldozing, is in poor condition and no further work is recommended at the site. SIHP 10075 Enclosure Remnant FUNCTION: Pig Pen AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 9.0 m long (NW/SE)by 4.6 m wide by 1.8 m max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY Altered: retains minimal integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: SIHP 10075 is a large rectangular enclosure remnant located at 630 ft amsl in the north corner of the project area (see Figure 12). The CSH AIS report describes the enclosure as measuring roughly 9.0 m long (NW/SE)by 4.6 m wide with wall height ranging from , long axis oriented north-south, with walls 1.5 m to 1.8 m in height. The northwest wall had a low (one foot high) stone slab "lintel" opening a few feet from the northeast corner of the structure (Hammatt et al. 1992:23). 108 When SCS relocated Site 10075 during the current AIS study, the northeast and northwest walls had been bulldozed and were no longer present. Only portions of the southeast and southwest walls remained intact. The remaining walls have been impacted by bulldozing and were partially collapsed. The Site 10075 enclosure remnant is currently 4.75 m long (NW/SE)by 4.6 m wide and has maximum wall heights of 0.58 m(Figure 55). The enclosure walls range from 0.5 to 0.65 m in width. The walls are constructed of angular, subangular and slabby basalt large cobbles and large boulders stacked three to four courses high on the ground surface (Figure 56 and Figure 57). The walls were likely faced in places but are now collapsed. The interior of the enclosure is roughly level rocky soil. CSH interpreted the enclosure as a Historic era pig pen based on its size, feature construction, wall heights, and their similarities to other Historic era pig pens documented across Hawaii Island. Site 10075 has been altered by bulldozing, in poor condition and no further work is recommended at the site SIHP 30592 Railroad Berm FUNCTION: Transportation AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 300.0 m long (N/S) by 4.0 m wide max. by 5.0 m max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Railroad Spike EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30592 is a segment of the railroad berm located between 680 m and 690 m amsl along the project area east boundary(see Figure 12). The railroad berm continues south off the current project area. The railroad berm is approximately 300.0 m in length (N/S) and between 2.5 m and 4.0 m wide by 5.0 m in maximum height. The railroad bed is a level dirt and rock surface (Figure 58), and the berm is located along the west side of the railroad bed. The berm is a west sloping retaining wall constructed of small boulders and large cobbles stacked up to nine courses high(Figure 59 and Figure 60). The berm is well faced with fairly tightly fitted natural rock. The rock has not been worked prior to stacking. The berm face slopes slightly toward the east as it approaches the top to prevent collapse. 109 op 0 a Q 00 a 2w-O 0 o°oo BULLDOZED 603 C1 0 WOo DOZED 09 c 0 r) a 0-o Q rOa0 0 0 a a 00 1,00 C30 Q a a o II n 100 I50 21HI Vill n• KEN BASALT IIW KS Iy]J FREE tl, - IIIAGII F.A.BON E GRUI ND SURFACE Io cidi Figure 55: Site 10075 Plan View Map. 110 k•r V z a ry ',^.... tee,,,.._;--,.,-.; „ k. .. - IT v s 4 r w w - f.l e t ice ,.. i' ate. a AL F r I f 9 W E t A f s r w 1k r r w v AL 1 • •.• : kiCll'I f-1t1 {lf C;p 1 ( 6i 4 11i KASAI] Mks SLOPE; Figure 60: Site 30592 Railroad Berm Retaining Wall Profile. 115 The retaining wall is approximately 5.0 m high and is constructed of fifteen courses of large basalt cobbles and small boulders. The north end of the berm has been bulldozed roughly 60.0 m south of the northeast corner of the project area. Site 30592 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Only the north end of the railroad berm has been altered by bulldozing. Site 30592 is in good condition and is recommended for preservation. SIHP 31181 Enclosure Remnant FUNCTION: Habitation AGE: Pre Contact Era DIMENSIONS: 3.40 m long (NW/SE)by 1.24 m wide by 1.10 m max. height CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered: retains minimal integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Coral Abrader EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 31181 is an enclosure remnant located at 645 ft amsl in the northeast corner of the project area(see Figure 12). The feature is constructed on a fairly level pahoehoe bedrock outcrop. The feature has been altered by bulldozing and only a portion of the southwestern wall remains intact. The remnant wall as well as the bedrock outcrop on which it rests, are situated in an area that has been heavily dozed(Figure 61). The enclosure remnant is approximately 3.40 m long (NW/SE)by 1.24 m wide by 1.10 m in maximum height. The enclosure is constructed of angular basalt small boulders stacked three to four courses high on the bedrock outcrop (Figure 62). The walls are very roughly faced. The bedrock outcrop which functions as the interior floor of the structure appears to extend beyond the limits of what was once the original structure. A coral abrader fragment was located in the south corner of the enclosure (Figure 63). Based on the size and construction of the enclosure, it is possible that it was used for pre- Contact era temporary habitation. It will not be possible to test excavate the feature as it is constructed on bedrock. Site 31181 has been altered by bulldozing, is in poor condition and no further work is recommended at the site. 116 0 IWO G> 010 IIIUI rr 0 250 17FFI Fcb—I- HASALTIOWKS FO - %IODIFIEDCORAL Fm - MICAH,ARON F St RI-%(I'lxcm Ej BU DR(It K Figure 61: Site 31181 Plan View Map. 117 T 4f i... .., ^ 9A-4W"T5 d µtl'ma•" r i T rk . ry I i v. 4 y w p a: z n a w v a 1,01 W.r Vi FEW- 16 q{Ya ter+ IAK pa Figure 63: Photograph of Coral Abrader Fragment at Site 31181. 119 SIHP 31182 Ranch Walls FUNCTION: Ranching and Agriculture AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 900.0 m long (NE/SW)by 550.0 m wide by 1.20 m max. height CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered: retains minimal integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Historic to Modern era bottles and cans EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 31182 is the ranch rock walls (Features 1 through 14) that divide the entire project area into paddocks and agricultural fields (Figure 64). They are located between 360 and 700 ft amsl. The majority of rock walls (n=10) are oriented mauka-makai (NE/SW) while a smaller number(n=6) of shorter north/south walls create divided spaces within the longer mauka-makai walls. There is a small pen in the southwest corner of the project area at the southwest end of wall Feature 4 (Figure 65). The small pen at the southwest end of Feature 4 is either for calves or is a pig pen. The small pen has metal pipe gates to allow access and appears more modern than most of the walls. There are also three lager corrals, or paddocks (Feature 12, 14, and between those features and wall Feature 5) in the southwest corner of the project area (see Figure 64). Wall Features 1 and 5 are property boundary walls and do not follow LCA or LG boundaries. The northern end of Feature 2 wall and Feature 3 wall appear to be constructed along the boundaries of LCA#3630 to John G. Munn(see Figure 7). The rock walls are of a very similar construction. They are constructed of angular, subangular and slabby basalt large cobbles and small boulders stacked four to six courses high on the ground surface (Figures 66 through 72). The walls range from four to six courses wide. The outer rocks are placed so that their flattest edges are facing the outside of the wall. The walls are not cobble core filled but are bi-faced. The outsides of the walls slope slightly inward from the base to the top of the walls for stability. There are openings in some of the walls, and some with and metal pipe or wood gates to allow access through the walls. Barbed wire fence has been installed along one side of some of the walls. 120 ixwux„I KL•:V man(rARF?k InIA H[71 Il YIiY SACRI inn I 4ON 0 -A RICH.4 F.OL(K.ICA L SI TE BULLDOZED SITE f -NATURAL FEATURE Imp a B ILHOA z I011711 -SHIPSITE NUMBER SITE 34182%%A L.LS 00 ALI.FFAn;RF.II t.y1 11; p r O B SU [D11 ISD 28I1 w„. IY1K:I,tI la21: r 12 TIVIK:(31 7-"21:016 O7j CUt'T201a xwEL-I nRe , I11 A:i37 T 11Y I:n14 w i89IN111n E Figure 64: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 31182 Ranch Wall Features and Project Area ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 121 5 Figure 65: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 Pin Pen Looking Southeast. 122 W rrb, gI ri F y w 1 Figure 66: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 South End Showing Wall Construction,Looking North. 123 r. I; IC 4 r } Lk 4 s tirw S Y 4* e µi M sw Figure 67: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 4 South End Showing Wall Construction,Looking North. 124 a a r fty w. 4 K f ,^,_. ram.- . t" F•m . NN q J i r y M s 1 1 1,, y_ ti e + a J Y a a re, y t r w 4ix fir 1 N I 1 Figure 69: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 2 South End Showing Top of Wall Construction, Looking Northeast. 126 r I l• r i i. r fir.. W p, Figure 70: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 2 South End Showing Wall Construction, •• • r 1 yv Figure 71: Photograph of Site 31182 Feature 11 Showing Wall Construction,Looking East. 128 w Y MA" a 17 . b xY 00 JI M b f/ y 4 w r oL a E A r T e AM& r 00 or or l 1 4 Jy F MY Go I f Many of the walls have been altered and are either collapsed in places or have had their ends bulldozed or have bulldozer breaches through them, providing new access. The remaining Site 31182 walls have not been altered, are in good condition and no further work is recommended for them. IF-1 Isolated Petroglyph FUNCTION: Marker AGE: Pre Contact Era DIMENSIONS: 0.90 m by 0.70 m CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Isolated Find-1 (IF-1) is a petropglyph located at 410 ft amsl along the southwest boundary of the project area (see Figure 12). The single petroglyph is an image of a person etched onto a small basalt boulder(Figure 73) in a bulldozed disturbed area north of a seasonal gulch. The boulder is 0.90 m in length, 0.70 m wide and is not associated with any features (Figure 74). The petroglyph likely depicts a human form, although an interpretation of its significance is difficult as the image has deteriorated. SCS contacted Shane Nelson, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs West Hawaii Representative to consult on the on the final disposition and preservation treatments for the petroglyph. IF-1 appears to be unaltered, is in fair condition and preservation at a nearby protected location on the property is recommended. 130 Y F r S w x i 1, f J F: 1 t r,•1 w. t r t• r vie, Aw Al AL s., , ems• .. r .,.^ { .{ . n 1. T ;q'i 4 t Al "4 Tl. a' n • l ".. "r. r . y a YAK Ir kk r r r ti.r. r w i 4 I y. IF'. .. q ,. yi"!, f', F i`.y * Aj„ J ii L y. }. 4"• 1 .` y y 1Ni 4, 2 ,+` r' fl L1 y 1'{,'. t `"* , , 9. i a*rY,r q y.•' r 1.11 20 31) 40 rrtt Figure 74: Site 31181 Petroglyph Plan View Drawing. 132 CONCLUSION Seventeen archaeological sites were identified and recorded in the project area Table 7 and Figure 75). Fifteen of the sites were previously documented and two sites were previously undocumented(Site 31181, a small coffee shed enclosure and Site 31182, ranch walls). The location of one of the 17 sites (Site 10012), was relocated, though the burials were reinterred off project and the archaeological features at Site 10012 are no longer present on the ground surface. An isolated petroglyph (IF-1)was also recorded during the current AIS study. Six of the sites and IF-1 were determined to be pre-Contact era sites, three associated with habitation, one with agriculture, one single feature site (Site 10012) formerly associated with burials, and a single petroglyph. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1983. Eleven of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Four of the Historic era sites likely had a habitation component. Table 7: Inventory of Archaeological Sites in the Current AIS Project Area. SIHP#* TYPE FUNCTION AGE 10011 Platform Ag.Clearing/Temp.Habitation Pre-Contact 10012• Platform&Wall Burial Pre-Contact 10013 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact 10018 Enclosure Agricultural Historic 10019 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic 10067 Terraces Habitation Pre-Contact 10068 Enclosure Habitation Pre-Contact 10069 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic 10070 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic 10072 Complex Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact 10073 Complex Ranching&Ag. Historic 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 31182 Rock Walls Ranching&Ag. Historic IF-1 Petroglyph Marker Pre-Contact Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. Orange Shading-Site no longer present. Burial Site 10012 reinter-red off project prior to 1983. 133 t r E KEY rktuE[w'AREn P TMK ROkfNDARI' ACRE EXCLUSION IkrB7. 10071 ISOLATED FIND t p 0 -FUR.4lCR BURIAL J ': iNll'b92 AC„k RANrI{INe.+ITE I BERM . k r IPtill l`111y41lIFRigem-4 FK.1RA t,1,,,r.L r,1 n SD 100 1%0 2011 011k( O 194I9.\ I,Ikk 93n-u:l. r' 1Kc lJI 7i-BYt:11k4 1 f •lklllfi>R.y 61.1 FF I L3 7k.R91LA(k:ti IEHII r]i wlUl}69 1 11a1"[ti ' BURIAL. is rnT,nlx R[kJLUI ARr:A 1a11 r T%IK!f=i 7.6.621:VI34 x 4 14031 0IF-1 WALL lavnoum L Figure 75: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Archaeological Sites and Project Area(ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 134 There is a concentration of Historic era agricultural and livestock sites (Site 10019 10018, 10070, 10073, 10074, 10075, and 3 118 1) located in the northeast quadrant of the project area. The features include rock clearing mounds and enclosures. The sites are clustered along a seasonal gulch. Sites include rock clearing mounds and small enclosures associated with coffee and sugarcane growing. There are a smaller number of pre-Contact era agricultural sites (Site 10011 and 10072) and temporary habitation sites associated with agriculture (Site 10013, 10067, 10068, and 10069)near the south central portion of the project area. Three of the habitation sites are north of the H61ualoa School stream located along the south boundary of the project area. Artifacts recovered from test excavations at these sites included a number of volcanic-glass flakes, indicating tool manufacture. The many Historic era rock walls (Site 31182) are associated with cattle ranching. There are mauka-makai walls divide the entire length of the project area into separate paddocks. There are north-south walls that further divide the paddocks into smaller pastures. There are also a series of large corrals in the southwest corner of the project and a small pen in the southeast corner of the project area. Ranchers often move cattle from paddock to paddock to prevent overgrazing. They also pasture yearlings separate from older cattle. Corrals and smaller pens are use for branding, inoculation and to gather cattle for transport to market. There is a dirt ranch road leading to corral Feature 12 that crosses the H61ualoa School stream. Given the extensive land Historic era and modern land alteration in the project area, it is difficult to synthesize a clear picture of pre-Contact era site distribution and land use for the project area lands. It is clear that there were pre-Contact agricultural sites and associated temporary habitation sites in the lower and mid-elevation portions of the project area, especially along the stream(seasonal gulch) to the south. The few remaining sites do not provide a good sample to compare with site distribution patterns recorded at less disturbed projects of similar location in Kona. The project area does provide a fairly complete picture of Historic era cattle ranching and agricultural land use, including information on cattle pasturing, management, care, and transport. 135 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS Sites identified during this project were assessed for their significance as outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-284-6. To be assessed as significant a site shall possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and shall meet one or more of the following five criteria: a) It must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or be considered a traditional cultural property. b) It must be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past. c) It must embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. d) It must have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. e) Have important value to native Hawaiian people or other ethnicities in the state, due to associations with cultural practices and traditional beliefs that were, or still are, carried out. All of the archaeological sites documented in this report were evaluated for their significance Table 8). All of the sites identified during the current AIS study possess integrity of location and materials and were assessed significant under criterion"d" as they have yielded or are likely to yield information important to prehistory and/or history. All of the sites, with the exception of the railroad berm Site 30592 and the burial Site 30593 provide information important to pre- Contact era and Historic era agricultural pursuits and cattle ranching. They provide data on pre- Contact era through post-Contact era and the Historic era features constructed for growing subsistence and commercial crops and raising beef for commercial markets. They also provide data important to changing land-use as some farmers began to use land for cattle pasture in response to developing local and external markets on Hawaii Island and Oahu. The ranch walls,paddocks and corral sites provide information on the ways land was altered and divided to accommodate both farming and ranching. 136 Table 8: Inventory of Archaeological Sites in the Current AIS Project Area. SHIP#* TYPE FUNCTION AGE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA RECOMMENDATION 10011 Platform Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact d No Further Work 10012• Platform&Wall Burial Prehistoric No longer Significant No Further Work 10013 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact d No Further Work 10018 Enclosure Agricultural Historic d No Further Work 10019 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic d No Further Work 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic d No Further Work 10067 Terraces Habitation Prehistoric d No Further Work 10068 Enclosure Habitation Prehistoric d No Further Work 10069 Modified B1uf'Platform Habitation Historic d No Further Work 10070 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic d No Further Work 10072 Modified Bluff Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact d No Further Work 10073 Complex Ranching&Ag.Historic d No Further Work 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic d No Further Work 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic d No Further Work 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic a,c,d Preservation In-Place 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic d No Further Work 31182 Rock Walls Ranching&Ag.Historic d No Further Work 1F-1 Petroglyph Marker Prehistoric d,e Preservation Site numbers are preceded by the prefix 50-10-37-. Orange Shading-Site no longer present. Burial Site 10012 reinterred off prof ect prior to 1983. 137 The pre-Contact era agricultural and habitation sites (10011, 10013, 10067, 10068, and 10072) and the petroglyph(IF-1)were assessed significant under criterion "d" as they have yielded or are likely to yield information important to pre-Contact era agriculture and temporary habitation and tool production associated with agricultural pursuits in the region. The railroad berm Site 30592 is also significant under criteria"a" and "c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. SCS consulted with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Kona representative Shane Nelson to ask for any input regarding Site 30592. RECOMMENDATIONS The railroad berm Site 30592 is recommended for preservation with preservation measures to be outlined in an archaeological preservation plan. The petroglyph(IF-1) is recommended for preservation in a safe location on the project area, preferably within the Site 30592 railroad berm preservation area. No further work is recommended for the remaining 16 archaeological sites. Information recorded for all 16 archaeological sites during the current study has adequately ascertained their function and age. 138 REFERENCES CITED Aki, H. 1952 Map of Kailua Section, North Kona, Hawaii, Land Titles. Survey and Map by J.S. Emerson. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1280. Alexander, J. 1855 Map of Holualoa 1 & 2, Kona Hawaii. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1450. Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaii. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Bergin, Dr. B. 2004 Loyal to the Land:The Legendary Parker ranch, 750-1950. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Barrera, W. Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 71-10. Submitted to Kamehameha Development Corporation. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1995 North Kona, Hawaii Island: Archaeological Reconnaissance of Seven Parcels. Prepared for County of Hawaii Planning Department. Burtchard, G. C. 1995 Population and Land-use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Lands Inventory Survey, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawai`i Island, the Narrative,part 1. Submitted to Belt, Collins and Associates and Kamehameha Investment Corporation. IARII, Honolulu. Calis, I., M.T. Carson, M. Dega and R.L. Spear 2004 Data Recovery at the Phase I and II Portions of the Kahakai Development Project Area TAM(3) 7-5-20:1. SCS Report 209-1. Prepared for Stanford Carr Development, LLC. SCS, Honolulu. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Carlson, A.K., and P.H. Rosendahl 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Development-Phase II, Lands of Puapuaa Is and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Development Company. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 139 Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawai`i. Clark, M., and R. Rechtman 2006 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAM:3-7-6-004:003, Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0360 prepared for Mr. Phil Tinguely, H61ualoa Village Partners, LLC, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Conolly III, R.D., and J.L. Gunness 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey at the Komohana Kai Subdivion (Unit 1) Site (TAM: 3-7-6-13:31). Report prepared by Science Applications Inc., Honolulu for G.C. Development Co., Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Cordy, R. 1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press,New York. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Honolulu. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Daws, G. 1968 Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Island. Macmillan,New York. Desilets, M., and R. Rechtman 2004 Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Grant Increment Road Remnant Property TMK.•3-7-6-08:005 por.), Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0244 prepared for Curt A. Cottrell, Nd Ala Hele Program Manager, Honolulu, Hawaii and Ramon Perez de Ayala, Pua`anui Partnership, Honolulu, Hawaii. Dircks, A., L. Zenobi, and R. Rechtman 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Proposed Miyose Farm Subdivision TMKs:3-7-6-001:003, 009, and 019), H61ua1oa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island ofHawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0856 prepared for Edward Rapoza, Kailua-Kona. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. 140 Ellis. W. 1963 Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing, Honolulu. Escott, G. 2013 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Tower (HAW 301) Site Located in Holualoa Is'Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK; (3) 7-6-024:032]. SCS Report#1340-2 prepared for Ace Environmental, Las Vegas. Escott. G., and S. Escott 2018 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 5.0 Acres Located in Holualoa Is' Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK: (3)7-6-021:017 Por.]. Prepared for East West Realty. SCS Report 1871, Honolulu. Escott, G. and N. Mello 2019a Burial Site Component of a Burial Treatment Plan for Burial Site #50-10-57- 30593 Located in Holualoa 1 st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, Hawai`i[TMK: (3)7-6-021:017]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2137, Honolulu. 2019b An Archaeological Preservation Plan for Site #50-10-57-30592 Located in Holualoa I st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, Hawai`i[TMK: 3)7-6-021:016-019]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2137, Honolulu. ESRI 2013 Arc GIS Explorer. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Ca. Fager, M., and D. Graves 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Holualoa 3rd Development Parcel, Land of Holualoa 3rd North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-7-04:35). PHRI Report 1231-073092 prepared for Dillingham Partners. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Graves, D.K., and S.T. Goodfellow 1993 The Gardens of Kona Revisited: Pualani Residential Community Phase II- Archaeological Data Recovery, Lands of Puapuaa Is'and 2na North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TAM:3-7-5-17.•por.28, 29). PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Estates, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 141 Han, T. L., S. L. Collins, S. D. Clark, and A. Garland 1986 Moe Kau a Ho`oilo:Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Ke6pu, Kona, Hawai`i. Chapter VII. Artifacts and Manuports from the Ke6pu Burial Site. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 86-1. Submitted to Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Handy, E.S. 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume I. B.P. Bishop Museum bulletin 161. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hammatt, H.H. 1979a Archaeological Survey of a 22 Acre Parcel at Holualoa Ahupua`a, Hawaii. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 1979b Archaeological Survey of a 22 Acre Parcel at Holualoa Ahupua`a, Kona, Hawaii Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for Kalani Sunset Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 1979c Archaeological Survey and Excavation at the Proposed Komohana Kai Subdivision, Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Manuscript. Prepared for G.C. Development Co., Inc. 1980 Archaeological Survey and Excavation at the Proposed Komohana Kai Subdivision Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for G.C. Development Company, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammat, H.H., D. Borthwick, and D. Shideler 1986 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on a 20-Acre Parcel Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for Maryl Investments, Inc. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H. H., and S. D. Clark 1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre (Ginter)Parcel in Na ahupua`a Pahoehoe, La`aloa, and Kapala`alaea, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-152 III. Submitted to Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc. Hammatt, H.H., and W.H. Folk 1980 Archaeological Survey, Phase L• Portions of Keauhou-Kona Resort, Keauhou and Kahulu`u, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-177 ILI. Submitted to Kamehameha Investment Corporation. 1981 Archaeological Survey of a 20 Acre Parcel, Holualoa, Kona, Hawai`i Island. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. for Kalani Sunset Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 142 Hammatt, H.H., W.H. Folk, and D.W. Shideler 1992 Archaeological Survey Testing and Excavation of a 174-Acre Parcel, Holualoa, North Kona, Hawai`i. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for the Gamlon Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 2007 Letter Report Documenting Archaeological Study Conducted, Finds, and Their Treatment at a Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Holualoa Ahupua`a, North Kona, Hawai`I, TMK• (3) 7-6-021:016(por.). Report prepared by Cultural Surveys 1250 Oceanside Partners, LLC. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei Hammatt, H. H., and V. W. Meeker 1979 Archaeological Excavations and Heiau Stabilization at Kahalu`u, Kona, Hawaii Island. ARCH Report 14-172(I1). Submitted to Gerald Park, Urban Planner. Haun, A.E., and D. Henry 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey TMK• 7-7-04:56, HNualoa 3, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Haun &Associates report prepared for Mr. Sidney Fuke, Hilo, Hawaii. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 2001 Archaeological Data Recovery Site 14130 TMK• (3) 7-5-17:Por. 1. Prepared for Inaba Engineering. Haun & Associates, Kea`au. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Haun, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Ali`i Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I-Archaeological Intensive Survey, Summary, vol. 1. PHRI Report 1320-052798. Submitted to County of Hawaii. PHRI, Hilo. Hommon, R. J. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 55-88. University Press, Cambridge. Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La E Pono Ai? Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mala o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Dept. of Anthropology Report Series 83-2. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. 143 Kirch, P.V. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks:An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa dune site (MO-Al-3), Moloka`i Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. Kirch, P.V. and M. Sahlins 1992 Anahulu. Vol. 1 and 2. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vol. 1. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Landrum, J., A.E. Haun, P.H. Rosendahl, and K. Delimont 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Test Excavations Kahakai Development Project Area. PHRI Report 157-070185. Prepared for Wilson Okamoto & Associates. PHRI, Hilo. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Maly, K 1993 Ka`ao Ho`oniva Pu`uwai No Ka-Miki, The Heart Story Story of Ka-Miki. Published in Hawaiian, in the newspaper "Ka Hoku o Hawai`I(Hilo) January 8, 1914 through December 6, 1917. Translated by Kepa Maly for Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 1996 Historical Documentary Research. In Archaeological Inventory Survey Proposed Henry Street Extension Road Corridor, by Wulzen, W., T.R. Wolforth, and L.J. Franklin, pp. 9-19. PRHI Report 1465-092696. Prepared for Maryl Development, Kailua-Kona. PHRI, Hilo. Maly, K. and O. Maly 2001 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Nd `Aina, A Me Na Ala Hele I Hehi 7a, Mai Keauhou A I Kealakekua, Ma Kona, Hawai`i (A Historical Overview of the Lands, And Trails Traveled, Between Keauhou and Kealakekua, Kona, Hawaii. Kumu Pono and Associates report prepared for Na Ala Hele Program Manager(Hawai`i Island), State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hilo. 144 2002 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Ka Aina A Me Nd `Ohana O Waiki`i Ma Waikoloa Kalana O Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka `Aina Mauna:A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki`i at Waikoloa Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawai`i TMK Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates. Hilo. Maly, K., and P.H. Rosendahl 2006 Phase III Archaeological Site Preservation Plan, Pualani Residential Community Mitigation Program, Lands of Puapuaa Is'and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-5-17:28, 29). PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Schuler Homes. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. McCoy, M. 2005 The development of the Kalaupapa field system, Koloka`i Island, Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:339-58. 2007 Revised late Holocene culture history for Molokai Island, Hawaii. Radiocarbon, 49(3):1273-1322. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W.F. Wilson. New Freedom Press. Honolulu. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E192-E194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. Nelson, D., L. Bulgrin, and R. Rechtman 2005 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAM:3-7-6-013:008, Holualoa 1st& 2nd Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC-0251. Prepared for Nearon Enterprises, LLC, Danville, California. (Revised 2006). Newman, T. S. 1970 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island ofHawaii A.D. 1778. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K., S. Elbert and E. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. 145 Rechtman, R.B. 2006 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TAM:3-7-013:017, Holualoa 1-2 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. Report Prepared by Rechtman Consulting, LLC for Geometrician Associates, LLC. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Rosendahl, M. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Holualoa 3rd Development Parcel, Land ofHolualoa 3ra North Kona, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:3-7-04:35). PHRI Report 400-122287 prepared for Dillingham Trust. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Rosendahl, P. 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the 72-Unit Development Site (TAM:3- 7-6-14:3 and 3-7-7-04:22,23,27,47)Kailua-Kona Island ofHawai`i. PHRI Report 5-122078. Prepared for Gray, Rhee and Associates. 1989 Archaeological Field Inspection, Komohana Kai Subdivision Parcels, Land of Holualoa Is`and 2na North Kona, Island ofHawai`i (TMK:3-7-6-22:49,84). PHRI Letter Report 44-121181 prepared for Clyde Coatney. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R Paeth, R Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai`i: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Report prepared for the Hawaii Department of Transportation. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Sinoto, A. 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Six Acres in the Ahupua`a of Holualoa I and 2, North Kona, Hawaii. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Brehm Construction Company. 146 Soehren, L 1979a Letter Report: Parcels 10, 12, and 13 of TMK:7-6-14, in Holualoa, North Kona. Prepared for Mr. Hiroshi Kasamoto. 1979b Letter Report: TAX.-7-6-1 S:1 S, Holualoa, North Kona. Prepared for Zuzak and Associates. 1980a Letter Report:Archaeological and Historical Features on the Parcel Identified by Tax Map Key 7-6-21:14, Situated at Holualoa 2, North Kona, Hawai`i. Prepared for Golden Triangle Real Estate. 1980b Letter Report:Archaeological and Historical Features on the Parcels Identified by Tax Map Keys 7-6-14:2,3 at Holualoa 2, and 7-7-04:22,27,47 at Holualoa 3, North Kona, Hawai`i. Prepared for BA and M Corp. Starr Environmental 2016 Botanical and Faunal Surveys in the State of Hawaii. Makawao. www.starrenvironmental.com. Tainter, J. A. 1973 The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at Kaloko,North Kona, Hawaii. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8(1):1-11. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Development Parcel 26 of the Keauhou Resort, Ahupua`a ofKahalu`u, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Prepared for Belt Collins and Associates. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu. U.S. Geological Survey 1928 I5-Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.govlplsltopomapsl. 147 Vancouver, G. 1967 A Voyage ofDiscovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. 1984 A Voyage ofDiscovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. Waihona `Aina 2014 Mahele online database. www.waihona.com. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1988 Archaeol yical Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision. Lands of Puapuaa I sr and 2n , North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI, Inc. report prepared for Pualani Development Company. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Wilkes, C. 1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. 1970 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 201 lb Reply to Mulrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108T195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Wolforth, T., J. Henry, and R. Rechtman 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Two Parcels in HNualoa 2nd and 3rd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai`i. PHRI Report 1941-080999 prepared for Mr. Ralph Berezan. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 148 APPENDIX A: REINTERMENT DOCUMENTATION A-1 V March 19, 1993 Mr. Edward N. Ayau State tfistori,c Preservation Div,133.onDepartmentofLand $ Natural. ResouncasstateofHawaii 33 South King Street 6 th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Re: Burials Gamrex, Inc. Kann Vistas Subdly,14jonIiolua<loa North Kama Iiawa).l Dear Ed: Pursuant to our phone eenrersa.ti.,., Coday .rc$arding toodecisionoftheburialCeuncil, many x eotiftrre the following.The council has detided that the site located in the Southeastcornerofthesubdivision site Kilo'hana street isacceptableforallthree (3) burials, A six foot deepholewillbeexcavatedofsufficientsizetoaccomodate a4']C4 XV box (of the type used for electrical connections)with no bottom and a cover. They roaa3n3 will be buriedonoraboutApril1, 1993. The hole, will be backfilledovertheLaveroftheboxtogroundlevelafterreburial.I have asked our contractor to leave a ladder In the holeforyousothat •you can get dowry to the box aafcly.. 138mrcx authorizes you to enter on site to the burialareafortheservicesonApril1 , 1993 or thereabouts. burial Please contact me Wxth the exact time and date prior totheceremony. Please note that you gad your council memberswillheallowedOnsateatyoursolerideandthatGnarex,and or its contractors Will not be held liable for any damagesand/or injuries should they occur. Thank you for your assistance in the settlement ofthismatter. please contact me when you have set the dateforthereburials, A 'pect u1ly, t llC---. Gregg a hiwa cc: Gnarex, Inc. Iscmato Contracting A-2 Vd nt75/C7 1 9aAPPR ROAM OP LAG AMC K47TI041 e1 ATMs/.REPPOM A ANIFrk,l'TRAM STATE OF HAWAII Asti 7FARINIfirtr OF LAND AND NA71JRAt.Rf_SOURrrts shvila.wwftAFF^M AM RT/1T9#e1C TUM PFCSWHA7WN CIV164" PMUW"G0R"1eEUMT n 66um sma rrPRE7.One FuXM COMMAM= HOi1t1L1 W,XAWAA "013 NW1Lat177AM9 N eOPM7 lMIC4iAV871CA1 111 M April Sr 1993ffrATT PAO" VgAM AM LAM GNEL60%aVy Gamrax, Inc. Atten'tiont Mr. Grogg Kashiva 75Y-177 Lunrapule Road, Suite 14 Xailuu, Kona, HRwai'1 96740 Re: Rai.nterment of Hawaiian Skeletal Remains, Tax Nap Xey 7--6- 1__ rUlusil H rttL KQnAL HaVa_i;i Dear Mr. Kashiwa: This is to notify you that on the avaning of April 1, 1993, the three ants of Hawaiian remains racovered from the above mentioned property were respectfully reinterred. Thank you for your cooperation and arstsiQtanco thrnrighoeit this important matter. If three are any quar-tione, pleases contaut Edward Halealohn Aynu, Esq. at 587-0010. Sincere Q 8 , Administrator to Historic Preservation Division c. Edward L.H. Ka.nahela, Chair, Hawaii Burial Council A-3 APPENDIX 6: Archaeological Preservation Plan SCS PROJECT 2252-1 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION PLAN FOR SITE #50-10-57-30592 LOCATED IN HOLUALOA 1sc AHUPUA`A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI`I ISLAND, HAWAI`I TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-0191 Prepared by: Glenn Escott, M.A. and Nicole A. Mello, M.A. MAY 2020 DRAFT Prepared for: Kona Three, LLC I I I Hualalai St. Hilo, HI 96720 SCIlsYrIFIC CONSULTANT SF.RvtCF.S Inc- 1347 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu,HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au,HI 96749 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................I LISTOF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................II LISTOF TABLES.........................................................................................................................III INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................I ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.....................................................................................................I HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS............................................................................6 PRE-CONTACT ERA........................................................................................................ 8 TheKona Field System........................................................................................... 9 POST-CONTACT ERA.................................................................................................... 10 THEMAHELE................................................................................................................. 12 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES.............................................................................16 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES .......................................... 19 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY.................... 24 AIS SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................33 SITE 30592 RAILROAD BERM ................................................................................ 34 SITES #50-10-57-30592 PRESERVATION TREATMENTS .....................................................37 REFERENCESCITED..................................................................................................................41 APPENDIX A: SHPD AIS APPROVAL LETTER......................................................................46 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Island Showing Location of Site Project Area National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Project Areas and TMK Parcels (Kealakekua Quadrangle. ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic and County of Hawaii Planning Department, 2019).................................. 3 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area, Holualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS)......................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Close-Up Showing Project Area, Holualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (ESRI, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and USGS).......................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Map of Holualoa lst and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border(Alexander 1855)................................................................................................ 7 Figure 6: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928)...................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border(Aki 1952)........................................................................ 13 Figure 8: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards, Land Grants, and the Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, Kailua Quad. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)...... 14 Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area (Kealakekua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)............................................................ 18 Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al. (1992) Sites and Current Project Area(ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). .................. 25 Figure 11: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott(2018)AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle).................................. 30 Figure 12: Photograph of Site 30592 Railroad Berm Rail Bed, Looking South(25 cm scale).... 35 Figure 13: Photograph of Site 30592 Railroad Berm Retaining Wall, Looking Southeast......... 36 Figure 14: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map (Kauluoa and Puu Pohakuloa Quads) Showing Location of Project Area, Archaeological Sites and Preservation Easements (ESRI 2013. Data Sources: NASA,NGS and USGS)................................ 38 Figure 15: Portion of TMK: (3) 7-6-021 Map Showing the Locations of Site 30592, Preservation and Access Easements, and Access Breach............................................. 39 ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Land Commission Awards Recorded in Holualoa I" and 2° d Ahupua`a. ..................... 15 Table 2: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations..................................................... 16 Table 3: Inventory of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites (Hammatt et al. 1992; Hammatt and Shideler 2007)........................................................................................ 26 Table 4: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area(Escott and Escott2018).................................................................................................................. 29 Table 5: Inventory of Escott&Escott (2020)Archaeological Sites. ........................................... 32 iii INTRODUCTION As requested by the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) in a letter dated May 31, 2018 (Log No. 2018.01123, Doc No. 1805SN05) (Appendix A), Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS)produced this Archaeological Preservation Plan (PP) for Site #50-10-37- 30592 (hereafter referred to as Site 30592) located on a portion of TMK: (3) 7-6-021: 016-019 in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii (Figure 1 through Figure 4, and Figure 14 to Figure 15). The owner is proposing to develop the property and contracted SCS produce this PP as required for a County of Hawaii Planning Department grubbing and grading permit application. Prior to writing the preservation plan, a search of geological maps, aerial photos, historical maps, historical documents, land titles, land-use documents, and previous archaeological reports was conducted. A summary of the research is included in this preservation plan. The preservation plan was prepared in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-277 rules for site archaeological preservation. The property is owned by Kona Three, LLC. The contact person for Kona Three, LLC is Mr. Richard Wheelock. Mr. Wheelock can be reached by phone at(808) 753-3167, and by email at richard@eastwestrealty.org. His mailing address is 700 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813-4112. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Site 30592 is a portion of the Historic era Kona Sugar Company railroad bed and berm located along the eastern boundary of the project area of an undeveloped portion of TMK: (3) 7- 6-021:016-019. The project area is located between 360 and 660 feet(110 to 201 meters) above mean sea level (amsl) on fairly steep sloping land with level areas in between elevation breaks. The land is a small portion of a larger former cattle ranch and agricultural area that was started in the early 1900s. The lower portion of the project area is still used to pasture cattle. The project area and surrounding lands were bulldozed sometime between the 1940s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile. Pedestrian survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer-cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. 1 H ,AWAII Le J r f r. K ..w.rn r^ 1 IvY ry I(} Ir 'C M 45 Kew Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawaii Island Showing Location of Site Project Area National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 IfffWOm E 188001km F. 189M.E 1900000A E 19106lrn I: r r Y L CqIr a, KEYPROAFTIARIA I—Isul u.kin' 1 „ 1.1 f' II 300 4IIIF GI)D N00 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing the Location of Project Areas and TMK Parcels(Kealakekua Quadrangle.ESRI,2013.Data Sources:National Geographic and County of Hawaii Planning Department,2019). 3 187WO.]r: 1®OMM E 189088m E 1911DIIIIm F: 191111gm.A: 7_8 KEY Li 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 3:Aerial Photograph Showing Project Area,Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. (ESRI,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 4 KEY PROJECT AREA TMK BOUNDARY 1TN 0 50 100 150 200 meters 1 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph Close-Up Showing Project Area,Holualoa,HI,Zone 5 North, 189445 m E,2171790 m N. (ESRI,2013 Image. Data Sources:Digital Globe,GeoEye,Earthstar,USDA,and USGS). 5 The project area ground surface is a Hualalai lava flow dating between 5,000 and 10,000 years before present (ybp) (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is Punalu`u Series (rPYD series) extremely rocky peat with six to twenty percent slopes Sato 1973:48). The majority of the project area has been bulldozed in the past and the present ground surface is rocky soil. Rainfall in the project area is very low, less than thirty inches per year. There is a seasonal gulch along the southern edge of the project area. This region is extremely dry, hot, and somewhat barren except for thick California grass (Urochloa mutica), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and some koa haole(Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe Prosopis pallida), and kukui nut(Aleurites moluccana) trees (Starr Environmental 2016). HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Kona is divided into two sections: North Kona or Kona `akau, and; South Kona, or Kona hema (Maly 1996). Kona `akau was further subdivided into north(called Kekaha) and south(called Konakai`6pua) areas, with the division between the two at the ahupua`a of Keahuolu. The project area is in H6lualoa 1st Ahupua`a (Figure 5)within the area of Konakai`6pua in Kona `akau. H6lualoa means (literally) "long sled course" Pukui et al. 1974:48). H6lualoa 1st is a traditional ahupua`a stretching from the ocean to the foot of Hualalai in the uplands. The coastline of H6lualoa 1st Ahupua`a is primarily low rock cliffs. Very little is recorded of H6lualoa Ahupua`a in traditional oral accounts. The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka-Miki,published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii and translated by Maly (1993) contains the only description of H61ualoa. The legend is set in the 13th century but also reflects more recent influences (Maly and Maly 2002: 17). 6 Lr Figure 5: Map of Holualoa lsi and 2nd Ahupua`a Showing Location of Project Area(Alexander 1855). 7 According to the narrative, The lands of H61ualoa were named for the chief of that name; both H61ualoa and Puapua`a were high chiefs, who controlled the lands from mountain to sea, which bear their names... Kaluaokalani served as a priest of H61ualoa at the temple of Pakiha. This heiau was near the contest field of H61ualoa... The lands of this region are named for various ah`i, all of whom were related. When the chief H61ualoa took up the challenge against Kepaka`ili`ula on behalf of the Kona chiefs, H61ualoa called upon his god Kalaipahoa to assist him in his battle... H61ualoa was the first chief to call upon the god Kalaipahoa, and this was the beginning of this gods' use by the chiefs of Hawaii [Maly 1993:208-209]. PRE-CONTACT ERA H61ualoa, Kona, and much of the leeward side of Hawaii Island, while well populated at the time of European Contact, were settled later than the windward side. This in part may be due to the fertile land, numerous streams, and abundant rainfall on the windward side (Maly 1996:3). Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; McCoy 2005 and 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). During early settlement of the leeward side permanent habitations were established in Kona concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes (Gordy 1981, 1995; Schilt 1984). Informal fields were cleared at higher elevations where rainfall was higher. Between AD 1200 and 1400, habitation and agriculture expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualalai (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995). The initial construction of the Kona Field System(KFS)began approximately between AD 1400 and 1600 (Schilt 1984). The development of these extensive formal walled fields coincides with a dramatic population increase and with the development of the stratified chiefdom structure which is reflected through large residential complexes and heiau Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1981; Haun et al. 1998; Hommon 1986; Schilt 1984). Thus, there was a need to expand the previously limited agricultural base. The royal centers and larger heiau were in place by AD 1600 to 1800 reflecting the growth in power of the rulers and chiefs in the region (Barrera 1971; Hammatt and Folk 1980). Royal centers were located at Kailua, H61ualoa, Kahalu`u, Kealakekua, and Honaunau (Cordy 1995). 8 The region of H61ualoa developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine reigned 1700-1720) (Gordy 2000:244). Many `ah`i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites are known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The royal center at H6lualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu`u and Keauhou region. The Kona Field System The Kona Field System extends north at least to Ka`u Ahupua`a and south to Honaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy 1995). During his travels in 1823, William Ellis noted the extensive field system divided with"low stone walls, made of fragments of lava", producing"bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, tapa trees, melons and sugar cane" and"flourishing luxuriantly in every direction" (Handy and Handy 1940:114 and 162). Many of the archaeological projects conducted within Kona deal with components of the Kona Field System(Cordy 1995; Newman 1970; Schilt 1984). The kula zone of the Kona Field System is from sea level to 150 m amsl. This zone is associated with habitations along the shoreline and cultivation of sweet potatoes uala), paper mulberry(wauke), and gourds (ipu). Clearing mounds, planting depressions, planting mounds, planting terraces, and modified outcrops are common agricultural features in the kula zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Folk 1980; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). Permanent habitation including royal and high chiefly centers as well as non-agricultural activities such as fishing, ceremonies and burial practices were usually concentrated along the shoreline zone portion of the kula zone. The higher elevation zones are the kalu`ulu zone, `apa`a zone and the `ama`u zone. The current project area is in the kalu`ulu zone. This wetter region is above 150 m amsl where bread fruit, sweet potatoes Qpomoea batatas), ti, (Cordyline fmticosa) wauke Broussonetia papyrifera), taro (Colocasia esculenta), sugar cane (Saccharum sp.), and other arboreal crops were grown (Kelly 1983, Menzies 1920). The `apa`a zone is above the kalu`ulu zone. Hawaiians cultivated melons, sweet potatoes, ti, bananas, taro, wauke and sugar cane in fields with low stone walls. The highest zone, the `ama`u zone, was used to grow bananas and plantains in walled fields. The `apa`a zone and the `ama`u 9 zone were also used to collect timber and catch birds therefore temporary habitations were constructed. POST-CONTACT ERA During the post-contact era, the Kona Field System was exploited and the planting of coffee, sugar, sisal, citrus, and cotton took over original Hawaiian crops until eventually the land was used for cattle pasture. The first cattle and sheep were brought to the island by Vancouver in 1793 and 1794 (Vancouver 1967). Horses, mules, oxen, goats, and donkeys were brought shortly after. Feral cattle, sheep, and goats overran agricultural fields by 1813 to 1815 (Ellis 1963: 291; Wilkes 1970: 204). By 1848, in the Kona District, a Great Wall (the Kuakini Wall)was constructed from Lanihau to `Onouli to keep them away from homes and agricultural areas (Maly and Maly 2001:286). Formal cattle ranching began in the Kona region in the mid-1800s. The Kona landscape evolved rapidly with the turn of the century. The rapid growth of the sugar industry produced the Kona Sugar Company in 1899. A railroad was built in 1901 to help sustain this influx in produce. It was later used to haul lumber and freight along with the sugarcane. The rail line was seven miles long and extended from H61ualoa to Ke6puka (Figure 6). Cotton, tobacco, and sisal were grown in the dryer lands below the railroad (Kelly 1983). The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at middle and upper elevations, and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Cattle ranching and clearing for sugar cane and coffee removed many of the endemic species of plants. The suite of vegetation that existed prior to the pre-Contact era were replaced by koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and other newly introduced invasive plant species. 10 1• '+, r.rxrrJA4oll "1 "gyp A5 I kt.akt l ar. aw f' 1 w lY i1 M i ' 13 1V L `7• Haq"7u'.0 'If.• li .rr y l:. li w.l' A . 4 a " Kirmn;n F7 l iV I0 2 r va- M1r.r o r r t F Figure 6: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928). 11 Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, coastal Kona was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. It became a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou(Tomonari-Tuggle 1993:15). Homesteads, ranches, and plantations developed in the uplands during this period as reflected in the pattern of Land Commission Awards (LCA) and Land Grants (LG)recorded during the Mahele Escott and Escott 2018). The project area is just makai (west) of most of the land commission awards and is at the same elevation as portions of the land grants in the region. Based on historic documents, the project area and surrounding lands were likely being used for subsistence and commercial agriculture, as well as for cattle pasture from the mid to late 1800s. The project area might have been used later than surrounding lands because of its steep slopes and very rocky soil, but based on aerial photographs, the project area was bulldozed sometime around the 1950s in preparation for commercial agriculture. THE MAHELE The Land Commission awarded the majority of H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a to Victoria Kamamalu Ka`ahumanu IV, Kuhina Nui of Hawaii Island and Crown Princess of Hawaii as Land Commission Award (LCA)Number 7713, `Apana 43 (Figure 7). Several smaller LCA and LG properties were also recorded in the upland region of H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a(Figure 8). Twenty four Land Commission awards were recorded in H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a, the ahupua`a where the project area is located (Table 1). A portion of LCA#3660 to John G. Munn makes up a thin strip of land located through the center of the current project area. With the notable exception of LCA#3660 and a few other large LCAs, the average award was 2.8 acres, most (n=16) were for less than 3.0 acres. Three Land Grants (LG#1592, 1602, and 3630) were also recorded in H61ualoa I"and 2nd Ahupua`a. LG#1592 was a 25.0-acre parcel sold to Kealalio and LG#3630 was a 38.2-acre parcel sold to W.H. Cromwell. Almost all of the awards and grants were used as subsistence and commercial farm land, and some were used to pasture cattle (Escott and Escott 2018). 12 T.: 7 ' .t"' F- c, i _ ram~j- e a,.. +- K l•p4 le..c J. s _. - err O w rl T'A0.1F,C'T r1RF1 n+r '...= yam. pmn«K`, . t II [,• 1 YA Figure 7:Portion of Kailua Section,North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area(Aki 1952). 13 Isf C3. f L t,- . r• 1 '\ t + J` D$'i tll y 4 p u AP d LI1 33 fill CIS{; IA 19vl2:1 SIR liklI t 3es..1 it 7r •• M6f V i A C i.0 t o-r J r l'. yam . l S KEYr• I l'ilf[1 I\Ili"l'I(5\,511,IH11 E\., Al L A— r,IsraaL rAgx M e..vouwr E V MNAWIMRIL11CA,STATE Y I• A ,. AW 8fiaoomE 87 ':'%m>= E 1891c—E. 46...--.-E v1 E.L:'G584 Zone 5Q 193 T\ l.L Ui MILL 17 tl Imu IlL P lI 10004,rifaS ea.d—h.OPO2 C_IL.Oa.. 1Cerra anal— hk-cmnl Figure 8: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards,Land Grants,and the Project Area(National Geographic Topo!,2003,Kailua Quad. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 14 Table 1: Land Commission Awards Recorded in H61ualoa I" and 2nd Ahupua`a. LCA#AWARDED TO AHUPUA`A ACRES 3660 John G. Munn H61ualoa 1" 111.5 4395 Kekoi H61ualoa 1" 1.7 5552 Kauila H61ualoa 1" 1.9 5554 Keawekolohe H61ualoa 1" 11.27 5795 Kehikanakaole H61ualoa 2°d 2.2 5810 Kaopukauila H61ualoa 1" 1.74 5993 Leipalapala H61ualoa 2°d 2.0 6063 Hana H61ualoa 1" 2.9 6107 Naai H61ualoa 1" 3.94 7339 Kuaana H61ualoa 1" 4.15 7340 Kama 2 H61ualoa 1" 2.5 7340:B Kama 1 H61ualoa 1" 1.3 7443 Kalima as H61ualoa 1" 1.94 7713 Kamamalu H61ualoa 1Snd Large H6lualoa 2 7746 Kamahalo H61ualoa 1" 5.0 7794 Kauakini H61ualoa 1" 1.8 7990 Pupuka H6lualoa 1" 1.1 8015 Aipo H61ualoa 2 Id 1.4 8151 Hehena H61ualoa 1" 2.3 8223 Ikaiaka H61ualoa 1" 3.5 9915 Limahana H61ualoa 1" 2.42 9932 Lumaawe H61ualoa 1" 2.98 10770 Puuone H61ualoa 1" 3.06 10400 Naaimakaohi H6lualoa I"n& 3.5 H6lualoa 2 15 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES There are at least 26 previous archaeological reports for lands near the current project area, including studies in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ahupua`a Table 2 and Figure 9). The studies were conducted from the coast to roughly 1,460 ft amsl and encompass the kula region (0-500 ft), the kalu`ulu region (500-1,000 ft), and the lower portions of the `dpa`a region (1,000-2,500 ft). Results of the previous archaeological studies are summarized below by elevation: studies numbered 1 through 15 in Table 2 and Figure 9 are situated from the coast to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway 0-360 ft amsl), studies 16 through 21 are located from above the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to just below Hualalai Road (306-760 ft amsl), and studies 22 through 24 are above Hualalai Road to just above Mamalahoa Highway(1,100-1,460 ft amsl). Table 2: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Investigations. Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) 1 Landrum et al. 1990 Archaeological N/A 46 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Calis et al.2004 Archaeological Data N/A 10 Sites Recovery 2 Carlson&Rosendahl Archaeological 65 64 Sites 1990 Inventory Survey 3 Haun et al. 1998 Archaeological 15 31 Sites Inventory Survey 4 Hammatt&Folk 1981 Archaeological Survey 20 20 Sites 4 Hammatt et al. 1986 Archaeological Survey 20 21 Sites Excavations 5 Haun&Henry 2001 Archaeological Data 1.59 1 Site Recovery 6 Escott 2013 Archaeological 1.962 2 Sites Inventory Survey 7 Sinoto 1979 Archaeological 6 Rock Walls Reconnaissance Survey 8 Hammatt 1979b Archaeological Survey 22 3 Sites 9 Hammatt 1979c Archaeological Survey 23 39 Sites Conolly&Gunness Archaeological 10 46.8 80 Sites 1979 Reconnaissance Survey 10 Hammatt 1979a Archaeological 46.8 11 Sites Inventory Survey 10 Hammatt 1980 Archaeological Survey 103 88 Sites Excavation 11 Nelson et al.205 Archaeological 28 22 Sites Inventory Survey 12 Rosendhal 1978 Archaeological 2.5 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 16 Project Number Reference Type of Study Area in Acres Results Figure 8) 12 Soehren 1980a Archaeological n/a 7 Sites Reconnaissance Survey 12 Wolforth et al.2000 Archaeological 8 7 Sites Inventory Survey Archaeological 17 3+several ag.13 Barrera 1995 Reconnaissance Survey mounds Archaeological 12(104 Features, 13 Haun&Henry 2000 Inventory Survey 17 82 of Which Were Agricultural) Archaeological Field Modified 14 Rosendahl Inspection 6 Outcrops 15 Schilt 1984 Archaeological Study 17 134 Sites 16 Walker&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 1988 Reconnaissance Survey 16 Graves&Goodfellow Archaeological Data 104 58 Sites 1993 Recovery 16 Maly&Rosendahl Archaeological 104 67 Sites 2006 Preservation Plan 17 Hammatt et al. 1992 Archaeological Survey 174 71 Sites 18 Soehren 1980b Archaeological 16 1 Site Reconnaissance Survey 19 Rechtman 2006 Archaeological 1.008 2 Sites Inventory Survey 20 Rosendahl 1988 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Reconnaissance Survey 20 Fager&Graves 1993 Archaeological 17 17 Sites Inventory Survey 1 Site(149 21 Dircks et al.2013 Archaeological 10.266 Historic to Inventory Survey Modern Farming Features) 22 Desilets et al.2004 Archaeological 11.7 1 Homestead Inventory Survey Features 23 Rechtman 2013 29 24 Sites Clark&Rechtman Archaeological 6 Historic Era 24 2006 Inventory Survey 2'7 Sites Archaeological 22 Pre-Contact 25 Escott&Escott 2018 Inventory Survey 5.0 and Historic Era Sites 18 Pre-Contact Archaeological and Historic Era 26 Escott&Escott 2020 Inventory Survey 73.122 Sites 1 Isolated Find Petroglyph) 17 IY7oNrrii 6 INNi•.m.n I N Nil Tim 1 I"aWHI xl f IVa110F r f IJ -^' • rl 'v, pFCfAJFC A x aJ r J w ARFA IN M1 1 1 h 1 a i LJ Y U 00 D.PHOJF.l7 Hf.1.f.11..,]ffn fl ,Ivn Jnu nlpl allwr 1 Ix-min,n r IF>•g91Yni 1 IxvlNrlmr l i WlNlhr r 141 .r Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Previous Archaeological Studies and Project Area Kealakekua Quad,ESRI,2013. Data Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS). 18 REGIONAL PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES 1. Landrum et al. 1990, and Calis et al. 2004. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey(Landrum et al. 1990) and SCS, Inc. conducted data recovery investigations (Calis et al. 2004) at the Kahakai development project. The project area is located within the lower elevations of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era cave shelters, agricultural rock clearing mounds, burials, shrines, and a possible heiau were identified during the AIS study. A heiau complex, several burials, and five permanent habitation sites were recommended for preservation. All of the preservation sites are near the coast. 2. Carleson and Rosendahl 1990. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 65 acres between Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways in Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. Their study recorded 64 archaeological sites including pre-Contact era habitation, agricultural, and burial sites. Seven sites were assessed as significant and recommended for preservation (Carleson and Rosendahl 1990: 34). 3. Haun et al. 1998. PHRI, Inc. conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the proposed Ali`i Drive corridor through several ahupua`a. Numerous pre-Contact era site complexes were recorded in Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa I"through 4th Ahupua`a. The site complexes included a large number of agricultural features, as well as habitation, burial, and ceremonial features. 4. Hammatt and Folk 1981, and Hammatt et al. 1986. Two archaeological surveys were conducted on a 20-acre parcel of below Kuakini Highway. The first study recorded 20 sites, and the second recorded 21 sites. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt and Folk 1981: ii, and Hammatt et al. 1986: 87). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated. 5. Haun & Henry 2001. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological data recovery study at a c-shaped enclosure located on 1.59 acres of land below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway 6. Escott 2013. SCS conducted an archaeological study onl.962 acres of land near the intersection of Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu highways. Two historic era ranch walls were recorded during the study. 19 7. Sinoto 1979. Aki Sinoto recorded several Historic era ranch rock walls on a six acre parcel of land just mauka of Ali`i Drive. 8. Hammatt 1979b. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 22 acres just south of Kuakini Highway. Three archaeological sites were recorded during the study. None of the sites were recommended for preservation(Hammatt 1979b: ii, and 10). 9. Hammatt 1979c. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 23 acres located in the near coastal portion of Holualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Thirty nine archaeological sites were recorded during the study. The report recommended that all burials, including a known cemetery site be relocated Hammatt 1979a: 5). None of the remaining sites (pre-Contact era habitation and agriculture sites) were recommended for preservation in place. 10. Conolly and Gunness 1979, and Hammatt 1979a and 1980. The Archaeological Research Center, Inc. conducted an archaeological survey of 103 acres within the near coastal portions of Holualoa 1st through 4th Ahupua`a(Hammatt 1980). One hundred and thirty six archaeological sites were recorded on the project area. They included pre- Contact era habitation, agriculture, burial, and a ceremonial sites. The Hammatt report recommended that a heiau(Site 6661)was significant and should be preserved in place Hammatt 1980: 4). The report also recommended that the single documented burial be relocated to the perimeter of heiau (Site 6661) and preserved. No other sites were recommended for preservation. 11. Nelson et al. 2005. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting on 28.0 acres located in the near coastal portion of Holualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 22 sites containing 150 features were recorded. The sites were primarily pre- Contact era agricultural and habitation sites, though five burial sites, a possible heiau, and a trail were also documented within the project area. 12. Rosendahl 1978, Soehren 1980a, Wolforth et al. 2000. PHRI conducted an archaeological inventory survey of eight acres of coastal Holualoa 3rd Ahupua`a and recorded seven archaeological sites including three Historic era rock walls, three residential sites, and Hikapaia Heiau. 20 13. Barrera 1995, Haun & Henry 2000. Barrera (1995) recorded a possible burial platform, two habitation site, agricultural rock clearing mounds and modified outcrops during a reconnaissance survey of 17 acres in near coastal H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the property and recorded 12 sites with 104 features (Haun and Henry 2000:14). The majority of features n=82) were pre-Contact era agricultural rock clearing mounds. Eleven permanent habitation and one temporary habitation feature were also recorded during the study. 14. Rosendahl 1989. PHRI conducted an archaeological field inspection of 6.0 acres of land just below Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Several modified outcrops were recorded in the letter report. There were no other archaeological features identified on the project area. 15. Schilt 1984. The Bishop Museum conducted an archaeological study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Project located roughly along present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and recorded 39 sites Puapua`a 2nd and H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. Twenty two of the sites were pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural gardens and modified outcrops (rock clearing). There were also traditional habitation platforms and trails, as well as Historic era roads and walls recorded during the study. 16. Walker and Rosendahl 1988, Graves and Goodfellow 1993, and Maly and Rosendahl 2006. An archaeological reconnaissance survey(Walker and Rosendahl 1988), an archaeological data recovery study(Graves and Goodfellow 1993), and an archaeological preservation plan (Maly and Rosendahl 2006)were conducted by PHRI, Inc. for 104 acres in the upland region of Puapua`a 2nd Ahupua`a. A total of 67 sites were documented within the project area, including traditional (KFS) sites, temporary habitation sites, three burials, and a heiau. The archaeological preservation plan recommended that the three burials be relocated to the heiau site, and that the heiau be preserved as a formal historic preservation area (Maly and Rosendahl 2006). 17. Hammatt et al. 1992. An archaeological survey was conducted by Cultural Surveys Hawaii on 174 acres of land in the upland region of H61ualoa 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ahupua`a. The project area lands had been heavily bulldozed during the modern era for ranching and agricultural purposes. Despite the bulldozing, seventy one sites were recorded during the study, including temporary habitation features, rock walls, agricultural features, and 21 three burial sites. Many of the sites were determined to be associated with Historic era ranching and agriculture. 18. Soehren 1980b. Soehren conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey of 16.0 acres above Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in the inland region of H61ualoa I" Ahupua`a (Soehren 1980b). A single enclosure was identified during the survey. 19. Rechtman 2006. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Rechtman Consulting, LLC on a roughly one-acre parcel located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 2nd Ahupua`a. Two rock walls were recorded on the project area. The report recommended no further work at the wall sites. 20. M. Rosendahl 1988, Fager & Graves 1993. Fager and Graves (1993) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 17.0 acres just mauka of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in H61ualoa 3rd Ahupua`a. Seventeen sites containing 27 pre-Contact to early post-Contact era agricultural features, including rock mounds, modified outcrops, C- shaped enclosures, terraces, walls, and rock enclosures, were recorded. 21. Dircks et al. 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 10.266 acres of land located between 840 and 920 ft amsl in H61ualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua`a. One Historic era to modern era homestead/agriculture site (Miyose Farm) containing 149 features was recorded during the survey. 22. Desilets et al. 2004. Desilets et al. (2004) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 11.7 acres of land in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. A single site associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture (coffee), and ranching was recorded. Features included rock walls, roads, coffee terraces, and buildings. 23. Rechtman 2013. Rechtman Consulting conducted and archaeological inventory survey of 29 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa 1st Ahupua`a. Twenty four sites were recorded. The majority of the sites were associated with Historic era and modern era homesteads, commercial agriculture. Features included rock walls, roads, and remnants of structures. A single pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era residential and agricultural site was also recorded. 22 24. Clark& Rechtman 2006. Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of 2.7 acres of land located in the `apa`a region of H61ualoa I" Ahupua`a. Six sites were recorded, including five ranch walls and an area of coffee terraces. A number of conclusions can be made from the previous archaeological studies. A primary conclusion is that the majority of habitation features, especially permanent habitation features, are located from the coast to about 360 ft amsl, below the present day Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The same is true of ceremonial features, burials, and, to a lesser extent, agricultural features. The density of agricultural features and habitation features, mostly temporary habitation features, in the upland regions between 360 ft amsl and 700 ft amsl is much lower than the site density in the coastal kula and lower kalu`ulu regions of the KFS. The pre-Contact traditional Hawaiian settlement and agricultural patterns are strongly oriented to the kula and lower kalu`ulu regions. Even though cattle ranching and commercial agriculture may have removed some archaeological sites from the ground surface in the kalu`ulu region, there appear to be fewer sites than at lower elevations. The majority of sites in the kalu`ulu region are KFS agricultural sites including rock clearing mounds, modified outcrops, garden enclosures, and low garden walls. Within the lands of the current project, it is clear that ranching and commercial agricultural practices have removed and damaged many of the pre-Contact era sites from the ground surface (see the Hammatt et al. 1992 summary below). Moreover, many of the sites identified near the current project area are associated with Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture. A second conclusion is that the establishment of Historic era homesteads, ranches, and commercial agriculture seems to have removed, or obscured, the majority of pre- Contact era sites in the upper kalu`ulu and lower `apa`a regions. It might be that pre- Contact uses in these regions did not involve the construction of large or permanent features, as in the lower regions of Kona. It is also likely that Historic era ranching and commercial agriculture in the lower `apa`a region have caused large scale land alterations through the use of bulldozers for pasture and garden. It is possible that traditional features were disassembled to build rock walls and coffee terraces. 23 CURRENT PROJECT AREA SPECIFIC PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY 26. Hammatt et al. 1992. Lands of the current AIS study were subject to an AIS study conducted by Hammatt et al. (1992). That study encompassed 66.039 acres of land within the current project area located between 320 to 690 feet (98 to 210 meters) amsl [TMK: 3) 7-6-021:016 and 017] (see Figure 9, Project#17). The current project area is located within the northern portion of the Hammatt et al. (1992)project area. Twenty one archaeological sites and two areas of bulldozed modern planting terraces" were recorded in the AIS report (Figure 10 and Table 3). Eight of the 21 archaeological sites (SIHP #50-10-37-10015, #50-10-37-10017, #50-10-37-10018, #50- 10-37-10020, #50-10-37-10031, #50-10-37-10033, #50-10-37-10034, and#50-10-37- 10049, hereafter abbreviated to the last five digits)were recorded by CSH in tabular format only. Written descriptions of the remaining 13 sites are in the CSH AIS report. Excavations were conducted at ten of the 13 sites. The AIS report included plan view figures for four of the 13 sites. At the request of SHPD, additional site documentation for Sites 10011, 10012, 10031, 10049, and 10071 was submitted to SHPD in a letter report Hammatt and Shideler 2007). Six of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, four associated with habitation, one with agriculture, and one single feature site (Site 10012) contained two burials. Fifteen of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Two Historic era habitation sites were also documented in the AIS study. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1983. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. The AIS recommended no further work at all 21 sites documented in the current project area. The Hammatt and Shideler(2007) letter report repeated the AIS recommendation that"all surface sites in the area were documented" in the AIS report and that"significant material from the study area has been recovered and that further investigation would be of minimum productivity" (Hammatt and Shideler 2007:11). However, the authors recommended that the sites should be located to document their current conditions and to document the sites to prevailing SHPD AIS standards. 24 1871NlIII E KEY 1.. FAIT,HIII Mi L%xl y 11107. 5:*[xE.F:!CCLIl SlO?ti 0, 10073 r @ 'ANfH f 111.INai('A.1,tiITP: t Rlll.i-IIULE:IY 411 is I T 0 -W.ATLRALFLATUHE 44 : r, ILBUA 106711 •STfiPSITF.NUhIRF,R i MONO I" ITF.31192 WALLS J v 11'IK t I SO 100 1-% TINT 10D • F Ct IiYll'W s R1014 FAIK:1? 6-921, IN fir 111 7.6,92!ill 16 p F lliHiX 1000C . 100120 ES['U'Pf d1 BURIAL O 1 GUI+9 q.4[.`i]'TT O11.11 0IM I EEC I Alu Mh.:1717 4-1111:019 1007119 fie ` +. 9N IM90IYIIn E Figure 10:7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Northern Portion of Hammatt et al.(1992)Sites and Current Project Area(ESRI,2011. Sources:National Geographic Society,USGS.Kealakekua Quadrangle). 25 Table 3:Inventory of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites(Hammatt et al. 1992;Hammatt and Shideler 2007). SIHP CSH TYPE FUNCTION AGE EXCAVATION CULTURAL MATERIAL SITE# 10011 9 Platform Ag.Clearing Prehistoric 1.5 m long trench 3 cowrie shells 10012 10 Platform&Wall Burial Prehistoric Entire Feature Burial reinterred off-project 10013 11 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Prehistoric 4.5 m square total Fire features&Prehistoric artifacts 10015 13 Terrace Road Bed Historic 10017 15 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic 10018 16 Enclosure Habitation Historic 10019 17 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic 3 1.0 m wide Metal File trenches 10020 18 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic 10031 110 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic 10033 112 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic 10034 113 Platform Ag.Clearing Historic 10049 216 Terraces Agriculture Historic 10067 232 Terraces Habitation Prehistoric 1.0 X 1.0 m VG&a small amount of midden&fire feature 10068 233 Enclosure Habitation Prehistoric 0.5 X 0.25 m small amount of midden 10069 234 Modified Habitation Historic 0.5 X 0.5 m VG&a small amount of midden Bluff/Platform 10070 235 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic 1.0 X 0.5 m No artifacts 10071 237 Platform Habitation Prehistoric 10072 238 Modified Bluff Ag.Clearing Historic 7.0 m square total No arts Small amount of MS in TU-2 10073 239 Platforms Ranching/Ag. Historic 10074 240 Enclosure Coffee Work Historic 1.25 m square total 1 VG,little MS,historic artifacts Shed 10075 241 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic 26 In a letter to the County of Hawaii Department of Planning dated July 30, 2018, Log. No. 2018.00878 Doc. No. 1807SN01), SHPD requested a new pedestrian survey to identify all archaeological historic properties present on the project area, and to update previous archaeological documentation to include site plans for each site with site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, photographs of all sites and features, an assessment of their integrity, and site significance. 25. Escott & Escott 2018. SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey on a 5.0- acre portion of Parcel 017 in the southeast portion of the current project area(Escott and Escott 2018) and recorded twenty-two new archaeological sites within the project area Table 4 and Figure 11). Fifteen of the sites are single-feature sites. The remaining seven agricultural sites contained two to seven features. A majority of the sites are agricultural terraces and complexes dating to the pre-Contact era to the Historic era. The agricultural complexes are located in the lower kalu`ulu zone, between 600 and 700 feet 182 to 213 meters) amsl. Three of the ranch walls (Site 30595, 30601, and 3065) are the primary dividers of the five-acre project area. These Historic era walls have typical characteristics of ranch walls including cobble core fill and bi-faced inward sloping walls toward the top. They are approximately 1.0 meter tall. Site 30602 and Site 30603 are Historic era ranching and agricultural enclosures constructed along wall Site 30595 and wall Site 30601. These two wall sites are constructed onto the west edge of the Site 30592 railroad berm and post-date the railroad berm. The northern third of the project area only has two sites (Site 30591 and 30956). Site 30591 is an agricultural complex with six terraces. Portions of the sites were bulldozed in the early Modern era. Both sites date to pre-Contact to early Historic era. The terraces reflect Kona Field System features but are roughly constructed that more closely resemble Historic era commercial agriculture. Site 30956 is a rectangular Historic style hearth. The middle one third of the project area between wall sites 30595 and 30605 is within the bulldozed"terraces" portion of the project area. Site 30593 is a pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era lava tube burial. The burial will be preserved in place in accordance with a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan. Site 30594 is an 27 agricultural terrace complex that resembles the Kona Field System but is more roughly constructed. Artifacts recovered from subsurface testing at Site 30604 suggest it is a Historic era agricultural terrace. The southern third of the project area, south of wall Site 30605, contained six primarily agricultural sites (Site 30598, 30600, 30606, 30607, 30610, and 30611) and four Historic era sites (Site 30599, 30608, 30609, and 30612)with functions other than agriculture. The agricultural features included rock walls (Site 30598 and306O6), terraces (Site 30600 and 30610), and agricultural complexes with terraces (Site 30607 and 30610). The non-agricultural features included three enclosures (Site 30599, 30608, and 30609), and a refuse disposal area lava blister (Site 30612). The cluster of these sites indicates their use for Historic era commercial agriculture. Twenty-nine shovel probes and two excavation units tested the sites. Marine shell fragments, a basalt flake and volcanic-glass flakes recovered during testing indicate that Hawaiians likely used the area for limited agricultural purposes. However, the agricultural terraces more closely resemble the remains of Historic era commercial agriculture. All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study were assessed significant under criterion"d" as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria"a" and"c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The railroad berm was recommended for preservation with preservation measures outlined in an archaeological preservation plan (Escott and Mello 2019b). The rest of the sites require no further work. The burial is also significant under criterion"e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial was recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (Escott and Mello 2019a). 28 Table 4:Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area(Escott and Escott 2018). Site# Site Type Features Site Function Age Testing 30591 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1,2,3 30592 Railroad Bed and Berm 1 Transportation Historic Era 30593 Lava Tube Burial 1 Burial Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era 30594 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1&2 30595 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30596 Hearth 1 Food Preparation Historic Era TU-1 30597 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30598 Rock Wall 1 Agriculture/Ranching Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30599 Platform&Enclosure 2 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2,TU-1 30600 Terrace 1 Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 30601 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30602 Enclosure 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1,2,3&4 30603 Enclosure 4 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1&2 30604 Agricultural Complex 4 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30605 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era 30606 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30607 Agricultural Complex 7 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 to SP-10 30608 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30609 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30610 Terrace 1 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30611 Agricultural Complex 3 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1,2,3 30612 Lava Blister 1 Refuse Dump Historic Era 29 KEY SI I 1 341591 PROJECT AREA Srff-341596 SH F. SITE D(lUNDARV RAILROAD BED SITF 3OW2 R(KW WA U. TXJ SI'ry 1440 0 20 41) 60 SO NIETERN SITE 3MS V MW SI VF 30604 SITE"593 1TE 30-599S11vJOW5 SITE306M SITE 39612 111 V A0607 SI I L 30610 S I I I'3W"SITU W611 SITE 30d97 Figure 11: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott(2018)AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). 30 26. Escott & Escott 2020. SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey on a 73.122-acre portion of the current project area in Parcel 016, 017 (por.), 018, and 019 to identify all archaeological historic properties present on the project area, and to update previous archaeological documentation (see Figure 10). Seventeen of the twenty-one sites previously identified in Hammatt et al. (1992) were located during the course of the archaeological inventory survey study(Figure 10 and Table 5). Two of the previously documented sites (Site 10020 and Site 10034) relocated by SCS are natural bedrock outcrops and one site former burial site (Site 10012). The burials at Site 10012 were reinterred off-project in 1983. The four remaining previously documented sites (Sites 10017, 10033, 10049, and 10071) were bulldozed prior to the SCS fieldwork and the remains of the sites are no longer present on the ground surface. Three previously undocumented sites were also recorded, including a portion of the railroad berm (Site 30592), a small coffee shed enclosure (Site 31181), and several ranch walls (Site 31182). A single petroglyph on a loose cobble was recorded as Isolated Find 1 (IF-1). A total of 21 sites, 17 previously documented and four newly documented, were identified on the project area and are documented in this report. Two of the sites (Site 10020 and Site 10034) were determined to be natural geological features. Six of the sites were determined to be pre-Contact era, three associated with habitation, one with agriculture, a single petroglyph site, and one single feature site (Site 10012) formerly contained two burials. Twelve of the sites were determined to be Historic era sites, the majority associated with coffee agriculture and cattle ranching. Two Historic era habitation sites were also documented in the AIS study. One site (Site 10015)was determined to be a short segment of modern bulldozer road. The burials at Site 10012 were removed and reinterred off-project prior to 1983. The site was further excavated to ensure that all iwi had been removed. The site was then back-filled and leveled by bulldozer. 31 Table 5: Inventory of Escott &Escott(2020)Archaeological Sites. SIHP# TYPE FUNCTION AGE 10011 Platform Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact 10012 Platform&Wall Burial Pre-Contact 10013 Enclosure&Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact 10015 Bulldozer Road Transportation Modern 10017 Platform Cattle Ramp Historic 10018 Enclosure Agricultural Historic 10019 6 Rock Mounds Ag.Clearing Historic 10020 Bedrock Outcrop Geological Feature Natural 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic 10033 Planting Complex Coffee Ag Historic 10034 Bedrock Outcrop Geological Feature Natural 10049 Terraces Agriculture Historic 10067 Terraces Habitation Pre-Contact 10068 Enclosure Habitation Pre-Contact 10069 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic 10070 U-Shape Enclosure Agriculture Historic 10071 Platform Habitation Pre-Contact 10072 Complex Ag.Clearing Pre-Contact 10073 Platforms Ranching/Ag. Historic 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic 31182 Rock Walls Ranching&Agri Historic IF-1 Petroglyph Marker Pre-Contact 32 AIS SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS All sites identified during the Escott and Escott (2018) and Escott and Escott 2020) AIS studies were assessed as significant under criterion "d" as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria a" and "c" as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The railroad berm was recommended for preservation. The petroglyph(IF-1) is recommended for preservation in a safe location on the project area, preferably within the Site 30592 railroad berm preservation area. Burial Site 30593 is also significant under criterion"e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial is recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in the SHPD-approved burial site component of a burial treatment plan (Escott and Mello 2019). The remaining sites are recommended for no further work. Site 30592 is summarized below from Escott and Escott(2018:53-54). 33 SITE 30592 RAILROAD BERM FUNCTION: Transportation AGE: Historic Era DIMENSIONS: 300.0 m long (N/S)by 4.0 m wide max. by 5.0 m max. height CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered: retains integrity of location, setting, materials, and workmanship SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Modern Trash Debris EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30592 is an Historic era railroad berm located between 680 m and 690 m amsl along the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 8). The railroad berm is approximately 300.0 m in length(SE/NW) and 4.0 m wide by a maximum of 5.0 m in height. The railroad bed is a level dirt and rock surface, and the berm is located along the west side of the railroad bed. The southern portion of the berm retaining wall is constructed of small boulders and large cobbles stacked up to nine courses high (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The berm is well faced with fairly tightly fitted natural rock. The rock has not been worked prior to stacking. The berm face slopes slightly toward the east as it approaches the top to prevent collapse. The southern portion of the railroad bed top surface has been bulldozed in the fairly recent past, likely during construction of the homes along the east edge of the project area property. Portions of the berm are partially collapsed. There is a fair amount of modern construction debris and refuse along the southern course of the railroad bed. The northern portion of the railroad berm retaining wall is constructed of small boulders and large cobbles stacked up to nine courses high (Figure 12 and Figure 13). The berm is well faced with fairly tightly fitted natural rock. The rock has not been worked prior to stacking. The berm face slopes slightly toward the east as it approaches the top to prevent collapse. 34 y t r r i, fir,! s.y •, y r i ASA- TP 1n nZR• k J LAP x rs w.'-' r Y n.: it yam 111 AA r 1 `•gk q Y r fl 1 yL p yy VV J 4 h JpF 1 • •.• to ' The retaining wall is approximately 5.0 m high and is constructed of fifteen courses of large basalt cobbles and small boulders. The north end of the berm has been bulldozed roughly 60.0 m south of the northeast corner of the project area. Site 30592 appears to be unaltered and is in good condition. Only the north end of the railroad berm has been altered by bulldozing. Site 30592 will be preserved under significance Criteria a, c, and d. SITES #50-10-37-30592 PRESERVATION TREATMENTS The former Kona Sugar Company railroad bed and berm(Site 30592) is a long linear feature extending across the eastern boundary of Parcel 016 and Parcel 017. Preservation at Site 30592 consists of avoidance and protection (conservation)per HAR §13-277-3(1). The majority of the feature will be preserved with the proviso that it may be breached for purposes of access. Short-Term Preservation Measures In the event of land disturbance or construction in the area of Site 30592 using heavy earthmoving equipment, a buffer will be established at twenty feet from the western perimeter of the railroad berm(Figure 14 and Figure 15). The twenty-foot buffer will be clearly marked with orange fencing. Any construction work using earthmoving equipment in close proximity to the twenty-foot buffer will require the presence of an archaeological monitor. No construction will take place between the railroad berm and the eastern property boundary. Any construction within 30 feet of the railroad bed and berm shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist familiar with Site 30592 and previous archaeological studies conducted on the property. Long-Term Preservation Measures A permanent preservation buffer will be established twenty feet from the western perimeter of Site 30592 (see Figure 14 and Figure 15). Native ornamental plants may be used to mark the twenty-foot preservation buffer. No use of heavy earthmoving equipment will be allowed within the twenty foot buffer. Hand-tools only shall be permitted within the twenty-foot permanent preservation buffer. Bureau of Conveyances Subsequent to final approval by SHPD of this Preservation Plan, a metes and bounds description of the burial and archaeological preservation sites, and permanent preservation easements shall be surveyed and recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances in conformance with HAR §13-300-38(g). The TMK plat map will include a map of the preservation area. 37 1 M 1 41 E 40 1 A 1w f 19Ke f3J 7-6-021 016 y E1.1 F:1'ITARE EY PH 'AFL1:A E\ 12AEE_NQA6 11ERM PRESERVA7T0Y EASEMF.Nr BREACH&ACCESS O 100 200 3OO DIME Inauu+ni F. 19MOM E Figure 14: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map(Kauluoa and Puu Pohakuloa Quads)Showing Location of Project Area, Archaeological Sites and Preservation Easements(ESRI 2013.Data Sources:NASA,NGS and USGS). 38 n+tAr rr d,rr Y Nm KEY RAILROAD BED -r;,;'` PRESERVATION EASEMENT I BREACH&ACCESS 8' l+J T...-i so 1 r D rc NIOMWAP rr rs• Figure 15: Portion of TMK: (3) 7-6-021 Map Showing the Locations of Site 30592, Preservation and Access Easements, and Access Breach. 39 Property Title The details of this preservation plan and its preservation measures shall become a matter of record with the parcel title. The descriptions of the preservation easements will be added to the title, including the specific requirements and restrictions related to physical improvements, signage, maintenance and access. Access Pedestrian access to Site 30592 shall be from Io Place located east of the site (see Figure 12 to Figure 15). Parking is available on Io Place. The property owner is responsible for ensuring the access easement is usable for pedestrian travel, and is responsible for keeping the access easement clear and open. Access will be permitted seven days a week, one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Access can be arranged by calling the property owner. Signage Weather-resistant signs, approximately 18 by 24 inches in size, shall be placed at the railroad bed at the end of Io Place. The signs shall read: Kona Sugar Company Railroad Preserve This site is historically significant. Historic sites are protected under state law. Violation could result in a $20,000 fine. Chapter 6E-11, Hawaii Revised Statutes) DLNR-SHPD (808) 692-8015 Maintenance The landowner is responsible for maintenance of the preservation easement, access path, signage, vegetation clearing, and general appearance of the preservation area. 40 REFERENCES CITED Aki, H. 1952 Map of Kailua Section, North Kona, Hawaii, Land Titles. Survey and Map by J.S. Emerson. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1280. Alexander, J. 1855 Map of H61ualoa 1 & 2, Kona Hawaii. Hawaii Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1450. Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaii. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Barrera, W. Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 71-10. Submitted to Kamehameha Development Corporation. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Burtchard, G. C. 1995 Population and Land-use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Lands Inventory Survey, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawai`i Island, the Narrative,part 1. Submitted to Belt, Collins and Associates and Kamehameha Investment Corporation. IARII, Honolulu. Cordy, R. 1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press,New York. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Honolulu. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. Ellis. W. 1963 Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing, Honolulu. 41 Escott. G., and S. Escott 2018 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 5.0 Acres Located in H61ua1oa Is' Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawai`i[TMK: (3)7-6-021:017 Por.]. Prepared for East West Realty. SCS Report 1871-1, Honolulu. 2020 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 76.121 Acres Located in H6lua1oa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island, Hawaii[TMK: (3)7-6-021:016- 019]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2330, Honolulu. Escott, G. and N. Mello 2019 Burial Site Component of a Burial Treatment Plan for Burial Site #50-10-37- 30593 Located in H6lualoa 1 st Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, Hawai`i[TMK: (3)7-6-021:017]. Prepared for Kona Three, LLC. SCS Report 2137, Honolulu. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Hammatt, H. H., and S. D. Clark 1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre (Ginter)Parcel in Na ahupua`a Pahoehoe, La`aloa, and Kapala`alaea, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-152 III. Submitted to Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc. Hammatt, H.H., and W.H. Folk 1980 Archaeological Survey, Phase I.• Portions of Keauhou-Kona Resort, Keauhou and Kahulu`u, Kona, Hawai`i Island. ARCH Report 14-177 ILI. Submitted to Kamehameha Investment Corporation. Hammatt, H.H., W.H. Folk, and D.W. Shideler 1992 Archaeological Survey Testing and Excavation of a 174-Acre Parcel, Holualoa, North Kona, Hawai`i. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for the Gamlon Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Hammatt, H.H., and D.W. Shideler 2007 Letter Report Documenting Archaeological Study Conducted, Finds, and Their Treatment at a Proposed Multiple-Family Residential Development, Holualoa Ahuua`a, North Kona District, Hawai`i Island TAIX: (3) 7-6-021:016 por. CSH Report prepared for 1250 Oceanside Partners, LLC, Kailua-Kona. Handy, E.S. 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume I. B.P. Bishop Museum bulletin 161. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 42 Haun, T. L., S. L. Collins, S. D. Clark, and A. Garland 1986 Moe Kau a Ho`oilo:Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Ke6pu, Kona, Hawaii. Chapter VII. Artifacts and Manuports from the Ke6pu Burial Site. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 86-1. Submitted to Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Haun, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Ali`i Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I-Archaeological Intensive Survey, Summary, vol. 1. PHRI Report 1320-052798. Submitted to County of Hawaii. PHRI, Hilo. Hommon, R. J. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 55-88. University Press, Cambridge. Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mala o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Dept. of Anthropology Report Series 83-2. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa dune site (MO-Al-3), Moloka`i Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. 2007 Revised late Holocene culture history for Molokai Island, Hawaii. Radiocarbon, 49(3):1273-1322. Maly, K 1993 Ka`ao Ho`oniva Pu`uwai No Ka-Miki, The Heart Story Story of Ka-Miki. Published in Hawaiian, in the newspaper "Ka H6ku o Hawai`I(Hilo) January 8, 1914 through December 6, 1917. Translated by Kepa Maly for Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 43 1996 Historical Documentary Research. In Archaeological Inventory Survey Proposed Henry Street Extension Road Corridor, by Wulzen, W., T.R. Wolforth, and L.J. Franklin, pp. 9-19. PRHI Report 1465-092696. Prepared for Maryl Development, Kailua-Kona. PHRI, Hilo. Maly, K. and O. Maly 2002 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Ka Aina A Me Nd `Ohana O Waiki`i Ma Waikoloa Kalana O Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka `Aina Mauna:A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki`i at Waikoloa Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawai`i TAX Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates. Hilo. McCoy, M. 2005 The development of the Kalaupapa field system, Koloka`i Island, Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:339-58. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W.F. Wilson. New Freedom Press. Honolulu. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E192-E194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. Newman, T. S. 1970 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii A.D. 1778. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Pukui, M.K., S. Elbert and E. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R Paeth, R Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State ofHawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai`i: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Report prepared for the Hawaii Department of Transportation. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. 44 Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Development Parcel 26 of the Keauhou Resort, Ahupua`a of Kahalu`u, North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. Prepared for Belt Collins and Associates. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu. U.S. Geological Survey 1928 15-Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.govlplsltopomapsl. Vancouver, G. 1967 A Voyage ofDiscovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. Waihona `Aina 2014 Mahele online database. www.waihona.com. Wilkes, C. 1970 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea &Blanchard. Philadelphia. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 201 lb Reply to Mulrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1996 Geological Map of the Island ofHawai`i. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 45 APPENDIX A: SHPD AIS APPROVAL LETTER 46 SLZA—D.CASE DAVID Y.IGE k R CAVE ROF L r j u nextIs HAWAII wn xce Mn-1. 1 } ROBERTK MASCDA I JEFFREY T.PEARSOT,P.E. 5 uteuv uxe<-rux wnrtx ff r Q IT STATE OF HAWAII Mt km DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES oo Asvt s oMM ss os STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION srwrE—s KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD,STE 555 KAPOLE I,HAWAII 96707 May 31,2018 1N REPLY REFER TO: Rick Wheelock Log No. 2018.01123 181 Kalaniana`ole Street Doc.No.1805SN05 Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Archaeology Email:richardeastwestrealty.org Dear Mr.Wheelock: SUBJECT: Chapter 6E42 Historic Preservation Review— Archeological Inventory Survey of 5.0 Acres in Holualoa Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a,North Kona District,Island of Hawaii TMK:(3)7-6-021:017 por. This letter provides the State Historic Preservation Division's (SHPD's) review of the revised report titled Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 5.0 Acres Located in Holualoa 1st Ahupua`a, North Kona, Hawai`i Island,Hawai`i[TMK:(3) 7-6-021:017 par.](Escort and Escort,revised May 2018).Revisions to the report were requested via email on May 13,2018 (Susan Lebo [SHPD] to Glenn Escort [Scientific Consultant Services,Inc. SCS)])and SHPD received the revised report on May 18,2017. SCS conducted the archaeological inventory survey(AIS)at the request of the landowner,Kona Three,LLC.The AIS was conducted in support of a County of Hawaii permit application for proposed development of the property. The AIS covered a 5.0-acre portion of the 30.901-acre parcel.The fieldwork included a 100%pedestrian survey of the entire project area.Ground visibility was fair to poor.Subsurface testing was conducted at several features. The AIS documented twenty-two newly identified historic properties(Table 1).The sites include a pre-and/or early post-Contact lava tube burial, pre- and/or early post-Contact agricultural terraces, and post-Contact walls and enclosures associated with agriculture and/or ranching,and a post-Contact railroad berm. Table 1.Summary of Sites Documented in AIS Site#50-10-37- Type Function Age 30591 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-to Post-Contact 30592 Railroad and Berm Transportation Historic 30593 Lava Tube Burial Pre-to Early Post-Contact 30594 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre-to Post-Contact 30595 Rock Wall Ranching Historic 30596 Possible Hearth Food Preparation Historic 30597 Rock Wall Ranching Historic 30598 Rock Wall Agriculture/Ranching Pre-to Post-Contact 30599 Platform&Enclosure Ranching/Agricufture Historic 30600 Terrace Agriculture Historic 30601 Rock Wall Ranching Historic 30602 Enclosure Ranching/Agricufture Historic 30603 Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic 47 Mr,Whccllp-.k May 31.2018 Pap 2 Sliv 059-1"7- Type Function Agv Agrwultural Compk;F—A ' rgn ulturc pm-to PO%I-C'ntact a 30695 Rock Wall Ranching;At!m U it im Pm' I(W)b Rock Wail JUnching;Agncifleurc P rc- PLI'mi-Ca r Lj,r 30 07 AWicultural Complex --Agriculiure 30(bg Encloswr D%*'cthng and Stumgc JIL-;-. 30609 1 ltlsute D"Vlhm and Skimp 30610 Ttat ace A cult= L PO L:a, Aipmamex L PO»' -L ICIul- 3%12 Iiva Blister Infuse PYFUR The 22%azawcry rr i.ar L1771Llvr HAR §11-284-5 Oiler t a, i r ii I r I A L, as FipifW IF-111 ( ' :-,a a C and'A'as recommended K, [I I- t,s'4. I .- !ii):•-1,:.md7 assessed as I:r L1,7 'nferi(m e and was rewmm-nded for -r T1 17C I r1l.'],In,,,.-.I 17'• L-CIMM in Burial Ircairrtv-! [`-ri. the AIS reparl mcorrzma no llurlhtrr arthA—!,iL.-u3i wri Y!.-, Lx 115911 L,,O 107 SlteN 305W 1hrOLgl!: :IJ D:-'.SUfficim-.-.vfformatmom has been collected fOr Lr L,,-z,i it,w aalc+jicly pru%i& i rion on their i,o..•1 ;nction, I I :I A liar., S I I PD I mi is`:'I- 1, 1 q-1i mitigation". SHPD cowurs with dic sign;fic arizz and t.camumt mcomrnc r.dats ons, The mevan meets the require.nc is i7,ec i fuel ;r I I A R 113-276-5. 1 Pit- rel Pi rri i s At repted P1 Lnqu ceril !,tvv hard 6 0 p 1 s 1 t the doc,uuwaL clearly nix N L. I.t11 11:With a copy'Of II F..A V 1 :1 3 L,L LLI.I I k I"I k:PD1 1 KVQ;'%I ti I I p[I N:111 IC S I jj'L)Ljj)riity I Ifs w SulltL-,.ii ail,i;t: , in I-L-NR p13 2' 4- v, c r S i lPD c,-r m cm d.,:a project .a it r L.17 L:F"i WIL' a& Cd-UPOTI F-! galicirl';Rm7Titmcrt5-.ticn mitigatiof, pl,.rr,;rat'he dcvc`,,Tr J Tj-)r,%rcw anti av ccptarcc Prior t- ---CjrLt:rl-: E I TfiCaVCC-.<[ _-I jj,t.jj:;11,1 F1 11 !H:C: L' Lr-',001-1. 1 :-I"W'ir-F Pursuaw :;, HAIL §13-284-8.loolN bjrward to mirk Inn i 'I.! -T:jWnj plan f.- 't-1; :k0'-.--.. i;l! arOLiLU1L'!I',.L! 1A:1 113%-C!1J,- J.0 11--!:Ut 1 1-':-4 t- .-L 31154',Mn M;dr*iICUItPEJCZI i r f%L re u ircrnr-m N I I P T)%h j I I nut E i f% I h P 4 0 L i n i i ,-i-'-I f L C I r, k U"i'icer.p I 0 k!1;C I I I ogic-al prv,:F,-I'1 -4 L!C Ur tfw: 1 ,i L, i 1'1: I, -' :':2: x EJ I i i,i >L:i„i;Lon and Llic b unaa :rt:a trma t nit:kjs Lj:v s La s i 11111plern"I .-1-1::r eTr:L7 I-PI: 11— r A-': .17iL!71rT.M1 I IRSl!XIOe rnay Ocam CA 117 1 I,i'N: r N"..'MH I I I't u I 1 1"y I V N 11,1 m,.Ll i I c La.'i A lL;L!Lv:v i f you b aye any q uesuons or Aloha, Susan Lcbv 7'LLJ Archatollop BranuclaChief cc Gann Eswa..SCS, 48 Wig,I co 4,2W a F Dacut,no 11(Flo K;_ aw6 car Land(,,cius at ec=ria Corm"ic I €s",€ o recorded oar t { F g5 AA ,( fi p 1 g p°c3I i Y ZI:GUP:$al fi 4Y LAND COURT REGULAR SYSTEM Return by Mail( ) Pickup{ )To: TG: tillr'\ Office of Housing and Community Development 1990 Kino`ole St., Suite 102 TGE: 000 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 fDEBRA N.TOMQNO TITLE OF DOCUMENT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT PARTIES TO DOCUMENT: COUNTY: COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii, whose address is 1990 Kino`ole Street Suite 102,Hilo,Hawaii 96720 DEVELOPER: Kona Three LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company,whose address is 101 Hualalai Street,Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Affects TMK(3) 7-6-021:016 and (3) 7-6-021:017 Document contains pages. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT This Affordable Hou ' g Agreement ("Agreement") is made and effective this 107h day of iioin C4 20(the"Effective Date"), by and between KONA THREE LLC. a Hawai`i limited liability company, (the"Developer"),whose place of business and mailing address in the State of Hawaii is 101 Hualalai Street, Hilo,Hawaii 96720, and the COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii, (the"County"), whose principal place of business and mailing address is 25 Aupuni Street,Hilo,Hawaii 96720. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to develop 450 residential units on approximately 68.836 acres of real property located at Holualoa,North Kona, Island, County and State of Hawaii on Tax Map Key (TMK)Nos. (3) 7-6-021:016 and (3) 7-6- 021:017,herein after called the"Kona Three Project"and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of; and WHEREAS,the Developer proposes to satisfy the Kona Three Project affordable housing requirements, along with additional requirements for Gamlon Corp. ("Original Project Developer")through the acquisition of affordable housing credits in accordance with Hawaii County Code("HCC") Section 11-5(a)(7); and WHEREAS, on December 13, 1983,the State Land Use Commission ("LUC") of the State of Hawaii amended the Agricultural Land Use District Boundary into the Urban Land Use District Boundary of approximately 173.66 acres of property, which included the Kona Three Project, subject to Condition"A",which provided for the development of affordable housing as follows: 1. Petitioner shall provide housing opportunities for low and moderate income Hawaii residents prior to assigning or transferring (except by way of mortgage or assignment as security) its interest in the subject property, by offering for sale, on a preferential basis, on its own cooperation with either or both the Hawaii Housing Authority or the County of Hawaii, ten percent (10%) of the lots or houses and lots to be developed on the subject property,to residents of the State of Hawai`i of low and moderate family income as determined by the Hawaii Housing Authority or County of Hawaii from time to time. The preferential lots or houses and lots shall be offered for sale at prices not exceeding prices that enable such purchasers to qualify for and obtain state -assisted financing (i.e., Act 105 or Hula Mae) or federally insured or assisted financing (i.e., FHA Section 245 Program) intended to encourage homeownership by low- and moderate-income families WHEREAS, on May 15, 1984,Change of Zone Ordinance 84-23 became effective, amending the lands from Unplanned (U)to Single Family Residential (RS-15) and Multiple Family Residential (RM-5) for the then TMK Nos.(3)7-6-021:004, (3)7-6- 021:009 through 013,and 7-6-021:015 through 017, subject to Condition"J",which provides for the development of affordable housing as follows: J. Housing opportunities for Hawaii residents shall be provided in accordance with the condition imposed by the State Land Use Commission. The number of units and manner in which they are to be provided shall meet with the approval of the Hawaii County Housing Agency[.] WHEREAS,the Original Developer developed and sold two hundred and fifteen(215) units within the original project area of 173.66 acres, and provided no affordable housing units in this development phase; and WHEREAS,the Developer proposes that the Kona Three Project will consist of four- hundred and fifty(450) residential units on approximately 68.836 acres; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11, HCC, Section 11-5(a)(7)provides that the affordable housing requirements can be satisfied by obtaining excess credits from another developer pursuant to HCC Section 11-15; and WHEREAS, the OHCD has confirmed its willingness to consent to such an assignment of excess housing credits for the Developer's intended purpose; and WHEREAS,the Developer has confirmed its willingness to comply with the ten percent(10%)requirement imposed by the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Rezoning Ordinance for the entire property consisting of approximately 173.66 acres, satisfying the C requirements for a combined total of 665 residential units; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11, Article 1 of the Hawaii County Code, relating to Affordable Housing Policy, authorizes the Mayor,the County of Hawai`i Office of Housing and Community Development("OHCD") or their duly authorized representative,to enter into this Agreement with the Developer to perform one or any combination of the options for satisfaction of the affordable housing requirements contained in Hawaii County Code Section 11-5; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants in this Agreement, and pursuant to Chapter 1.1,Article 1 (Affordable Housing) of the Hawai`i County Code("Chapter 11"),the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.The Developer shall provide proof and OHCD shall verify excess credits are valid. Upon the closing of the Developer's purchase of the 67 excess housing credits which are verified by OHCD, the Developer will be entitled to use said housing credits to satisfy the affordable housing requirements for the entire project including, Gamlon Corp's Original Development Project of 215 units and the Kona Three Project consisting of a maximum of 450 residential units/lots, pursuant to the following: HCC, Chapter 11,Article 1 (Affordable Housing Policy). 2.Upon the closing of the Developer's purchase of the 67 excess housing credits,a full Release of this Agreement and any other appropriate documentation reasonably required by the parties related to the satisfaction of the affordable housing requirements for this 450 residential unit Kona Three Project shall be executed by the parties hereto and recorded by the Developer with the Bureau of Conveyances, or with the Land Court of the State of Hawaii, as applicable, with Developer paying all costs of recordation. 3.In the event the Developer builds more than 450 residential units, Developer shall obtain the required credits to satisfy the affordable housing requirement for the additional units. 4. This Agreement supersedes all other agreement and understandings whether oral or written)made heretofore or contemporaneously herewith by the parties on the subjectmatter hereof. The provisions of this Agreement may not be modified, altered, or changed except by another written instrument executed by the parties hereto. 2. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement shall be recorded against the title to the Affordable Housing Site by the Developer at the Bureau of Conveyances or with the Land Court of the State of Hawaii as applicable,within thirty(30) days after being fully executed by the parties. The parties agree to take such actions and execute whatever other documents as are reasonably necessary to effectuate and carry out the intent of this Agreement. As provided in Paragraph 2, above,upon Developer's purchase of the 67 excess housing credits,the parties shall execute and record a full Release of this Agreement along with any other appropriate documentation. 3. Notices. All notices to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested,to the parties hereto at the addresses set forth below, or to such other place as a party may froze,time to time designate in writing. To the County: Housing Administrator Office of Housing and Community Development 1990 Kino`ole Street, Suite 102 Hilo,Hawaii 96720 To the Developer: Kona Three LLC 101 Hualalai Street Hilo,Hawaii 96720 ATTN: Roland Higashi The OHCD and the Developer may, by notice given hereunder, designate any further or different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications shall be sent. 4. The Developer agrees, if applicable,that it will take all actions necessary to effect amendment of this Agreement as may be necessary to comply with amendments to HCC Chapter 11,and all applicable rules, regulations,policies,procedures, rulings, or other official statements pertaining to Chapter 11. 5. This instrument may be executed in two or more counterparts,and when all counterparts have been executed, each counterpart shall be considered an original but when assembled shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall have the same force and effect as though all of the signatories had executed a single signature page. Any unexecuted duplicate pages may be omitted from the assembled original document. 6. The parties agree that no party shall be deemed to be the drafter of this Agreement, and further that in the event this Agreement is ever construed by a court of law, such court shall not construe this Agreement or any provisions of this Agreement against any party as the drafter of this Agreement. 7. This agreement shall be recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances, and a true and correct copy shall be provided to the County of Hawaii Office of Housing&Community Development within 30 days. 8. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Third Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS 11 11 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first written above. DEVELOPER: Kona Three LLC, a Hawaii limited Iiability company J Byr. Name: Obert G. Winiams Title: Treasurer of Kona Three LLC and Manager of OIP, LLC,a Hawai`i limited liability company and member of Kona Three LLC Date: COUNTY: COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal co oration oft e State of Hawaii Name: LEE E. LORDNa Title: Managing ire or REC ND APPROVAL: Date: Susan K. Ku Housing A`` m' istrator Date: 1 ? APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Deputy Corporation Counsel Date: 61 /D-7 STATE OF HAWAII SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII On this 10th day of January, 2022,before me personally appeared LEE E. LORD, tome personally known, who,being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Managing Director of the County of Hawaii, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii, that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of the County of Hawaii by authority given to said Mayor of the County ofHawai`i by Sections 5-1.3 and 13-13 of the County Charter, County of Hawaii 2018), as amended, and assigned by the Mayor to the Managing Director pursuant to Section 6- 1.3(8) of the County Charter; and said LEE E. LORD acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said County of Hawaii. K -s IN s. f rr. Signature b a,f « AMBER K.S.KEPOO s Print or Type Name Notary Public, State of Hawaii My Commission Expires: 04/01/22 NOTARY CERTIFICATION Doc.Date: 01/10/22 No. of Pages: 7 Notary Name: AMBER K.S. KEPOO Third Circuit Affordable Housing Doc.Description: Agreement ft o0 ocoeaaa•• u oG.' F. fes!/ r 10/22 0.F id Notary Signature Date STATE OF HAWAII SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII On o Z W Z , before me appeared RD 6tA VV(l l!1 OIC tome personally known,who,being by me duty sworn, did say that ht is the Y bL ¢{ of KONA THREE LLC;that the instrument was signed on behalf of KONA THREE LLC by authority of its member(s); and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said company. IAOfItFll: r J ry V 7 Debra N.Tomono Print Name PXZ Aw Notary Public, State of Hawaii My commission expires: FXPIRATI October 17,2022 N TARY CERTIFICATION Doe. Data: V„ odvd No. of Pages: Notary Name: Debra N.Tomono Doc. Description:AFFORDABLE Circuit: f HOUSING AGREEMENT, TMKs (3) 7-6- 021:016 and 3 7-6-021:017 R t Notary Signature Date 10-14r EXPIRATION:October 17,2022 0 EXHIBIT A Property Description] All of that etttaiu parcel of i-md[ging pottioo(s)of die land(s)dcscxtlacd in and covered by Royal Patent Alnmber 4475, Land Commi on Award Number. 7713,Apana 43 to Vitoria Kummualu*md u portion of RvyW Patch;8217,Land Cmmni Sion Awwd 3360 ir?jann P Muerx) situato-lying and being st Holmbft 1 and 2,Vstdct of Ngdh Kpuf Island and Cmaty of Hawaii,State of liawaii,bci LOT 2,astd thus bounded And described: Bce5nning at the sodtthwest timer of this pareel of laad,being also t1m netthtmst comer of Lot 15(Suet)and along the nurtltt:a$tedy side of 1-laudaii Belt Road}FAY,Route 11 1'tt mt No. IIA-03-ti}, the coordivates of said pt&at of beginning refetmd to CTovC3a5rllem Sunvy Triangr>!wWrL Swim 'KAlLI A", being 037.113 feet sawth and Q,053_$1) feet east.; tlumcc zona kghy axsmwhsmeasarod clockwim Pram true South_ 1. 1520 22' 34 95.159 feta almr g l ftwaii Eelt Rom,F:A.P.haute I 1 Pr6ject No. 13A-43-69; 2. 13Sr 59' 30" 20.75 feet aloe$Sard>d:; 3, 99° 48' 3(1" 35.07 fret slung same; 4. 154° 11` 597.115 feet along,same; S. 2411" 28' 30" 2943.35 feet along the rcmaiWer of RoYal Parcvt 4475, land Commission Award 7713, Awa. 43 to Vrctotia 17.97 fwalong same; 7- 311° 55' 2t4.92 feet alcrAg fm rranainder of Royal Patera 3475, Land Commission Award 7713,A.pana 43 to Victoria Katn=gu Lot 2-A); g.3316 14' 1$" 143.36 feet aIoog sa rc; TFinevec along Pot 14 (Stream)for the next ddrttixn (13) courses,the direct wzimutb and distances being, 9. .R69 54' 67,99 Wit; 14. 112" %, M79 fact: 11. 94° 55' 5648 12. W 49' 76.74 feet; 13. 46' 34' 194,37 testi 5 K 51' 06' 8331 f_t; 15. 75, 01, 139.84 itti., 16. 51° 29' 175,76 feet} 17. fif' 3Z 9149 fcct; M 44' 4Y 170.06 fve4 19_ 250 59` 241.57 Cees; 20. 370 21' 124.60 fast, 21. 31' 24' 30" 825,56 fwc Thence aldmg Lo-t 15(Sbtmn)for the nt:0 t&* (10)courses, the dire&xAih%A add disumces:berg. 22. 37 01 57.76 feet, 23, 66° 24' 138.13 fccE; 24. 44° 41' 114.46 fee 25. 67° 41' 134,94 fact; 26. 102° 13'107.13 rest; 27. 69' Xr 13997 fect; 2& 31' 4U' d 14.38 fet; 29. $80 52' 64.99 €eeA, 30. 1140 041 60222 feet, 31. 7T' 28` 132..01 fcct to the pint of Inginubg and enntaixkg an a ca of 37,936 aCrc.m[+re or dc;s. TOGETHER WIT13 iasmnLmts 'SC", "]3", "F' and "F' for roadway and utility purVnmeq, as descrihCd in QMTCL,+MI DEED doled 5ep t=ber 4, 1987, and recorded in the Rmtku of Cottseyances of the State of Haw'aH in Liber M36 Page 36;and SUB3FJCT TO The terms and pwyisi€,nm eriatalned t aercaa, S dfif 31 J LOT I- LOT1-A Lind situated ap;arcbdmatety 100 feet Westerly of`lo Place at Holualoa 1st and 2nd,tskrth Kona,Island and County of Hawaii,State of Hawaii. Being portions of: Lot 1, Royal Patent 6217,Land Commies on Award 3660 to John P.Munn;and Royal Patent 4475,Land Coffwnission Award 7713,Apana 43 to V.Kamamalu. Beginning at an angle on ftte East"boundary of this parcel of land,being also the Nortlnvesterty,€omerof Lot 1$-Cs-1 of lUs subdivision anda point on the Wr sterly boundaryof Lot 1-A 1,the coordnates of said point of beginrrng referrer#to Government Survey Triangulation Station"KAILLtA(NORTH MERID IAN)F being%233.63 feet Southard 11,607.67 feet East and runningby azimuths measured do&wiso from True South: t 306 41" 16"271.$1 feet along Lot 18-G-1of this subd'"lon and along the remainder of Royal Patent 4475, Land CommIssion Award 7713,Apana 43 to V. Kama+nab to a point; Therimu for like fmt ten(10)courses following along Lot 22(Stream)(County of Ha%vM) Hcivaloa Drainagevay)and along tthe remainde-of Royal Patent 4475,Land Commission Award 7713,A6(m 43 to V,Kamarnalu: 2, 1)5" 16 2,06.20 feet to a point; 3. 96, 50' 273.37 feet to a point; 931.9 Pagel of 4 WES -rhMfAS ASSC 5WES Lard Sumyom r 75-6749xabvm SImat rr -Kbra,HsYYaft W40.1si7 7 LOT I-A C 740 SS' 132.94 feet to a point: S. 107- 39 54.73 feet to a point, 8. :18° ST 191x87 (eat to a poles T. 12V 17' 90.53 reed IQ a tint 8. 800 07'71.22 foot to a point; 9. 53* 38' 104.78 feet to a pint: 10. 9,3° 27' 205.32 feet to a(paint; 11. SETA W 104.72 feet to a point; Thenoo,for the next three(3)mumes fblWng a"Lot 14(Stream)(fit of Hwsa) Horsashoo Hand Dralnageway): 12. 2111" 29 36"783.45 Feet along the rerno Inder of loyal Patent 4475, Land C'ornrnlsvlon Award 7713, Apana 43 to V.Kemanalu to a point-, 13. 217' 21' 127.42 feetakong lberernaindersol`RoyalPatent44'75, Lord Comar ipaion Awad 7713, Apana 43 W V. Karr matu and Royat Pdent 8217. Loo Commission Award 3660 to John P.(uta to a paint; 14_ 2069 S$` 243.89 fest atone thip rarnoindors of Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to V_ Kamsmalu and Royal latent 8217, Land CornTnVsslon Award:3560 to John'i,Munn to fL Theme,for(he next ton(10)Ge es lIbftavMng along Lai 14(Sln- r)(Coa nlyof Hemel) Hor5$81109 E36nd CrOFna$aruey)#pry# along the remstmder of Royal Patent 4475. Land Cornmia*n Award 7713,Apana 43 to V.Karnamalu: 9S- 224° 49' 346.817 feettoapalrtt; 16 2415' 32` 87.93 (eat to a pint; 17_ 231" 29 170.64 feet to a Wnt; 1,'3. 258' 01, 140.06 feet to a point 79. 231, ow 93.89 feet to a paint; 24. 2280 39' 104,41 Net to a point-, t gag02& 4 KfS NOWS ASSDa4 1ES strovy=m X931.9 LOT 1-A 21. 249" 49'53.22 feet to a point; 22. 27Q 55'33,64 fast to a point; 23. 292° 56'33.57 f t to a point: 24- 276'° 54'90;28 feet to a point; 25- 354" 02'0.41 feet along Lot 2-A and aloin.the remainder of Royal pateni 4475, Land Commission Award 7713.Apane 43 to V. Karnamalu to a poinC 26. 21' 41` 50" 8,30 feat along Lot 2-C and along the remainder of Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713,Apana 43 to V.Kamarnalu to a point: 27. 3159° 37" 20" 20,09 foot along Lot 2-0 and along the remainder of Real Patent 8217, Land Commlaslon Award 3660 to John P.Wnn to a point, 28, 5° 07 20" 44.89 feat slang Lot 2-0 and along the remainder of Royal Patent 8217, Land Commission Award 3660 to John P.Munn to a paint; 20. 355' ov 65.72 feet along Lot 12 and along the remainder of Royal Patent $217, Land Commission Award 3660 to John P.Munn to a VoInt; Tbence,for the next fire(6)courses following along the remainder of Royal Patent 4475, Land COMMIssi0n Award 7713,Apana 43 to V1 Kantamalu, 30. 3' W 265.06 feet along Lot 11 and Lot 10 to a pont; 31, 77° W 20-66 feet along Lot 10 t4 a poink 32. 41' 39 203-73 feet along Lot 14 and Lot 8 to a point; 33. 347G OZ 187,60 feet along Lot 1-A-3 to a point; 34. 937° OV 317,65 Teatatong Lot 1-A-3,Lot IR-2 and Lot 1-A-1 to the point of beginning and can taInIng an area of 29.762 Acres, SUBJECT,HOWEVER, to Zona X (areas determined to be ou(slde the 0_2% annual chancy floodplain),Zone XS(X Shaded)(areas of 0.2%annual chance flood;areas of 1%annual chance flood+witty arage depths of less than 1 toot or with drainage areas lass than 1 square sgi.g gage 8 of 4 KES ThVWS ASSMATES LandSurveyurs 715-X749 Katawa Shy# Kakm-Ko a,Hawa#96740.1817 1169919 LOT i-A, Mile,and areas protected by levees from f%wrivaf charge flood),Zone AE(spedal flood hazard areas sub*tto lnvndation by the 10/.annuli diance flobd,BFE deterrrined),Zone AEF(special Herod hazardareas subjoct to inundation by the 1%annual chance flood,fioodway art as in ZONE AE,The Ebodway is the channel of streams plus any adjacent 4ocidplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the I%annutl chance flood can be carried w hhout increasing the SFE),as per mod Insurance Rate Map(FAR.Mj Community-Panel Number 155166 0952 lr, revised September 29,2017, TOGETHER W ITH,Easemrent'AU-2`forAacess and UtiE'rty Purposes overand across Lot 16-0-1 of thr sukdMsion and being more particularly described by the attached description. ALSO TOGETHER VVITH,existingEas nts°C,°C-`r,oWand°1-Vfor Road and Uthity Purpm es as prey ic)uslyremrded atthe Sureauof Coriveymmes in Honotulu,Hawaii in L°sber=36 Page 3&, ALSO TOGETHER WITH, existing Easement "F` for Road and Utilrhy Purposes as pd eWously reooried atthe bureau ofConveyances in Honolulu,Hawa ll in U ber21336 Page 36 and DDcurnent Number 2004.086915, Rt7 t_ Page d 4 WES° 77-IQA44S AS'SDOArES Land Swvagcws- 75-5749 Kabwa Sfromt K4Jwu mrn,htaxett 96740-18f7 10 Harry Kim 1 °•`•"±y, Mayor Michael Yee Director 4 Daryn Arai if•,. .e!:•: Deputy Director TE oi<'Mr West Hawaii Office East Hawaii Office74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaii Hilo,Hawaii 96720Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 September 1, 2017 Mr. Richard Wheelock Kona Three LLC 101 Hualalai Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Wheelock: Application to Amend Rezone Ordinance No. 02-131 (REZ 470) Subject: Project Consistency with Kona CDP and Status of Plan Approval PLA-07-000325) Applicant: Kona Three LLC (formerly Kona Vistas LLC and Gamrex, Inc.) Tax Map Kevs: (3) 7-6-021:016 & 017 This is in response to your July 24, 2017 letter requesting the Planning Director's determination of whether the multi-family residential project called "Kona Village" is consistent with the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP). The project includes approximately 508 residential units consistent with the property's RM-5 zoning. According to the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) in the Kona CDP, the western portion of the subject property is situated in the Pua`a-Wai`aha Village Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Floating Zone. The location of this TOD has not yet become fixed by a master plan and project district zoning; however it is likely that the future TOD will be located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and mauka of Kuakini Highway. Therefore, the Director has determined the subject properties are not located in the TOD. It is our understanding that the applicant will be submitting an application to amend conditions of the zoning ordinance and then the proposed project will be developed according to Policy LU-2.8(1)(b), which indicates the project may be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, subject to the following requirements: Parks in Policy PUB-6.2, Affordable Housing in Policy HSG-5.2, Street Standards in Policies TRAN-2.1, TRAN-3.1, TRAN-3.7, Wastewater in Policy PUB-4.4, Concurrency in HCC 25-2-46 and Policy TRAN-6.1, and Sensitive Resources in Policy ENV-1.5. www.cohnlanningdeot com Hawaii Countyis an Equal s9OpportunityProviderandEmployerplanninga.hawaicO ov Mr. Richard Wheelock Kona Three LLC Page 2 September 1, 2017 The second purpose of this letter is to inform you that Plan Approval PLA-07-000325 is no longer valid per Section 25-2-7 of the Zoning Code because it was not utilized within two (2)years of its issuance in 2007. Thus, the applicant will need to secure a new Plan Approval before building permits can be issued for the multi-family residential development. Should you have questions, please contact Maija Jackson of my staff at 961-8159. Sincerely, MICHAEL Y Planning Director MJJ:mad P:\wpwin60\Maija\Letters\Determination\LWheelock-Kona CDP TOD.doc cc: Kona Planning Office Alan M. Okamoto, Nakamoto, Okamoto &Yamamoto via email Robert G. Williams, Kona Three LLC via email FINAL Royal Vistas Tax Map Key (3) 7-6-021: 016, 17 Traffic Impact Analysis Report Kona, Island of Hawaii November 30, 2021 Prepared for Kona Three LLC. Prepared by Em=` Em=` F=M International Previous Submittals Date Application Traffic Impact Analysis for Kona Village October 2018 Zoning Amendment Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Royal Vistas May 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment Final Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Royal Vistas July 2020 Final Environmental Assessment Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table of Contents I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................................1 II. EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS...............................................................................................................4 A. Geometric Configuration ..................................................................................................................4 1. Roadway Configuration.................................................................................................................4 2. Study Intersections .......................................................................................................................4 3. Pedestrian Facilities......................................................................................................................7 4. Bike Facilities.................................................................................................................................7 S. Bus Stops and Bus Routes.............................................................................................................7 B. Volumes ............................................................................................................................................7 1. Vehicular Volume..........................................................................................................................7 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes...................................................................................................9 C. Traffic Operation Analysis...............................................................................................................11 1. Level of Service Methodology.....................................................................................................11 2. Existing 2019 Intersection LOS....................................................................................................12 3. Existing 2019 Mitigation .............................................................................................................14 III. Future (2024) Near-Term Conditions—Completion of Phase 1 .........................................................18 A. Surrounding Area Developments....................................................................................................18 1. Living Stones Church...................................................................................................................18 2. Pualani Makai..............................................................................................................................18 3. Youth Gymnastics and Sports Fitness Facility.............................................................................18 B. Roadway Construction Projects......................................................................................................18 1. Widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road ..........................................19 2. Lako Street Extension..................................................................................................................19 3. Alii Highway from Hualalai Road to Keauhou Shopping Center.................................................19 C. Multimodal Plans............................................................................................................................19 1. Bike Plan Hawaii..........................................................................................................................19 2. Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan..............................................................................................19 D. Community Plan..............................................................................................................................19 1. Kona Community Development Plan..........................................................................................19 E. Volumes..........................................................................................................................................21 1. Future 2024 Without Project Volumes.......................................................................................21 i Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 2. Project Related Volumes.............................................................................................................21 3. Future 2024 With Project Volumes.............................................................................................23 F. Future 2024 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis......................................................................27 1. Future 2024 Without Project Intersection LOS...........................................................................27 2. Future 2024 With Project Intersection LOS................................................................................29 3. Future 2024 With Project Mitigation..........................................................................................31 4. Future 2024 With Project Segment LOS.....................................................................................35 IV. Future (2029) Mid-Term Conditions—Completion of Phase 2...........................................................36 A. Surrounding Area Conditions..........................................................................................................36 B. Volumes ..........................................................................................................................................36 1. Future 2029 Without Project Volumes.......................................................................................36 1. Project Related Volumes.............................................................................................................36 2. Future 2029 With Project Volumes.............................................................................................38 C. Future 2029 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis......................................................................42 1. Future 2029 Without Project Intersection LOS...........................................................................42 2. Future 2029 With Project Intersection LOS................................................................................44 3. Future 2029 With Project Mitigation..........................................................................................47 4. Future 2029 With Project Segment LOS.....................................................................................50 V. Future (2039) Long-Term Conditions..................................................................................................51 A. Surrounding Area Conditions..........................................................................................................51 B. Volumes ..........................................................................................................................................51 1. Future 2039 Without Project Volumes.......................................................................................51 2. Project Related Volumes.............................................................................................................51 3. Future 2039 With Project Volumes.............................................................................................51 C. Future 2039 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis......................................................................54 1. Future 2039 Without Project Intersection LOS...........................................................................54 2. Future 2039 With Project Intersection LOS................................................................................56 3. Future 2039 With Project Mitigation..........................................................................................58 4. Future 2039 With Project Segment LOS.....................................................................................61 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................62 VII. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................64 ii Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location Map....................................................................................................................2 Figure2: Conceptual Site Plan......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Existing 2019 Lane Configuration................................................................................................6 Figure 4: Route 11,Nam Kailua Dr to Hualalai Rd, 24-Hour Volume Distribution(2016) ........................8 Figure 5: Existing 2019 Peak Hour Volumes .............................................................................................10 Figure 6: Kona Community Development Plan..........................................................................................20 Figure 7: Future 2024 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes......................................................................22 Figure 8: Expected Future Lane Configuration..........................................................................................24 Figure 9: Phase 1 Project Related Trips......................................................................................................25 Figure 10: Future 2024 With Project Peak Hour Volumes.........................................................................26 Figure 11: Future 2029 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes....................................................................37 Figure 12: Phase 2 Inbound Project Related Trips......................................................................................39 Figure 13: Phase 2 Outbound Project Related Trips...................................................................................40 Figure 14: Future 2029 With Project Peak Hour Volumes.........................................................................41 Figure 15: Future 2039 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes....................................................................52 Figure 16: Future 2039 With Project Peak Hour Volumes.........................................................................53 List of Tables Table 1: Roadway Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................................7 Table 2: Existing 2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes.............................................................................9 Table 3: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections.................................................................................11 Table 4: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections.....................................................................................12 Table 5: Existing 2019 Intersection Level of Service.................................................................................13 Table 6: Four-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes......................................................................15 Table 7: Peak-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes......................................................................15 Table 8: Existing Roundabout Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections ......................................................16 Table 9: Existing Condition—Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives .............17 Table 10: Estimated Trips Generated- Phase 1..........................................................................................21 Table 11: Existing 2019 Volumes on Route 11 between Puapuaanui St and Kuakini Highway................23 Table 12: Existing 2019 Outbound Volumes at Puapuaanui Street............................................................23 Table 13: Future 2024 Without Project Intersection Level of Service .......................................................28 Table 14: Future 2024 With Project Intersection Level of Service.............................................................30 Table 15: Future 2024 Peak-Hour Warrant.................................................................................................32 Table 16: Future 2024 Peak-Hour Warrant.................................................................................................32 Table 17: Future 2024 With Project—Route 11 and Kuakini Highway Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................33 Table 18: Future 2024 Without Project Roundabout Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections....................33 Table 19: Future 2024 With Project—Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives.34 Table 20: Future 2024 With Project Segment LOS ....................................................................................35 Table 21: Estimated Trips Generated by Project—Phase 2........................................................................36 Table 22: Future 2029 Without Project Intersection Level of Service .......................................................43 iii Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 23: Future 2029 With Project Intersection Level of Service.............................................................46 Table 24: Future 2029 Peak-Hour Warrant.................................................................................................47 Table 25: Future 2029 Peak-Hour Warrant.................................................................................................48 Table 26: Future 2029 With Project—Route 11 and Kuakini Highway Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................48 Table 27: Future 2029 Left-Turn Phasing Alternatives With Project at Lako Street..................................49 Table 28: Future 2029 With Project Segment LOS ....................................................................................50 Table 29: Future 2039 Without Project Intersection Level of Service .......................................................55 Table 30: Future 2039 With Project Intersection Level of Service.............................................................57 Table 31: Future 2039 Peak-Hour Warrant.................................................................................................58 Table 32: Future 2039 Peak-Hour Warrant.................................................................................................59 Table 33: Future 2039 With Project—Route 11 and Kuakini Highway Left-Tum Signal Phasing Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................59 Table 34: Future 2039 With Project—Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives.60 Table 35: Future 2039 with Project Segment LOS.....................................................................................61 List of Appendices Appendix A—Bus Route Schedule and Map Appendix B—24-Hour and Peal-,Period Traffic Counts Appendix C—Analysis Reports Existing(2019) Conditions Appendix D—Analysis Reports Future (2024)Without Project Conditions Appendix E—Analysis Reports Future (2024)With Project Conditions Appendix F—Analysis Reports Future (2029) Without Project Conditions Appendix G—Analysis Reports Future (2029)With Project Conditions Appendix H—Analysis Reports Future (2039)Without Project Conditions Appendix I—Analysis Reports Future(2039)With Project Conditions iv Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION Kona Three LLC is planning to develop a multi-family residential subdivision named Royal Vistas in Kona, on the Island of Hawaii. The property is located on the mauka side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Route 11)at TMK(3) 7-6-021:016, 17 between Kona Vista Subdivision and Pualani Estates Subdivision. Only one roadway is planned to provide access for Phase I of the property. This roadway intersects with Queen Kaahumanu Highway, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Kuakini Highway. For this traffic impact analysis report(TIAR),this access is referred to as"Royal Vistas Roadway". The project location, along with the study intersections associated with this TIAR, are shown in Figure 1. The proposed site is 70-acres and zoned "RM-5". Even though the new development's total buildout is estimated as 450 units,only 258 units are planned as Phase 1.Phase I is expected to be completed by 2024. Phase 2 will include the full buildout of the remaining 192 units. Phase 2 is expected to be completed by 2029. The Royal Vistas proposed conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. The intent of this TIAR is to evaluate existing conditions and assess impacts in the surrounding area as a result of the proposed development for 5-year(Phase 1 completion in 2024), 10-year(Phase 2 completion in 2029), and 20-year future conditions in 2039 will be analyzed.Future years will be evaluated with and without the Royal Vistas project. 1 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International P Pen Island of Hawaii Y/ RSOtP 79 J A n Q deo' 4 Project Area Legend: IM Project Location Stud y Intersection Other Signalized Intersection O 4 c Z Puop4gQ m D y A . v i N F Figure 1: Project Location Map 2 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 4Y r1k, i Ills i it mg HIN @ 3 iC O_i 9e Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan 3 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International II. EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS A. Geometric Configuration 1. Roadway Configuration a) Queen Kaahumanu Highway Where it intersects with Royal Vistas Roadway, Queen Kaahumanu Highway(Route 11) is an undivided, two-lane, State-owned arterial, oriented in the north-south direction. Queen Kaahumanu Highway extends from Kawaihae Road(Route 19)in the north to the intersection with Palani Road(Route 190)where it turns into State Route 11. The posted speed limit along Queen Kaahumanu Highway varies from 45-55 mph. At the future Royal Vistas Roadway,the posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Queen Kaahumanu Highway opens to 4-5 lanes with dedicated left turning and right turning lanes at major intersections northwest of Henry Street. Route 11 goes by the various names of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Kuakini Highway, Mamalahoa Highway,and Hawaii Belt Road.To avoid confusion,the name Route 11 will be used throughout this report. 2. Study Intersections The study intersections include the following: 1. Route 11 and Palani Road(Route 190) a. At this location, Route 11 is predominantly oriented in an east-west direction and Palani Road is predominantly oriented in a north-south direction. b. Four-leg signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes and channelized right turn lanes for all approaches. The Route 11 approaches and the northbound Palani Road approach have double left turn lanes. c. All left turns are protected(have green arrow phases). d. The north leg of the intersection extends and connects with Mamalahoa Highway (Route 190), another state-owned facility. 2. Route 11 and Henry Street a. At this location,Route 11 is oriented in an east-west direction and Henry Street is oriented in a north-south direction. b. Four-leg signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes and channelized right turn lanes for all approaches. The Route 11 approaches have double left turn lanes. c. Left tuns from Route 11 onto Henry Street are protected. The Henry Street phases are split sequential rather than concurrent). d. The north leg of the intersection extends and connects with Ane Keohokalole Highway, another state-owned facility. 3. Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) a. At this location, Route 11 is oriented in a north-south direction and Hualalai Road is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, STOP sign controlled intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for the northbound and eastbound approaches. c. Channelized right turn lanes exist for the eastbound and southbound approaches. d. A refuge lane is provided for the eastbound left turns onto Route 11. 4 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 4. Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) a. At this location, Route 11 is oriented in a north-south direction and Hualalai Road is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, STOP sign controlled intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for the southbound and westbound approaches. c. Channelized right turn lanes exist for the northbound and westbound approaches. d. A refuge lane is provided for the westbound left turns onto Route 11. 5. Route I I and Puapuaanui Street a. At this location, Route 11 is oriented in a north-south direction and Puapuaanui Street is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Three-leg, signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for the southbound and westbound approaches. c. The southbound left turn is protected. d. Channelized right turn lanes are provided for the northbound and westbound approaches. 6. At this location, Route I I and Kuakini Highway a. Route 11 is oriented in a north-south direction and Kuakini Highway is oriented in an east- west direction. b. Three-leg, STOP sign controlled intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for northbound and eastbound. c. Channelized right turn lanes exist for the eastbound and southbound approaches. d. A refuge lane is provided for the eastbound left turns onto Route 11. e. Kuakini Highway is a state-owned facility. 7. Route I I and Lako Street a. At this location,Route 11 is oriented in a north-south direction and Lako Street is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Four-leg, signalized intersection with dedicated left turning lanes for each approach. c. Left turns from Route 11 onto Lako Street are protected-permitted. This is the only intersection in the project area on Route II that uses protected-permitted phasing. The Lako Street phases are split. d. Channelized right turn lanes exist for each approach. 8. Route 11 and Kamehameha III Road a. At this location,Route 11 is oriented in a north-south direction and Kamehameha Ill Road is oriented in an east-west direction. b. Four-leg,signalized intersection with dedicated left turn lanes exist on the northbound, and southbound approaches. c. Left turns from Route 11 are protected. The Kamehameha III Road phases are split. d. Channelized right turn lane exists for southbound and eastbound approach. Existing(2019)lane configurations and traffic controls at the study intersections are shown in Figure 3. 5 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International R J Route 11 Oiow Route19toWaimea 1nnl NeliWa l5tive k Route 11 Route 11 m k. RnutelitolCeauhou U Route IIJWWaimea t m x Route I u 111 ti Route 11 to K eauhou Route 11 x I C U F Route 11 Ir j1 G{L O PI Route 11 i LGq{°°' 4ve rS Route 11y,' Route 11 7 8 111 11 w m cr µE 3 m T a Route 11 Route li Legend Analyzed Signalized UnsignaliaedIIIIIIIaStop Sign Crosswalk Intersection Intersection lntersertinn Figure 3: Existing 2019 Lane Configuration Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 3. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided on each corner of Palani Road and Henry Street. A sidewalk is provided on the south side of Route 11 between Palani Road and Henry Street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Puapuaanui Street and stop just before the intersection with Route 11. The crosswalks provided at each intersection are shown in Figure 3. 4. Bike Facilities Marked bike lanes are provided on Route 11 at Henry Street and extend north. There are no marked bike lanes south of this intersection. There are bike lanes on Lako Street east of Route 11 to Hualalai Road. Based on the State Route System, marked shoulders along Route 11 in the study area range from 6 feet to 10 feet. S. Bus Stops and Bus Routes The County of Hawaii's transit system (Hele-on Bus) doesn't have bus routes that travel along Route 11 near the study area. The closest bus stops to the proposed facility are located at Kona Commons Shopping Center, more than 3 miles away. The Intra Kona bus route serves this stop and operates between 6:55 AM to 8:30 PM, Monday to Saturday. Appendix A includes the detailed bus route schedule and map for this route. B. Volumes 1. Vehicular Volume a) Roadway Traffic Volumes Historical average daily traffic (ADT) and peak hour volumes along Route 11 in the study area are shown in Table 1. The ADT is based on Hawaii DOT traffic counts included in Historical Traffic Station Maps. Table 1: Roadway Traffic Volumes Roadway Location ADT YEAR Route 11 Between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road 2500 201625,900 2015 Source: Historical Trak Station Maps (HDOT) The 24-hour traffic volume distribution along Route 11 (see Figure 4) at the traffic count station shows a variation in travel patterns throughout the day with prominent morning and afternoon commuter peak periods. Detailed 24-hour counts are included in Appendix B. Along Route 11,during the morning peak hour of 7:00-8:00 AM,there were approximately 1,083 vehicles per hour (vph) travelling northbound and 765 vph travelling southbound for a total of 1,848 vph. During the afternoon peak hour of 3:45 —4:45 PM, there were approximately 914 vph travelling northbound and 1,017 travelling southbound for a total of 1,931 vph. 7 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International oQ o pQ c o' 000, pQ O 0 ' o H rn Z ppQ 1 Q 1 1po JqJq oQ 60 OOQ h• O Q4I OQ ti0 oQ IV pQ 2 a p a 1 P P OP O OP O pP P CO O o Q O x o D:- 0 C)b- C ^ C ppP I ppP OP O O o 0 o COO u7 0 o u9 CV N Volume(vehicles per hour) Figure 4: Route 11,Nani Kailua Dr to Hualalai Rd,24-Hour Volume Distribution (2016) 8 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International b) Existing 2019 Intersection Peak Hour Volumes Manual intersection turning movement traffic counts were taken at the eight study intersections: 1) Route 11 and Palani Road,2)Route 11 and Henry Street, 3)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(north),4)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(south), 5)Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street, 6)Route 11 and Kuakini Highway,7)Route 11 and Lako Street,and 8)Route 11 and Kamehameha III Road.Counts were collected during the peak periods on Tuesday, April 30, 2019 and Thursday, August 29, 2019. Counts included tabulation of passenger vehicles, heavy trucks, pedestrians, and bicycles. The Existing (2019) peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 5. Detailed peak period counts are included in Appendix B. 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes Route 11 is a frequently used training route for triathletes and other cyclists and therefore has regular bicycle activity. Table 2 shows the 2019 pedestrian and bicycle volumes. Most of the observed pedestrian activity occurred at Henry Street.Bicycle counts were higher in the AM peak hour than the PM peak hour.Detailed peak period pedestrian and bicycle counts are included in Appendix B. Table 2: Existing 2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes Intersection AM PM Ped Bike Ped Bike Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Palani Rd 1 3 4 3 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Henry St 9 4 12 4 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai Rd (N) 0 3 0 1 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Hualalai Rd (S) 0 4 0 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Puapuaanui St 0 2 1 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kuakini Hwy 0 2 0 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Lako St 1 2 1 0 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy& Kamehameha III 1 10 0 2 9 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International VL6 Route l l goo o y• o 7t m 44110 I Fla Iani Rd 1m v 23(41) pnll( oil wp] we v E m Route 11 I 163[223',° Y O Route 11 71 260 T 0 457(8771--" n o o 218[S03} L 3 140 1 n,oo A a n n 9{141 ysSILs PalaniRd Henry St1 t 2 ONpO F ff1 4 1_467(3 14} E ry m 600[5481- p' E3 v 52 r72 a G syF m m 107[190p 1 I f a a 359[6631 w ti f 124[2911 F+ Z Henry St _ Rnuteii w o ry QGL 185[1071 Route 11m 87[341 = n m Ga n.i m w" 7[131 U Iui Route 11 ifi9[372-N o x J w 1W H„ o+' id i Route 11 t0o1 0 Ave Route 11 Route 11 o^ 7 r 267[1931ZL nV15(18) d--3fi(39) 12[ll} 3 69[fit}a k,. L 16 1 s h p 251[1271 l- L„ 157 2J9 I3! 69 w E 5 1 w V a 2 [521 uAi to a Route.11 V Not to-Scale Route ii Legend # Analyzed Peak Hour Volumes Signalized Unsignal¢ed U StBp SignIntersectionAM(PM) Svehfhr) Intersection Intersection Figure 5: Existing 2019 Peak Hour Volumes 10 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International C. Traffic Operation Analysis 1. Level of Service Methodology Level of service (LOS) is an operational analysis rating system used in traffic engineering to measure the effectiveness of roadway operating conditions. There are six LOS ranging from A to F. LOS A is defined as being the least interrupted flow conditions with little or no delays,whereas LOS F is defined as conditions where extreme delays exist. Guidelines from the County, of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) state that an"Acceptable level of service"means that the level of service of a transportation facility at the AM and PM peak hour is "D" or better. Level of service, or LOS, means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and shall be determined using the procedures in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board. Intersection LOS and delay were determined for the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro 10 traffic analysis software and analyzed using HCM 6th Edition(TRB, 2016)methodologies. As stated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition (TRB, 2016), LOS for a two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection is determined by the measured control delay (see Table 3) and is defined for each movement. Vehicles traveling along the major, free-flow road, of a TWSC intersection, proceed through with minimal delay or no delay at all. Those vehicles approaching the intersection along the minor movement are controlled by a stop sign and thus experience delay attributable to the volume of vehicles passing along the free-flow road and the gaps available. Table 3: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Average Control LOS by v/c Delay(s/veh) Ratio 1.0 >1.0 10.0 A F 10 and<15 B F 15 and<25 C F 25 and<35 D F 35 and<50 E F 50 F F Source: HCM(TRB, 2016) The LOS analysis for signalized intersections is based on average total vehicle delay based on the methodologies of the HCM(TRB, 2016), as shown in Table 4. The HCM 6th Edition doesn't support the analysis with both exclusive and shared lanes. In those cases,methodologies from HCM (TRB, 2000) are used.For this traffic study,the Route 11 and Henry Street intersection will use the 2000 HCM methodology. Another measure of intersection delay is the volume to capacity(v/c)ratio. This is the ratio of the volume of traffic utilizing the intersection compared to the maximum volume of vehicles that can be accommodated by the intersection during a specific period.A v/c ratio under 0.85 means the intersection is operating under capacity and excessive delays are not experienced. An intersection is operating near its capacity when We ratios range from 0.85 to 0.95. Unstable flows are expected when the We ratio is between 0.95 and 1.0. A 11 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International traffic movement can have a poor LOS but low v/c, which suggests that the traffic volumes along that movement are low but must wait a long time to make the movement. This is common for low volume protected left-turn turn movements or side streets that must wait through a long cycle length for their split to come up. Table 4: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections LOS by LOS by Average Control Delay v/c Ratio v/c s/veh) Ratio 1.0 1.0 10.0 A F 10 and<20 B F 20 and<35 C F 35 and<55 D F 55 and<80 E F 80 F F Source: HCM(TRB, 2016) Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 miles apart, the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities(HCM,Chapter 16).For Urban Street Facilities,through vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. This speed reflects the factors that influence running time along each link, and the delay incurred by through vehicles at each boundary intersection. This performance measure indicates the degree of mobility provided by the facility. 2. Existing 2019 Intersection LOS Existing intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5 show the existing vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Movements that operate at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix C. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street(north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.31 and 0.23 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 12 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 5: Existing 2019 Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela sec veh v c LOS Dela sec veh v c LOS Route 11 &Palani Rd(overall) 23.7 C 26.1 C Route 11 EB Left 38.6 0.45 D 38.0 0.74 D Route 11 EB Through 14.1 0.30 B 17.9 0.57 B Route 11 WB Left 38.9 0.67 D 38.8 0.72 D Route 11 WB Through 14.2 0.42 B 16.4 0.41 B Palani NB Left 37.4 0.72 D 39.1 0.73 D Palani NB Through 25.8 0.25 C 28.8 0.42 C Palani SB Left 47.7 0.50 D 48.3 0.68 D PalaniSBThrough 33.7 0.66 C 33.6 0.62 C Route 11 &Henry St(overall)31.8 0.62 C 32.6 0.65 C Route 11 EB Left 43.6 0.50 D 46.7 0.65 D Route 11 EB Through 24.6 0.34 C 27.8 0.57 C Route 11 EB Right 22.0 0.08 C 23.1 0.19 C Route 11 WB Left 45.0 0.37 D 48.4 0.52 D Route 11 WB Through 30.5 0.60 C 31.0 0.56 C Route 11 WB Right 26.9 0.31 C 26.7 0.21 C Henry NB Left 34.9 0.46 C 35.9 0.41 D Henry NB Left-Through 35.8 0.58 D 37.1 0.56 D Henry NB Right 31.0 0.03 C 32.5 0.02 C Henry SB Left 38.3 0.72 D 39.3 0.73 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 34.6 0.69 C 34.2 0.67 C Route 11 &Hualalai(N)(overall) 10.3 1.0 Route 11 NB Left 10.8 0.22 B 11.2 0.13 B Hualalai EB Left 429.0 1.31 F 107.3 0.23 F Route 11 &Hualalai(S)(overall) 3.3 1.7 Route 11 SB Left 11.5 0.13 B 10.8 0.09 B Hualalai WB Left 87.5 0.18 F 112.5 0.31 F Hualalai WB Right 35.8 0.58 E 20.4 0.24 C Route 11 &Puapuaanui St(overall) 9.7 A 9.8 A Route 11 SB Left 60.4 0.71 E 53.1 0.81 D Route 11 WB Through 3.3 0.50 A 3.0 0.57 A Puapuaanui WB Left 55.4 0.78 E 56.0 0.62 E Puapuaanui WB Right 7.9 0.64 A 8.5 0.63 A Route 11 &Kuakini (overall) 7.7 2.8 Route 11 NB Left 17.6 0.67 C 12.1 0.33 B Kuakini EB Left 1035.4 1.08 F 208.2 0.46 F Route 11 &Lako St(overall) 30.6 C 21.8 C Route 11 NB Left 12.8 0.10 B 12.8 0.14 B Route 11 NB Through 30.4 0.87 C 18.8 0.75 B Route 11 SB Left 21.9 0.58 C 13.5 0.51 B Route 11 SB Through 19.2 0.68 B 20.1 0.82 C Lako EB Left 60.2 0.88 E 44.3 0.76 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.1 0.16 C 35.7 0.17 D Lako WB Left 50.5 0.66 D 45.9 0.64 D Lako WB Th rough-Right 44.5 0.33 D 41.2 0.39 D Route 11 &Kam III Rd(overall) 17.7 B 22.0 C Route 11 NB Left 43.5 0.79 D 47.2 0.75 D Route 11 NB Through 12.4 0.55 B 17.4 0.60 B Route 11 SB Left 42.2 0.46 D 45.7 0.48 D Route 11 SB Through 10.3 0.27 B 14.0 0.34 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 32.0 0.73 C 34.1 0.84 C Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 41.4 0.66 D 44.9 0.61 D 13 Royal Vistas TIAR SSFM International d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road (south), the westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.18 and 0.31 respectively) and the westbound right turn operates at LOS E v/c of 0.58)during the AM peak hour. The long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street Overall Intersection LOS=AIA(AM/PM) The southbound left and westbound lett turn movements operate at LOS E (v/c of 0.71 and 0.78, respectively)during the AM peals hour. The westbound left turn operates at LOS E(v/c of 0.62) during the PM peak hour. The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. These delays are a result of signal timing and could be adjusted to reduce approach delay if desired. D Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway,the eastbound left turning movement has an LOS F (v/c of 1.08 and 0.46 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. g) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street,the eastbound left turn operates at LOS E(v/c of 0.88) during the AM peal-,hour. This delay is attributed to the high eastbound left turn volume, and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. h) Route 11 and Kamehameha 111 Road The overall intersection resulted in LOS B and C for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. All movements at the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Existing 2019 Mitigation a) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Four-Hour and Peak-Hour traffic signal warrants were evaluated at the unsignalized intersections where the minor street left turns onto Route 11 operate at LOS F during both peak hours. It should be noted that these movements have a refuge lane on Route 11 which is not recognized by Synchro and therefore the actual/observed delay is less than the calculated delay shown in Table 5. The Peak-Hour warrant is not a good measure of whether or not a traffic signal should be installed in this setting. However, it is being evaluated and provided only as an indicator of when an intersection should be monitored. The minor street left turn movements at both Hualalai Road intersections and Kuakini Highway operate at LOS F during both peak hours. For these intersections, the minor street left turns were used for the minor street approach. The major street approach was represented by a sum of the through volumes and the left turns from Route 11. Right turns for all approaches were excluded from the analysis since the right turns enter the roadway with minimal conflict. 14 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International For the Four-Hour warrant,Figure 4C-2(MUTCD)was used since the 45 MPH posted speed limit on Route 11 is over 40 MPH. The"2 or more Lanes& 1 Lane"curve was used for analysis.Table 6 shows the Four- Hour warrant analysis. Table 6: Four-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes Existing- Hualalai (N) 4-Hour Warrant Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 1925 44 NO 7:45-8:45 AM 1783 2 NO 3:00-4:00 PM 2012 10 NO 4:00-5:00 PM 1842 14 NO 5:00-6:00 PM 1767 7 NO Existing- Hualalai (S) 4-Hour Warrant Major Minor Warrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 1824 9 NO 7:45-8:45 AM 1769 6 NO 3:00-4:00 PM 2014 14 NO 4:00-5:00 PM 1900 4 NO 5:00-6:00 PM 1835 3 NO Existing- Kuakini 4-Hour Warrant Major Minor Warrant?- 6:45-7:45 arrant? 6:45-7:45 AM 2047 8 NO 7:45-8:45 AM 1976 4 NO 3:00-4:00 PM 1979 14 NO 4:00-5:00 PM 1998 14 NO 5:00-6:00 PM 1749 5 NO For the Peak-Hour warrant,Figure 4C-4(MUTCD)was used since the 45 MPH posted speed limit on Route 11 is over 40 MPH. The"2 or more Lanes& 1 Lane" curve was used for analysis. Table 7 shows the Peak- Hour warrant analysis. Table 7: Peak-Hour Warrant based on 2019 traffic volumes' Peak Hour Warrant Minor Road AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 1925 44 NO 2012 10 NO Hualalai (S) 1614 9 NO 1863 14 NO Kuakini 2051 7 NO 1984 13 NO None of the three unsignalized intersections satisfy the 4-Hour or Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant. 1 A Peak Hour warrant was evaluated to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 15 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International b) Roundabout Analysis The minor street left turn movements at both Hualalai Road intersections and Kuakini Highway operate at LOS F during both peak hours. For these intersections, the traffic operations for a single-lane roundabout were analyzed(see Table 8). At both Hualalai Road intersections, the minor street approach improved to LOS B or better, however, the Route 11 approach LOS deteriorates to LOS C or LOS D. at Kuakini Highway, the overall intersection delay increased from 7.7 seconds to 75.6 seconds and from 2.8 seconds to 24.7 seconds in the AM and PM peak hours,respectively. The Route 11 approaches will operate at LOS F with v/c over 1.00 in the AM peak hour. Table 8: Existing Roundabout Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections AM PM Dela sec veh v c I LOS Dela sec veh v c I LOS Route 11 &Hualalai(N)(overall) 27.1 D 18.3 C Route 11 NB approach 34.6 0.96 D 16.1 0.79 C Route 11 SB approach 19.0 0.80 C 21.2 0.85 C Hualalai North EB approach 8.9 0.18 A 10.3 0.18 B Route 11 &Hualalai(S)(overall) 18.4 C 17.2 C Route 11 NB approach 24.2 0.89 C 16.0 0.78 C Route 11 SB approach 11.8 0.68 B 18.7 0.84 C Hualalai North WB approach 14.7 0.37 B 9.9 0.18 A Route 11 &Kuakini (overall) 75.6 F 24.7 C Route 11 NB approach 64.6 1.08 F 19.5 0.85 C Route 11 SB approach 108.1 1.16 F 29.4 0.90 D Kuakini EB approach 11.0 0.33 B 28.1 0.75 D c)Alternative Mitigation Measures 1) Acceleration Lane at Hualalai Road(South) The Hualalai Road (South) westbound right turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. An acceleration lane for the westbound right turn onto northbound Route 11 would remove the conflict at the intersection, similar to other intersections on the Route 11 corridor. 2) Lako Street Lako Street was analyzed with various left turn phasing for the Lako Street approach. A comparison between showing the different left turn phasing on Lako Street is shown in Table 9. Protected left turns on Lako Street will provide a slight improvement in the overall delay,but the eastbound left will still operate with LOS E. The other alternatives will provide acceptable LOS for all movements. The City and County of Honolulu's Trac Assessment for Left-Turn Signal Phasing Guidelines (ATA, 2017)recommends that for approaches that do not have adequate sight distance,a protected left-turn phase should be considered, and a permissive left-turn phase is not suitable. The eastbound approach sight distance should be checked before considering allowing permissive left-turn phasing. The widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road is needed in 2024. 16 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 9: Existing Condition-Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 29.8 C 21.7 C Route 11 NB Left 12.4 0.10 B 12.8 0.14 B Route llNBThrough 29.1 0.86 C 18.8 0.75 B Route 11 SB Left 20.8 0.57 C 13.4 0.51 B Route 11 SB Through 18.5 0.67 B 20.1 0.82 C Lako EB Left 59.9 0.88 E 44.2 0.76 D Lako EB Through-Right 34.3 0.17 C 35.9 0.17 D Lako WB Left 49.8 0.66 D 44.6 0.61 D Lako WB Through-Right 11 45.1 0.36 D 41.3 0.40 D 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 22.1 C 15.4 B Route 11 NB Left 10.2 0.09 B 8.9 0.11 A Route llNBThrough 24.1 0.83 C 12.9 0.68 B Route 11 SB Left 16.6 0.51 B 9.2 0.43 A Route 11 SB Through 15.7 0.65 B 13.8 0.75 B Lako EB Left 34.1 0.69 C 35.6 0.51 D Lako EB Through-Right 25.5 0.11 C 30.0 0.12 C Lako WB Left 27.8 0.19 C 32.2 0.24 C Lako WB Th rough-Right 25.2 0.09 C 30.2 0.16 C 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street I Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 23.6 C 19.4 B Route 11 NB Left 10.4 0.09 B 11.5 0.14 B Route llNBThrough 24.4 0.83 C 17.6 0.75 B Route 11 SB Left 16.9 0.51 B 12.1 0.49 B Route 11 SB Through 15.9 0.65 B 18.9 0.82 B Lako EB Left 38.6 0.72 D 32.4 0.49 C Lako EB Through-Right 33.3 0.20 C 33.1 0.21 C Lako WB Left 36.3 0.29 D 31.3 0.24 C Lako WB Through-Right 40.7 0.34 D 35.7 0.36 D 4-Lane Route 11,Split Phasing on AM PM Lako Street IlDelay(sec/veh) v/c LOS 11 Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 18.6 B 14.9 B Route 11 NB Left 11.6 0.09 B 9.7 0.11 A Route llNBThrough 19.0 0.67 B 14.8 0.58 B Route 11 SB Left 12.7 0.42 B 9.8 0.43 A Route 11 SBThrough 14.5 0.49 B 13.0 0.59 B Lako EB Left 27.3 0.80 C 27.5 0.70 C Lako EB Through-Right 20.2 0.15 1 C 21.7 1 0.16 1 C Lako WB Left 30.4 0.57 C 26.1 0.49 C LakoWBThrough-Right 27.1 0.28 C 24.3 0.30 C 17 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International III. Future (2024) Near-Term Conditions— Completion of Phase 1 Royal Vistas Phase 1 is expected to be completed by 2024,representing the 5-year future forecast. Phase 1 will contain 258 dwelling units and the only point of access will be the Royal Vistas Roadway intersecting with Route 11, about 600 feet north of the Kuakini Highway intersection. A. Surrounding Area Developments Surrounding area developments identified below were researched and analyzed to assess their potential future impact on study intersections. No other significant developments are expected in the surrounding area that would significantly affect the roadway geometries or traffic volumes at the study intersections. This is based on research completed on October 10, 2019 at the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control(OEQC)website. 1. Living Stones Church The Living Stones Church is located north of Puapuaanui Street,just north of Hoomama Street. The church will have 600 seats with approximately 19,000 square feet gross floor area (SF GFA). The church will mainly be open on Sundays.The Living Stones Church Traffic Assessment Report(The Traffic Management Consultant,2018)analyzed the Sunday peak hour conditions as weekday use of the church is minor.Traffic generated by this project on a typical weekday was assumed to be included in the annual growth rate. 2. Pualani Makai The Pualanai Makai development is located makai of Route 11,across of Puapuaanui Street,over two miles north of the Laipala Makai project. This mixed-use development consists of multi-family housing and various retail/commercial space. The Puapuaanui Street intersection will become a 4-way intersection with a dedicated left turn, through, and right turn lane for all approaches. Approaches on Route 11 were recommended to have protected/permitted left-turn phasing. There was no phasing recommendation for the Puapuaanui Street approaches. The addition of the makai leg of Puapuaanui Street will divert some traffic away from Kuakini Highway.The Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report(The Traffic Management Consultant, 2019) included project generated traffic assignment and diverted traffic. Traffic from this project will impact the study intersections of this project and were added to the background volumes. The Pualani Makai project calls for more north-south regional traffic capacity through the widening of Route 11 or the construction of Alii Highway,which is a consistent recommendation for projects in this area. 3. Youth Gymnastics and Sports Fitness Facility The Youth Gymnastics and Sports Fitness Facility is located east of Route 11, with access off of Hualalai Road (south). The gym and fitness facility opened for operations in October 2020. The gymnasium and fitness center are approximately 15,000 SF GFA. Classes are offered only in the afternoons from 2:00 PM 7:00 PM. Approximately 15 to 20 children attend the facility. To model the traffic generated by this facility,20 vehicles were added to the background PM peak hour. Trips were distributed based on the 2019 traffic patterns. B. Roadway Construction Projects Roadway construction projects identified below were researched and analyzed to assess their potential future impact on study roadways and intersections. No other significant future construction projects are expected in the surrounding area that would significantly affect the roadway geometries or traffic volumes at the study intersections. This is based on review of the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program STIP). The projects referenced in the long-range transportation plan and Bike Plan Hawaii are not found in the STIP. The impacts of these projects were assumed to be captured in the background growth rate. 18 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 1. Widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road The Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District ofHawaii(July 2014)and the County of Hawaii General Plan (February 2005) includes improvements to Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road. It is proposed that Route 11 will be widened by two travel lanes and include bicycle facilities and sidewalks. This project will improve north-south regional capacity. There is currently no anticipated start/completion date for this project and therefore it was not included in the analysis of future conditions. 2. Lako Street Extension The most recent extension of Lako Street is proposed from the current terminus to a future roundabout at the intersection with Alii Drive. The proposed roadway connection is about 1.2 miles north of the project site. The Lako Street extension would provide another mauka-makai connector road between Laaloa Avenue and Royal Poinciana Drive. This project would provide access to Alii Drive and the future Alii Highway. There is currently no anticipated start/completion date for this project. 3. Alii Highway from Hualalai Road to Keauhou Shopping Center The County of Hawaii General Plan (February 2005) includes a recommendation for the construction of Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Alii Highway) from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Keauhou. The official Transportation Network Maps for the Nani Kailua Area (see Figure 6) shows the future Alii Highway extension running parallel to Route 11, connecting to Route 11 between Hualalai Road and Puapuaanui Street and extending through the project area to the Keauhou Shopping Center. The completion of this project would provide an alternative to Alii Drive and Route 11 in the north-south direction,passing around the northbound Lako Street bottleneck. Proposed pedestrian and bike paths are planned along the Alii Highway extension. There is currently no anticipated start/completion date for this project and therefore it was not included in the analysis of future conditions. C. Multimodal Plans 1. Bike Plan Hawaii Bike Plan Hawaii (2003) references several near-term projects. Two of the projects nearby are: a signed shared road on Kuakini Highway from Lako Street to Hualalai Road,and a signed shared road on Route 11 from Henry Street to Kuakini Highway. This project is not expected to have an impact to the vehicular traffic in the study area. 2. Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan The 2011 Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan does not include any pedestrian facility upgrades or construction in the project area. D. Community Plan 1. Kona Community Development Plan The official Transportation Network Map — Nani Kailua Area from the Kona Community Development Plan (Wilson Okomoto,2008) shows future connections of`minor collectors' running parallel to Route 11 in the location of Royal Vistas,(1) extending Hoomama Street to Leilani Street,and(2)extending Paulehia Street to Kekuanaoa Place, shown in Figure 6. The completion of Alii Highway and the Lako Street Extension are also shown in Figure 6. The timing of these improvements is undetermined, and it is not expected they will be completed prior to 2024. The most likely condition is that the developers of Royal Vistas will complete the extension to Kekuanaoa Place before Phase 2 is occupied. 19 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International x 4 NIY t'Si _ x UL0 S' 5 y+sr Legend t% Proposed Roads,Classification'Proposed Transit Line` m CUP,Local Bill Trunk y CUP,collector,major =Secondary r CDP,mdl"r,minor Transit Hub' x GP,arterial ktt?n an o OR collector,major Transit Station' GP,collector.MMMT Pedestrian-Bike Paths(COP)* TOD Type G v TYPE Wigr,dorhoed 4 sh r Regional Conler 4 Lane MlKana Urban Area' Path ORural Town TOW Ped-sw Existing Roadway Ped-itad Shared 4 Shoulder rf Policy Layer r: C N. 800 1,800 3,600 Feet r 1 inch equals 2,Uoa feet Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of r the official map. Kona Community Development Pfan Figure 6: Kona Community Development Plan 20 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International E. Volumes 1. Future 2024 Without Project Volumes The project study area within Kona has been experiencing modest growth. HDOT ADT counts on Route 11 between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road didn't show any increase in vehicular volumes from 2015 to 2016. The 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts average daily traffic in Kona on Hawaii Belt Road to be 41,900 vehicles in 2020 and 48,000 vehicles in 2035. This equates to a 1.01%annual growth rate over 15 years in the Kona area. Therefore, a background growth rate of 1.0%per year was applied to all through movements on Route 11 at the study intersections. Traffic generated traffic from Pualani Makai and the Youth Gymnastics and Sports Fitness Facility were also added separately into the background volumes. The estimated future volumes without the project for the future year 2024 are shown in Figure 7. 2. Project Related Volumes The proposed Royal Vistas include 258 multi-family residential dwelling units for Phase 1.All of these are expected to be low rise units with two or three stories. Trips generated from the proposed facility were estimated using nationally accepted land use rates from the Trip Generation, l Oth Edition(ITE, 2016). ITE defines the Multi-family Housing(Low Rise)Land Use[220]as follows:"includes apartments,townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units" The analysis used 258 dwelling units as the independent variable to estimate new trips expected from the proposed project. The estimates for new trips generated by the project are shown in Table 10. Table 10: Estimated Trips Generated-Phase 1 AM PM Land Use [ITE Code] Equation Equation Multi-family Housing Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln (X)— Ln (T) = 0.89*Ln (X) - Low Rise) [220]0.51 0.02 Dwelling Units 258 258 New Trips 117 137 Int Out In Out 23% 77% 63% 37% 27 90 86 51 T = Total number of trips generated, X=Dwelling Units Trips generated by the Royal Vistas Phase 1 will enter and exit at the Royal Vistas Roadway and were distributed onto Route I I according to existing travel patterns. The existing 2019 segment volumes between Puapuaanui Street and Kuakini Street were used to determine the inbound percent distribution. 2 In and Out split provided by Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE 2016)for Land Use 220 21 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 5 Route 11 44[10 I PalaniRd m 54[331 • m u N E mI 754[ 6 l(oil wp] we a Rote 11j 154[22Q o Y O y Routed 71[2641 I ! a Et 512(974--j, 213[543} w r•,`4 140[71 t,,l*m Ian9{14[ yswww s PalaniRd Henry 2 OFF OD F 507[348 E w mI 2 633(63Q- 57 6361- 57[ZD1 a r4G m 3 f Sf Rnute 11 m m 147 1190p 0 418[7721 ;2 1 I ! ! 124[2911 w oc Henry St _ Routed 5 46 or`ry m 144[104 o Route 11 w X59(23) q l 114[50 v 3 3 193[195 a a 9[23 } 75 16 aµa E 155[ 325 n a Route 11 o 146nm fes Route 11 t00[p0 AVe "y Route 11 Routeli X269[ 2181 AoV 171201 r.. 1 '36[39)m 12[111 3 69[ 521 a 16 I7 1 _e µE it 3 278[1431- 1749(30) 9 3251 m 69[ S a 2 6(521 w 41 ti Route i i Not to Scale Route Legend # Analyzed Peak Hour Volumes Signalized Unsignal¢ed Intersection AM(PM) Svehlhr) (5 intersection Intersection a Stop Sign Figure 7: Future 2024 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes 22 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Based on the existing 2019 traffic volumes on Route 11, between Puapuaanui Street and Lako Street, the AM peak hour direction is northbound, and the PM peak hour direction is southbound. Table 11 shows the directional percentages at Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street that were used to determine the inbound trip distribution. Table 11: Existing 2019 Volumes on Route 11 between Puapuaanui St and Kuakini Highway AM PM NB SB NB SB Volume 877 80S 873 940 Percent 52%48%48%S2% The 2019 outbound volumes at Puapuaanui Street were used to determine the outbound percent distribution. Royal Vistas will have a similar land use as Pualani Estates,which is just north of Royal Vistas and currently uses Puapuaanui Street as the main access to Route 11. Outbound traffic distribution for Pualani Estates at Puapuaanui Street is anticipated to have a similar outbound distribution at Royal Vistas Roadway. Table 12 shows the existing outbound volumes for Pualani Estates at Puapuaanui Street during the AM and PM peak hours. The percentages shown in Table 11 were used for the outbound trip distribution at the Royal Vistas Roadway intersecting Route 11. Table 12: Existing 2019 Outbound Volumes at Puapuaanui Street AM- P M WBR WBL I WBR WBL Volume 185 87 107 34 Percent 68%32%76%24% The future `with project' condition analyzed the Royal Vistas Roadway approach to have a left turn and a right turn lane. Turn lanes are provided for the southbound left turn and northbound right turn into Royal Vistas. Right turns are channelized. A peak hour traffic signal warrant and a 4-hour traffic signal warrant were conducted for the new Royal Vistas Roadway. The new roadway intersection did not warrant a signal during the AM or PM peak hour. This intersection was analyzed as a two-way stop-controlled intersection. A crosswalk would be provided on the east side of the intersection for pedestrian connectivity. A refuge lane for westbound left turns onto Route 11 is recommended as this is an unsignalized intersection and will make this turn easier for the driver. The expected future lane configuration is shown in Figure 8. Project related trips for 2024 (Phase 1) are shown in Figure 9. 3. Future 2024 With Project Volumes Phase 1 project related trips were added to the Future 2024 Without Project volumes to estimate Future 2024 With Project peak hour volumes(see Figure 10). 23 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Qi3f, iY l Route 11 r Route 11 1)& ZO1 iva+ a U Route 19 tow aimea 14 F a Route 11 b Rautaliacw m w fr n Route 11 rojert I 3 Driveway RoutelitoKeauhau x,} RouteIIJWWaimea 2 5 v x , w o Routa 11 a r Route 11tnKeauhau Route 11 y Route 11 y x_ V V 4 5 I U Route 11 hu iol If' Route 11 Hp0 L00100 Aye O r ra r Route 11 Route 1. r T Jy L - G GI Route 11 Route 11 Legend Anal zed Pr"ectY1 Signalized Unsignalized Intersectian Driveway Intersection Intersection Stop Sign Figure 8: Expected Future Lane Configuration 24 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Rcu.e 11 fgf 9 # I~ Q T s Route 19 to Waimea w x a 2 *,-5[51 Route 11 Route 11oX21114[ I PC--1 d Route 1 rea 7(15) µ Project Qriveway RautelitoKeauhau p 25[ 12] °Route15toWaimea2 46 m a t o s V k_21( 11)f I w 4k-r27[20) v vi r •2[3) P"4 v L A Routell Ff 5[ 25"Routr= lltoKeauhou Route 11 46 ry RouteiiINKl U Y J Route PI L- 11 Laol°o AW Route 11 Route 11 i env 3( 7) 3 W L G e N J 3[Sj E 2[10) y 4 V a m Not to Scale Route 11 Route 11 Legend Peak Hour Volumes Analyzed Project Signalized Unsignaiized J s u 1 Stnp Sign AM PRUI veh hF} Intersection t7riveway Intersection Intersection Figure 9: Phase l Project Related Trips Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Rcu,_11 Route 11 4 y Of I m m 1-140(71) J fgf i I" 9(14) k] T U s cit 44(10- t t m 55(35)-,, 4 - µ 2 Route l9 to Waimea m Q x L m46 Route 11 2 r,m w X775(695 Route it 165( 227)ac d m 71[260,f a 213[503 w ti Ca r:I w I:l Project I,.I o Qriveway m . m-i 61( 39)Route li toKeauhau 4 p 25[ 12] °Route 19toWaimea IJ --- m rn o 46a o o m m 525(364p G p r Im t X710(655 p n a' • li S9(32) x r? p"', a Route 11 107( l 4231798] w, J,124 213 w tr +Route 11taKeaL ou Route 11 0 o ry aVFg140{104[ Routeiilqpci m r` 59 23 111(51 . c m 193[199 r 9[2 3 75 116 x m Y Route 11 155(325 o Route 11 LAoI°o AW Route 11 Route 11 J m.-.o v rw 65 O O 6oririM1A ri _a w 299(225) 17[21 m 36(39 m 12(11[ 3 69(62j a 16( 7) _E 3 2$ 14E[[ 3048)f m 131[335 i 69 43 w m 2 [52 m a 41 Fy V JI l4 u Not to Scale Rauteii Route 11 Legend Peak Hour Volumes Analyzed Project Signalized Unsignaiized J U 1 Stnp Sign AM PRUI veh hF lntersert'un Qriveway Intersection Intersection Figure 10: Future 2024 With Project Peak Hour Volumes Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International F.Future 2024 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis Puapuaanui Street was analyzed as a 4-leg signalized intersection with protected/permitted left-turn phasing on Route 11 and permissive left-turn phasing on Puapuaanui Street. The westbound right turn at Hualalai Road(South) approach was analyzed with an acceleration lane onto Route 11. 1. Future 2024 Without Project Intersection LOS The 2024 Without Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay(in seconds per vehicle)were determined for the AM and PM peak hours, shown in Table 13. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Movements that operated at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix D. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street(north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.97 and 0.38 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road(south),westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.29 and 0.52 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS=BCIB C(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Puapuaanui Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. D Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway, northbound left turning movement has LOS E (v/c of 0.91) and long delays during the AM peak hour due to high through volumes on Route 11. The Pualani Makai development will lead to Puapuaanui Street becoming a 4-leg intersection. The Pualani Makai TIAR rerouted the eastbound left turns from Kuakini Highway to Puapuaanui Street and other internal roads. 27 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 13: Future 2024 Without Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela sec veh v c LOS Dela sec veh v c LOS Route 11&Palani Rd(overall) 23.8 C 27.0 C Route 11 EB Left 39.5 0.45 D 40.1 0.74 D Route 11 EB Through 14.4 0.34 B 18.8 0.61 B Route 11 WB Left 39.6 0.67 D 40.9 0.73 D Route 11 WB Through 14.6 0.47 B 16.9 0.44 B Palani NB Left 38.2 0.72 D 41.0 0.73 D Palani NB Through 26.4 0.25 C 30.8 0.43 C Palani SB Left 48.4 0.51 D 52.4 0.72 D PalaniSBThrough 34.5 0.66 C 35.8 0.64 D Route 11&Henry St(overall)34.1 0.65 C 34.5 0.68 C Route 11 EB Left 46.3 0.48 D 47.5 0.63 D Route 11 EB Through 25.4 0.38 C 30.6 0.65 C Route 11 EB Right 22.2 0.08 C 23.9 0.19 C Route 11 WB Left 48.9 0.42 D 51.4 0.56 D Route 11WBThrough 32.4 0.65 C 34.0 0.64 C Route 11 WB Right 28.0 0.34 C 28.0 0.23 C Henry NB Left 38.3 0.48 D 37.9 0.42 D Henry NB Left-Through 39.6 0.60 D 39.3 0.58 D Henry NB Right 34.0 0.03 C 34.3 0.03 C Henry SB Left 42.9 0.76 D 41.2 0.75 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 38.0 0.73 D 35.8 0.70 D Route 11&Hualalai(N)(overall) 16.3 1.3 Route 11 NB Left 11.7 0.24 B 12.3 0.15 B Hualalai EB Left 798.8 1.97 F 204.8 0.38 F Route 11&Hualalai(S)(overall) 1.1 1.7 Route 11 SB Left 12.6 0.14 B 11.7 0.11 B Hualalai WB Left 148.6 0.29 F 228.8 0.52 F Route 11&Puapuaanui St(overall) 22.1 C 22.3 C Route 11 NB Left 13.0 0.35 B 18.0 0.44 B Route 11 NB Through 21.1 0.83 C 15.9 0.71 B Route 11 SB Left 12.6 0.16 B 11.1 0.38 B Route 11 SB Through 20.9 0.81 C 24.8 0.88 C Puapuaanui EB Left 34.0 0.63 C 39.8 0.66 D Puapuaanui EB Through 24.5 0.03 C 29.6 0.07 C Puapuaanui WB Left 27.3 0.31 C 31.4 0.16 C Puapuaanui WB Through 25.4 0.16 C 29.6 0.07 C Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 10.0 2.6 Route 11 NB Left 40.2 0.91 E 18.1 0.56 C Kuakini EB Left 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Lako St(overall) 42.1 D 27.0 C Route 11 NB Left 16.3 0.12 B 18.2 0.18 B Route 11 NB Through 42.4 0.95 D 22.3 0.81 C Route 11 SB Left 52.7 0.86 D 21.8 0.66 C Route 11 SB Through 23.3 0.76 C 24.7 0.87 C Lako EB Left 83.6 0.94 F 58.0 0.82 E Lako EB Through-Right 41.2 0.15 D 45.2 0.16 D Lako WB Left 62.1 0.69 E 59.0 0.68 E Lako WB Th rough-Right 54.8 0.34 D 53.0 0.42 D Route 11&Kam III Rd(overall) 18.8 B 24.4 C Route 11 NB Left 42.6 0.80 D 46.9 0.74 D Route 11 NB Through 16.3 0.69 B 23.4 0.76 C Route 11 SB Left 39.7 0.47 D 44.0 0.49 D Route 11 SB Through 11.5 0.33 B 16.0 0.42 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 29.6 0.74 C 33.7 0.85 C Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 39.5 0.66 D 43.7 0.62 D 28 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International g) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=DIC(AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street, the eastbound left turn operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.94) during the AM peal-,hour and LOS E (v/c of 0.82) during the PM peak hour. The westbound left turn also operates at LOS E (v/c of 0.69 and 0.68,respectively) during the AM and PM peak hours. This delay is attributed to the traffic volumes and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. h) Route 11 and Kamehameha 111 Road. Overall Intersection LOS=BIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Future 2024 With Project Intersection LOS The 2024 With Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours,shown in Table 14.NOTE:All Royal Vistas vehicles are routed through the one Royal Vistas Access Roadway to Route 11 for purposes of the Phase 1 analysis.The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Movements that operate at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix E. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) The westbound left turn operates at LOS E (v/c of 0.63) during the PM peak hour. The delay is a result of signal timing and the signal timing could be adjusted to reduce approach delay.All other movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street(north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F(v/c of 2.37 and 0.43 respectively) during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11.The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road(south),westbound left turning movement has LOS F(v/c of 0.29 and 0.58 respectively) during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11.The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Puapuaanui Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 29 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 14: Future 2024 With Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela sec veh) "/c LOS Dela sec veh v c I LOS Route 11&Palani Rd(overall) 23.8 C 27.3 C Route 11 EB Left 39.5 0.45 D 40.7 0.74 D Route 11 EB Through 14.5 0.34 B 18.9 0.62 B Route 11 WB Left 39.6 0.67 D 41.7 0.74 D Route 11 WB Through 14.8 0.47 B 17.0 0.44 B Palani NB Left 38.2 0.72 D 41.8 0.74 D Palani NB Through 26.5 0.25 C 31.4 0.43 C Palani SB Left 48.2 0.51 D 53.7 0.74 D Palani SB Through 34.5 0.66 C 36.5 0.64 D Route 11&Henry St(overall)34.4 0.66 C 34.9 0.69 C Route 11 EB Left 46.8 0.49 D 47.9 0.63 D Route 11 EB Through 25.8 0.38 C 30.6 0.66 C Route 11 EB Right 22.5 0.08 C 23.6 0.19 C Route 11 WB Left 49.4 0.44 D 56.9 0.63 E Route 11 WB Through 33.4 0.68 C 34.3 0.66 C Route 11 WB Right 28.5 0.35 C 28.1 0.24 C Henry NB Left 38.5 0.48 D 38.0 0.42 D Henry NB Left-Through 39.8 0.60 D 39.5 0.58 D Henry NB Right 34.2 0.03 C 34.5 0.03 C Henry SB Left 42.1 0.74 D 41.9 0.76 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 37.9 0.72 D 36.6 0.71 D Route 11&Hualalai(N)(overall) 20.2 1.4 Route 11 NB Left 11.9 0.25 B 12.7 0.16 B Hualalai EB Left 1027.1 2.37 F 239.9 0.43 F Route 11&Hualalai(S)(overall) 1.1 1.9 Route 11 SB Left 13.1 0.14 B 11.9 0.11 B Hualalai WB Left 167.0 0.29 F 269.4 0.58 F Route 11&Puapuaanui St(overall) 22.9 C 24.6 C Route 11 NB Left 13.0 0.34 B 20.9 0.49 C Route 11 NB Through 22.0 0.85 C 17.0 0.74 B Route 11 SB Left 14.3 0.18 B 12.2 0.40 B Route 11 SB Through 19.0 0.77 B 29.1 0.92 C Puapuaanui EB Left 42.0 0.67 D 39.8 0.66 D Puapuaanui EBThrough 28.8 0.03 C 29.6 0.07 C Puapuaanui WB Left 32.1 0.33 C 31.4 0.16 C Puapuaanui WB Through 29.8 0.17 C 29.6 0.07 C Route 11&Royal Vistas(overall) 2.3 2.6 Route 1158 Left 10.3 0.02 B 18.1 0.56 C Royal Vistas WB Left 104.2 0.49 F 18.1 0.56 C Royal Vistas WB Right 20.5 0.22 C 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 11.1 2.5 Route 11 NB Left 45.0 0.94 E 18.3 0.57 C Kuakini EB Left 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Lako St(overall) 42.3 D 27.9 C Route 11 NB Left 17.5 0.12 B 18.6 0.17 B Route 11 NB Through 39.5 0.92 D 22.6 0.81 C Route 11 SB Left 51.4 0.85 D 24.3 0.68 C Route 11 SB Through 24.0 0.75 C 23.6 0.86 C Lako EB Left 89.4 0.94 F 69.0 0.84 E Lako EB Through-Right 47.5 0.15 D 50.0 0.16 D Lako WB Left 72.3 0.72 E 65.5 0.69 E Lako WB Through-Right 63.9 0.35 E 58.9 0.43 E Route 11&Kam III Rd 19.0 B 25.6 C Route 11 NB Left 42.6 0.80 D 49.8 0.75 D Route 11 NB Through 16.7 0.70 B 25.1 0.79 C Route 11 SB Left 39.7 0.47 D 44.5 0.49 D Route 11 SB Through 11.6 0.34 B 16.4 0.43 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 29.6 0.74 C 34.8 0.85 C Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 39.6 0.66 D 44.4 0.63 D 30 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International D Route 11 and Royal Vistas Roadway At the proposed unsignalized intersection of Route 11 and the Royal Vistas Roadway, the southbound left turn movement from Route 11 into Royal Vistas Roadway functions well, with minimal delay, an average of 10 to 18 seconds during both peak hours. The westbound left turning movement has LOS F(v/c of 0.49) during the AM(29 vehicles)peak hour due to high through volumes on Route 11.The intersection functions acceptably, with an average of 2.3 seconds of delay per vehicle in the AM peak hour and 2.6 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. g) Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway, the northbound left turn operates at LOS E(v/c of 0.94)during the AM peak hour.All other movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. h) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=DIC(AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street, the eastbound left turn operates at LOS F (v/c of 0.94) during the AM peak hour and LOS E (v/c of 0.84) during the PM peak hour. The westbound left turn also operates at LOS E (v/c of 0.72 and 0.69, respectively) during the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound shared through-right lane also operates at LOS E(v/c of 0.35 and 0.43,respectively)during the AM and PM peak hours. This delay is attributed to the traffic volumes and split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operates at LOS D or better during both peak hours. i)Route 11 and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS=BIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Future 2024 With Project Mitigation Long term improvements including the Lako Street Extension, the completion of Alii Highway, and the widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will improve regional traffic in the study area. The completion dates of these projects are not known. In the interim, short-term mitigations were considered. a) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Similar to the existing condition, the minor street approach left turns operate at LOS F during both peals hours at both Hualalai Road intersections and the Royal Vistas driveway. Peak-Hour volume traffic signal warrants were evaluated for the 2024 with and without project conditions. Table 15 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis in 2024 with and without the project. 31 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 15: Future 2024 Peak-Hour Warrant=y 2024 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai(N) 2191 44 NO 2330 10 NO Hualalai(S) 2098 9 NO 2348 14 NO Kuakini Hwy 2407 0 NO 2387 0 NO Peak Hour Warrant 2024 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai(N) 2261 44 NO 2406 10 NO Hualalai(S) 2170 9 NO 2401 14 NO Royal Vistas Dwy 1 1830 29 NO 2091 12 NO Kuakini Hwy 1 2448 0 NO 1 2439 0 NO None of the unsignalized intersections satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant.Each of the unsignalized intersections operate with relatively low overall delay. The minor street left volumes at Hualalai Road and Puapuaanui Street are relatively low and the observed delays are generally much lower than the calculated delays. The 2009 MUTCD states: "At an intersection with high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left- turn volumes as the `minor-street' volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the `major-street" volume'. The Route 11 and Kuakini Highway northbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. For this analysis, the northbound left turn volume represents the minor approach volume, and the opposing southbound volume represents the major approach volume see Table 16). Table 16: Future 2024 Peak-Hour Warrant' 2024 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor I Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Kuakini Hwy 90S 602 1 YES 1109 340 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2024 With Project AM PM Major Minor I Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Kuakini Hwy 932 602 1 YES 1120 340 YES The Route 11 and Kuakini Highway intersection will satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant in 2024. The satisfaction of a traffic warrant does not require the installation of a traffic control signal.Kuakini Highway was analyzed as a signalized intersection with various northbound left-turn phasing for the Future 2024 With Project condition(see Table 17). s Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 32 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 17: Future 2024 With Project-Route 11 and Kuakini Highway Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 37.5 D 20.3 C Route 11 NB Left 74.6 1.00 E 76.6 0.93 E Route 11 NB Through 1.5 0.56 A 1.4 0.56 A Route 11 SB Through 48.8 0.97 D 19.7 0.85 B Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 22.7 C 2.7 A Route 11 NB Left 87.9 1.13 F 9.3 0.69 A Route 11 NB Through 1.5 0.56 A 1.4 0.56 A Route 11 SB Through 1.5 0.57 A 1.9 0.63 A Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 23.5 C 3.9 A Route 11 NB Left 55.4 0.95 E 10.0 0.72 A Route 11 NB Through 1.5 0.56 A 1.4 0.56 A Route 11 SB Through 24.6 0.84 C 4.3 0.69 A Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A The overall delay at this intersection will increase in both peak hours, while the northbound left turn will still operate at LOS E or worse for all alternatives. It is recommended that a signal not be installed at this intersection. b) Roundabout Analysis The minor street left turn movements at both Hualalai Road intersections and Kuakini Highway operate at LOS F.For these intersections,the traffic operations for a single-lane roundabout were analyzed(see Table 18). The overall LOS at each intersection will be LOS F, with the v/c ratio above 1.00 for all Route 11 approaches. A single-lane roundabout is not recommended for the unsignalized intersections. All future conditions were not analyzed, since the traffic volume would increase, and the v/c would worsen. Table 18: Future 2024 Without Project Roundabout Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections AM PM Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11 &Hualalai(N)(overall) 125.2 F 97.4 F Route 11 NB approach 161.5 1.31 F 79.4 1.11 F Route 11 SB approach 86.7 1.12 F 121.1 1.21 F Hualalai North EB approach 11 13.7 0.27 B 17.4 0.30 C Route 11 &Hualalai(S)(overall) 83.0 F 93.7 F Route 11 NB approach 126.7 1.23 F 78.3 1.10 F Route 11 SB approach 38.6 0.96 E 112.3 1.19 F Hualalai North WB approach 25.3 0.51 D 15.0 0.25 C Route 11 &Kuakini (overall) 267.2 F 153.6 F Route 11 NB approach 1 235.5 1.48 F 109.2 1.19 F Route 11 SB approach 363.4 1.75 F 228.8 1.46 F Kuakini EB approach 18.4 0.44 C 71.7 0.95 F 33 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International C)Alternative Mitigation Measures 1) Alternatives at Lako Street A comparison between the widening of Route 11 and various left-turn phasing on Lako Street was analyzed for the Future 2024 With Project, shown in Table 19. All movements will operate with an acceptable LOS with 4-Lane Route 11 and permissive left-turn phasing on Lako Street. Protected left turns on Lako Street will provide a slight improvement in the overall delay,but the eastbound left will operate with LOS F and LOS E,respectively, and the westbound left will still operate with LOS E during both peak hours. Table 19: Future 2024 With Project-Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 39.5 D 26.3 C Route 11 NB Left 16.0 0.12 B 17.3 0.16 B Route 11 NB Through 37.4 0.92 D 21.0 0.80 C Route 11 SB Left 45.3 0.82 D 22.0 0.65 C Route 11 SB Through 22.4 0.75 C 21.9 0.85 C Lako EB Left 83.3 0.93 F 68.0 0.84 E Lako EB Through-Right 44.8 0.16 D 50.8 0.18 D Lako WB Left 67.0 0.72 E 64.3 0.69 E Lako WB Through-Right 62.4 0.47 E 62.5 0.55 E 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 33.2 C 21.9 C Route 11 NB Left 15.2 0.12 B 14.3 0.16 B Route 11 NB Through 37.1 0.92 D 19.6 0.82 B Route 11 SB Left 46.4 0.82 D 18.6 0.64 B Route 11 SB Through 21.7 0.75 C 20.8 0.87 C Lako EB Left 46.3 0.77 D 39.1 0.58 D Lako EB Through-Right 33.3 0.11 C 32.1 0.11 C Lako WB Left 36.4 0.19 D 34.5 0.23 C Lako WB Through-Right 33.0 0.08 C 32.4 0.14 C 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 31.8 C 23.3 C Route 11 NB Left 13.8 0.11 B 15.0 0.16 B Route 11 NB Through 28.7 0.85 C 20.0 0.82 B Route 11 SB Left 31.1 0.69 C 19.6 0.65 B Route 11 SB Through 18.9 0.70 B 21.2 0.87 C Lako EB Left 66.4 0.84 E 47.7 0.66 D Lako EB Through-Right 50.3 0.19 D 42.4 0.23 D Lako WB Left 59.0 0.38 E 41.0 0.29 D Lako WB Through-Right 67.5 0.50 E 47.0 0.44 D 4-Lane Route 11,Split Phasing on AM PM Lako Street Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 21.2 C 15.9 B Route 11 NB Left 12.2 0.10 B 9.9 0.12 A Route 11 NB Through 20.3 0.69 C 15.5 0.61 B Route 11 SB Left 14.3 0.51 B 10.8 0.51 B Route 11 SB Through 15.4 0.53 B 13.2 0.61 B Lako EB Left 39.0 0.85 D 32.4 0.74 C Lako EB Through-Right 23.9 0.14 C 25.5 0.14 C Lako WB Left 38.2 0.63 D 32.7 0.55 C Lako WBThrough-Right 33.4 0.31 C 30.0 0.34 C 34 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International The Traff c Assessmentfor Left-Turn Signal Phasing Guidelines(ATA,2017)recommends that approaches that do not have adequate sight distance,a protected left-turn phase should be considered,and a permissive left-turn phase is not suitable.The eastbound approach sight distance should be checked before considering allowing permissive left-turn phasing. The widening of Route 11 is needed in 2024. 4. Future 2024 With Project Segment LOS Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Route 11 from Hualalai(north)to Lako Street.Where signalized intersections are separated by less than 2.0 miles in an urban area, the facility should analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urbaan Street Facilities,through-vehicle travel speed is used to analyze facility LOS. Analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix E. The arterial LOS can be found in Table 20. Table 20: Future 2024 With Project Segment LOS Peak Hour Northbound (To Waimea) Southbound (To Keauhou) Speed (mph)LOS Speed (mph)LOS AM Peak 19.3 C 23.8 C PM Peak 21.7 C 22.2 C This segment of Route 11 operates at LOS C in the northbound and southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours, satisfying the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding "acceptable level of service"for transportation facilities. 35 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International IV. Future (2029) Mid-Term Conditions— Completion of Phase 2 A. Surrounding Area Conditions Phase 2 is expected to be completed by 2029, representing the full buildout 10-year future forecast. Phase 2 will contain 192 dwelling units.Inbound trips and Phase 1 outbound trips continue to use the Royal Vistas Roadway and Route 11 intersection. Long term improvements including the Lako Street Extension, the completion of Alii Highway, and the widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will improve regional traffic in the study area. The completion dates of these projects are not known. Volumes were not adjusted based on these improvement projects. B. Volumes 1. Future 2029 Without Project Volumes The project study area within Kona has been experiencing modest growth. HDOT ADT counts on Route 11 between Nam Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road didn't show any increase in vehicular volumes from 2015 to 2016. Similarly,the 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts average daily traffic in Kona to be 41,900 vehicles in 2020 and 48,000 vehicles in 2035. This is approximately equal to a 1%annual growth rate.The estimated future volumes without the proj ect for the future year 2029 are shown in Figure 11. 1. Project Related Volumes The proposed Royal Vistas include 192 multi-family residential dwelling units for Phase 2.All of these are expected to be low rise units with two or three stories. Trips generated from the proposed facility were estimated using nationally accepted land use rates from the Trip Generation, l Oth Edition(ITE, 2016). ITE defines the Multi-family Housing(Low Rise)Land Use[220]as follows:"includes apartments,townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units" The analysis used 192 dwelling units as the independent variable to estimate new trips expected from Phase 2 of the proposed project. The estimates for new trips generated by Phase 2 are shown in Table 21. Table 21: Estimated Trips Generated by Project—Phase 2 AM PM Land Use [ITE Code] Equation Equation Multi-family Housing Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln (X)— Ln (T) = 0.89*Ln (X) - Low Rise [220]0.51 0.02 Dwelling Units 192 192 New Tris 89 106 Ins Out In Out 23% 77% 63% 37% 20 69 67 39 T = Total number of trips generated, X=Dwelling Units s In and Out split provided by Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE 2016)for Land Use 220 36 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International goo Route 11 f4` Qtigoo r ry S1 1] c m ai 7t m 0"- m 44[10 1 I Fl m 54[531 m u Nmm 790(J15 NOM1II(oil ouP lyeEm µI 154[ 22Q a Route 11 Y Route 11 a 71260 537( 10 T a a 537[1425 w o V r s 21S(503} w r•'` oc ff'`140[ 71}9{141 yS PalaniRtF Henry St t 2 OFF OD F S1 QQo507[3431 a N 2 E w mI o X715[ 6651r a i 57( ZD1 m 3 f Sf Rnute 11 m m 107( 190 433[507," . moi 124 1[ 2911 Henry St _ Routeil46 ry,a o ry m 144(104 Route 11 a m 5t 1---59[2 3) q v §l 110( 50 a a 193[1 r 9[ 233 75 16 n E o b3 00 0{01 1 U 159(325- o a x ww Route 112 . g 14 Route 11 t o1pA IyVC " y Route 11 Route 11ca m m Vm i7[ 20)36(39)m n 12[111 3 69[521 a 16( 7) _27G[1431 f{- 179 3251m48(301 w m - E 5111s9( 4s 25[ 521 Route 11 O Not to.Scale Routell Legend # Analyzed Peak Hour Volumes Signalized Unsignal¢ ed U StopSignIntersectionAM(PM) Svehfhr) Intersection Intersection Figure 11: Future 2029 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International The project related trips were distributed according to existing travel volumes. The segment volumes between Puapuaanui Street and 1-.'-uakini Street were used to determine the inbound percent distribution. Future inbound trips will continue entering at the Royal Vistas Roadway at Route 11. It is expected that once a connection to Lako Street is provided, Phase 2 left out (southbound traffic) will utilize the Lako Street intersection during the peak hours, since the traffic signal at Lako Street will provide guaranteed exit opportunities and drivers will not have to wait for a gap at the stop-controlled Royal Vistas driveway. The Future 2029 lane configuration is the same as the Future 2024 lane configuration. Figure 12 shows the Phase 2 inbound project generated and distributed trips. Figure 13 shows the Phase 2 outbound project generated and distributed trips. 2. Future 2029 With Project Volumes Phase 1 (Figure 9) and Phase 2 project related trips (Figure 12 and Figure 13) were added to the Future 2029 Without Project volumes (Figure 11) to estimate Future 2029 With Project peak hour volumes (see Figure 14). 38 Royal Visms TAR SFM anima o a eew! 4 Uu towae_G :_a 1 R_L,! a ea tee! 2 P#m R»Ke_ 4 \ . Ute»W :_, 2-j k- 4 z k. L79 Routell 4p5) tE!_ . tL.r 5 rRcpu m 49-< 4 \ . . _ f u te.e 1RouteIAW —n 7 w i 2N N 2 t f Not to tial Legend Pea Hme VGIUme Analyzed Project Signalized @ Unsignahzed Stupian AM(PM) §// ( Intersection Drivewa ntersemm Intersection Figure 12 Phase 2Inbound Project Related THp 39 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Rcu¢e li 4 fg` z I 4 T s 51L t t ` Route 19 to Wai mea w x 4(4 Route 11 16(10) Route it d Y Route 1 re If a a Project Driveway X47[30] RautelitoKeauhau J Routel4toWaimea G464 t o ae 15M f I X21[15 v r k 2[2] SL7r Route 13 WKeauhau Route 11 U * I F t* YW Raute 11 14 v ca 4 hka4] s Route 11 Laol°o Route 11 Route 11 moi V 1 E L J J e µ E T a Not to Scale Rauteii Route 11 LegendAPeakHourVolumes Ana idP yzeProjectUiSignalized nsgnaiizeJ u d 1 Stnp Sign AM(PM) (vehfhF) intersection Driveway Intersertlon Intersection Figure 13: Phase 2 Outbound Project Related Trips Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Rcu,_11 U Route ll 140(7 1} Aa sM51L44[10 t t m 55[88 w Route19toWairrea m ' 42[ 65jV m X528(739) Route l i Route 11 X166(227) ac d m m 71[260,f a 644[1059 213f w ti Ca v Z w i Project o^ w LK Qrive way m ry ti``—108[58[N Route 11 toKeauhou 4 p 25[12) ° Route 19toWaimea 2U c46a o o m rw 545[3 68[ m r Im 1a 4--763[701* a' • l F 61(34) x p"', a m i Rut.11 107(l 447( S3 b 124(291 n 1 m Routr=11 to K eaXaU Route 11 40f lmm w 94 a 112(53 c 193[19 ry m 9[23 75f N n x Y Route 11 15!1(32 D3 la P1 Route 11 LAoI°o Ave Route 11 Route 11 J s o o i mti.ti rw ry _ 305(232[ GO m 17(21) 39 40) m umi,` n-, 12(11) 3 35(69] m z 16(7) a 2,33 ( 32 m 183[343 i 594S w m 2 [52 a n a V CIO N v L { Not to Scale Rauteli Route 11 Legend Peak Hour Volumes Analyzed Project Signalized Unsignaiized J U 1 Stnp Sign AM PRUI veh hF lntersert'un Qriveway Intersection Intersection Figure 14: Future 2029 With Project Peak Hour Volumes 41 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International C. Future 2029 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis The Future 2024 lane configuration and signal phasing was used for the Future 2029 analysis. 1. Future 2029 Without Project Intersection LOS The 2029 Without Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay(in seconds per vehicle)were determined for the AM and PM peak hours. Table 22 shows the expected vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Movements that operate at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix F. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CID(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street(north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 2.37 and 0.43 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road(south),westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.32 and 0.60 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F (v/c of.74) during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS=8/8(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Puapuaanui Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. D Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway,northbound left turning movement has LOS E (v/c of 0.95) and long delays during the AM peak hour due to high through volumes on Route 11. The Pualani Makai development will lead to Puapuaanui Street becoming a 4-leg intersection. The Pualani Makai TZAR rerouted the eastbound left turns from Kuakini Highway to Puapuaanui Street and other internal roads. g) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=DIC(AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street,the southbound left turn operates at LOS E(v/c of 0.88) during the AM peak hour. The eastbound left turn and westbound approaches operate at LOS E or worse during the AM and PM peak hours.This delay is attributed to the traffic volumes and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 42 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 22: Future 2029 Without Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela sec veh v c LOS Dela sec veh v c LOS Route 11&Palani Rd(overall) 23.4 C 26.9 C Route 11 EB Left 38.7 0.45 D 40.0 0.75 D Route 11 EB Through 14.6 0.36 B 19.4 0.65 B Route 11 WB Left 38.9 0.67 D 41.6 0.74 D Route 11 WB Through 15.0 0.49 B 17.1 0.47 B Palani NB Left 37.5 0.72 D 41.8 0.74 D Palani NB Through 25.9 0.25 C 29.7 0.42 C Palani SB Left 47.5 0.51 D 50.2 0.71 D PalaniSBThrough 33.8 0.66 C 34.5 0.63 C Route 11&Henry St(overall)33.0 0.67 C 34.0 0.70 C Route 11 EB Left 49.6 0.61 D 47.7 0.66 D Route 11 EB Through 26.2 0.42 C 31.1 0.70 C Route 11 EB Right 22.5 0.08 C 23.5 0.19 C Route 11 WB Left 46.2 0.40 D 51.6 0.59 D Route 11WBThrough 32.2 0.69 C 34.2 0.68 C Route 11 WB Right 27.0 0.34 C 27.4 0.23 C Henry NB Left 36.0 0.47 D 36.2 0.41 D Henry NB Left-Through 37.0 0.58 D 37.4 0.56 D Henry NB Right 32.0 0.03 C 32.8 0.03 C Henry SB Left 40.0 0.74 D 40.2 0.75 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 35.5 0.71 D 34.7 0.70 C Route 11&Hualalai(N)(overall) 20.0 1.4 Route 11 NB Left 12.0 0.25 B 12.8 0.16 B Hualalai EB Left 1027.1 2.37 F 239.9 0.43 F Route 11&Hualalai(S)(overall) 1.2 1.9 Route 11 SB Left 13.1 0.15 B 12.0 0.11 B Hualalai WB Left 174.2 0.32 F 285.8 0.60 F Route 11&Puapuaanui St(overall) 23.2 C 25.1 C Route 11 NB Left 14.2 0.36 B 21.3 0.50 C Route 11 NB Through 21.6 0.84 C 17.2 0.75 B Route 11 SB Left 14.0 0.17 B 12.4 0.41 B Route 11 SB Through 20.6 0.80 C 30.0 0.93 C Puapuaanui EB Left 41.0 0.66 D 39.7 0.66 D Puapuaanui EB Through 28.5 0.03 C 29.6 0.07 C Puapuaanui WB Left 31.7 0.32 C 31.3 0.16 C Puapuaanui WB Through 29.5 0.17 C 29.6 0.07 C Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 11.5 2.7 Route 11 NB Left 47.4 0.95 E 19.4 0.59 C Kuakini EB Left 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Lako St(overall) 46.2 D 28.8 C Route 11 NB Left 17.7 0.13 B 20.8 0.19 C Route 11 NB Through 45.5 0.95 D 22.8 0.82 C Route 11 SB Left 66.7 0.88 E 24.9 0.69 C Route 11 SB Through 24.0 0.76 C 26.0 0.89 C Lako EB Left 95.4 0.96 F 67.7 0.84 E Lako EB Through-Right 48.1 0.16 D 50.2 0.16 D Lako WB Left 72.2 0.72 E 65.3 0.69 E Lako WB Th rough-Right 63.8 0.35 E 58.7 0.43 E Route 11&Kam III Rd(overall) 19.3 B 25.0 C Route 11 NB Left 46.8 0.79 D 48.8 0.74 D Route 11 NB Through 15.1 0.66 B 25.0 0.79 C Route 11 SB Left 45.4 0.48 D 44.1 0.49 D Route 11 SB Through 11.2 0.32 B 16.2 0.44 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 34.9 0.76 C 33.9 0.85 C Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 47.3 0.70 D 43.9 0.62 D 43 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International h) Route 11 and Kamehameha III Road. Overall Intersection LOS=BIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 2. Future 2029 With Project Intersection LOS The 2029 With Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay (in seconds per vehicle) were determined for the AM and PM peak hours(see Table 23).The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay.Movements that operate at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix G. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CID C(AM/PM) The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The overall delay and LOS have gradually gotten worse due to the increase in background volume and the trip generated by Royal Vistas. The westbound left during the PM peak hour has a volume of 85 vehicles. This volume will clear the intersection in 1 cycle. The delay increases from 53.8 seconds without the project, to 57 seconds with the project. The Royal Vistas traffic volume causes a slight increase in the overall delay. Other factors that increase the delay are the increase in background volume and the split phase. All other movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street(north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 3.15 and 0.57 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road(south),westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.42 and 0.76 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The westbound right turn also operates at LOS F(v/c of 0.86)during the AM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS=BCIB C(AM/PM) The southbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hour. The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. These delays are due to the cycle length.The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. D Route 11 and Royal Vistas Roadway At the proposed unsignalized intersection of Route 11 and the Royal Vistas Roadway, the southbound left turn movement from Route 11 into Royal Vistas Roadway functions well, with minimal delay, an average of 10 to 13 seconds during both peak hours. The westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.61 and 0.52 respectively) during both AM(29 vehicles) and PM(12 vehicles)peak hours due to high through 44 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International volumes on Route 11. Phase 2 left turns exiting Royal Vistas are expected to use Lako Street to access Route 11. The intersection functions acceptably,with an average of 3.6 seconds of delay per vehicle in the AM peak hour and 2.4 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. g) Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway,the northbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.98)and long delays during the AM peak hour is due to high through volumes on Route 11. All other movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. h) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=DIC(AM/PM) At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street,the southbound left turn operates at LOS F(v/c of 1.00) during the AM peak hour, while several Lako Street approaches operate at LOS E or worse. This delay is attributed to the high volume and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. All other movements at Lako Street operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. i)Route 11 and Kamehameha 111 Road. Overall Intersection LOS=8/C(AM/PM) All movements during both peak hours operate at LOS D or better. 45 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 23: Future 2029 With Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela (sec/,,eh v c I LOS Dela sec veh v c I LOS Route 11&Palani Rd(overall) 23.4 C 27.2 C Route 11 EB Left 38.7 0.45 D 40.9 0.75 D Route 11 EB Through 14.7 0.36 B 19.7 0.67 B Route 11 WB Left 38.9 0.67 D 42.6 0.74 D Route 11 WBThrough 15.3 0.51 B 17.3 0.48 B Palani NB Left 37.5 0.72 D 42.8 0.74 D Palani NB Through 25.9 0.25 C 30.3 0.43 C Palani SB Left 47.4 0.51 D 51.7 0.73 D Palani SBThrough 33.8 0.66 C 35.1 0.63 D Route 11&Henry St(overall)33.5 0.69 C 34.8 0.72 C Route 11 EB Left 50.3 0.61 D 52.8 0.72 D Route 11 EB Through 26.7 0.43 C 32.8 0.74 C Route 11 EB Right 22.8 0.08 C 23.8 0.19 C Route 11 WB Left 46.8 0.43 D 54.2 0.62 D Route 11 WBThrough 34.3 0.74 C 34.6 0.70 C Route 11 WB Right 27.8 0.36 C 27.3 0.24 C Henry NB Left 36.2 0.47 D 36.5 0.41 D Henry NB Left-Through 37.2 0.58 D 37.8 0.57 D Henry NB Right 32.2 0.03 C 33.1 0.03 C Henry SB Left 39.4 0.73 D 40.1 0.76 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 35.3 0.71 D 34.9 0.71 C Route 11&Hualalai(N)(overall) 27.2 1.8 Route 11 NB Left 12.4 0.27 B 13.5 0.18 B Hualalai EB Left 1488.3 3.15 F 355.4 0.57 F Route 11&Hualalai(S)(overall) 1.4 2.4 Route 11 SB Left 14.1 0.17 B 12.5 0.12 B Hualalai WB Left 247.1 0.42 F 400.6 0.76 F Route 11&Puapuaanui St(overall) 27.2 C 32.2 C Route 11 NB Left 14.8 0.37 B 28.6 0.64 C Route 11 NB Through 30.3 0.93 C 19.9 0.81 B Route 11 SB Left 18.9 0.23 B 14.9 0.46 B Route 11 SB Th rough 21.2 0.82 C 43.5 1.00 D Puapuaanui EB Left 42.0 0.67 D 39.7 0.66 D Puapuaanui EB Through 28.8 0.03 C 29.6 0.07 C Puapuaanui WB Left 32.1 0.33 C 31.4 0.17 C Puapuaanui WBThrough 29.8 0.17 C 29.6 0.07 C Route 11&Royal Vistas(overall) 3.6 2.4 Route 11 SB Left 10.6 0.04 B 12.5 0.15 B Royal Vistas WB Left 149.1 0.61 1 F 254.4 0.52 F Royal Vistas WB Right 27.5 0.43 D 26.3 0.31 D Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 12.8 2.6 Route 11 NB Left 54.2 0.98 F 19.7 0.59 C Kuakini EB Left 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Lako St(overall) 52.5 D 32.1 C Route 11 NB Left 18.2 0.13 B 22.3 0.19 C Route 11 NB Through 48.3 0.97 D 25.8 0.85 C Route 11 SB Left 107.8 1.00 F 34.4 0.77 C Route 11 SBThrough 25.1 0.78 C 26.3 0.88 C Lako EB Left113.4 1.02 F 80.8 0.86 F Lako EB Through-Right 47.0 0.17 D 55.1 0.16 E Lako WB Left 68.6 0.75 E 72.2 0.73 E Lako WBThrough-Right 59.3 0.32 E 64.0 0.41 E Route 11&Kam III Rd(overall) 19.5 B 27.8 C Route 11 NB Left 47.1 0.79 D 53.8 0.78 D Route 11 NB Through 15.5 0.67 B 24.8 0.77 C Route 11 SB Left 45.8 0.48 D 50.6 0.51 D Route 11 SB Through 11.4 0.33 B 16.4 0.41 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 35.2 0.77 D 44.9 0.88 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 47.8 0.71 D 51.8 0.66 D 46 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 3. Future 2029 With Project Mitigation Long terin improvements including the Lako Street Extension, the completion of Alii Highway, and the widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will improve regional traffic in the study area. The completion dates of these projects are not known. In the interim, short-term mitigations were considered. a) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Similar to the existing condition, the minor street approach left turns operate at LOS F during both peals hours at both Hualalai Road intersections and the Royal Vistas driveway. Peak-Hour volume traffic signal warrants were evaluated for the 2029 with and without project conditions. Table 24 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis in 2029 with and without the project. Table 24: Future 2029 Peak-Hour Warrant6 2029 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 2285 44 NO 2434 10 NO Hualalai (S) 2192 9 NO 2452 14 NO Kuakini Hwy 2490 0 NO 2480 0 NO Peak Hour Warrant 2029 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai (N) 2409 44 NO 2570 10 NO Hualalai (S) 2317 9 NO 2594 14 NO Royal Vistas Dwy 1940 29 NO 2283 12 NO Kuakini Hwy 2545 0 NO 2565 0 NO None of the unsignalized intersections will satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant. Each of the unsignalized intersections operate with relatively low overall delay. The minor street left volumes at Hualalai Road and Puapuaanui Street are relatively low and the observed delays are generally much lower than the calculated delays. The 2009 MUTCD states: "At an intersection with high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left- turn volumes as the `minor-street' volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the `major-street" volume'. The Route I I and Kuakini Highway northbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. For this analysis, the northbound left turn volume represents the minor approach volume, and the opposing southbound volume represents the major approach volume see Table 25). 6 Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 47 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 25: Future 2029 Peak-Hour Warrant' 2029 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Kuakini Hwy 945 602 YES 1157 340 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2029 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Kuakini Hwy 972 602 YES 1168 340 YES The Route 11 and Kuakini Highway intersection will satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant in 2029. The satisfaction of a traffic warrant does not require the installation of a traffic control signal.Kuakini Highway was analyzed as a signalized intersection with various northbound left phasing for the Future 2029 With Project condition(see Table 26). Table 26: Future 2029 With Project-Route 11 and Kuakini Highway Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 41.3 C 21.5 C Route 11 NB Left 83.0 1.02 F 79.2 0.94 E Route 11 NB Through 1.6 0.59 A 1.7 0.60 A Route 11 SB Through 1 55.0 1.00 D 22.5 0.88 C Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 27.4 C 3.2 A Route 11 NB Left 109.7 1.18 F 11.5 0.72 B Route 11 NB Through 1.6 0.59 A 1.7 0.60 A Route 11 SB Through 1.7 0.59 A 2.1 0.66 A Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh)I v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 30.4 C 4.7 A Route 11 NB Left 64.4 0.97 E 13.7 0.77 B Route 11 NB Through 1.6 0.59 A 1.7 0.60 A Route 11 SB Through 37.9 0.94 D 4.8 0.72 A Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A The overall delay at this intersection will increase in both peak hours, while the northbound left turn will still operate at LOS E or worse for all alternatives. It is recommended that a signal not be installed at this intersection. Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 48 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International b) Alternative Mitigation Measures 1) Alternatives Lako Street A comparison between the widening of Route 11 and various left-turn phasing on Lako Street was analyzed for the Future 2029 With Project, shown in Table 27. All movements will operate with an acceptable LOS with 4-Lane Route 11 and permissive left-turn phasing on Lako Street. Protected left turns on Lako Street will provide a slight improvement in the overall delay, but the eastbound left and westbound approaches will still operate with LOS E. Table 27: Future 2029 With Project-Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 45.0 D 29.2 C Route 11 N B Left 16.2 0.12 B 19.9 0.17 B Route llNBThrough 41.2 0.95 D 22.8 0.83 C Route 11 SB Left 67.7 0.89 E 28.8 0.72 C Route 11 SB Through 22.3 0.76 C 23.3 0.86 C Lako EB Left 103.9 1.00 F 78.8 0.86 E Lako EB Through-Right 48.0 1 0.19 1 D 56.3 1 0.19 1 E Lako WB Left 67.9 0.76 E 70.8 0.73 E Lako WB Through-Right 64.4 0.51 E 70.3 0.60 E 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 41.5 D 23.8 C Route 11 N B Left 17.1 0.13 B 16.9 0.16 B Route llNBThrough 49.0 0.98 D 20.3 0.82 C Route 11 SB Left 81.5 0.92 F 24.0 0.69 C Route 11 SB Through 23.6 0.78 C 20.8 0.86 C Lako EB Left 50.1 0.78 D 50.8 0.64 D Lako EBThrough-Right 35.8 0.11 D 41.3 0.11 D Lako WB Left 39.7 0.24 D 44.7 0.28 D Lako WB Through-Right 35.6 0.09 D 41.7 0.15 D 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 34.5 C 24.6 C Route 11 N B Left 14.0 0.12 B 16.7 0.16 B Route llNBThrough 34.7 0.92 C 20.0 0.82 B Route 11 SB Left 43.6 0.82 D 23.5 0.68 C Route 11 SB Through 19.7 0.75 B 20.5 0.86 C Lako EB Left 64.2 0.86 E 61.0 0.72 E Lako EB Through-Right 45.4 0.21 D 52.2 1 0.25 1 D Lako WB Left 49.9 0.40 D 50.5 0.34 D Lako WB Through-Right 57.5 0.47 E 59.8 0.54 E 4-Lane Route 11,Split Phasing on AM PM Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(se c/veh) v/C LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 22.6 C 16.6 B Route 11 N B Left 12.9 0.11 B 10.2 0.13 B Route llNBThrough 22.3 0.74 C 16.4 0.66 B Route 11 SB Left 16.0 0.55 B 11.7 0.54 B Route 11 SB Through 16.5 0.56 B 13.8 0.64 B Lako EB Left 1 40.4 0.85 D 32.5 0.75 C Lako EB Through-Right 24.3 0.14 C 25.5 0.14 C Lako WB Left 38.2 0.66 D 33.7 0.60 C Lako WBThrough-Right 32.9 0.28 C 30.2 0.34 C 49 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International The Traffic Assessmentfor Left-Turn Signal Phasing Guidelines(ATA,2017)recommends that approaches that do not have adequate sight distance,a protected left-turn phase should be considered,and a permissive left-turn phase is not suitable.The eastbound approach sight distance should be checked before considering allowing permissive left-turn phasing. The widening of Route 11 is needed in 2029. 4. Future 2029 With Project Segment LOS Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Route 11 from Hualalai(north)to Lako Street. Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through-vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. Analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix G. The arterial LOS can be found in Table 28. This segment of Route 11 operates at LOS C in northbound and southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours, satisfying the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding "acceptable level of service"for transportation facilities. Table 28: Future 2029 With Project Segment LOS Peak Hour Northbound (To Waimea) Southbound (To Keauhou) Speed (mph)LOS Speed (mph)LOS AM Peak 18.9 C 23.5 C PM Peak 20.4 C 20.8 C 50 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International V. Future (2039) Long-Term Conditions A. Surrounding Area Conditions Long term improvements including the Lako Street Extension, the completion of Alii Highway, and the widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will improve regional traffic in the study area. The completion dates of these projects are not known. Volumes were not adjusted based on these improvement projects. No other significant developments or future construction projects are expected in the surrounding area that would significantly affect the roadway geometrics or traffic volumes at the study intersections.This is based on research completed on October 10,2019 at the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control OEQC)website and the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program(STIP). B. Volumes 1. Future 2039 Without Project Volumes The project study area within Kona has been experiencing modest growth. HDOT ADT counts on Route 11 between Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road didn't show any increase in vehicular volumes from 2015 to 2016.However,the 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts average daily traffic in Kona on Hawaii Belt Road to be 41,900 vehicles in 2020 and 48,000 vehicles in 2035. This is approximately equal to a 1% annual growth rate over 15 years in the Kona area. Since there is a scope for development and to acknowledge all other projects which are in planning stage, a background growth rate of 1% per year was assumed, to account for additional traffic at the study intersections.The estimated future volumes without the project for the future year 2039 are shown in Figure 15. 2. Project Related Volumes Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be completed by 2024 and 2029,respectively. The trips generated and distributed by Phase 1 and Phase 2 will not change. 3. Future 2039 With Project Volumes Project related trips from Phase 1 (Figure 9)and Phase 2(Figure 12 and Figure 13)were added to the Future 2039 Without Project volumes (Figure 15) to estimate Future 2039 With Project peak hour volumes (see Figure 16). 51 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International goo Route 11 f4fQgoo m ri X11 44[10{I PalaniRd m 54[331 • m timis v v 86a r7asis pnll(oil wp lweEm 154( 22Qa Route 11 Y 1 Route 11 a 71[260 T a m s 213[543} w r•'`4 140[71) DD 9{141 i,nine 3 o m ani Rif iQy, Henry St t O I"F 0a S1 QQ Fw+ 507[34E a w 2 E w m o X734(729)- v 57[30 a r4G Pvfi m 3 f Sf Route 11 m m 107(190 124[291?-N Henry St _ RoLte i i 5 m ry, 140(1"Route 11 113 s 59(2 3) l 114[50 a a 193[195 m 9[23 Ns ; i 75[116 155[325r-,,, o o xw Route 11 a Ea LIE Route 11 t0o1pA J",e "y 1 Route 11 Routeli 1 cc ilk nrw m k_296[219, 4,_17[20) 36(39)m i`°„ti 12[Ill 3 69[621 a 16(7) _ 273 179 325 m43[30 w o u E 511 59 26[52 Rauteii°1 Not to-Scale Routaii Legend # Analyzed Peak Hour Volumes Signalized Unsignal¢ed U Stop SignIntersectionAM(PM) Svehfhr) Intersection Intersection Figure 15: Future 2039 Without Project Peak Hour Volumes 52 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Route 11 Route-11 N. m yn yOr+ Ip m I o144(71) k] rpt 44(10 ' 11) t I !m m 55(8$ Route l9towaimea CO x u' 42(65j f;3 m X946( Route l i Route 11 166(227) ac d E Route 1 m 71[260)f a u P raj ett woo Qrive way RoutelitoKeauhau p 29[i2) ° Route 19ttrWaimea 2 u - - c o m rw 545[3&E4 17- 4-332(7" f I 14 r • l i 61(34) c 5 ' t J w ROUte 1 107(l 488[93{3} dp f 124 lan r Route 11 to K eauFiou Route 11 o V g qpCO" 144{144[ Route 11 lrym 59(23} ^_ n 4.. 112[53) 193[199 r19[23 75(116 v Tl Y G Route 11 155[325 o 41 a 4 hkap] £ Route 11 LAoI°o Ave 5 II Route 11 Rtrute 11 J rl rl M1A ry _ c 345(232[4 Go 17(21) 39(44)m 12[ilj 3 35(69( m z 16(7) a 2,339( 342 l m 1$3[3431 i E 5(1 59 43 w v m 2f,[52 'd u a 41 Fy V G V 8 61 Not to Scale Rauteii 9° Route 11 Legend Peak Hour Va[ume5 Analyzed Project Signalized Unsignaiized J U 1 Stnp Sign AM PRUI veh hF lntersert'un Qriveway Intersection Intersection Figure 16: Future 2039 With Project Peak Hour Volumes 53 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International C. Future 2039 Intersection Traffic Operation Analysis 1. Future 2039 Without Project Intersection LOS The 2039 Without Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay(in seconds per vehicle)were determined for the AM and PM peak hours.NOTE: 2039 Future projections assume 1%annual growth rate for 20 years,which is a conservative assumption. Table 29 shows the existing vehicular delay and level of service at each intersection. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay. Movements that operate at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix H. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CID(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS=C/DC. All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street(north), eastbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 3.38 and 0.61 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road(south),westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.46 and 0.85 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS=BC/BC. The southbound left turns operate at LOS E during both peak hours. The westbound left turn operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. These delays are due to the cycle length. The left turn volumes are low and should clear every cycle. D Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway,the northbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.03)and long delays during the AM peak hour is due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. g) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=E/D. At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street,various movements operate at LOS E or worse. This delay is attributed to the traffic volumes and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. h) Route 11 and Kamehameha 111 Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CB/BC. All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 54 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 29: Future 2039 Without Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela sec veh v c LOS Dela sec veh v c LOS Route 11&Palani Rd(overall) 23.3 C 27.7 D Route 11 EB Left 38.8 0.45 D 41.7 0.76 D Route 11 EB Through 14.9 0.39 B 20.4 0.70 C Route 11 WB Left 39.1 0.67 D 44.9 0.75 D Route 11WBThrough 15.6 0.53 B 17.6 0.51 B Palani NB Left 37.7 0.72 D 45.0 0.75 D Palani NB Through 26.0 0.25 C 30.8 0.43 C Palani SB Left 47.7 0.51 D 52.1 0.72 D PalaniSBThrough 33.9 0.66 C 35.6 0.63 D Route 11&Henry St(overall)33.4 0.70 C 34.8 0.73 C Route 11 EB Left 49.6 0.61 D 52.0 0.72 D Route 11 EB Through 26.8 0.46 C 33.1 0.76 C Route 11 EB Right 22.5 0.08 C 23.6 0.20 C Route 11 WB Left 46.2 0.40 D S1.7 0.59 D Route 11WBThrough 34.3 0.75 C 35.0 0.73 C Route 11 WB Right 27.0 0.34 C 26.8 0.23 C Henry NB Left 36.0 0.47 D 36.2 0.41 D Henry NB Left-Through 37.0 0.58 D 37.5 0.56 D Henry NB Right 32.0 0.03 C 32.8 0.03 C Henry SB Left 40.0 0.74 D 40.4 0.76 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 35.5 0.71 D 34.7 0.70 C Route 11&Hualalai(N)(overall) 28.6 1.9 Route 11 NB Left 12.8 0.27 B 13.8 0.17 B Hualalai EB Left 1620.7 3.38 F 384.4 0.61 F Route 11&Hualalai(S)(overall) 1.5 2.7 Route 11 SB Left 14.2 0.17 B 12.9 0.12 B Hualalai WB Left 279.3 0.46 F 469.2 0.85 F Route 11&Puapuaanui St(overall) 29.3 C 30.7 C Route 11 NB Left 18.5 0.44 B 32.4 0.64 C Route 11 NB Through 30.9 0.93 C 19.2 0.80 B Route 11 SB Left 18.9 0.23 B 15.8 0.46 B Route 11 SB Through 26.7 0.89 C 38.2 0.98 D Puapuaanui EB Left 40.4 0.66 D 47.9 0.70 D Puapuaanui EB Through 28.3 0.03 C 34.1 0.07 C Puapuaanui WB Left 31.5 0.32 C 36.0 0.17 D Puapuaanui WB Through 29.3 0.17 C 34.1 0.07 C Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 15.4 2.9 Route 11 NB Left 68.2 1.03 F 22.9 0.64 C Kuakini EB Left 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Lako St(overall) 59.1 E 35.3 D Route 11 NB Left 19.4 0.14 B 29.9 0.26 C Route 11 NB Through 58.4 1.01 F 26.4 0.87 C Route 11 SB Left 145.1 1.08 F 38.9 0.80 D Route 11 SB Through 25.6 0.80 C 34.0 0.95 C Lako EB Left 119.6 1.03 F 77.6 0.85 E Lako EB Through-Right 50.7 0.17 D 55.2 0.17 E Lako WB Left 73.9 0.72 E 71.6 0.71 E Lako WB Th rough-Right 65.3 0.35 E 64.3 0.44 E Route 11&Kam III Rd(overall) 19.7 B 26.7 C Route 11 NB Left 46.8 0.79 D 53.1 0.78 D Route 11 NB Through 16.8 0.71 B 25.1 0.79 C Route 11 SB Left 45.4 0.48 D 49.7 0.50 D Route 11 SB Through 11.4 0.35 B 16.2 0.44 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 34.9 0.76 C 42.4 0.87 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 47.3 0.70 D 50.5 0.65 D 55 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 2. Future 2039 With Project Intersection LOS Future 2039 With Project intersection and movement LOS and average delay(in seconds per vehicle)were determined for the AM and PM peak hours, shown in Table 30. The shaded row indicates the overall intersection delay.Movements that operate at LOS E or worse are highlighted in yellow. Synchro output is in Appendix 1. a) Route 11 and Palani Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC(AM/PM) All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Palani Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. b) Route 11 and Henry Street. Overall Intersection LOS=CID. All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Henry Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. C)Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) In the AM peak hour, the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Street (north), overall the delay at this intersection is 36.3 seconds per vehicle, a slight increase from the 2039 Without Project condition.The eastbound left turning movement has LOS F(v/c of 4.30 and 0.79,respectively)during both AM and PM peak hours due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. d) Route 11 and Hualalai Road(South) At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Hualalai Road(south),westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.61 and 1.11 respectively) and long delays during both AM and PM peak hours are due to high through volumes on Route 11. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. e) Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street. Overall Intersection LOS=BC/BC. The eastbound left turn operates at LOS E (v/c of 0.78) during the PM peak hour. The delay is a result of signal timing and the signal timing could be adjusted to reduce approach delay. All other movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Puapuaanui Street resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. D Route 11 and Royal Vistas Roadway At the proposed unsignalized intersection of Route 11 and the Royal Vistas Roadway, the southbound left turn movement from Route 11 into Royal Vistas Roadway functions well, with minimal delay, an average of 11 to 13 seconds during both peak hours. The westbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 0.81 and 0.73,respectively)during both AM(29 vehicles)and PM(12 vehicles)peak hours due to high through volumes on Route 11. Phase 2 left turns exiting Royal Vistas are expected to use Lako Street to access Route 11. The intersection functions acceptably,with an average of 4.8 seconds of delay per vehicle in the AM peak hour and 2.4 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. The major and other minor movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. g) Route 11 and Kuakini Highway At the unsignalized intersection of Route 11 with Kuakini Highway,the northbound left turning movement has LOS F (v/c of 1.06) during the AM peak hour. All other movements operated at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. 56 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 30: Future 2039 With Project Intersection Level of Service AM PM Intersection Dela secveh v c LOS Dela sec veh v c I LOS Route 11&Palani Rd(overall) 23.3 C 28.1 C Route 11 EB Left 38.7 0.45 D 42.6 0.76 D Route 11 EB Through 15.0 0.40 B 20.8 0.71 C Route 11 WB Left 39.1 0.67 D 45.8 0.75 D Route 11 WB Through 15.9 0.56 B 17.7 0.52 B Palani NB Left 37.8 0.73 D 46.0 0.75 D Palani NB Through 26.0 0.25 C 31.4 0.43 C Palani SB Left 47.5 0.51 D 53.6 0.74 D Palani SB Through 33.8 0.65 C 36.3 0.64 D Route 11&Henry St(overall)34.2 0.72 C 35.8 0.75 D Route 11 EB Left 50.6 0.61 D 52.8 0.72 D Route 11 EB Through 27.2 0.47 C 35.4 0.81 D Route 11 EB Right 22.7 0.08 C 24.1 0.21 C Route 11 WB Left 47.1 0.43 D 54.2 0.62 D Route 11 WB Through 36.5 0.80 D 36.9 0.77 D Route 11 WB Right 27.7 0.36 C 27.3 0.24 C Henry NB Left 36.5 0.47 D 36.5 0.41 D Henry NB Left-Through 37.5 0.59 D 37.8 0.57 D Henry NB Right 32.4 0.03 C 33.1 0.03 C Henry SB Left 39.8 0.74 D 40.1 0.76 D Henry SB Left-Through-Right 35.7 0.71 D 34.9 0.71 C Route 11&Hualalai(N)(overall) 36.3 2.4 Route 11 NB Left 13.3 0.30 B 14.7 0.20 B Hualalai EB Left 2163.6 4.30 F 553.1 0.79 F Route 11&Hualalai(S)(overall) 1.9 3.6 Route 11 SB Left 15.4 0.19 B 13.4 0.13 B Hualalai WB Left 404.0 0.61 F 679.5 1.11 F Route 11&Puapuaanui St(overall) 31.1 C 33.7 C Route 11 NB Left 17.3 0.40 B 47.2 0.75 D Route 11 NB Through 35.3 0.96 D 19.1 0.81 B Route 11 SB Left 24.6 0.28 C 17.7 0.49 B Route 11 SB Through 21.8 0.84 C 41.0 0.99 D Puapuaanui EB Left 54.5 0.76 D 60.0 0.78 E Puapuaanui EB Through 33.7 0.03 C 39.0 0.08 D Puapuaanui WB Left 37.7 0.37 D 41.4 0.20 D Puapuaanui WB Through 34.9 0.19 C 39.0 0.08 D Route 11&Royal Vistas(overall) 4.8 3.1 Route 11 SB Left 11.2 0.04 B 13.3 0.17 B Royal Vistas WB Left 242.4 0.81 F 405.8 0.73 F Royal Vistas WB Right 33.3 0.49 D 31.4 0.35 D Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 17.2 2.9 Route 11 NB Left 77.6 1.06 F 23.4 0.65 C Kuakini EB Left 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A Route 11&Lako St(overall) 65.4 E 47.3 D Route 11 NB Left 21.6 0.16 C 31.6 0.28 C Route 11 NB Through 69.6 1.05 F 45.1 0.97 D Route 11 SB Left 150.7 1.11 F 77.4 0.90 E Route 11 SB Through 28.6 0.08 C 37.8 0.96 D Lako EB Left 122.7 1.04 F 81.5 0.86 F Lako EB Through-Right 50.4 0.17 D 55.5 0.16 E Lako WB Left 73.0 0.76 E 72.6 0.73 E Lako WB Through-Right 63.2 0.33 E 64.4 0.41 E Route 11&Kam III Rd(overall) 19.9 B 29.0 C Route 11 NB Left 47.5 0.80 D 53.9 0.78 D Route 11 NB Through 17.2 0.72 B 28.7 0.84 C Route 11 SB Left 46.1 0.48 D 50.7 0.51 D Route 11 SB Through 11.6 0.36 B 16.9 0.45 B Kamehameha EB Left-Through 35.3 0.77 D 45.1 0.88 D Kamehameha WB Left-Through-Right 48.1 0.71 D1 51.9 0.66 D 57 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International h) Route 11 and Lako Street. Overall Intersection LOS=E/D. At the signalized intersection of Route 11 with Lako Street,various movements operate at LOS E or worse. This delay is attributed to the traffic volumes and the split phasing for the Lako Street approaches. i)Route 11 and Kamehameha 111 Road. Overall Intersection LOS=CIC. All movements at the signalized intersections of Route 11 with Kamehameha III Road resulted in appropriate LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. 3. Future 2039 With Project Mitigation Long term improvements including the Lako Street Extension, the completion of Alii Highway, and the widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will improve regional traffic in the study area. The completion dates of these projects are not known. In the interim, short-term mitigations were considered. a) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Similar to the existing condition, the minor street approach left turns operate at LOS F during both peals hours at both Hualalai Road intersections and the Royal Vistas driveway. Peak-Hour volume traffic signal warrants were evaluated for the 2039 with and without project conditions. Table 31 shows the Peak-Hour warrant analysis in 2039 with and without the project. Table 31: Future 2039 Peak-Hour Warrant' 2029 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai(N) 2489 44 NO 2656 10 NO Hualalai(S) 2396 9 NO 2678 14 NO Kuakini Hwy 2666 0 NO 2681 0 NO Peak Hour Warrant 2029 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Hualalai(N) 2613 44 NO 2792 10 NO Hualalai(S) 2521 9 NO 2820 14 NO Royal Vistas Dwy 2115 29 NO 2489 12 NO Kuakini Hwy 2721 0 NO 2766 0 NO None of the unsignalized intersections will satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant. Each of the unsignalized intersections operate with relatively low overall delay. The minor street left volumes at Hualalai Road and Puapuaanui Street are relatively low and the observed delays are generally much lower than the calculated delays. The 2009 MUTCD states: "At an intersection with high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left- turn volumes as the `minor-street' volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the `major-street" volume'. The Route 11 and Kuakini Highway northbound left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. For this analysis, the northbound left turn volume represents the minor approach volume, and the opposing southbound volume represents the major approach volume see Table 32). 8 Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 58 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International Table 32: Future 2039 Peak-Hour Warrant9 2029 Without Peak Hour Warrant Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Kuakini Hwy 1029 602 YES 1259 340 YES Peak Hour Warrant 2029 With Project AM PM Major Minor Warrant? Major Minor Warrant? Kuakini Hwy 1056 602 YES 1270 340 YES The Route 11 and Kuakini Highway intersection will satisfy the Peak Hour Warrant in 2039. The satisfaction of a traffic warrant does not require the installation of a traffic control signal.Kuakini Highway was analyzed as a signalized intersection with various northbound left-turn phasing for the Future 2024 With Project condition(see Table 33). Table 33: Future 2039 With Project-Route 11 and Kuakini Highway Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 50.1 D 26.0 c Route 11 N B Left 108.5 1.10 F 81.4 0.94 F Route llNBThrough 2.1 0.65 A 2.1 0.66 A Route 11 SB Through 64.9 1.04 F 32.8 0.96 C Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 36.2 D 4.5 A Route 11 N B Left 155.6 1.29 F 19.2 0.80 B Route llNBThrough 2.1 0.65 A 2.1 0.66 A Route 11 SB Through 2.0 0.64 A 2.8 0.72 A Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left Turn AM PM Signal Phasing on Kuakini Highway 11 Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS J1 Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Kuakini Hwy(overall) 42.7 D 7.2 A Route 11 N B Left 98.2 1.07 F 27.9 0.87 C Route llNBThrough 2.1 0.65 A 2.1 0.66 A Route 11 SB Through 51.8 1.00 F 6.2 0.78 A Kuakini Highway EB approach 0.0 0.00 A 0.0 0.00 A The overall delay at this intersection will increase in both peak hours, while the northbound left turn will still operate at LOS F for all alternatives in the AM peak hour. It is recommended that a signal not be installed at this intersection. 9 Single Peak Hour warrant was evaluated because sufficient data was available and to give an indication of whether or not an intersection should be considered and monitored for a traffic signal. 59 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International b) Alternative Mitigation Measures 1) Alternatives Lako Street A comparison between the widening of Route 11 and various left-turn phasing was analyzed for the Future 2039 With Project at Lako Street, shown in Table 34.All movements will operate with an acceptable LOS with 4-Lane Route 11 and permissive left-turn phasing on Lako Street. Protected left turns on Lako Street will provide a slight improvement in the overall delay, but the eastbound left and westbound approaches will still operate with LOS E. Table 34: Future 2039 With Project-Route 11 and Lako Street Left-Turn Signal Phasing Alternatives 2-Lane Route 11,Protected Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 57.9 E 37.9 D Route 11 NB Left 18.9 0.14 B 28.9 0.25 C Route llNBThrough 58.7 1.02 F 30.7 0.91 C Route 11 SB Left 139.3 1.07 F 56.3 0.89 E Route 11 SB Through 25.0 0.81 C 32.8 0.94 C Lako EB Left 112.0 1.01 F 78.8 0.86 E Lako EB Through-Right 51.5 0.19 D 56.3 0.19 E Lako WB Left 72.4 0.77 E 70.8 0.73 E Lako WB Through-Right 69.3 0.54 E 70.3 0.60 E 2-Lane Route 11,Permissive Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c I LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 54.5 D 29.3 C Route 11 NB Left 20.3 0.16 C 24.8 0.21 C Route llNBThrough 67.3 1.05 F 23.7 0.87 C Route 11 SB Left 147.5 1.11 F 38.5 0.80 D Route 11 SB Through 27.6 0.84 C 26.6 0.91 C Lako EB Left 51.2 0.79 D 59.1 0.67 E Lako EB Through-Right 36.6 0.11 D 48.0 0.11 D Lako WB Left 40.5 0.24 D 52.0 0.29 D Lako WB Through-Right 36.4 0.09 D 48.4 0.15 D 2-Lane Route 11,Prot+Perm Left AM PM Turn Signal Phasing on Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 43.5 D 28.4 C Route 11 NB Left 14.6 0.12 B 22.8 0.19 C Route llNBThrough 42.4 0.97 D 21.2 0.85 C Route 11 SB Left 74.7 0.89 E 32.9 0.76 C Route 11 SB Through 19.3 0.77 B 23.5 0.89 C Lako EB Left 101.8 0.99 F 78.9 0.80 E Lako EB Through-Right 52.4 0.25 D 61.7 0.26 E Lako WB Left 55.6 0.42 E 61.0 0.39 E Lako WB Through-Right 64.4 0.51 E 72.7 0.61 E 4-Lane Route 11,Split Phasing on AM PM Lako Street Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Delay(sec/veh) v/c LOS Route 11&Lako St(overall) 23.8 C 17.5 B Route 11 NB Left 13.1 0.12 B 10.7 0.14 B Route llNBThrough 24.0 0.79 C 17.4 0.71 B Route 11 SB Left 18.3 0.59 B 13.2 0.57 B Route 11 SB Through 17.1 0.60 B 14.8 0.69 B Lako EB Left 42.3 0.86 D 32.8 0.75 C Lako EB Through-Right 24.8 0.14 C 25.8 1 0.14 C Lako WB Left 38.8 0.66 D 34.1 0.60 C LakoWBThrough-Right 33.4 0.29 C 30.4 0.34 C 60 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International The Traff c Assessmentfor Left-Turn Signal Phasing Guidelines(ATA,2017)recommends that approaches that do not have adequate sight distance,a protected left-turn phase should be considered,and a permissive left-turn phase is not suitable.The eastbound approach sight distance should be checked before considering allowing permissive left-turn phasing. The widening of Route 11 is needed in 2029. 4. Future 2039 With Project Segment LOS Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Route 11 from Hualalai(north)to Lako Street.Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through-vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. Analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix L The arterial LOS can be found in Table 35. Table 35: Future 2039 with Project Segment LOS Peak Hour Northbound (To Waimea) Southbound (To Keauhou) Speed (mph)LOS Speed (mph)LOS AM Peak 16.6 D 22.7 C PM Peak 19.1 C 19.7 C This segment of Route 11 operates at LOS D in the northbound direction and LOS B in the southbound direction in the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, both directions operate at LOS C. The arterial LOS for the AM and PM peak hours satisfies the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding"acceptable level of service" for transportation facilities. 61 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Kona Three LLC is planning to develop a multi-family residential subdivision named Royal Vistas in Kona, on the Island of Hawaii. The property is located on the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway(Route 11) at TMK (3) 7-6-021:016, 17 between Kona Vista Subdivision and Pualani Estates Subdivision. One access is planned to connect to Route 11, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Kuakini Highway. Another access will be built before the completion of Phase 2 connecting Royal Vistas to Kekuanaoa Place. Various roadway projects that will increase connectivity and capacity are planned to include: The widening of Route 11 from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road; The construction of Alii Highway from Hualalai Road to Keauhou Shopping Center; The Lako Street extension; Future `minor collectors' running parallel to Route 11 through Royal Vistas including extending Hoomana Street to Leilani Street and extending Paulehia Street to Kekuanaoa Place. Based on the existing traffic volumes and future projections of Royal Vistas on the surrounding roadways, the Route 11 and Lako Street intersection and some individual movements at other intersections are expected to deteriorate to LOS E or worse. The widening of Route 11 to 4-lanes,and the completion of Alii Highway is needed to increase the north-south regional capacity. In the interim,the following system-wide intersection improvements are recommended for consideration by Hawaii County and HDOT: 1. Route 11 and Palani Road Existing and future analysis indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Improvements to this intersection are not recommended at this time. 2. Route 11 and Henry Street Existing and future analysis indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Improvements to this intersection are not recommended at this time. 3. Route 11 and Hualalai Road(North) This intersection does not pass the Four-Hour warrant or peak hour warrant for any condition. The high delay is due to the high volume on Route 11. There are 44 vehicles and 10 vehicles making the westbound left turn in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the delay experienced by drivers reaches this level, the eastbound drivers are likely to find alternative routes. A single- lane roundabout will improve traffic operations at this intersection for the existing condition but worsen to LOS F after 2024. A roundabout is not recommended at this intersection. 4. Route I I and Hualalai Road(South) As the westbound left turn delay gets worse,drivers may decide to use Puapuaanui Street to access Route 11 in the southbound direction. This intersection did not pass the Four-Hour warrant or the Peak-Hour warrant for the existing or future conditions. Based on existing traffic operations, it is recommended an acceleration lane be installed for the westbound right turn onto Route 11. A single-lane roundabout will improve traffic operations at this intersection for the existing condition but worsen to LOS F after 2024. A roundabout is not recommended at this intersection. 5. Route 11 and Puapuaanui Street Signal timing should be monitored and adjusted as needed to increase the probability that queues on Route 11 can clear the intersection in 1 cycle. 62 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International 6. Route 11 and Royal Vistas Roadway This intersection will function acceptably through the full Phase 1 buildout. Before any Phase 2 residences are occupied, it is recommended that the connection to Kekuanao'a Place is completed so that Royal Vistas Phase 2 `left out' traffic can access the Lako Street traffic signal. 7. Route 11 and Kuakini Highway This intersection passes the Peak-Hour warrant during all peak hours for all conditions. The satisfaction of a traffic signal does not mean a traffic signal needs to be installed. There are other factors that should be analyzed when installing a traffic signal, such as roadway geometry, added delay to a traffic network, and the impact of rear-end accidents that occur at new traffic signals. Analysis of this intersection with various phasing showed that the overall delay at the intersection would increase,while the northbound left turn will still operate at LOS E or worse.A traffic signal should not be installed at this intersection. Royal Vistas traffic has very little effect on this intersection. A single-lane roundabout will operate at LOS F for the existing AM peak hour condition, and LOS F for all future conditions. A roundabout is not recommended at this intersection. 8. Route I I and Lako Street The Lako Street intersection operates at LOS E/D (AM/PM) with or without the Royal Vistas project in the 2039 condition. Lako Street currently has split phasing (sequential rather than concurrent) on the Lako Street approaches. Changing the phasing from split would help lower the delay, although several movements will still operate at LOS E or worse. This intersection would also improve significantly with more north-south regional capacity provided by the completion of the Widening of Route I I from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road and the construction of Alii Highway. 9. Route 11 and Kamehameha III Road Existing and future analysis indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Improvements to this intersection are not recommended at this time. Arterial LOS was analyzed in Synchro on Route 11 from Hualalai(north)to Lako Street.Where signalized intersections are less than 2.0 mi apart,the facility should be classified as an urban street and analyzed with the methodologies of Urban Street Facilities. For Urban Street Facilities, through-vehicle travel speed is used to analyze vehicular LOS. This segment of Route 11 operates at LOS D or better for each condition in the AM and PM peak hours.The arterial LOS satisfies the County of Hawaii Chapter 25(Zoning),Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding"acceptable level of service" for transportation facilities. 63 Royal Vistas TZAR SSFM International VII. REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 10th Edition: An ITE Informational Report, September 2017. Office of Environmental Quality Control. EA and EIS Online Library, Accessed July 2019. http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/default.aspx>. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Federal-Aid Functional Classification Update:Policy and Procedures,December 2012. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District ofHawaii, July 2014. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation.Historical Traffic Station Maps, 2016. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation.Historical Trak Station Maps, 2015. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Statewide Transportation Improvements Program, Accessed July 2019. <http://hawaii.gov/dot/highways/STIP>. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Statewide Uniform Design Manual for Streets and Highways, 1980. The Traffic Management Consultant,Living Stones Church Trak Assessment Report(2018). The Traffic Management Consultant, Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report(2019). Transportation Research Board,National Research Council.Highway Capacity Manual,Washington,D.C., 6t'Edition. 64 Appendix A Bus Route Schedule and Map Appendix B Bus Route Schedule and Map ato aatrrr? tt VS ttt j? U a z rileto tv, CDFx Iaro 1$ cd Oo4 @ tt? t o o oOJ ?perAttr0 i zz U o toPIqtoM, El JO 2p Etra2 llor rtl? Id P? MPtto en baa oO 'rrlj 66 d o ' rarla Q¢ u 110 a' O9a ltrPtB s Srt i r?r?? IIoJ I?d opo OII l2? o ttff4 j o 4rev pa J r rrp °J kn® r tP ' N le?rP iP o tIa it, S stt, zrosa Ir resat of? 01,10 aSen rattra o otrO IP o N trOt aS 600' Td ® Nolr? t2 In1flenprn1d a N Ora p a0 c eqr J J At, loo t as r 1stp W) i N 8? atlo In o I P dkn in o Prrl o a rrQrr M O/ rtdP 1n o aloe, W tn o zra kn M ® O o t ttr N zrpQr oa kn in cn Jlaa a o in v IPIs o O kn atlaT-110 o ato d M to d arO l o kr) I N strottr aT? o ti at0 S r t" Ob rot PttrP rrP7trP tUe tto O o tto Id n o0 Id o srpy in S P tt tirAtrtPz in hit "n a o o r dp to kn o to prodtn M M 1 v-i in M d P' N 't alr d 220` O Itro '10 ot rr 4, ?trtIr 1 tt° tPral? z,a) j o alo? rt, V kt) o s? 81 rQCrad o ,n o rttpr, o 1O0 _ Cri h to Y O ott Etta r, log ttrr p P 8of dedkn t1Otlr ' eItIt11t ftI r? jPetrtrdrtoJ Ijt a o !'aotta rtaoru i a Oltro kn 0Alkn oo e rtr? trr°ol4trSyrJ oIIyIOn` trr? 4 tr? j Ajpt? tI tI 9tE 10o °toIt? r0aaatrrkria j,a olottrtJ i o CtIV, or T9 © tJ encnot l9 Ta ' 7 2 at rOas 4-0ttatls S CCS d° rtti1 r I Cosa t d c ergt rjr ? Cwi t1 aftl jt218 h pZ •e'' i L'a Irtd. 4• ,-t u> tltTL> t` 00 V y,l tltll J bA Zv o O O U y r.. aJ b n ,-r.' W O 4w-- y0 ^' y p O n b Y° J4 i 3 p A O x 0- o a o In00 ro p— msO. a oo. oN° a' dC 'oo yGtir. a ce+ bA bs.°° r. s o.+ pm o9 p° P. aa ° o° ci s?, y.. . o .° ooN x ° yoca ayR 73oo11 1 20 n en cn C >' a tb bA iC N. O 3 y x A . - . m_ E w O DWeosa• c c wo :: o 'a s a o c ao . o 8 Y . o° o o." zzQ W H ° H a 0. e° s~s C a0. g w50.o1p q O a0+ b ty y O r cv m v o co o ci m t M p E x x A s. -a m Qt P 7jOti P O 0 Q L fx Q z x_ 3x a o 0 O V O O HWY 11 N W F'' W W z Z Appendix B 24-Hour and Peak Period Turn Movement Traffic Counts Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Palani Rd-- Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972601 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 518 286 Peak-Hour:7:20 AM--8:20 AM 1.4 3.1 Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM 177321 20 1 L0.6 1.9 0 J 2 V J + 4 1098 71 t L 23 864 4.3 11.3 1 L 4.3 f 5.1 457* F6;18 678 9 t 5.5 746 218 1 r 163 r 586 9.7. 10.6'4 r 3.7 y 7.5 F2437927.09 3.0 * F 702 544 Quality Counts 5 2.2 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 0 J + 4 J 1 1 L0 I` o r3 r o 0 0 NANA f L f 1 L y NA' r NA y NA; NA r- [— e NA NA 15-Min Count Palani Rd Palani Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:45 AM 48 18 28 0 7 57 28 0 17 76 31 0 48 175 2 0 535 7:00 AM 51 35 26 1 5 55 17 0 11 91 38 0 36 179 3 0 548 7:15 AM 51 39 27 0 4 78 33 1 20 122 38 0 41 157 1 0 612 7:30 AM 54 51 26 0 8 91 38 0 13 131 58 0 40 163 11 0 684 2379 7:45 AM 63 55 28 0 1 80 49 0 23 102 59 0 45 144 7 0 656 2500 8:00 AM 68 39 29 0 7 70 51 0 12 111 53 0 44 184 3 0 671 2623 8:15 AM 58 34 27 0 5 61 29 0 22 129 51 0 38 223 5 0 682 2693 8:30 AM 55 48 35 0 8 69 28 0 25 136 75 0 61 187 4 0 731 2740 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 216 204 104 0 32 364 152 0 52 524 232 0 160 652 44 0 2736 Heavy Trucks 8 0 0 0 8 0 4 52 28 0 28 0 128 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:10 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Palani Rd-- Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972602 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 471 582 Peak-Hour:3:45 PM--4:45 PM 1.5 1.7 Peak 15-Min:3:45 PM--4:00 PM 107313 51 1 L02.2 0 J 1 944 260 1 L 41 873 3.6 2.7 1 t 2.4 f 3.4 877+ F6;18 a 609 2.6 y t 4.4 1640 503 1 i 223-o 1175 2.1 y 1 7 i0.9 y 2.2 F2272832*7 0 1040 757 Quality Counts 1.3 1.6 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 0 J j 41 L 0 1 L O L l 1 7 i 1 r 0 0 0 NANA f 1 t 1 L y NA= ! NA NA; NA NA NA 15-Min Count Palani Rd Palani Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 66 67 66 0 10 102 35 1 52 189 93 0 54 184 18 0 937 3:15 PM 56 76 61 0 13 84 29 0 46 175 115 1 55 156 8 0 875 3:30 PM 77 61 59 0 15 94 27 0 53 193 114 _ 0 52 158 4 0 907 3:45 PM 55 82 65 93 29 0 55 198 131 1 56 154 11 0 951 3670 4:00 PM 52 57 48 1 9 74 27 0 80 227 129 0 56 172 9 0 941 3674 4:15 PM 73 69 61 0 12 79 32 0 60 213 134 0 56 138 6 0 933 3732 4:30 PM 46 75 73 0 9 67 19 0 63 239 109 1 55 145 15 0 916 3741 4:45 PM 59 71 63 0 16 94 37 0 65 176 123 0 52 114 17 0 887 3677 5:00 PM 67 79 57 1 11 69 36 0 63 225 111 2 47 155 8 1 932 3668 5:15 PM 64 68 66 0 4 91 34 0 66 176 101 0 63 142 8 0 883 3618 5:30 PM 47 75 55 0 3 66 19 0 46 166 94 0 57 120 8 0 756 3458 5:45 PM 51 88 50 0 7 59 13 0 38 164 69 1 41 101 9 0 691 3262 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 220 328 260 0 84 372 116 0 220 792 524 4 224 616 44 0 3804 Heavy Trucks 16 0 4 0 8 0 12 20 8 0 44 0 112 Pedestrians 0 4 4 4 12 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:06 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Henry St-- Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972603 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 825 912 Peak-Hour:7:20 AM--8:20 AM 3.9 3.8 Peak 15-Min:8:15 AM--8:30 AM 124 339 362 4.8 4.4 3 J ; 4 J ; 41 L 870 t 107 j t 467 f 1119 5.5 73.1 1 t 2.6 f 4.5 359* F f 600 10.3 A* t 5.8 590 y 124 1 r 52 y 762 9.7. 4.8 "4 r 5.8 y 6.7 1 * e F7a *7 42 4.8* 2 515 525 Quality Counts 4.7 3.6 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 1 0 01Ji4 0J t 1 4 ....\ /; 13 L 0 y a 1 I` 0 1 r 0 r 2 1 0 0 1 r— NANA L y NA' r NA y NA'I, • NA NA NA 15-Min Count Henry St Henry St Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:45 AM 31 57 5 0 77 48 26 0 16 77 23 0 13 162 103 0 638 7:00 AM 32 40 13 0 109 69 20 0 19 86 16 0 7 170 89 0 670 7:15 AM 44 81 8 0 112 78 25 0 27 107 18 0 8 138 132 0 778 7:30 AM 24 81 7 0 78 68 35 0 32 105 40 0 14 160 124 0 768 2854 7:45 AM 34 82 7 0 82 93 31 1 23 79 27 0 14 142 110 0 725 2941 8:00 AM 40 83 15 0 86 85 26 0 27 93 30 0 15 165 117 0 782 3053 8:15 AM 1 50 81 12 0 89 77 37 0 25 97 37 0 19 184 86 0 794 1 3069 8:30 AM 46 68 14 0 84 63 40 0 45 90 35 0 16 163 91 0 _LILJ 3056 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 200 324 48 0 356 308 148 0 100 388 148 0 76 736 344 0 3176 Heavy Trucks 4 16 4 12 8 0 0 36 16 4 44 20 164 Pedestrians 0 0 12 4 16 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:10 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Henry St-- Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972604 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 U 822 Peak-Hour:3:45 PM--4:45 PM 0.8 2.2 Peak 15-Min:3:45 PM--4:00 PM To1903423481 0.6 0.9.+ i v 864 t 190! L 314 t 934 3.4 t 4.7 J L 1.9 3.1 663-0 F81 f 548 2.3 y f 4.2 1144 y 291-4 i 72 y 1045 2.2* 0.3 Z r 0 1.8 126 318 34 F 705 478 Quality Counts 0.4 1.7 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 1 0 NI IN I 1 1J L 0 4 17 L O , 1 0 1 r 0 a + r 0 1 0 1 0 NANA NAw.' = NA NA; NA r NA NA 15-Min Count Henry St Henry St Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 43 74 9 0 91 93 61 0 48 148 51 0 8 152 85 0 863 3:15 PM 29 95 9 0 110 83 52 0 46 156 54 0 18 143 76 0 871 3:30 PM 42 85 20 0 84 73 41 0 56 156 58 0 29 145 82 0 871 3:45 PM 31 72 12 0 99 80 51 0 45 182 67 0 17 147 74 0 877 3482 4:00 PM 36 71 7 0 80 94 54 0 40 161 69 0 14 127 73 0 826 3445 4:15 PM 29 88 6 0 88 70 34 0 51 164 73 0 25 148 84 0 860 3434 4:30 PM 30 87 9 0 81 98 51 0 54 156 82 0 16 126 83 0 873 3436 4:45 PM 28 80 6 0 87 80 47 0 55 168 64 0 10 119 85 0 829 3388 5:00 PM 30 85 7 0 87 82 54 0 40 154 72 0 8 123 80 0 822 3384 5:15 PM 23 88 13 0 78 78 55 0 49 162 51 0 12 127 80 0 816 3340 5:30 PM 27 63 8 0 82 61 45 0 41 150 36 0 12 118 53 0 696 3163 5:45 PM 18 76 4 0 78 68 27 0 48 143 40 0 5 101 77 0 685 3019 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 124 288 48 0 396 320 204 0 180 728 268 0 68 588 296 0 3508 Heavy Trucks 8 0 0 4 4 0 4 12 0 0 36 0 68 Pedestrians 0 0 8 12 20 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:06 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Northern Most)QC JOB#: 15039901 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 806 1029 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM--8:00 AM 6 1.8 Peak 15-Min:7:15 AM--7:30 AM so 776 0 0 6.2 o J ; 4 0 4 194 « 44 1 L 0 « 0 0 « 0 1 L 0 « 0 0 + 0 0 y 0 92 * 48 7 r 0 y 0 o * 0 z r 0 0 164 985 * 1.9 824 1149 Quality Counts 5.8 1.7 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 1 01 LJi4 J1L0 0 10 0 y 0 1 z r 0 r 1 o 0 J a V L J ; V NA 1 NA J L « Z 1 L NA r NA NA NA r 7 r 7 r d- r-NA NA f 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 7:00 AM 28 239 0 0 0 190 4 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 472 7:15 AM 36 263 0 0 0 212 11 0 9 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 549 7:30 AM 32 260 0 0 0 198 8 0 24 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 536 7:45 AM 68 223 0 0 0 176 7 0 6 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 490 2047 8:00 AM 38 229 0 0 0 164 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 442 2017 8:15 AM 36 232 0 0 0 168 3 0 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 454 1922 8:30 AM 34 231 0 1 0 178 1 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 462 1848 8:45 AM 37 254 0 0 0 182 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 487 1845 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 144 1052 0 0 0 848 44 0 36 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 2196 Heavy Trucks 0 24 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Northern Most)QC JOB#: 15039902 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1022 933 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM--4:00 PM 1.4 3.6 Peak 15-Min:3:30 PM--3:45 PM 17 1005 0 5.9 1.3 0 J ; 4 J + 4L L 101 « 10 J L 0 « 0 1 « 0 J L 0 « 0 0 0 0 0 80 y 70 Z r 0 y 0 0 * 0 r 0 . 0 F 1075 1007 Quality Counts 1.2 3.4 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 0 J 1 L 0 J L 0 0 10 0 y 0 01 r0 r 0 1 0 J + y J + y LNA 1 NA NA r NA 1 NA NA r « z r NA NA 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Hualalai Rd(Northern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 27 219 0 0 0 247 5 0 3 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 525 3:15 PM 9 227 0 0 0 259 4 0 4 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 521 330 PM 22 261 0 0 0 242 3 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 546 3:45 PM 26 216 0 0 0 257 5 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 517 2109 4:00 PM 14 205 0 0 0 268 4 0 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 523 2107 4:15 PM 22 221 0 0 0 226 4 0 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 499 2085 4:30 PM 14 198 0 0 0 200 2 0 5 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 440 1979 4:45 PM 24 218 0 0 0 232 1 0 5 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 507 1969 5:00 PM 12 178 0 0 0 257 6 0 3 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 486 1932 5:15 PM 17 209 0 0 0 252 2 0 4 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 513 1946 5:30 PM 16 195 0 0 0 225 3 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 450 1956 5:45 PM 13 141 0 0 1 0 252 3 0 1 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 425 1 1874 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 88 1044 0 0 0 968 12 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 2184 Heavy Trucks 0 56 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Southern Most)QC JOB#: 15039911 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 821 1149 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM--8:00 AM 5 1.6 Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM L07487304.9 5.5 J + 4 J + 4 0 f 0 1 L 140 f 149 0 0 1 L 1.4 f 1.3 0 y loi f 0 0 f 0 0 y 0 Z r 9 y 85 0 * 0 7 r 0 7.1 0 1006 15 [-6 *.3 757 1021 Quality Counts 4.9 1.8 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 1 11 LJi4 1 0 1 L 1 0 I0 t 0 * 0 01 r0 0 1 0 J + y J + y LNANA f L f 1 L NA r NA NA f NA 7 r 121 Fz r NA NA 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 241 3 0 9 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 448 7:15 AM 0 267 3 0 23 191 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 0 523 730 AM 0 267 8 0 23 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 37 0 535 7:45 AM 0 231 1 0 15 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 56 0 485 1 1991 8:00 AM 0 239 0 0 5 172 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 439 1982 8:15 AM 0 260 1 0 5 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 452 1911 8:30 AM 0 249 1 0 5 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 0 466 1842 8:45 AM 0 282 0 0 11 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 481 1838 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 1068 32 0 92 772 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 148 0 2140 Heavy Trucks 0 4 4 8 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 52 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Hualalai Rd (Southern Most)QC JOB#: 15039912 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1076 1013 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM--4:00 PM 1.9 3 Peak 15-Min:3:00 PM--3:15 PM L0101561001.5 8.2 J 4 b J 4 0 « 0 1 L 71 « 85 0 « 0 1 L 1.4 « 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 Z r 14 * 63 0 * 0 r 7.1. 7.9 940 * [-4 a 3 1029 944 Quality Counts 1.6 3.1 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 01 L 1 0 1 L 0 0 10 t 0 y 0 01 r0 0 0 0 J a y J a y LNANA L « 1 L NA r NA NA NA 7 r z r NA NA a 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Hualalai Rd(Southern Most) Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 3:00 PM 0 242 0 0 14 258 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 21 0 541 3:15 PM 0 217 2 0 17 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 0 519 3:30 PM 0 259 1 0 14 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 0 540 3:45 PM 0 222 1 0 14 245 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 18 0 505 2105 4:00 PM 0 202 0 0 25 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 511 2075 4:15 PM 0 242 1 0 10 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 505 2061 4:30 PM 0 207 2 0 14 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 441 1962 4:45 PM 0 213 5 0 15 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 497 1954 5:00 PM 0 199 1 0 18 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 495 1938 5:15 PM 0 205 0 0 25 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 0 503 1936 5:30 PM 0 198 1 0 6 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 458 1953 5:45 PM 0 163 1 0 1 7 247 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 421 1 1877 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 968 0 0 56 1032 0 4 0 0 0 0 20 0 84 0 2164 Heavy Trucks 0 12 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Puapuaanui St QC JOB#: 15039905 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 761 1038 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM--8:00 AM 4.7 2.3 Peak 15-Min:7:15 AM--7:30 AM 0 718 43 0 4.9 2.3 J + %. J + 4 0 0 J t 185 272 0 0 1 t 1.6 1.1 0 + 0 0 + f 0 0 0 1 r 87 67 0 y 0 7 r 0 * 1.5 Fa853 + a: 0+ 5 + 805 877 Quality Counts 4.3 2.4 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 1 01 LI o o o t o I U d> 0 0 1 r o r 0 1 0 J + y J + y LNANA f 1 L 1 t NA f NA IA- •NA w M NA NA 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Puapuaanui St Puapuaanui St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 224 5 0 12 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 27 0 450 7:15 AM 0 246 3 0 8 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 48 0 509 7:30 AM 0 209 4 0 12 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 48 0 489 7:45 AM 0 174 12 0 11 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 62 0 462 1910 8:00 AM 0 218 10 0 9 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 39 0 459 1919 8:15 AM 0 213 15 0 19 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 30 0 440 1850 8:30 AM 0 220 11 0 16 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 31 0 468 1829 8:45 AM 0 245 11 0 14 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 23 0 469 1836 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 984 12 0 32 736 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 192 0 2036 Heavy Trucks 0 20 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 52 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-- Puapuaanui St QC JOB#: 15039906 CITY/STATE: Kailua, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1038 932 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM--4:00 PM 1.4 3 Peak 15-Min:3:30 PM--3:45 PM 0 906 132 0 1.7 0 J + V J + 4 0 0 J t 107 141 0 0 1 t 4.7 3.5 0 0 1 r 34 180 0 y 0 r 0 * 1.1 Fa 825 48 a:* 0 .8 4.2 940 873 Quality Counts 1.6 2.9 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 01 LJ + 4 o t o oro r 0 0 0 J + y J + y LNANA f 1 L 1 t NA f NA NA y NA w w NA NA 15-Min Count Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Puapuaanui St Puapuaanui St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 3:00 PM 0 199 14 0 37 231 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 23 0 511 3:15 PM 0 205 14 0 27 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 23 0 524 330 PM 0 230 12 0 37 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 27 0 528 3:45 PM 0 191 8 0 31 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 34 0 489 2052 4:00 PM 0 192 7 0 34 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 16 0 496 2037 4:15 PM 0 207 15 0 38 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 35 0 515 2028 4:30 PM 0 187 10 0 22 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 427 1927 4:45 PM 0 208 15 0 30 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 29 0 512 1950 5:00 PM 0 159 7 0 49 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 17 0 454 1908 5:15 PM 0 195 11 0 36 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 23 0 491 1884 5:30 PM 0 177 16 0 24 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 22 0 469 1926 5:45 PM 0 131 8 0 1 29 221 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 23 0 419 1 1833 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 0 920 48 0 148 852 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 108 0 2112 Heavy Trucks 0 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 44 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy-- Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972605 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 0 o Peak-Hour:7:20 AM--8:20 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 J i 4 J + 4 808 « 0 1 L 0 « 1318 5.1 « 0 1 L 0 « 3.6 733 loml « 801 7.2 + 5.1 794 61 Z r 517 902 7.1. 4.9 1 r 1.2. 6.5 578 176 Quality Counts 1.6 3.4 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 01 LJ + 4 0 1 L 0 0 0 1 . 0 1 1 r 0 o 0 0 0 J i v L J + v NA NA NA r NA NA NA r « r d- r-NA NA i f 15-Min Count Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Hwy Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:45 AM 2 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 0 0 71 244 0 0 512 7:00 AM 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 3 0 65 240 0 0 548 7:15 AM 3 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 12 0 85 234 0 0 583 7:30 AM 3 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 17 0 114 218 0 0 604 2247 7:45 AM 1 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 20 0 189 156 0 0 562 2297 8:00 AM 1 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 12 0 118 207 0 0 537 2286 8:15 AM 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 12 0 90 233 0 0 548 2251 8:30 AM 2 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 12 0 70 230 0 0 561 2208 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 12 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 832 68 0 456 872 0 0 2416 Heavy Trucks 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 56 8 0 24 0 96 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Railroad 5topped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:10 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy-- Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972606 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 0 o Peak-Hour:3:45 PM--4:45 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min:4:15 PM--4:30 PM 00 0 0L I L000 j L. i P. 867 t 0 J L 0 1097 3.3 t 0 J L o t 2.9 887-0 F81 t 854 1.9 4-3.3 923* 36 i r 243 y 1259 2.1* 5.6 Z r 1.6* 1.4 a0 * 2F 0 279 385 Quality Counts 2.2 0.3 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 01 LJ + 4 0 L 0 0 Io 01 c> r0 oro o 0 0 0 V L a y NA NA f L f J L NA•NA NA NA w w 1 r 7 r r r NA NA i f 15-Min Count Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Hwy Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 5 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 13 0 60 227 0 0 602 3:15 PM 6 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 234 19 0 59 213 0 0 606 3:30 PM 3 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 15 0 48 217 0 0 572 3:45 PM 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 8 0 57 217 0 ' 0 583 2363 4:00 PM 3 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 10 0 60 216 0 0 605 2366 4:15 PM 4 101 0 0 0 0 0 221 16 0 55 214 0 0 611 1 2371 4:30 PM 6 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 2 0 71 207 0 0 606 2405 4:45 PM 1 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 7 0 78 225 0 0 631 2453 5:00 PM 2 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 9 0 66 181 0 1 592 2440 5:15 PM 1 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 11 0 39 171 0 0 538 2367 5:30 PM 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 7 0 54 134 0 0 520 2281 5:45 PM 2 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 13 0 58 176 0 0 528 2178 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 16 0 404 0 0 0 0 0 0 884 64 0 220 856 0 0 2444 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 8 4 28 0 56 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:06 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy-- Lako St QC JOB#: 15039907 CITY/STATE: Holualoa, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 913 1310 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM--8:00 AM 3.6 1.5 Peak 15-Min:7:45 AM--8:00 AM L1256471412.4 3.4 5.7 J + 4 J + 4 194« 251J L 267 « 372 1.5 « 2 1 L1.9 « 1.9 48 . 36 2.1* A* « 0 368. 69 1 r 69 . 244 1.9 1.4"4 r 2.9 y 4.5 792 55 a:} 0 1.1 3.6 F 785 8W Quality Counts 3.2 1.3 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 0 J + 4 J l 1 L 1 , LO i 01 r0 0 0 1 0 i } 1 NANA NA NA 1 NA r NA NA NA 15-Min Count Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Hwy Lako St Lako St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 7:00 AM 13 221 15 0 34 152 28 0 41 4 13 0 9 6 53 0 589 7:15 AM 8 188 14 0 36 154 35 0 66 9 21 0 17 7 61 0 616 7:30 AM 6 202 15 0 34 171 36 0 67 11 19 0 16 10 67 0 654 7:45 AM 6 0 37 170 26 0 77 24 16 0 27 13 86 0 674 2 8:00 AM 3 206 17 0 37 145 24 0 55 18 11 0 13 7 65 0 601 2545 8:15 AM 6 219 12 0 19 165 16 0 44 6 6 0 14 12 51 0 570 2499 8:30 AM 4 220 16 0 30 180 22 0 42 9 10 0 15 6 70 0 624 2469 8:45 AM 9 216 20 0 36 150 28 0 35 10 9 0 13 8 64 0 598 2393 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 24 724 44 0 148 680 104 0 308 96 64 0 108 52 344 0 2696 Heavy Trucks 0 8 4 16 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 80 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:40 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy-- Lako St QC JOB#: 15039908 CITY/STATE: Holualoa, HI DATE:Thu,Aug 29 2019 1228 1074 Peak-Hour:3:00 PM--4:00 PM 1.2 3.6 Peak 15-Min:3:15 PM--3:30 PM L1708771810.6 0.9 3.3 0 + 4 0 + 4 246 « 127 1 t 193 « 294 1.6« 3.9 1 t 4.7 « 4.1 30 rm%] « 39 0 y 5.1 205* 48 7 r 62 * 275 2.9 2.1"4 r 1.6 y 2.5 F 987 855 Quality Counts 1 3.2 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 01 LJ + 4 J 1L11 01 r0 0 0 0 0 NA 4 LNA 4 NA r NA y NA NA 7 r r 7 -r NA NA r r rif 15-Min Count Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Hwy Lako St Lako St Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 13 190 20 0 42 216 38 0 27 5 10 0 23 9 51 0 644 3:15 PM 7 192 18 0 51 243 45 0 28 8 14 0 12 9 46 0 673 3:30 PM 12 196 17 0 41 211 41 0 39 8 7 0 16 11 63 0 662 145 PM 5 176 9 0 47 207 46 0 33 9 17 0 11 10 33 0 603 2582 4:00 PM 13 181 12 0 57 220 33 0 33 10 12 0 17 8 35 0 631 2569 4:15 PM 19 201 22 0 51 223 60 0 25 9 14 0 21 11 43 0 699 2595 4:30 PM 10 177 20 0 42 202 39 0 31 10 7 0 20 8 41 0 607 2540 4:45 PM 12 199 22 0 52 240 41 0 30 10 7 0 18 8 36 0 675 2612 5:00 PM 10 168 20 0 30 225 57 0 31 6 8 0 7 8 39 0 609 2590 5:15 PM 12 177 13 0 55 242 53 0 28 11 13 0 10 10 34 0 658 2549 5:30 PM 6 167 9 0 60 209 44 0 20 11 6 0 11 11 38 0 592 2534 5:45 PM 5 136 12 0 32 215 50 0 28 15 10 0 13 7 23 0 546 2405 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 28 768 72 0 204 972 180 0 112 32 56 0 48 36 184 0 2692 Heavy Trucks 0 16 0 4 8 0 16 0 0 0 0 12 56 Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/12/2019 10:43 AM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kamehameha III Rd--Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972607 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 43 34 Peak-Hour:7:20 AM--8:20 AM 4.7 0 Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM 15 12 16 6.7 8.3 0 647 14 1 t 75 566 5.7 0 t t 0 f 6.2 417 F 475 5.5 y 5.7 716* 285 1 r 76 459 5.7 y 6.3 Z r 10.5 y 5.7 F1575 * [-0 11.5 373 188 Quality Counts 7.2 6.4 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 4 0 0 I` 2 1 r 0 0 1 1 0 i * NANA J + V J + 4 L f 1 t f 1 L NA NA NA NA w w 7 r 7 r NA NA 15-Min Count Kamehameha 1117d Kamehameha III Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 6:45 AM 33 0 2 0 5 1 1 0 3 88 48 0 11 170 3 0 365 7:00 AM 41 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 3 117 41 0 5 156 3 0 371 7:15 AM 38 2 5 0 3 2 2 0 4 133 59 0 6 125 2 0 381 7:30 AM 36 1 10 0 8 4 6 0 4 111 88 0 22 107 3 0 400 1517 7:45 AM 37 2 6 0 4 2 3 0 5 93 78 0 25 99 6 0 360 1512 8:00 AM 41 1 6 0 1 4 4 0 3 84 58 0 17 124 4 0 347 1488 8:15 AM 51 1 7 0 3 4 3 0 1 82 61 0 20 152 3 0 388 1495 8:30 AM 34 1 10 0 2 2 4 0 2 96 55 0 7 115 1 0 329 1424 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 144 4 40 0 32 16 24 0 16 444 352 0 88 428 12 0 1600 Heavy Trucks 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 32 4 24 24 0 92 Pedestrians 0 0 4 0 4 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:10 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:User-Defined Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Kamehameha III Rd--Hawaii Belt Rd QC JOB#: 14972608 CITY/STATE: Hawaii, HI DATE:Tue,Apr 30 2019 36 39 Peak-Hour:3:45 PM--4:45 PM o 2.6 Peak 15-Min:4:30 PM--4:45 PM 18 11 7 0 0 0 J + 4 J + 4 803 « 17 J t 11 • 570 2.7« 0 1 L 0 « 2.6 511 - F6 li « 495 2.5* A* «2.6 812. 284 1 r 64 570 2.1. 1.4"4 r 3.1 y 2.8 4- [- 1 * e F2901152a: 359 353 Quality Counts 1.7 3.7 DATA THAT DRIVES COMMUNITIES 0 0 01 L 0 J t 0 o 0 0 01 r 0 0 0 2 i } NANA JL « 1 L NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA 15-Min Count Kamehameha 1117d Kamehameha III Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Hawaii Belt Rd Period Northbound) Southbound) Eastbound) Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 3:00 PM 75 3 14 0 4 2 6 0 6 129 60 0 16 143 3 0 461 3:15 PM 47 10 22 0 4 6 5 0 5 140 71 0 25 131 3 0 469 3:30 PM 65 6 21 0 1 1 5 0 4 122 70 0 14 139 4 0 452 3:45 PM 74 4 0 2 2 0 6 112 78 0 18 114 3 ' 0 431 1813 4:00 PM 78 1 0 1 6 0 4 124 74 0 17 118 2 0 441 1793 4:15 PM 68 5 0 0 3 0 1 134 62 0 13 126 4 0 433 1757 4:30 PM 1 70 1 0 4 0 6 141 70 0 16 137 2 0 466 1771 4:45 PM 72 3 14 0 2 4 4 0 5 105 50 0 18 115 2 0 394 1734 5:00 PM 48 4 25 0 0 3 2 0 5 123 90 0 23 119 1 0 443 1736 5:15 PM 56 5 19 0 2 4 2 0 3 108 75 0 11 101 1 0 387 1690 5:30 PM 46 3 20 0 1 2 4 0 4 141 71 0 8 81 0 0 381 1605 5:45 PM 36 1 14 0 3 4 2 0 2 116 41 0 9 67 1 0 296 1507 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles 280 4 64 0 16 0 12 0 24 564 280 0 64 548 8 0 1864 Heavy Trucks 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 12 0 36 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 5/13/2019 3:06 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Traffic Data Service Traffic Station Sketch N Island:Hawaii Area:Kona Section ID/Station#:B71001112038 Hualalai Road D2 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy DI 10 1 Nani Kailua Dr Meter# File Name GPS 1. bw67 D0910037_1371001112038 19.63455,-155.9779 2. D0910038 671001112038 Station Description: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy: Hualalai Road to Nani Kailua Dr Survey Beginning Date/Time: Survey Ending Date/Tire: 9/10/15@ 0000 9/11/15@ 2400 Survey Method: Road Tube Data Type: Class Survey Crew: LM C1B Sketch Updated: By: SR Remarks: 1302 FACILITY NAME JURI FUNC AREA ROUTE CLASS TYPE NO. MILE Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 14 0110 D1=Direction to End D1:Nani Kailua Dr/Palani Rd(Rte 190) D2=Direction to Begin D2:Hualalai Road/Kamehameha Ave(Rte 19) 0 0 o o J M M N O In L.O h m m m m m O M M r m N mQMOOrmMf V m o m h m m Lf) M 7 N 0 m m m Lf) 6) O a o 0 p 7 7 M M N N N N r N r r r r r r r r r r r W C) O v LO O N o NT MQ m LD D) m N m M 0) r' Lf) O Lf) N r- 7 7 0) r D) 7 V a r W O In 0 OMmnmNo) r r, r, r- LO m 7 m 7 co N N N r N M M 7 O r r r r r m r r m 7 a n V O a (D, (o O r O QZ 9co m v o0( P Lois H r r `DN o Q v r o Lo (D r r N r 7 M M m r m m N M m M o r O co N C 3N N N N N n n M M T M M O T O O W m m m L0 7 M O O y LL 0 r r r r r r r r c> N M m M O V V O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O w O u) c' lf) O u) c> LC) O Ln O O O N r M V O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M V O r M V O M O N O m i m m m h h h h m m m m W W W W O O O O r r N O O 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o . . . . r r r r r gWoLoomoLoomooLooLooLooLooLooLooLoa 2 O r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 0 M V o .. M V O r M 7 r M O m r m m M Ln In w j to tommr r- r- r- mcommrnaimo) o00or v o M vv r o o LO N 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl o r r r r r r r O O M O oO M M f r Lo o r r t V 7 Ln m r V 0 J Q M m n a) m M N N O N m M (o Lo ND n O V LO QM1 O a V V V t V V 7 N Lo Lo 7 Lo -It lt) 7 lt) 7 7 l!) V V V M V O0 o C t 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 T C 4 w U o T v Lo M W o o m N r N (o (o W W N m N 0 M N r- O (D m (D M f N Lo M r 7 7 M m N r: m r Y G Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N r W o 0 6 0 0 TT V/ GV 0 C) LuOa O O O a O w O N Q i •+ a J F > a Y H > 4i J > a a o - r T O r M m m rn r LO n m m v M w N rn 7 N m W W N M I M aw Z = _ w = = o z 2 2 0 O C) O C) D N N N Lo V Lo m m m M 7 N N 7 Lo Lo M N Q a o Q Q O C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a Y Y U ^ J Y Y Y Y U S W i 0 W F ¢ ¢ o¢ ¢ ¢ N H ¢ Q LL o N LLJ w W WHULua Y o z w w v wLu a Y o ¢ a a a a s O U) no (nou c) v) c) no (Oo (Oo (no (no (oo (no (no Oaa O [C S = w = [C a..+ r C7 7 0 r M 7 0 r M V O r (h V O r (h 7 0 r C7 7 0 cC a Q 2E N S N S N S L Q d r r r o0000000000000000000o O oaaa a W as w Oa as a T for a T o C 0 (L$ U w O M 7 O M V o 7 M V o 7 M 7 0 7 M 7 0 7 M 7 2 ¢ ¢ a a N o L d Q N N N N TO O O O o 0 0 o co co co co O O O O O O O O a a Q L T ++ J to m 7 LO O N m r Lo Lo o M m n V m m 7 O M (D N D) N ' 3 N M M 7 Lf) 7 7 7 7 7 7 M V V V V V 7 7 7 7 O O O O N CD O ¢ N m o r_ 2• O ~ V ~ W CO O mr (p o N o co y O r co N V M (D 7 N m m M m M 7 m m 7 r- M m to M n (D r N r O O Q2 Cc m N h m V r r m m n n n N m N r- m m m r- N o r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N W Y cm 0( Y m 7 O N 7 M (ND LR Q r O r r o O o O co r N Lo m m co O V r, N m Lo O co n m N m m N r M O N r r a O zm ol O N m N N M N N N 2 2 O 0 Orrrrrrr m m co o o a a o 0 0 0 0QLOOLOOmcOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOOLOono 2 r M o r M 7 o r M 7 o r M 7 o r M I O r M 0 Q oo MOm (D m r rr- r- m m m m m m W W o 0 0 o r r NWQo0000000000000orrrrrrrrr n o n o 0 wi o Lo o Lo o Lo o Lo o LO o m o Lo o Lo o Lo o Lo o Lo o Lo r T o o r u) 't O r M 't o r M V o r M 7 o r M 7 o r M 't Q mmmmnr r rn mmcc) mmmmm 3 3 3 o o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r r o 0 0 or r V O r- 7 o r0 J Q MmmLf) n V W O N m O r N mw f- Lf) mm 0 7 Nz = coo) NN N N r r r r r r r r r r N N 7 7 m f N m Q1 cz Cl O C p^ O z E m r 00 QN o 4 00Ed M m Lf) f, T M m m T 7 M V m m O N N M M (OD (ND a) N LNO cD Lu w Lu OO Ln D T T T o Y D ^ Y Y p N Y 0 W J o W J cD W 2 J o O W W wCprf/1 O a O Y O o a — - — ¢ a g Y g CD R G N f Lo N m m m m m 7 7 N 7 m V V N m V V N M c W Z S S O w a W r Z S S o a Z JO W 0 N p V Q Q O r r r r r r r a_ O Y Y U a Y Y 4 O Y Y U ^ w O H > a H > r_ W H Q ¢ L¢i °¢ ¢ ¢ o H ¢ ¢ Q o H H <Y 0= ¢ LO o m o m o LO o LO o LO o LO o LO o LO o LO o LO o m o ~ w a m Y z d d 0 w d a Y D W Y Y OoYY O O r m v o r m y o r m v o r m y o r m y o r m y o Q r r r 000000000000000000000 a :2 L) ¢ E O o w w iUaa y O V w oloCDLoolooLoo ooloolocDmcD oolooloolo OO ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ w p ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ U pa a cr Q o M V o c? v o r cQ v o th v o th v o co v U CC a Z LL J Q N N N N N N CV N CO CO CO CO 7 7 7 7 LO l0 LO LO 2 F p 2 O r r r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ¢ z 0 0 0 0 J m n 7 cD cD m N 7 m _rn 7 7 m m Ln Ln n 7 7 m cD roi °J Q r 7 m 0 0 (O M 7 0 0 0 (D LO 7 r N 0 0 r m LO LO LO m o a m 0 M M N M M N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r O r O O 7 LO O N o N m co N O M m n N N 7 m 7 r- (D O m m to m (D (D (D W O r m 0Ln7NMM0mOrr (D m Ln Ln (D () Ln () (M N (M N N N N O Doto r, Q T T T T T T T a N m O a m OJ (o O O (D r r O m V cop 7 p LM{) O T O Ln N OCQN Mr r r r r 0 7 N (D M Ln m N W O r N m 7 N (D (D CO O O O O N C 3N N O r r LO LO M M M 7 M T m m m r- (4 O Ln 7 N () Mo O y LL 0 r r r r r r r r r r d N m N N rLo N r 7 m m 7 m m LO LO LO tr O N O M N O In O In O lil O lfl O w O In O In O In O In O In O In O In p O D (D LO r LO r M V O r M 7 p .. M 7 O r M 7 O .. M V O r M V p O NiIL0- O O O r- r- r- r- m m m m m m mm O O O O r r O O O O O p p p p p p p O O O O O O . . . . . r r r N r gWo omoomocLoc r oLr> oovoL66L6 a o2Cf) O r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 0 M 7 0 .. M 7 0 r M 7 r D m r O (D 0 7 M M y m to (6 O r r- r- r- m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 r r 7 m N (D m (D M r N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O r r r r r r r m O 7 oo m (fl O N M O (V m LO O r m 7 7 7 In m r 7 0 J 7 m m co N m m 7 M m O O m m 7 M M In r- m N m m 0 O m V 7 V 7 7 7 7 7 7 7W 7 7 7 7 7 LOO t V V m O0 o C t 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 T C 4 w n q r q 7OOLO7Mm (D m m m O m LO W W N m N 0 0 0 0 m O N N w (D (D LO N LO N 7 N m m f r Y G Y r O' r O CA N N r N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r 11J o O o O 0 TT V/ GU 0 O a O O Oa '0 - w 6O N N Q i •+ J F > w Y H > 7 J > S a O - r T O r 7m7oO N O Om7OOLnmmnMmOLn Z = = w = = o z22 W O O m m M M 7 7 7 M N N m m M W LO 7 W O a p O O O O r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r N N N N N N N Y Y U ^ J Y Y Y Y U S W F ¢ ¢ L o¢ ¢ ¢ N H ¢ Q LL o N W w w WU Lu a Y D Z W W v W d d Y oLU¢ a a a a s O U) n0 (nOu c) mcD nO (n0 (n0 (n0 (n0 (no (no (no Lu Oaa O [C S W = w = [C a..+ r C7 7 0 r M 7 0 r C'7 V O r (h V O r (h 7 0 r C7 7 0 cC S Q 2E N S N S N S L Q d rrr00000000000yy99999999 O paao o W a0_ w paaaa T cor a T o C 0 (L$ U w O M 7 O M V O 7 M V O 7 M 7 O 7 m 7 O 7 M 7 :E P- M 2 ¢ ¢ a a N o L d Q N N N N TO O O O O O O O co co co O O O O O O O O O a a O Q L T ++ J O co (D r r 7 N 7 7 M Ln m Ln m LO M m N r- M m N ' 3 N M M 7 LOO 7 7 7 7 V co V V V V 7 cD 7 7 7 O p O O O 7M q ¢ 7Moo O O U ~ W O Lo m n 0 OM y Q co O co , co N O 7 M r m m O (D N n N 7 7 m r- n (D M m m O O O Q2 m N In h O m m N m n 7 M 7 M (D (D 7 (D In 7 7 7 M MCc_ r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y CC co N ^ m L¢n 7 m o J J M M M R o m r N :2o m :i m m o CZ5 r m m N (D 7 7 LO 7 7 m m co r Ln O to w O7 to 7 7 O r W O r a m o O z mw O M n N m h Ln m (D (D m Liz m n LO n O N O N N m O O O O Q r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m m M o o a a o 0 0 o nQmcDmcDLmcLmoLncDmcDmc> mc> mc> mcDmo no o I 2 r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O Q oo NoD (D o r r r- r- m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 r r NWQo0000000000000orrrrrrrrr 0 0 0 0 0 wi o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o m o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o 0 0 O r M 7 O r u) 't O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 Q D (D (D (D n r r n m m m m m m m m O O O o r o o o a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r p M J r r r r r r a n q r- r (R N 7 LO V O r- 7 m O m J Q co m co M m m LO r m r O M m Ln m m (D m 0 m m Ln co Oz = N r r r r r r r r N r N N (D r r N m NO C p^O cz r z E m 00 QN o 4 00Ed cz m m f LO N 7 N N n In m N O O N m m N 7 (mo (mo O M (D Lu w Lu mO In D r r TT p Y D ^ Y Y p N Y 0 W J o W J pp W 2 J o O W W W co r f/1 O a O O o a O — ¢ a g T R 0 m m r m M N r (D 7 m Ln r- r r- N Ln N O co co m w ¢ W [[ O ¢ te a r ¢ [[ ¢ O a ¢ W J W J N 00 N r r r r r N co co a Z S S H a S S o Z S S Z O a O UQ OYYU q o L) O > > r w H Q ¢ L¢i °Q Q Q p H ¢ ¢ a o H a 0= a s 0' Ln (D m p m p Ln o Ln o Ln o M p Ln o m o m o Ln (D m p ~ w a m Y z d d 0 w d a Y D W Y Y O Y YOOrmvor (h v o r m v o r m v o r m v o r m v o Q r r r 000000000000000000000 a :2 L) ¢ E O o w w iUaa y O V w oLnoLnoLnoLno no LnoLocDmcD noLnoLnoLn OO ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ w p ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ U Oa a cr Q oM7o (gv o r (gvo (hvo (hvocov U tr a Z LL J Q N N N N N N CV N M M M M 7 7 7 7 LO In LO LO 2 F p 2 O r r r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O6 O O < Z Run Date: 2016/05/19 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section Vehicle Classification Data Summary 2015 Site ID: B71001112038 Route No: 11 Date From: 2015/09/10 0:00 Town: Hawaii Direction: +MP Date To: 2015/09/11 23:45 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kai lua Dr Functional Classification: 14 URBAN:PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-OTHER REPORT TOTALS-48 HOURS RECORDED VOLUME NUMBER OF AXLES Cycles 263 0.49%525 PC 45148 84.23% 90296 2A-4T 7438 13.88% 14876 LIGHT VEHICLE TOTALS 52849 98.60% 105697 HEAVY VEHICLES Bus 85 0.16%213 SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 2A-6T 96 0.18% 192 3A-SU 164 0.31%492 4A-SU 29 0.05% 116 SINGLE-TRAILER TRUCKS 4A-ST 266 0.50% 1064 5A-ST 50 0.09%250 6A-ST 30 0.06%180 MULTI-TRAILER TRUCKS 5A-MT 12 0.02% 60 6A-MT 1 0.00% 6 7A-MT 15 0.03%105 HEAVY VEHICLE TOTALS 748 1.40% 2678 CLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 53597(A) 100.00% 108375 (B) UNCLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 2 0.00% AXLE ROADTUBECORRECTION EQUIVALENT(B/2)= 54187 (C)FACTOR(A/C)= 0.989 TOTAL HPMS PEAK HOUR PEAK PEAK 24 HOURK-FACTOR VOLUME : 2034 HOUR HOUR TRUCK OF (PEAK/AADT) TRUCK VOLUME VOLUME AADT AADT (ITEM 66) 2015/09/1014:00 VOLUME SINGLE UNIT 65A-1) 65A-2) TRUCKS(TYPE 4-7) 10 0.49% 187 0.72% 7.85% COMBINATION 6513-1) 25900 ( 6513-2) TYPE 8-13) 10 0.49% 187 0.72% 7.85% Traffic Data Service Traffic Station Sketch N Island:Hawaii Area:Kona Section ID/Station#: B71 001 1 1 2038 Hualalai Road D2 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy D1 D1 1 Nani Kailua Dr Meter# File Name GPS 1. bw67 D0503007_B71001112038 19.63455,-155.9779 2. D0503008 B71001112038 Station Description: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy: Hualalai Road to Nani Kailua Dr Survey Beginning Date/Time: Survey Ending Date/Time: 5/3/16 @ 0000 5/4/16 @ 2400 Survey Method: Road Tube Data Type: Class Survey Crew: LM C1B Sketch Updated:By: SR Remarks: 1302 FACILITY NAME JURI FUNC AREA ROUTE CLASS TYPE NO.MILE Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11 0110 D1=Direction to End D1:Nani Kailua Dr/Palani Rd(Rte 190) D2=Direction to Begin D2:Hualalai Road /Kamehameha Ave(Rte 19) O o N O O O J Ln m m r N r O m M h m M m m LO 7 r u7 O N N O m O m 0 Q N m m Lf) r- co m M LO 7 M M 7 r O m r r r 7 M O O a M O p M ('M m m N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r I r O r r C, 0co LO O N o T N n m r M m N M M M 7 LO Cl) Cl) N LO Ln M O m 7 Ln M n- CO N M f OmNmN000 (D (D L m LO LO 7 LO 7 m Cl) m N N r r N 7 O N m N m (D M O 0rrrrrrr d m M O Na_ co N (0 O (O r M Ln O0LnrMMMLnONO (D O O007L O Q Z r M 7 O M 7 r Ln M r r r N r Q 7m 7 M m 7 M m M 7 r N 7 LO M CO M m m c0 r m r O O M N I m LO LO m 7 T M O M M m 0 I m 7 LO 7 LO N N a LL cc T T T T T T T r r T d LO a N O m N 7 M m O M 7 O M T W CD 7 0 CO Cl) O LO O Ln O Ln O m O In O Ln O O LO O Ln O LO O Ln O LO O O LO (D LO co Lo r M 7 0 r M 7 0 M 7 0 M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 (p Cl) O NiLLCOtDCDh (\ h (\ m m m m M M M M 0 0 0 0 r r N O O G W O (n O (n O In O m O In O (n O (n O (n O (n O In V/ 2 O r M V O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M V O r COj V a cm W W W m r h (\ h m m m M M M M M O O O D r T Cm0 7 LO m CO T Cl) N m N LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r O O M O 7 f- M N (0 (7 N M r Ln O r M 7 M 7 m m r 7 ON In M N 7 7 0 0 (D m 7 M o co m Ln o f- M V h m N Q. ¢ O N N o N co r Ln LO N m m M O M m m 7 N co O a 0 7 7 7 7 7 Co 7 7 7 7 7 Ln 7 7 7 Ln 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Q C E + O O O O O O T W T r m Na..L 3 N m N 0 LSD m 7 M 7 h M O m m (D m M M M M m m 7 W pt _ m 0 0 0 m r M N M m N m 7 V N O I m f r r Y Y ED,O i r N N N r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r Q W J -- W 7 Q W -- p O p ONDUWpJ O W J o ' O Q O -j Q= 1 O a O O O a Wa m0 O (V r r CC ~ > W Y W O r N O LO 7 7 0 m Ln o M LO m m m Ln N M M m o LO o m ow Z = _ w = = o Z 0 0 SLC 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LO M ID N N N N N N N N w Y Y U ^ Y Y C) O w H Q Q LL o Q Q Q N F Q Q ¢ o N W W W W WVwaYopaapwaaYoaaa c E coOV O M 7 0 M V O Cl V O M V 0 coOV O H O w W = W = y"L Q N N N T N N N N M M M M 7 7 7 7 LO Ln LO Ln m d d d d U E o 2 r = N = N ^ AOAS }{ 1 J d r r r o0000000000000000000o O O W a w wOwaww coT cO T 2 0 W O Ln O Ln O Ln O m O m O LO O LO O LO O LO O LO O m O Ln U Q o r ( 7 o r m 7 o r (h V O r Cl) 7 0 r M 7 0 r (7 v p F d a N o L N N N N N N N N M m m m 7 7 7 7 Ln Ln Ln Ln d W 0 i d Q r r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G_ lC T- ++ J 7 LSD M N O CO m N r (D m Ln m Ln Cl) M 7 CO Cl) O m M Q N O O m LO m LO 7 N M O V h o h r M N M 7 m Q O 3 N Cl) 7 Cl) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 M 7 7 Cl) co Cl) co Cl) 7 Cl) 7 CO p O c N 30 O O0 Mo 0o Q Mop o < CD 0 p O cz N Lnm N N O N N r N m n M O m O m M cD ow M N O N M 7 I- Ln m m (D (D LO (D LO Cl) m M M O O 7 m N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N r N N r N N N r Q w Y 7 (O OM. l(DO Lr)O LO M T O I (D O O n 7 M LO M M f O O r I 0 7 7 M M N m M M r f lO 7 lSD m n Q T LO O r Q T u) d M O M O z 10 n T 7 m N M m 7 lO m 7 7 n n m O O O OQ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m m co O Q O O 0- 2QO O O O O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O LO O LOO m O O O cr - 2 r M 'It O r M 7 O r M 7 O r C') 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O 2E m2 2 MIDmrS` r S` m m m m M M M M 0 0 0 0 r r (V Q O d O w Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r r r r r r r r O o O 0 0 F— wW o Ln o Ln o Ln o u) o L() o Ln o Ln o Ln (D Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o 0 0 L.L (j$ 2 O r m O r M O r m V O r m 7 O r m 7 O r m f 2 I, V Q D o D m r n m m m m M M M M ) o 0 o r O O O a J = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D r r r r r r r r m O m O M O Cl?Ommmco co J Q 7 M M 7 0 m N N O N m M M c0 N m m c) LO M m M 7z = N r r r r r r r r r r N N N co LO (D M M m N O O O O O Ln z E M r O p 0 m N LO M LO h V N M LO m LO LO LO m r O M L- M m M M 0 (D O Mco (Sf r r N r N 7 m r L 7 m W W W O M cz o 2 ^ QOOY 0 W W J o w j p W W J o O W W W r y p a 0 O o a 0 — ¢ w g YTNNT M o 7 h cD 7 M h 7 r` M 7 Ln LO Ln (D r— o o M M o 7 ¢ J ~ > Y ~ > r J ~ > W J w 7 Q w O N r r r r N N 7 Ln a Z 2 2 w 2 2 o Z 2 2 a Z 2 0 w 0 C\jp V Q O Y Y U ^0- Y Y Cl 0 Y Y U ^ w O H > J H > R O_ w H Q Q < o Q Q Q o H Q Q LL o H H Q [C 0C U w w U w wmCCLn (D Ln o m (D Ln o m o LO o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o ~ W d d Y z d d lL d d Y D w Y Y 0 Y YOO CD r M V O r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M V O r M 7 0 Jfr Q Q Q r r r o 0 0 0 o N N N o CO 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 2 U E O 0 W W U a dVeau1W ej 0lo0m0lo0m0 n0m0o o0m0o o0m0o o0m Op ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ w0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ U pa a y_+ OQ O r M V O r M 7 O r M 7p r M 79 r M 7 O r M V U CC 0_ 3: Z N N N N N N NN Cl) Cl) CO Cl) 7 7 7 7 LO LO LO LOfnLLJD0CD0000000000000CD ¢ z 0 0 0 J N m N Cl) m 0 0 0 I, m N O O m co 0 7 m 0 7 p O oo co m m oSCJ (D N r 7 Ln N N m m m h m LD 7 N O m m p m m M 7 W O a N M O C) M m M N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r I r r r O 0 coL o N o N M m m m o N m m o m r- u) M Ln O m m o r- 2 7 M M oo aT 7 O M oo of O r m f' w O (D m In Lo N M M N r r N r N oo Lo m O 7 M co 00 O 0 r r r r a a 0 r 7 0 a 11 r (o (O oo o (D o0LDmfl- M m Ln m h O O O O Ln Lf) O O Q Z Q 7 W 7 O W 7 co 7 H m r r r N r Q 7 7 m O M h M 7 I- O Lo Ln I- N M N m m co m N L Lo m O o O N oo (YJ O 7 7 M N M N O N O m m (O t0 (O 7 7 Ln N M a Cl) LL Q r r r r r r r r r r r r cc d M a N O h m Ln c', O Lo 7 I- m M LO LO O a (O M O LO N O Lo O Lo O In O Lo O In O Lo O Ln O Lo O In O Lo O In O Lo O V O V Q Ln O Lo Co Lo r M 7 0 r M 7 0 M 7 0 M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 (p M O MiLLCLCOtoCDhrhrWwWwmmmmOo0orrNoo r r r r r r r r G W O (nO In o (n o (n O In O (n O (n O (n O (n O Ln 2ct) O r M V O r M 7 o r M 7 O r M 7 O r M V O r M V r N O N r O h N N 7 7 04 w w O O r h r h W W oo co m m m m O o 0 o r co W M ^ M m O oo m O r (o O o O o O o o O o O O O O O O O r r r r r r r a O N 7 O O N o N n N m Q r LD O r r (n Q 7 7 m W r 7 to n r oo N m oo oo 7 m co Lf) 7 Lo 7 M (D to M to M N m Q. ¢ N L` Lo 7 co N co N co W Lo co CD n M L` N 7 m L` V N O 0 Q C E + O O O O O O T O w T r m Na.+ N Liz m m m (o N m m w M m O N r r- r M r Ln m Ln W Qt _ N N m O O M M Lo N m N M N m L` Liz L` r Y Y O O i 0 r N r N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N N N r r r LL J -- w 7 ¢ w Q ^ o p o pNOVQQLu2ipJ O W J o a Q N Q= 1 O a O O O a 0 Wa m6 O N r r CC ~ > W Y W O r M m m M w M m Lo m O Ln N m n m Lo Ln O m M O a Z = _ w = = o Z = _ = Q O Q O Q 0 N N Lo N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NLo N Q o c) Y Y U -- 2 O W im ¢ ¢ L¢L o¢ ¢ ¢ N F ¢ ¢ ¢ o N 2 W a W W VC w a Y Q z a a p w a a Y Q 0 a a a 0 G coOV O Lo M 7 0 p M V O - Cl V Cl co Lo OV O coOV O y"L Q N N N T N N N N M M M M 7 7 7 7 Ln Ln Ln Ln m Q a a a a 0 a Q r = N = N ^ O J d r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O w a a w O a a a a O T cO T 2 0 0 U W o Ln o W o m o m o m o Lo o Lo o Lo o Lo o Lo o m o Lo U a a L O r M 7 O r M 7 0 r M V O r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 Q F a a N Q 10- g N N N N N N N N M M M M 7 7 7 7 Ln (n Ln (til a a D i a Q r r r r o o O O O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O O m I 0. to 0 T N O Lo M f- L` mw L` 7 h m m N 7 r_ M I- h a ¢ 7 Lo r m r m m M m o oo W f- (D N o W N N m h Q O 3 N M co M 7 7 7 7 co 7 co M co M 7 7 M 7 7 M M N 0 O O N ¢ ON O N < O V ~ W O Ooo q^ o 7 Q MO O cz N Lo Lo m N oo 7 N N m co co 7 I- r m 7 N N m co I- m O O oo Lo 7 7 I- M m p 7 Lo M M o M N co (D t m O h O (o r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N r N r N r QQ c\l Lo w Y a m Lf) O m m Lq N V T r m r m 7 Di Lo co L` N oo Cl) L` co oo W 7 Lf) nm (o n N Lo L` o co N o 0 oo Q ¢ T Lf) o r ¢ T Ln a m o m p z to m O Q NrMrrmro (D Ln Ln 7 (o Mmp Lz p MNcDNNN Or O O co m co O O O a Qo O O O O Lo O Liz O Liz O L() O Lo O Lo O Lo O Lo O Lo O Liz O Lr) O u7 O O O c 2 r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 2E m co (D (D L` r L` r W w M mm m m m O o 0 o r r N O a O W ¢ p O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p r r r r r r r r r o o O o 0 F- wW o Ln o L) o Ln o U) o LL7 o Ln o Ln o Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln L7 O O 2 O r M 7 0 r M O r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 0 r M 7 f n V Q D o m m n oo m m m m m m m o 0 0 o r o O O a J = 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 (D 0 (D r r r r r r r r oo O oo O a 7 O 7 O O N C<LQ r- O r ONi r 6Mi J Lo O M n r m M m (D m M m 7 7 N 7 0 7 m m LOz = r N r r r r r r r r N N N 7 m h O O O N O O Q o O O Ln z E m r O o 0 m N N W 7 m O r r M m r LD M I- n r N O O 7 m w r w O mco (Sf r r N r 7 In m r w N h W W W O M (S$2 ^ QCOOY Q W W J o W j p W W J o O W w W r y p a 0 O o a 0 — ¢ a g YrNNrrEJH > a Y H > T J > a w J w Q ¢ W J O 14 M N m N T w O w O LD m O f- L` LD M oo 7 T (D w oo o W O a s O a ¢ N p N r r r r N N co 7 a Z 2 2 F w 2 2 o Z 2 2 z O a 0 V Q O Y Y U ^a Y Y Cl O Y Y U - w O H > J H > r O_ w H ¢ ¢ < o¢ ¢ ¢ O H ¢ ¢ LL o H H a a ¢ CC CC U w w U w w C Ln (D Ln o m (D Ln o m o LD o LD o LD o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o ~ w a a Y Q z d d Q LL a s Y Q w Y Y 0 Y Y0OO r M V O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M 7 O r M V O r M 7 O J a a a Q r r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 w Q 2 U Q O Q w w U a dVeau1WoLocmoLoomonomoloomoloomoloomOp ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ w0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ U Oa a y_+ oQ O r M V O r M 7 o r M 7 O r M 7 o r M 7 o r M V U CC n- 3: Z fn LL J O N N N N N N N N Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) 7 7 7 7 LO LO LO Ln D o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ¢ ~ Q ¢ ~ zO F Run Date: 2017/08/08 Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section Vehicle Classification Data Summary 2016 Site ID: B71001112038 Route No: 11 Date From: 2016/05/03 0:00 Town: Hawaii Direction: +MP Date To: 2016/05/04 23:45 Location: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy-Hualalai Rd to Nani Kai lua Dr Functional Classification: 14 URBAN:PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-OTHER REPORT TOTALS-48 HOURS RECORDED VOLUME NUMBER OF AXLES Cycles 338 0.66%677 PC 35846 69.91% 71692 2A-4T 14198 27.69% 28396 LIGHT VEHICLE TOTALS 50382 98.25% 100765 HEAVY VEHICLES Bus 234 0.46%585 SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 2A-6T 157 0.31%314 3A-SU 145 0.28%435 4A-SU 31 0.06%124 SINGLE-TRAILER TRUCKS 4A-ST 153 0.30%612 5A-ST 95 0.19%475 6A-ST 31 0.06%186 MULTI-TRAILER TRUCKS 5A-MT 14 0.03% 70 6A-MT 1 0.00% 6 7A-MT 33 0.06%231 HEAVY VEHICLE TOTALS 894 1.74% 3038 CLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 51277(A) 100.00% 103803 (B) UNCLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS 1 0.00% AXLE ROADTUBECORRECTION EQUIVALENT(B/2)= 51901 (C)FACTOR(A/C)= 0.988 TOTAL HPMS PEAK HOUR PEAK PEAK 24 HOURK-FACTOR VOLUME : 1970 HOUR HOUR TRUCK OF (PEAK/AADT) TRUCK VOLUME VOLUME AADT AADT (ITEM 66) 2016/05/0315:00 VOLUME SINGLE UNIT 65A-1) 65A-2) TRUCKS(TYPE 4-7) 33 1.68% 283 1.10% 7.64% COMBINATION 6513-1) 25800 ( 6513-2) TYPE 8-13) 27 1.37% 163 0.63% 7.64% Appendix C Analysis Reports — Existing Conditions (2019) Timings 2019 AM 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 457 218 163 678 23 243 192 109 20 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 457 218 163 678 23 243 192 109 20 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 10.7 38.5 38.5 14.9 42.7 42.7 18.8 51.6 51.6 10.0 42.8 42.8 Total Split(%) 9.3% 33.5% 33.5% 13.0% 37.1% 37.1% 16.3% 44.9% 44.9% 8.7% 37.2% 37.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)6.2 35.1 35.1 9.3 40.6 40.6 11.6 29.7 29.7 5.6 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.37 0.32 0.49 0.46 0.03_ 0.58 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.50 0.41 Control Delay 49.2 23.6 5.1 46.3 21.9 0.1 45.2 22.8 5.4 50.2 35.3 7.4 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.2 23.6 5.1 46.3 21.9 0.1 45.2 22.8 5.4 50.2 35.3 7.4 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D D A Approach Delay 20.6 25.9 29.3 26.3 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:91.4 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.58 Intersection Signal Delay:25.2 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10s 151.6s 14.9s 38.5s D5 06 u 18.8 s 142.8s 111110.7s 1 rd 42.7 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL - Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 457 218 163 678 23 243 192 109 20 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 457 218 163 678 23 243 192 109 20 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 466 0 166 692 0 248 196 0 20 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 161 1537 249 1656 344 780 40 500 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 466 0 166 692 0 248 196 0 20 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 6.9 0.0 3.8 10.4 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 6.9 10.0 3.8 10.4 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 161 1537111111111111111111111 249 1656 344 780 40 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.30 0.67 0.42 0.72 0.25 0.50 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 1537 445 1656 613 2108 123 1714 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.6 13.5 0.0 35.8 13.4 0.0 34.6 25.6 0.0 38.4 32.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.9 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 9.3 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 2.5 0.0 1.6 3.8 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 14.1 0.0 38.9 14.2 0.0 37.4 25.8 0.0 47.7 33.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 538 A 858 A 444 A 348 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.3 18.9 32.3 34.5 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.3 21.9 10.3 40.9 12.5 15.7 8.5 42.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 47.1 10.4 34.0 14.3 38.3 6.2 38.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.6 5.8 8.9 7.6 8.9 3.7 12.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 0.2 3.1 0.5 2.2 0.0 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2019 AM 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT EE& WBL WBT BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 359 124 52 600 467 146 337 42 362 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 359 124 52 600 467 146 337 42 362 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 11.0 32.2 32.2 9.8 31.0 31.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 9.6% 28.0% 28.0% 8.5% 27.0% 27.0% 32.6% 32.6% 32.6% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)6.6 30.5 30.5 5.4 27.0 27.0 17.5 17.5 17.5 23.1 23.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.34 0.22 0.28 0.62 0.61 0.46 0.57 0.12 0.71 0.70 Control Delay 53.4 28.2 6.9 50.2 34.0 6.9 39.1 38.0 0.7 43.2 35.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.4 28.2 6.9 50.2 34.0 6.9 39.1 38.0 0.7 43.2 35.2 LOS D C A D C A D D A D D Approach Delay 28.3 23.5 35.3 37.8 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:92.5 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.71 Intersection Signal Delay:30.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 37.5s 35.5s 9.8s Y 32.2s ills I 1131S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 AM 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 1' 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EE& WBL WBT WB R SBL SBT JMR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 359 124 52 600 467 146 337 42 362 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 359 124 52 600 467 146 337 42 362 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3174 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 370 128 54 619 481 151 347 43 373 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 86 0 0 336 0 0 35 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 370 42 54 619 145 136 362 8 283 544 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 6.6 30.6 30.6 4.1 28.1 28.1 17.5 17.5 17.5 23.1 23.1 Effective Green,g(s) 6.6 30.6 30.6 4.1 28.1 28.1 17.5 17.5 17.5 23.1 23.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 219 1076 497 145 1025 466 293 627 278 394 785 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.11 0.02 c0.18 0.09 c0.11 c0.18 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.34 0.08 0.37 0.60 0.31 0.46 0.58 0.03 0.72 0.69 Uniform Delay,dl 41.8 23.7 21.7 43.3 27.8 25.1 33.7 34.5 31.0 32.1 31.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.8 0.9 0.3 1.6 2.6 1.7 1.2 1.3 0.0 6.2 2.7 Delay(s)43.6 24.6 22.0 45.0 30.5 26.9 34.9 35.8 31.0 38.3 34.6 Level of Service D C C D C C C D C D C Approach Delay(s) 27.5 29.7 35.2 35.8 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 93.3 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 AM 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 10.3 Movement 4 INBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 48 164 985 776 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 48 164 985 776 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 52 176 1059 834 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2246 - 835 0 - 0 Stage 1 835 - - - - - Stage 2 1411 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —46 0 798 - - - Stage 1 426 0 - - - - Stage 2 225 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —36 - 797 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —36 - - - - - Stage 1 331 - - - - - Stage 2 225 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s $429 1.5 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 797 - 36 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.221 - 1.314 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 10.8 - $429 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 5 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 AM 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1006 15 73 748 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1006 15 73 748 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized YJW - Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1082 16 78 804 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2050 1090 0 0 1082 0 Stage 1 1090 - - - - - Stage 2 960 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 61 262 - - 630 - Stage 1 322 - - - - - Stage 2 372 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 53 262 - - 630 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 53 - - - - - Stage 1 322 - - - - - Stage 2 326 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 38.9 0 1 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 53 262 630 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.183 0.575 0.125 - HCM Control Delay(s) 87.5 35.8 11.5 - HCM Lane LOS F E B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 3.3 0.4 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2019 AM 5: Puapuaanui St II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group AT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 87 185 853 24 43 718 Future Volume(vph) 87 185 853 24 43 718 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 8 8 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 76.5 76.5 11.0 87.5 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 69.5% 69.5% 10.0% 79.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 10.8 10.8 78.3 78.3 6.3 84.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.75 0.75 0.06 0.81 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.58 0.66 0.02 0.43 0.52 Control Delay 53.6 13.4 11.2 2.2 60.4 5.1 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 M0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.6 13.4 11.2 2.2 60.4 5.1 LOS D B A E A Approach Delay 26.3 10.9 8.2 Approach LOS W C B A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 104.7 Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Puapuaanui St t2 its 76.5s 87.5s 1 1122.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 5: Puapuaanui St II 11/12/2021 t t Movement IBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 87 185 853 24 43 718 Future Volume(veh/h) 87 185 853 24 43 718 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 93 0 907 0 46 764 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 3 2 2 5 Cap,veh/h 120 1409 65 1536 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.04 0.84 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 93 0 907 0 46 764 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1585 1856 1585 1781 1826 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.1 0.0 22.7 0.0 2.5 11.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.1 0.0 22.7 0.0 2.5 11.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 120 1409 65 1536 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.64 0.71 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 325 1409 117 1536 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 47.0 2.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 13.4 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 0.0 7.5 0.0 1.4 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.4 0.0 7.9 0.0 60.4 3.3 LnGrp LOS E A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 93 A 907 A 810 Approach Delay,s/veh 55.4 7.9 6.5 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 79.4 87.5 11.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 72.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.5 24.7 13.3 7.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 9.3 7.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 AM 6: Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 7.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 7 169 517 801 733 61 Future Vol,veh/h 7 169 517 801 733 61 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 8 182 556 861 788 66 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2761 - 788 0 - 0 Stage 1 788 - - - - - Stage 2 1973 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 22 0 831 - - - Stage 1 448 0 - - - - Stage 2 118 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —7 - 831 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —7 - - - - - Stage 1 148 - - - - - Stage 2 118 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1035.4 6.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NB Ln1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 831 - 7 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.669 - 1.075 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 17.6 $1035.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 5.3 - 1.7 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2019 AM 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 54.1 54.1 10.9 55.5 55.5 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 8.6% 49.2% 49.2% 9.9% 50.5% 50.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.7 17.7 15.0 15.0 54.7 49.7 49.7 58.8 55.1 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.51 0.47 0.47 0.55 0.52 0.52 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.38 0.30 0.88 0.13 0.97 0.08 0.90 0.72 0.15 Control Delay 79.4 26.8 44.1 46.0 12.6 54.4 0.8 72.7 27.6 3.6 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.4 26.8 44.1 46.0 12.6 54.4 0.8 72.7 27.6 3.6 LOS JJEJF E C D D B D A E C A Approach Delay 62.7 45.7 49.4 31.3 Approach LOS W E D D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 106.8 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:44.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street t2 08 10.9s 54.1s 22.5s 5 T 9.5 s 1 1155.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBIBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 303 318 110 116 344 971 258 1016 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.06 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.0 2.2 0.0 3.9 1.9 0.0 0.9 37.7 0.0 3.8 25.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.0 2.2 0.0 3.9 1.9 0.0 0.9 37.7 0.0 3.8 25.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 303 318 110 116 344 971 258 1016 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.16 0.66 0.33 0.10 0.87 0.58 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 336 353 333 353 381 971 270 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 33.8 0.0 43.8 42.9 0.0 12.7 20.1 0.0 19.0 15.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 21.5 0.2 0.0 6.7 1.6 0.0 0.1 10.4 0.0 2.9 3.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.8 1.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.3 17.9 0.0 1.7 11.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.2 34.1 0.0 50.5 44.5 0.0 12.8 30.4 0.0 21.9 19.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C D D B C C B Approach Vol,veh/h 318 A 111 A 878 A 838 A Approach Delay,s/veh 56.0 48.4 29.7 19.6 Approach LOS E D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 60000m 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.2 54.1 20.7 7.5 56.8 10.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.8 39.7 16.0 2.9 27.5 5.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.4 0.2 0.0 5.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2019 AM 8: Kamehameha III Road IIQueen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 1. 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 475 14 417 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 475 14 417 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.4 30.4 30.0 13.6 40.0 9.6 36.0 Total Split(%) 27.6% 27.6% 27.3% 12.4% 36.4% 8.7% 32.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 13.5 13.5 7.1 8.3 45.0 5.2 36.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.59 0.07 0.48 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.08 0.27 0.46 0.50 0.12 0.48 Control Delay 37.2 0.5 30.0 43.8 15.3 40.8 14.9 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 37.2 0.5 30.0 43.8 15.3 40.8 14.9 LOS JJEJF D A C D B D B Approach Delay 32.1 30.0 19.1 15.4 Approach LOS IF C C B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:76.2 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.57 Intersection Signal Delay: 19.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 30.4s 1 130!3 1 X3,6 s YI I 136s u I 9.6s 1 1140s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WB NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 157 5 26 16 12 15 76 475 15 14 417 285 Future Volume(veh/h) 157 5 26 16 12 15 76 475 15 14 417 285 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1737 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 169 5 0 17 13 16 82 511 16 15 448 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 11 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 230 7 26 20 24 103 933 29 32 1689 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1732 51 1459 598 457 563 1654 1745 55 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 174 0 0 46 0 0 82 0 527 15 448 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1784 0 1459 1618 0 0 1654 0 1800 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 12.8 0.6 5.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.2 0.0 10.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 12.8 0.6 5.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.37 0.35 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 237 MPM 70 0 0 103 0 962 32 1689 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.55 0.46 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 696 0 622 0 0 227 0 962 137 1689 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 10.2 32.3 9.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 2.2 9.9 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.3 0.3 1.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.0 0.0 0.0 41.4 0.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 12.4 42.2 10.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 174 A 46 609 463 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.0 41.4 16.6 11.3 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.3 8.6 37.1 7.4 5.7 40.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.1 31.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.2 5.2 7.1 3.9 2.6 14.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.8 0.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Timings 2019 PM 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 260 877 503 223 609 41 227 283 247 51 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 877 503 223 609 41 227 283 247 51 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 17.0 40.5 40.5 15.0 38.5 38.5 15.0 46.1 46.1 13.4 44.5 44.5 Total Split(%) 14.8% 35.2% 35.2% 13.0% 33.5% 33.5% 13.0% 40.1% 40.1% 11.7% 38.7% 38.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 11.4 36.5 36.5 10.1 35.1 35.1 10.2 24.0 24.0 7.6 16.8 16.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.47 0.06 0.62 0.31 0.42 0.36 0.49 0.29 Control Delay 46.8 26.8 9.6 48.2 24.7 0.2 48.6 29.1 6.0 49.7 35.5 7.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 26.8 9.6 48.2 24.7 0.2 48.6 29.1 6.0 49.7 35.5 7.8 LOS JJEJF D C A D C A D C A D D A Approach Delay 24.7 29.5 27.4 30.7 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:91.7 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.64 Intersection Signal Delay:27.1 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy I f 13.4s 16.1s 15s a0.5s D5 dz15sS17s11138.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 877 503 223 609 41 227 283 247 51 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 877 503 223 609 41 227 283 247 51 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 895 0 228 621 0 232 289 0 52 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 357 1578 316 1521 319 691 76 512 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.45 0.00 0.09 0.43 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 895 0 228 621 0 232 289 0 52 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.0 15.1 0.0 5.2 9.8 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 2.3 6.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.0 15.1 0.0 5.2 9.8 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 2.3 6.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 357 1578 316 1521 319 691 76 512 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.57 0.72 0.41 0.73 0.42 0.68 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 533 1578 451 1521 448 1838 197 1767 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.0 16.5 0.0 35.5 15.6 0.0 35.5 28.4 0.0 38.0 32.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.1 1.5 0.0 3.2 0.8 0.0 3.6 0.4 0.0 10.3 1.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 5.9 0.0 2.2 3.8 0.0 2.3 2.4 0.0 1.2 2.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.0 17.9 0.0 38.8 16.4 0.0 39.1 28.8 0.0 48.3 33.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1160 A 849 A 521 A 371 A Approach Delay,s/veh 22.5 22.4 33.4 35.7 Approach LOS C C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 20.2 11.8 40.5 12.0 16.1 12.9 39.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 41.6 10.5 36.0 10.5 40.0 12.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.3 7.7 7.2 17.1 7.3 8.8 8.0 11.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.2 6.0 0.2 2.2 0.4 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2019 PM 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 663 291 72 548 314 126 318 34 348 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 663 291 72 548 314 126 318 34 348 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 13.0 34.0 34.0 9.5 30.5 30.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 11.3% 29.6% 29.6% 8.3% 26.5% 26.5% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)8.6 32.3 32.3 5.1 26.5 26.5 16.9 16.9 16.9 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.58 0.48 0.41 0.56 0.10 0.73 0.69 Control Delay 55.1 31.0 5.6 54.3 34.4 6.7 39.5 39.4 0.6 44.0 33.0 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.1 31.0 5.6 54.3 34.4 6.7 39.5 39.4 0.6 44.0 33.0 LOS 11MIrw' E C A D C A D D A D C Approach Delay 28.6 26.6 36.6 36.7 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:94.6 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.73 Intersection Signal Delay:31.2 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy t CD2 6 36s 35.5s 9.5s I 1134s 113 s 3C-.5 f- 5:005:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 PM 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 1' 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT W DT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 663 291 72 548 314 126 318 34 348 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 663 291 72 548 314 126 318 34 348 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3193 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 677 297 73 559 320 129 324 35 355 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 197 0 0 228 0 0 29 0 47 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 677 100 73 559 92 116 337 6 302 549 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 8.6 32.3 32.3 3.9 27.6 27.6 16.9 16.9 16.9 24.4 24.4 Effective Green,g(s) 8.6 32.3 32.3 3.9 27.6 27.6 16.9 16.9 16.9 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 300 1196 535 140 1003 451 282 598 271 411 815 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.19 0.02 0.16 0.07 c0.10 c0.19 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.57 0.19 0.52 0.56 0.21 0.41 0.56 0.02 0.73 0.67 Uniform Delay,dl 42.0 25.9 22.3 44.9 28.8 25.7 34.9 35.9 32.5 32.6 32.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.7 1.9 0.8 3.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.0 6.7 2.2 Delay(s)46.7 27.8 23.1 48.4 31.0 26.7 35.9 37.1 32.5 39.3 34.2 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 29.8 30.9 36.5 35.9 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 95.5 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 PM 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1 Movement EB ENBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 70 84 923 1005 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 70 84 923 1005 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 72 87 952 1036 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2162 - 1036 0 - 0 Stage 1 1036 - - - - - Stage 2 1126 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 0 671 - - - Stage 1 342 0 - - - - Stage 2 310 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 45 - 671 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 45 - - - - - Stage 1 298 - - - - - Stage 2 310 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 107.3 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 671 - 45 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 - 0.229 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 11.2 - 107.3 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 0.8 - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 PM 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.7 Movement1BT N Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 940 4 61 1015 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 940 4 61 1015 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1046 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2143 971 0 0 969 0 Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 1172 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 6.22 - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 3.318 - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 307 - - 688 - Stage 1 360 - - - - - Stage 2 288 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 47 307 - - 688 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 47 - - - - - Stage 1 360 - - - - - Stage 2 262 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 35.6 0 0.6 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 47 307 688 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 0.238 0.091 - HCM Control Delay(s) 112.5 20.4 10.8 - HCM Lane LOS F C B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.1 0.9 0.3 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2019 PM 5: Puapuaanui St II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group A SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 34 107 825 48 132 906 Future Volume(vph) 34 107 825 48 132 906 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Detector Phase 8 8 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 69.5 69.5 18.0 87.5 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 63.2% 63.2% 16.4% 79.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max None Max Act Effct Green(s)7.7 7.7 69.0 69.0 11.9 85.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.68 0.68 0.12 0.84 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.50 0.68 0.05 0.66 0.60 Control Delay 48.0 17.0 14.4 2.2 58.1 4.9 Queue Delay Johm 0.0 0.0 dw.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.0 17.0 14.4 2.2 58.1 4.9 LOS 111W D A E A Approach Delay 24.5 13.8 11.7 Approach LOS W C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 102.2 Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.68 Intersection Signal Delay: 13.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Puapuaanui St 132 18 s 69.5 s 87.5s 1 1122.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 5: Puapuaanui St II 11/12/2021 t t Movement IBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 34 107 825 48 132 906 Future Volume(veh/h) 34 107 825 48 132 906 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1826 1856 1841 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 35 0 851 0 136 934 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 5 3 4 2 2 Cap,veh/h 57 1358 168 1634 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.09 0.87 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 35 0 851 0 136 934 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1547 1856 1560 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.8 0.0 21.6 0.0 7.1 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.8 0.0 21.6 0.0 7.1 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 57 1358 168 1634 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.63 0.81 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 337 1358 253 1634 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 0.0 6.3 0.0 42.2 1.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 10.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 11.0 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 3.6 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 53.1 3.0 LnGrp LOS E A D A Approach Vol,veh/h 35 A 851 A 1070 Approach Delay,s/veh 56.0 8.5 9.4 Approach LOS E A A Timer-Assigned Phs 1 11mr 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.5 74.0 87.5 7.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 65.0 83.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.1 23.6 14.0 3.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 8.1 10.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.8 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR,WBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2019 PM 6: Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 13 372 243 854 887 36 Future Vol,veh/h 13 372 243 854 887 36 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 E98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 13 380 248 871 905 37 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2272 - 905 0 - 0 Stage 1 905 - - - - - Stage 2 1367 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 43 0 752 - - - Stage 1 385 0 - - - - Stage 2 230 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 29 - 752 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 29 - - - - - Stage 1 258 - - - - - Stage 2 230 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 208.2 2.7 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 752 - 29 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.33 - 0.457 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.1 - 208.2 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.4 - 1.5 - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2019 PM 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 52.2 52.2 12.8 55.5 55.5 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 8.6% 47.5% 47.5% 11.6% 50.5% 50.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 12.5 12.5 10.2 10.2 53.0 48.0 48.0 60.2 55.4 55.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.55 0.49 0.49 0.62 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.31 0.35 0.72 0.22 0.86 0.08 0.73 0.86 0.18 Control Delay 51.9 21.8 46.1 23.5 12.4 34.9 1.5 31.2 31.2 5.3 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.9 21.8 46.1 23.5 12.4 34.9 1.5 31.2 31.2 5.3 LOS 11MIrw' D C D C B C A C C A Approach Delay 40.4 28.3 31.4 27.6 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary 9 Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:97.2 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.86 Intersection Signal Delay:30.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: }7: Lako Street I tf i8 12.8s 52.2s 22.5 1 W22.5s 5 T :,: 9.5 s 1 1155.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement A BR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SB Lane Configurations 1 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 173 184 102 104 277 1050 373 1119 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.07 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 1.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.2 0.0 3.7 32.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 1.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.2 0.0 3.7 32.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 173 184 102 104 277 1050 373 1119 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.17 0.64 0.39 0.14 0.75 0.51 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 370 395 376 385 318 1050 426 1119 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 35.2 0.0 39.4 38.8 0.0 12.6 13.9 0.0 12.4 13.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.9 0.4 0.0 6.6 2.4 0.0 0.2 4.9 0.0 1.1 6.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.3 11.5 0.0 1.3 13.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 35.7 0.0 45.9 41.2 0.0 12.8 18.8 0.0 13.5 20.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 163 A 106 A 824 A 1103 A Approach Delay,s/veh 42.7 44.1 18.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.3 52.7 12.9 7.5 55.5 9.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.7 29.2 8.3 2.8 34.8 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.6 0.3 0.0 6.6 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2019 PM 8: Kamehameha III Road IIQueen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 1. 4---t t Lane Group AEbk&EBR WBT NBL NBT IL Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 495 17 511 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 495 17 511 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.4 30.4 30.0 11.6 40.0 9.6 38.0 Total Split(%) 27.6% 27.6% 27.3% 10.5% 36.4% 8.7% 34.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 19.4 19.4 6.8 7.0 40.7 5.3 35.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.51 0.07 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.12 0.23 0.43 0.56 0.15_ 0.54 Control Delay 39.9 1.4 28.2 48.3 20.7 44.1 18.7 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Total Delay 39.9 1.4 28.2 48.3 20.7 44.1 18.7 LOS D A C D C B Approach Delay 34.2 28.2 23.8 19.3 Approach LOS IF C C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:79.2 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:23.9 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 30.4s 1 130!3 11.6!3 Y 388 S F'- on 9.6s 1 1 140S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBR WB L NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(veh/h) 290 11 52 7 11 18 64 495 11 17 511 284 Future Volume(veh/h) 290 11 52 7 11 18 64 495 11 17 511 284 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 305 12 0 7 12 19 67 521 12 18 538 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 364 14 11 20 31 89 862 20 37 1592 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1622 64 1535 313 537 851 1767 1806 42 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 317 0 0 38 0 0 67 0 533 18 538 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1686 0 1535 1702 0 0 1767 0 1848 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 15.8 0.7 7.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 15.8 0.7 7.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.18 0.50 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 378 0 62 0 0 89 0 882 37 1592 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.60 0.48 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 584 0 580 0 0 168 0 882 122 1592 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 35.1 0.0 14.3 36.2 13.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 3.1 9.5 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 6.2 0.4 2.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.1 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 47.2 0.0 17.4 45.7 14.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 317 A 38 600 556 A Approach Delay,s/veh 34.1 44.9 20.7 15.0 Approach LOS C D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 8.3 38.0 7.2 6.1 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 7.1 33.5 25.5 5.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 4.8 9.4 3.6 2.7 17.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.4 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th Roundabout 2019 AM Roundabout 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/08/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 27.1 Intersection LOS D Approach EB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 99 1235 866 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 101 1260 917 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 884 48 180 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 213 937 1128 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 1 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 8.9 34.3 19.0 Approach LOS A D C Lara Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway,s 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway,s 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow,veh/h 101 1260 917 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 560 1314 1148 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.944 Flow Entry,veh/h 99 1235 866 Cap Entry,veh/h 549 1288 1085 V/C Ratio 0.180 0.959 0.798 Control Delay,s/veh 8.9 34.3 19.0 LOS A D C 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 18 9 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Roundabout 2019 AM Roundabout 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/08/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 18.4 Intersection LOS C Approach WB NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 161 1098 882 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 164 1122 927 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1104 83 10 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 101 854 1258 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 14.7 24.2 11.8 Approach LOS B C B Lara Left Left Left Designated Moves LR TR LT Assumed Moves LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway,s 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway,s 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow,veh/h 164 1122 927 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 448 1268 1366 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.979 0.951 Flow Entry,veh/h 161 1098 882 Cap Entry,veh/h 439 1241 1299 V/C Ratio 0.366 0.885 0.679 Control Delay,s/veh 14.7 24.2 11.8 LOS B C B 95th%tile Queue,veh 2 13 6 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th Roundabout 2019 AM Roundabout 6: Kuakini Street 11/08/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 75.6 Intersection LOS F Approach EB NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 190 1417 854 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 197 1471 898 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 827 8 567 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 638 1016 912 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.0 64.6 108.1 Approach LOS B F F Lara Left Left Left T Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway,s 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway,s 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow,veh/h 197 1471 898 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 594 1369 774 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.964 0.963 0.951 Flow Entry,veh/h 190 1417 854 Cap Entry,veh/h 573 1318 736 V/C Ratio 0.332 1.075 1.160 Control Delay,s/veh 11.0 64.6 108.1 LOS B F F 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 30 27 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2019 AM Protected Left Turn 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 54.1 54.1 10.9 55.5 55.5 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 8.6% 49.2% 49.2% 9.9% 50.5% 50.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.7 25.2 9.8 15.0 54.7 49.7 49.7 58.8 55.1 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.14 0.51 0.47 0.47 0.55 0.52 0.52 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.28 0.46 0.88 0.14 0.97 0.08 0.90 0.72 0.15 Control Delay 79.4 22.3 55.4 46.0 12.6 54.4 0.8 72.7 27.6 3.6 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.4 22.3 55.4 46.0 12.6 54.4 0.8 72.7 27.6 3.6 LOS JJEJF E C E D B D A E C A Approach Delay 61.3 47.7 49.4 31.3 Approach LOS W E D D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 106.8 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:44.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street 10.9s 54.1s 22.5s Y 22.5s 9.5s 1 1155.5s 22.5s 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM Protected Left Turn 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBIBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 302 304 111 104 351 981 264 1025 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.06 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.8 2.2 0.0 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.8 36.9 0.0 3.7 24.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.8 2.2 0.0 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.8 36.9 0.0 3.7 24.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 302 304 111 104 351 981 264 1025 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.17 0.66 0.36 0.10 0.86 0.57 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 339 356 336 356 388 981 278 1025 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.4 34.1 0.0 43.3 43.0 0.0 12.2 19.4 0.0 18.4 15.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 21.5 0.3 0.0 6.5 2.1 0.0 0.1 9.7 0.0 2.5 3.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.8 1.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.3 17.4 0.0 1.6 10.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.9 34.3 0.0 49.8 45.1 0.0 12.4 29.1 0.0 20.8 18.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C D D B C C B Approach Vol,veh/h 318 A 111 A 878 A 838 A Approach Delay,s/veh 55.8 48.2 28.5 19.0 Approach LOS E D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.1 54.1 10.4 19.9 7.5 56.7 20.5 9.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 49.6 18.0 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.7 38.9 5.8 4.2 2.8 26.9 15.8 3.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.1 0.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2019 AM Permissive Left Turn 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi Traffic Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1 9.5 50.7 50.7 10.2 51.4 51.4 Total Split(%) 39.1%139.1% 39.1% 39.1% 9.5% 50.7% 50.7% 10.2% 51.4% 51.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 51.2 46.2 46.2 54.1 50.7 50.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.51 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.51 0.51 v/c Ratio 1.04 0.20 0.17 0.48 0.14 0.98 0.08 0.91 0.74 0.15 Control Delay 101.1 11.4 24.2 12.5 11.1 54.0 3.8 71.0 26.5 3.2 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 101.1 11.4 24.2 12.5 11.1 54.0 3.8 71.0 26.5 3.2 LOS 11MIrw' F B C B B D A E C A Approach Delay 72.7 14.6 49.2 30.1 Approach LOS W E B D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Signal Delay:40.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases:: 7: Lako Street I f.2 10.2 s 50,7s 39.1 s 9.5s 151.4s 1 1 39.1s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM Permissive Left Turn 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBIBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 390 447 376 447 382 1015 294 1057 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.06 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1367 1870 0 1340 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1367 1870 0 1340 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.1 1.8 0.0 3.8 1.3 0.0 0.7 31.9 0.0 3.2 21.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.4 1.8 0.0 5.7 1.3 0.0 0.7 31.9 0.0 3.2 21.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 390 447 376 447 382 1015 294 1057 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.11 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.83 0.51 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 619 760 601 760 427 1015 306 1057 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 31.9 25.3 0.0 27.6 25.2 0.0 10.1 16.2 0.0 15.2 12.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.4 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 14.4 0.0 1.3 8.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.1 25.5 0.0 27.8 25.2 0.0 10.2 24.1 0.0 16.6 15.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 318 A 111 A 878 A 838 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.7 26.9 23.5 15.8 Approach LOS C C C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 qqo 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.6 50.7 24.8 7.3 53.0 24.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.7 46.2 34.6 5.0 46.9 34.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.2 33.9 19.4 2.7 23.6 7.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.0 0.9 0.0 5.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2019 AM ProtPermLeft Turn 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 I i Lane Group EBL EBT NBL NBT MBT SBR Lane Configurationsi Traffic Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.7 28.0 10.2 22.5 9.5 51.4 51.4 10.4 52.3 52.3 Total Split(%) 15.7% 28.0% 10.2% 22.5% 9.5% 51.4% 51.4% 10.4% 52.3% 52.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 29.1 21.1 19.1 13.4 52.0 47.0 47.0 55.4 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.22 0.20 0.14 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.58 0.54 0.54 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.29 0.26 0.84 0.12 0.92 0.07 0.85 0.69 0.14 Control Delay 72.4 17.8 26.6 36.5 10.0 40.6 0.2 58.6 22.7 1.7 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.4 17.8 26.6 36.5 10.0 40.6 0.2 58.6 22.7 1.7 LOS JJEJF E B C D A D A E C A Approach Delay 55.1 34.6 36.9 25.4 Approach LOS W E C D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length:95.6 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.95 Intersection Signal Delay:35.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street Di I tf WAS 51.4s 10.2s 128s 05 D- r.} 9.5s 52.3s 15,7s 1 122.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM ProtPermLeft Turn 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBIBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 370 260 253 113 380 1014 292 1056 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.06 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.2 2.1 0.0 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.7 32.5 0.0 3.3 22.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.2 2.1 0.0 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.7 32.5 0.0 3.3 22.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 370 260 253 113 380 1014 292 1056 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.20 0.29 0.34 0.09 0.83 0.51 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 370 508 280 389 424 1014 306 1056 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 31.8 33.0 0.0 35.6 39.0 0.0 10.3 16.5 0.0 15.5 12.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.8 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.7 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.3 14.7 0.0 1.3 9.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 33.3 0.0 36.3 40.7 0.0 10.4 24.4 0.0 16.9 15.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D D B C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 318 A 111 A 878 A 838 A Approach Delay,s/veh 37.8 37.8 23.8 16.1 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.7 51.4 8.9 16.5 7.3 53.7 15.7 9.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.9 46.9 5.7 23.5 5.0 47.8 11.2 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.3 34.5 5.3 4.1 2.7 24.0 13.2 3.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2019 AM 4-Lane 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(vph) 251 48 69 36 33 792 55 141 647 125 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 25.5 25.5 9.5 25.5 25.5 Total Split(%) 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 11.9% 31.9% 31.9% 11.9% 31.9% 31.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 14.6 14.6 10.8 10.8 26.3 21.3 21.3 29.3 27.5 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.42 0.39 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.30 0.27 0.74 0.11 0.78 0.11 0.68 0.50 0.19 Control Delay 38.7 14.0 28.8 20.5 15.2 30.7 0.4 36.1 20.9 4.8 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 38.7 14.0 28.8 20.5 15.2 30.7 0.4 36.1 20.9 4.8 LOS JJEJF D B C C B C A D C A Approach Delay 30.9 22.1 28.2 21.0 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:70 Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.78 Intersection Signal Delay:25.1 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street 9.5s 25.5s 22.5s 05 1 T 06 9.5 s 1 025.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 AM 4-1-ane 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Future Volume(veh/h) 251 48 69 69 36 267 33 792 55 141 647 125 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 335 352 129 136 378 1261 357 1403 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.40 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 3554 1560 1725 3526 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 267 51 0 73 38 0 35 843 0 150 688 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1777 1560 1725 1763 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.5 1.3 0.0 2.4 1.1 0.0 0.7 11.9 0.0 3.2 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.5 1.3 0.0 2.4 1.1 0.0 0.7 11.9 0.0 3.2 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 335 352 129 136 378 1261 357 1403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.15 0.57 0.28 0.09 0.67 0.42 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 542 569 538 569 462 1261 365 1403 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 22.9 20.1 0.0 26.5 26.0 0.0 11.5 16.1 0.0 11.9 13.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.4 0.2 0.0 3.9 1.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.7 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 4.8 0.0 1.1 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 20.2 0.0 30.4 27.1 0.0 11.6 19.0 0.0 12.7 14.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 318 A 111 A 878 A 838 A Approach Delay,s/veh 26.2 29.3 18.7 14.2 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.2 25.5 15.6 6.7 28.1 8.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 21.0 18.0 5.0 21.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.2 13.9 10.5 2.7 10.6 4.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.3 0.7 0.0 3.4 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 HCM 6th Roundabout 2019 PM Roundabout 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/08/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 18.3 Intersection LOS C Approach EB NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 82 1039 1054 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 83 1079 1076 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1057 10 89 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 108 1130 1000 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 10.3 16.1 21.2 Approach LOS B C C Lara Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway,s 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway,s 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow,veh/h 83 1079 1076 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 470 1366 1260 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.963 0.980 Flow Entry,veh/h 82 1039 1054 Cap Entry,veh/h 464 1315 1235 V/C Ratio 0.177 0.790 0.854 Control Delay,s/veh 10.3 16.1 21.2 LOS B C C 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 9 12 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Roundabout 2019 PM Roundabout 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/08/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 17.2 Intersection LOS C Approach WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 87 973 1109 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 89 1002 1135 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 68 15 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 72 1082 1072 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 9.9 16.0 18.7 Approach LOS A C C Lara Left Left Left Designated Moves LR TR LT Assumed Moves LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway,s 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway,s 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow,veh/h 89 1002 1135 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 499 1287 1359 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.971 0.977 Flow Entry,veh/h 87 973 1109 Cap Entry,veh/h 487 1250 1328 V/C Ratio 0.178 0.778 0.835 Control Delay,s/veh 9.9 16.0 18.7 LOS A C C 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 8 11 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 6th Roundabout 2019 PM Roundabout 6: Kuakini Street 11/08/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 24.7 Intersection LOS C Approach ER NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 393 1119 942 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 402 1150 962 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 923 14 253 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 292 1311 911 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 28.1 19.5 29.4 Approach LOS D C D Lara Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Follow-Up Headway,s 2.609 2.609 2.609 Critical Headway,s 4.976 4.976 4.976 Entry Flow,veh/h 402 1150 962 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 538 1360 1066 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.973 0.979 Flow Entry,veh/h 393 1119 942 Cap Entry,veh/h 526 1323 1044 V/C Ratio 0.747 0.845 0.902 Control Delay,s/veh 28.1 19.5 29.4 LOS D C D 95th%tile Queue,veh 6 11 13 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2019 PM Protected Left Turn 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT WBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 52.2 52.2 12.8 55.5 55.5 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 8.6% 47.5% 47.5% 11.6% 50.5% 50.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 12.5 15.5 9.0 9.7 53.0 48.0 48.0 60.2 55.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.10 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.26 0.40 0.73 0.22 0.86 0.08 0.73 0.86 0.18 Control Delay 51.6 19.4 50.2 24.4 12.4 34.4 1.5 31.7 30.7 5.3 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.6 19.4 50.2 24.4 12.4 34.4 1.5 31.7 30.7 5.3 LOS 11MIrw' D B D C B C A C C A Approach Delay 39.4 29.9 30.9 27.3 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:96.7 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.86 Intersection Signal Delay:29.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street 12.8s 52.2s 22.5s Y 22.5s 5 f,6 4- 9.5s 1 1155.5s 1 122.5!3 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM Protected Left Turn 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement A BR WBL WBT WB BT NBR SBL SB Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 173 178 107 103 277 1050 373 1119 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.07 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 1.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.1 0.0 3.7 32.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 1.3 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 27.1 0.0 3.7 32.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 173 178 107 103 277 1050 373 1119 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.17 0.61 0.40 0.14 0.75 0.51 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 370 395 376 386 318 1050 426 1119 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.4 35.5 0.0 39.1 38.8 0.0 12.6 13.9 0.0 12.4 13.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.7 0.5 0.0 5.5 2.5 0.0 0.2 4.9 0.0 1.1 6.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.3 11.5 0.0 1.3 13.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.2 35.9 0.0 44.6 41.3 0.0 12.8 18.8 0.0 13.4 20.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 163 A 106 A 824 A 1103 A Approach Delay,s/veh 42.6 43.3 18.5 19.0 Approach LOS D D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 #8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.3 52.7 9.6 12.6 7.5 55.5 12.9 9.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.3 47.7 18.0 18.0 5.0 51.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.7 29.1 5.0 3.3 2.8 34.7 8.3 3.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 6.6 0.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2019 PM Permissive Left Turn 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 9.5 54.4 54.4 11.6 56.5 56.5 Total Split(%) 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 10.6% 60.4% 60.4% 12.9% 62.8% 62.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 55.0 50.0 50.0 60.0 55.9 55.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.62 0.56 0.56 0.68 0.63 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.21 0.24 0.50 0.15 0.75 0.07 0.57 0.78 0.17 Control Delay 97.9 15.5 32.0 11.3 6.2 20.9 2.4 12.2 19.8 1.8 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 Total Delay 97.9 15.5 32.0 11.3 6.2 20.9 2.4 12.2 19.8 1.8 LOS JJEJF F B C B A C A M B A Approach Delay 66.5 15.7 18.9 16.2 Approach LOS W E B B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:88.5 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.94 Intersection Signal Delay:21.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7}: Lako Street 11.6s 54.4s 5 1 06 9.5s 1 '56.5s 24s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM Permissive Left Turn 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement A BR WBL WBT WB BT NBR SBL SB Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 257 268 268 262 347 1159 440 1218 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.06 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1344 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1344 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.6 1.2 0.0 3.4 1.6 0.0 0.6 22.0 0.0 3.0 26.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.2 1.2 0.0 4.6 1.6 0.0 0.6 22.0 0.0 3.0 26.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 257 268 268 262 347 1159 440 1218 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.12 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.68 0.43 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 392 457 407 446 393 1159 486 1218 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 29.8 0.0 31.8 30.0 0.0 8.7 9.8 0.0 8.5 9.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.7 4.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 8.4 0.0 0.9 10.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.6 30.0 0.0 32.3 30.2 0.0 8.9 12.9 0.0 9.2 13.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C A B A B Approach Vol,veh/h 163 A 106 A 824 A 1103 A Approach Delay,s/veh 34.5 31.5 12.7 13.0 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.5 54.4 16.0 7.4 56.5 16.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.1 49.9 19.5 5.0 52.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.0 24.0 11.2 2.6 28.6 6.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 6.4 0.3 0.0 7.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2019 PM ProtPerm Left Turn 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group E BT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 46.8 46.8 11.2 48.5 48.5 Total Split(%) 10.6% 25.0% 10.6% 25.0% 10.6% 52.0% 52.0% 12.4% 53.9% 53.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 14.8 10.9 13.9 8.9 47.4 42.4 42.4 52.0 48.0 48.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.59 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.59 0.59 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.30 0.26 0.69 0.18 0.81 0.08 0.66 0.83 0.18 Control Delay 47.9 18.8 27.3 19.0 7.9 25.7 0.4 20.4 24.4 2.7 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.9 18.8 27.3 19.0 7.9 25.7 0.4 20.4 24.4 2.7 LOS JJEJF D B C B A C A C C A Approach Delay 36.9 20.8 23.0 20.8 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary 9 Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:81 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.83 Intersection Signal Delay:22.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street 11.2s I46, 8s 9.5s 22.5s 9.5s 1 1'48.5s 9.5s 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM ProtPerm Left Turn 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement A BR WBL WBT WB BT NBR SBL SB Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 267 149 270 114 287 1042 384 1113 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.07 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.0 1.2 0.0 2.5 1.6 0.0 0.7 24.2 0.0 3.3 29.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.0 1.2 0.0 2.5 1.6 0.0 0.7 24.2 0.0 3.3 29.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 267 149 270 114 287 1042 384 1113 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.21 0.24 0.36 0.14 0.75 0.49 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 267 447 300 436 339 1042 417 1113 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 31.0 32.4 0.0 30.8 33.8 0.0 11.2 12.5 0.0 11.1 12.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.2 5.0 0.0 1.0 6.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 0.5 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 10.0 0.0 1.1 12.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.4 33.1 0.0 31.3 35.7 0.0 11.5 17.6 0.0 12.1 18.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C D B B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 163 A 106 A 824 A 1103 A Approach Delay,s/veh 32.6 33.0 17.3 17.8 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.8 46.8 8.2 10.5 7.3 49.3 9.5 9.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.7 42.3 5.0 18.0 5.0 44.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.3 26.2 4.5 3.2 2.7 31.2 7.0 3.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2019 PM 4-Lane 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(vph) 127 30 62 39 37 754 64 181 877 170 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 24.6 24.6 10.4 25.5 25.5 Total Split(%) 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 11.9% 30.8% 30.8% 13.0% 31.9% 31.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 10.0 10.0 8.7 8.7 25.8 20.7 20.7 30.1 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.46 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.25 0.26 0.61 0.13 0.66 0.11 0.59 0.56 0.22 Control Delay 30.5 14.4 27.3 14.0 12.2 23.3 0.4 22.9 18.8 4.5 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.5 14.4 27.3 14.0 12.2 23.3 0.4 22.9 18.8 4.5 LOS C B C B B C A M B A Approach Delay 24.4 16.8 21.1 17.4 Approach LOS W C B C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:61.1 Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 19.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street} D1 I D2 i 3 WAS 124.6s 22.5s 1 M22.5!3 5 T 9.5 s 25.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2019 PM 4-1-ane 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement A BR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurationsi tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Future Volume(veh/h) 127 30 48 62 39 193 37 754 64 181 877 170 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 187 200 133 137 355 1346 444 1546 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.43 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 3526 1585 1767 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 132 31 0 65 41 0 39 785 0 189 914 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1763 1585 1767 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.8 0.8 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 9.3 0.0 3.3 10.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.8 0.8 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 9.3 0.0 3.3 10.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 187 200 133 137 355 1346 444 1546 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.16 0.49 0.30 0.11 0.58 0.43 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 600 640 609 624 450 1346 475 1546 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 22.7 21.3 0.0 23.4 23.0 0.0 9.5 12.9 0.0 9.1 11.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.8 0.4 0.0 2.7 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.6 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.2 3.5 0.0 1.1 3.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.5 21.7 0.0 26.1 24.3 0.0 9.7 14.8 0.0 9.8 13.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C A B A B Approach Vol,veh/h 163 A 106 A 824 A 1103 A Approach Delay,s/veh 26.4 25.4 14.5 12.4 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 ME 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.5 24.6 10.1 6.7 27.4 8.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.9 20.1 18.0 5.0 21.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.3 11.3 5.8 2.7 12.3 3.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.5 0.4 0.0 4.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Appendix D Analysis Reports — Future Without Project Conditions 2024) Timings 2024 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 512 218 164 754 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 512 218 164 754 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 11.0 39.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 44.0 20.0 54.8 54.8 10.2 45.0 45.0 Total Split(%) 9.2% 32.5% 32.5% 13.3% 36.7% 36.7% 16.7% 45.7% 45.7% 8.5% 37.5% 37.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)6.4 36.2 36.2 9.6 41.8 41.8 11.9 30.1 30.1 5.8 17.3 17.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.41 0.32 0.48 0.50 0.04_ 0.58 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.50 0.41 Control Delay 49.9 24.4 5.2 46.7 22.8 0.1 45.8 23.4 3.9 51.4 36.3 7.6 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.9 24.4 5.2 46.7 22.8 0.1 45.8 23.4 3.9 51.4 36.3 7.6 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D D A Approach Delay 21.4 26.1 29.1 27.1 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:93.3 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.58 Intersection Signal Delay:25.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 10.2s 54.8s 1 E 18s 039S D 5 1 T 5 v 20s 045S its 1 W44s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 512 218 164 754 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 512 218 164 754 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 522 0 167 769 0 248 196 0 21 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 159 1554 250 1676 344 775 41 498 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.49 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 522 0 167 769 0 248 196 0 21 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.8 8.0 0.0 3.9 12.0 0.0 5.7 3.7 0.0 0.9 7.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.8 8.0 10.0 3.9 12.0 0.0 5.7 3.7 0.0 0.9 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 159 155429 250 1676 344 775 41 498 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.34 0.67 0.46 0.72 0.25 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 257 1554 482 1676 650 2205 125 1775 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 13.8 0.0 36.6 13.7 0.0 35.3 26.2 0.0 39.1 33.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.9 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 9.3 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 2.9 0.0 1.7 4.4 0.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.5 14.4 0.0 39.6 14.6 0.0 38.2 26.4 0.0 48.4 34.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 594 A 936 A 444 A 349 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.5 19.1 33.0 35.3 Approach LOS B B C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 22.2 10.5 42.0 12.7 15.9 8.5 44.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.7 50.3 11.5 34.5 15.5 40.5 6.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.7 5.9 10.0 7.7 9.1 3.8 14.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.4 0.2 3.5 0.5 2.3 0.0 5.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 AM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT EElk WBL WBT WB BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 418 124 57 683 507 146 337 47 403 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 418 124 57 683 507 146 337 47 403 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 12.0 36.9 36.9 10.1 35.0 35.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 30.8% 30.8% 8.4% 29.2% 29.2% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)7.4 35.1 35.1 5.7 31.0 31.0 18.1 18.1 18.1 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.37 0.21 0.31 0.67 0.62 0.48 0.60 0.14 0.75 0.73 Control Delay 55.3 28.7 6.5 54.3 35.8 6.7 43.0 41.9 1.1 47.9 39.0 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.3 28.7 6.5 54.3 35.8 6.7 43.0 41.9 1.1 47.9 39.0 LOS JJEJF E C A D D A D D A D D Approach Delay 28.8 24.8 38.6 42.0 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:99.8 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.75 Intersection Signal Delay:32.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy t2 37 s 36s 0,1 36.9s1112s11135S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 AM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 1' 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB SBL SBT JMR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 418 124 57 683 507 146 337 47 403 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 418 124 57 683 507 146 337 47 403 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 431 128 59 704 523 151 347 48 415 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 83 0 0 356 0 0 39 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 431 45 59 704 167 136 362 9 299 573 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 7.4 35.1 35.1 4.3 32.0 32.0 18.1 18.1 18.1 25.0 25.0 Effective Green,g(s) 7.4 35.1 35.1 4.3 32.0 32.0 18.1 18.1 18.1 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 228 1146 529 141 1084 492 281 602 267 396 789 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.13 0.02 c0.21 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.38 0.08 0.42 0.65 0.34 0.48 0.60 0.03 0.76 0.73 Uniform Delay,dl 44.7 24.5 21.9 46.9 29.4 26.2 37.0 37.9 34.0 34.9 34.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.6 0.9 0.3 2.0 3.0 1.9 1.3 1.7 0.0 8.0 3.4 Delay(s)46.3 25.4 22.2 48.9 32.4 28.0 38.3 39.6 34.0 42.9 38.0 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 28.3 31.4 38.8 39.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.5 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 16.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 54 156 1132 903 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 54 156 1132 903 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 58 168 1217 971 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2525 - 972 0 - 0 Stage 1 972 - - - - - Stage 2 1553 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —31 0 709 - - - Stage 1 367 0 - - - - Stage 2 192 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —24 - 708 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —24 - - - - - Stage 1 280 - - - - - Stage 2 192 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$798.8 1.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 708 - 24 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.237 - 1.971 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 11.7 -$798.8 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 5.9 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1146 15 73 879 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1146 15 73 879 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1232 16 78 945 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2341 - 0 0 1232 0 Stage 1 1240 - - - - - Stage 2 1101 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 40 0 - - 552 - Stage 1 273 0 - - - - Stage 2 318 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 34 - - - 552 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 34 - - - - - Stage 1 273 - - - - - Stage 2 273 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 148.6 0 1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 34 - 552 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.285 - 0.142 - HCM Control Delay(s) 148.6 0 12.6 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 0.5 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2024 AM WO 5: Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EB SBL Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(vph) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 841 24 43 780 68 Future Volume(vph) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 841 24 43 780 68 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 48.0 48.0 9.5 48.0 48.0 Total Split(%) 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 11.9% 60.0% 60.0% 11.9% 60.0% 60.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 49.1 46.2 46.2 48.2 44.3 44.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.64 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.58 0.58 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.03 0.21 0.41 0.17 0.34 0.39 0.80 0.03 0.17 0.79 0.08 Control Delay 49.5 24.4 8.1 31.5 26.4 7.2 8.9 21.2 0.0 6.3 21.4 2.2 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.5 24.4 8.1 31.5 26.4 7.2 8.9 21.2 0.0 6.3 21.4 2.2 LOS JJEJF D C A C C A A C A A C A Approach Delay 37.4 19.5 19.4 19.1 Approach LOS W D B B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:80 Actuated Cycle Length:76.3 Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.80 Intersection Signal Delay:21.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Puapuaanui St t2 9.5s 48S 22.5s 5 rti 9.5s 1 048S 2,5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 5: Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL SBL Lane Configurations r t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 841 24 43 780 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 841 24 43 780 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 210 10 0 117 64 0 113 895 0 46 830 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 Cap,veh/h 333 389 379 389 324 1072 279 1022 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.58 0.00 0.04 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 210 10 0 117 64 0 113 895 0 46 830 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.9 0.3 0.0 5.6 2.2 0.0 2.0 30.6 0.0 0.8 28.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.1 0.3 0.0 6.0 2.2 0.0 2.0 30.6 0.0 0.8 28.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 333 389 1 379 389 324 1072 279 1022 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.03 0.31 0.16 0.35 0.83 0.16 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 365 433 412 433 334 1072 322 1022 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 31.0 24.5 0.0 26.9 25.2 0.0 12.4 13.4 0.0 12.3 13.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 7.7 0.0 0.3 7.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.7 13.1 0.0 0.3 12.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 24.5 0.0 27.3 25.4 0.0 13.0 21.1 0.0 12.6 20.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B C B C Approach Vol,veh/h 220 A 181 A 1008 A 876 A Approach Delay,s/veh 33.6 26.7 20.2 20.4 Approach LOS C C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.6 49.4 20.7 9.1 48.0 20.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 43.5 18.0 5.0 43.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.8 32.6 16.1 4.0 30.5 8.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.0 0.1 0.0 5.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM WO 6: Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 900 905 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 900 905 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 0 171 1 647 968 973 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3235 - 973 0 - 0 Stage 1 973 - - - - - Stage 2 2262 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 11 0 709 - - - Stage 1 366 0 - - - - Stage 2 84 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1 - 709 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1 - - - - - Stage 1 32 - - - - - Stage 2 84 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 16.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 709 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.913 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 40.2 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS E - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 12.2 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2024 AM WO 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 278 48 69 36 33 918 55 160 769 142 Future Volume(vph) 278 48 69 36 33 918 55 160 769 142 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 25.2 25.2 22.5 22.5 9.5 69.3 69.3 13.0 72.8 72.8 Total Split(%) 19.4% 19.4% 17.3% 17.3% 7.3% 53.3% 53.3% 10.0% 56.0% 56.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 20.7 20.7 18.0 18.0 69.8 64.8 64.8 77.2 72.1 72.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.54 0.50 0.50 0.59 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.40 0.30 1.04 0.17 1.05 0.07 1.04 0.80 0.16 Control Delay 120.4 34.4 54.2 93.6 13.0 76.8 1.5 113.4 31.5 4.8 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 120.4 34.4 54.2 93.6 13.0 76.8 1.5 113.4 31.5 4.8 LOS F C D F B E A F C A Approach Delay 95.0 86.9 70.6 40.2 Approach LOS VP F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection Signal Delay:64.9 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street t2 13s 1 I69. 3s 25.2s T I MEW- 9.5 S1 I 17'2.0 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL - Lane Configurationsi1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 278 48 69 69 36 296 33 918 55 160 769 142 Future Volume(veh/h) 278 48 69 69 36 296 33 918 55 160 769 142 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 296 51 0 73 38 0 35 977 0 170 818 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 314 330 105 111 282 1032 198 1080 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.06 0.58 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 296 51 0 73 38 0 35 977 0 170 818 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 19.3 2.7 0.0 4.8 2.3 0.0 1.0 57.5 0.0 4.9 38.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 19.3 2.7 0.0 4.8 2.3 0.0 1.0 57.5 0.0 4.9 38.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 314 330 105 111 282 1032 198 1080 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.15 0.69 0.34 0.12 0.95 0.86 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 314 330 271 287 306 1032 221 1080 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 47.8 40.9 0.0 54.2 53.0 0.0 16.1 24.7 0.0 27.1 18.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 35.8 0.2 0.0 7.9 1.8 0.0 0.2 17.8 0.0 25.6 5.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.6 1.3 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.4 29.1 0.0 4.0 17.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.6 41.2 0.0 62.1 54.8 0.0 16.3 42.4 0.0 52.7 23.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E D B D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 347 A 111 A 1012 A 988 A Approach Delay,s/veh 77.4 59.6 41.5 28.4 Approach LOS E E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 69.3 25.2 7.9 72.8 11.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 64.8 20.7 5.0 68.3 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.9 59.5 21.3 3.0 40.7 6.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2024 AM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road IIQueen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 1. 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 562 16 490 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 562 16 490 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 11.0 35.0 9.5 33.5 Total Split(%) 29.0% 29.0% 28.6% 10.5% 33.3% 9.0% 31.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 13.7 13.7 7.1 6.7 39.4 5.1 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.56 0.07 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.08 0.26 0.53 0.62 0.13 0.61 Control Delay 34.6 0.4 27.3 49.1 19.4 38.4 17.4 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.6 0.4 27.3 49.1 19.4 38.4 17.4 LOS J§ Ww C A C D B D B Approach Delay 30.4 27.3 22.9 17.8 Approach LOS IF C C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length:70.7 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.62 Intersection Signal Delay:21.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 2 30.5s 1 M30s lis 33.5s 9.5s 35 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WB L NBR SBL Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 179 5 26 16 12 17 76 562 15 16 490 320 Future Volume(veh/h) 179 5 26 16 12 17 76 562 15 16 490 320 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1752 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 192 5 0 17 13 18 82 604 16 17 527 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 10 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 260 7 26 20 27 102 877 23 36 1579 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.46 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1738 45 1459 570 436 604 1668 1755 46 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 197 0 0 48 0 0 82 0 620 17 527 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1783 0 1459 1611 0 0 1668 0 1802 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 16.6 0.6 6.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.7 0.0 10.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 16.6 0.6 6.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 267 MPM 73 0 0 102 0 901 36 1579 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.69 0.47 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 734 0 650 0 0 172 0 901 141 1579 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 12.0 30.6 10.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 4.3 9.0 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.0 16.3 39.7 11.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 197 A 48 702 544 A Approach Delay,s/veh 29.6 39.5 19.4 12.4 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 14.0 8.4 33.5 7.3 5.8 36.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 6.5 29.0 25.5 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.7 5.1 8.2 3.9 2.6 18.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.0 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Timings 2024 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 260 978 503 226 682 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 978 503 226 682 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.51 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 19.9 44.0 44.0 16.0 40.1 40.1 16.0 46.2 46.2 13.8 44.0 44.0 Total Split(%) 16.6% 36.7% 36.7% 13.3% 33.4% 33.4% 13.3% 38.5% 38.5% 11.5% 36.7% 36.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 12.3 40.0 40.0 10.7 38.4 38.4 10.8 22.4 22.4 7.9 17.2 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.69 0.59 0.61 0.51 0.08 0.62 0.35 0.47 0.38 0.51 0.30 Control Delay 48.0 28.4 10.0 50.3 26.0 1.8 50.5 33.0 6.6 53.2 38.2 8.2 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.0 28.4 10.0 50.3 26.0 1.8 50.5 33.0 6.6 53.2 38.2 8.2 LOS JJEJF D C B D C A D C A D D A Approach Delay 26.0 30.3 29.2 33.2 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:96.9 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.69 Intersection Signal Delay:28.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 13.8s I 1146.2s 16s 5 06 08 16S 1 44 s I 119.9s 11 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 978 503 226 682 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 978 503 226 682 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 998 0 231 696 0 232 289 0 55 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 357 1635 316 1577 316 678 76 502 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.45 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 998 0 231 696 0 232 289 0 55 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 18.0 0.0 5.5 11.6 0.0 5.6 6.1 0.0 2.6 7.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.4 18.0 0.0 5.5 11.6 0.0 5.6 6.1 0.0 2.6 7.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 357 16351= 316 1577 316 678 76 502 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.61 0.73 0.44 0.73 0.43 0.72 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 620 1635 467 1577 463 1740 194 1648 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 17.1 0.0 37.7 16.0 0.0 37.6 30.4 0.0 40.3 34.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.0 1.7 0.0 3.3 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.0 12.1 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 7.1 0.0 2.4 4.5 0.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.1 18.8 0.0 40.9 16.9 0.0 41.0 30.8 0.0 52.4 35.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1263 A 927 A 521 A 374 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.3 22.9 35.3 38.3 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 20.8 12.3 44.0 12.4 16.5 13.4 42.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 9.3 41.7 11.5 39.5 11.5 39.5 15.4 35.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.6 8.1 7.5 20.0 7.6 9.2 8.4 13.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.3 6.9 0.3 2.2 0.5 4.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 PM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r ttr Traffic Volume(vph) 190 772 291 80 636 348 126 318 38 388 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 772 291 80 636 348 126 318 38 388 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 14.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 32.0 32.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split(%) 11.7% 30.0% 30.0% 8.3% 26.7% 26.7% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)9.3 34.1 34.1 5.6 28.0 28.0 17.3 17.3 17.3 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.65 0.40 0.42 0.66 0.51 0.42 0.57 0.11 0.74 0.70 Control Delay 55.1 33.7 5.6 56.3 37.5 6.7 41.8 41.7 0.7 45.9 35.1 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.1 33.7 5.6 56.3 37.5 6.7 41.8 41.7 0.7 45.9 35.1 LOS JJEJF E C A E D A D D A D D Approach Delay 30.4 28.9 38.5 38.8 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:99.1 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:33.1 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 2 o D3 --N 4 37s 37s 110S 1 36S D8 14S 1 132!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 PM WO 2: Henry St Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 1' 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB FT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 772 291 80 636 348 126 318 38 388 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 772 291 80 636 348 126 318 38 388 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 788 297 82 649 355 129 324 39 396 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 196 0 0 252 0 0 32 0 40 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 788 101 82 649 103 116 337 7 317 582 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 9.3 34.1 34.1 4.3 29.1 29.1 17.3 17.3 17.3 26.2 26.2 Effective Green,g(s) 9.3 34.1 34.1 4.3 29.1 29.1 17.3 17.3 17.3 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 310 1208 540 147 1011 454 276 585 266 422 837 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.22 0.02 0.19 0.07 c0.10 c0.20 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.65 0.19 0.56 0.64 0.23 0.42 0.58 0.03 0.75 0.70 Uniform Delay,dl 43.6 27.9 23.2 46.9 30.9 26.9 36.8 37.9 34.3 33.9 33.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.9 2.7 0.8 4.5 3.1 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 7.4 2.5 Delay(s)47.5 30.6 23.9 51.4 34.0 28.0 37.9 39.3 34.3 41.2 35.8 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 31.6 33.4 38.6 37.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 99.9 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM WO 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 83 83 1072 1175 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 83 83 1072 1175 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 86 86 1105 1211 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2488 - 1211 0 - 0 Stage 1 1211 - - - - - Stage 2 1277 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 32 0 576 - - - Stage 1 282 0 - - - - Stage 2 262 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 27 - 576 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 27 - - - - - Stage 1 240 - - - - - Stage 2 262 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 204.8 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 576 - 27 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.149 - 0.382 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.3 - 204.8 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 1.2 - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM WO 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.7 MovementBT N Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 1089 4 61 1198 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 1089 4 61 1198 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1235 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2486 - 0 0 1123 0 Stage 1 1125 - - - - - Stage 2 1361 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 - - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 - - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 31 0 - - 600 - Stage 1 303 0 - - - - Stage 2 233 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 28 - - - 600 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 28 - - - - - Stage 1 303 - - - - - Stage 2 209 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 228.8 0 0.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 28 - 600 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.515 - 0.105 - HCM Control Delay(s) 228.8 0 11.7 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.6 - 0.3 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2024 PM WO 5: Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(vph) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 773 58 142 973 100 Future Volume(vph) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 773 58 142 973 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 57.9 57.9 9.6 58.0 58.0 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 64.3% 64.3% 10.7% 64.4% 64.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 58.4 53.4 53.4 58.6 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.07 0.32 0.20 0.07 0.29 0.61 0.72 0.06 0.44 0.89 0.11 Control Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.4 30.0 8.6 25.2 17.3 1.7 8.8 27.7 1.9 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.4 30.0 8.6 25.2 17.3 1.7 8.8 27.7 1.9 LOS E C A C C A C B A A C A Approach Delay 41.7 18.2 17.3 23.3 Approach LOS W D B B C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:88.6 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.89 Intersection Signal Delay:23.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases:} 5: Puapuaanui St 0 I2 9.6s 57.9!3 D5 0 9.5s 58s 1122.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 5: Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBR WBL BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 199 50 23 104 105 773 58 142 973 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 773 58 142 973 100 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.ur--w 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1870 1856 1841 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 25 0 52 25 0 114 797 0 146 1003 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 326 350 326 350 262 1122 389 1135 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 25 0 52 25 0 114 797 0 146 1003 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 1.0 0.0 2.8 1.0 0.0 2.1 26.3 0.0 2.7 40.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 1.0 0.0 3.8 1.0 0.0 2.1 26.3 0.0 2.7 40.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 326 350 1 326 350 262 1122 389 1135 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.44 0.71 0.38 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 349 381 349 381 268 1122 394 1135 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.5 29.6 0.0 31.1 29.6 0.0 16.9 12.1 0.0 10.5 14.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.1 3.8 0.0 0.6 10.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 10.7 0.0 0.9 17.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 29.6 0.0 31.4 29.6 0.0 18.0 15.9 0.0 11.1 24.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 241 A 77 A 911 A 1149 A Approach Delay,s/veh 38.7 30.8 16.2 23.1 Approach LOS D C B C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.4 57.9 21.0 9.2 58.1 21.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.1 53.4 18.0 5.0 53.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 28.3 16.4 4.1 42.1 5.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.5 0.1 0.0 6.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM WO 6: Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 938 1109 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 938 1109 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized fp - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 E98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 0 332 347 957 1132 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2783 - 1132 0 - 0 Stage 1 1132 - - - - - Stage 2 1651 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 20 0 617 - - - Stage 1 299 0 - - - - Stage 2 166 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 9 - 617 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 9 - - - - - Stage 1 131 - - - - - Stage 2 166 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 4.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 617 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.562 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 18.1 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 3.5 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2024 PM WO 7: Lako Street I 11/12/2021 Lane Group BT NBL NBT_ SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(vph) 143 30 62 39 37 888 64 200 1015 188 Future Volume(vph) 143 30 62 39 37 888 64 200 1015 188 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 69.2 69.2 15.8 75.5 75.5 Total Split(%) 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 7.3% 53.2% 53.2% 12.2% 58.1% 58.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 14.7 14.7 12.6 12.6 70.0 65.0 65.0 80.9 75.4 75.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.66 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.33 0.36 0.83 0.30 0.94 0.08 0.94 0.92 0.19 Control Delay 71.1 26.5 56.4 40.3 15.8 46.0 0.2 79.5 36.8 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.1 26.5 56.4 40.3 15.8 46.0 0.2 79.5 36.8 5.7 LOS E C E D B D A E D A Approach Delay 55.4 43.4 41.9 38.7 Approach LOS W E D D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 121.8 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.94 Intersection Signal Delay:41.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Lako Street 15.8s 89,2s 22.5s 25 T `-6 9.5 S1 H75.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 7: Lako Street 111/ 12/2021 Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 143 30 48 62 39 218 37 888 64 200 1015 188 Future Volume(veh/h) 143 30 48 62 39 218 37 888 64 200 1015 188 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 149 31 0 65 41 0 39 925 0 208 1057 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 182 194 96 99 221 1143 316 1210 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.62 0.00 0.06 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 149 31 0 65 41 0 39 925 0 208 1057 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.1 1.7 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.0 0.9 41.9 0.0 4.6 50.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.1 1.7 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.0 0.9 41.9 0.0 4.6 50.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 182 194 96 99 221 1143 316 1210 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.16 0.68 0.42 0.18 0.81 0.66 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 287 307 292 299 245 1143 388 1210 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.2 44.8 0.0 51.0 50.3 0.0 17.8 16.1 0.0 18.9 15.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.8 0.4 0.0 8.0 2.8 0.0 0.4 6.2 0.0 2.9 8.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.5 0.8 0.0 2.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 18.3 0.0 3.1 22.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 45.2 0.0 59.0 53.0 0.0 18.2 22.3 0.0 21.8 24.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E D B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 180 A 106 A 964 A 1265 A Approach Delay,s/veh 55.8 56.7 22.2 24.2 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.3 72.2 15.9 8.0 75.5 10.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.3 64.7 18.0 5.0 71.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.6 43.9 11.1 2.9 52.4 5.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 7.6 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2024 PM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road IIQueen Kaahumanu Hwy 11/12/2021 1. 4---t t Lane Group AEbk&EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 579 19 595 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 579 19 595 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 9.8 35.0 9.5 34.7 Total Split(%) 29.0% 29.0% 28.6% 9.3% 33.3% 9.0% 33.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 20.4 20.4 6.8 5.5 35.7 5.2 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.07 0.48 0.07 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.11 0.23 0.52 0.71 0.16 0.65 Control Delay 36.6 1.0 26.2 54.9 27.0 42.0 21.4 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.6 1.0 26.2 54.9 27.0 42.0 21.4 LOS D A C D C D C Approach Delay 31.8 26.2 29.7 21.8 Approach LOS IF C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length:75 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:26.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 30.5 s 1 M30 s 9.8s 34.7s 9.5s 1 1135 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM WO 8: Kamehameha III Road Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 1I11/ 12/2021 Movement EBR WB L NBR SBL SB Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(veh/h) 325 11 52 7 11 20 64 579 11 19 595 316 Future Volume(veh/h) 325 11 52 7 11 20 64 579 11 19 595 316 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 342 12 0 7 12 21 67 609 12 20 626 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 403 14 11 19 34 90 804 16 41 1476 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.42 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1628 57 1535 297 509 890 1767 1813 36 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 354 0 0 40 0 0 67 0 621 20 626 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1695 0 0 1767 0 1849 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 20.5 0.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 20.5 0.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.52 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 418 0 65 0 0 90 0 820 41 1476 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.76 0.49 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 603 0 595 0 0 129 0 820 123 1476 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 26.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 16.9 35.1 15.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.6 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 6.5 8.9 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 8.7 0.4 3.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.7 0.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 46.9 0.0 23.4 44.0 16.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 354 A 40 688 646 A Approach Delay,s/veh 33.7 43.7 25.7 16.8 Approach LOS C D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 22.5 8.2 34.7 7.3 6.2 36.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 5.3 30.2 25.5 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 16.5 4.7 11.1 3.7 2.8 22.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2024 AM WO Roundabout 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/09/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 125.2 Intersection LOS F Approach ER i NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 105 1385 1003 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 107 1412 1062 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1029 48 171 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 204 1088 1289 Follow-Up Headway,s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 1 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.7 161.5 86.7 Approach LOS B F F Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway,s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow,veh/h 107 1412 1062 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 404 1077 952 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.981 0.944 Flow Entry,veh/h 105 1385 1003 Cap Entry,veh/h 396 1056 899 V/C Ratio 0.265 1.311 1.115 Control Delay,s/veh 13.7 161.5 86.7 LOS B F F 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 51 27 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2024 AM WO Roundabout 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/09/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 83.0 Intersection LOS F Approach WB NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 161 1248 1023 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 164 1275 1075 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1257 83 10 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 101 1002 1411 Follow-Up Headway,s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.3 126.7 38.6 Approach LOS D F E Left Left Left Designated Moves LR TR LT Assumed Moves LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway,s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow,veh/h 164 1275 1075 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 321 1040 1119 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.979 0.951 Flow Entry,veh/h 161 1248 1023 Cap Entry,veh/h 316 1018 1064 V/C Ratio 0.510 1.226 0.961 Control Delay,s/veh 25.3 126.7 38.6 LOS D F E 95th%tile Queue,veh 3 40 17 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2024 AM WO Roundabout 6: Kuakini Street 11/09/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 267.2 Intersection LOS F Approach EB NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 171 1615 973 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 178 1676 1022 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1022 0 660 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 660 1200 1016 Follow-Up Headway,s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 18.4 235.5 363.4 Approach LOS C F F Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway,s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow,veh/h 178 1676 1022 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 407 1130 584 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.961 0.963 0.952 Flow Entry,veh/h 171 1615 973 Cap Entry,veh/h 391 1089 556 V/C Ratio 0.438 1.483 1.750 Control Delay,s/veh 18.4 235.5 363.4 LOS C F F 95th%tile Queue,veh 2 74 58 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2024 PM WO Roundabout 3: Hualalai Rd (North) 11/09/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 97.4 Intersection LOS F Approach EB NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 96 1191 1229 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 98 1237 1254 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1235 10 88 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 107 1323 1159 Follow-Up Headway,s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.4 79.4 121.1 Approach LOS C F F Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway,s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow,veh/h 98 1237 1254 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 329 1119 1035 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.963 0.980 Flow Entry,veh/h 96 1191 1229 Cap Entry,veh/h 322 1077 1014 V/C Ratio 0.298 1.106 1.212 Control Delay,s/veh 17.4 79.4 121.1 LOS C F F 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 29 39 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2024 PM WO Roundabout 4: Hualalai Rd (South)11/09/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 93.7 Intersection LOS F Approach WB NB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 87 1127 1298 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 89 1161 1328 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 68 15 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 72 1275 1231 Follow-Up Headway,s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 15.0 78.3 112.3 Approach LOS C F F Left Left Left Designated Moves LR TR LT Assumed Moves LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway,s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow,veh/h 89 1161 1328 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 355 1056 1113 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.971 0.978 Flow Entry,veh/h 87 1127 1298 Cap Entry,veh/h 347 1025 1088 V/C Ratio 0.251 1.100 1.193 Control Delay,s/veh 15.0 78.3 112.3 LOS C F F 95th%tile Queue,veh 1 28 39 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2024 PM WO Roundabout 6: Kuakini Street 11/09/2021 Intersection Intersection Delay,s/veh 153.6 Intersection LOS F Approach ER i NB Entry Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow,veh/h 332 1304 1132 Demand Flow Rate,veh/h 339 1340 1155 Vehicles Circulating,veh/h 1155 0 354 Vehicles Exiting,veh/h 354 1494 986 Follow-Up Headway,s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg,#/h 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay,s/veh 71.7 109.2 228.8 Approach LOS F F F Left Left Left Designated Moves LR LT TR Assumed Moves LR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway,s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow,veh/h 339 1340 1155 Cap Entry Lane,veh/h 356 1130 793 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.973 0.980 Flow Entry,veh/h 332 1304 1132 Cap Entry,veh/h 349 1100 778 V/C Ratio 0.952 1.186 1.456 Control Delay,s/veh 71.7 109.2 228.8 LOS F F F 95th%tile Queue,veh 10 38 52 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Appendix E Analysis Reports — Future With Project Conditions (2024) Timings 2024 AM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 516 218 165 775 38 243 192 118 22 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 516 218 165 775 38 243 192 118 22 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 11.0 39.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 44.0 20.0 54.8 54.8 10.2 45.0 45.0 Total Split(%) 9.2% 32.5% 32.5% 13.3% 36.7% 36.7% 16.7% 45.7% 45.7% 8.5% 37.5% 37.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)6.4 36.2 36.2 9.7 41.8 41.8 11.9 30.1 30.1 5.8 17.3 17.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.41 0.32 0.48 0.52 0.05_ 0.58 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.41 Control Delay 49.9 24.5 5.2 46.6 23.0 0.1 45.8 23.4 4.0 51.5 36.3 7.6 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.9 24.5 5.2 46.6 23.0 0.1 45.8 23.4 4.0 51.5 36.3 7.6 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D D A Approach Delay 21.5 26.1 29.1 27.1 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:93.3 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.58 Intersection Signal Delay:25.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 10.2s 54.8s 1 E 18s 039S D 5 1 T 0 v 20s 045S its 1 W44s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL - Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 516 218 165 775 38 243 192 118 22 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 516 218 165 775 38 243 192 118 22 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 527 0 168 791 0 248 196 0 22 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 159 1553 251 1676 344 772 43 498 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.49 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 527 0 168 791 0 248 196 0 22 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.8 8.1 0.0 3.9 12.4 0.0 5.7 3.7 0.0 1.0 7.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.8 8.10d 0.0 3.9 12.4 0.0 5.7 3.7 0.0 1.0 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 159 1553 1 251 1676 344 772 43 498 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.34 0.67 0.47 0.72 0.25 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 257 1553 482 1676 650 2205 125 1775 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 13.9 0.0 36.6 13.8 0.0 35.3 26.3 0.0 39.1 33.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.6 0.0 3.1 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 9.1 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 2.9 0.0 1.7 4.6 0.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.5 14.5 0.0 39.6 14.8 0.0 38.2 26.5 0.0 48.2 34.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 599 A 959 A 444 A 350 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.5 19.2 33.0 35.4 Approach LOS B B C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.5 22.1 10.5 42.0 12.7 15.9 8.5 44.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.7 50.3 11.5 34.5 15.5 40.5 6.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.0 5.7 5.9 10.1 7.7 9.1 3.8 14.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.4 0.2 3.6 0.5 2.3 0.0 5.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 AM W 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT JBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 423 124 59 710 529 146 337 47 408 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 423 124 59 710 529 146 337 47 408 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 12.0 36.9 36.9 10.1 35.0 35.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 36.0 36.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 30.8% 30.8% 8.4% 29.2% 29.2% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)7.4 35.1 35.1 5.7 31.0 31.0 18.2 18.2 18.2 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.38 0.21 0.33 0.70 0.64 0.48 0.60 0.14 0.74 0.73 Control Delay 55.6 29.0 6.5 54.8 36.9 6.8 43.2 42.1 1.1 47.1 38.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.6 29.0 6.5 54.8 36.9 6.8 43.2 42.1 1.1 47.1 38.8 LOS 11MIr' E C A D D A D D A D D Approach Delay 29.1 25.5 38.8 41.6 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 100.3 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:32.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 t2 37s 36s 0,1 36.9s1112s11135S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 AM W 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT E BL WBT WB SBL SBT ER Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 423 124 59 710 529 146 337 47 408 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 423 124 59 710 529 146 337 47 408 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 436 128 61 732 545 151 347 48 421 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 84 0 0 372 0 0 39 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 436 44 61 732 173 136 362 9 299 580 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 7.3 35.1 35.1 4.3 32.1 32.1 18.2 18.2 18.2 25.5 25.5 Effective Green,g(s) 7.3 35.1 35.1 4.3 32.1 32.1 18.2 18.2 18.2 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 223 1139 526 140 1081 491 281 602 267 402 800 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.13 0.02 c0.21 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.08 0.44 0.68 0.35 0.48 0.60 0.03 0.74 0.72 Uniform Delay,dl 45.1 24.8 22.2 47.2 30.0 26.5 37.2 38.1 34.2 34.8 34.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.7 1.0 0.3 2.2 3.4 2.0 1.3 1.7 0.0 7.3 3.3 Delay(s)46.8 25.8 22.5 49.4 33.4 28.5 38.5 39.8 34.2 42.1 37.9 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 28.6 32.1 39.0 39.3 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 101.1 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 20.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 55 164 1183 914 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 55 164 1183 914 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized e - None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 59 176 1272 983 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2608 - 984 0 - 0 Stage 1 984 - - - - - Stage 2 1624 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —27 0 702 - - - Stage 1 362 0 - - - - Stage 2 177 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —20 - 701 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —20 - - - - - Stage 1 271 - - - - - Stage 2 177 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1027.1 1.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 701 - 20 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.252 - 2.366 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 11.9 $1027.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1 - 6.3 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1206 15 73 891 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1206 15 73 891 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized W - Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1297 16 78 958 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2419 - 0 0 1297 0 Stage 1 1305 - - - - - Stage 2 1114 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 36 0 - - 521 - Stage 1 254 0 - - - - Stage 2 314 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 31 - - - 521 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 31 - - - - - Stage 1 254 - - - - - Stage 2 267 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 167 0 1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 31 - 521 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.312 - 0.151 - HCM Control Delay(s) 167 0 13.1 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1 - 0.5 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2024 AM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EB NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(vph) 193 9 75 111 59 140 104 901 26 43 792 68 Future Volume(vph) 193 9 75 111 59 140 104 901 26 43 792 68 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.6 58.0 58.0 9.5 57.9 57.9 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.7% 64.4% 64.4% 10.6% 64.3% 64.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 58.7 55.7 55.7 57.7 53.8 53.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.67 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.03 0.22 0.45 0.18 0.35 0.36 0.81 0.03 0.18 0.75 0.07 Control Delay 62.3 29.3 9.1 37.6 31.5 8.2 7.6 20.5 0.0 6.0 18.4 2.2 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.3 29.3 9.1 37.6 31.5 8.2 7.6 20.5 0.0 6.0 18.4 2.2 LOS E C A D C A A C A A B A Approach Delay 46.8 23.2 18.7 16.6 Approach LOS W D C B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:86.7 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.83 Intersection Signal Delay:21.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 &Puapuaanui St I N 2 9.5s 58s 05 on 9.6s 1 111957.9 s 22.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 111 59 140 104 901 26 43 792 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 111 59 140 104 901 26 43 792 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 210 10 0 118 64 0 113 959 0 46 843 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 Cap,veh/h 311 376 357 376 337 1133 262 1088 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.04 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 210 10 0 118 64 0 113 959 0 46 843 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.8 0.4 0.0 6.6 2.5 0.0 2.1 37.3 0.0 0.9 31.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.3 0.4 0.0 7.0 2.5 0.0 2.1 37.3 0.0 0.9 31.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 311 376 1 357 376 337 1133 262 1088 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.03 0.33 0.17 0.34 0.85 0.18 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 311 376 357 376 345 1133 293 1088 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.4 28.8 0.0 31.6 29.6 0.0 12.4 14.1 0.0 14.0 13.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 7.9 0.0 0.3 5.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 0.2 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.8 16.0 0.0 0.4 12.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.0 28.8 0.0 32.1 29.8 0.0 13.0 22.0 0.0 14.3 19.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C B C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 220 A 182 A 1072 A 889 A Approach Delay,s/veh 41.4 31.3 21.0 18.7 Approach LOS D C C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 59.2 22.5 9.2 57.9 22.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 53.5 18.0 5.1 53.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 39.3 18.3 4.1 33.0 9.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 11.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 914 932 2 Future Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 914 932 2 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 0 171 1 647 983 1002 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3279 - 1002 0 - 0 Stage 1 1002 - - - - - Stage 2 2277 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 10 0 691 - - - Stage 1 355 0 - - - - Stage 2 83 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1 - 691 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1 - - - - - Stage 1 23 - - - - - Stage 2 83 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 17.9 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 691 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.937 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 45 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS E - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 13.1 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2024 AM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 29.0 29.0 24.4 24.4 9.5 81.4 81.4 15.2 87.1 87.1 Total Split(%) 19.3% 19.3% 16.3% 16.3% 6.3% 54.3% 54.3% 10.1% 58.1% 58.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 24.5 24.5 19.9 19.9 81.9 76.9 76.9 92.1 84.5 84.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.55 0.51 0.51 0.61 0.56 0.56 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.40 0.31 1.06 0.18 1.03 0.07 1.03 0.81 0.17 Control Delay 121.8 41.4 63.1 102.0 14.0 73.7 0.2 115.4 34.4 5.8 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 121.8 41.4 63.1 102.0 14.0 73.7 0.2 115.4 34.4 5.8 LOS 11MIr' F D E F B E A F C A Approach Delay 98.2 95.4 67.7 42.7 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay:66.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street n- p . 1C y -15.2 s 81.4 S 29 s I 024.4s v D r .? 9.5 1 1187.1s I J 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB R SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 319 335 102 108 284 1077 205 1122 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.06 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 22.6 3.1 0.0 5.5 2.7 0.0 1.1 64.7 0.0 5.5 44.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 22.6 3.1 0.0 5.5 2.7 0.0 1.1 64.7 0.0 5.5 44.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 319 335 102 108 284 1077 205 1122 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.15 0.72 0.35 0.12 0.92 0.85 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 319 335 257 272 301 1077 244 1122 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.3 47.3 0.0 63.3 61.9 0.0 17.3 26.0 0.0 30.9 19.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 34.1 0.2 0.0 9.0 2.0 0.0 0.2 13.4 0.0 20.5 4.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.2 1.5 0.0 2.8 1.3 0.0 0.4 31.6 0.0 4.5 19.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.4 47.5 0.0 72.3 63.9 0.0 17.5 39.5 0.0 51.4 24.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 350 A 111 A 1021 A 1011 A Approach Delay,s/veh 83.3 69.4 38.7 28.7 Approach LOS F E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.1 83.2 29.0 8.2 87.1 12.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.7 76.9 24.5 5.0 82.6 19.9 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.5 66.7 24.6 3.1 46.4 7.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2024 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road IIRoute 11 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 568 16 501 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 568 16 501 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 11.0 35.0 9.5 33.5 Total Split(%) 29.0% 29.0% 28.6% 10.5% 33.3% 9.0% 31.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 13.8 13.8 7.0 6.7 39.4 5.1 29.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.56 0.07 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.08 0.27 0.53 0.63 0.13 0.63 Control Delay 34.7 0.4 27.3 49.3 19.7 38.5 17.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.7 0.4 27.3 49.3 19.7 38.5 17.8 LOS MW C A C D B D B Approach Delay 30.5 27.3 23.1 18.2 Approach LOS IF C C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length:70.7 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.63 Intersection Signal Delay:21.7 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Route 11 1614\ :-, 30.5s 1 M30s its 1 1133.5s 9.5s 1 1135 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WB L R SB Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 181 5 26 16 12 17 76 568 15 16 501 328 Future Volume(veh/h) 181 5 26 16 12 17 76 568 15 16 501 328 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1752 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 5 0 17 13 18 82 611 16 17 539 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 10 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 264 7 26 20 27 102 876 23 36 1575 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.46 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1739 45 1459 570 436 604 1668 1756 46 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 200 0 0 48 0 0 82 0 627 17 539 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1783 0 1459 1611 0 0 1668 0 1802 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 16.9 0.6 6.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.8 0.0 10.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 16.9 0.6 6.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 270 MPM 73 0 0 102 0 899 36 1575 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.70 0.47 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 732 0 648 0 0 171 0 899 141 1575 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 12.2 30.7 11.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 4.5 9.1 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.2 0.3 2.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 0.0 0.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.0 16.7 39.7 11.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 200 A 48 709 556 A Approach Delay,s/veh 29.6 39.6 19.7 12.5 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 14.1 8.4 33.5 7.4 5.8 36.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 6.5 29.0 25.5 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.8 5.1 8.4 3.9 2.6 18.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.0 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 AM W 9: Route 11 & Royal Vistas 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 29 61 914 14 13 903 Future Vol,veh/h 29 61 914 14 13 903 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - 500 500 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 32 66 993 15 14 982 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2003 993 0 0 993 0 Stage 1 993 - - - - - Stage 2 1010 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 66 298 - - 696 - Stage 1 359 - - - - - Stage 2 352 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 65 298 - - 696 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 65 - - - - - Stage 1 359 - - - - - Stage 2 345 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 47.5 0 0.1 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 65 298 696 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.485 0.222 0.02 - HCM Control Delay(s) 104.2 20.5 10.3 - HCM Lane LOS F C B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.9 0.8 0.1 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Timings 2024 PM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 260 997 503 227 695 61 227 283 268 55 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 997 503 227 695 61 227 283 268 55 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.51 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 19.9 45.0 45.0 16.0 41.1 41.1 16.0 45.2 45.2 13.8 43.0 43.0 Total Split(%) 16.6% 37.5% 37.5% 13.3% 34.3% 34.3% 13.3% 37.7% 37.7% 11.5% 35.8% 35.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 12.4 41.0 41.0 10.8 39.4 39.4 10.8 22.5 22.5 7.9 17.3 17.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.69 0.59 0.62 0.51 0.09 0.62 0.36 0.48 0.39 0.51 0.30 Control Delay 48.6 28.4 10.2 51.1 25.9 2.4 51.3 33.5 6.7 54.3 38.8 8.3 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.6 28.4 10.2 51.1 25.9 2.4 51.3 33.5 6.7 54.3 38.8 8.3 LOS JJEJF D C B D C A D C A D D A Approach Delay 26.2 30.3 29.5 33.7 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:98.1 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.69 Intersection Signal Delay:28.7 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 2 13.8 1 N45.2s 16s 08 16s 1 1143S 19.9s 1,1s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 997 503 227 695 61 227 283 268 55 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 997 503 227 695 61 227 283 268 55 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 1017 0 232 709 0 232 289 0 56 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 356 1651 315 1594 315 673 76 499 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.47 0.00 0.09 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 1017 0 232 709 0 232 289 0 56 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.5 18.6 0.0 5.7 12.0 0.0 5.7 6.2 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.5 18.6 0.0 5.7 12.0 0.0 5.7 6.2 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 356 1651 315 1594 315 673 76 499 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.62 0.74 0.44 0.74 0.43 0.74 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 611 1651 460 1594 456 1672 192 1582 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 17.2 0.0 38.3 16.1 0.0 38.3 30.9 0.0 40.9 35.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.1 1.7 0.0 3.4 0.9 0.0 3.6 0.4 0.0 12.8 1.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 7.3 0.0 2.5 4.6 0.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 1.4 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.7 18.9 0.0 41.7 17.0 0.0 41.8 31.4 0.0 53.7 36.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1282 A 941 A 521 A 375 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.4 23.1 36.0 39.0 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 20.9 12.4 45.0 12.4 16.6 13.5 43.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 9.3 40.7 11.5 40.5 11.5 38.5 15.4 36.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 8.2 7.7 20.6 7.7 9.3 8.5 14.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.3 7.1 0.3 2.2 0.5 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 PM W 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 798 291 82 655 360 126 318 39 401 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 798 291 82 655 360 126 318 39 401 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 14.0 37.0 37.0 9.5 32.5 32.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split(%) 11.7% 30.8% 30.8% 7.9% 27.1% 27.1% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)9.3 34.9 34.9 5.1 28.4 28.4 17.3 17.3 17.3 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.66 0.40 0.48 0.67 0.52 0.42 0.57 0.12 0.75 0.72 Control Delay 55.4 33.3 5.4 59.3 37.6 6.6 41.8 41.8 0.7 46.9 36.3 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.4 33.3 5.4 59.3 37.6 6.6 41.8 41.8 0.7 46.9 36.3 LOS 11MIr' E C A E D A D D A D D Approach Delay 30.3 29.1 38.5 39.9 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length:99.5 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.75 Intersection Signal Delay:33.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 37.5s 36s 9.5s Y 37S 14s 1 1132.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2024 PM W 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB FT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 798 291 82 655 360 126 318 39 401 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 798 291 82 655 360 126 318 39 401 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 814 297 84 668 367 129 324 40 409 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 194 0 0 259 0 0 33 0 38 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 814 103 84 668 108 116 337 7 319 595 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 9.3 34.9 34.9 3.9 29.5 29.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 26.2 26.2 Effective Green,g(s) 9.3 34.9 34.9 3.9 29.5 29.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 308 1230 550 133 1019 458 276 586 266 420 833 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.23 0.02 0.19 0.07 c0.10 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.66 0.19 0.63 0.66 0.24 0.42 0.58 0.03 0.76 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 43.9 27.7 22.9 47.5 31.0 26.9 37.0 38.1 34.5 34.2 33.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.0 2.8 0.8 9.4 3.3 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 7.7 2.9 Delay(s)47.9 30.6 23.6 56.9 34.3 28.1 38.0 39.5 34.5 41.9 36.6 Level of Service D C C E C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 31.6 34.0 38.7 38.4 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.4 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 85 86 1105 1215 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 85 86 1105 1215 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 88 89 1139 1253 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2570 - 1253 0 - 0 Stage 1 1253 - - - - - Stage 2 1317 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 29 0 555 - - - Stage 1 269 0 - - - - Stage 2 250 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 24 - 555 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 24 - - - - - Stage 1 226 - - - - - Stage 2 250 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 239.9 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 555 - 24 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.16 - 0.43 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.7 - 239.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.3 - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.9 Movement Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 1126 4 61 1241 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 1126 4 61 1241 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1279 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2568 - 0 0 1161 0 Stage 1 1163 - - - - - Stage 2 1405 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 - - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 - - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 28 0 - - 581 - Stage 1 291 0 - - - - Stage 2 221 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 25 - - - 581 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 25 - - - - - Stage 1 291 - - - - - Stage 2 197 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 269.4 0 0.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 25 - 581 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.577 - 0.108 - HCM Control Delay(s) 269.4 0 11.9 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.8 - 0.4 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2024 PM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(vph) 199 23 116 51 23 104 105 810 60 142 1016 100 Future Volume(vph) 199 23 116 51 23 104 105 810 60 142 1016 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 57.9 57.9 9.6 58.0 58.0 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 64.3% 64.3% 10.7% 64.4% 64.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 58.4 53.4 53.4 58.6 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.07 0.32 0.21 0.07 0.29 0.62 0.75 0.07 0.48 0.93 0.11 Control Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.4 30.0 8.6 26.7 18.6 1.8 10.0 32.6 1.9 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.4 30.0 8.6 26.7 18.6 1.8 10.0 32.6 1.9 LOS E C A C C A C B A A C A Approach Delay 41.7 18.3 18.5 27.5 Approach LOS W D B B C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:88.6 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.93 Intersection Signal Delay:25.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases:} 5: Route 11 &Puapuaanui St 0 I2 9.6s 57.9!3 5 T 06 9.5s 58s 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBR WBL NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 199 51 23 104 105 810 60 142 1016 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 199 23 116 51 23 104 105 810 60 142 1016 100 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.0 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1870 1856 1841 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 25 0 53 25 0 114 835 0 146 1047 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 326 350 326 350 234 1122 365 1135 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 25 0 53 25 0 114 835 0 146 1047 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 1.0 0.0 2.9 1.0 0.0 2.1 28.5 0.0 2.7 44.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 1.0 0.0 3.9 1.0 0.0 2.1 28.5 0.0 2.7 44.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 326 350 1 326 350 234 1122 365 1135 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.49 0.74 0.40 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 349 381 349 381 240 1122 370 1135 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.5 29.6 0.0 31.2 29.6 0.0 19.3 12.5 0.0 11.5 15.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.6 4.5 0.0 0.7 13.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 11.7 0.0 1.0 20.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 29.6 0.0 31.4 29.6 0.0 20.9 17.0 0.0 12.2 29.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 241 A 78 A 949 A 1193 A Approach Delay,s/veh 38.7 30.8 17.5 27.0 Approach LOS D C B C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.4 57.9 21.0 9.2 58.1 21.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.1 53.4 18.0 5.0 53.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 30.5 16.4 4.1 46.1 5.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.7 0.1 0.0 4.5 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SB Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized fp - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 0 332 347 999 1143 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2836 - 1143 0 - 0 Stage 1 1143 - - - - - Stage 2 1693 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 18 0 611 - - - Stage 1 296 0 - - - - Stage 2 158 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 8 - 611 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 8 - - - - - Stage 1 128 - - - - - Stage 2 158 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 4.7 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 611 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.568 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 18.3 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 3.6 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2024 PM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 4---t i Lane Group A LBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi Traffic Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 78.0 78.0 17.0 85.5 85.5 Total Split(%) 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 6.8% 55.7% 55.7% 12.1% 61.1% 61.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.7 15.7 14.0 14.0 78.8 73.7 73.7 90.8 83.4 83.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.68 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.34 0.35 0.87 0.33 0.94 0.07 0.97 0.92 0.19 Control Delay 81.3 30.0 61.3 50.1 17.5 47.0 0.3 91.2 38.5 5.5 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.3 30.0 61.3 50.1 17.5 47.0 0.3 91.2 38.5 5.5 LOS JJEJF F C E D B D A F D A Approach Delay 63.6 52.3 43.0 41.6 Approach LOS W E D D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 134 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:44.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 0. t02 4 08 17s I 78s 1 122.5s S T .36 9.5 d 185.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 183 196 94 96 228 1181 309 1244 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.06 0.66 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.5 1.8 0.0 4.4 2.7 0.0 0.9 47.0 0.0 4.9 54.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.5 1.8 0.0 4.4 2.7 0.0 0.9 47.0 0.0 4.9 54.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 183 196 94 96 228 1181 309 1244 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.16 0.69 0.43 0.17 0.81 0.68 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 259 276 263 270 248 1181 387 1244 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 49.7 0.0 56.7 55.9 0.0 18.3 16.6 0.0 20.8 15.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 15.5 0.4 0.0 8.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 6.0 0.0 3.4 7.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.4 0.9 0.0 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 20.5 0.0 3.7 23.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.0 50.0 0.0 65.5 58.9 0.0 18.6 22.6 0.0 24.3 23.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E E B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 185 A 106 A 994 A 1276 A Approach Delay,s/veh 65.8 63.0 22.5 23.8 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6ROW 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.6 82.0 17.2 8.2 85.5 10.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.5 73.5 18.0 5.0 81.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.9 49.0 12.5 2.9 56.1 6.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 8.6 0.3 0.0 10.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2024 PM W 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group An&b&EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 597 19 601 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 597 19 601 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 9.6 35.0 9.5 34.9 Total Split(%) 29.0% 29.0% 28.6% 9.1% 33.3% 9.0% 33.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 21.0 21.0 6.8 5.3 35.6 5.2 31.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.07 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.11 0.24 0.54 0.74 0.17 0.66 Control Delay 36.8 1.0 26.0 57.5 28.4 42.2 21.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.8 1.0 26.0 57.5 28.4 42.2 21.7 LOS D A C E C D C Approach Delay 32.1 26.0 31.2 22.1 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length:75.6 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.75 Intersection Signal Delay:27.1 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road 1614\ :-, 30.5 1 M30s 9,6s 34.9s 9.5 s 35 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 335 11 52 7 11 21 64 597 11 19 601 319 Future Volume(veh/h) 335 11 52 7 11 21 64 597 11 19 601 319 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 353 12 0 7 12 22 67 628 12 20 633 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 413 14 11 19 35 90 800 15 41 1467 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1630 55 1535 289 495 908 1767 1815 35 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 365 0 0 41 0 0 67 0 640 20 633 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1692 0 0 1767 0 1849 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 21.8 0.8 9.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 21.8 0.8 9.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.54 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 427 0 65 0 0 90 0 815 41 1467 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.79 0.49 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 595 0 586 0 0 122 0 815 121 1467 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 26.2 0.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 17.6 35.6 15.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.6 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 7.5 8.9 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 9.4 0.4 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.8 0.0 0.0 44.4 0.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 25.1 44.5 16.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 365 A 41 707 653 A Approach Delay,s/veh 34.8 44.4 27.4 17.2 Approach LOS C D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 23.2 8.2 34.9 7.3 6.2 37.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 5.1 30.4 25.5 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 17.2 4.8 11.4 3.8 2.8 23.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th TWSC 2024 PM W 9: Route 11 & Royal Vistas 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 39 979 41 45 1067 Future Vol,veh/h 12 39 979 41 45 1067 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized N& - None - None Storage Length 0 0 - 500 500 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 42 1064 45 49 1160 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2322 1064 0 0 1109 0 Stage 1 1064 - - - - - Stage 2 1258 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 41 271 - - 630 - Stage 1 332 - - - - - Stage 2 268 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 38 271 - - 630 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 38 - - - - - Stage 1 332 - - - - - Stage 2 247 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 49.5 0 0.5 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 38 271 630 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.343 0.156 0.078 - HCM Control Delay(s) 142.9 20.7 11.2 - HCM Lane LOS F C B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.1 0.5 0.3 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Timings 2024 AM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 602 914 932 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 602 914 932 2 Turn Type Perm Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 51.0 127.5 76.5 76.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 34.0% 85.0% 51.0% 51.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)5.5 46.5 123.0 72.0 72.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.34 0.89 0.52 0.52 v/c Ratio 0.33 1.08 0.61 1.06 0.00 Control Delay 1.8 103.8 3.5 78.2 10.5 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 1.8 103.8 3.5 78.2 10.5 LOS JJEr' A F A E B Approach Delay 43.3 78.1 Approach LOS W D E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 137.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay:53.2 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei 51s 5,5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 602 914 932 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 602 914 932 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 647 983 1002 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 650 1761 1031 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.96 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 647 983 1002 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 46.2 5.2 67.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 46.2 5.2 67.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 650 1761 1031 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 650 1761 1031 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.2 26.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 34.2 1.3 22.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 26.1 0.6 34.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 74.6 1.5 48.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS A E A D Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1630 1002 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 30.5 48.8 Approach LOS C D Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 51.0 76.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 46.5 72.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.2 0.0 48.2 69.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 11.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 AM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 602 914 932 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 602 914 932 2 Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)6.1 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.47 0.61 0.62 0.00 Control Delay 12.3 241.8 3.7 3.9 0.5 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.3 241.8 3.7 3.9 0.5 LOS 11MIr' B F A A A Approach Delay 98.2 3.9 Approach LOS W F A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 138.2 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.47 Intersection Signal Delay:59.2 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s 22.5!; Ei 127.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 602 914 932 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 602 914 932 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 647 983 1002 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 575 1761 1761 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 562 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 647 983 1002 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 562 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 117.5 5.2 5.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 123.0 5.2 5.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 575 1761 1761 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.13 0.56 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 575 1761 1761 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 77.1 1.3 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 87.9 1.5 1.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1630 1002 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 35.8 1.5 Approach LOS D A Timer-Assigned Phs 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 127.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 123.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 125.0 0.0 7.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 12.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 AM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 602 914 932 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 602 914 932 2 Turn Type Perm pm+pt NA NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 47.0 127.5 80.5 80.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 31.3% 85.0% 53.7% 53.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)5.5 123.0 123.0 76.0 76.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.35 1.08 0.61 1.00 0.00 Control Delay 2.0 97.9 3.5 59.8 9.5 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.0 97.9 3.5 59.8 9.5 LOS JJEJF A F A E A Approach Delay 40.9 59.7 Approach LOS W D E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 137.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay:45.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street tD2 n 127.5s I 22.5!; 05 T 47s SF-.5{ 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 602 914 932 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 602 914 932 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 647 983 1002 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 680 1761 1188 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.96 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 647 983 1002 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 31.9 5.2 54.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 31.9 5.2 54.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 680 1761 1188 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.95 0.56 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 777 1761 1188 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 35.4 0.2 17.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 20.1 1.3 7.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.6 23.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 55.4 1.5 24.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS A E A C Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1630 1002 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 22.9 24.6 Approach LOS C C Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 40.0 87.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 42.5 76.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.2 0.0 33.9 56.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 11.6 0.0 1.6 8.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group BT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 340 979 1120 Future Volume(vph) 325 340 979 1120 Turn Type Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 33.4 127.5 94.1 Total Split(%) 15.0% 22.3% 85.0% 62.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Act Effct Green(s)8.9 28.9 123.2 89.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.20 0.87 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.96 0.62 0.97 Control Delay 22.2 92.7 5.0 44.2 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.2 92.7 5.0 44.2 LOS C F A D Approach Delay 27.6 44.2 Approach LOS W C D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 141.1 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:33.7 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street tD2 n 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei D5 T 06 33.4s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 347 999 1143 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 373 1790 1347 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.96 0.72 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 347 999 1143 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 24.4 5.2 56.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 24.4 5.2 56.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 373 1790 1347 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.93 0.56 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 404 1790 1347 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 49.5 0.2 12.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 27.1 1.3 6.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.6 23.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 76.6 1.4 19.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS A E A B Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1346 1143 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 20.8 19.7 Approach LOS C B Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 31.2 96.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 28.9 89.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.2 0.0 26.4 58.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 12.0 0.0 0.3 13.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 PM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group BT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 340 979 1120 Future Volume(vph) 325 340 979 1120 Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.9 123.0 123.0 123.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.82 0.82 0.82 v/c Ratio 0.97 1.31 0.66 0.75 Control Delay 72.1 184.3 7.8 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.1 184.3 7.8 10.1 LOS E F A B Approach Delay 53.3 10.1 Approach LOS W D B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 149.9 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31 Intersection Signal Delay:38.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s 22.5!; Ei 127.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 347 999 1143 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 504 1790 1804 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 492 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 347 999 1143 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 492 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 27.7 5.2 7.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 34.7 5.2 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 504 1790 1804 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.69 0.56 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 504 1790 1804 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 7.5 1.3 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 9.3 1.4 1.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1346 1143 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 3.5 1.9 Approach LOS A A Timer-Assigned Phs 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 127.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 123.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 36.7 0.0 9.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 24.4 0.0 17.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 PM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group BT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 340 979 1120 Future Volume(vph) 325 340 979 1120 Turn Type Perm pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.6 29.0 127.4 98.4 Total Split(%) 15.1% 19.3% 84.9% 65.6% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 10.2 123.0 123.0 94.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.86 0.86 0.66 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.97 0.63 0.93 Control Delay 28.9 86.8 5.5 36.0 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.9 86.8 5.5 36.0 LOS INV- C F A D Approach Delay 26.4 36.0 Approach LOS W C D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 142.2 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:30.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.4s 22.6 Eis 29s M98.4!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 340 979 1120 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 347 999 1143 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 479 1790 1665 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.96 0.89 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 347 999 1143 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.2 22.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.2 22.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 479 1790 1665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.72 0.56 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 752 1790 1665 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.2 2.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.3 2.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.6 4.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 10.0 1.4 4.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1346 1143 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 3.6 4.3 Approach LOS A A Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.4 0.0 9.5 117.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 122.9 18.1 24.5 93.9 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.2 0.0 3.7 24.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 12.0 0.0 1.0 16.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 3.9 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2024 AM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 27.0 28.1 22.5 23.6 9.5 75.2 75.2 14.2 79.9 79.9 Total Split(%) 19.3% 20.1% 16.1% 16.9% 6.8% 53.7% 53.7% 10.1% 57.1% 57.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 22.5 32.7 11.2 19.1 75.7 70.7 70.7 84.9 77.3 77.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.23 0.08 0.14 0.54 0.50 0.50 0.61 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.29 0.52 1.06 0.19 1.05 0.07 1.03 0.82 0.17 Control Delay 123.3 32.3 74.3 101.0 13.9 77.1 0.2 112.1 34.7 5.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 123.3 32.3 74.3 101.0 13.9 77.1 0.2 112.1 34.7 5.4 LOS F C E F B E A F C A Approach Delay 96.6 96.4 70.9 42.3 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay:67.2 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 14.2s M75.2s 22.5s Y 5 T D6 9.5 d H79.9 s 1 27S I 1123.6s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB R SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 321 311 101 81 291 1075 212 1121 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.6 2.9 0.0 5.1 2.5 0.0 1.0 59.2 0.0 5.0 40.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.6 2.9 0.0 5.1 2.5 0.0 1.0 59.2 0.0 5.0 40.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 321 311 101 81 291 1075 212 1121 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.16 0.72 0.47 0.12 0.92 0.82 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 321 354 255 286 312 1075 248 1121 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 50.4 44.6 0.0 57.9 58.3 0.0 15.8 23.8 0.0 28.2 17.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 32.9 0.2 0.0 9.2 4.1 0.0 0.2 13.5 0.0 17.1 4.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.1 1.4 0.0 2.5 1.3 0.0 0.4 28.8 0.0 4.0 18.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.3 44.8 0.0 67.0 62.4 0.0 16.0 37.4 0.0 45.3 22.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 350 A 111 A 1021 A 1011 A Approach Delay,s/veh 77.7 65.4 36.7 26.3 Approach LOS E E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.6 76.3 11.7 25.3 8.0 79.9 27.0 9.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 9.7 70.7 18.0 23.6 5.0 75.4 22.5 19.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.0 61.2 7.1 4.9 3.0 42.6 22.6 4.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 AM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EB BT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 9.5 71.0 71.0 12.0 73.5 73.5 Total Split(%) 40.7% 40.7% 40.7% 40.7% 6.8% 50.7% 50.7% 8.6% 52.5% 52.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 71.5 66.5 66.5 76.9 70.9 70.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.55 0.51 0.51 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.18 0.16 0.52 0.27 1.12 0.08 1.24 0.90 0.18 Control Delay 148.7 16.2 30.4 23.0 19.2 102.1 7.4 184.4 45.5 7.7 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 148.7 16.2 30.4 23.0 19.2 102.1 7.4 184.4 45.5 7.7 LOS 11MIrw' F B C C B F A F D A Approach Delay 109.9 24.3 94.3 61.2 Approach LOS W F C F E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.24 Intersection Signal Delay:74.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 12s 171s 57s 05 05 9.5 d 173.5s 5 7 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB R SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 390 478 376 478 291 1067 213 1113 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1367 1870 0 1341 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1367 1870 0 1341 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 24.8 2.4 0.0 5.1 1.8 0.0 0.9 55.8 0.0 4.8 38.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 26.6 2.4 0.0 7.6 1.8 0.0 0.9 55.8 0.0 4.8 38.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 390 478 376 478 291 1067 213 1113 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.11 0.19 0.08 0.12 0.92 0.82 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 657 843 638 843 316 1067 224 1113 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 43.1 33.2 0.0 36.1 33.0 0.0 15.1 22.7 0.0 26.5 17.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 14.4 0.0 19.9 4.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.7 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.4 27.2 0.0 3.9 16.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 33.3 0.0 36.4 33.0 0.0 15.2 37.1 0.0 46.4 21.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C B D D C Approach Vol,veh/h 350 A 111 A 1021 A 1011 A Approach Delay,s/veh 44.4 35.2 36.4 26.0 Approach LOS D D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.3 71.0 34.3 7.9 74.4 34.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 66.5 52.5 5.0 69.0 52.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.8 57.8 28.6 2.9 40.3 9.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.8 1.2 0.0 7.3 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 AM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT JkBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 25.0 39.2 10.9 25.1 9.6 84.2 84.2 15.7 90.3 90.3 Total Split(%) 16.7% 26.1% 7.3% 16.7% 6.4% 56.1% 56.1% 10.5% 60.2% 60.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 45.6 34.7 27.0 20.6 84.8 79.7 79.7 95.4 87.7 87.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.64 0.58 0.58 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.29 0.30 1.01 0.16 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.78 0.16 Control Delay 103.7 31.9 43.7 84.6 12.2 62.7 0.1 108.3 30.6 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 103.7 31.9 43.7 84.6 12.2 62.7 0.1 108.3 30.6 4.9 LOS F C D F B E A F C A Approach Delay 82.7 77.7 57.7 38.8 Approach LOS W F E E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay:56.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street I I t 2 fo3 --IPO4 15.7 s 84 2 s 5 T f,6 9.5 4 1190.3!3 1 1 25 1 H25.1s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB R SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 356 274 193 77 332 1156 251 1193 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.62 0.00 0.05 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 20.5 3.2 0.0 5.2 2.7 0.0 0.9 56.8 0.0 4.8 39.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.5 3.2 0.0 5.2 2.7 0.0 0.9 56.8 0.0 4.8 39.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 356 274 193 77 332 1156 251 1193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.19 0.38 0.50 0.11 0.85 0.69 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 356 487 193 289 352 1156 305 1193 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 50.3 49.9 0.0 57.7 62.6 0.0 13.6 20.6 0.0 25.9 15.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.1 0.3 0.0 1.2 4.9 0.0 0.1 8.1 0.0 5.1 3.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.1 1.5 0.0 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 26.1 0.0 3.7 16.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.4 50.3 0.0 59.0 67.5 0.0 13.8 28.7 0.0 31.1 18.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E E B C C B Approach Vol,veh/h 350 A 111 A 1021 A 1011 A Approach Delay,s/veh 64.1 61.9 28.1 21.0 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.5 86.9 10.9 24.1 8.1 90.3 25.0 10.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.2 79.7 6.4 34.7 5.1 85.8 20.5 20.6 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.8 58.8 7.2 5.2 2.9 41.1 22.5 4.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 8.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 AM W 4-Lane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(vph) 281 48 69 36 33 927 55 164 787 146 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 23.0 23.0 22.5 22.5 9.5 33.5 33.5 11.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 25.6% 25.6% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 37.2% 37.2% 12.2% 38.9% 38.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.2 17.2 14.9 14.9 34.2 29.2 29.2 38.5 34.8 34.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.45 0.41 0.41 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.31 0.24 0.86 0.14 0.82 0.10 0.84 0.59 0.21 Control Delay 56.1 16.8 32.7 38.8 15.5 34.0 0.3 53.9 24.3 4.5 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.1 16.8 32.7 38.8 15.5 34.0 0.3 53.9 24.3 4.5 LOS 11MIrw' E B C D B C A D C A Approach Delay 44.6 37.7 31.5 26.1 Approach LOS W D D C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:85.9 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.86 Intersection Signal Delay:32.1 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street D1 I tD2 08 11s I33. 5s 23s Q5 T 06 9.5s 1 035!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 AM W 4-1-ane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 281 48 69 69 36 299 33 927 55 164 787 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 352 370 116 123 346 1436 338 1590 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 3554 1560 1725 3526 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 299 51 0 73 38 0 35 986 0 174 837 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1777 1560 1725 1763 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.6 1.6 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.8 16.4 0.0 4.0 12.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.6 1.6 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.8 16.4 0.0 4.0 12.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 352 370 116 123 346 1436 338 1590 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.14 0.63 0.31 0.10 0.69 0.51 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 459 482 443 469 408 1436 353 1590 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.8 23.8 0.0 32.7 32.0 0.0 12.1 17.6 0.0 13.1 14.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 1.4 0.0 0.1 2.7 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.8 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.3 6.7 0.0 1.5 4.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.0 23.9 0.0 38.2 33.4 0.0 12.2 20.3 0.0 14.3 15.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C B C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 350 A 111 A 1021 A 1011 A Approach Delay,s/veh 36.8 36.5 20.1 15.2 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6000 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 33.5 18.7 7.0 36.9 9.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 29.0 18.5 5.0 30.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.0 18.4 13.6 2.8 14.3 4.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 5.4 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group BT WBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 78.0 78.0 17.0 85.5 85.5 Total Split(%) 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 6.8% 55.7% 55.7% 12.1% 61.1% 61.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.7 21.8 10.3 14.0 78.8 73.7 73.7 90.8 83.4 83.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.16 0.08 0.10 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.68 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.26 0.48 0.87 0.33 0.94 0.07 0.97 0.92 0.19 Control Delay 81.3 26.3 72.1 50.1 17.5 47.0 0.3 91.2 38.5 5.5 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.3 26.3 72.1 50.1 17.5 47.0 0.3 91.2 38.5 5.5 LOS JJEJF F C E D B D A F D A Approach Delay 62.3 54.3 43.0 41.6 Approach LOS W E D D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 134 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:45.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 17s 78s 22.5s 5 .6e 08 9.5 d 185.5 s 22 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 183 173 95 75 241 1200 321 1261 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.67 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.4 1.8 0.0 4.3 2.6 0.0 0.9 45.0 0.0 4.7 51.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.4 1.8 0.0 4.3 2.6 0.0 0.9 45.0 0.0 4.7 51.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 183 173 95 75 241 1200 321 1261 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.18 0.69 0.55 0.16 0.80 0.65 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 263 280 267 274 261 1200 402 1261 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 52.8 50.3 0.0 55.9 56.5 0.0 17.0 15.4 0.0 19.3 14.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 15.2 0.5 0.0 8.4 6.0 0.0 0.3 5.5 0.0 2.6 7.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.3 0.9 0.0 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 19.4 0.0 3.5 22.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.0 50.8 0.0 64.3 62.5 0.0 17.3 21.0 0.0 22.0 21.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E E B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 185 A 106 A 994 A 1276 A Approach Delay,s/veh 65.1 63.6 20.8 21.9 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.5 82.2 10.9 15.6 8.1 85.5 17.0 9.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.5 73.5 18.0 18.0 5.0 81.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.7 47.0 6.3 3.8 2.9 53.9 12.4 4.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 8.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 10.8 0.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 PM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group A LBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi Traffic Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 9.5 58.8 58.8 13.2 62.5 62.5 Total Split(%) 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 9.5% 58.8% 58.8% 13.2% 62.5% 62.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 59.3 54.3 54.3 67.0 61.8 61.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.67 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.19 0.21 0.53 0.25 0.95 0.08 0.94 0.93 0.19 Control Delay 123.1 15.6 33.0 15.3 9.9 42.3 3.2 72.0 33.6 2.5 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 123.1 15.6 33.0 15.3 9.9 42.3 3.2 72.0 33.6 2.5 LOS F B C B A D A E C A Approach Delay 86.0 18.7 38.7 34.9 Approach LOS W F B D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay:38.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street t2 X04 13.2s 58,8s 28s 9.5s 162.5s I M28!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 267 295 279 288 247 1158 329 1225 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.62 0.00 0.07 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1344 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1344 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.9 1.3 0.0 3.8 1.7 0.0 0.7 35.3 0.0 3.7 40.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.6 1.3 0.0 5.0 1.7 0.0 0.7 35.3 0.0 3.7 40.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 267 295 279 288 247 1158 329 1225 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.11 0.23 0.14 0.16 0.82 0.64 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 412 496 428 485 285 1158 387 1225 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.1 31.9 0.0 34.1 32.1 0.0 14.0 12.9 0.0 15.9 12.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 6.7 0.0 2.7 8.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.3 14.7 0.0 2.5 16.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.1 32.1 0.0 34.5 32.4 0.0 14.3 19.6 0.0 18.6 20.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 185 A 106 A 994 A 1276 A Approach Delay,s/veh 37.9 33.7 19.4 20.5 Approach LOS D C B C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.3 59.8 18.5 7.6 62.5 18.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.7 54.3 23.5 5.0 58.0 23.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.7 37.3 13.6 2.7 42.5 7.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 7.2 0.4 0.0 8.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 PM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group A LBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi Traffic Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 10.9 23.6 9.8 22.5 9.5 62.8 62.8 13.8 67.1 67.1 Total Split(%) 9.9% 21.5% 8.9% 20.5% 8.6% 57.1% 57.1% 12.5% 61.0% 61.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 20.5 15.4 17.5 12.2 63.4 58.4 58.4 72.1 66.7 66.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.61 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.28 0.27 0.81 0.26 0.93 0.07 0.93 0.90 0.19 Control Delay 85.9 21.2 35.4 35.3 11.0 38.2 1.0 72.9 30.3 3.4 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 85.9 21.2 35.4 35.3 11.0 38.2 1.0 72.9 30.3 3.4 LOS JJEJF F C D D B D A E C A Approach Delay 63.6 35.3 34.8 32.7 Approach LOS W E D C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 104.4 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.93 Intersection Signal Delay:36.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street} 02 fo3 13.8s 62.8s 6s D6 9.5s 67. s 1 ,9s 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 233 137 227 93 243 1166 325 1231 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.06 0.66 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 1.5 0.0 3.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 37.5 0.0 3.9 43.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.4 1.5 0.0 3.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 37.5 0.0 3.9 43.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 233 137 227 93 243 1166 325 1231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.23 0.29 0.44 0.16 0.82 0.65 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 233 376 246 346 277 1166 385 1231 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 41.5 0.0 40.3 43.8 0.0 14.7 13.5 0.0 16.7 12.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.7 0.8 0.0 0.7 3.2 0.0 0.3 6.5 0.0 2.8 8.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.0 0.7 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.4 15.8 0.0 2.8 18.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.7 42.4 0.0 41.0 47.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 19.6 21.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 185 A 106 A 994 A 1276 A Approach Delay,s/veh 46.8 43.3 19.8 20.9 Approach LOS D D B C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.6 64.3 8.8 11.5 7.7 67.1 10.9 9.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 9.3 58.3 5.3 19.1 5.0 62.6 6.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.9 39.5 5.3 3.5 2.7 45.0 8.4 4.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 7.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2024 PM W 4-Lane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group A LBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations i tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(vph) 148 30 62 39 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 32.6 32.6 12.4 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 36.2% 36.2% 13.8% 39.4% 39.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 12.0 12.0 9.5 9.5 33.4 28.4 28.4 40.0 35.5 35.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.53 0.47 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.26 0.30 0.69 0.16 0.73 0.10 0.72 0.64 0.23 Control Delay 38.6 16.6 34.2 16.8 12.8 26.3 0.8 29.1 21.0 3.9 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 38.6 16.6 34.2 16.8 12.8 26.3 0.8 29.1 21.0 3.9 LOS JJEJF D B C B B C A C C A Approach Delay 31.0 20.1 24.2 19.8 Approach LOS W C C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:76 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.73 Intersection Signal Delay:22.2 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street I f 08 12.4s" D 132. 6 s 22.5s I NEW 5 T 06 9.5 s 1 1 135.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2024 PM W 4-1-ane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 148 30 48 62 39 225 37 917 64 202 1023 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 207 221 118 121 328 1555 412 1755 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 3526 1585 1767 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 154 31 0 65 41 0 39 955 0 210 1066 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1763 1585 1767 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.4 0.9 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.7 13.2 0.0 3.9 13.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.4 0.9 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.7 13.2 0.0 3.9 13.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 207 221 118 121 328 1555 412 1755 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.14 0.55 0.34 0.12 0.61 0.51 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 495 528 503 516 397 1555 468 1755 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.2 25.2 0.0 28.8 28.4 0.0 9.7 13.7 0.0 9.9 11.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.3 0.3 0.0 3.9 1.6 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 5.0 0.0 1.3 5.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.4 25.5 0.0 32.7 30.0 0.0 9.9 15.5 0.0 10.8 13.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C A B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 185 A 106 A 994 A 1276 A Approach Delay,s/veh 31.3 31.7 15.3 12.8 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 32.6 12.0 7.0 36.0 8.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.9 28.1 18.0 5.0 31.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.9 15.2 7.4 2.7 15.8 4.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.5 0.4 0.0 6.8 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Arterial Level of Service 2024 AM W Segment LOS 11/12/2021 Arterial Level of Service: NB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Lako Street III 30 63.2 73.7 136.9 0.53 13.9 E Puapuaanui St III 30 107.5 20.5 128.0 0.90 25.2 B Total III 170.7 94.2 264.9 1.42 19.3 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 18.4 112.7 0.79 25.1 B Lako Street III 30 107.5 34.4 141.9 0.90 22.7 C Total III 201.8 52.8 254.6 1.68 23.8 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Arterial Level of Service 2024 PM W Segment LOS 10/25/2021 Arterial Level of Service: NB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial - Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed Lako Street III 30 63.2 47.0 110.2 0.53 17.2 _ Puapuaanui St III 30 107.5 18.6 126.1 0.90 25.6 B Total III 170.7 65.6 236.3 1.42 21.7 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.2 32.6 126.8 0.79 22.3 C Lako Street III 30 107.5 38.5 146.0 0.90 22.1 C Total III 201.7 71.1 272.8 1.68 22.2 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Appendix F Analysis Reports — Future Without Project Conditions 2029) Timings 2029 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 537 218 164 790 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 537 218 164 790 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 10.7 38.5 38.5 15.0 42.8 42.8 18.8 51.4 51.4 10.1 42.7 42.7 Total Split(%) 9.3% 33.5% 33.5% 13.0% 37.2% 37.2% 16.3% 44.7% 44.7% 8.8% 37.1% 37.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)6.2 35.2 35.2 9.3 40.7 40.7 11.6 29.7 29.7 5.7 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.43 0.32 0.49 0.53 0.04_ 0.58 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.50 0.41 Control Delay 49.2 24.4 5.1 46.3 23.1 0.1 45.2 22.8 5.3 50.3 35.3 7.7 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.2 24.4 5.1 46.3 23.1 0.1 45.2 22.8 5.3 50.3 35.3 7.7 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D D A Approach Delay 21.5 26.1 29.0 26.5 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:91.5 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.58 Intersection Signal Delay:25.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 D1 I tD2 N 4 10.1sl 151.4s T 15s 38.5s 06 7 4- D8 18,8 s1 142.7s 1 110.7s 1 142.8s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 537 218 164 790 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 537 218 164 790 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 548 0 167 806 0 248 196 0 21 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 161 1538 250 1657 344 777 42 500 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 548 0 167 806 0 248 196 0 21 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 8.4 0.0 3.8 12.6 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 8.4 0.0 3.8 12.6 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 161 1538 250 1657 344 777 42 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.36 0.67 0.49 0.72 0.25 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 250 1538 449 1657 612 2096 125 1707 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 14.0 0.0 35.9 13.9 0.0 34.6 25.7 0.0 38.4 32.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.6 0.0 3.1 1.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 3.0 0.0 1.6 4.6 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 14.6 0.0 38.9 15.0 0.0 37.5 25.9 0.0 47.5 33.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 620 A 973 A 444 A 349 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.4 19.1 32.4 34.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 21.9 10.4 40.9 12.5 15.7 8.5 42.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.6 46.9 10.5 34.0 14.3 38.2 6.2 38.3 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.6 5.8 10.4 7.6 8.9 3.7 14.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 0.2 3.7 0.5 2.2 0.0 5.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2029 AM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WB BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 438 124 57 715 507 146 337 47 403 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 438 124 57 715 507 146 337 47 403 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 33.0 33.0 10.0 33.0 33.0 36.5 36.5 36.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 8.7% 28.7% 28.7% 8.7% 28.7% 28.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)5.6 31.4 31.4 5.6 29.0 29.0 17.7 17.7 17.7 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.42 0.22 0.30 0.71 0.63 0.47 0.58 0.13 0.73 0.71 Control Delay 61.6 29.6 6.9 51.5 35.9 6.8 40.3 39.3 0.8 44.7 36.2 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.6 29.6 6.9 51.5 35.9 6.8 40.3 39.3 0.8 44.7 36.2 LOS 11MIrw' E C A D D A D D A D D Approach Delay 30.5 25.1 36.2 39.1 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:94.8 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.73 Intersection Signal Delay:31.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 D2 T F^ 03 --004 36.5s 35.5 110S 33s 10s 133S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 AM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB SBL SBT JMR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 438 124 57 715 507 146 337 47 403 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 438 124 57 715 507 146 337 47 403 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 452 128 59 737 523 151 347 48 415 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 86 0 0 358 0 0 39 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 452 42 59 737 165 136 362 9 299 572 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 5.6 31.4 31.4 4.3 30.1 30.1 17.7 17.7 17.7 24.2 24.2 Effective Green,g(s) 5.6 31.4 31.4 4.3 30.1 30.1 17.7 17.7 17.7 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 181 1077 497 148 1072 487 289 619 275 403 803 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.14 0.02 c0.22 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.42 0.08 0.40 0.69 0.34 0.47 0.58 0.03 0.74 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 43.9 25.0 22.2 44.4 28.6 25.1 34.8 35.6 31.9 32.8 32.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 5.7 1.2 0.3 1.8 3.6 1.9 1.2 1.4 0.0 7.2 3.0 Delay(s)49.6 26.2 22.5 46.2 32.2 27.0 36.0 37.0 32.0 40.0 35.5 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 29.2 30.8 36.3 37.0 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 95.6 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM WO 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 20 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 54 156 1185 944 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 54 156 1185 944 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 58 168 1274 1015 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2626 - 1016 0 - 0 Stage 1 1016 - - - - - Stage 2 1610 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —26 0 683 - - - Stage 1 350 0 - - - - Stage 2 180 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —20 - 682 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —20 - - - - - Stage 1 264 - - - - - Stage 2 180 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1027.1 1.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 682 - 20 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.246 - 2.366 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12 $1027.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1 - 6.3 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM WO 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1200 15 73 919 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1200 15 73 919 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized W - Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1290 16 78 988 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2442 - 0 0 1290 0 Stage 1 1298 - - - - - Stage 2 1144 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 35 0 - - 524 - Stage 1 256 0 - - - - Stage 2 304 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 30 - - - 524 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 30 - - - - - Stage 1 256 - - - - - Stage 2 259 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 174.2 0 1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 30 - 524 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.323 - 0.15 - HCM Control Delay(s) 174.2 0 13.1 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1 - 0.5 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2029 AM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations r t r r Traffic Volume(vph) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 886 24 43 818 68 Future Volume(vph) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 886 24 43 818 68 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 9.6 57.5 57.5 9.5 57.4 57.4 Total Split(%) 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 10.7% 63.9% 63.9% 10.6% 63.8% 63.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 58.2 55.3 55.3 57.2 53.4 53.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.03 0.22 0.44 0.18 0.35 0.38 0.80 0.03 0.18 0.78 0.07 Control Delay 60.6 29.0 9.0 37.0 31.1 8.0 8.4 20.2 0.0 6.0 20.0 2.3 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.6 29.0 9.0 37.0 31.1 8.0 8.4 20.2 0.0 6.0 20.0 2.3 LOS JJEJF E C A D C A A C A A B A Approach Delay 45.5 22.8 18.5 18.0 Approach LOS W D C B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:86.4 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.82 Intersection Signal Delay:21.9 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St I N f X04 9.5 s 57.5 s 05 08 9.6s 1 F1 57.45 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL T NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 886 24 43 818 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 886 24 43 818 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 210 10 0 117 64 0 113 943 0 46 870 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 Cap,veh/h 316 382 361 382 315 1126 267 1081 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.04 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 210 10 0 117 64 0 113 943 0 46 870 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.7 0.4 0.0 6.5 2.5 0.0 2.2 36.3 0.0 0.9 33.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.2 0.4 0.0 6.9 2.5 0.0 2.2 36.3 0.0 0.9 33.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 316 382 1 361 382 315 1126 267 1081 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.03 0.32 0.17 0.36 0.84 0.17 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 320 387 365 387 323 1126 299 1081 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.0 28.4 0.0 31.2 29.3 0.0 13.5 14.1 0.0 13.7 14.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.0 0.3 6.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.2 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.9 15.5 0.0 0.4 14.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 28.5 0.0 31.7 29.5 0.0 14.2 21.6 0.0 14.0 20.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C B C B C Approach Vol,veh/h 220 A 181 A 1056 A 916 A Approach Delay,s/veh 40.4 30.9 20.8 20.3 Approach LOS D C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 58.7 22.7 9.2 57.4 22.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 53.0 18.5 5.1 52.9 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 38.3 18.2 4.2 35.2 8.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM WO 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 11.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 943 945 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 943 945 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 0 171 1 647 1014 1016 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3324 - 1016 0 - 0 Stage 1 1016 - - - - - Stage 2 2308 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 9 0 683 - - - Stage 1 350 0 - - - - Stage 2 80 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 683 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 - - - - - Stage 1 19 - - - - - Stage 2 80 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 18.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 683 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.948 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 47.4 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS E - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 13.5 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2029 AM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group BT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 278 48 69 36 33 961 55 160 804 142 Future Volume(vph) 278 48 69 36 33 961 55 160 804 142 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 28.2 28.2 24.6 24.6 9.5 82.6 82.6 14.6 87.7 87.7 Total Split(%) 18.8% 18.8% 16.4% 16.4% 6.3% 55.1% 55.1% 9.7% 58.5% 58.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 23.7 23.7 20.1 20.1 83.1 78.1 78.1 92.7 85.1 85.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.55 0.52 0.52 0.62 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 1.06 0.41 0.31 1.08 0.19 1.05 0.07 1.05 0.82 0.16 Control Delay 129.3 42.2 62.8 107.8 13.9 79.2 0.2 121.7 34.7 5.8 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 129.3 42.2 62.8 107.8 13.9 79.2 0.2 121.7 34.7 5.8 LOS 11MIr' F D E F B E A F C A Approach Delay 103.6 100.1 72.9 43.6 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay:69.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 110.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases:: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street 102 3 14.6s 82,6 s I 128.2s 05 T :,: 9.5 1 M87.7!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL - Lane Configurationsi1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 278 48 69 69 36 296 33 961 55 160 804 142 Future Volume(veh/h) 278 48 69 69 36 296 33 961 55 160 804 142 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 296 51 0 73 38 0 35 1022 0 170 855 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 309 325 102 108 279 1073 194 1131 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 296 51 0 73 38 0 35 1022 0 170 855 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 22.5 3.2 0.0 5.5 2.7 0.0 1.1 70.1 0.0 6.5 45.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 22.5 3.2 0.0 5.5 2.7 0.0 1.1 70.1 0.0 6.5 45.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 309 325 102 108 279 1073 194 1131 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.16 0.72 0.35 0.13 0.95 0.88 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 309 325 260 276 296 1073 213 1131 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 47.9 0.0 63.2 61.8 0.0 17.5 27.3 0.0 36.8 19.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 39.5 0.2 0.0 9.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 18.2 0.0 29.9 4.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.5 1.5 0.0 2.8 1.3 0.0 0.5 35.3 0.0 7.4 20.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 95.4 48.1 0.0 72.2 63.8 0.0 17.7 45.5 0.0 66.7 24.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B D E C Approach Vol,veh/h 347 A 111 A 1057 A 1025 A Approach Delay,s/veh 88.4 69.3 44.6 31.1 Approach LOS F E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.1 82.8 28.2 8.2 87.7 12.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.1 78.1 23.7 5.0 83.2 20.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.5 72.1 24.5 3.1 47.5 7.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2029 AM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 588 16 513 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 588 16 513 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.4 30.4 30.0 13.8 45.0 9.6 40.8 Total Split(%) 26.4% 26.4% 26.1% 12.0% 39.1% 8.3% 35.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.0 15.0 7.3 8.6 47.3 5.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.58 0.06 0.49 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.08 0.29 0.48 0.63 0.15 0.55 Control Delay 41.4 0.5 31.8 47.7 19.9 44.5 17.2 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.4 0.5 31.8 47.7 19.9 44.5 17.2 LOS MW D A C D B D B Approach Delay 36.3 31.8 23.0 17.7 Approach LOS W D C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:81.8 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.63 Intersection Signal Delay:22.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road I 30.4s 1 130!3 13.8s 140.8s 7 108 9.6s 145S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL R SBL Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 179 5 26 16 12 17 76 588 15 16 513 320 Future Volume(veh/h) 179 5 26 16 12 17 76 588 15 16 513 320 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1752 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 192 5 0 17 13 18 82 632 16 17 552 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 10 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 252 7 24 18 26 103 964 24 36 1743 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1738 45 1459 569 435 603 1668 1757 44 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 197 0 0 48 0 0 82 0 648 17 552 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1783 0 1459 1608 0 0 1668 0 1802 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 18.7 0.7 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.8 0.0 10.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 18.7 0.7 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 259 MPM 68 0 0 103 0 989 36 1743 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.66 0.48 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 626 0 555 0 0 210 0 989 123 1743 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 0.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 11.7 35.8 10.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 3.4 9.7 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.7 0.4 2.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 0.0 0.0 47.3 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 15.1 45.4 11.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 197 A 48 730 569 A Approach Delay,s/veh 34.9 47.3 18.7 12.2 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 15.2 9.1 41.9 7.6 6.0 45.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.3 36.3 25.5 5.1 40.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.8 5.6 9.0 4.2 2.7 20.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.0 3.5 0.2 0.0 3.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Timings 2029 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 260 1025 503 226 715 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 1025 503 226 715 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 16.3 42.0 42.0 14.0 39.7 39.7 14.0 45.4 45.4 13.6 45.0 45.0 Total Split(%) 14.2% 36.5% 36.5% 12.2% 34.5% 34.5% 12.2% 39.5% 39.5% 11.8% 39.1% 39.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 11.2 37.9 37.9 9.5 36.2 36.2 9.5 20.7 20.7 7.8 16.8 16.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.72 0.58 0.65 0.53 0.08 0.66 0.36 0.48 0.37 0.49 _ 0.29 Control Delay 47.8 27.9 8.6 51.0 24.9 1.4 51.4 31.7 6.6 49.7 35.4 7.7 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Total Delay 47.8 27.9 8.6 51.0 24.9 1.4 51.4 31.7 6.6 49.7 35.4 7.7 LOS JJEJF D C A D C A D C A D D A Approach Delay 25.4 29.5 29.0 30.8 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:91.9 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.72 Intersection Signal Delay:27.7 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: }1: Palani Rd &Route 11 I 2 03 4 13.6 s 5.45 14s 1 1 145S 16,3s1 W39.7s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 1025 503 226 715 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 1025 503 226 715 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 1046 0 231 730 0 232 289 0 55 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 353 1606 314 1551 314 680 77 509 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 1046 0 231 730 0 232 289 0 55 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.2 18.9 0.0 5.4 12.1 0.0 5.4 5.9 0.0 2.5 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.2 18.9 0.0 5.4 12.1 0.0 5.4 5.9 0.0 2.5 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 353 1606 314 1551 314 680 77 509 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.65 0.74 0.47 0.74 0.42 0.71 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 491 1606 399 1551 396 1766 197 1748 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 17.3 0.0 36.5 16.1 0.0 36.4 29.3 0.0 38.9 33.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.1 2.1 0.0 5.2 1.0 0.0 5.4 0.4 0.0 11.3 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.7 7.4 0.0 2.4 4.7 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 1.3 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.0 19.4 0.0 41.6 17.1 0.0 41.8 29.7 0.0 50.2 34.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1311 A 961 A 521 A 374 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.6 23.0 35.1 36.8 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 20.3 12.0 42.0 12.0 16.3 13.0 41.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 9.1 40.9 9.5 37.5 9.5 40.5 11.8 35.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.5 7.9 7.4 20.9 7.4 9.0 8.2 14.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.2 6.8 0.2 2.2 0.3 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2029 PM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r ttr Traffic Volume(vph) 190 807 291 80 665 348 126 318 38 388 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 807 291 80 665 348 126 318 38 388 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 13.0 34.0 34.0 9.5 30.5 30.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 11.3% 29.6% 29.6% 8.3% 26.5% 26.5% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)8.5 32.2 32.2 5.1 26.4 26.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.69 0.41 0.45 0.71 0.52 0.41 0.56 0.11 0.75 0.71 Control Delay 55.7 34.2 5.6 56.0 37.9 6.7 39.7 39.7 0.6 45.1 34.1 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.7 34.2 5.6 56.0 37.9 6.7 39.7 39.7 0.6 45.1 34.1 LOS JJEJF E C A E D A D D A D C Approach Delay 30.9 29.3 36.6 37.8 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:95.3 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.75 Intersection Signal Delay:32.9 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 t CD2 6 36s 35.5s 9.5s I 1134s 113 s 3C-.5 f- 5:005:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 PM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB FT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 807 291 80 665 348 126 318 38 388 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 807 291 80 665 348 126 318 38 388 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 823 297 82 679 355 129 324 39 396 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 198 0 0 253 0 0 32 0 41 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 823 99 82 679 102 116 337 7 317 581 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 8.5 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.6 27.6 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.1 25.1 Effective Green,g(s) 8.5 32.2 32.2 3.9 27.6 27.6 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 294 1184 529 139 995 447 281 597 271 420 833 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.23 0.02 0.20 0.07 c0.10 c0.20 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.70 0.19 0.59 0.68 0.23 0.41 0.56 0.03 0.75 0.70 Uniform Delay,dl 42.5 27.7 22.7 45.4 30.4 26.2 35.2 36.2 32.7 32.7 32.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 5.3 3.4 0.8 6.3 3.8 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.0 7.5 2.6 Delay(s)47.7 31.1 23.5 51.6 34.2 27.4 36.2 37.4 32.8 40.2 34.7 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 31.9 33.3 36.8 36.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.2 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM WO 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 83 83 1122 1229 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 83 83 1122 1229 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 86 86 1157 1267 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2596 - 1267 0 - 0 Stage 1 1267 - - - - - Stage 2 1329 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 28 0 548 - - - Stage 1 265 0 - - - - Stage 2 247 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 24 - 548 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 24 - - - - - Stage 1 223 - - - - - Stage 2 247 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 239.9 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 548 - 24 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.156 - 0.43 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.8 - 239.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.3 - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM WO 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.9 Movement Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 1139 4 61 1252 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 1139 4 61 1252 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1291 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2593 - 0 0 1174 0 Stage 1 1176 - - - - - Stage 2 1417 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 - - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 - - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 27 0 - - 574 - Stage 1 286 0 - - - - Stage 2 218 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 24 - - - 574 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 24 - - - - - Stage 1 286 - - - - - Stage 2 194 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 285.8 0 0.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 24 - 574 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.601 - 0.11 - HCM Control Delay(s) 285.8 0 12 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.8 - 0.4 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2029 PM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(vph) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 817 58 142 1022 100 Future Volume(vph) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 817 58 142 1022 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 57.8 57.8 9.7 58.0 58.0 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 64.2% 64.2% 10.8% 64.4% 64.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 58.3 53.3 53.3 58.7 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.66 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.07 0.32 0.20 0.07 0.29 0.62 0.76 0.06 0.49 0.94 0.11 Control Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.4 30.0 8.6 26.8 19.0 1.7 10.2 33.5 1.9 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.4 30.0 8.6 26.8 19.0 1.7 10.2 33.5 1.9 LOS E C A C C A C B A B C A Approach Delay 41.7 18.2 18.8 28.3 Approach LOS W D B B C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:88.6 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.94 Intersection Signal Delay:26.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St D1 I :•2 9.7s 57.8s D5 T 9.5s 58s 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I +} r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 199 50 23 104 105 817 58 142 1022 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 817 58 142 1022 100 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.ur--w 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1870 1856 1841 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 25 0 52 25 0 114 842 0 146 1054 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 326 350 326 350 229 1122 360 1135 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 25 0 52 25 0 114 842 0 146 1054 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 1.0 0.0 2.8 1.0 0.0 2.1 29.0 0.0 2.7 44.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 1.0 0.0 3.8 1.0 0.0 2.1 29.0 0.0 2.7 44.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 326 350 1 326 350 229 1122 360 1135 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.50 0.75 0.41 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 349 382 349 382 235 1122 367 1135 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.5 29.5 0.0 31.1 29.5 0.0 19.6 12.6 0.0 11.7 15.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.7 4.6 0.0 0.7 14.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 11.9 0.0 1.0 20.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 29.6 0.0 31.3 29.6 0.0 21.3 17.2 0.0 12.4 30.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B B C Approach Vol,veh/h 241 A 77 A 956 A 1200 A Approach Delay,s/veh 38.7 30.8 17.7 27.8 Approach LOS D C B C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6W 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.4 57.8 21.0 9.2 58.0 21.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.2 53.3 18.0 5.0 53.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 31.0 16.4 4.1 46.8 5.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 6.8 0.1 0.0 4.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM WO 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SB Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 983 1157 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 983 1157 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized fp - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 0 332 347 1003 1181 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2878 - 1181 0 - 0 Stage 1 1181 - - - - - Stage 2 1697 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 17 0 591 - - - Stage 1 283 0 - - - - Stage 2 157 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 7 - 591 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 7 - - - - - Stage 1 117 - - - - - Stage 2 157 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 591 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.587 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 19.4 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 3.8 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2029 PM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group A NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 143 30 62 39 37 929 64 200 1062 188 Future Volume(vph) 143 30 62 39 37 929 64 200 1062 188 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 78.2 78.2 16.8 85.5 85.5 Total Split(%) 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 6.8% 55.9% 55.9% 12.0% 61.1% 61.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.4 15.4 13.8 13.8 79.0 73.9 73.9 90.8 83.4 83.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.68 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.34 0.36 0.87 0.33 0.95 0.07 0.96 0.95 0.19 Control Delay 80.4 30.2 61.4 49.8 17.3 47.7 0.3 90.6 42.9 5.7 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 80.4 30.2 61.4 49.8 17.3 47.7 0.3 90.6 42.9 5.7 LOS JJEJF F C E D B D A F D A Approach Delay 62.7 52.1 43.6 44.7 Approach LOS W E D D D Intersection Summary I Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 133.5 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.96 Intersection Signal Delay:46.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street} 2 4 3 16,8s I 78.2s 22.5s DS T .36 9.5 d 185.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 143 30 48 62 39 218 37 929 64 200 1062 188 Future Volume(veh/h) 143 30 48 62 39 218 37 929 64 200 1062 188 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 149 31 0 65 41 0 39 968 0 208 1106 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 178 190 94 96 206 1186 303 1248 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.06 0.67 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 149 31 0 65 41 0 39 968 0 208 1106 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.1 1.8 0.0 4.4 2.6 0.0 0.9 47.8 0.0 4.8 58.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.1 1.8 0.0 4.4 2.6 0.0 0.9 47.8 0.0 4.8 58.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 178 190 94 96 206 1186 303 1248 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.16 0.69 0.43 0.19 0.82 0.69 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 260 277 264 271 226 1186 380 1248 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 49.8 0.0 56.5 55.7 0.0 20.3 16.5 0.0 21.3 16.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 14.2 0.4 0.0 8.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 6.3 0.0 3.7 9.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 0.9 0.0 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 20.9 0.0 3.8 25.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.7 50.2 0.0 65.3 58.7 0.0 20.8 22.8 0.0 24.9 26.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E E C C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 180 A 106 A 1007 A 1314 A Approach Delay,s/veh 64.7 62.7 22.7 25.8 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.5 82.1 16.9 8.2 85.5 10.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.3 73.7 18.0 5.0 81.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.8 49.8 12.1 2.9 60.5 6.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 8.7 0.3 0.0 10.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2029 PM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group An&b&EBR WBT NBL NBT IL Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 606 19 622 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 606 19 622 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 9.6 35.0 9.5 34.9 Total Split(%) 29.0% 29.0% 28.6% 9.1% 33.3% 9.0% 33.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 20.4 20.4 6.8 5.3 35.7 5.2 31.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.07 0.48 0.07 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.11 0.23 0.54 0.74 0.16 0.67 Control Delay 36.6 1.0 26.2 57.0 28.4 42.0 21.9 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.6 1.0 26.2 57.0 28.4 42.0 21.9 LOS D A C E C D C Approach Delay 31.8 26.2 31.1 22.3 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length:75 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:27.1 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road 1614\ :-, 30.5 1 M30s 9,6s 34.9s 9.5 s 35 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBT EBR WB L SBL SB Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 325 11 52 7 11 20 64 606 11 19 622 316 Future Volume(veh/h) 325 11 52 7 11 20 64 606 11 19 622 316 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 342 12 0 7 12 21 67 638 12 20 655 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 403 14 11 19 34 90 807 15 41 1481 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.42 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1628 57 1535 297 509 890 1767 1815 34 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 354 0 0 40 0 0 67 0 650 20 655 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1695 0 0 1767 0 1849 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 22.0 0.8 9.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 22.0 0.8 9.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.52 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 417 0 65 0 0 90 0 823 41 1481 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.79 0.49 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 601 0 593 0 0 124 0 823 122 1481 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 26.1 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 34.2 0.0 17.3 35.2 15.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.7 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 7.6 8.9 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 9.5 0.4 3.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.9 0.0 0.0 43.9 0.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 25.0 44.1 16.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 354 A 40 717 675 A Approach Delay,s/veh 33.9 43.9 27.2 17.0 Approach LOS C D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 22.6 8.2 34.9 7.3 6.2 36.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 5.1 30.4 25.5 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 16.6 4.7 11.6 3.7 2.8 24.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.5 0.0 3.9 0.1 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Appendix G Analysis Reports — Future With Project Conditions (2029) Timings 2029 AM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 544 218 166 828 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 544 218 166 828 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 10.7 38.5 38.5 15.0 42.8 42.8 18.8 51.3 51.3 10.2 42.7 42.7 Total Split(%) 9.3% 33.5% 33.5% 13.0% 37.2% 37.2% 16.3% 44.6% 44.6% 8.9% 37.1% 37.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)6.2 35.1 35.1 9.4 40.7 40.7 11.6 29.6 29.6 5.8 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.44 0.32 0.49 0.56 0.06_ 0.58 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.50 _ 0.41 Control Delay 49.2 24.5 5.1 46.3 23.5 0.1 45.3 22.9 5.3 50.3 35.4 8.3 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Total Delay 49.2 24.5 5.1 46.3 23.5 0.1 45.3 22.9 5.3 50.3 35.4 8.3 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D D A Approach Delay 21.5 26.2 29.0 26.7 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:91.5 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.58 Intersection Signal Delay:25.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 102 N 4 10.2 1,151.3s 15s 38.5s 4- 08 18,8s 42,Js1 110.7s 1 142.8s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL - Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 544 218 166 828 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 544 218 166 828 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 555 0 169 845 0 248 196 0 22 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 161 1536 253 1657 344 774 43 500 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 555 0 169 845 0 248 196 0 22 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 8.5 0.0 3.8 13.4 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 1.0 6.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 8.5ma 0.0 3.8 13.4 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 1.0 6.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 161 1536 1 253 1657 344 774 43 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.36 0.67 0.51 0.72 0.25 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 250 1536 449 1657 612 2092 128 1707 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 14.0 0.0 35.9 14.2 0.0 34.6 25.8 0.0 38.3 32.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 1.1 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.0 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 3.1 0.0 1.6 4.9 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 14.7 0.0 38.9 15.3 0.0 37.5 25.9 0.0 47.4 33.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 627 A 1014 A 444 A 350 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.4 19.2 32.4 34.7 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 21.8 10.4 40.9 12.5 15.7 8.5 42.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.7 46.8 10.5 34.0 14.3 38.2 6.2 38.3 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.0 5.6 5.8 10.5 7.6 8.9 3.7 15.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 0.2 3.7 0.5 2.2 0.0 6.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2029 AM W 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 447 124 61 763 545 146 337 48 412 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 447 124 61 763 545 146 337 48 412 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 32.9 32.9 10.1 33.0 33.0 36.5 36.5 36.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 8.7% 28.6% 28.6% 8.8% 28.7% 28.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)5.6 31.3 31.3 5.7 29.0 29.0 17.8 17.8 17.8 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.43 0.22 0.32 0.76 0.65 0.47 0.58 0.14 0.73 0.71 Control Delay 62.1 30.1 6.9 51.9 38.0 7.0 40.6 39.5 0.8 44.3 36.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.1 30.1 6.9 51.9 38.0 7.0 40.6 39.5 0.8 44.3 36.1 LOS E C A D D A D D A D D Approach Delay 30.9 26.3 36.3 38.9 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:95.4 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.76 Intersection Signal Delay:31.9 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 36.5s 35.5s 10-Is Y 32.9s 10s 33s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 AM W 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT E BL WBT WBR BR SBL SBT JMR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 447 124 61 763 545 146 337 48 412 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 447 124 61 763 545 146 337 48 412 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 461 128 63 787 562 151 347 49 425 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 86 0 0 387 0 0 40 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 461 42 63 787 175 136 362 9 302 580 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 5.6 31.3 31.3 4.3 30.0 30.0 17.8 17.8 17.8 24.8 24.8 Effective Green,g(s) 5.6 31.3 31.3 4.3 30.0 30.0 17.8 17.8 17.8 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 180 1067 493 147 1062 482 289 619 275 411 818 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.14 0.02 c0.23 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.43 0.08 0.43 0.74 0.36 0.47 0.58 0.03 0.73 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 44.2 25.5 22.5 44.8 29.6 25.7 35.0 35.8 32.1 32.7 32.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 6.0 1.3 0.3 2.0 4.7 2.1 1.2 1.4 0.0 6.7 2.8 Delay(s)50.3 26.7 22.8 46.8 34.3 27.7.2 32.2 39.4 35.3 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 29.7 32.3 36.5 36.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.2 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 27.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 55 171 1275 963 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 55 171 1275 963 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized e - None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 59 184 1371 1035 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2775 - 1036 0 - 0 Stage 1 1036 - - - - - Stage 2 1739 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —21 0 671 - - - Stage 1 342 0 - - - - Stage 2 155 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —15 - 670 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —15 - - - - - Stage 1 248 - - - - - Stage 2 155 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1488.3 1.5 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NB Capacity(veh/h) 670 - 15 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.274 - 3.154 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.4 $1488.3 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 6.7 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1305 15 73 939 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1305 15 73 939 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized W - Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1403 16 78 1010 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2577 - 0 0 1403 0 Stage 1 1411 - - - - - Stage 2 1166 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 28 0 - - 474 - Stage 1 225 0 - - - - Stage 2 296 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 23 - - - 474 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 23 - - - - - Stage 1 225 - - - - - Stage 2 247 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 247.1 0 1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 23 - 474 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.421 - 0.166 - HCM Control Delay(s) 247.1 0 14.1 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.2 - 0.6 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2029 AM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EB SBL SBT MR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(vph) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 991 27 43 838 68 Future Volume(vph) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 991 27 43 838 68 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.6 58.0 58.0 9.5 57.9 57.9 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.7% 64.4% 64.4% 10.6% 64.3% 64.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 58.7 55.7 55.7 57.7 53.8 53.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.67 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.03 0.22 0.45 0.18 0.35 0.40 0.89 0.03 0.25 0.79 0.07 Control Delay 62.3 29.3 9.1 37.7 31.5 8.2 8.7 26.6 0.0 7.7 20.5 2.2 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.3 29.3 9.1 37.7 31.5 8.2 8.7 26.6 0.0 7.7 20.5 2.2 LOS E C A D C A A C A A C A Approach Delay 46.8 23.2 24.3 18.6 Approach LOS W D C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:86.7 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.89 Intersection Signal Delay:24.5 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 &Puapuaanui St I N 2 4 9.5s 58s 05 9.6s 1 111957.9s 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL W1 EBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 991 27 43 838 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 991 27 43 838 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 210 10 0 119 64 0 113 1054 0 46 891 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 Cap,veh/h 311 376 357 376 305 1133 201 1088 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.04 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 210 10 0 119 64 0 113 1054 0 46 891 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.8 0.4 0.0 6.7 2.5 0.0 2.1 45.9 0.0 0.9 34.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.3 0.4 0.0 7.0 2.5 0.0 2.1 45.9 0.0 0.9 34.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 311 376 1 357 376 305 1133 201 1088 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.03 0.33 0.17 0.37 0.93 0.23 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 311 376 357 376 313 1133 232 1088 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.4 28.8 0.0 31.6 29.6 0.0 14.0 15.7 0.0 18.3 14.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 14.5 0.0 0.6 6.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 0.2 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 1.0 21.2 0.0 0.5 14.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.0 28.8 0.0 32.1 29.8 0.0 14.8 30.3 0.0 18.9 21.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C B C B C Approach Vol,veh/h 220 A 183 A 1167 A 937 A Approach Delay,s/veh 41.4 31.3 28.8 21.1 Approach LOS D C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 59.2 22.5 9.2 57.9 22.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 53.5 18.0 5.1 53.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 47.9 18.3 4.1 36.5 9.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 12.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 159 605 968 972 2 Future Vol,veh/h 0 159 605 968 972 2 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 0 171 1 651 1041 1045 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3388 - 1045 0 - 0 Stage 1 1045 - - - - - Stage 2 2343 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 8 0 666 - - - Stage 1 339 0 - - - - Stage 2 77 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 666 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 - - - - - Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 77 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 20.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 666 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.977 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 54.2 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 14.7 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2029 AM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.0 23.0 23.0 9.5 79.0 79.0 12.0 81.5 81.5 Total Split(%) 18.6% 18.6% 16.4% 16.4% 6.8% 56.4% 56.4% 8.6% 58.2% 58.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 21.5 21.5 18.5 18.5 79.5 74.5 74.5 84.9 78.9 78.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.61 0.56 0.56 v/c Ratio 1.11 0.42 0.39 1.13 0.20 1.05 0.07 1.23 0.84 0.16 Control Delay 140.7 39.4 61.1 125.3 13.4 74.2 1.6 181.3 35.1 5.4 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 140.7 39.4 61.1 125.3 13.4 74.2 1.6 181.3 35.1 5.4 LOS 11MIr' F D E F B E A F D A Approach Delay 111.1 112.6 68.6 52.4 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay:74.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 12sI79s 26s Z3s D5 T D6 9.5 d 181.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 1 r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 294 308 120 127 261 1069 174 1116 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 21.5 3.1 0.0 6.5 2.7 0.0 1.0 69.7 0.0 7.5 46.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 21.5 3.1 0.0 6.5 2.7 0.0 1.0 69.7 0.0 7.5 46.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 294 308 120 127 261 1069 174 1116 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.17 0.75 0.32 0.13 0.97 1.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 294 308 251 265 280 1069 174 1116 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 46.7 0.0 59.7 57.9 0.0 18.0 26.9 0.0 39.4 19.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 59.0 0.2 0.0 8.9 1.4 0.0 0.2 21.4 0.0 68.4 5.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.4 1.5 0.0 3.2 1.3 0.0 0.4 35.8 0.0 9.0 20.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 113.4 47.0 0.0 68.6 59.3 0.0 18.2 48.3 0.0 107.8 25.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B D F C Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1073 A 1048 A Approach Delay,s/veh 103.8 65.7 47.3 38.8 Approach LOS F E D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 qqo 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.0 79.0 26.0 8.1 82.9 13.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 74.5 21.5 5.0 77.0 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 71.7 23.5 3.0 48.3 8.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2029 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road IIRoute 11 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 599 16 533 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 599 16 533 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 13.8 45.4 9.6 41.2 Total Split(%) 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 12.0% 39.5% 8.3% 35.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.2 15.2 7.3 8.6 47.6 5.2 40.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.58 0.06 0.49 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.08 0.30 0.48 0.64 0.15 0.57 Control Delay 41.9 0.5 32.0 48.2 20.2 44.8 17.6 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.9 0.5 32.0 48.2 20.2 44.8 17.6 LOS MW D A C D C D B Approach Delay 36.9 32.0 23.3 18.1 Approach LOS IF D C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:82.3 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.64 Intersection Signal Delay:22.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Route 11 30s 1 W30s 13.8s Y 41.2s to 9.6 s f 1145.4s 11 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WB L R SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 182 5 26 16 12 17 76 599 15 16 533 334 Future Volume(veh/h) 182 5 26 16 12 17 76 599 15 16 533 334 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1752 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 5 0 17 13 18 82 644 16 17 573 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 10 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 256 7 24 18 25 103 965 24 35 1744 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1739 44 1459 569 435 603 1668 1758 44 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 201 0 0 48 0 0 82 0 660 17 573 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1783 0 1459 1608 0 0 1668 0 1802 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 19.4 0.7 7.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.1 MWd 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 19.4 0.7 7.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 262 MPM 68 0 0 103 0 989 35 1744 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.67 0.48 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 610 0 550 0 0 208 0 989 122 1744 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.5 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 12.0 36.1 10.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 3.6 9.7 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 7.0 0.4 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.2 0.0 0.0 47.8 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 15.5 45.8 11.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 201 A 48 742 590 A Approach Delay,s/veh 35.2 47.8 19.0 12.4 Approach LOS D D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 15.5 9.1 42.3 7.6 6.0 45.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.5 9.3 36.7 25.5 5.1 40.9 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 10.1 5.6 9.3 4.2 2.7 21.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.0 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 AM W 9: Route 11 & Royal Vistas 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 29 108 968 25 22 950 Future Vol,veh/h 29 108 968 25 22 950 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - 500 500 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 32 117 1052 27 24 1033 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2133 1052 0 0 1052 0 Stage 1 1052 - - - - - Stage 2 1081 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 54 275 - - 662 - Stage 1 336 - - - - - Stage 2 326 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 52 275 - - 662 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 52 - - - - - Stage 1 336 - - - - - Stage 2 314 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 53.2 0 0.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 52 275 662 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.606 0.427 0.036 - HCM Control Delay(s) 149.1 27.5 10.6 - HCM Lane LOS F D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 2.4 2 0.1 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Timings 2029 PM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 260 1059 503 227 739 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 1059 503 227 739 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 16.3 43.0 43.0 14.0 40.7 40.7 14.0 44.2 44.2 13.8 44.0 44.0 Total Split(%) 14.2% 37.4% 37.4% 12.2% 35.4% 35.4% 12.2% 38.4% 38.4% 12.0% 38.3% 38.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 11.2 38.9 38.9 9.5 37.2 37.2 9.5 20.7 20.7 7.9 16.9 16.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.74 0.58 0.66 0.54 0.10 0.67 0.37 0.50 0.38 0.50 0.29 Control Delay 48.5 28.2 8.6 52.0 25.0 2.4 52.3 32.4 7.4 50.4 36.0 7.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.5 28.2 8.6 52.0 25.0 2.4 52.3 32.4 7.4 50.4 36.0 7.8 LOS JJEJF D C A D C A D C A D D A Approach Delay 25.7 29.5 29.5 31.3 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:93 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.74 Intersection Signal Delay:28.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 123 CD4 13.8s 44.2s 14s 3s 14s 1 444 1 IT6.3!3 1 140.7s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 1059 503 227 739 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 1059 503 227 739 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 1081 0 232 754 0 232 289 0 57 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 351 1623 314 1569 313 674 78 505 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.45 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 1081 0 232 754 0 232 289 0 57 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 20.0 0.0 5.5 12.7 0.0 5.5 6.0 0.0 2.6 7.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 20.0 0.0 5.5 12.7 0.0 5.5 6.0 0.0 2.6 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 351 1623 1 314 1569 313 674 78 505 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.67 0.74 0.48 0.74 0.43 0.73 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 484 1623 393 1569 390 1687 198 1679 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.5 17.6 0.0 37.0 16.2 0.0 37.0 29.9 0.0 39.5 33.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.4 2.2 0.0 5.6 1.1 0.0 5.7 0.4 0.0 12.2 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 7.8 0.0 2.5 4.9 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 19.7 0.0 42.6 17.3 0.0 42.8 30.3 0.0 51.7 35.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1346 A 986 A 521 A 376 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.9 23.2 35.9 37.6 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 20.4 12.1 43.0 12.1 16.4 13.1 42.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 9.3 39.7 9.5 38.5 9.5 39.5 11.8 36.2 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.6 8.0 7.5 22.0 7.5 9.1 8.3 14.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.2 7.0 0.2 2.2 0.3 5.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2029 PM W 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 853 291 84 700 368 126 318 40 411 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 853 291 84 700 368 126 318 40 411 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 12.2 34.0 34.0 9.5 31.3 31.3 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 10.6% 29.6% 29.6% 8.3% 27.2% 27.2% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)7.8 32.2 32.2 5.1 27.2 27.2 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.73 0.41 0.48 0.73 0.53 0.41 0.56 0.12 0.75 0.72 Control Delay 61.2 35.7 5.6 57.0 38.2 6.6 39.9 39.9 0.7 45.1 34.6 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.2 35.7 5.6 57.0 38.2 6.6 39.9 39.9 0.7 45.1 34.6 LOS 11MIrw' E D A E D A D D A D C Approach Delay 32.7 29.5 36.6 38.2 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:96 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.75 Intersection Signal Delay:33.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 t CD2 6 36s 35.5s 9.5s I 1134s 112.2 s 1 1 131.3s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 PM W 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB FT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 853 291 84 700 368 126 318 40 411 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 853 291 84 700 368 126 318 40 411 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3196 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3196 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 870 297 86 714 376 129 324 41 419 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 198 0 0 266 0 0 34 0 39 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 870 99 86 714 110 116 337 7 323 600 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 7.8 32.2 32.2 3.9 28.3 28.3 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.7 25.7 Effective Green,g(s) 7.8 32.2 32.2 3.9 28.3 28.3 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 268 1177 526 138 1014 456 280 593 269 427 848 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.25 0.03 0.21 0.07 c0.10 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.74 0.19 0.62 0.70 0.24 0.41 0.57 0.03 0.76 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 43.4 28.6 23.0 45.7 30.5 26.1 35.5 36.5 33.0 32.7 32.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 9.3 4.2 0.8 8.5 4.1 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.0 7.5 2.7 Delay(s)52.8 32.8 23.8 54.2 34.6 27.3 36.5 37.8 33.1 40.1 34.9 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 33.7 33.7 37.1 36.6 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary Er HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.8 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 88 89 1181 1300 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 88 89 1181 1300 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 91 92 1218 1340 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2742 - 1340 0 - 0 Stage 1 1340 - - - - - Stage 2 1402 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 22 0 514 - - - Stage 1 244 0 - - - - Stage 2 228 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 18 - 514 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 18 - - - - - Stage 1 200 - - - - - Stage 2 228 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$355.4 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 514 - 18 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.179 - 0.573 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 13.5 -$355.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.5 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.4 Movement1BT N Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 1204 4 61 1329 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 1204 4 61 1329 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1370 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2739 - 0 0 1241 0 Stage 1 1243 - - - - - Stage 2 1496 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 - - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 - - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 21 0 - - 541 - Stage 1 266 0 - - - - Stage 2 199 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 19 - - - 541 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 19 - - - - - Stage 1 266 - - - - - Stage 2 176 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$400.6 0 0.5 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 19 - 541 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.76 - 0.116 - HCM Control Delay(s) 400.6 0 12.5 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 2.1 - 0.4 - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2029 PM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r Traffic Volume(vph) 199 23 116 53 23 104 105 882 61 142 1098 100 Future Volume(vph) 199 23 116 53 23 104 105 882 61 142 1098 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 56.5 56.5 11.0 58.0 58.0 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 62.8% 62.8% 12.2% 64.4% 64.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 57.1 52.1 52.1 59.9 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.68 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.07 0.32 0.21 0.07 0.29 0.62 0.84 0.07 0.56 1.01 0.11 Control Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.6 30.0 8.6 27.3 24.2 2.0 14.9 48.2 2.2 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.6 30.0 8.3 32.6 30.0 8.6 27.3 24.2 2.0 14.9 48.2 2.2 LOS E C A C C A C C A B D A Approach Delay 41.7 18.5 23.2 41.1 Approach LOS W D B C D Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:88.6 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay:33.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 &Puapuaanui St Di I tD2 11 s 56,5 s Q5 06 9.5s 1 058!3 1 22.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL E DR WBL W1 MBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 199 53 23 104 105 882 61 142 1098 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 199 23 116 53 23 104 105 882 61 142 1098 100 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 17-M 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1870 1856 1841 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 25 0 55 25 0 114 909 0 146 1132 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 326 350 326 350 178 1122 318 1135 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 25 0 55 25 0 114 909 0 146 1132 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.1 33.5 0.0 2.7 53.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.1 33.5 0.0 2.7 53.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 326 350 1 326 350 178 1122 318 1135 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.64 0.81 0.46 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 349 382 349 382 184 1122 351 1135 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.5 29.5 0.0 31.2 29.5 0.0 21.6 13.5 0.0 13.9 17.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 6.9 6.4 0.0 1.0 26.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.7 14.1 0.0 1.3 27.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 29.6 0.0 31.4 29.6 0.0 28.6 19.9 0.0 14.9 43.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C C B B D Approach Vol,veh/h 241 A 80 A 1023 A 1278 A Approach Delay,s/veh 38.7 30.9 20.8 40.2 Approach LOS D C C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.4 57.8 21.0 9.2 58.0 21.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 52.0 18.0 5.0 53.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 35.5 16.4 4.1 55.2 6.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 6.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized F&e - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 m 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 0 332 348 1078 1192 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2966 - 1192 0 - 0 Stage 1 1192 - - - - - Stage 2 1774 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 15 0 586 - - - Stage 1 280 0 - - - - Stage 2 144 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 6 - 586 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 6 - - - - - Stage 1 114 - - - - - Stage 2 144 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 4.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 586 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.594 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 19.7 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 3.9 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2029 PM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 87.0 87.0 18.0 95.5 95.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.3% 58.0% 58.0% 12.0% 63.7% 63.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.5 16.5 15.9 15.9 87.6 82.6 82.6 100.7 93.2 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.60 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.36 0.38 0.92 0.35 0.98 0.07 1.00 0.94 0.19 Control Delay 93.5 35.1 66.8 62.0 19.8 56.0 0.6 104.5 41.8 5.5 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.5 35.1 66.8 62.0 19.8 56.0 0.6 104.5 41.8 5.5 LOS F D E E B E A F D A Approach Delay 73.7 63.0 51.4 45.7 Approach LOS W E E D D Intersection Summary go Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 146.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay:51.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street} 2 404 03 18s I 87s 22, s 22.5 s D T 0: 9.5 1 1195.5!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT SBI Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 184 196 99 102 204 1206 273 1266 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.9 2.0 0.0 5.3 3.0 0.0 1.0 57.7 0.0 5.2 64.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.9 2.0 0.0 5.3 3.0 0.0 1.0 57.7 0.0 5.2 64.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 184 196 99 102 204 1206 273 1266 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.16 0.73 0.41 0.19 0.85 0.77 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 235 250 239 245 220 1206 352 1266 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 59.2 54.7 0.0 62.5 61.4 0.0 21.8 18.3 0.0 26.9 17.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 21.6 0.4 0.0 9.7 2.7 0.0 0.4 7.5 0.0 7.6 9.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 1.0 0.0 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.6 25.7 0.0 5.1 28.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.8 55.1 0.0 72.2 64.0 0.0 22.3 25.8 0.0 34.4 26.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E E E C C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1061 A 1325 A Approach Delay,s/veh 76.6 69.2 25.7 27.6 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.0 91.9 18.6 8.3 95.5 12.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 82.5 18.0 5.0 91.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.2 59.7 13.9 3.0 66.1 7.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 9.3 0.2 0.0 11.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2029 PM W 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group An&b&EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 638 19 632 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 638 19 632 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 11.8 45.0 9.5 42.7 Total Split(%) 26.5% 26.5% 26.1% 10.3% 39.1% 8.3% 37.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 24.0 24.0 6.8 7.1 45.1 5.1 39.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.08 0.51 0.06 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.11 0.27 0.48 0.73 0.20 0.65 Control Delay 44.4 1.7 29.6 54.5 26.4 48.9 22.1 Queue Delay JI&M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.4 1.7 29.6 54.5 26.4 48.9 22.1 LOS MW D A C D C D C Approach Delay 38.9 29.6 28.9 22.6 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:88.4 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.78 Intersection Signal Delay:28.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road o 3 0 : 30.5 1 130!3 11.8s 1427s 9.5 s 045 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WB L SBL SB Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 343 11 52 7 11 21 64 638 11 19 632 322 Future Volume(veh/h) 343 11 52 7 11 21 64 638 11 19 632 322 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 361 12 0 7 12 22 67 672 12 20 665 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 408 14 11 18 33 86 869 16 39 1606 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1631 54 1535 289 495 908 1767 1817 32 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 373 0 0 41 0 0 67 0 684 20 665 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1692 0 0 1767 0 1850 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 18.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 25.9 0.9 10.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 25.9 0.9 10.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.54 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 422 0 62 0 0 86 0 885 39 1606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.77 0.51 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 517 0 510 0 0 152 0 885 105 1606 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.6 0.0 0.0 40.3 0.0 0.0 39.8 0.0 18.3 40.9 15.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 14.4 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 6.5 9.7 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 11.0 0.5 4.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 0.0 0.0 51.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 0.0 24.8 50.6 16.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 373 A 41 751 685 A Approach Delay,s/veh 44.9 51.8 27.4 17.4 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 25.7 8.6 42.8 7.6 6.4 45.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 7.3 38.2 25.5 5.0 40.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 20.0 5.2 12.7 4.0 2.9 27.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.2 0.0 4.3 0.1 0.0 3.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th TWSC 2029 PM W 9: Route 11 & Royal Vistas 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 68 1056 74 79 1151 Future Vol,veh/h 12 68 1056 74 79 1151 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Ift - None - None Storage Length 0 0 - 500 500 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 74 1148 80 86 1251 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2571 1148 0 0 1228 0 Stage 1 1148 - - - - - Stage 2 1423 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 29 242 - - 568 - Stage 1 302 - - - - - Stage 2 222 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 25 242 - - 568 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 25 - - - - - Stage 1 302 - - - - - Stage 2 188 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 60.5 0 0.8 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 25 242 568 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.522 0.305 0.151 - HCM Control Delay(s) 254.4 26.3 12.5 - HCM Lane LOS F D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.6 1.2 0.5 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Timings 2029 AM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR -BT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 605 968 972 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 605 968 972 2 Turn Type Perm Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 50.0 127.5 77.5 77.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 33.3% 85.0% 51.7% 51.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)5.5 45.5 123.0 73.0 73.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.33 0.89 0.53 0.53 v/c Ratio 0.34 1.11 0.64 1.09 0.00 Control Delay 1.9 114.6 3.9 87.9 10.5 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 1.9 114.6 3.9 87.9 10.5 LOS 11MIr' A F A F B Approach Delay 46.5 87.7 Approach LOS W D F Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 137.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.11 Intersection Signal Delay:58.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street tD2 n 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei 05 T 50S 1 N77.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 968 972 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 968 972 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 651 1041 1045 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 636 1761 1045 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.96 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 651 1041 1045 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 45.5 6.0 72.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 45.5 6.0 72.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 636 1761 1045 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.02 0.59 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 636 1761 1045 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.2 27.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 42.0 1.5 27.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.7 38.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 83.0 1.6 55.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A D Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1692 1045 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 32.9 55.0 Approach LOS C D Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 50.0 77.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 45.5 73.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.0 0.0 47.5 74.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 AM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR -BT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 605 968 972 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 605 968 972 2 Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)6.5 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 v/c Ratio 0.64 1.58 0.65 0.65 0.00 Control Delay 14.8 289.4 4.4 4.4 1.0 Queue Delay Johm 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.8 289.4 4.4 4.4 1.0 LOS JJEJF B A A Approach Delay 114.1 4.4 Approach LOS W A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 138.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.58 Intersection Signal Delay:68.8 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s 22.5!; Ei 127.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 968 972 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 968 972 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 651 1041 1045 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 552 1761 1761 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 540 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 651 1041 1045 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 540 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 117.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 123.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 552 1761 1761 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.18 0.59 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 552 1761 1761 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 98.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 109.7 1.6 1.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1692 1045 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 43.2 1.7 Approach LOS D A Timer-Assigned Phs 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 127.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 123.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 125.0 0.0 8.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 13.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 AM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 605 968 972 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 605 968 972 2 Turn Type Perm pm+pt NA NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 46.0 127.5 81.5 81.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 30.7% 85.0% 54.3% 54.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)5.5 123.0 123.0 77.0 77.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.56 0.56 v/c Ratio 0.36 1.11 0.64 1.03 0.00 Control Delay 2.1 108.6 3.9 67.0 9.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.1 108.6 3.9 67.0 9.0 LOS A F A E A Approach Delay 44.2 66.8 Approach LOS W D E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 137.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.11 Intersection Signal Delay:49.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street tD2 n 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei 46s 81,5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 968 972 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 968 972 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 651 1041 1045 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 672 1761 1116 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.96 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 651 1041 1045 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 38.2 6.0 66.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 38.2 6.0 66.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 672 1761 1116 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.97 0.59 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 685 1761 1116 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 38.0 0.2 22.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 26.4 1.5 15.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.7 31.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 64.4 1.6 37.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS A E A D Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1692 1045 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 25.8 37.9 Approach LOS C D Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 45.1 82.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 41.5 77.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.0 0.0 40.2 68.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 13.3 0.0 0.4 5.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group NBT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 341 1056 1168 Future Volume(vph) 325 341 1056 1168 Turn Type Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 32.0 127.5 95.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 21.3% 85.0% 63.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Act Effct Green(s)9.7 27.5 123.1 91.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.19 0.87 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.83 1.01 0.67 1.00 Control Delay 26.2 107.9 6.1 50.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.2 107.9 6.1 50.9 LOS C F A D Approach Delay 31.0 50.9 Approach LOS W C D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 141.8 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay:38.5 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street tD2 n 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei 32s 1 1195.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 348 1078 1192 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 372 1790 1348 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.96 0.72 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 348 1078 1192 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 24.5 6.2 62.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 24.5 6.2 62.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 372 1790 1348 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.94 0.60 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 384 1790 1348 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 49.6 0.2 13.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 29.6 1.5 8.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.8 26.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 79.2 1.7 22.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS A E A C Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1426 1192 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 20.6 22.5 Approach LOS C C Timer-Assigned Phs IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 31.1 96.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 27.5 91.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.2 0.0 26.5 64.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 14.5 0.0 0.1 13.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group NBT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 341 1056 1168 Future Volume(vph) 325 341 1056 1168 Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 18.0 123.0 123.0 123.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.82 0.82 0.82 v/c Ratio 1.00 1.50 0.71 0.78 Control Delay 83.2 265.6 9.1 11.3 Queue Delay Jill" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 83.2 265.6 9.1 11.3 LOS JJEJF F F A B Approach Delay 71.7 11.3 Approach LOS W E B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.50 Intersection Signal Delay:48.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s 22.5!; Ei 127.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 348 1078 1192 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 480 1790 1804 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 470 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 348 1078 1192 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 470 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 35.5 6.2 7.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 43.4 6.2 7.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 480 1790 1804 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.72 0.60 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 480 1790 1804 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 9.2 1.5 1.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 11.5 1.7 2.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1426 1192 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 4.1 2.1 Approach LOS A A Timer-Assigned Phs MEOW 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 127.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 123.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 45.4 0.0 9.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 28.2 0.0 19.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 3.2 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group BT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 341 1056 1168 Future Volume(vph) 325 341 1056 1168 Turn Type Perm pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.6 28.4 127.4 99.0 Total Split(%) 15.1% 18.9% 84.9% 66.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 10.7 123.1 123.1 94.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.86 0.86 0.66 v/c Ratio 0.86 1.00 0.68 0.97 Control Delay 32.2 94.9 6.6 42.3 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.2 94.9 6.6 42.3 LOS C F A D Approach Delay 28.1 42.3 Approach LOS W C D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 142.8 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay:34.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.4s 22.6 s Ei 28.4s 55 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1056 1168 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 348 1078 1192 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 454 1790 1665 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.96 0.89 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 348 1078 1192 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.2 24.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.2 24.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 454 1790 1665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.77 0.60 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 718 1790 1665 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.5 2.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.8 4.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 13.7 1.7 4.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1426 1192 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 4.6 4.8 Approach LOS A A Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.4 0.0 9.5 117.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 122.9 18.1 23.9 94.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.2 0.0 3.7 26.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 14.5 0.0 1.0 18.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.7 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 AM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 26.0 26.5 22.5 23.0 9.5 79.0 79.0 12.0 81.5 81.5 Total Split(%) 18.6% 18.9% 16.1% 16.4% 6.8% 56.4% 56.4% 8.6% 58.2% 58.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 21.5 27.5 12.5 18.5 79.5 74.5 74.5 84.9 78.9 78.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.20 0.09 0.13 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.61 0.56 0.56 v/c Ratio 1.11 0.34 0.58 1.13 0.20 1.05 0.07 1.23 0.84 0.16 Control Delay 140.7 34.9 75.1 122.6 13.4 74.2 1.6 181.3 35.1 5.4 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 140.7 34.9 75.1 122.6 13.4 74.2 1.6 181.3 35.1 5.4 LOS JJEJF F C E F B E A F D A Approach Delay 109.8 113.2 68.6 52.4 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay:74.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street D 1 I t02 12s 179s 22.5 1 1126.5s 17 75 D6 9.5 d 181.5s 1 26{ 1 1 123S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 302 272 118 80 283 1098 196 1147 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.15 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.06 0.62 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 21.4 3.0 0.0 6.4 2.7 0.0 1.0 65.4 0.0 5.7 43.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 21.4 3.0 0.0 6.4 2.7 0.0 1.0 65.4 0.0 5.7 43.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 302 272 118 80 283 1098 196 1147 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.19 0.76 0.51 0.12 0.95 0.89 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 302 324 251 273 303 1098 196 1147 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 52.7 47.6 0.0 58.2 59.4 0.0 16.0 24.3 0.0 32.7 17.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 51.2 0.3 0.0 9.7 4.9 0.0 0.2 16.9 0.0 34.9 4.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.9 1.5 0.0 3.2 1.4 0.0 0.4 32.4 0.0 5.1 19.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 103.9 48.0 0.0 67.9 64.4 0.0 16.2 41.2 0.0 67.7 22.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B D E C Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1073 A 1048 A Approach Delay,s/veh 95.8 66.8 40.4 29.9 Approach LOS F E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.0 79.0 13.0 23.0 8.0 83.0 26.0 10.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 74.5 18.0 22.0 5.0 77.0 21.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.7 67.4 8.4 5.0 3.0 45.2 23.4 4.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 AM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 9.5 76.0 76.0 13.0 79.5 79.5 Total Split(%) 40.7% 40.7% 40.7% 40.7% 6.3% 50.7% 50.7% 8.7% 53.0% 53.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 56.5 56.5 56.5 56.5 76.5 71.5 71.5 83.7 76.9 76.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.56 0.51 0.51 v/c Ratio 1.21 0.18 0.20 0.54 0.33 1.17 0.08 1.22 0.92 0.18 Control Delay 165.7 17.9 33.1 26.5 23.2 124.1 8.3 177.4 50.7 8.8 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 165.7 17.9 33.1 26.5 23.2 124.1 8.3 177.4 50.7 8.8 LOS 11MIrw' F B C C C F A F D A Approach Delay 122.6 27.8 115.0 63.6 Approach LOS W F C F E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.22 Intersection Signal Delay:84.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 01 1 102 I = 13s I76s 61s 05 T 06 1 v 9.5 1 W79.5 s 1 061!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 385 481 374 481 271 1062 189 1127 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.07 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1364 1870 0 1341 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1364 1870 0 1341 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 27.1 2.6 0.0 6.9 2.1 0.0 1.0 67.8 0.0 7.3 44.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 29.2 2.6 0.0 9.5 2.1 0.0 1.0 67.8 0.0 7.3 44.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 385 481 374 481 271 1062 189 1127 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.11 0.24 0.09 0.13 0.98 0.92 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 647 840 631 840 292 1062 189 1127 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 46.6 35.7 0.0 39.3 35.5 0.0 16.9 26.4 0.0 38.1 18.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 22.6 0.0 43.4 5.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.5 1.2 0.0 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.4 35.2 0.0 5.3 19.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.1 35.8 0.0 39.7 35.6 0.0 17.1 49.0 0.0 81.5 23.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B D F C Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1073 A 1048 A Approach Delay,s/veh 48.0 38.4 48.0 33.2 Approach LOS D D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6W 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.0 76.0 36.9 8.0 81.0 36.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 71.5 56.5 5.0 75.0 56.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.3 69.8 31.2 3.0 46.0 11.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 7.8 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 AM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT L WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 20.8 32.4 11.2 22.8 9.5 73.0 73.0 13.4 76.9 76.9 Total Split(%) 16.0% 24.9% 8.6% 17.5% 7.3% 56.2% 56.2% 10.3% 59.2% 59.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 39.1 27.9 25.0 18.3 73.5 68.5 68.5 81.5 76.2 76.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.63 0.59 0.59 v/c Ratio 1.08 0.31 0.34 1.07 0.17 1.06 0.07 1.03 0.81 0.16 Control Delay 114.4 27.7 39.1 101.2 11.4 76.1 0.1 109.9 29.6 3.9 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 114.4 27.7 39.1 101.2 11.4 76.1 0.1 109.9 29.6 3.9 LOS JJEJF F C D F B E A F C A Approach Delay 89.1 88.9 70.1 37.9 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay:63.2 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases:: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street I 13.4s 173s 1,2s 32.4s C.,-. 9.5 S1 W76.9 s I I 2C,,8 s 1 1122.8!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 348 243 227 88 301 1122 212 1163 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.63 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.3 2.8 0.0 5.5 2.5 0.0 0.9 57.6 0.0 4.4 38.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.3 2.8 0.0 5.5 2.5 0.0 0.9 57.6 0.0 4.4 38.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 348 243 227 88 301 1122 212 1163 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.21 0.40 0.47 0.12 0.92 0.82 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 348 452 227 296 326 1122 249 1163 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 44.6 44.9 0.0 48.8 53.6 0.0 13.8 20.7 0.0 26.7 15.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 19.6 0.4 0.0 1.1 3.9 0.0 0.2 14.0 0.0 16.8 4.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 1.3 0.0 2.5 1.3 0.0 0.3 27.5 0.0 3.9 16.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.2 45.4 0.0 49.9 57.5 0.0 14.0 34.7 0.0 43.6 19.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1073 A 1048 A Approach Delay,s/veh 61.4 52.3 34.0 23.6 Approach LOS E D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.0 73.8 11.2 19.5 7.9 76.9 20.8 9.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.9 68.5 6.7 27.9 5.0 72.4 16.3 18.3 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.4 59.6 7.5 4.8 2.9 40.4 18.3 4.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 AM W 4-Lane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations i tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 976 55 164 822 146 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 23.0 23.0 22.5 22.5 9.5 33.5 33.5 11.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 25.6% 25.6% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 37.2% 37.2% 12.2% 38.9% 38.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.3 17.3 15.3 15.3 34.1 29.1 29.1 38.4 34.7 34.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.44 0.40 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.31 0.29 0.88 0.15 0.87 0.10 0.85 0.62 0.21 Control Delay 56.8 16.8 33.5 41.4 15.8 37.3 0.3 55.0 25.0 4.5 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.8 16.8 33.5 41.4 15.8 37.3 0.3 55.0 25.0 4.5 LOS JJEJF E B C D B D A E C A Approach Delay 45.1 39.8 34.7 26.7 Approach LOS W D D C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:86.3 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.88 Intersection Signal Delay:33.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street D1 I tD2 08 11s 1 I33. 5s 23s I NEW Q5 T 06 9.5s 1 035!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 AM W 4-1-ane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 976 55 164 822 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 353 370 136 144 326 1410 318 1565 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 3554 1560 1725 3526 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1038 0 174 874 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1777 1560 1725 1763 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.9 1.6 0.0 3.6 1.5 0.0 0.8 18.2 0.0 4.2 13.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.9 1.6 0.0 3.6 1.5 0.0 0.8 18.2 0.0 4.2 13.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 353 370 136 144 326 1410 318 1565 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.14 0.66 0.28 0.11 0.74 0.55 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 451 473 435 460 386 1410 330 1565 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 24.2 0.0 32.8 31.8 0.0 12.8 18.8 0.0 14.2 15.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.1 0.2 0.0 5.4 1.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 1.8 1.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.3 7.6 0.0 1.6 5.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 24.3 0.0 38.2 32.9 0.0 12.9 22.3 0.0 16.0 16.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C B C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1073 A 1048 A Approach Delay,s/veh 38.0 36.5 22.0 16.4 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.5 33.5 19.0 7.0 37.0 10.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.5 29.0 18.5 5.0 30.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.2 20.2 13.9 2.8 15.4 5.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.6 0.5 0.0 5.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 87.0 87.0 18.0 95.5 95.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.3% 58.0% 58.0% 12.0% 63.7% 63.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.5 23.5 11.3 15.9 87.6 82.6 82.6 100.7 93.2 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.60 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.26 0.53 0.92 0.35 0.98 0.07 1.00 0.94 0.19 Control Delay 93.5 31.1 79.3 62.0 19.8 56.0 0.6 104.5 41.8 5.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.5 31.1 79.3 62.0 19.8 56.0 0.6 104.5 41.8 5.5 LOS F C E E B E A F D A Approach Delay 72.3 65.5 51.4 45.7 Approach LOS W E E D D Intersection Summary go Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 146.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay:51.8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street I t2 18S 87s 22.5 s 5 06 9.5 1 1195.5!3 22,5 s 22.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 184 164 99 70 224 1235 291 1293 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.67 0.00 0.05 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.7 2.0 0.0 5.2 3.0 0.0 0.9 54.0 0.0 4.9 60.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.7 2.0 0.0 5.2 3.0 0.0 0.9 54.0 0.0 4.9 60.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 184 164 99 70 224 1235 291 1293 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.19 0.73 0.60 0.17 0.83 0.72 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 256 244 250 240 1235 376 1293 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 55.7 0.0 61.2 62.3 0.0 19.5 16.4 0.0 24.1 15.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.8 0.6 0.0 9.6 8.0 0.0 0.4 6.5 0.0 4.8 7.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.2 1.0 0.0 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.6 23.5 0.0 4.6 26.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.8 56.3 0.0 70.8 70.3 0.0 19.9 22.8 0.0 28.9 23.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1061 A 1325 A Approach Delay,s/veh 75.1 70.6 22.7 24.2 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.7 92.1 11.8 16.0 8.3 95.5 18.3 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 82.5 18.0 18.0 5.0 91.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.9 56.0 7.2 4.0 2.9 62.0 13.7 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 10.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 12.1 0.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT &BL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 9.5 77.2 77.2 15.8 83.5 83.5 Total Split(%) 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 28.5% 7.3% 59.4% 59.4% 12.2% 64.2% 64.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 77.7 72.7 72.7 88.5 80.9 80.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.60 0.56 0.56 0.68 0.62 0.62 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.18 0.22 0.54 0.32 0.99 0.07 1.01 0.96 0.19 Control Delay 129.6 18.2 40.9 19.2 15.0 54.8 1.5 100.9 43.2 4.1 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 129.6 18.2 40.9 19.2 15.0 54.8 1.5 100.9 43.2 4.1 LOS 11MIr' F B D B B D A F D A Approach Delay 91.9 23.6 50.2 46.1 Approach LOS W F C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay:48.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 15.8s 77.2s 37s D5 T C-6 9.5 S1 1 183.5s 37 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 247 293 260 287 239 1240 306 1297 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.67 0.00 0.06 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1343 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1343 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.1 1.6 0.0 5.4 2.3 0.0 0.8 46.4 0.0 4.2 51.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.4 1.6 0.0 7.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 46.4 0.0 4.2 51.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 247 293 260 287 239 1240 306 1297 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.11 0.28 0.15 0.16 0.82 0.69 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 420 534 437 521 262 1240 382 1297 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.1 41.2 0.0 44.2 41.4 0.0 16.5 14.0 0.0 20.3 13.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.3 6.3 0.0 3.7 7.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.6 0.8 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.5 19.5 0.0 3.8 21.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.8 41.3 0.0 44.7 41.7 0.0 16.9 20.3 0.0 24.0 20.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D B C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1061 A 1325 A Approach Delay,s/veh 49.3 43.6 20.1 21.3 Approach LOS D D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.9 80.6 22.4 8.0 83.5 22.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.3 72.7 32.5 5.0 79.0 32.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.2 48.4 17.4 2.8 53.5 9.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 9.6 0.5 0.0 11.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL kLBL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 13.0 25.1 10.4 22.5 9.5 78.3 78.3 16.2 85.0 85.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 19.3% 8.0% 17.3% 7.3% 60.2% 60.2% 12.5% 65.4% 65.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 24.8 18.1 19.2 13.3 78.9 73.9 73.9 90.1 82.6 82.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.72 0.66 0.66 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.28 0.32 0.86 0.31 0.94 0.07 0.95 0.91 0.18 Control Delay 98.4 24.6 45.1 43.3 13.8 41.7 0.1 84.3 32.4 3.6 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 98.4 24.6 45.1 43.3 13.8 41.7 0.1 84.3 32.4 3.6 LOS JJEJF F C D D B D A F C A Approach Delay 73.4 43.7 38.2 35.8 Approach LOS W E D D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 125.4 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.95 Intersection Signal Delay:40.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street t02 IrD3 --W04 16.2 s 78,3 s 1Q,25,1 5 T ' 9.5 S1 1185s 13s 22,5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 219 124 211 78 242 1247 309 1303 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.67 0.00 0.06 0.70 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.5 1.8 0.0 4.4 2.6 0.0 0.8 46.5 0.0 4.2 51.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.5 1.8 0.0 4.4 2.6 0.0 0.8 46.5 0.0 4.2 51.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 219 124 211 78 242 1247 309 1303 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.25 0.34 0.54 0.16 0.82 0.68 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 219 334 212 285 264 1247 389 1303 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 49.9 51.2 0.0 49.5 54.2 0.0 16.4 13.8 0.0 20.2 13.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.6 0.0 0.3 6.1 0.0 3.4 7.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.2 0.9 0.0 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.5 19.5 0.0 3.7 21.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.0 52.2 0.0 50.5 59.8 0.0 16.7 20.0 0.0 23.5 20.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1061 A 1325 A Approach Delay,s/veh 59.6 53.9 19.8 21.0 Approach LOS E D B C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.0 82.1 10.3 12.2 8.1 85.0 13.0 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.7 73.8 5.9 20.6 5.0 80.5 8.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.2 48.5 6.4 3.8 2.8 53.7 10.5 4.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 9.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2029 PM W 4-Lane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 32.7 32.7 12.3 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 36.3% 36.3% 13.7% 39.4% 39.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 12.1 12.1 9.7 9.7 33.5 28.5 28.5 39.9 35.5 35.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.52 0.46 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.26 0.32 0.69 0.17 0.78 0.10 0.77 0.68 0.24 Control Delay 39.1 16.7 34.6 16.6 13.2 28.3 0.7 37.1 22.0 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.1 16.7 34.6 16.6 13.2 28.3 0.7 37.1 22.0 3.9 LOS D B C B B C A D C A Approach Delay 31.5 20.2 26.1 21.7 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:76.4 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.78 Intersection Signal Delay:23.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street I2 08 12.3 s 32.7s 22.5s D T 06 9.5 s 1 1 135.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2029 PM W 4-1-ane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 981 64 202 1070 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 211 225 121 124 312 1549 390 1750 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 3526 1585 1767 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1022 0 210 1115 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1763 1585 1767 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.6 1.0 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.8 14.7 0.0 3.9 14.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.6 1.0 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.8 14.7 0.0 3.9 14.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 211 225 121 124 312 1549 390 1750 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.14 0.60 0.34 0.13 0.66 0.54 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 492 525 500 512 380 1549 442 1750 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 25.2 0.0 29.1 28.5 0.0 10.0 14.2 0.0 10.6 12.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.3 0.3 0.0 4.7 1.6 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 1.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 5.6 0.0 1.4 5.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 25.5 0.0 33.7 30.2 0.0 10.2 16.4 0.0 11.7 13.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1061 A 1325 A Approach Delay,s/veh 31.4 32.4 16.2 13.5 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 32.7 12.2 7.0 36.1 8.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.8 28.2 18.0 5.0 31.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.9 16.7 7.6 2.8 16.9 4.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.5 0.4 0.0 6.8 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Arterial Level of Service 2029 AM W Segment LOS 10/25/2021 Arterial Level of Service: NB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial goCrossStreetClassSpeedTimeDelayTime(s) mi) Speed Lako Street III 30 63.2 74.2 137.4 0.53 13.8 E Puapuaanui St III 30 107.5 26.6 134.1 0.90 24.1 B Total III 170.7 100.8 271.5 1.42 18.9 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 20.5 114.8 0.79 24.6 B Lako Street III 30 107.5 35.1 142.6 0.90 22.6 C Total III 201.8 55.6 257.4 1.68 23.5 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Arterial Level of Service 2029 PM W Segment LOS 10/25/2021 Arterial Level of Service: NB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial - Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed Lako Street III 30 63.2 56.0 119.2 0.53 15.9 _ Puapuaanui St III 30 107.5 24.2 131.7 0.90 24.5 B Total III 170.7 80.2 250.9 1.42 20.4 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.2 48.2 142.4 0.79 19.9 C Lako Street III 30 107.5 41.8 149.3 0.90 21.6 C Total III 201.7 90.0 291.7 1.68 20.8 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Appendix H Analysis Reports — Future Without Project Conditions 2039) Timings 2039 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 590 218 164 868 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 590 218 164 868 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 39.0 39.0 14.0 43.0 43.0 18.0 51.9 51.9 10.1 44.0 44.0 Total Split(%) 8.7% 33.9% 33.9% 12.2% 37.4% 37.4% 15.7% 45.1% 45.1% 8.8% 38.3% 38.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)5.6 35.2 35.2 8.9 40.9 40.9 11.4 29.4 29.4 5.7 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.47 0.32 0.51 0.58 0.04_ 0.59 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.49 0.43 Control Delay 50.6 24.5 5.0 47.1 23.4 0.1 45.3 22.7 5.3 49.8 34.9 10.4 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.6 24.5 5.0 47.1 23.4 0.1 45.3 22.7 5.3 49.8 34.9 10.4 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D C B Approach Delay 21.8 26.3 29.0 27.1 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:90.9 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.59 Intersection Signal Delay:25.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 3 10.11 115:, s I 14s 1,139S 18S y{ 10s 43s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 590 218 164 868 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 590 218 164 868 33 243 192 117 21 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 602 0 167 886 0 248 196 0 21 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 160 1543 249 1661 342 775 42 500 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 602 0 167 886 0 248 196 0 21 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 9.4 0.0 3.8 14.3 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 9.4 10.0 3.8 14.3 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 160 1541ME 249 1661 342 775 42 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.39 0.67 0.53 0.72 0.25 0.51 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 221 1543 405 1661 576 2112 125 1760 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.8 14.2 0.0 36.0 14.4 0.0 34.8 25.8 0.0 38.5 32.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 1.2 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 3.4 0.0 1.6 5.3 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 14.9 0.0 39.1 15.6 0.0 37.7 26.0 0.0 47.7 33.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 674 A 1053 A 444 A 349 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.5 19.3 32.5 34.7 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 21.9 10.3 41.2 12.5 15.7 8.5 43.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.6 47.4 9.5 34.5 13.5 39.5 5.5 38.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 5.6 5.8 11.4 7.6 9.0 3.7 16.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 0.2 4.1 0.4 2.3 0.0 6.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2039 AM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WB BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 479 124 57 784 507 146 337 47 403 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 479 124 57 784 507 146 337 47 403 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 33.0 33.0 10.0 33.0 33.0 36.5 36.5 36.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 8.7% 28.7% 28.7% 8.7% 28.7% 28.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)5.6 31.4 31.4 5.6 29.0 29.0 17.7 17.7 17.7 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.45 0.22 0.30 0.78 0.63 0.47 0.58 0.13 0.73 0.71 Control Delay 61.6 30.1 6.9 51.5 38.3 6.8 40.3 39.3 0.8 44.7 36.2 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.6 30.1 6.9 51.5 38.3 6.8 40.3 39.3 0.8 44.7 36.2 LOS 11MIrw' E C A D D A D D A D D Approach Delay 30.8 27.0 36.2 39.1 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:94.8 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.78 Intersection Signal Delay:32.2 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 D2 T F^ 03 --004 36.5s 35.5 110S 33s 10s 133S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 AM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT E BL WBT WB SBL SBT JMR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 479 124 57 784 507 146 337 47 403 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 479 124 57 784 507 146 337 47 403 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 494 128 59 808 523 151 347 48 415 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 86 0 0 358 0 0 39 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 494 42 59 808 165 136 362 9 299 572 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 5.6 31.4 31.4 4.3 30.1 30.1 17.7 17.7 17.7 24.2 24.2 Effective Green,g(s) 5.6 31.4 31.4 4.3 30.1 30.1 17.7 17.7 17.7 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 181 1077 497 148 1072 487 289 619 275 403 803 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.15 0.02 c0.24 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.46 0.08 0.40 0.75 0.34 0.47 0.58 0.03 0.74 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 43.9 25.4 22.2 44.4 29.4 25.1 34.8 35.6 31.9 32.8 32.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 5.7 1.4 0.3 1.8 4.9 1.9 1.2 1.4 0.0 7.2 3.0 Delay(s)49.6 26.8 22.5 46.2 34.3 27.0 36.0 37.0 32.0 40.0 35.5 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 29.5 32.1 36.3 37.0 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 95.6 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM WO 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 28.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 54 156 1299 1034 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 54 156 1299 1034 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 58 168 1397 1112 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2846 - 1113 0 - 0 Stage 1 1113 - - - - - Stage 2 1733 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —19 0 627 - - - Stage 1 314 0 - - - - Stage 2 156 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —14 - 626 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —14 - - - - - Stage 1 230 - - - - - Stage 2 156 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$1620.7 1.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NB Ln1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 626 - 14 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.268 - 3.379 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 12.8 $1620.7 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 6.8 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM WO 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1317 15 73 1006 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1317 15 73 1006 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1416 16 78 1082 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2662 - 0 0 1416 0 Stage 1 1424 - - - - - Stage 2 1238 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 25 0 - - 469 - Stage 1 222 0 - - - - Stage 2 274 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 21 - - - 469 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 21 - - - - - Stage 1 222 - - - - - Stage 2 229 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 279.3 0 1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 21 - 469 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.461 - 0.167 - HCM Control Delay(s) 279.3 0 14.2 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.3 - 0.6 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2039 AM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL SBL SB Lane Configurations if t Traffic Volume(vph) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 985 24 43 901 68 Future Volume(vph) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 985 24 43 901 68 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 9.5 57.0 57.0 9.5 57.0 57.0 Total Split(%) 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 10.6% 63.3% 63.3% 10.6% 63.3% 63.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 57.7 54.8 54.8 56.8 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.61 0.61 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.03 0.22 0.43 0.18 0.35 0.50 0.89 0.03 0.25 0.86 0.07 Control Delay 57.4 28.6 8.8 36.2 30.6 7.9 13.5 27.7 0.0 8.0 25.7 2.3 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.4 28.6 8.8 36.2 30.6 7.9 13.5 27.7 0.0 8.0 25.7 2.3 LOS JJEJF E C A D C A B C A A C A Approach Delay 43.2 22.3 25.7 23.3 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:86.3 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.89 Intersection Signal Delay:26.3 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases:} 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St I f 9.5s 57s y 05 06 08 9.5s 1 057!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL T NBR SBL Lane Configurations r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 985 24 43 901 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 110 59 140 104 985 24 43 901 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 210 10 0 117 64 0 113 1048 0 46 959 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 Cap,veh/h 317 383 363 383 256 1123 199 1078 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.04 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 210 10 0 117 64 0 113 1048 0 46 959 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.6 0.4 0.0 6.5 2.5 0.0 2.1 45.5 0.0 0.9 40.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.1 0.4 0.0 6.8 2.5 0.0 2.1 45.5 0.0 0.9 40.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 317 383 1 363 383 256 1123 199 1078 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.03 0.32 0.17 0.44 0.93 0.23 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 329 400 375 400 262 1123 231 1078 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 28.3 0.0 31.0 29.1 0.0 17.3 15.9 0.0 18.3 15.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 14.9 0.0 0.6 11.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.2 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 1.2 21.2 0.0 0.5 17.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 28.3 0.0 31.5 29.3 0.0 18.5 30.9 0.0 18.9 26.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C C B C B C Approach Vol,veh/h 220 A 181 A 1161 A 1005 A Approach Delay,s/veh 39.9 30.7 29.7 26.3 Approach LOS D C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 7.9 58.3 22.7 9.2 57.0 22.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 52.5 19.0 5.0 52.5 19.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 47.5 18.1 4.1 42.3 8.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 5.3 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM WO 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 15.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 1035 1029 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 159 602 1035 1029 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 0 171 1 647 1113 1106 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3513 - 1106 0 - 0 Stage 1 1106 - - - - - Stage 2 2407 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 7 0 —631 - - - Stage 1 317 0 - - - - Stage 2 71 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - —631 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 - - - - - Stage 1 0 - - - - - Stage 2 71 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 25.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 631 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.026 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 68.2 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 16.6 - - - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2039 AM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group BT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 278 48 69 36 33 1052 55 160 878 142 Future Volume(vph) 278 48 69 36 33 1052 55 160 878 142 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 27.0 27.0 23.0 23.0 9.5 87.0 87.0 13.0 90.5 90.5 Total Split(%) 18.0% 18.0% 15.3% 15.3% 6.3% 58.0% 58.0% 8.7% 60.3% 60.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 22.5 22.5 18.5 18.5 87.5 82.5 82.5 94.7 87.9 87.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.63 0.59 0.59 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.43 0.34 1.18 0.23 1.09 0.07 1.19 0.86 0.16 Control Delay 146.5 44.0 65.0 145.9 13.8 89.7 1.9 167.8 36.7 5.8 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 146.5 44.0 65.0 145.9 13.8 89.7 1.9 167.8 36.7 5.8 LOS JJEr' F D E F B F A F D A Approach Delay 116.2 132.1 83.3 50.8 Approach LOS W F F F D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.19 Intersection Signal Delay:81.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street 01 1 t02 28 13S 187s 1 127 s I Ins 05 T 06 9.5 1 190.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT WBM NBL NBT NBR SBL - Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 278 48 69 69 36 296 33 1052 55 160 878 142 Future Volume(veh/h) 278 48 69 69 36 296 33 1052 55 160 878 142 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 296 51 0 73 38 0 35 1119 0 170 934 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 287 302 101 107 247 1106 157 1161 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.06 0.63 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 296 51 0 73 38 0 35 1119 0 170 934 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 22.5 3.3 0.0 5.7 2.7 0.0 1.1 82.5 0.0 8.5 52.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 22.5 3.3 0.0 5.7 2.7 0.0 1.1 82.5 0.0 8.5 52.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 287 302 101 107 247 1106 157 1161 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.17 0.72 0.35 0.14 1.01 1.08 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 287 302 234 248 263 1106 157 1161 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.5 50.4 0.0 64.7 63.3 0.0 19.2 28.5 0.0 48.8 19.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 61.1 0.3 0.0 9.3 2.0 0.0 0.3 29.9 0.0 96.3 6.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 15.0 1.6 0.0 2.8 1.4 0.0 0.4 44.2 0.0 7.4 23.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.6 50.7 0.0 73.9 65.3 0.0 19.4 58.4 0.0 145.1 25.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B F F C Approach Vol,veh/h 347 A 111 A 1154 A 1104 A Approach Delay,s/veh 109.5 71.0 57.2 44.0 Approach LOS F E E D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 In 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.0 87.0 27.0 8.2 91.8 12.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 82.5 22.5 5.0 86.0 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 10.5 84.5 24.5 3.1 54.9 7.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.1 HCM 6th LOS E Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2039 AM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 643 16 561 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 643 16 561 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.4 30.4 30.0 13.8 45.0 9.6 40.8 Total Split(%) 26.4% 26.4% 26.1% 12.0% 39.1% 8.3% 35.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.0 15.0 7.3 8.6 47.3 5.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.58 0.06 0.49 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.08 0.29 0.48 0.68 0.15 0.58 Control Delay 41.4 0.5 31.8 47.7 21.6 44.5 18.3 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.4 0.5 31.8 47.7 21.6 44.5 18.3 LOS MW D A C D C D B Approach Delay 36.3 31.8 24.4 18.8 Approach LOS W D C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:81.8 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.68 Intersection Signal Delay:23.2 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road I 30.4s 1 130!3 13.8s 140.8s 7 108 9.6s 145S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL R SBL Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 179 5 26 16 12 17 76 643 15 16 561 320 Future Volume(veh/h) 179 5 26 16 12 17 76 643 15 16 561 320 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1752 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 192 5 0 17 13 18 82 691 16 17 603 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 10 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 252 7 24 18 26 103 967 22 36 1743 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1738 45 1459 569 435 603 1668 1762 41 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 197 0 0 48 0 0 82 0 707 17 603 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1783 0 1459 1608 0 0 1668 0 1803 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 21.5 0.7 7.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.8 0.0 10.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 21.5 0.7 7.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 259 MPM 68 0 0 103 0 989 36 1743 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.71 0.48 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 626 0 555 0 0 210 0 989 123 1743 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 0.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 12.4 35.8 10.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 4.4 9.7 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 7.8 0.4 2.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 0.0 0.0 47.3 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 16.8 45.4 11.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 197 A 48 789 620 A Approach Delay,s/veh 34.9 47.3 19.9 12.4 Approach LOS C D B B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 15.2 9.1 41.9 7.6 6.0 45.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 25.9 9.3 36.3 25.5 5.1 40.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.8 5.6 9.7 4.2 2.7 23.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.9 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.0 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Timings 2039 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 260 1126 503 226 785 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 1126 503 226 785 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 16.3 44.0 44.0 13.2 40.9 40.9 13.3 47.0 47.0 10.8 44.5 44.5 Total Split(%) 14.2% 38.3% 38.3% 11.5% 35.6% 35.6% 11.6% 40.9% 40.9% 9.4% 38.7% 38.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 11.2 39.9 39.9 8.8 37.6 37.6 8.9 21.7 21.7 6.2 16.8 16.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.76 0.58 0.71 0.57 0.08 0.71 0.35 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.29 Control Delay 48.3 28.1 9.5 55.3 25.1 1.3 55.4 30.8 9.5 57.9 35.8 7.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.3 28.1 9.5 55.3 25.1 1.3 55.4 30.8 9.5 57.9 35.8 7.8 LOS JJEJF D C A E C A E C A E D A Approach Delay 25.9 30.2 30.8 32.0 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:92.7 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.76 Intersection Signal Delay:28.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 f.2 10.8s 47s y 13.2s Y 44s D5 06 13.3s 1 111-14.5s 016.3s i=',9s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 1126 503 226 785 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 1126 503 226 785 56 227 283 263 54 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 1149 0 231 801 0 232 289 0 55 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 350 1643 309 1586 310 672 76 503 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.47 0.00 0.09 0.45 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 1149 0 231 801 0 232 289 0 55 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 21.9 0.0 5.5 13.8 0.0 5.6 6.1 0.0 2.6 7.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.4 21.9 0.0 5.5 13.8 0.0 5.6 6.1 0.0 2.6 7.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 350 1641ME 309 1586 310 672 76 503 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.70 0.75 0.51 0.75 0.43 0.72 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 477 1643 355 1586 356 1782 132 1677 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 17.9 0.0 37.6 16.4 0.0 37.6 30.3 0.0 40.1 34.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.7 2.5 0.0 7.3 1.2 0.0 7.4 0.4 0.0 12.0 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 8.6 0.0 2.6 5.3 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 20.4 0.0 44.9 17.6 0.0 45.0 30.8 0.0 52.1 35.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D B D C D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1414 A 1032 A 521 A 374 A Approach Delay,s/veh 24.4 23.7 37.1 38.0 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 20.5 12.1 44.0 12.2 16.5 13.2 42.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.3 42.5 8.7 39.5 8.8 40.0 11.8 36.4 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.6 8.1 7.5 23.9 7.6 9.2 8.4 15.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.1 7.3 0.1 2.2 0.3 5.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2039 PM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r ttr Traffic Volume(vph) 190 884 291 80 729 348 126 318 38 388 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 884 291 80 729 348 126 318 38 388 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 12.2 34.0 34.0 9.5 31.3 31.3 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 10.6% 29.6% 29.6% 8.3% 27.2% 27.2% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)7.8 32.3 32.3 5.1 27.2 27.2 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.75 0.41 0.45 0.75 0.51 0.41 0.56 0.11 0.75 0.71 Control Delay 60.5 36.2 6.1 56.0 38.8 6.5 39.8 39.7 0.6 45.2 34.1 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.5 36.2 6.1 56.0 38.8 6.5 39.8 39.7 0.6 45.2 34.1 LOS JJEJF E D A E D A D D A D C Approach Delay 33.1 30.3 36.6 37.9 Approach LOS VP C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:95.4 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.75 Intersection Signal Delay:33.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 t CD2 6 36s 35.5s 9.5s I 1134s 112.2 s 1 1 131.3s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 PM WO 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB FT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 884 291 80 729 348 126 318 38 388 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 884 291 80 729 348 126 318 38 388 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3195 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 902 297 82 744 355 129 324 39 396 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 193 0 0 250 0 0 32 0 41 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 902 104 82 744 105 116 337 7 317 581 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 7.8 32.3 32.3 3.9 28.4 28.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.1 25.1 Effective Green,g(s) 7.8 32.3 32.3 3.9 28.4 28.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.1 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 270 1187 530 139 1023 460 281 597 271 419 832 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.25 0.02 0.21 0.07 c0.10 c0.20 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.76 0.20 0.59 0.73 0.23 0.41 0.56 0.03 0.76 0.70 Uniform Delay,dl 43.2 28.5 22.8 45.4 30.5 25.7 35.2 36.3 32.8 32.8 32.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 8.8 4.6 0.8 6.3 4.5 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.0 7.6 2.6 Delay(s)52.0 33.1 23.6 51.7 35.0 37.5 32.8 40.4 34.7 Level of Service D C C D C C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 33.7 33.7 36.8 36.7 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary Er HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.3 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM WO 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 83 83 1228 1345 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 83 83 1228 1345 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 86 86 1266 1387 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2825 - 1387 0 - 0 Stage 1 1387 - - - - - Stage 2 1438 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 20 0 494 - - - Stage 1 232 0 - - - - Stage 2 219 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 17 - 494 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 17 - - - - - Stage 1 192 - - - - - Stage 2 219 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$384.4 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 494 - 17 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.173 - 0.606 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 13.8 -$384.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.6 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM WO 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.7 Movement1BT N Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 1248 4 61 1369 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 1248 4 61 1369 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1411 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2826 - 0 0 1287 0 Stage 1 1289 - - - - - Stage 2 1537 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 - - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 - - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 19 0 - - 519 - Stage 1 252 0 - - - - Stage 2 190 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 17 - - - 519 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 17 - - - - - Stage 1 252 - - - - - Stage 2 167 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$469.2 0 0.5 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 17 - 519 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.849 - 0.121 - HCM Control Delay(s) 469.2 0 12.9 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 2.2 - 0.4 - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2039 PM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(vph) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 913 58 142 1126 100 Future Volume(vph) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 913 58 142 1126 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 66.7 66.7 10.8 68.0 68.0 Total Split(%) 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 9.5% 66.7% 66.7% 10.8% 68.0% 68.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 67.2 62.2 62.2 69.8 63.5 63.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.70 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.08 0.33 0.22 0.08 0.30 0.70 0.81 0.06 0.55 0.97 0.10 Control Delay 78.6 34.9 9.1 37.7 34.9 9.6 38.0 21.7 1.9 12.6 39.5 1.9 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.6 34.9 9.1 37.7 34.9 9.6 38.0 21.7 1.9 12.6 39.5 1.9 LOS JJEJF E C A D C A D C A B D A Approach Delay 51.8 21.0 22.3 33.8 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length:99.3 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.97 Intersection Signal Delay:31.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St IO2 10.8s 1 166.7s 5 T 08 9.5 s 1 1 168S 1 VA 22.. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I +} r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 199 50 23 104 105 913 58 142 1126 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 199 23 116 50 23 104 105 913 58 142 1126 100 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.7-- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1870 1856 1841 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 25 0 52 25 0 114 941 0 146 1161 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 307 337 307 337 178 1178 314 1190 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.05 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 25 0 52 25 0 114 941 0 146 1161 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.3 1.1 0.0 3.2 1.1 0.0 2.2 37.5 0.0 2.8 59.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.4 1.1 0.0 4.3 1.1 0.0 2.2 37.5 0.0 2.8 59.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 307 337 307 337 178 1178 314 1190 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.64 0.80 0.46 0.98 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 307 337 307 337 181 1178 339 1190 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 34.0 0.0 35.8 34.0 0.0 25.1 13.5 0.0 14.7 17.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 7.3 5.7 0.0 1.1 20.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.8 0.5 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 2.0 15.7 0.0 1.5 28.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.9 34.1 0.0 36.0 34.1 0.0 32.4 19.2 0.0 15.8 38.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C C B B D Approach Vol,veh/h 241 A 77 A 1055 A 1307 A Approach Delay,s/veh 46.5 35.4 20.6 35.7 Approach LOS D D C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.4 67.9 22.5 9.3 68.0 22.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.3 62.2 18.0 5.0 63.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.8 39.5 18.4 4.2 61.4 6.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 8.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM WO 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 1082 1259 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 325 340 1082 1259 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized fp - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 0 332 347 1104 1285 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3083 - 1285 0 - 0 Stage 1 1285 - - - - - Stage 2 1798 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 13 0 540 - - - Stage 1 252 0 - - - - Stage 2 140 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 5 - 540 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 5 - - - - - Stage 1 90 - - - - - Stage 2 140 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 5.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 540 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.642 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 22.9 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 4.5 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2039 PM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group A NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 143 30 62 39 37 1016 64 200 1163 188 Future Volume(vph) 143 30 62 39 37 1016 64 200 1163 188 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 88.0 88.0 17.0 95.5 95.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.3% 58.7% 58.7% 11.3% 63.7% 63.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.0 16.0 15.1 15.1 88.7 83.7 83.7 100.7 93.2 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.36 0.36 0.90 0.35 1.00 0.07 1.03 1.01 0.19 Control Delay 90.0 35.2 66.4 59.2 19.7 58.1 0.5 114.2 56.8 6.0 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 90.0 35.2 66.4 59.2 19.7 58.1 0.5 114.2 56.8 6.0 LOS 11MIr' F D E E B E A F E A Approach Delay 70.7 60.6 53.5 58.0 Approach LOS W E E D E Intersection Summary IV 19 Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 145.3 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay:57.6 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street 404 IF-080. 17s 188S D T D6 9.5 1 1195.5!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 7: Route 11 & Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurationsi r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 143 30 48 62 39 218 37 1016 64 200 1163 188 Future Volume(veh/h) 143 30 48 62 39 218 37 1016 64 200 1163 188 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 149 31 0 65 41 0 39 1058 0 208 1211 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 176 187 92 94 153 1222 259 1280 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.66 0.00 0.05 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 149 31 0 65 41 0 39 1058 0 208 1211 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.1 2.0 0.0 4.8 2.9 0.0 0.9 60.3 0.0 5.0 77.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.1 2.0 0.0 4.8 2.9 0.0 0.9 60.3 0.0 5.0 77.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 176 187 92 94 153 1222 259 1280 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.17 0.71 0.44 0.26 0.87 0.80 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 237 253 241 247 168 1222 329 1280 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.8 54.8 0.0 62.1 61.2 0.0 29.0 18.0 0.0 28.2 18.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 18.8 0.4 0.0 9.5 3.1 0.0 0.9 8.4 0.0 10.7 15.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.9 1.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.8 26.8 0.0 5.3 35.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.6 55.2 0.0 71.6 64.3 0.0 29.9 26.4 0.0 38.9 34.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E C C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 180 A 106 A 1097 A 1419 A Approach Delay,s/veh 73.7 68.8 26.5 34.7 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.7 92.1 17.8 8.3 95.5 11.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.5 83.5 18.0 5.0 91.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.0 62.3 13.1 2.9 79.1 6.8 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 9.5 0.2 0.0 7.9 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2039 PM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group An&b&EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 663 19 682 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 663 19 682 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 12.0 43.5 11.0 42.5 Total Split(%) 26.5% 26.5% 26.1% 10.4% 37.8% 9.6% 37.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 22.7 22.7 6.9 7.3 44.5 6.3 39.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.51 0.07 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.12 0.26 0.46 0.75 0.16 0.67 Control Delay 44.1 1.7 29.8 52.9 28.0 45.8 22.9 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.1 1.7 29.8 52.9 28.0 45.8 22.9 LOS J§ Ww D A C D C D C Approach Delay 38.4 29.8 30.2 23.3 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:86.9 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.77 Intersection Signal Delay:28.4 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road 30.5 1 130!3 12s 42.5s 11S 143.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM WO 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBT EBR WB L SBL SB Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 325 11 52 7 11 20 64 663 11 19 682 316 Future Volume(veh/h) 325 11 52 7 11 20 64 663 11 19 682 316 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 342 12 0 7 12 21 67 698 12 20 718 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 392 14 11 18 32 86 880 15 40 1626 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.46 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1628 57 1535 297 509 890 1767 1819 31 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 354 0 0 40 0 0 67 0 710 20 718 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1695 0 0 1767 0 1850 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 26.7 0.9 11.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 16.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 26.7 0.9 11.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.52 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 406 0 62 0 0 86 0 895 40 1626 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.79 0.50 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 528 0 520 0 0 160 0 895 139 1626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 0.0 39.1 0.0 18.0 40.2 15.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.1 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 7.2 9.6 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 11.4 0.5 4.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.0 0.0 53.1 0.0 25.1 49.7 16.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 354 A 40 777 738 A Approach Delay,s/veh 42.4 50.5 27.5 17.1 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 24.5 8.5 42.5 7.5 6.3 44.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 7.5 38.0 25.5 6.5 39.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 18.8 5.1 13.4 3.9 2.9 28.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.2 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Appendix Analysis Reports — Future With Project Conditions (2039) Timings 2039 AM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 71 597 218 166 906 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Future Volume(vph) 71 597 218 166 906 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 39.0 39.0 14.0 43.0 43.0 17.0 51.8 51.8 10.2 45.0 45.0 Total Split(%) 8.7% 33.9% 33.9% 12.2% 37.4% 37.4% 14.8% 45.0% 45.0% 8.9% 39.1% 39.1% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)5.6 35.2 35.2 8.9 40.9 40.9 11.1 29.1 29.1 5.7 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.47 0.32 0.51 0.60 0.06_ 0.60 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.49 0.43 Control Delay 50.3 24.3 4.9 46.8 23.6 0.1 45.9 22.9 5.3 49.4 34.7 10.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.3 24.3 4.9 46.8 23.6 0.1 45.9 22.9 5.3 49.4 34.7 10.8 LOS JEW D C A D C D C A D C B Approach Delay 21.6 26.2 29.3 27.2 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:90.6 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.60 Intersection Signal Delay:25.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11 10.2s 1,151.8s 14s 1 W39s 5 T '6 1 5 u 17s I PA45!3 I W10S 1 043!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL - Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 71 597 218 166 906 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 71 597 218 166 906 42 243 192 118 22 321 177 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1737 1767 1737 1841 1811 1841 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 72 609 0 169 924 0 248 196 0 22 328 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 11 9 11 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 160 1542 251 1662 340 771 43 501 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3209 3357 1472 3401 3441 1560 3401 3554 1572 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 72 609 0 169 924 0 248 196 0 22 328 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1605 1678 1472 1700 1721 1560 1700 1777 1572 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.7 9.6 0.0 3.9 15.1 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.7 9.6 10.0 3.9 15.1 0.0 5.6 3.6 0.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 160 1542P= 251 1662 340 771 43 501 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.40 0.67 0.56 0.73 0.25 0.51 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 221 1542 405 1662 533 2109 127 1806 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.8 14.2 0.0 36.0 14.6 0.0 34.8 25.9 0.0 38.4 32.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.0 0.8 0.0 3.1 1.3 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 9.0 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 3.5 0.0 1.7 5.6 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 15.0 0.0 39.1 15.9 0.0 37.8 26.0 0.0 47.5 33.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B D B D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 681 A 1093 A 444 A 350 A Approach Delay,s/veh 17.5 19.5 32.6 34.7 Approach LOS B B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 21.8 10.4 41.1 12.5 15.7 8.5 43.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.7 47.3 9.5 34.5 12.5 40.5 5.5 38.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 3.0 5.6 5.9 11.6 7.6 9.0 3.7 17.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.3 0.2 4.1 0.4 2.3 0.0 6.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2039 AM W 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t 14* Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR BR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 488 124 61 832 545 146 337 48 412 339 Future Volume(vph) 107 488 124 61 832 545 146 337 48 412 339 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 33.4 33.4 10.1 33.5 33.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 8.7% 29.0% 29.0% 8.8% 29.1% 29.1% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)5.6 31.8 31.8 5.7 29.5 29.5 17.8 17.8 17.8 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.46 0.22 0.32 0.82 0.65 0.47 0.58 0.14 0.73 0.71 Control Delay 62.8 30.5 6.8 52.3 40.6 6.9 40.9 39.8 0.8 44.7 36.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.8 30.5 6.8 52.3 40.6 6.9 40.9 39.8 0.8 44.7 36.5 LOS E C A D D A D D A D D Approach Delay 31.2 28.4 36.6 39.3 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:96 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.82 Intersection Signal Delay:32.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 t CD2 6 36s 7 R 35.5 s 1110.1s 33.4s 07 08 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 AM W 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR BR SBL SBT MR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 488 124 61 832 545 146 337 48 412 339 124 Future Volume(vph) 107 488 124 61 832 545 146 337 48 412 339 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3099 3282 1516 3303 3406 1548 1564 3348 1487 1595 3175 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow(vph) 110 503 128 63 858 562 151 347 49 425 349 128 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 86 0 0 385 0 0 40 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 110 503 42 63 858 177 136 362 9 302 580 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 3 3 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 13% 10% 5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 5.6 31.8 31.8 4.3 30.5 30.5 17.8 17.8 17.8 24.8 24.8 Effective Green,g(s) 5.6 31.8 31.8 4.3 30.5 30.5 17.8 17.8 17.8 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 179 1079 498 146 1074 488 287 616 273 409 814 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.15 0.02 c0.25 0.09 c0.11 c0.19 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.47 0.08 0.43 0.80 0.36 0.47 0.59 0.03 0.74 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 44.5 25.7 22.4 45.0 30.3 25.6 35.3 36.1 32.4 33.0 32.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 6.1 1.4 0.3 2.0 6.2 2.1 1.2 1.4 0.0 6.8 3.0 Delay(s) 2.7 47.1 36.5 27.7.5 32.4 39.8 35.7 Level of Service D C C D D C D D C D D Approach Delay(s) 33.6 36.8 37.1 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.7 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 36.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 55 171 1389 1053 30 Future Vol,veh/h 44 55 171 1389 1053 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized e - None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 6 2 Mvmt Flow 47 59 184 1494 1132 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2995 - 1133 0 - 0 Stage 1 1133 - - - - - Stage 2 1862 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver —15 0 617 - - - Stage 1 307 0 - - - - Stage 2 135 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver —11 - 616 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver —11 - - - - - Stage 1 215 - - - - - Stage 2 135 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,$2163.6 1.5 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NB Ln1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 616 - 11 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.298 - 4.301 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 13.3 $2163.6 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.2 - 7.1 - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Vol,veh/h 9 140 1422 15 73 1026 Future Vol,veh/h 9 140 1422 15 73 1026 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,#0 _ - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 13 6 5 Mvmt Flow 10 151 1529 16 78 1103 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2796 - 0 0 1529 0 Stage 1 1537 - - - - - Stage 2 1259 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - - - 4.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - - - 2.254 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 20 0 - - 424 - Stage 1 195 0 - - - - Stage 2 267 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 16 - - - 424 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 16 - - - - - Stage 1 195 - - - - - Stage 2 218 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s $404 0 1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 16 - 424 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.605 - 0.185 - HCM Control Delay(s) 404 0 15.4 - HCM Lane LOS F A C - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.6 - 0.7 - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2039 AM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EB NBT N SB Lane Configurations t r r Traffic Volume(vph) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 1090 27 43 921 68 Future Volume(vph) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 1090 27 43 921 68 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.6 68.0 68.0 9.5 67.9 67.9 Total Split(%) 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 9.6% 68.0% 68.0% 9.5% 67.9% 67.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 70.4 67.3 67.3 68.4 63.4 63.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.03 0.24 0.49 0.20 0.37 0.47 0.93 0.03 0.29 0.85 0.07 Control Delay 80.1 34.2 10.1 44.5 36.7 8.9 10.8 30.2 0.3 8.6 23.5 1.9 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 80.1 34.2 10.1 44.5 36.7 8.9 10.8 30.2 0.3 8.6 23.5 1.9 LOS JJEJF F C B D D A B C A A C A Approach Delay 59.6 27.0 27.9 21.4 Approach LOS W E C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length:99.4 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.93 Intersection Signal Delay:28.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 &Puapuaanui St} D i I N•2 9.5s 68s 22.5 05 D6 7 9._6S 1 1 161-1.9s 1 F 22.5!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WB NBR SB Lane Configurations r t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 1090 27 43 921 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 193 9 75 112 59 140 104 1090 27 43 921 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 210 10 0 119 64 0 113 1160 0 46 980 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 Cap,veh/h 275 338 320 338 281 1202 166 1161 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.04 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 210 10 0 119 64 0 113 1160 0 46 980 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1338 1870 1585 1405 1870 1585 1781 1856 1585 1781 1826 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.1 0.4 0.0 7.6 2.9 0.0 2.1 58.5 0.0 0.9 42.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.0 0.4 0.0 8.0 2.9 0.0 2.1 58.5 0.0 0.9 42.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 275 338 320 338 281 1202 166 1161 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.03 0.37 0.19 0.40 0.96 0.28 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 275 338 320 338 286 1202 191 1161 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 42.5 33.6 0.0 37.0 34.7 0.0 16.3 16.5 0.0 23.7 14.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.9 18.8 0.0 0.9 7.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.0 0.2 0.0 2.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 27.6 0.0 0.7 17.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 33.7 0.0 37.7 34.9 0.0 17.3 35.3 0.0 24.6 21.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C B D C C Approach Vol,veh/h 220 A 183 A 1273 A 1026 A Approach Delay,s/veh 53.6 36.7 33.7 21.9 Approach LOS D D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.1 69.1 22.5 9.3 67.9 22.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.0 63.5 18.0 5.1 63.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.9 60.5 20.0 4.1 44.0 10.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 17.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Vol,veh/h 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized f& - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Mvmt Flow 0 171 1 651 1140 1135 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3577 - 1135 0 - 0 Stage 1 1135 - - - - - Stage 2 2442 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 6 0 —616 - - - Stage 1 307 0 - - - - Stage 2 68 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - —616 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 - - - - - Stage 1 0 - - - - - Stage 2 68 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 28.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 616 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.056 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 77.6 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS F - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 17.9 - - - - - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2039 AM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 27.0 27.0 25.0 25.0 9.5 85.0 85.0 13.0 88.5 88.5 Total Split(%) 18.0% 18.0% 16.7% 16.7% 6.3% 56.7% 56.7% 8.7% 59.0% 59.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 22.5 22.5 20.5 20.5 85.5 80.5 80.5 92.7 85.9 85.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.62 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 1.14 0.43 0.38 1.16 0.28 1.14 0.07 1.22 0.90 0.16 Control Delay 152.1 44.0 64.1 139.7 16.8 106.9 2.1 177.4 41.9 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 152.1 44.0 64.1 139.7 16.8 106.9 2.1 177.4 41.9 6.5 LOS F D E F B F A F D A Approach Delay 120.5 124.8 99.3 56.0 Approach LOS W F F F E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.22 Intersection Signal Delay:89.0 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 01 1 102 9 13s I85s 27s 05 T 06 9.5 1 W88.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 289 303 119 126 221 1084 157 1140 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 22.5 3.3 0.0 6.9 2.9 0.0 1.1 80.5 0.0 8.5 56.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 22.5 3.3 0.0 6.9 2.9 0.0 1.1 80.5 0.0 8.5 56.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 289 303 119 126 221 1084 157 1140 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.17 0.76 0.33 0.16 1.05 1.11 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 289 303 261 276 238 1084 157 1140 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.2 50.1 0.0 63.6 61.7 0.0 21.2 29.2 0.0 48.0 21.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 64.6 0.3 0.0 9.3 1.5 0.0 0.3 40.4 0.0 102.7 7.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 15.3 1.6 0.0 3.4 1.4 0.0 0.5 46.6 0.0 7.6 25.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 122.7 50.4 0.0 73.0 63.2 0.0 21.6 69.6 0.0 150.7 28.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E C F F C Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1170 A 1127 A Approach Delay,s/veh 112.3 69.9 68.1 47.4 Approach LOS F E E D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6000 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.0 85.0 27.0 8.2 89.8 13.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 80.5 22.5 5.0 84.0 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 10.5 82.5 24.5 3.1 58.5 8.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 65.4 HCM 6th LOS E Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2039 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road IIRoute 11 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph)5 26 12 76 654 16 581 Future Volume(vph) 5 26 12 76 654 16 581 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 30.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 30.0 11.9 45.0 9.5 42.6 Total Split(%) 26.5% 26.5% 26.1% 10.3% 39.1% 8.3% 37.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 15.1 15.1 7.3 7.5 47.4 5.1 38.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.58 0.06 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.08 0.29 0.55 0.70 0.16 0.63 Control Delay 41.8 0.5 31.9 54.8 22.0 44.8 18.5 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.8 0.5 31.9 54.8 22.0 44.8 18.5 LOS MW D A C D C D B Approach Delay 36.8 31.9 25.4 19.0 Approach LOS IF D C C B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:82.1 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.70 Intersection Signal Delay:23.7 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Kamehameha III Road Route 11 30.5 1 130!3 11.9 s 42.6s Dt,08 9.5 s 1 145S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W 8: Kamehameha III Road Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WB L R SBL SBT SBA Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 182 5 26 16 12 17 76 654 15 16 581 334 Future Volume(veh/h) 182 5 26 16 12 17 76 654 15 16 581 334 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1811 1870 1722 1870 1781 1796 1752 1811 1870 1870 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 5 0 17 13 18 82 703 16 17 625 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 6 2 12 2 8 7 10 6 2 2 6 6 Cap,veh/h 256 7 24 18 25 103 970 22 35 1750 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1739 44 1459 569 435 603 1668 1763 40 1781 3532 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 201 0 0 48 0 0 82 0 719 17 625 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1783 0 1459 1608 0 0 1668 0 1803 1781 1721 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 22.3 0.7 8.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.1 MWd 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 22.3 0.7 8.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 0.35 0.37 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 262 MPM 68 0 0 103 0 992 35 1750 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.72 0.48 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 619 0 547 0 0 165 0 992 119 1750 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.7 0.0 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 12.6 36.3 11.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 4.6 9.7 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 8.2 0.4 2.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.3 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 0.0 47.5 0.0 17.2 46.1 11.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A B D B Approach Vol,veh/h 201 A 48 801 642 A Approach Delay,s/veh 35.3 48.1 20.3 12.5 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 0000qW 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 15.5 9.1 42.6 7.7 6.0 45.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 7.4 38.1 25.5 5.0 40.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 10.1 5.6 10.2 4.2 2.7 24.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.0 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 4.2 Intersection Summary 0 0 HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 AM W 9: Route 11 & Royal Vistas 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 29 108 1060 25 22 1033 Future Vol,veh/h 29 108 1060 25 22 1033 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized d - Yield - None Storage Length 0 0 - 500 500 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 32 117 1152 27 24 1123 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2323 1152 0 0 1152 0 Stage 1 1152 - - - - - Stage 2 1171 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 41 241 - - 606 - Stage 1 301 - - - - - Stage 2 295 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 39 241 - - 606 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 39 - - - - - Stage 1 301 - - - - - Stage 2 283 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 77.6 0 0.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 39 241 606 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.808 0.487 0.039 - HCM Control Delay(s) 242.4 33.3 11.2 - HCM Lane LOS F D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 3 2.5 0.1 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Timings 2039 PM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBF; Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 260 1160 503 227 809 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Future Volume(vph) 260 1160 503 227 809 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 38.5 38.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 9.5 42.5 42.5 Total Split(s) 16.3 45.0 45.0 13.3 42.0 42.0 13.3 45.8 45.8 10.9 43.4 43.4 Total Split(%) 14.2% 39.1% 39.1% 11.6% 36.5% 36.5% 11.6% 39.8% 39.8% 9.5% 37.7% 37.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green(s) 11.2 40.9 40.9 8.9 38.6 38.6 8.9 21.7 21.7 6.3 16.9 16.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.77 0.58 0.71 0.58 0.09 0.72 0.35 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.29 Control Delay 49.1 28.5 9.7 56.1 25.1 2.3 56.6 31.4 10.8 59.1 36.4 7.8 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.1 28.5 9.7 56.1 25.1 2.3 56.6 31.4 10.8 59.1 36.4 7.8 LOS D C A E C A E C B E D A Approach Delay 26.3 30.2 31.6 32.7 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:93.8 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.77 Intersection Signal Delay:29.0 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: Palani Rd &Route 11} 102 fo3 CD4 10.9s 1 45.8s 7 113.3s I 145s D 5 T 35 08 13.3s 1 143.4s 1 IT6.3s 42s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W 1: Palani Rd Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations tt r tt r tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 1160 503 227 809 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 1160 503 227 809 65 227 283 272 56 313 107 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1870 1870 1841 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 265 1184 0 232 826 0 232 289 0 57 319 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 348 1659 309 1603 309 666 77 500 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.47 0.00 0.09 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 3526 1585 3456 3497 1585 3428 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 265 1184 0 232 826 0 232 289 0 57 319 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1763 1585 1728 1749 1585 1714 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.5 23.0 0.0 5.6 14.4 0.0 5.7 6.2 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.5 23.0 0.0 5.6 14.4 0.0 5.7 6.2 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 348 1659' 309 1603 309 666 77 500 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.71 0.75 0.52 0.75 0.43 0.74 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 470 1659 353 1603 351 1705 132 1606 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 18.2 0.0 38.2 16.5 0.0 38.2 30.9 0.0 40.7 34.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.0 2.6 0.0 7.6 1.2 0.0 7.8 0.4 0.0 13.0 1.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.9 9.1 0.0 2.6 5.6 0.0 2.7 2.6 0.0 1.5 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.6 20.8 0.0 45.8 17.7 0.0 46.0 31.4 0.0 53.6 36.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D B D C D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1449 A 1058 A 521 A 376 A Approach Delay,s/veh 24.8 23.9 37.9 38.9 Approach LOS C C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 8.2 20.6 12.2 45.0 12.2 16.6 13.2 44.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.4 41.3 8.8 40.5 8.8 38.9 11.8 37.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.7 8.2 7.6 25.0 7.7 9.3 8.5 16.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.0 0.1 7.5 0.1 2.2 0.3 5.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Timings 2039 PM W 2: Henry St Route 11 11/12/2021 t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 930 291 84 764 368 126 318 40 411 342 Future Volume(vph) 190 930 291 84 764 368 126 318 40 411 342 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 30.5 30.5 9.5 30.5 30.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Total Split(s) 12.2 34.0 34.0 9.5 31.3 31.3 36.0 36.0 36.0 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 10.6% 29.6% 29.6% 8.3% 27.2% 27.2% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 30.9% 30.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None Act Effct Green(s)7.8 32.2 32.2 5.1 27.2 27.2 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.80 0.42 0.48 0.79 0.53 0.41 0.56 0.12 0.75 0.72 Control Delay 61.2 38.2 7.0 57.0 40.8 6.6 39.9 39.9 0.7 45.1 34.6 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.2 38.2 7.0 57.0 40.8 6.6 39.9 39.9 0.7 45.1 34.6 LOS 11MIrw' E D A E D A D D A D C Approach Delay 34.8 31.6 36.6 38.2 Approach LOS W C C D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length:96 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.80 Intersection Signal Delay:34.8 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Henry St &Route 11 t CD2 6 36s 35.5s 9.5s I 1134s 112.2 s 1 1 131.3s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2039 PM W 2: Henry St Route 11 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB FT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 190 930 291 84 764 368 126 318 40 411 342 190 Future Volume(vph) 190 930 291 84 764 368 126 318 40 411 342 190 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(prot)3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3196 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow(perm) 3335 3539 1583 3433 3471 1561 1595 3382 1537 1610 3196 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 194 949 297 86 780 376 129 324 41 419 349 194 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 184 0 0 266 0 0 34 0 39 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 194 949 113 86 780 110 116 337 7 323 600 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 7 7 4 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 7.8 32.2 32.2 3.9 28.3 28.3 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.7 25.7 Effective Green,g(s) 7.8 32.2 32.2 3.9 28.3 28.3 17.0 17.0 17.0 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 268 1177 526 138 1014 456 280 593 269 427 848 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.27 0.03 0.22 0.07 c0.10 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.81 0.21 0.62 0.77 0.24 0.41 0.57 0.03 0.76 0.71 Uniform Delay,dl 43.4 29.5 23.2 45.7 31.3 26.1 35.5 36.5 33.0 32.7 32.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 9.3 6.0 0.9 8.5 5.6 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.0 7.5 2.7 Delay(s)52.8 35.4 24.1 54.2 36.9 27.3 36.5 37.8 33.1 40.1 34.9 Level of Service D D C D D C D D C D C Approach Delay(s) 35.4 35.2 37.1 36.6 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary Er HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 96.8 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W 3: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (North) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 10 88 89 1287 1416 17 Future Vol,veh/h 10 88 89 1287 1416 17 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - Yield Storage Length 140 0 650 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 4 2 6 Mvmt Flow 10 91 92 1327 1460 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2971 - 1460 0 - 0 Stage 1 1460 - - - - - Stage 2 1511 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 16 0 463 - - - Stage 1 213 0 - - - - Stage 2 201 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 13 - 463 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 13 - - - - - Stage 1 171 - - - - - Stage 2 201 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$553.1 0.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 463 - 13 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.198 - 0.793 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 14.7 -$553.1 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 1.8 - - - Notes MIll Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W 4: Route 11 & Hualalai Rd (South) 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.6 Movement Lane Configurationsi Traffic Vol,veh/h 14 71 1313 4 61 1446 Future Vol,veh/h 14 71 1313 4 61 1446 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None Storage Length 0 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 -m77_ W 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 7 2 3 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 14 73 4 63 1491 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2973 - 0 0 1354 0 Stage 1 1356 - - - - - Stage 2 1617 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.47 - - - 4.18 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.47 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.47 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.563 - - - 2.272 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 15 0 - - 489 - Stage 1 234 0 - - - - Stage 2 174 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -13 - - - 489 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -13 - - - - - Stage 1 234 - - - - - Stage 2 152 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s$679.5 0 0.5 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 13 - 489 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.11 - 0.129 - HCM Control Delay(s) 679.5 0 13.4 - HCM Lane LOS F A B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 2.4 - 0.4 - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Timings 2039 PM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 4--- t t Lane Group EBL SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r Traffic Volume(vph) 199 23 116 53 23 104 105 978 61 142 1202 100 Future Volume(vph) 199 23 116 53 23 104 105 978 61 142 1202 100 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 76.3 76.3 11.2 78.0 78.0 Total Split(%) 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 8.6% 69.4% 69.4% 10.2% 70.9% 70.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 76.9 71.9 71.9 80.1 73.5 73.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.73 0.67 0.67 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.08 0.35 0.24 0.08 0.31 0.77 0.84 0.06 0.59 1.00 0.10 Control Delay 97.4 39.9 10.0 43.4 39.9 10.4 50.9 22.6 1.9 16.0 43.8 1.9 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 97.4 39.9 10.0 43.4 39.9 10.4 50.9 22.6 1.9 16.0 43.8 1.9 LOS JJEJF F D B D D B D C A B D A Approach Delay 63.5 24.1 24.2 38.0 Approach LOS W E C C D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay:35.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 &Puapuaanui St 11.2s 76.3s 22.5s 5 f,6 08 9.5s 1 1,178s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W 5: Route 11 & Puapuaanui St 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL E DR WBL W1 MBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 199 53 23 104 105 978 61 142 1202 100 Future Volume(veh/h) 199 23 116 53 23 104 105 978 61 142 1202 100 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 17-M 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1870 1856 1841 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 216 25 0 55 25 0 114 1008 0 146 1239 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 277 306 277 306 153 1240 299 1251 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.04 0.67 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 216 25 0 55 25 0 114 1008 0 146 1239 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1386 1870 1585 1386 1870 1547 1781 1856 1560 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 16.8 1.2 0.0 3.8 1.2 0.0 2.3 43.3 0.0 2.8 71.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.0 1.2 0.0 5.1 1.2 0.0 2.3 43.3 0.0 2.8 71.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 277 306 277 306 153 1240 299 1251 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.08 0.20 0.08 0.75 0.81 0.49 0.99 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 277 306 277 306 156 1240 327 1251 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 46.7 38.9 0.0 41.1 38.9 0.0 29.8 13.2 0.0 16.5 17.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 17.4 5.9 0.0 1.2 23.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.9 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 2.7 18.0 0.0 1.9 34.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.0 39.0 0.0 41.4 39.0 0.0 47.2 19.1 0.0 17.7 41.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D D D B B D Approach Vol,veh/h 241 A 80 A 1122 A 1385 A Approach Delay,s/veh 57.8 40.7 22.0 38.5 Approach LOS E D C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 qu 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 9.4 77.9 22.5 9.3 78.0 22.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.7 71.8 18.0 5.0 73.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 4.8 45.3 20.0 4.3 73.3 7.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 11 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SB Lane Configurations r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Future Vol,veh/h 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized F&e - None - Yield Storage Length 160 0 630 - - 700 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 m 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Mvmt Flow 0 332 348 1179 1296 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 3171 - 1296 0 - 0 Stage 1 1296 - - - - - Stage 2 1875 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.48 - 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 - 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 11 0 535 - - - Stage 1 249 0 - - - - Stage 2 128 0 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 4 - 535 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 4 - - - - - Stage 1 87 - - - - - Stage 2 128 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 5.3 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 535 - - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.65 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 23.4 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS C - A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 4.7 - - - - - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Timings 2039 PM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 88.0 88.0 17.0 95.5 95.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.3% 58.7% 58.7% 11.3% 63.7% 63.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.5 16.5 15.9 15.9 88.6 83.6 83.6 100.7 93.2 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.36 0.38 0.92 0.36 1.06 0.07 1.06 1.03 0.19 Control Delay 93.5 35.1 66.8 62.0 20.0 75.4 0.5 119.5 61.9 6.1 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.5 35.1 66.8 62.0 20.0 75.4 0.5 119.5 61.9 6.1 LOS F D E E B E A F E A Approach Delay 73.7 63.0 69.5 62.5 Approach LOS W E E E E Intersection Summary go Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 146.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay:65.8 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 404 IF-080. 17s 188S D T D6 9.5 1 1195.5!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBNBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 184 196 99 101 137 1146 233 1268 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.62 0.00 0.09 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.0 2.0 0.0 5.4 3.0 0.0 1.1 77.4 0.0 10.0 81.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.0 2.0 0.0 5.4 3.0 0.0 1.1 77.4 0.0 10.0 81.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 184 196 99 101 137 1146 233 1268 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.16 0.73 0.41 0.28 0.97 0.90 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 233 249 237 243 152 1146 239 1268 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 59.5 55.1 0.0 62.9 61.7 0.0 30.5 24.7 0.0 44.9 20.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 21.9 0.4 0.0 9.7 2.7 0.0 1.1 20.4 0.0 32.5 17.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.5 1.0 0.0 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.8 38.4 0.0 6.5 38.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 81.5 55.5 0.0 72.6 64.4 0.0 31.6 45.1 0.0 77.4 37.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E E E C D E D Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1151 A 1430 A Approach Delay,s/veh 77.2 69.6 44.7 43.6 Approach LOS E E D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6000 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 16.5 88.0 18.7 8.3 96.2 12.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.5 83.5 18.0 5.0 91.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.0 79.4 14.0 3.1 83.7 7.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 5.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Timings 2039 PM W 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road II 11/12/2021 4---t t Lane Group An&b&EBR WBT NBL NBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 695 19 692 Future Volume(vph) 11 52 11 64 695 19 692 Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 2 2 6 3 8 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s)30.0 30.0 25.0 9.5 23.5 9.5 23.5 Total Split(s) 30.5 30.5 25.0 11.6 45.0 9.5 42.9 Total Split(%) 27.7% 27.7% 22.7% 10.5% 40.9% 8.6% 39.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green(s) 23.1 23.1 6.9 7.0 45.3 5.1 39.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.52 0.06 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.12 0.27 0.48 0.78 0.19 0.68 Control Delay 46.6 1.3 29.5 55.1 28.8 48.9 22.8 Queue Delay JI&M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.6 1.3 29.5 55.1 28.8 48.9 22.8 LOS J§ Ww D A C E C D C Approach Delay 40.7 29.5 30.9 23.3 Approach LOS W D C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:87.6 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.81 Intersection Signal Delay:29.2 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 &Kamehameha III Road 2 30.5 1 1125s 11,6s Y 4-.9s k5s_I 45s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 16 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W 8: Route 11 & Kamehameha III Road 1I11/ 12/2021 11 -- p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WB L SBL SB Lane Configurations T r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 343 11 52 7 11 21 64 695 11 19 692 322 Future Volume(veh/h) 343 11 52 7 11 21 64 695 11 19 692 322 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1856 1767 1811 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 361 12 0 7 12 22 67 732 12 20 728 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 3 9 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 408 14 11 18 33 86 872 14 39 1608 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1631 54 1535 289 495 908 1767 1820 30 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 373 0 0 41 0 0 67 0 744 20 728 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1685 0 1535 1692 0 0 1767 0 1850 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 18.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 29.7 0.9 12.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 29.7 0.9 12.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.54 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 422 0 62 0 0 86 0 886 39 1608 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.84 0.51 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 516 0 409 0 0 148 0 886 105 1608 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 30.6 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 39.9 0.0 19.3 41.0 16.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 14.5 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 9.4 9.7 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 8.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 13.2 0.5 4.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 0.0 0.0 51.9 0.0 0.0 53.9 0.0 28.7 50.7 16.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D A A D A C D B Approach Vol,veh/h 373 A 41 811 748 A Approach Delay,s/veh 45.1 51.9 30.7 17.8 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 111Pr 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 25.7 8.6 42.9 7.6 6.4 45.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 26.0 7.1 38.4 20.5 5.0 40.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 20.1 5.2 14.0 4.0 2.9 31.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 1.1 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 18 HCM 6th TWSC 2039 PM W 9: Route 11 & Royal Vistas 11/12/2021 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 12 68 1155 74 79 1255 Future Vol,veh/h 12 68 1155 74 79 1255 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized Ift - None - None Storage Length 0 0 - 500 500 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 _77W 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 74 80 86 1364 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2791 1255 0 0 1335 0 Stage 1 1255 - - - - - Stage 2 1536 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 21 209 - - 517 - Stage 1 268 - - - - - Stage 2 196 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 18 209 - - 517 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 18 - - - - - Stage 1 268 - - - - - Stage 2 163 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 87.6 0 0.8 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT Capacity(veh/h) 18 209 517 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.725 0.354 0.166 - HCM Control Delay(s) 405.8 31.4 13.3 - HCM Lane LOS F D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.9 1.5 0.6 - 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Timings 2039 AM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 605 1060 1056 2 Turn Type Perm Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 47.0 127.5 80.5 80.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 31.3% 85.0% 53.7% 53.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)5.5 42.5 123.0 76.0 76.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.89 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.36 1.19 0.70 1.14 0.00 Control Delay 2.2 144.2 4.8 103.4 9.5 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.2 144.2 5.0 103.4 9.5 LOS 11MIr' A F A F A Approach Delay 55.6 103.2 Approach LOS W E F Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 137.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.19 Intersection Signal Delay:70.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street tD2 n 127.5s I 22.5!; 05 T 47s SF-.5{ 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 651 1140 1135 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 594 1761 1088 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.96 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 651 1140 1135 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 42.5 7.5 76.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 42.5 7.5 76.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 594 1761 1088 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.10 0.65 1.04 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 594 1761 1088 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 42.5 0.2 25.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 66.0 1.9 39.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.9 42.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 108.5 2.1 64.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A F Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1791 1135 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 40.8 64.9 Approach LOS D E Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 47.0 80.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 42.5 76.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 0.0 44.5 78.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 AM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 605 1060 1056 2 Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)7.5 123.1 123.1 123.1 123.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 v/c Ratio 0.68 1.85 0.71 0.71 0.00 Control Delay 21.8 412.7 6.1 6.0 1.0 Queue Delay Jill" 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.8 412.7 6.3 6.0 1.0 LOS lnw C F A A A Approach Delay 154.0 6.0 Approach LOS W F A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 139.6 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.85 Intersection Signal Delay:92.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s 22.5!; Ei 127.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W Permissive 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 651 1140 1135 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 506 1761 1761 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 496 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 651 1140 1135 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 496 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 115.6 7.5 7.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 123.0 7.5 7.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 506 1761 1761 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.29 0.65 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 506 1761 1761 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 143.2 1.9 1.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 36.6 0.9 0.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 155.6 2.1 2.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1791 1135 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 57.9 2.0 Approach LOS E A Timer-Assigned Phs 01 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 127.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 123.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 125.0 0.0 9.4 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 16.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 AM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group EBR BT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Volume(vph) 159 605 1060 1056 2 Turn Type Perm pm+pt NA NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 44.0 127.5 83.5 83.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 29.3% 85.0% 55.7% 55.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s)5.5 123.0 123.0 79.0 79.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.38 1.16 0.70 1.09 0.00 Control Delay 2.4 127.9 4.8 85.8 8.5 Queue Delay Jill" 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.4 127.9 5.0 85.8 8.5 LOS JJEJF A F A F A Approach Delay 49.7 85.6 Approach LOS W D F Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 137.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.16 Intersection Signal Delay:60.2 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei D5 T , 14s 1 M83.5!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB JBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 159 605 1060 1056 2 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1841 1870 1826 1826 1796 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 651 1140 1135 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 4 2 5 5 7 Cap,veh/h 1 608 1761 1131 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.96 0.62 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 651 1140 1135 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1560 1781 1826 1826 1522 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 39.5 7.5 79.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 39.5 7.5 79.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 608 1761 1131 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.07 0.65 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 251 608 1761 1131 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.2 24.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 56.7 1.9 27.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.9 40.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 98.2 2.1 51.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A F Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1791 1135 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 37.0 51.8 Approach LOS D D Timer-Assigned Phs 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 44.0 83.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 39.5 79.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 0.0 41.5 81.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group A SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 325 341 1155 1270 Future Volume(vph) 325 341 1155 1270 Turn Type Perm Prot NA NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 31.0 127.5 96.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 20.7% 85.0% 64.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 10.5 26.5 123.2 92.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.19 0.86 0.65 v/c Ratio 0.86 1.06 0.74 1.08 Control Delay 31.5 120.3 8.1 75.6 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Delay 31.5 120.3 8.3 75.6 LOS lnw C F A E Approach Delay 33.9 75.6 Approach LOS W C E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 142.7 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay:50.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei D5 T 0 31s 1 096.5!3 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB BT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 348 1179 1296 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 370 1790 1350 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.96 0.72 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 348 1179 1296 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 24.5 7.8 80.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 24.5 7.8 80.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 370 1790 1350 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.94 0.66 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 370 1790 1350 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 49.7 0.2 16.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 31.7 1.9 16.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 14.1 1.0 35.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 81.4 2.1 32.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS A F A C Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1527 1296 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 20.2 32.8 Approach LOS C C Timer-Assigned Phs qp I'mr 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 31.0 96.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 26.5 92.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.8 0.0 26.5 82.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 18.8 0.0 0.0 7.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group A SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 325 341 1155 1270 Future Volume(vph) 325 341 1155 1270 Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 127.5 127.5 127.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None Max Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 18.0 123.0 123.0 123.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.82 0.82 0.82 v/c Ratio 1.07 2.13 0.78 0.85 Control Delay 107.6 548.6 11.3 15.0 Queue Delay Jibm 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Total Delay 107.6 548.6 11.7 15.0 LOS 11MIr' F F B B Approach Delay 134.1 15.0 Approach LOS W F B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:2.13 Intersection Signal Delay:82.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s 22.5!; Ei 127.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W Protected 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB BT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 348 1179 1296 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 433 1790 1804 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 425 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 348 1179 1296 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 425 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 65.8 7.8 10.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 76.0 7.8 10.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 433 1790 1804 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.80 0.66 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 433 1790 1804 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 14.6 1.9 2.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 19.2 2.1 2.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1527 1296 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 6.0 2.8 Approach LOS A A Timer-Assigned Phs 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 127.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 123.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 78.0 0.0 12.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 26.9 0.0 25.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.5 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t t Lane Group BT SBT Lane Configurations r Traffic Volume(vph) 325 341 1155 1270 Future Volume(vph) 325 341 1155 1270 Turn Type Perm pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phase 4 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 27.0 127.5 100.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 18.0% 85.0% 67.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 12.5 123.1 123.1 96.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.85 0.85 0.66 v/c Ratio 0.87 1.06 0.75 1.05 Control Delay 37.7 112.7 9.1 63.8 Queue Delay Jill" 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Delay 37.7 112.7 9.3 63.8 LOS JJEJF D F A E Approach Delay 32.9 63.8 Approach LOS W C E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 144.6 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay:46.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6: Route 11 &Kuakini Street t2 127.5s I 22.5!; Ei 2/s 1 1100.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W ProtPerm 6: Route 11 & Kuakini Street II 11/12/2021 t i Movement EB BT SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 325 341 1155 1270 0 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1870 1856 1870 1811 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 348 1179 1296 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 2 2 3 2 6 Cap,veh/h 1 400 1790 1665 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.96 0.89 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 348 1179 1296 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1697 1585 1781 1856 1870 1535 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1.7 7.8 31.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 1.7 7.8 31.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1 400 1790 1665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.87 0.66 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 644 1790 1665 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.2 2.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 7.5 1.9 3.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 11.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 27.9 2.1 6.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS A C A A Approach Vol,veh/h 0 A 1527 1296 A Approach Delay,s/veh 0.0 8.0 6.2 Approach LOS A A Timer-Assigned Phs q 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 127.5 0.0 9.5 118.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 123.0 18.0 22.5 96.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.8 0.0 3.7 33.6 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 18.8 0.0 1.0 23.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.2 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for[EBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 AM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 27.0 29.5 22.5 25.0 9.5 85.0 85.0 13.0 88.5 88.5 Total Split(%) 18.0% 19.7% 15.0% 16.7% 6.3% 56.7% 56.7% 8.7% 59.0% 59.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 22.5 30.0 13.0 20.5 85.5 80.5 80.5 92.7 85.9 85.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.20 0.09 0.14 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.62 0.57 0.57 v/c Ratio 1.14 0.33 0.60 1.16 0.28 1.14 0.07 1.22 0.90 0.16 Control Delay 152.1 38.0 81.2 136.8 16.8 106.9 2.1 177.4 41.9 6.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 152.1 38.0 81.2 136.8 16.8 106.9 2.1 177.4 41.9 6.5 LOS F D F F B F A F D A Approach Delay 118.8 125.8 99.3 56.0 Approach LOS W F F F E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.22 Intersection Signal Delay:88.9 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 01 1 102 T 34 13S 185S 1 122.5s I 5 T 06 03 9.5 1 W88.5s 27s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 297 265 116 76 245 1115 162 1173 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.63 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 22.5 3.2 0.0 6.8 2.9 0.0 1.0 80.5 0.0 8.5 52.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 22.5 3.2 0.0 6.8 2.9 0.0 1.0 80.5 0.0 8.5 52.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 297 265 116 76 245 1115 162 1173 V/C Ratio(X) 1.01 0.19 0.77 0.54 0.14 1.02 1.07 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 297 346 236 284 263 1115 162 1173 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.2 51.1 0.0 62.1 63.5 0.0 18.7 27.2 0.0 47.4 18.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 55.8 0.4 0.0 10.4 5.8 0.0 0.3 31.4 0.0 91.9 6.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.7 1.6 0.0 3.4 1.5 0.0 0.4 43.6 0.0 7.4 23.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 112.0 51.5 0.0 72.4 69.3 0.0 18.9 58.7 0.0 139.3 25.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B F F C Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1170 A 1127 A Approach Delay,s/veh 103.3 71.5 57.5 42.6 Approach LOS F E E D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.0 85.0 13.4 23.6 8.2 89.8 27.0 10.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 80.5 18.0 25.0 5.0 84.0 22.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 10.5 82.5 8.8 5.2 3.0 54.4 24.5 4.9 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 57.9 HCM 6th LOS E Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 AM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 9.5 79.0 79.0 12.0 81.5 81.5 Total Split(%) 39.3% 39.3% 39.3% 39.3% 6.3% 52.7% 52.7% 8.0% 54.3% 54.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 54.5 54.5 54.5 54.5 79.5 74.5 74.5 84.9 78.9 78.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.53 0.50 0.50 0.57 0.53 0.53 v/c Ratio 1.30 0.19 0.21 0.56 0.32 1.23 0.08 1.33 0.98 0.18 Control Delay 200.6 19.0 34.6 29.2 22.0 145.9 7.7 218.7 60.2 9.0 Queue Delay J0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 200.6 19.0 34.6 29.2 22.0 145.9 7.7 218.7 60.2 9.0 LOS F B C C C F A F E A Approach Delay 147.6 30.3 135.7 75.5 Approach LOS W F C F E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.33 Intersection Signal Delay: 100.3 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 12s 179s A599s D 5 9.5 81.5s s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 383 480 372 480 223 1085 157 1133 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1364 1870 0 1341 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1364 1870 0 1341 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 27.7 2.7 0.0 7.1 2.1 0.0 1.0 74.5 0.0 7.5 52.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 29.8 2.7 0.0 9.7 2.1 0.0 1.0 74.5 0.0 7.5 52.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 383 480 372 480 223 1085 157 1133 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.11 0.24 0.09 0.16 1.05 1.11 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 612 793 597 793 243 1085 157 1133 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 36.5 0.0 40.2 36.3 0.0 20.0 27.0 0.0 43.0 20.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 40.3 0.0 104.5 7.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.7 1.3 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 43.4 0.0 9.6 24.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.2 36.6 0.0 40.5 36.4 0.0 20.3 67.3 0.0 147.5 27.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D C F F C Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1170 A 1127 A Approach Delay,s/veh 49.1 39.2 65.9 46.2 Approach LOS D D E D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.0 79.0 37.5 8.1 82.9 37.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 74.5 54.5 5.0 77.0 54.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 9.5 76.5 31.8 3.0 54.8 11.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 8.2 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 AM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT L WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 20.0 31.4 11.6 23.0 9.5 84.0 84.0 13.0 87.5 87.5 Total Split(%) 14.3% 22.4% 8.3% 16.4% 6.8% 60.0% 60.0% 9.3% 62.5% 62.5% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 38.5 26.9 25.6 18.5 84.5 79.5 79.5 91.7 84.9 84.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.61 0.61 v/c Ratio 1.21 0.34 0.36 1.14 0.20 1.07 0.06 1.14 0.85 0.15 Control Delay 163.9 33.3 44.8 128.2 11.3 79.8 0.1 147.4 32.3 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 163.9 33.3 44.8 128.2 11.3 79.8 0.1 147.4 32.3 4.0 LOS F C D F B E A F C A Approach Delay 125.8 111.7 74.0 44.5 Approach LOS W F F E D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.21 Intersection Signal Delay:74.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 0i 1 t02 o3 13S I8 s 9.5 187.5s 2C s 23 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 303 204 213 80 290 1171 196 1234 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.07 0.67 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1870 1560 1725 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.5 3.2 0.0 6.1 2.7 0.0 0.9 73.2 0.0 6.7 44.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.5 3.2 0.0 6.1 2.7 0.0 0.9 73.2 0.0 6.7 44.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 303 204 213 80 290 1171 196 1234 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.25 0.42 0.51 0.12 0.97 0.89 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 303 396 213 273 310 1171 196 1234 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 52.4 51.8 0.0 54.3 59.4 0.0 14.4 22.6 0.0 39.3 14.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 49.4 0.6 0.0 1.3 4.9 0.0 0.2 19.8 0.0 35.4 4.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.2 1.5 0.0 2.8 1.4 0.0 0.3 36.2 0.0 5.4 19.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 101.8 52.4 0.0 55.6 64.4 0.0 14.6 42.4 0.0 74.7 19.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E E B D E B Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1170 A 1127 A Approach Delay,s/veh 94.6 58.4 41.6 27.9 Approach LOS F E D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 13.0 84.0 11.6 18.4 8.0 89.0 20.0 10.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 79.5 7.1 26.9 5.0 83.0 15.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 8.7 75.2 8.1 5.2 2.9 46.9 17.5 4.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 AM W 4-Lane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(vph) 283 48 85 39 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 34.4 34.4 10.6 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 38.2% 38.2% 11.8% 39.4% 39.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 17.1 17.1 15.5 15.5 35.0 30.0 30.0 38.7 35.1 35.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.45 0.40 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.32 0.29 0.88 0.16 0.93 0.10 0.89 0.67 0.21 Control Delay 59.5 17.0 33.4 43.1 15.8 42.7 0.3 62.2 26.0 4.5 Queue Delay JJJJL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.5 17.0 33.4 43.1 15.8 42.7 0.3 62.2 26.0 4.5 LOS JJEJF E B C D B D A E C A Approach Delay 47.1 41.1 39.9 28.3 Approach LOS W D D D C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:86.8 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio:0.93 Intersection Signal Delay:36.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street X33 10.6s 34.4s 22.5s D T 06 9.5 s 1 1 135.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 AM W 4-1-ane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT_ Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Future Volume(veh/h) 283 48 69 85 39 305 33 1067 55 164 896 146 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1841 1811 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 6 3 2 Cap,veh/h 351 368 136 144 303 1431 296 1584 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 3554 1560 1725 3526 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 301 51 0 90 41 0 35 1135 0 174 953 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 0 1767 1870 0 1781 1777 1560 1725 1763 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.1 1.7 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.0 0.8 20.8 0.0 4.2 15.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.1 1.7 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.0 0.8 20.8 0.0 4.2 15.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 351 368 136 144 303 1431 296 1584 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.14 0.66 0.29 0.12 0.79 0.59 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 432 453 428 453 361 1431 298 1584 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 24.6 0.0 33.3 32.3 0.0 13.0 19.5 0.0 15.3 15.4 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.5 0.2 0.0 5.4 1.1 0.0 0.2 4.6 0.0 3.0 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.3 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.3 8.8 0.0 1.7 5.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 24.8 0.0 38.8 33.4 0.0 13.1 24.0 0.0 18.3 17.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C B C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 352 A 131 A 1170 A 1127 A Approach Delay,s/veh 39.8 37.1 23.7 17.3 Approach LOS D D C B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6_ 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.5 34.4 19.1 7.1 37.9 10.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.1 29.9 18.0 5.0 31.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.2 22.8 14.1 2.8 17.1 5.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 4.3 0.5 0.0 5.7 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 88.0 88.0 17.0 95.5 95.5 Total Split(%) 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.3% 58.7% 58.7% 11.3% 63.7% 63.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 16.5 23.5 11.3 15.9 88.6 83.6 83.6 100.7 93.2 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.26 0.53 0.92 0.36 1.06 0.07 1.06 1.03 0.19 Control Delay 93.5 31.1 79.3 62.0 20.0 75.4 0.5 119.5 61.9 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.5 31.1 79.3 62.0 20.0 75.4 0.5 119.5 61.9 6.1 LOS F C E E B E A F E A Approach Delay 72.3 65.5 69.5 62.5 Approach LOS W E E E E Intersection Summary go Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 146.5 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay:66.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 17s 1 188S 22.5s 5 D6 0 9.5 1 1195.5!3 1 1,22.5 s 1 22.5 s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W Protected 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBNBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 184 164 99 70 156 1222 237 1293 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.66 0.00 0.06 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.7 2.0 0.0 5.2 3.0 0.0 0.9 67.2 0.0 5.8 76.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.7 2.0 0.0 5.2 3.0 0.0 0.9 67.2 0.0 5.8 76.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 184 164 99 70 156 1222 237 1293 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.19 0.73 0.60 0.25 0.91 0.89 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 240 256 244 250 172 1222 297 1293 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 55.7 0.0 61.2 62.3 0.0 28.1 19.1 0.0 34.0 18.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.8 0.6 0.0 9.6 8.0 0.0 0.8 11.6 0.0 22.3 14.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.2 1.0 0.0 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.8 30.6 0.0 6.0 34.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.8 56.3 0.0 70.8 70.3 0.0 28.9 30.7 0.0 56.3 32.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E C C E C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1151 A 1430 A Approach Delay,s/veh 75.1 70.6 30.6 36.3 Approach LOS E E C D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.5 91.3 11.8 16.0 8.3 95.5 18.3 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.5 83.5 18.0 18.0 5.0 91.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.8 69.2 7.2 4.0 2.9 78.3 13.7 5.0 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.2 8.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 8.4 0.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT &BL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 9.5 90.9 90.9 17.1 98.5 98.5 Total Split(%) 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 6.3% 60.6% 60.6% 11.4% 65.7% 65.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 91.4 86.4 86.4 103.5 95.9 95.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.69 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.18 0.23 0.55 0.36 1.05 0.07 1.07 1.02 0.19 Control Delay 145.3 20.4 47.0 23.4 20.1 72.5 2.4 125.6 60.0 5.2 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 145.3 20.4 47.0 23.4 20.1 72.5 2.4 125.6 60.0 5.2 LOS 11MIrw' F C D C C E A F E A Approach Delay 103.0 28.2 66.9 61.8 Approach LOS W F C E E Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.07 Intersection Signal Delay:63.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 17.1 s I 190.9s 5 T 06 f, 9.5 1 1198.5s 1 142S 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W Permissive 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBNBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 236 289 248 282 186 1283 261 1335 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.69 0.00 0.05 0.71 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1343 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1343 1870 0 1378 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.2 1.9 0.0 6.2 2.6 0.0 0.8 60.8 0.0 4.5 70.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.8 1.9 0.0 8.1 2.6 0.0 0.8 60.8 0.0 4.5 70.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 236 289 248 282 186 1283 261 1335 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.11 0.29 0.15 0.21 0.87 0.80 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 411 533 428 520 202 1283 339 1335 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 47.8 0.0 51.3 48.2 0.0 24.3 15.7 0.0 28.3 15.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.3 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 8.1 0.0 10.2 11.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.4 0.9 0.0 2.2 1.2 0.0 0.7 26.2 0.0 5.5 30.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.1 48.0 0.0 52.0 48.4 0.0 24.8 23.7 0.0 38.5 26.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D D C C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1151 A 1430 A Approach Delay,s/veh 57.3 50.7 23.8 28.3 Approach LOS E D C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 64F 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.3 95.5 24.9 8.3 98.5 24.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.6 86.4 37.5 5.0 94.0 37.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.5 62.8 19.8 2.8 72.6 10.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 10.9 0.5 0.0 12.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL kLBL WBT NBL NSBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 14.2 26.1 10.6 22.5 9.5 95.3 95.3 18.0 103.8 103.8 Total Split(%) 9.5% 17.4% 7.1% 15.0% 6.3% 63.5% 63.5% 12.0% 69.2% 69.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 29.2 19.5 22.0 15.9 95.8 90.8 90.8 108.9 101.3 101.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.74 0.68 0.68 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.31 0.34 0.92 0.36 0.98 0.07 1.00 0.96 0.18 Control Delay 115.9 31.6 54.4 62.5 19.7 51.5 0.5 107.5 39.9 3.8 Queue Delay J115M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 115.9 31.6 54.4 62.5 19.7 51.5 0.5 107.5 39.9 3.8 LOS 11MIrw' F C D E B D A F D A Approach Delay 87.3 60.8 47.6 44.2 Approach LOS W F E D D Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 148 Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay:50.2 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street 2 403 X04 18! I 95.3! 9.51 11103.8!3 14,2! 1 1122.5! 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W ProtPerm 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBNBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 198 120 185 69 205 1316 278 1366 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.71 0.00 0.05 0.73 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1856 1585 1767 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.7 2.1 0.0 5.3 3.1 0.0 0.8 59.2 0.0 4.4 68.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.7 2.1 0.0 5.3 3.1 0.0 0.8 59.2 0.0 4.4 68.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 198 120 185 69 205 1316 278 1366 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.26 0.39 0.61 0.19 0.85 0.76 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 198 297 185 242 219 1316 366 1366 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 59.1 60.5 0.0 59.6 64.4 0.0 22.3 14.4 0.0 26.6 14.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 19.8 1.1 0.0 1.3 8.3 0.0 0.4 6.8 0.0 6.3 9.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.9 1.1 0.0 2.5 1.6 0.0 0.7 25.0 0.0 5.4 29.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.9 61.7 0.0 61.0 72.7 0.0 22.8 21.2 0.0 32.9 23.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E C C C C Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1151 A 1430 A Approach Delay,s/veh 76.1 65.3 21.2 24.9 Approach LOS E E C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 11.2 100.9 10.6 13.3 8.4 103.8 14.2 9.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 90.8 6.1 21.6 5.0 99.3 9.7 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.4 61.2 7.3 4.1 2.8 70.9 11.7 5.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.3 12.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Timings 2039 PM W 4-Lane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street II 11/12/2021 11 --,, 4---t i Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(vph) 152 30 69 40 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 33.2 33.2 11.8 35.5 35.5 Total Split(%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.6% 36.9% 36.9% 13.1% 39.4% 39.4% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green(s) 12.1 12.1 9.7 9.7 34.0 29.0 29.0 39.7 35.5 35.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.45 0.38 0.38 0.52 0.46 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.26 0.32 0.69 0.19 0.84 0.10 0.82 0.74 0.24 Control Delay 39.1 16.7 34.6 16.6 13.6 30.4 0.7 43.6 23.8 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.1 16.7 34.6 16.6 13.6 30.4 0.7 43.6 23.8 3.9 LOS D B C B B C A D C A Approach Delay 31.5 20.2 28.3 23.9 Approach LOS W C C C C Intersection Summary Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:76.4 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.84 Intersection Signal Delay:25.6 Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 7: Route 11 &Lako Street Lako Street} 0.2 08 11.8s 133. 2 s 22.5s D5 T 06 9.5s 1 '35.5s 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2039 PM W 4-1-ane 7: Route 11 & Lako Street Lako Street 1I11/ 12/2021 p- 4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBIJ Lane Configurations 1 tt r tt r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 152 30 48 69 40 232 37 1068 64 202 1171 190 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1841 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1856 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 2 Cap,veh/h 211 225 120 123 285 1563 366 1761 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.50 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 3526 1585 1767 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 158 31 0 72 42 0 39 1112 0 210 1220 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1870 0 1781 1826 0 1767 1763 1585 1767 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.6 1.0 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.8 16.6 0.0 3.9 17.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.6 1.0 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.8 16.6 0.0 3.9 17.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 211 225 120 123 285 1563 366 1761 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.14 0.60 0.34 0.14 0.71 0.57 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 488 520 495 508 353 1563 405 1761 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.5 25.5 0.0 29.3 28.8 0.0 10.5 14.6 0.0 11.6 12.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 5.3 0.3 0.0 4.8 1.6 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.0 1.6 2.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 6.4 0.0 1.4 6.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 25.8 0.0 34.1 30.4 0.0 10.7 17.4 0.0 13.2 14.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 189 A 114 A 1151 A 1430 A Approach Delay,s/veh 31.7 32.7 17.2 14.6 Approach LOS C C B B Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 33.2 12.3 7.0 36.6 8.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.3 28.7 18.0 5.0 31.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.9 18.6 7.6 2.8 19.1 4.5 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.5 0.4 0.0 6.7 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for[NBR, EBR,WBR,SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Arterial Level of Service 2039 AM W Segment LOS 10/25/2021 Arterial Level of Service: NB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial - Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed Lako Street III 30 63.2 106.9 170.1 0.53 11.1 _ Puapuaanui St III 30 107.5 30.2 137.7 0.90 23.4 C Total III 170.7 137.1 307.8 1.42 16.6 D Arterial Level of Service: SB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.3 23.5 117.8 0.79 24.0 B Lako Street III 30 107.5 41.9 149.4 0.90 21.6 C Total III 201.8 65.4 267.2 1.68 22.7 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel Arterial Level of Service 2039 PM W Segment LOS 10/25/2021 Arterial Level of Service: NB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial - Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed Lako Street III 30 63.2 75.4 138.6 0.53 13.7 _ Puapuaanui St III 30 107.5 22.6 130.1 0.90 24.8 B Total III 170.7 98.0 268.7 1.42 19.1 C Arterial Level of Service: SB Route 11 Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time(s) mi) Speed LOS Puapuaanui St III 30 94.2 43.8 138.0 0.79 20.5 C Lako Street III 30 107.5 61.9 169.4 0.90 19.0 C Total III 201.7 105.7 307.4 1.68 19.7 C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 10 Report Pagel SCS 2137-FINAL BURIAL SITE COMPONENT OF A PRESERVATION PLAN FOR BURIAL SITE #50-10-57-30593 LOCATED IN HŌLUALOA 1ST AHUPUAʻA, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I [TMK: (3) 7-6-021:017] Prepared by: Glenn Escott, M.A. And Nicole A. Mello, M.A. AUGUST 2019 FINAL Prepared for: Kona Three, LLC 101 Hualālai St. Hilo, HI 96720 1347 Kapi‗olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu, HI 96814 Hawai‗i Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea‗au, HI 96749 This Page Intentionally Left Blank i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ II LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... II INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .....................................................................................................1 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS ............................................................................7 PRE-CONTACT ERA ........................................................................................................ 9 The Kona Field System ......................................................................................... 10 POST-CONTACT ERA.................................................................................................... 11 THE MĀHELE ................................................................................................................. 13 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY.....................................................................................................17 AIS SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................20 BURIAL SITE 30593 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 21 BURIAL SITE COMPONENT OF A PRESERVATION PLAN .................................................23 PRESERVATION TREATMENTS ..............................................................................................24 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX A: SHPD AIS APPROVAL LETTER ......................................................................35 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC NOTICES ............................................................................................... A ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawai‗i Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). .......... 2 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of AIS Project Area and Burial Site 30953 (Kailua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of AIS Archaeological Sites (Kailua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Portion of TMK Map (3) 7-6-021 Showing Location of Parcel 017 and Site 30593 Railroad Bed (County of Hawai‗i Planning Department 2017). .................................... 5 Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of AIS Project Area and Burial Site (Shaded Orange), Hōlualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (Google Earth, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and US.) .................. 6 Figure 6: Map of Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border (Alexander 1855). ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928) ...................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Portion of Kailua Section, North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border (Aki 1952). ....................................................................... 14 Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards, Land Grants, and the Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, Kailua Quad. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). ..... 15 Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott (2018) AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). ................................. 19 Figure 11: Site 30593 Plan View Map (Escott and Escott 2018:56). .......................................... 22 Figure 12: Sites 30593 Preservation Buffers Plan View Map (adapted from Escott and Escott 2016:55). ............................................................................................................ 25 Figure 13: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Site 30593 Access (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). ................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 14: Aerial Photograph of Burial Site (Shaded Orange) and Pedestrian Access Easement, Hōlualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (Google Earth, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and US.) ............................................................................................................................... 28 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Land Commission Awards Recorded in Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a. ..................... 16 Table 2: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area (Escott and Escott 2018). ................................................................................................................. 18 1 INTRODUCTION As requested by the Hawai‗i State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) in a letter dated May 31, 2018 (Log No. 2018.01123, Doc No. 1805SN05) (Appendix A), Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) produced this Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan (BSCPP) for a pre-Contact era to early post-Contact burial Site #50-10-57-30593 (hereafter referred to as Site 30593) located on a portion of TMK: (3) 7-6-021:017 located in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‗a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‗i, Hawai‗i (Figure 1 through Figure 5). The project area is bounded on the north and west by undeveloped cattle pasture, on the south by a seasonal gulch, and on the east by developed residential and farm land (see Figure 5). The project area lands were used for cattle pasture and agriculture from the early 1900s to the present. The purpose of this BSCPP is to provide the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and the Hawai‗i Island Burial Council (HIBC) information necessary to make a determination regarding the disposition of, and preservation measures for, the burial at Site 30593. This report contains information on the project area environmental, historical, and cultural setting; archaeological documentation for both sites; a summary of consultation with recognized cultural and lineal descendants; and short-term and long-term preservation measures, including access terms and easements. The BSCPP was written under contract to the property owner. The property is owned by Kona Three, LLC. The contact person for Kona Three, LLC is Mr. Richard Wheelock. Mr. Wheelock can be reached by phone (808) 753-3167, and by email (richard@eastwestrealty.org). His mailing address is 101 Hualālai St. Hilo, HI 96720-4703. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Site 30593 is a single burial in a lava tube located at 610 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near the southeast corner of Parcel 017. The site is situated on a western facing slope, among koa haole and trees with Guinea grass ground cover. The property is a portion of a larger former cattle ranch and agricultural area dating to the early 1900s through the early modern era. The makai (western) portion of the property is still used to pasture cattle. Portions of the property were bulldozed sometime between the 1950s and 1970s. Evidence of bulldozing is visible in aerial photographs as alternating bands of cleared bulldozer tracks and bands of push pile (see Figure 5). Pedestrian survey confirmed the linear bands in the aerial photographs are bulldozer- cleared paths and linear piles of bulldozed rock along the cleared bulldozer paths. 2 Figure 1: 5,500 K-Series Map of Hawai‗i Showing Location of Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 3 Figure 2: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of AIS Project Area and Burial Site 30953 (Kailua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 4 Figure 3: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of AIS Archaeological Sites (Kailua Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 5 Figure 4: Portion of TMK Map (3) 7-6-021 Showing Location of Parcel 017 and Site 30593 Railroad Bed (County of Hawai‗i Planning Department 2017). 6 Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of AIS Project Area and Burial Site (Shaded Orange), Hōlualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (Google Earth, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and US.) 7 The project area ground surface is a Hualālai lava flow dating between 5,000 and 10,000 years before present (ybp) (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is Punalu‗u Series (rPYD series) extremely rocky peat with six to twenty percent slopes (Sato 1973:48). The majority of the project area has been bulldozed in the past and the present ground surface is rocky soil. Rainfall in the project area is very low, less than thirty inches per year. There is a seasonal gulch along the southern edge of the project area. This region is extremely dry, hot, and somewhat barren except for thick California grass (Urochloa mutica), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and some koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and kukui nut (Aleurites moluccana) trees (Starr Environmental 2016). HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Kona is divided into two sections: North Kona or Kona ‘ākau, and; South Kona, or Kona hema (Maly 1996). Kona ‘ākau was further subdivided into north (called Kekaha) and south (called Konakai‘ōpua) areas, with the division between the two at the ahupua‘a of Keahuolu. The project area is in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‗a (Figure 6) within the area of Kona kai‘ōpua in Kona ‘ākau. Hōlualoa means (literally) ―long sled course‖ (Pukui et al. 1974:48). Hōlualoa 1st is a traditional ahupua‘a stretching from the ocean to the foot of Hualālai in the uplands. The coastline of Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‗a is primarily low rock cliffs. Very little is recorded of Hōlualoa Ahupua‗a in traditional oral accounts. The Heart Stirring Legend of Ka-Miki, published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii and translated by Maly (1993) contains the only description of Hōlualoa. The legend is set in the 13th century but also reflects more recent influences (Maly and Maly 2002:17). 8 Figure 6: Map of Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a Showing Location of Project Area in Red Border (Alexander 1855). 9 According to the narrative, The lands of Hōlualoa were named for the chief of that name; both Hōlualoa and Puapua‗a were high chiefs, who controlled the lands from mountain to sea, which bear their names… Kaluaokalani served as a priest of Hōlualoa at the temple of Pākiha. This heiau was near the contest field of Hōlualoa… The lands of this region are named for various ali‘i, all of whom were related. When the chief Hōlualoa took up the challenge against Kepaka‗ili‗ula on behalf of the Kona chiefs, Hōlualoa called upon his god Kālaipāhoa to assist him in his battle… Hōlualoa was the first chief to call upon the god Kālaipāhoa, and this was the beginning of this god's use by the chiefs of Hawai‗i [Maly 1993:208-209]. PRE-CONTACT ERA Hōlualoa, Kona, and much of the leeward side of Hawai‗i Island, while well populated at the time of European Contact, were settled later than the windward side. This in part may be due to the fertile land, numerous streams, and abundant rainfall on the windward side (Maly 1996:3). Many archaeologists believe that Hawai‗i Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; McCoy 2005 and 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmhurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). During early settlement of the leeward side permanent habitations were established in Kona concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes (Cordy 1981, 1995; Schilt 1984). Informal fields were cleared at higher elevations where rainfall was higher. Between AD 1200 and 1400, habitation and agriculture expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualālai (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995). The initial construction of the Kona Field System (KFS) began approximately between AD 1400 to 1600 (Schilt 1984). The development of these extensive formal walled fields coincides with a dramatic population increase and with the development of the stratified chiefdom structure which is reflected through large residential complexes and heiau (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1981; Haun et al. 1998; Hommon 1986; Schilt 1984). Thus, there was a need to expand the previously limited agricultural base. The royal centers and larger heiau were in place by AD 1600 to 1800 which reflect the growth in power of the rulers and chiefs in the region (Barrera 1971; Hammatt and Folk 1980). Royal centers are located at Kailua, Hōlualoa, Kahalu‗u, Kealakekua, and Hōnaunau (Cordy 1995). 10 The region of Hōlualoa developed into a royal center in the late 1600s to early 1700s under the reigns of Keakamahana (reigned 1680-1700) and Keakealaniwahine (reigned 1700-1720) (Cordy 2000:244). Many ‘ali‘i and konohiki residences and numerous religious sites are known to have existed here. The majority of the heiau and royal residences were constructed along or near the coast, most notably at Kamoa Point south of the project area. The royal center at Hōlualoa was eclipsed in the second half of the 1700s by the royal center in the Kahalu‗u and Keauhou region. The Kona Field System The Kona Field System extends north at least to Kau Ahupua‗a and south to Hōnaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualālai (Cordy 1995). During his travels in 1823, William Ellis noted the extensive field system divided with ―low stone walls, made of fragments of lava‖, producing ―bananas, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, tapa trees, melons and sugar cane‖ and ―flourishing luxuriantly in every direction‖ (Handy and Handy 1940:114 and 162). Many of the archaeological projects conducted within Kona deal with components of the Kona Field System (Cordy 1995; Newman 1970; Schilt 1984). The kula zone of the Kona Field System is from sea level to 150 m amsl. This zone is associated with habitations along the shoreline and cultivation of sweet potatoes (uala), paper mulberry (wauke), and gourds (ipu). Clearing mounds, planting depressions, planting mounds, planting terraces, and modified outcrops are common agricultural features in the kula zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980; Hammatt and Folk 1980; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt 1984). Permanent habitation including royal and high chiefly centers as well as non-agricultural activities such as fishing, ceremonies and burial practices were usually concentrated along the shoreline zone portion of the kula zone. The higher elevation zones are the kaluʻulu zone, ʻapaʻa zone and the ʻamaʻu zone. The current project area is in the kaluʻulu zone. This wetter region is above 150 m amsl where bread fruit, sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), ki, (Cordyline fruticosa) wauke (Broussonetia papyrifera), karo (Colocasia esculenta), sugar cane (Saccharum sp.), and other arboreal crops were grown (Kelly 1983, Menzies 1920). The ʻapaʻa zone is above the kaluʻulu zone. Hawaiians cultivated melons, sweet potatoes, ti, bananas, taro, wauke and sugar cane in fields with low stone walls. The highest zone, the ʻamaʻu zone, was used to grow bananas and plantains in walled fields. The ʻapaʻa zone and the ʻamaʻu 11 zone were also used to collect timber and catch birds therefore temporary habitations were constructed. POST-CONTACT ERA During the post-contact era, the Kona Field System was exploited and the planting of coffee, sugar, sisal, citrus, and cotton took over original Hawaiian crops until eventually the land was used for cattle pasture. The first cattle and sheep were brought to the island by Vancouver in 1793 and 1794 (Vancouver 1967). Horses, mules, oxen, goats, and donkeys were brought shortly after. Feral cattle, sheep, and goats overran agricultural fields by 1813 to 1815 (Ellis 1963: 291; Wilkes 1970: 204). By 1848, in the Kona District, a Great Wall (the Kuakini Wall) was constructed from Lanihau to ‗Ōnouli to keep them away from homes and agricultural areas (Maly and Maly 2001:286). Formal cattle ranching began in the Kona region in the mid-1800s. The Kona landscape evolved rapidly with the turn of the century. The rapid growth of the sugar industry produced the Kona Sugar Company in 1899. A railroad was built in 1901 to help sustain this influx in produce. It was later used to haul lumber and freight along with the sugarcane. The rail line was seven miles long and extended from Hōlualoa to Ka‗awaloa (Figure 7). Cotton, tobacco, and sisal were grown in the dryer lands below the railroad (Kelly 1983). The changing subsistence and trade regimes developed by incoming European and American settlers, as well as other historical factors, caused a depopulation of the coastal areas of Kona. Ranches were established at middle and upper elevations, and farms were established in the uplands where rainfall was higher and the temperatures were cooler. Cattle ranching and clearing for sugar cane and coffee removed many of the endemic species of plants. The suite of vegetation that existed prior to the pre-Contact era were replaced by koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and other newly introduced invasive plant species. 12 Figure 7: Portion of 15-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Railroad and Project Area (USGS 1928) 13 Schools, churches, stores, and other businesses were also established in the uplands. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, coastal Kona was no longer the densely populated sociopolitical center it once was. It became a small cluster of houses along the trail from Kailua Bay to Keauhou (Tomonari-Tuggle 1993:15). Homesteads, ranches, and plantations developed in the uplands during this period as reflected in the pattern of Land Commission Awards (LCA) and Land Grants (LG) recorded during the Māhele (Escott and Escott 2018). The project area is just makai (west) of most of the land commission awards and is at the same elevation as portions of the land grants in the region. Based on historic documents, the project area and surrounding lands were likely being used for subsistence and commercial agriculture, as well as for cattle pasture from the mid to late 1800s. The project area might have been used later than surrounding lands because of its steep slopes and very rocky soil, but based on aerial photographs, the project area was bulldozed sometime around the 1950s through the 1970s in preparation for commercial agriculture. THE MĀHELE The Land Commission awarded the majority of Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a to Victoria Kamāmalu Ka‗ahumanu IV, Kuhina Nui of Hawai‗i Island and Crown Princess of Hawai‗i as Land Commission Award (LCA) Number 7713, ‗Apana 43 (Figure 8). Several smaller LCA and LG properties were also recorded in the upland region of Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a (Figure 9). Twenty four Land Commission awards were recorded in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‗a, the ahupua‗a where the project area is located (Table 1). All but two of the LC awards (LCA #3660 to Munn and LCA #7713 to Kamāmalu) were mauka (east) of the current project area. With the exception of these LC awards, the average award was 2.8 acres, most (n=16) were for less than 3.0 acres. Three Land Grants (LG #1592, 1602, and 3630) were also recorded in Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a. LG #1592 was a 25.0-acre parcel sold to Kealalio and LG #3630 was a 38.2-acre parcel sold to W.H. Cromwell. Almost all of the awards and grants were used as subsistence and commercial farm land, and some were used to pasture cattle (Escott and Escott 2018). 14 Figure 8: Portion of Kailua Section, North Kona Map Showing Location of LCA 7713 and Project Area in Red Border (Aki 1952). 15 Figure 9: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Land Commission Awards, Land Grants, and the Project Area (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, Kailua Quad. Data Sources: National Geographic Societ y, USGS). 16 Table 1: Land Commission Awards Recorded in Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a. LCA# AWARDED TO AHUPUA‘A ACRES 3660 John G. Munn Hōlualoa 1st 111.5 4395 Kekoi Hōlualoa 1st 1.7 5552 Kauila Hōlualoa 1st 1.9 5554 Keawekolohe Hōlualoa 1st 11.27 5795 Keliikanakaole Hōlualoa 2nd 2.2 5810 Kaopukauila Hōlualoa 1st 1.74 5993 Leipalapala Hōlualoa 2nd 2.0 6063 Hāna Hōlualoa 1st 2.9 6107 Naai Hōlualoa 1st 3.94 7339 Kuaana Hōlualoa 1st 4.15 7340 Kama 2 Hōlualoa 1st 2.5 7340:B Kama 1 Hōlualoa 1st 1.3 7443 Kalimapaa Hōlualoa 1st 1.94 7713 Kamamalu Hōlualoa 1st & Hōlualoa 2nd Large 7746 Kamahalo Hōlualoa 1st 5.0 7794 Kauakini Hōlualoa 1st 1.8 7990 Pupuka Hōlualoa 1st 1.1 8015 Aipo Hōlualoa 2nd 1.4 8151 Hehena Hōlualoa 1st 2.3 8223 Ikaiaka Hōlualoa 1st 3.5 9915 Limahana Hōlualoa 1st 2.42 9932 Lumaawe Hōlualoa 1st 2.98 10770 Puuone Hōlualoa 1st 3.06 10400 Naaimakaohi Hōlualoa 1st & Hōlualoa 2nd 3.5 17 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY SCS conducted an AIS study on a 5.0-acre portion of Parcel 017 (Escott and Escott 2018) and recorded twenty-two new archaeological sites within the project area (Table 2 and Figure 10). Fifteen of the sites are single-feature sites. The remaining seven agricultural sites contained two to seven features. A majority of the sites are agricultural terraces and complexes dating between the pre-Contact era to the Historic era. The agricultural complexes are located in the lower kaluʻulu zone, between 600 and 700 feet (182 to 213 meters) amsl. Three of the ranch walls (Site 30595, 30601, and 3065) are the primary dividers of the five-acre project area. These Historic era walls have typical characteristics of ranch walls including cobble core fill and bi-faced inward sloping walls toward the top. They are approximately 1.0 meter tall. Site 30602 and Site 30603 are Historic era ranching and agricultural enclosures constructed along wall Site 30595 and wall Site 30601. These two wall sites are constructed onto the west edge of the Site 30592 railroad berm and post-date the railroad berm. The northern third of the project area only has two sites (Site 30591 and 30956). Site 30591 is an agricultural complex with six terraces. Portions of the sites were bulldozed in the early Modern era. Both sites date to pre-Contact to early Historic era. The terraces reflect Kona Field System features but are roughly constructed that more closely resemble Historic era commercial agriculture. Site 30956 is a rectangular Historic style hearth. The middle one third of the project area between wall sites 30595 and 30605 is within the bulldozed ―terraces‖ portion of the project area. Site 30593 is a pre-Contact era to early post-Contact era lava tube burial. The burial will be preserved in place in accordance with a Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan. Site 30594 is an agricultural terrace complex that resembles the Kona Field System but is more roughly constructed. Artifacts recovered from subsurface testing at Site 30604 suggest it is a Historic era agricultural terrace. 18 Table 2: Inventory of Archaeological Sites Identified on the AIS Project Area (Escott and Escott 2018). Site # Site Type Features Site Function Age Testing 30591 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1, 2, 3 30592 Railroad Bed and Berm 1 Transportation Historic Era 30593 Lava Tube Burial 1 Burial Pre-Contact to Early Post-Contact Era 30594 Agricultural Complex 6 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 & 2 30595 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30596 Hearth 1 Food Preparation Historic Era TU-1 30597 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30598 Rock Wall 1 Agriculture/Ranching Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30599 Platform & Enclosure 2 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 & 2, TU-1 30600 Terrace 1 Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 30601 Rock Wall 1 Ranching Historic Era 30602 Enclosure 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1, 2, 3 & 4 30603 Enclosure 4 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era SP-1 & 2 30604 Agricultural Complex 4 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30605 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Historic Era 30606 Rock Wall 1 Ranching/Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era 30607 Agricultural Complex 7 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 to SP-10 30608 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30609 Enclosure 1 Structure Historic Era 30610 Terrace 1 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1 30611 Agricultural Complex 3 Agriculture Pre-Contact to Historic Era SP-1, 2, 3 30612 Lava Blister 1 Refuse Dump Historic Era 19 Figure 10: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Escott and Escott (2018) AIS Project Area Archaeological Sites (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). 20 The southern third of the project area, south of wall Site 30605, contained six primarily agricultural sites (Site 30598, 30600, 30606, 30607, 30610, and 30611) and four Historic era sites (Site 30599, 30608, 30609, and 30612) with functions other than agriculture. The agricultural features included rock walls (Site 30598 and30606), terraces (Site 30600 and 30610), and agricultural complexes with terraces (Site 30607 and 30610). The non-agricultural features included three enclosures (Site 30599, 30608, and 30609), and a refuse disposal area lava blister (Site 30612). The cluster of these sites indicates their use for Historic era commercial agriculture. Twenty-nine shovel probes and two excavation units tested the sites. Marine shell fragments, a basalt flake and volcanic-glass flakes recovered during testing indicate that Hawaiians likely used the area for limited agricultural purposes. However, the agricultural terraces more closely resemble the remains of Historic era commercial agriculture. AIS SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS All 22 sites identified during the current AIS study were assessed significant under criterion ―d‖ as they are likely to yield information important to history. The railroad berm is also significant under criteria ―a‖ and ―c‖ as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, and method of railroad bed construction. The railroad berm is recommended for preservation with preservation measures outlined in an archaeological preservation plan to be prepared for review and approval by SHPD. The rest of the sites require no further work. The burial is also significant under criterion ―e‖ as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. The burial is recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in this BSCPP. Site 30593 is summarized below from Escott and Escott (2018:53-57). 21 BURIAL SITE 30593 DESCRIPTION Site 30593 is a pre-Contact to early post-Contact era burial located in a lava tube at 610 ft amsl along the central western portion of the project area, immediately east of the project area boundary (see Figure 10). The site is situated on a western facing slope, among koa haole and trees with Guinea grass ground cover. The lava tube is 60.0 m (E/W) by 9.0 m (N/S) with a maximum height of 0.95 m (Figure 11). The site is in good condition. No artifacts were found along the surface and no excavation was conducted. The skeletal remains of a single individual were identified in makai (west) end of the lava tube. The lava tube can be accessed through two openings, one at the makai end of the lava tube and a second, larger opening approximately 20.0 meters mauka (east) of the makai opening (see Figure 11). The lava tube continues east 15.0 meters and east- southeast 25.0 to 30.0 meters from the mauka opening. A second tube, connecting to the east-southeast tube, continues west-southwest 30.0 meters. The makai entrance is an approximately 0.9 m long (E/W) by 0.7 m wide hole in the exposed pāhoehoe ground surface. The floor of the lava tube is 0.5 to 0.9 cm below the opening and is primarily bare lava with deposits of natural pebbles, small cobbles, and fine sediment washed into the tube from the opening and a second point in the tube approximately 6.0 m east of the opening. The tube slopes gently upward in an easterly direction. Sediment from a collapsed point 6.0 meters into the tube covers the lava tube floor in thicker deposits nearer to the point of collapse. The distal end of a human femur, talus, metatarsal, and phalange were identified on the surface of the lava tube floor below the makai opening. The skeletal elements were small in size and were deteriorated, making positive identification difficult. The ilium of a small human pelvis was identified protruding from the sediment along the south wall of the lava tube, approximately 5.0 m mauka of the makai opening. Sediment was removed in small increments to expose the one half of a pelvis. Half of the ilium had deteriorated and was no longer present on the pelvis. More sediment (4.0 to 8.0 cm in thickness) was removed to expose additional human skeletal elements located within close proximity to the pelvis. These included lumbar, thoracic, and cervical vertebrae; ribs; both clavicles and shoulder blades; the left ulna and radius; several phalanges; and two incisors and a molar. 22 Figure 11: Site 30593 Plan View Map (Escott and Escott 2018:56). 23 The other half of the pelvis; cranium, mandible, other long bones, and remaining skeletal elements were not located in the limited removal of sediment. If these skeletal elements are buried beneath the sediment on the floor of the lava tube, they may no longer be articulated with the identified skeletal elements. It is possible that they have moved down slope of the in situ burial. This is likely, as a calcaneus, tarsals, and metatarsals were identified during a second, more thorough inspection of the lava tube floor under the makai opening—a distance of 5.0 m down slope of the burial location. At least a portion of the femur and several foot bones have moved down slope of the original burial location. Based on the limited removal of sediment from the skeletal elements, the burial is of a single individual in a supine position, arms at sides, with head located mauka (east) and feet makai. The size of the skeletal elements indicates a young adult of small stature or a subadult. The skeletal elements were fairly deteriorated so that sex and age could not be definitively ascertained. BURIAL SITE COMPONENT OF A PRESERVATION PLAN SEARCH FOR LINEAL AND CULTURAL DESCENDANTS Rules governing the search for lineal and cultural descendants in the burial treatment process (HAR §13-300-33(b)(1) call for three things: (A) Research of relevant land conveyance documents including identification of land commission awardees located at or near the burial site; (B) An inquiry to any person who may have knowledge of families possibly affiliated with the Native Hawaiian remains; (C) Publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the burial site is located and a newspaper of statewide circulation for a minimum of three days, including Sunday and Wednesday. Research of Relevant Land Conveyance and Historical Documents The Land Commission awarded the majority of Hōlualoa 1st and 2nd Ahupua‗a to Victoria Kamāmalu Ka‗ahumanu IV, Kuhina Nui of Hawai‗i Island and Crown Princess of Hawai‗i as Land Commission Award (LCA) Number 7713, ‗Apana 43. The lava tube burial is within this LCA. 24 Publication of Notice in Newspaper Notice that the burial treatment process is being conducted Site 30593 was published in the West Hawai‗i Today (Hawai‗i Island), the Honolulu Star Advertiser (O‗ahu Island), and in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Ka Wai Ola newspaper. The public notice and affidavits of the publication can be found in Appendix B at the back of this report. The public notices and outreach generated responses from recognized cultural descendants J. Curtis Tyler III and Nicole Lui. Curtis reviewed the first draft BSCPP which included preservation in-place and a rock wall on the ground surface over the iwi kupuna. Nicole made a site visit to see the burial location. Nicole requested that three lau hala mats be placed in the tube over the iwi kupuna, a nearby large rock be used as a capstone to seal the makai opening of the tube, and that the tube remain undisturbed. The mauka tube opening will be sealed by infilling it with large rocks to look natural. The large rock Nicole located near the site can be used as a capstone. Nicole also requested to conduct a blessing at the site prior to implementation of the preservation treatments. PRESERVATION TREATMENTS This Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan recommends preservation in-place for burial Site 30593. The burial will be protected by the preservation treatments listed below. Interim Preservation Buffers During any construction using heavy equipment within 50 feet of the burial site before the permanent rock wall is built, orange construction fence will be placed along the no-build easement, at a minimum of 30.0 feet from the burial preservation site (Figure 12). The fence will be inspected by a qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of construction. No heavy equipment will be allowed within the construction buffer. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during any ground disturbing construction within 50 feet of the burial site. Long-Term Preservation Measures A permanent preservation buffer will be established on the ground surface at a distance of 20.0 feet from the outside perimeter of the burial portion of the lava tube (Figure 12 and Figure 13). A no-build easement will be established ten feet from the outside perimeter of the permanent preservation buffer. The long-term buffer will consist of a low rock wall with a gate for pedestrian access. The buffer will be installed under the direction of a qualified archaeologist and will be inspected by a qualified archaeologist. 25 Figure 12: Sites 30593 Preservation Buffers Plan View Map (adapted from Escott and Escott 2016:55). 26 Figure 13: 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Locations of Site 30593 Access (ESRI, 2011. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS. Kealakekua Quadrangle). 27 Three locally made lau hala mats will be placed in the tube over the iwi kupuna, a nearby large rock will be used as a capstone to seal the makai opening of the tube, and the mauka tube opening will be sealed with large rocks and made to look natural. The lava tube containing the burial will remain undisturbed from the mauka to the makai entrances. Access Pedestrian access to Site 30593 shall be from Io Place located east of the site (see Figure 13 and Figure 14). Parking is available on Io Place. In the event of future construction, an easement shall be from a paved road closer than the current end of Io Place to the site. The property owner is responsible for ensuring the access easement is usable for pedestrian travel, and is responsible for keeping the access easement clear and open. Access will be permitted seven days a week, one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Access can be arranged by calling the property owner. In the event the property is sold, the new owner will be notified with a written list of recognized descendants and their contact information. Signage Weather-resistant signs, approximately 18 by 24 inches in size, shall be placed at the access gate and along the preservation fencing at a maximum distance of 50 feet. The signs shall read: WAHI KAPU This site is historically and culturally significant to the Hawaiian people. KAPU – DO NOT ENTER Historic sites are protected under state law. Violation could result in a $20,000 fine. (Chapter 6E-11, Hawai‗i Revised Statutes) DLNR-SHPD (808) 692-8015 Installation of Preservation Measures The preservation measures listed in this BSCPP will be installed prior to the issuance of County of Hawai‗i grubbing and/or grading permits for work on the property. A letter documenting the installation of preservation measures will be sent to SHPD/HIBC confirming completion of preservation measure installation. 28 Figure 14: Aerial Photograph of Burial Site (Shaded Orange) and Pedestrian Access Easement, Hōlualoa, HI, Zone 5 North, 189445 m E, 2171790 m N. (Google Earth, 2013 Image. Data Sources: Digital Globe, GeoEye, Earthstar, USDA, and US.) 29 Landscaping Existing plants or appropriate native plants may be grown within the burial preservation area. Recognized descendants shall be consulted concerning the types of plants used and descendants are welcome to participate in planting and caring for vegetation within the preservation area. Maintenance The landowner is responsible for maintenance of the rock wall, access path, signage, vegetation clearing, and general appearance of the preservation area. Hand tools may be used within the preservation area to maintain and prune vegetation. Annual inspections of the preservation measures shall be conducted by the property owner to ensure compliance with the preservation measures outlined in this BSCPP. Recognized descendants are welcome to inspect the preservation measures as well. Any harm observed to the burial preservation area and preservation measures arising from intentional or unintentional acts, including neglect, will be immediately reported to SHPD. The Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) will be notified, will consult with the land owner and recognized descendants, and shall implement remedies based on that consultation. Bureau of Conveyances Subsequent to final approval by SHPD of this Burial Site Component of a Preservation Plan, a metes and bounds description of the burial and burial preservation site and permanent preservation easement shall be surveyed and recorded with the State of Hawai‗i Bureau of Conveyances in conformance with HAR §13-300-38(g). The TMK plat map will include a map of the preservation area. Property Title The details of this preservation plan and its preservation measures shall become a matter of record with the parcel title. The descriptions of the preservation easements will be added to the title, including the specific requirements and restrictions related to physical improvements, signage, maintenance and access. 30 REFERENCES CITED Aki, H. 1952 Map of Kailua Section, North Kona, Hawai‗i, Land Titles. Survey and Map by J.S. Emerson. Hawai‗i Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1280. Alexander, J. 1855 Map of Hōlualoa 1 & 2, Kona Hawai‗i. Hawai‗i Territory Survey Map. Registered Map No. 1450. Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawai‗i. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Barrera, W. Jr. 1971 Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 71-10. Submitted to Kamehameha Development Corporation. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Burtchard, G. C. 1995 Population and Land-use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Lands Inventory Survey, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawai‘i Island, the Narrative, part 1. Submitted to Belt, Collins and Associates and Kamehameha Investment Corporation. IARII, Honolulu. Cordy, R. 1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press, New York. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, Honolulu. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dye, T. 2011 A model-based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawai‗i. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. Ellis. W. 1963 Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing, Honolulu. 31 Escott. G., and S. Escott 2018 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 5.0 Acres Located in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupuaʻa, North Kona District, Hawaiʻi Island, Hawaiʻi [TMK: (3)7-6-021:017 Por.]. Prepared for East West Realty. SCS Report 1871-1, Honolulu. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Hammatt, H. H., and S. D. Clark 1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre (Ginter) Parcel in Na ahupua‘a Pahoehoe, La‘aloa, and Kapala‘alaea, Kona, Hawai‘i Island. ARCH Report 14-152 III. Submitted to Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc. Hammatt, H.H., and W.H. Folk 1980 Archaeological Survey, Phase I: Portions of Keauhou-Kona Resort, Keauhou and Kahulu‘u, Kona, Hawai‘i Island. ARCH Report 14-177 II.I. Submitted to Kamehameha Investment Corporation. Hammatt, H.H., W.H. Folk, and D.W. Shideler 1992 Archaeological Survey Testing and Excavation of a 174-Acre Parcel, Holualoa, North Kona, Hawai‘i. Report prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawaii for the Gamlon Corporation. Report on file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Handy, E.S. 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, Volume I. B.P. Bishop Museum bulletin 161. B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Haun, T. L., S. L. Collins, S. D. Clark, and A. Garland 1986 Moe Kau a Ho‘oilo: Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Keōpū, Kona, Hawai‘i. Chapter VII. Artifacts and Manuports from the Keōpū Burial Site. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 86-1. Submitted to Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Haun, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Ali‘i Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I - Archaeological Intensive Survey, Summary, vol. 1. PHRI Report 1320-052798. Submitted to County of Hawai‗i. PHRI, Hilo. Hommon, R. J. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawai‗i. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 55–88. University Press, Cambridge. 32 Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re-dating of the Kuli‗ou‗ou rockshelter, O‗ahu, Hawai‗i: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(1):67-90. Kelly, M. 1983 Nā Māla o Kona: Gardens of Kona. Dept. of Anthropology Report Series 83-2. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawai‗i? A re-view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3–26. Kirch, P.V. and M. McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re-dating the Hālawa dune site (MO-A1-3), Moloka‗i Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. 2007 Revised late Holocene culture history for Moloka‗i Island, Hawai‗i. Radiocarbon, 49(3):1273-1322. Maly, K 1993 Ka‘ao Ho‘oniua Pu‘uwai No Ka-Miki, The Heart Story Story of Ka-Miki. Published in Hawaiian, in the newspaper "Ka Hōkū o Hawai‘I (Hilo) January 8, 1914 through December 6, 1917. Translated by Kepā Maly for Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 1996 Historical Documentary Research. In Archaeological Inventory Survey Proposed Henry Street Extension Road Corridor, by Wulzen, W., T.R. Wolforth, and L.J. Franklin, pp. 9-19. PRHI Report 1465-092696. Prepared for Maryl Development, Kailua-Kona. PHRI, Hilo. Maly, K. and O. Maly 2002 He Wahi Mo‘olelo No Ka‘Āina A Me Nā ‘Ohana O Waiki‘i Ma Waikōloa (Kalana O Waimea, Kohala), A Me Ka ‘Āina Mauna: A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts of the Lands and Families of Waiki‘i at Waikōloa (Waimea Region, South Kohala), and the Mountain Lands, Island of Hawai‘i (TMK Overview Sheet 6-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates. Hilo. McCoy, M. 2005 The development of the Kalaupapa field system, Koloka‗i Island, Hawai‗i. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:339-58. Menzies, A. 1920 Hawai‘i Nei 128 Years Ago. Edited by W.F. Wilson. New Freedom Press. Honolulu. 33 Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High-precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E192-E194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawai‘i. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. Newman, T. S. 1970 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii A.D. 1778. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawai‗i Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Pukui, M.K., S. Elbert and E. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R Paeth, R Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai‘i: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Report prepared for the Hawai‗i Department of Transportation. On file at the SHPD Library, Kapolei. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Development Parcel 26 of the Keauhou Resort, Ahupua‘a of Kahalu‘u, North Kona, Island of Hawai‘i. Prepared for Belt Collins and Associates. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu. U.S. Geological Survey 1928 15-Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/topomaps/. Vancouver, G. 1967 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and Around the World. Robinson and Edwards. London. Waihona ‗Āina 2014 Māhele online database. www.waihona.com. 34 Wilkes, C. 1970 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1938-1842. Vols. 1-5 and Atlas. Lea & Blanchard. Philadelphia. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011a High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 2011b Reply to Mulrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1996 Geological Map of the Island of Hawai‗i. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 35 APPENDIX A: SHPD AIS APPROVAL LETTER 36 DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K. MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY JEFFREY T. PEARSON, P.E. DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD, STE 555 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 May 31, 2018 IN REPLY REFER TO: Rick Wheelock Log No. 2018.01123 181 Kalaniana‘ole Street Doc. No. 1805SN05 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Archaeology Email: richardeastwestrealty.org Dear Mr. Wheelock: SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review – Archeological Inventory Survey of 5.0 Acres in Hōlualoa Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‘a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai‘i TM K: (3) 7-6-021:017 por. This letter provides the State Historic Preservation Division’s (SHPD’s) review of the revised report titled Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 5.0 Acres Located in Hōlualoa 1st Ahupua‘a, North Kona, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i [TMK: (3) 7-6-021:017 por.] (Escott and Escott, revised May 2018). Revisions to the report were requested via email on May 13, 2018 (Susan Lebo [SHPD] to Glenn Escott [Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS)]) and SHPD received the revised report on May 18, 2017. SCS conducted the archaeological inventory survey (AIS) at the request of the landowner, Kona Three, LLC. The AIS was conducted in support of a County of Hawaii permit application for proposed development of the property. The AIS covered a 5.0-acre portion of the 30.901-acre parcel. The fieldwork included a 100% pedestrian survey of the entire project area. Ground visibility was fair to poor. Subsurface testing was conducted at several features. The AIS documented twenty-two newly identified historic properties (Table 1). The sites include a pre- and/or early post-Contact lava tube burial, pre- and/or early post-Contact agricultural terraces, and post-Contact walls and enclosures associated with agriculture and/or ranching, and a post-Contact railroad berm. Table 1. Summary of Sites Documented in AIS Site #50-10-37- Type Function Age 30591 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre- to Post-Contact 30592 Railroad and Berm Transportation Historic 30593 Lava Tube Burial Pre- to Early Post-Contact 30594 Agricultural Complex Agriculture Pre- to Post-Contact 30595 Rock Wall Ranching Historic 30596 Possible Hearth Food Preparation Historic 30597 Rock Wall Ranching Historic 30598 Rock Wall Agriculture/Ranching Pre- to Post-Contact 30599 Platform & Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic 30600 Terrace Agriculture Historic 30601 Rock Wall Ranching Historic 30602 Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic 30603 Enclosure Ranching/Agriculture Historic 37 A-A APPENDIX B: PUBLIC NOTICES A-1 West Hawai‘i Today Public Notice Affidavit. A-2 Honolulu Star-Advertiser Public Notice Affidavit. A-3 Ka Wai Ola Public Notice Affidavit. WATE; 191 i R DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII 641,>..... •;. 345 KEKUANAO`ASTREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 op ,,,,A•., TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAX (808) 961-8657 August 15, 2022 COH PLANNING DEPT AUG 16 2022 Pm2:24 D'EC'D HAND DELIVERED TO: Mr. Zendo Kern, Director Planning Department FROM: Keith K. Okamoto, Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No.02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10-Year Time Extension to Comply with Condition I Complete Construction of Phase I) and Amendment to Condition N Roadway Dedication) Tax Map Key 7-6-021:016 and 017 We have reviewed the subject time extension request and have the following comments and conditions. The applicant shall construct applicable water system improvements designed to deliver water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-flow and fire-flow conditions in accordance with the Water System Standards and the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Water Supply. Submit construction plans prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval. Please note that the Department of Water Supply acknowledges that potable water is Hawaii Island's most precious resource and encourages our communities to promote water conservation and reserve the highest quality of water for the most valuable end-use, which is the sustenance of life. We request that the developer address the non-potable demand of water by minimizing the demand or propose to supply the demand by alternate methods(i.e. reclaimed or reuse water). The overall water demand should be reviewed as the water use other than the residential dwelling units will need to be included, which would reduce to number of dwelling units that can be developed. Additional water beyond the total number of water units allocated to the subject parcels is not available. We have no objection to the subject time extension request, subject to the applicant understanding and accepting that the Department can only support the total allocation of water. Water, Our Most Precious Resource . . . ?,a WaiA bane . . . The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. Mr. Zendo Kern, Director Page 2 August 15, 2022 Should there be any questions,please contact Mr. Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at(808) 961-8070, extension 256. Sincerely yours, Keith K. Okamoto, P.E. Manager-Chief Engineer RQ:dfg copy— Kona Three, LLC Mr. Daryn Arai, Planning Consultant DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS COUNTYOFHAWAII HILO, HAWAII DATE: October 5, 2022 Memorandum TO:Zendo Kern, Planning Director FROM:Department of Public Works, Engineering Division SUBJECT:Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change of Zone Ord.No. 02-131 Applicant:Kona Three, LLC Request:10-Year Time Extension to Comply with Condition I (Complete Construction of Phase I) and Amendment to Condition N Roadway Dedication) TMK:7-6-021:016 and 017 Sorry for the delay. We have reviewed the subject request forwarded by your memo dated July 12, 2022and provide the followingcomments: 1.Condition I-We have no objection tothe request for a time extension. 2.Condition N– subdivision to the south, along with the interconnecting road between these two as dedicable minor collector roadways which include but not limited to a66-foot wide right-of-way with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks with associated drainage features, streetlights, signs, and markings. Therefore, we have no objection to the verbiage proposed to be deleted. However, we have concerns aboutthe mauka-makai road not being a continuous thoroughfare like Puapuaanui Road to the north and LakoStreet to the south. We recommend that the mauka-makai road be continuous from the extension of Paulehia Street and for the best flow of traffic when connecting to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Therefore, we object to the addition of new verbiage to include Figure 3 –Conceptual Building Layout in the Final Environmental Assessment –Royal County of Hawaiiis an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Memo toPlanning Page 2 October 5, 2022 3. Condition Q – Refers to a drainage master plan. a. Land Use Commission Docket No. A83-549, item 50 states “Petitioner will build and dedicate to the County of Hawaii all drainage facilities recommended in the Drainage Master Plan for the North Kona Flood Control Project within the boundaries of the subject property.” Plate 5 of that plan indicates the proposed improvements as of 1974. Our records do not indicate that all of the requirements were fulfilled or removed. b. Previous owner, Gamlon Corporation, had submitted construction plans titled Kamehamalu Rise, North Kona Flood Control Project” that indicated an interceptor earth trap channel along the east boundary and concrete lined channels for Horseshoe Bend Stream and Holualoa School Stream as well as the combined portion in parcel 16. The construction plans also included a proposed concrete channel within the makai area of the State Department of Transportation right-of-way. The construction plans were never approved since the designer stopped submitting revisions addressing DPW’s comments and therefore never constructed. c. At the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008, DPW met with Tim Esaki, the current owner’s representative, and planning consultant, Sid Fuke. Notes for that meeting includes discussions about “combing the flows”, “culvert at the south end of the property will probably have to be improved to accommodate the additional water caused by the convergence of the two floodways”. d. Now 25 years later, this work has not been completed and the current owners’ consultant hasstated that combining the highway crossings will create overtopping which of course is unacceptable to the State. However, re-designing/re- constructing the crossing with increased capacity (ie. more culverts, larger culverts, bridge crossing) to avoid overtopping is a possibility in conjunction with a basin upstream of the Kalani Makai channel or by adding storage capacity upstream of the Queen crossing. Questions may be referred to Robyn Matsumoto at 961-8924. County ofHawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Z:\2-PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS\N. Kona\Royal Vistas\Royal Vistas TIAR Review-210928 (ATT).doc County of Hawai΄i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Page 1 of 2 County of Hawai΄i Department of Public Works - Traffic Division September 28, 2022 Review Comment Form To: Christian Kay, Planning Department From: Aaron Takaba (ATT), DPW TRF Reference Name: Royal Vistas Reference Number: TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016, and 17 Item Pg No Comment By 1 Signalized intersections along Hwy 11: Palani Rd, Henry St, Malulani Dr, Nani Kailua Dr, Puapuaanui St, Lako St, Seaview Cir, Laaloa Ave, Kamehameha III Rd. Why were the highlighted intersections not studied? ATT Hwy 11 at Lako St EB left turn is very congested in the AM during school traffic and in PM peak hour. This has caused problems on lower Lako St and Kupuna St. ATT Other than mitigating the cut-through traffic on residential Kupuna St, I feel the benefit of the Lako St extension is minimal with respect to the scope of this study. This extension would probably add more traffic to an already congested intersection at Hwy 11. ATT Hwy 11 is very congested, particularly in the AM peak northbound. It has been observed that the pinch point is Lako St and back-ups occur from Lako St to the adjacent signals including Seaview Cir, Laaloa Ave, and Kamehameha III Rd. Coordination was implemented in Aug 2021 and SPM/Adaptive is in-progress. ATT Lako St traffic signal is currently split phase, I believe due to a sight distance concern westbound and possibly eastbound. This phasing, while it may address a safety concern, is not efficient since you add another clearance phase to the cycle. ATT Changing Lako St signal from split phase to a concurrent green ball will be difficult due to driver habits and sight distance restrictions. Significant improvements should be made at this intersection to improve sight distance and to provide protected left turn phasing (State standard) or protected/permissive if approved. Also, dual left turn lanes (and Hwy 11 widening) should be provided eastbound as the AM count is nearing 300 vph. ATT Please confirm/explain how LOS at Lako St is best with split phase (permissive left turns is second best). ATT Adding lanes on Hwy 11 from Henry St to Kamehameha III Rd is needed now as AM and PM peaks typically result in large backups. Generally, northbound in AM and southbound in PM. ATT Z:\2-PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS\N. Kona\Royal Vistas\Royal Vistas TIAR Review-210928 (ATT).doc County of Hawai΄i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Page 2 of 2 Hwy 11 at Hualalai Rd (south): My 2021 comment to May 2020 TIAR: “WB right turn LOS F with project.” Updated Nov 30, 2021, TIAR does not show LOS analysis for WB right turn from 2024 without project (pg. 28) and beyond. Proper mitigating measures for right turns (acceleration lane recommended by 2024) and left turns should be provided. There is no recommendation to address the left turns once roundabout was found to degrade overall LOS. ATT Hwy 11 at Royal Vistas Roadway: WB left turn LOS F in 2024. Mitigating measures are needed, such as: -Right in/right out; -Connection to Lako St; and -Improvements to Lako St since recommendation is to divert traffic to Lako St with Phase 2. Connection to Lako St needs to be made from the onset versus before occupancy of phase 2. ATT Hwy 11 at Lako St: -EB left turn LOS E to LOS F in 2024 without project. -WB through/right LOS D to E in 2024 with project. Significant improvements need to be made due to the added traffic on Lako St generated by the Royal Vistas development and the eastbound left turn approaching 300 vph. This should include a WB dual left turn lane, Hwy 11 road widening, and WB right turn acceleration lane. ATT Hwy 11 at Kamehameha III Rd: My 2021 comment to May 2020 TIAR: “Overall LOS B/C to LOS C with project. WB approach LOS E with project.” Why did the LOS values improve with the updated Nov 30, 2021, TIAR? ATT ATT Critical unsignalized intersections, including Kuakini Hwy and the two Hualalai Rd intersections need to be evaluated further. Current study identifies low LOS but recommends doing nothing. ATT Need more information to determine how much Alii Hwy would mitigate traffic concerns along Hwy 11. ATT Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee Lord Managing Director Ramzi I. Mansour Director Brenda Iokepa-Moses Deputy Director County of Hawai'i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 • cohdem@hawaiicounty.gov Ph; (808) 961-8083 • Fax: (808) 961-8086 MEMORANDUM TO: Zendo Kern, Director Planning Department FROM: Ramzi I. Mansour, Director Department of Environmental Management DATE: July 20, 2022 SUBJECT: Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10 -Year Time Extension to Comply with Condition I (Complete Construction of Phase I) and Amendment to Condition N (Roadway Dedication) Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017; N. Kona, Hawai`i 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. Commercial operations, State and Federal agencies, religious entities and non-profit organization may not use transfer stations for disposal. 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. Green waste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the West Hawai`i Organics Facility and East Hawai`i Organics Facility, or other suitable diversion programs. 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: County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ramzi I. Mansour, Director July 20, 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): RM:pls No comments. Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawai`i 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 Hawai`i 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 Hawai`i Department of Health for information regarding pretreatment standards. Applicant shall follow Department of Health regulations. No Hawai`i County sewer system in area. Other: 2 HAWAII FIRE DEPARTMENT . COUNTY OF HAWAII . HILO, HAWAII 96720 DATE July 14, 2022 Memorandum TO : CHRISTIAN KAY, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM : CAPTAIN CLINTON BAYBAYAN, FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU SUBJECT: KONA THREE, LLCS CHANGE OF ZONE AMENDMENT APPLICATION. In regards to the above mentioned project, Fire Department Access and Water Supply shall comply with Chapter 18 of the 2018 Hawaii State Fire Code and Chapter 26 of the Hawaii County Code. If any building are required to be sprinklered, they shall comply with NFPA 13, 13D, 13R, 2016 Edition. For any questions please email Clinton.Baybayan@hawaiicounty.gov or call 808-323-4761. Respectfully Submitted, Clinton Baybayan Fire Prevention Captain Fire Prevention Branch Hawaii Fire Department Mitchell D.Roth Mayor tp,?i- "' y Susan K.Kunz Housing Administrator t.ee E.Lord Managing Director Harry M.Yd. Assistant Housing Administrator Robert H.Command ri'OI'11A'a Deputy Managing Director County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development 1990 Kino•ole Street,Suite 102 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 • (808)961-8379 • Fast(808)961-8685 Existing Housing.(808)9594642 • Fax(808)959-9308 Kona. (808)3234300 • Fax(808)3234301 November 30, 2022 Via Electronic Mail Zendo Kern, Director County of Hawai'i Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-5293 Email: Zendo.KernCciihawaiicountv.aov SUBJECT: APPLICANT: KONA THREE, LLC PROJECT NAME: KONA VISTAS TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016, (3)7-6-021:017 Dear Mr. Kern, The County of Hawai'i Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD)would like to take this opportunity to comment on the rezone amendment application for the applicant, Kona Three, LLC, who plans to amend Ordinance 02-131 for their Kona Vista's project. The OHCD entered into an affordable housing agreement with the applicant on January 10, 2022 ("Agreement") and recorded with the State of Hawai'i Bureau of Conveyance Doc No. A-806-00287) on January 25, 2022. The Agreement required earning a total of sixty-seven (67) housing credits based on a ten percent (10%) affordable housing requirement required by the State Land Use Commission Decision and Order, Docket No. A83-549 dated December 13, 1983 ("LUC A83-549"), as amended. The applicant desired to satisfy this requirement through the purchase of sixty -seven (67) excess housing credits verified by the OHCD to satisfy their housing condition. To date, the applicant has not satisfied the Agreement. Since the applicant intends to amend Ordinance 02-131 at the Planning Commission meeting on December 15, 2022, the OHCD kindly requests via HCC Chapter 11 Section 11-4(4) that the condition be updated to reflect the current housing conditions of HCC Chapter 11 requiring the applicant to earn housing credits equal to twenty percent 20%) of the number of units or lots (rounded to the nearest .5). 3107pamb 12111 EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Zendo Kern, Director County of Hawai'i Planning Department November 30, 2022 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact Anne M.O Bailey at (808) 323-4303 should you need any further assistance. Sincerely, Susan z Housing>dwtstrator DAVID Y. IGE ELIZABETH A. CHAR, M.D. GOVERNOR OF HAWAII DIRECTOR OF HEALTH STATE OFHAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: Mr. Zendo Kern Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Eric Honda District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three LLC Request: 10-Year Time Extension to Comply with Condition I and Amendment to Condition N. TMK: 7-6-021:016 and 017; N. Kona, Hawaii The development consists of 50 lots/dwelling units or more. The use of individual wastewater systems is not allowed under the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rule Chapter 11-62. The development shall connect to the County sewer system (as indicated it will) or provide plans for a wastewater treatment works as applicable. The Wastewater Branch does not oppose the time extension proposed. DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII MEMORANDUM STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET, ROOM 325 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 August 1, 2022 TO: RUSSELL Y. TSUJI, Land Administrator Land Division FROM: LAINIE BERRY, Wildlife Program Manager Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K. MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY M. KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR- WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LANDSTATEPARKS Log no. 3749 SUBJECT: Division of Forestry and Wildlife Comments for the Change of Zone Amendment Application from the County of Hawaii on behalf of Kona Three, LLC for the Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project on Hawaii Island The Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) has received your request for comments for the Change of Zone Amendment Application (No. PL- REZ-2022-000033) to amend the Change Zone of Ordinance No. 02-131 (REZ 470) regarding two properties located in Holualoa, North Kona, on the island of Hawaii; TMKs: (3) 7-6-021: 016 and 7-6-021: 017. The proposed project consists of requesting a 10 -year time extension to comply with Condition I (Complete Construction of Phase I) and to amend Condition N (Roadway Dedication) with the purpose of securing final plan approval and completion of a 450 -unit multiple -family rental and sale housing project. The Royal Vistas project will be developed in a cluster of two and three-story buildings throughout the 68.837 -acre that compromise both parcels, which will also include roadway development, drainage improvements, and installation of utilities and services. DOFAW concurs with the mitigation measures included in the Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment (attached in the application package) intended to avoid construction and operational impacts to State -listed species including the Hawaiian Hoary bat or `Ope`ape`a Lasiurus cinereus semotus), Hawaiian Hawk or `Io (Buteo solitarius), Blackburn's Sphinx Moth Manduca blackburni), and seabirds. For illustrations and guidance related to seabird -friendly light styles that also protect the dark, starry skies of Hawai`i please visit https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2016/03/ DOC439.pdf. We also appreciate the measures outlined to minimize the spread of invasive species and the use of native plant species for landscaping. DOFAW provides the following additional comments regarding the potential for the proposed work to affect listed species in the vicinity of the project area. The State listed Hawaiian Goose or Nene (Branta sandvicensis) could potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed project site. It is against State law to harm or harass these species. If any are present during construction, then all activities within 100 feet (30 meters) should cease, and the bird or birds should not be approached. Work may continue after the bird or birds leave the area of their own accord. If a nest is discovered at any point, please contact the Hawaii Island Branch DOFAW Office at (808) 974-4221. DOFAW is concerned about attracting vulnerable birds to areas that may host nonnative predators such as cats, rodents, and mongooses. Additionally, the development of a park is likely to increase the number of users and may generate more trash We recommend taking action to minimize predator presence; remove cats, place bait stations for rodents and mongoose, and provide covered trash receptacles. Due to the arid climate and risks of wildfire to listed species, we recommend coordinating with the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization at (808) 850-900 or admin@,hawaiiwildfire.org, on how wildfire prevention can be addressed in the project area. We appreciate your efforts to work with our office for the conservation of our native species. These comments are general guidelines and should not be considered comprehensive for this site or project. It is the responsibility of the applicant to do their own due diligence to avoid any negative environmental impacts. Should the scope of the project change significantly, or should it become apparent that threatened or endangered species may be impacted, please contact our staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Radley, Protected Species Habitat Conservation Planning Coordinator at (808) 295-1123 or paul.m.radley@hawaii.gov. Sincerely, L« 5. 7 LAINIE BERRY Wildlife Program Manager SUZANNED. CASE CHAIRPERSON DAVID Y. IGE BOARD OFLANDANDNATURALRESOURCES COMMISSIONON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENTGOVERNOROFHAWAII ROBERTK.MASUDA FIRST DEPUTY M. KALEOMANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERINGSTATEOFHAWAIIFORESTRYANDWILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATIONDEPARTMENTOFLANDANDNATURALRESOURCESKAHOOLAWEISLANDRESERVECOMMISSION LAND STATE PARKSSTATEHISTORICPRESERVATIONDIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD, STE 555 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 October 15, 2021 IN REPLY REFER TO: Zendo Kern, Planning Director Project No. 2020PR32834 County of Hawai, Planning Department Submission No. 2020PR32834.005 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Doc. No. 2110NM05 Archaeology Planning@hawaiicounty.gov Dear Zendo Kern: SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review County of Hawahange of Zone Application, REZ 470, Ord. No. 02-131, RM-5 Zoned Land Kona Three, LLC Hlualoa Property Archaeological Inventory Survey Hlualoa A, North Kona TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-019 This letter provides the State Historic Preservation D a request to amend Rezone Ordnance No. 02-131 and the supporting draft report titled, Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 76.121 Acres Located in Hlualoa 1st Ahth Kona -6-021:016- 019\] (Escott and Escott, August 2021). Table 1 summarizes the submittals received for the subject project. Date Received Project No. or Submission No. Materials Received March 3, 2021 2020PR32834 (Previously Log No. 2020.00727) Original Submittal with Draft AIS May 7, 2021 2020PR32834.002 SIHP Request Form May 12, 2021 2020PR32834.003 Revised AIS 1 and Response July 28, 2021 2020PR32834.004 Revised AIS 2 and Response October 11, 2021 2020PR32834.005 Revised AIS 3 and Response Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) completed the AIS of approximately 76.121 acres at the request of the applicant, Kona Three, LLC and Richard Wheelock (owner), and in response to a SHPD letter dated July 30, 2020 Log No. 2018.00878, Doc. No. 1807SN01). The landowner plans to apply for a County of Hawaibbing and grading permit in support of proposed development of the property. Pertinent SHPD Correspondence: 2018a In a letter dated May 31, 2018 (Log No. 2018.01123, Doc. No. 1805SN05), SHPD accepted the AIS completed for a 5.0-acre portion of the overall project area and agreed to mitigation commitments in the form of an archaeological preservation plan (PP) for Site # 50-10-37-30592, a burial treatment plan (BTP) for Site # 50-10-37-30593, and an archaeological monitoring plan AMP) for the proposed development. 2018b In a letter dated July 30, 2018 (Log No. 2018.00878, Doc. No. 1807SN01), SHPD reviewed and had no objection to a request to amend Rezone Ordnance No. 02-131. Additionally, SHPD stipulated the following needed to be completed prior to issuance of any permits: 1. Burial Treatment Plan for Site # 50-10-37-30593; 2. Preservation Plan for Site # 50-10-37-30592; Zendo Kern October 15, 2021 Page 2 3. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the portion of the 5-acre AIS project area in proximity to Sites # 50-10-37-30592 and # 50-10-37-30593; 4. Verification of installation of interim protection measures around Sites # 50-10-37-30592 and 50-10-37-30593; and 5. Completion of an AIS for the 63.8-acre portion of the project area within the boundaries of the Hammatt et al. (1992) survey. Our records indicate that the Hammatt et al. (1992) survey report was never revised and accepted and does not meet current HAR §13-276-5 standards for archaeological inventory surveys. The AIS for the 63.8-acre portion needs to include a 100% pedestrian survey, identification and updated documentation of all archaeological historic properties present, an assessment of their integrity and site significance pursuant to HAR §13- 284-6, Criteria a-e, as well as site plans for each site, including site boundaries and areas impacted by bulldozing, and photographs of all sites and features. Lastly, SHPD requested the selected archaeological firm consult with SHPD prior to initiation of the AIS regarding proposed documentation strategy. 2020a In a letter dated October 30, 2020 (Log No. 2020.01241, Doc. No. 2010NM09), SHPD reviewed the plan titled, An Archaeological Preservation Plan for Site # 50-10-57-30592 Located in stHlualoa1Ahupu North Kona District, Island of i \[TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016-019\] (Escott and Mello, May 2020). SHPD stipulated the following needed to be completed prior to submittal and acceptance of a revised PP: 1. SHPD acceptance of the draft Escott and Escott (2020) AIS for the 63.8-acre portion of the project area and incorporation ofany agreed-upon preservation sites or portions of sites into the revised PP. Note for example that Site #50-10-37-030592 occurs inboth the 63.8-acre and 5.0-acre portions ofthe overall project area; 2. Insertion into the PP of text and permit plans detailing the location and extent of the proposed breach of Site # 50-10-37-30592; 3. A permit application for the breach work and a SHPD HRS 6E Submittal Form for the project; and 4. Address the revisions specified in the Attachment. 2020b In a letter dated November 19, 2020 (Log No. 2020.00727, Doc. No 2011NM04), SHPD requested revisions to the Escott and Escott (March 2020) AIS report. Previous archaeological studies within the project area consist of a reconnaissance survey (Hammatt and Folk 1983) and two AIS (Hammatt et al. 1984; Hammatt et al. 1992) conducted in TMK: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017, and a field inspection of the current project area (Escott 2016). SHPD did not accept the Hammatt et al. (1984) AIS as it did not meet the standards (August 25, 1992, Log No. 6174, Doc. No. 3524c; and October 5, 1992, Log No. 6482, Doc. No. 3542c). The AIS identified 21 archaeological sites inside the current project area: Sites 50-10-37-10011, 50-10-37- 10012, 50-10-37-10013, 50-10-37-10015, 50-10-37-10017, 50-10-37-10018, 50-10-37-10019. 50-10-37-10020, 50- 10-37-10031, 50-10-37-10033, 50-10-37-10034, 50-10-37-10049, 50-10-37-10067, 50-10-37-10068, 50-10-37- 10069, 50-10-37-10070, 50-10-37-10071, 50-10-37-10072, 50-10-37-10073, 50-10-37-10074, and 50-10-37-1007 and two bulldozed modern planting terraces. The total project area was 174 acres of which 66.039 acres are within the current overall project area. Site 10012 consisted of two burials that were reinterred outside the project area. Excavated sites in the current project area included Sites 10011, 10012, 10013, 10019, 10067, 10068, 10069, 10070, 10072, 10073, and 10074. No correspondence associated with the Hammatt et al. (1992) project was located during preparation of this review. As such, it is unknown at this time whether Hammatt et al. (1992) assessed the archaeological sites for significance, and whether recommendations were made regarding which sites were adequately documented, requiring no further work, and which retained potential for further documentation through mitigation including archaeological monitoring or preservation. Hammatt and Shideler (2007) submitted additional site documentation in the form ofa letter to SHPD for Sites 10011, 10012, 10031, 10049 and 10071. Site maps and photographs were not provided for all sites. SCS conducted an archaeological field inspection (Escott 2016) of the current project area to relocate the sites identified during the Hammatt et al. (1992) AIS, to assess their current condition and the adequacy of the Hammatt Zendo Kern October 15, 2021 Page 3 et al. documentation. The field inspection did not include completing new documentation in the form ofdrawing site maps or taking photographs of sites where such documentation was not recorded by Hammatt etal. (1992), although such documentation is required to meet the minimum AIS standards as defined in HAR §13-276. The current AIS (Escott and Escott, August 2021) indicates that the project area was bulldozed for commercial agriculture in the 1950s. Consultation occurred with Gregg Kashiwa who was the property manager for parcels 016 and 017 in the 1980s. Kashiwa indicated the project area was already bulldozed at that time but was fmiliar with the historic features on the property. SCS also contacted Shane Nelson, an Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) representative, but received no response. The fieldwork component of the Escott and Escott (August 2021) AIS was conducted throughout 2020. The project included a 100% surface survey with site recordation, GPS, photography, and subsurface excavation with documentation. A total of 16 sites and one isolated find (IF-1) were identified during the AIS (Table 1). Two sites and a petroglyph (Site 50-10-37-31181, Site 50-10-37-31182, and 50-10-37-31254) were newly identified and the remaining fourteen sites were previously documented (Hammatt etal. 1992). Five previously identified sites were determined no longer present (Site 50-10-37-10012, Site 50-10-37-10017, Site 50-10-37-10033, Site 50-10-37- 10049, and Site 50-10-37-10071). Site 50-10-37-10015 was determined to be a modern bulldozer road segment and therefore it is not an archaeological site. The Site 50-10-37-10012 burial (MNI =2), along with the entirety of the burial crypt and all associated features, were disinterred during the Hammatt et al. (1992) project and reinterred outside the project area in 1993. The reinterment was conducted in consultation with the rial Council and Marc Smith from SHPD. A letter dated February 8, 1993, from Gregg Kashiwa (Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc.) to SHPD, provides additional details regarding the burial site. Site 50-10-37-10020 and Site 50-10-37- 10034 were determined to be natural geological features. The sites include pre-Contact to post-Contact enclosures, platforms, mounds, lava tubes, walls, a railroad berm, and complexes. Two sites (Site 50-10-37-10011 and Site 50- 10-37-10073) were excavated during the current AIS. Table 1. Archaeological sites documented during the current AIS. SIHP # Site Description Function Temporal Significance Mitigation 50-10-28 Association 10011 Platform Agricultural Clearing Pre-Contact d NFW 10012 Former Burial Platform Burial Pre-Contact No longer NFW significant 10013 Enclosure and Lava Tube Habitation Pre-Contact d NFW 10018 Enclosure Remnant Agriculture Historic d NFW 10019 Rock Mounds Agricultural Clearing Historic d NFW 10031 Enclosure Wall Agriculture Historic d NFW 10067 Terraces Habitation Pre-Contact d NFW 10068 Enclosure Habitation Pre-Contact d NFW 10069 Modified Bluff/Platform Habitation Historic d NFW 10070 U-shaped Enclosure Agriculture Historic d NFW 10072 Complex Agricultural Clearing Pre-Contact d NFW 10073 Complex Ranching/Agriculture Historic d NFW 10074 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic d NFW 10075 Enclosure Pig Pen Historic d NFW 30592 Railroad Berm Transportation Historic a, c, d P 31181 Enclosure Coffee Work Shed Historic d NFW 31182 Rock Walls Ranching and Historic d NFW Agriculture 31254 Petroglyph Marker Pre-Contact d, e P No Further Work (NFW), Preservation (P) The 18 sites were assessed as significant under HAR §13-284-6 Criterion d. Site 50-10-37-30592, the railroad berm, was also assessed as significant under Criteria a and c and was recommended for preservation. Site 50-10-37-31254, a petroglph, was also assessed as significant under Criterion e and was recommended for preservation. Site 50-10- 37-10012 is a former burial site where the disposition (burial and associated burial crypt and features) were relocated. Thus, there are no known human skeletal remains left. Nevertheless, it is recommended that this former Zendo Kern October 15, 2021 Page 4 burial site be flagged for preesrvation in the form of avoidance. The previous site location will be monitored if construction activities occur near that location. The report recommends no further historic preservation work forthe remaining sites. SHPD agrees with the site integrity and significance assessments for all 18 sites. SHPDs project effect determination is Effect, with agreed upon mitigation commitments and SHPD agrees that the 16 sites recommended for no further work have been adequately documented. SHPD agrees with the preservation of Sites 50-10-37-30592 and 50-10-37-31254 and additional mitigation in the form of archaeological monitoring during initial ground disturbance for the entire project area. The Escott and Escott (August 2021) AIS report addresses the concerns raised in our earlier correspondence and satisfies the requirements of HAR §13-276-5. It is accepted. Please send two hard copies of the document, clearly marked FINAL, along with a text-searchable PDF copy of the document and a copy of this acceptance letter to the Kapolei SHPD office, attention SHPD Library. Additionally, please upload a text-searchable PDF version of the document to HICRIS Project No. 2020PR32834 using the Project Supplement option and send a text-searchable PDF copy of the AIS report to lehua.k.soares@hawaii.gov. SHPD requests the following be submitted for SHPD review and acceptance prior to permit issuance: 1. An archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) for all initial ground disturbing activities that meets the requirements of HAR §13-279-4; 2. An archaeological preservation plan (PP) for Site 50-10-37-30592 and Site 50-10-37-31254 that meets the requirements ofHAR §13-277; and 3. Written and photographic documentation verifying implementation of interim protection measures for Sites 50-30-37-30592 and 50-10-37-31254. Please submit the plans and the interim protection documentation, along with the required review fees for the AMP and PP to HICRIS Project No. 2020PR32834 using the Project Supplement option. SHPD shall notify the County when the mitigation plans are accepted, and the permit issuance process may proceed. Please contact Nicole A. Mello, Historic Preservation Archaeologist IV, at Nicole.Mello@hawaii.gov, for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. Aloha, Alan S. Downer, PhD Administrator, State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc: Glenn Escott, SCS, ggescott@yahoo.com Richard A. Wheelock, richard@eastwestrealty.org Sean Naleimaile, SHPD, sean.p.naleimaile@hawaii.gov Daryn Arai Land Use Planning Consultant P.O. BOX 4501, HILO HAWAII 96720 PHONE: (808) 895-3218 EMAIL: DARYN.ARAI@OUTLOOK.COM November 15, 2022 Mr. Jeffrey Darrow Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Darrow: Response to Agencies’ Comments regarding Amendments to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02 131 (PL-REZ-2022-000033) Applicant: Kona Three LLC TMK: (3) 7-6-021: 016 and 017; North Kona, Hawaiʻi This is in response to comments submitted by reviewing agencies and posted in your EPIC system, relating to the above-described action. We appreciate your consideration of the information we have provided when considering your recommendation to the Leeward Planning Commission. STATE AGENCIES 1. State Department of Transportation (memo dated August 17, 2022) Noted that “The HDOT does not object to the amendment requests; to allow a 10-year time extension related to Condition I and road dedication requirements under Condition N.” The Applicant has no objection to the inclusion of a condition that will require the Applicant to coordinate with HDOT on any mitigation measures that may be required, including any pro-rata contributions, related to the state highway improvements directly related to traffic generated by the proposed Royal Vistas residential project. Part of this coordination will include a 10-year development schedule showing the phases, number of units, and the associated transportation improvements to be completed before occupancy of each phase. In its earlier comments made as a part of the DEA, the HDOT recommended that a hydrologic and hydraulic study be conducted on the proposed changes to the Horseshoe Bend drainageway and its effect upon the existing culverts on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The HDOT notes the proposed Royal Vistas roadway will apparently conflict Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 2 of 9 November 15, 2022 with and impact these existing drainage culverts. In response, the consulting civil engineering consultant, Dempsey Pacific Inc., acknowledges that the existing highway culvert crossing for Horseshoe Bend does reside partially within the northern side of the existing 120-foot wide permitted access location for Royal Vista roadway. However, it was noted that the proposed road intersection is planned within the southern portion of the 120-foot wide permitted access location in order to allow the existing highway culvert crossing to remain in place and not impact the existing drainageway and culver crossing. If necessary, the Royal Vista roadway can be shifted up to 9.6-feet further south during the final construction plan design, while still remaining within the existing 120-foot wide permitted access location. The HDOT also noted concern about Phase I access being provided by the proposed Royal Vistas entry roadway directly onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway as a full- intersection along this major arterial, which HDOT expressed is not advisable and recommend consideration of alternative options, which includes connections of “minor connectors” running parallel to the highway within the adjoining Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates subdivisions. Note that HDOT appears to be concerned about Phase I development only being served by Royal Vistas roadway via Queen Kaahumanu Highway. As responded to within the FEA, intervening properties to the north and south of the Royal Vistas project site are not owned by the Applicant and would therefore prohibit the prompt connection of these parallel roadways. The connection of proposed project roadways with Kekuanaʻoa Place within Kona Vistas subdivision provides the only opportunity for an alternative access point for the project, and whose connection was delayed to Phase II at the urging of the Kona Vistas Homeowners Association, who also encouraged the Royal Vistas roadway entry with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. In response to HDOT concerns, the Applicant will have no objection to connecting its project roadways to Kekuanaʻoa Place prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancies for any residential unit within the 450-unit project, thereby distributing vehicular movements between the channelized Royal Vistas roadway and the signalized Lako Street. With the Kekuanaʻoa Place connection placed upfront prior to occupancy of any residential unit within the project, southbound traffic can access the fully signalized intersection at Lako Street and Queen Kaahumanu Highway, thereby relieving some of the southbound turning movements from the Royal Vistas roadway intersection. In the end, any design considerations for the proposed Royal Vistas roadway and its intersection with the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, including a design setback of 30 feet for future highway improvements, must meet with the approval of the HDOT. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 3 of 9 November 15, 2022 The Applicant acknowledges that drainage improvements affecting drainage structures on state highways shall be submitted to the Highways Division, Design Branch, Hydraulic Design Section for review and approval and that any State highway improvements required from this development shall be at no cost to the State and conform to current Federal and State design standards, including the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, as amended. 2. State Department of Health (memo dated July 13, 2022) Noted that the State DOH “,,,does not oppose the time extension proposed” as it will connect to the County’s sewer system. 3. State Department of Land and Natural Resources (memo dated July 13, 2022) The State Department of Land and Natural Resources–Engineering and Land Divisions had no any comments regarding the requests. The Division of Forestry & Wildlife concurs with the mitigation measures included in the Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment that are intended to avoid construction and operational impacts to State-listed species including the Hawaiian Hoary bat or ʻŌpeʻapeʻa, the Hawaiian Hawk or ʻIo, the Blackburn' s Sphinx Moth and seabirds. The Applicant will also be observant of the presence of the Hawaiian Goose or Nene anywhere within the project site and if encountered, will cease any construction activities within 100 feet (30 meters), and the bird or birds will not be approached. The Applicant will ensure that work may continue only after the bird or birds leave the area of their own accord. If a nest is discovered at any point, the Hawaii Island Branch DOFAW Office will be contacted immediately. The Applicant will take measures to minimize activities that will attract vulnerable birds to areas that may host nonnative predators such as cats, rodents, and mongooses. Proposed common areas such as the community centers will be managed by the associations to reduce attracting both vulnerable birds and their predators. The Applicant will contact the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization for guidance on mitigating measures to reduce the risks of wildfires. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 4 of 9 November 15, 2022 COUNTY AGENCIES 1. Department of Public Works-Engineering Division (memo dated October 5, 2022) We note that the Department of Public Works (DPW) has no objection to the request for a time extension to Condition I. We also note that the DPW does not object to the requested amendments to Condition N that seeks to clarify the extent of curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements within the subject properties. Regarding DPW’s concerns regarding Royal Vistas roadway not being a continuous linear throughfare between its Queen Kaahumanu Highway entrance and the extension of Kekuanaʻoa Place and Paulehia Street, the Applicant will explore opportunities to provide this continuous mauka-makai alignment to the extent practical, given topographical and drainage constraints within the project site. The Applicant sees no significant benefit in a continuous thoroughfare versus a segmented alignment. Traffic can still get from Point A to Point B via a segmented alignment, and probably with better speed control versus long, sloping thoroughfares like Lako or Puapuaʻanui Streets. The creation of these internal road rights-of-way will require subdivision of the subject properties, in coordination with the DPW, so the Applicant anticipates on-going discussion on a final roadway design that will satisfy the County. Specific to Condition Q, the DPW recites failed efforts of the previous landowners in providing drainage facilities recommended in the Drainage Master Plan for the North Kona Flood Control Project. As required by Condition Q, a drainage manager plan must be prepared meeting with the approval of DPW, should the requested time extension be approved. As part of the drainage master plan, the Applicant will coordinate with the Department of Public Works regarding the final design of the improvement projects for the Horseshoe Bend and Holualoa Drainageways. The potential options for addressing improvements to these drainageways that have been previously discussed include: (1) the County’s disposal of TMK 7-6-021:018 to the Applicant for use in the drainage improvements; (2) diverting some or all of the Horseshoe Bend flow into the Holualoa Ditch; (3) installation of a retention basin(s) and/or downstream culvert; and (4) leave the drainages in their current configuration with on-site improvements within the existing drainage boundaries. The final design could include one or a combination of these options, or an option to be identified in future coordination with DPW. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 5 of 9 November 15, 2022 2. Department of Public Works-Traffic Division (memo dated September 28, 2022) Comments offered by the Traffic Division highlighted areas within the TIAR that warranted additional clarification, which are summarized below along with the Applicant’s response: a. Intersection within the study area, such as Hualalai (N), Hualalai (S), Puapuaanui, Kuakini, and Lako, were selected to address impact, similar to the number studied in similar developments. The outer intersections (Palani, Henry, Kamehameha III) were studied as primary intersections for regional traffic movements. b. The Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway (Hwy 11) is very congested during the AM and PM peak hours, with Lako Street being the pinch-point. This congestion creates backups at other intersections along this route, such as at Nani Kailua, Seaview Circle, Laʻaloa, and Kamehameha III Road. Note however, that the 2008 Kona Community Development Plan states, "A series of east-west (mauka- makai) collector roads linking the regional north-south facilities must also be provided for added circulation and to further reduce the reliance upon the regional facilities." This suggests that east-west collectors (Lako Street, Laaloa Avenue, Future "Spine Road" as part of the Pualani Makai development and Nani Kailua Road) would reduce reliance on regional facilities like Hwy 11. c. Adjustment of traffic signal phasing at Lako Street, combined with widening of Hwy 11 and Lako Street rights-of-way at this intersection (preferably from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road) to accommodate adequate sight distance and protected left turn movements onto the highway from Lako Street will be beneficial, with the State DOT encouraged to pursue such widening which is essential to any modification of signal phasing at this intersection. d. While the construction of Aliʻi Highway will have some beneficial effect to traffic volumes alone Hwy 11, the Applicant feels that such effect will be limited because there is no good way to get drivers along the Aliʻi Highway back to the Hwy 11 north of the congested area extending from Henry Street to the north and Kamehameha III Road to the south. Overall, the TIAR analyzed the future 2039 traffic conditions with the project and found that “This segment of Route [Hwy] 11 operates at LOS D or better for each condition in the AM and PM peak hours. The arterial LOS satisfies the County of Hawaii Chapter 25 (Zoning), Article 2 (Administration and Enforcement), Division 4 (Amendments), Section 46 (Concurrency Requirements) regarding ‘acceptable level of service’ for transportation facilities”. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 6 of 9 November 15, 2022 Certain left-bound turning movements at intersections along Hwy 11 currently or will operate at LOS E or F at full-buildout, such as at Lako, Kuakini, and Hualalai intersections. However, the satisfaction of a traffic signal does not mean a traffic signal needs to be installed. There are other factors that should be analyzed when installing a traffic signal, such as roadway geometry, added delay to a traffic network, and the impact of rear-end accidents that occur at new traffic signals. Even with certain specific turning movements operating at LOS E or F, the overall function of all intersections along this section of Hwy 11 between Henry Street and Kamehameha III Road operates at acceptable levels of service. The majority of the congestion along this section of Hwy 11 is from northbound traffic from the south during the AM peak hour, with southbound traffic from the north during the PM peak hour. Even with the completion of the project by 2029, all studied unsignalized intersections do not warrant signalization. The most prudent action is to widen this segment of Hwy 11 to better facility through volume and provide opportunities for added turning lanes and signalization, where warranted. This widening is forecast by the 2035 Federal Aid Highways Long Range Transportation Plan and can only be heighted in priority based on need. With regards to concerns about turning movements at the proposed Royal Vistas roadway intersection with the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway that was intended to be the only entrance throughout Phase I, the Applicant is willing to move this up by completing interior project roadways to allow for its connection with Kekuanaʻoa Place in Kona Vistas prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential unit within Phase I. This will provide options for left-turn and south-bound movements onto the highway, especially of the State DOT restricts the Royal Vistas roadway intersection to right-in and right-out movements. The end analysis of all of this discussion around traffic is that the project will provide opportunities to move towards the interconnection of subdivisions and partial construction of concurrency roadways as recommended by the Kona Community Development Plan. Even without this project, one can assume that traffic is not going to get any better in the years ahead, especially if people working within North Kona continue to be forced to live outside of the Kona Urban area and commute daily into town. The hopeful solution is to provide the Applicant with the support they need to seek some level of progress on multiple fronts, as Royal Vistas hopes to accomplish by providing partial construction of concurrency roadways while provide mid-market housing opportunities for our residents within the urban center of North Kona. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 7 of 9 November 15, 2022 3. Department of Water Supply (letter dated August 15, 2022) Sufficient water units have already been secured to support the proposed project, with off-site improvements already completed. As recommended by the Department of Water Supply (DWS), the Applicant will construct applicable waster system improvements that will be designed to deliver water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-flow and fire-flow conditions in accordance with DWS rules. The Applicant will ensure that the total allocation of water made available to this project will not be exceeded. As encouraged by the DWS and where feasible, the project would include water efficient fixtures and provide water-saving recommended measures for residents. To minimize water demand, the project would minimize landscaping and use xeriscape landscaping where landscaping is installed. In addition, the project aims to implement and balance xeriscape with the provision of safe and adequate recreational space for residents. The project would utilize reclaimed or reuse water for landscaping, if possible. If deemed necessary by the Department of Water Supply, the Applicant will be amenable to providing total daily water usage calculations, as prepared by a licensed engineer, to be included as part of its plan approval application for the project to ensure that total water usage will not exceed its allocation. 4. Department of Environmental Management (memo dated July 20, 2022) Solid waste generated during the development of the proposed project will be transported to the County’s Puʻuanahulu landfill in North Kona. Solid waste subsequently generated by individual unit owners will be handled through commercial haulers or disposal into transfer stations located within the district. Any green waste generated by land clearing activities will be disposed of at the West Hawaii Organics Facilities. The project will connect to the County’s sewer system. 5. Police Department (memo dated July 22, 2022) The Applicant acknowledges the response from the Police Department that it does not have any comments at this time. 6. Fire Department (memo dated July 14, 2022) Construction plans for the project will be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure compliance with Chapter 18 of the Hawaiʻi State Fire Code and Chapter 26 of the Hawaiʻi County Code. All structures and facilities will be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Fire Department. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 8 of 9 November 15, 2022 PROJECT TIMING The phased implementation of the proposed project with respect to representations made within the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA), the updated traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) and the amendment application foresaw the completion of Phase I by 2024 with the completion of the remainder of the project by 2029. The Draft Environmental Assessment was published in August 2020 with the FEA accepted by the Planning Department more than a year later on September 13, 2021. Based on late comments provided by the County, the Applicant commissioned an update to the TIAR which was produced in late November 2021. The amendment application was subsequently accepted by the Planning Department by letter dated July 12, 2022, anticipating that final action on the amendment request could occur sometime in the Spring 2023. Obviously, completion of Phase I of the Royal Vistas project by the end of 2024 is not practical given where things currently stand in the process, and it appears that should the amendment requests be approved by the County Council in Spring 2023, the likely completion of Phase I is more likely the end of 2027, given the need for design coordination and approval of the subdivision roadways and its connection with the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and Kekuanaʻoa Place as well as its crossing through the Holualoa drainageway, along with drainageway improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Completion of the two phases of Royal Vistas is still anticipated by 2029 as most of the infrastructure design and approval will occur upfront as part of Phase I. The amendment request for an extension of ten (10) years to complete the first increment of the 450-unit Royal Vistas project was to provide sufficient leeway given the anticipated complexities and lengthy review and approval processes for the supporting infrastructure associated with this project. To address concerns regarding the completion of Phase II with respect to traffic conditions, the Applicant is supportive of including language within Condition I that removes any reference to phasing and ensures completion of the entire 450-unit Royal Vistas project by the end of 2029, in alignment with representations made within the FEA and TIAR. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 9 of 9 November 15, 2022 We trust that the aforementioned adequately responds to the comments to date. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Daryn Arai Land Use Planning Consultant copy via email: Kona Three LLC. Mori, Ashley From:Roberta Durham <roberta.durham@csueastbay.edu> Sent:Monday, July 18, 2022 10:00 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Asper your request: Request for Comments on App. No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 (Amend ORD-02-131) on TMKs: 3) 7-6-021:016 & 017 Asahome owner inKona Vistas Iobject tothe development proposed based onpublic safety with increased traffic and lack ofinfrastructure tosupport this development Sincerely Roberta Durham Roberta FDurham RN PhD Professor Emeritus California State University, East Bay To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Mori, Ashley From:Douglas Fredebaugh <dfsailor@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12:35 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Kona Three LLC Application 02-131 Please stop this poorly conceived andinappropriately sized development from proceeding asplanned. The infrastructure is not in place to support development ofthis nature inthis location. Traffic atthe Queen K - Lako intersection isalready a daily problem, with accidents occurring onafrequent basis asfrustrated drivers trytosqueeze through. Although this was originally planned asahigh density, moderate income development, thelack ofpublic transit, schools, and realistic infrastructure make this apoor choice oflocations for such alarge development. There isalready aproblem with flooding during periods ofheavy rain. Without extensive drainage development, more run-offwill create massive problems onboth the Queen Kand the Kuakini Highway. Mahalo, Douglas Fredebaugh 1 Mori, Ashley From:Joel Gimpel <alohafidlr@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, July 31, 2022 2:49 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Cc:bandcculhane@yahoo.com; debbie511rn@yahoo.com; deewunschel@yahoo.com; jchorizon@icloud.com; rckonaron@gmail.com; ricoventenilla1@gmail.com; Joel Gimpel Subject:Kona Three LLC Requests for Time Extensions - Royal Vistas The Board of Directors of Pualani Estates at Kona, a subdivision of 362 single-family homes several hundred yards north of the proposed Royal Vistas project, hereby strongly objects to the requests for time extensions to secure final plan approval and completion filed by the Applicant, Kona Three LLC, for components of the proposed Royal Vistas project. Work on this portion of the project, construction of the multi-family residential component that was supposed to have commenced 15 years ago, has never progressed, and the current applicant, who acquired the property nearly seven years ago, now seeks another 10-years to complete that first increment. We believe that the application must be denied for the following reasons: 1. The traffic studies submitted by the applicant are woefully inadequate because they were taken during times when the COVID pandemic had caused a significant decrease in visitors and business operations that resulted in greatly reduced traffic on Highway 11. Furthermore, the studies don’tadequately account for traffic volume that would result from other proposed developments in the area that are also being considered by the Planning Department. Nor do applicant’s studies acknowledge that the widening of Highway 11 to four lanes, though needed, is neither planned nor funded, and is therefor uncertain for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the current traffic conditions on Highway 11, which are already well below acceptable standards during the weekday morning and afternoon “rush hours,” should prevent developments in the area that would add significantly to traffic on Highway 11. We are also concerned regarding the proposed “Royal Vistas” roadway that would serve as a fully channelized entrance to the subdivision from Highway 11. Apparently, this connection would not be signalized, therefore causing additional delays and creating an additional traffic hazard. 2. We remain concerned about the inadequacy of the archaeological studies that purport to support the project because there is much evidence that the property includes features ofthe Holualoa Slide and rock walls that are mistakenly described as agricultural walls. In addition, only a small percentage of the property has been inspected for archaeological features deserving of preservation. 3. Although the earlier proposal to access Highway 11 via road extensions through the Gomes property to Ho`omama Street and Paulehia Street in Pualani Estates, which intersect with Puapuaanui Street, had supposedly been dropped, the current application appears to resurrect it as identified under the Kona Community Development Plan. We emphasize that the proposal, if approved, must not be understood to allow a substitute for an appropriate and direct access from Royal Vistas to Highway 11. 4. The application for the project relies on outdated information regarding the adequacy of public school capacity in the area toaccommodate the hundred additional students that would be residing in the first phase of the project when completed. 5. The application fails to acknowledge the inevitable harm to endangered species, including Hoary Bats, and native flora that would result from the proposed development. Nor does it deal adequately with the water 1 shortages that have been plaguing the area in recent years, or with the possible effects and mediation or prevention of waterflow disruptions, including flooding, that could result from alterations to the landscape. 6. Finally, we object to the application because too much time (15 years) has elapsed since this project was first proposed, and 10 years have passed since the first phase was to have been completed. Yet not one brick has been laid. It’s time to go back to the drawing boards. Mahalo for your kind attention to our concerns and objections.. 2 Mori, Ashley From:Nunberg, Jack <jack.nunberg@mso.umt.edu> Sent:Wednesday, August 3, 2022 9:53 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:oppose Royal Vista development Dear Planning Commission- As a resident of Pualani Estates, I’d like to echo some of the points raised by our Homeowners’ Association in their letter of opposition. The biggest problem would be the hundreds of extra cars and hundreds of extra trips to the workplace, groceries, etc that would impact not only the already packed Highway 11 corridor but will spillover onto Hoomama and Paulehia Streets in Pualani Estates. These latter streets would be the natural route to get to a traffic signal on Puapuaanui and Highway 11, especially as no traffic signal is proposed for the direct routes from the development onto Highway 11. This points out that the developers have never in these 10 years issued a workable plan for mitigating the impact of the additional traffic. This is reflective of their larger failure to move on their development plans in the past 10 years, necessitating the current request for an extension. The developers don’t know what they’re doing and are not to be trusted to do acompetent job, much less the right thing. Thank you for your consideration, Jack Nunberg 75-647 Opikanalani Pl Kailua Kona, HI 96740 406-544-9413 1 Mori, Ashley From:Marta <martafinley@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 4, 2022 7:25 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Royal Vistas Development Inregards tothe Kona Vistas Development, Zone Ordinance 02131, TMK (3) 7-6-021:016 and017., inmy opinion, itisabad idea. Thecongestion inthatarea isalready terrible in the mornings and afternoons. The roads are not able tohandle hundreds ofmore cars. Inaddition, we donot need vacation rentals. That iswhat hotels are for. During thislast COVID wave, we sawaffordable housing disappear. Iknow several people wholisted their homes for saleand allwere bought out ofstate buyers who will beparttime residents taking homes and rentals off the market. We donot need more investors torent outplaces totourists. We need homes and rentals thatour young locals canafford. So, until we have better infrastructure inplace and affordable housing is built for ourfireman, teachers, nurses, lifeguards, electricians, plumbers, etc., we donot need this big development nor any 10year extension. Building projects should enhance our community. We need toget away from catering tothe wealthy out of state people and look to what will keep our children and their families from moving away. Thank you for listening. Marta Finley Retired Teacher Sent from my iPhone 1 Mori, Ashley From:Mike Jorgensen <mjorgensen@fsaloans.net> Sent:Thursday, August 4, 2022 5:19 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:FW: REF: Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 - Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Dear Sirs, After further deliberation, IHereby Rescind my Opposition asstated below and remain NEUTRAL, with regard tothe development. Sincerely, Mike Jorgensen 76-6388 Kilohana St. Kailua Kona, HI From: Mike Jorgensen Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:10 AM To: planning@hawaiicounty.gov Subject: REF: Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 - Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Dear Sirs, InNovember2018ameetingofownersofKonaVistasSubdivisionwas conductedtoinformownersofthesoontobeproposedprojectonournorth boundarywhichwouldbeaccesseddirectlythroughoursubdivision. As anticipated, inearlyDecemberthedeveloperwithhisspokesman, Zendo Kerns, (whoisnowtheHAWAIICOUNTYPLANNINGDIRECTOR) held ameetingattheReccentertooutlinetheirprojectconsistingof450 marketrate" unitswhichwouldbe2and3storymulti-unitcondominiums. Thesestructureswouldbe200feetby200feetsquareandcouldbeover 40feettallblockingviews. TheyareproposingShortTermVacation Rentals (STVR- page46) whichwilladdnoiseandtraffic, multi-family rentals, loudparties, Notfamily-oriented. AfterreceivingfeedbackfromtheownerswhohadpackedtheReccenter thenandagainattheDecember17,2018specialhomeowners' meeting whichwassowellattendedthatthegroupexceededthecapacityofthe Associameetingroom, theBoardvoted7to0toopposethedevelopment asplanned. TheBoardthenhiredalanduseattorneytohelpwiththis 1 project. FundstoopposethedevelopmentwerealreadyinaspecialHOA fund. DuringtheDeveloper'sfirstapplicationprocessourlanduseattorney aswellasmanyhomeownersintheareawroteinoppositiontothe developmentasplanned. Theapplicationwasdenied. Nowanew (10Year) applicationhasbeensubmittedandisabouttobe heardbythecounty. HawaiianProperties, ourmanagementcompany shouldhavesenteveryowneralinktotheapplication. Amongthosewho haveseenit, ithasgeneratedmanyquestionsaboutwhatisbeing proposed/changedinthisiteration. Simplyput, theonlychangefromthisdeveloper'spastapplicationsisthat thedevelopmentwillnowhavesomeconnectiontothehighway, whichwas requiredanyway, however, thenumberofbuildingsorsizeis UNCHANGED. Sadly, theystillplantocomethroughoursubdivisionusing KekuanaoaPlaceforentryandexit. Additionally, theyhavealsoprovidedastuboutforafutureconnectionto Leilani. Asaresult, bothofthese2roadwayswillexperiencesignificant noiseandtrafficimpact, aswillallofourstreets. Thereisnomentionofa HOAorCC&R’stoprotectanyone. TheconnectiononKekuanaoaPlacewillbedangerousbecauseofthe increasingstreetgradeapproachingLako. Theturn-incomingfromLako isalmostblind. Thesteepgradecombinedwithdrivewaysinveryclose proximitytotheintersectioniscrazy. Missingarethecurbs, gutters, and sidewalksthathaveyettobeinstalled. Parkingonthestreetwouldbe hazardousforalltraffic. Carsandtruckswillbedetouringtoalltheother streetsinthatareatoavoidthehill. INADDITION, THE274 "FORSALE" UNITSAREPROPOSEDASSHORTTERM VACATIONRENTALS. Somepeoplewereledtobelievetheprojectwasscaleddownintheamount andsize- Ithasnot. ThatIsdecidedlyNotTrue. Ifyoureadthelast part (afterthetableofcontent) Part2, pages15, 16, and17, No AlternativefromoriginallyProposed! Theycan’tmakeasmuch money $$$! Becausethedeveloperhasalreadypaidfor450watermeters, they willbe goingforthefullproposedproject, 450units, 2and3storiestall- 40feet. 2 IwishtovoicemyOppositionwithregardtothisnewdevelopment project! MikeJorgensen 76-6388KilohanaSt. KailuaKona, HI Sent from Mail for Windows 3 Mori, Ashley From:Janice Kerr <jkkona@hawaiiantel.net> Sent:Thursday, August 4, 2022 6:47PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Kona Three, LLC Amendment Application and Amendment to Change Zoning for Royal Vistas Development Attachments:Kona Three LLC Royal Vistas.docx DATE: August 4, 2022 TO: County ofHawai’iPlanning Department CC: Hawai’iCounty Council Members FROM: Janice Kerr 76-4320 Leilani St. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 jkkona@hawaiiantel.net SUBJECT; Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment toChange ofZone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10-year Time Extension toComply with Condition I Complete Construction ofConstruction ofPhase I) and Amendment toCondition N (Roadway Dedication) Tax MapKeys: (3) 7-6-021:016 and017; N. Kona, Hawai’i In 2018Zendo Kern, thepaid Consultant fortheDevelopers of “RoyalVistas”, madeapitchto thehomeowners in Kona Vistas, which isthesubdivision adjacent to hisproposed project. He attempted to “selltheidea” bycovering upthe damage that hisfirm would doto anentire Ecosystem, bygrubbing thelandof alltrees andvegetation, soheandhis partners could build 450high-density, high-risehousing units intheflood plain onthenorthern border ofKona Vistas. 1 Fast forward to2022: Zendo Kern is nowtheDirector of thePlanning Department for theCounty ofHawai’i. Hehas authority toapprove therenewed Application forthisproject tobebuilt. Any “conflict ofinterest” concerns here? (None, according toMayor Mitch Roth.) There aremany reasons forthis project tobe disallowed. First ofall, Zendo Kern’sinvolvement. Second, alothaschanged inthe38 years since thisproject was originally approved in1984 fortheformer landowners. The Zoning is no longer “low-density”. Additional reasons, toovoluminous todetail completely, aresummarized below: The volume of trafficon Hwy11, ismore than justanuisance. Itcreates life-threatening gridlock forPolice, Fire and Medical Emergency vehicles, since thealternate routes east andwest also clog upabsorbing theHwy overflow. Remember therecent firethatclosed Hwy11and Kuakini Hwy? Nowhere togo…) No plans or funding towiden theHwy. Itisa State Hwy, notacounty road, sothe State dictates any improvements. Water restrictions, shortages, aging water wells. Several additional Developments also planned forthisarea along Hwy 11that willpour even more vehicles onto the already crowded road. Access to this project will be through small streets in quiet neighborhoods without sidewalks, or road shoulder markings, orcurbs orgutters. Street parking would bedangerous. Children playing, people walking across thestreet toa neighbor’shouse, orjustwalking on thestreet would bedangerous. Flooding (building siteis aflood plain), lack ofsewer capacity during periods ofheavy rainfall (when sewage goes directly intotheocean). Shortage ofDoctors, Teachers, andlimited access tobasic support services. Archaeological preservation ignored. There isevidence ofburials, artifacts, coffee shack, wallsofHolualoa Slide, a National trail, andmore. Habitat destruction ofendangered and threatened species, particularly Hawaiian hawks, owls, bats, and more. No provision proposed for an HOA or any CC&R’s toprotect theinterests oftheintended orneighboring residents. Documented Affordable Housing shortage, andthere isnoprovision for affordable housing units aspart ofthisproject. Developers arealso proposing Short Term Vacation Rental Units aspart ofthis project. STVR’saddnoise, traffic, multi-family rentals of singleunits, property damage, andmore. Such unitsare notcompatible with family-oriented neighborhoods and pride ofownership. Please berealistic. Atthistime, thisproject would severely diminish thequality oflifeforthousands ofresidents. I respectfully request youtooppose this Development andpossibly reconsider itwhen we have theroadways andother necessary infrastructure inplace. Thank you. Ihave also attached this letter as afile to this email\] 2 DATE: August 4, 2022 TO: County of Hawai’iPlanning Department CC: Hawai’iCounty Council Members FROM: Janice Kerr 76-4320 Leilani St. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 jkkona@hawaiiantel.net SUBJECT; Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10-year Time Extension to Comply with Condition I Complete Construction of Construction of Phase I) and Amendment to Condition N (Roadway Dedication) Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017; N. Kona, Hawai’i In 2018 Zendo Kern, the paid Consultant for the Developers of “Royal Vistas”, made a pitch to the homeowners inKona Vistas, which isthe subdivision adjacent to his proposed project. He attempted to “sell the idea” by covering up the damage that his firm would do to an entire Ecosystem, by grubbing the land of all trees and vegetation, so he and his partners could build 450 high-density, high-rise housing units in the flood plain on the northern border of Kona Vistas. Fast forward to2022: Zendo Kern isnow the Director ofthe Planning Department for the County of Hawai’i. He has authority to approve the renewed Application for this project to be built. Any “conflict of interest” concerns here? (None, according to Mayor Mitch Roth.) There are many reasons for this project to be disallowed. First of all, ZendoKern’s involvement. Second, a lot has changed in the 38yearssince this project was originally approved in 1984 for the former landowners. The Zoningisnolonger “low-density”. Additional reasons, too voluminous to detail completely, are summarized below: The volume of traffic on Hwy 11, ismore than just a nuisance. Itcreates life-threatening gridlock for Police, FireandMedical Emergency vehicles, since the alternate routes east and west also clog up absorbing the Hwy overflow. (Remember the recent fire that closed Hwy 11 and Kuakini Hwy? Nowhere to go…) Noplansorfunding to widen the Hwy. ItisaStateHwy, not a county road, sothe State dictates any improvements. Waterrestrictions, shortages, aging water wells. Several additional Developments also planned for this area along Hwy 11 that will pour even more vehicles onto the already crowded road. Access tothisproject willbethrough smallstreetsinquietneighborhoods without sidewalks, or road shoulder markings, orcurbs or gutters. Street parking would be dangerous. Children playing, people walking across the street to a neighbor’shouse, or just walking on the street would be dangerous. Flooding (building site is a flood plain), lack of sewercapacity during periods of heavy rainfall when sewage goes directly into the ocean). Shortage of Doctors, Teachers, and limited access to basic support services. Archaeological preservation ignored. There isevidence of burials, artifacts, coffee shack, walls of Holualoa Slide, aNational trail, and more. Habitat destruction of endangered and threatened species, particularly Hawaiian hawks, owls, bats, and more. Noprovision proposed foranHOAoranyCC&R’sto protect the interests of the intended or neighboring residents. Documented Affordable Housing shortage, and there is no provision for affordable housing units as part of this project. Developers are alsoproposing ShortTermVacationRentalUnitsas part of this project. STVR’s add noise, traffic, multi-family rentals ofsingle units, property damage, and more. Such units are not compatible with family-oriented neighborhoods and pride of ownership. Please be realistic. Atthis time, this project would severely diminish the quality oflife for thousands of residents. Irespectfully request you to oppose this Development and possibly reconsider itwhen we have the roadways and other necessary infrastructure in place. Thank you. Mori, Ashley From:Doug Perrine <perrine@hawaii.rr.com> Sent:Thursday, August 4, 2022 3:18 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Public Comments on Planning Department application Royal Vistas Development, Zone Ordinance 02 131, TMK (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017 Dear Planners: The proposed Royal Vistas Development will addalarge amount ofnew traffic toQueen Kaahamanu / Kuakini Hwy at, and close to, amajor bottleneck atthe intersection ofLako St. and Kuakini Hwy. This intersection is already well past capacity atmorning and afternoon rush hours, and becomes a life-threatening blockage during tsunami evacuations. Iam not opposed to the development of new housing in this area, but itmust be preceded bythe necessary infrastructure. Toaccommodate any additional vehicular traffic intothis area, Queen K / Kuakini Hwy needs to bewidened to four lanes from Henry St. to King Kamehameha IIIhighway and Royal Poinciana Street needs to be connected to Queen Kaahamanu Hwy. with atraffic light. Until these projects are completed, no additional residential construction should be green-lighted inthis area. Thank you for considering the safety and convenience of current residents in making your decisions. Doug Perrine 76-223 Haoa St Kailua Kona HI96740 1 Mori, Ashley From:Kathy Winter <khkealani@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 4, 2022 10:22 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Against K3 permit - by editors ofPualani Pono and Dr. K H Winter Regarding the application for building ”Royal Vistas” south of Pualani Estates: Several things jumped off the pages that might be important to Pualani Estates (PEK) owners and residents. Reading all 1900+ pages is too much for most of us, so here is a list of issuest and the page numbers where the information can be found. Background - the past 38 years: the development planned has been in process as part of the project approved in 1984. County Council has subsequently extended time limits for development, most recently in 2002. In 2015, Kona Three purchased the land from the previous owners who had not commenced building, acquiring the 68.837 acres to build 450 “multiple family” units, some “flats” and others “courtyard.” Population density: Zoning in 1984 designated much of the project site as “low density” which could include residential, ancillary community and public uses including convenience-type commercial uses.” p. 30. NOW the site is identified as “medium density”, mid-market housing. These would be both for rent and for sale units. The builder acknowledges on p. 11 that “final distribution of these units may be adjusted during the final design.” Think about that - given real estate prices as they are, how many of the units will end up being owned but used for vacation or other rentals? how many will be occupied by owner families with “pride of ownership” and other values congruent with Vistas and PEK? Essentially the development is designed for two communities: at the lower elevation, closer tothe highway, rental units with their own community center with pool and park, and a mix of covered and open parking spaces for “residents and guests”and the upper increment 2 of owner units with its own community center with pool and park. p. 11. Do we want such implicit segregation in Kona? Timing: Now Kona Three is requesting a 10 year extension to complete construction of just the first increment. p.5, expecting completion in 2030. Water issues: Originally the developers were required to add a 12 acre parcel for “affordable housing” on the makai side of Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. FEMA found “flood zone “ issues with that land. A good look at the map on pg. 15 shows that the two drainage ways in the parcels will join to send water down to the highway and into what now lies below. Now the County no longer wants to proceed with developing the original 12 acres for affordable housing and K Three is offering to donate land above and Lowe’s for 100 unit affordable rental units to be built by a qualified affordable housing developer. p. 24 Archeology: Another archeological review was made since the original one (p. 164 ff) that identified a total of 18 significant sites: 6 from the pre-contact era 3 habitation 1 agricultural 1 petroglyph 1 with 2 burials There may be more that would be uncovered during any development. The remaining 6 were “likely” from post-contact, historic eras. 1 Roads connecting to PEK: this application says that no roads will connect to PEK streets Ho’omama and Paulehia across the intervening pasture land. Note that the map on p 19 fig. 7 shows the roads still connecting to PEK streets, however. Instead a road joining Queen Kaahumanu without a signal light may be built. It’s design looks much like the intersection of Hualalai Road and the highway to the north of Puapuaanui. For more information on the handling of traffic issues, check pp 41-43. Environment: On p.11 the developer dismissively describes the open land to the south of PEK as “vacant ranch land” ignoring the non-human inhabitants of the land and not acknowledging the importance of pasture land to the eco system and future balance of air, earth and ocean in a time of global climate change. One of the consultant evaluations K Three includes a letter from arborists who urge preservation of the trees instead of wholesale grubbing and then additional care for any and all trees - just one example from the larger community of scientists and environmentally astute others. It is staggering to imagine what the addition of 450 residents’ vehicles - more likely 1000 - and additional trucks, vans, and delivery vehicles - will add to the air pollution issues here in the lee of Hualalai. Schools: This development proposal shows no deep awareness of the impact of 450 more homes on local public and private schools. The data used to project a rise in students was done in the 1980’s and projects only 10 years into the future. 2018 projects an addition of 99 students to local schools. The lack of qualified teachers is one of our state and local deficits, one that current demographics, not pre-pandemic numbers, need to include. p. 164 It is PP editors opinion that the Royal Vistas project is another dead end exploitation of open space. It is not a thoughtful or forward-looking use of precious land. Dr. Kate Kealani H Winter 2 Mori, Ashley From:Sheila Braithwaite <artfulheart007@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 5, 2022 7:13 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Three things? Aloha, 1Ilive onKawena Street above the Nani Kailua light. Wednesday evening feral pigs tried toattack anewly arrived VRBO guest ashewent tolock his car 2Became aresident in2019; Iam already tired ofhearing about AFFORDABLE HOUSING.!!!!! Lived onaresort barrier island for30years. Itwas 1/2vacation rentals…sewers replaced septic tanks and3Bdrm homes became 10Bdrm PARTY HOUSES Here our little neighborhood issoadversely impacted byVRBO. 30year residents are having their lives sadly and badly affected by ABSENTEE OWNERS! 3 Driving up the mountain toseemy grands, Iam witness tothe ridiculous construction ofROYAL VISTAS development. It is destroying the land, displacing wildlife, itwill beahorror during therainy season…andit appears there will bemany VACATION RENTALS Where is the AFFORDABLE HOUSING for the native Hawaiians, for our medical assistants, for our teachers, andfor our hospitality workers Looking forward to your response. Mahalo, Sheila Braithwaite PS Sending a copy to West Hawaii Today Sent from my iPad 1 Mori, Ashley From:John Randerson <fjr123@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 7, 2022 8:37 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:PL-REZ-2022-000033 Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment toChange ofZone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Iwish to submit the following comments inrelation tothis application: Page 12ofthe Submission specifies the roads tobeconstructed inRoyal Vistas. The new road to connect with Queen Ka ahumanu Highway is the only viable access to thesubdivision in phase one because ofprivate land between Royal Vistas and Pualani Estates tothe north (TMK 7-6-013:004) and because the extension ofKekuanaoa Place to the south will not beconstructed until phase two. This does not fitwith the Objective Tran-2Street Network Connectivity described onpage 37of the submission. Indeed, byhaving only one access toRoyal Vistas more traffic isfunneled onto the main arterial highway and nointerconnection ofroads offering alternative transportation routes isprovided. Thus the Objective isspecifically negated and the Developers offer noplans forhow Royal Vistas roads could ever satisfy the Objectives. Idrive Queen Ka ahumanu Highway every day and am painfully aware that the section from Walmart south toKamehama IIIRoad isalready anightmare. TheCounty isacting irresponsibly inapproving new subdivisions that will exacerbate the heavy traffic onQueen Ka ahumanu Highway—especially in the November-March snow birder season. Isubmit thatthe County needs tobuild interconnected roads to provide alternative routes first in order to satisfy the Network connectivity objective. The Developer needs to specify how the roads inRoyal Vistas willfit within theObjective. In conclusion Isubmit that an extension of time be granted tothe Developer but with noconstruction permitted until the alternative routes for traffic have been built. John Randerson 76-4353 Leilani Street 1 Mori, Ashley From:Claude Thornton <claudethornton@rocketmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 7, 2022 12:02 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change ofZone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10-Year Time Extension toComply with Condition I (Complete Construction of Phase I) and Amendment toCondi... This may bemythird letterto theCounty ofHawaii Planning Department regarding theproposed 'Royal Vistas' Development. Iamvery surprised andfrustrated this development isstillseriously being considered. Royal Vistas iswrong on so many levels. It'sbad for Kona and West Hawaii. Aside from being this eyesore monstrosity of450 high-density/high-rise housing units, itis thesocial, economic, and environmental impact that this dreadful development will bear on Kona. The maco-infrastructure for Kona cannot support the conditions of10-20 years past. As opposed, to thehardships of today and tomorrow. 1) Traffic: Our only highway....excuse me, thetwo-lane country road has failed to keep up with traffic density. Commuting from Captain Cook to downtown Kona is a40-45 minute trek. This isanine-mile commute. I've been doing this for 6 years, shuttling mykids to Konawaena Middle and High School. The volume on this highway has become anuisance and dangerous. Ibegyoutogather police information on accident andfatality statistics. Especially attheintersections of Lako and Nani Kailua. Ifyoudon'tliveinWest Hawaii, youcan'tpossibly understand thetraffic disaster Konaresidents confront every day. Our country road has failed. 2) Emergency Services: Police, fire, andmedical emergency responders andvehicles willbetrapped in traffic. Consequently, thesafety andhealth ofitscitizen willbe threatened. More importantly, these services are impacted. Ihaven'tseen any new firestations being constructed inWest Hawaii. Isthewelfare andsafety ofyour citizens unimportant?! There was abrush fireinFebruary 2022, andthehighway wascompletely closed. Residents were trapped onAlii Drive; consequently, took 2-3hours fora4-mile trip home. Let'sadd another 1500 orsovehicles tothemix...why don'twe?! 3) Hospitals and doctors: One hospital with limited emergency services andtrained staff - Kona Community Hospital. Though Icommend thehospital forits quality andresponsiveness, they have reached thepoint of diminishing returns, Without additional rooms, staff, andequipment how does theCounty expect KCH torespond totheincrease of population from Royal Vistas? The turnover rate ofdoctors hasbeen atrocious. Personally, I'monmyfifth primary provider infour years, The retention of qualified physicians inWest Hawaii isatdistressing levels. 4) Schools: Asof 2019, there was ashortage of30teachers perDOE. The school infrastructure isaging and deteriorating. AsEast Hawaii schools areexperiencing infrastructure improvements, there hasbeen blatant neglect ofWest Hawaii Schools from theHawaii DOE. Schools andtheeducation ofourchildren aremuch more important than Royal Vistas. Royal Vistas willincrease thecrowdedness and quality ofourschool system. Icanlistmany more, suchas water, flooding, conflicting interests (Zendo Kern), andsewage. However. I'm confident the Council appreciates these arguments. How can webethinking ofanyhuge development without having themacro- infrastructure in place?! This is not solely aWest Hawaii orHawaii County Planning issue. This isaState andFederal Highway, Hawaii DOE, and Hawaii Planning problem. Solve these critical social, economic, andenvironmental issues first, before even contemplating undertaking thisor any development inWest Hawaii. Your responsibilities areto promote thequality of lifeofyour citizens, Most importantly, preserve the beauty andrespect forthisisland. Mahalo, 1 Claude Thornton 76-172Kamehamalu Street Kailua-Kona 96740 2 Mori, Ashley From:john bennett <jwb1266@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 9:41 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Royal Vistas Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Dear Planning Commission, The proposed development ofRoyal Vistas inthe Ahupuaa ofHolualoa (Long Slide) has many Red Flags thatshould not beoverlooked. Iread intheWest Hawaii Today recently that another development inthe area had been asked to perform a "Cultural Evaluation". The landsubject tothis Development should equally beasked, asitisrichin history. The Mauka Makai potions ofthe property align directly with aremnant portion ofanancient Holua located on the north property ofthe "Holualoa Inn" . This Holua isdifferent ( not meant for sport) asitwas built for hauling canoes. Directly Mauka ofthe proposed Development :GuestsofHolualoaInncanwalkourhistoric grounds, wheretheremnantsofanancientholuaslidecanbeseeninour botanicalgardens. www.holualoainn.com/history-of-the-holua-slide/ Directly Makai ofthe Royal Vistas proposed Development isthe Kealakowaa Heiau ( the Path ofthe Canoe). http://data.bishopmuseum.org/Kekahuna/kekahuna.php?b=closeup&ID=43 Henry Kekuhuna in1953 surveyed thisand states that acanoe Hauling Road from theHeiau " through the Royal Vistas proposed development" past the Holualoa Inn remnant and intothe forests around 4000 feet ofelevation. Tom Puhaku Stone whom istheleading expert inHawaiian Holuas with aMasters Degree from University ofHawaii states, "Not all hlua slides had walls but nearly allthose onHawaii Island do. The purpose wastohold the rockinthe slide insome sections and inareas that needed toberaised. When you mention moving oflogs from mauka-makai that isan important point because thekoa forest linewas ata lower elevation when wewere gathering the great trees for our waa, papaheenalu, etc. The current Enviromental assessment mentions nothing ofthis Holua. THE AHUPUAA ISNAMED "HOLUALOA" ( LONG SLIDE) TO DELIVER THE KOA WOOD FOR CANOE BUILDING. According tothe recent EA, You will find mention ofdouble rock walls asmerely cattle shoots inrecent history. Hooray Bats Hawaiian Hawk (IO) Pueo (Hawaiian Owl) Allofthese species live inthe subject area and are thriving! Inclosing, itisvery direthat the planning commission recognizes that the assessment needs tobeculturally evaluated before moving forward. Currently the plandoes not conform tothe community Development Plan, astheEA does not include Historic Trails. Thank you for your time, John Bennett Kona Resident 1 Mori, Ashley From: D. Blancett-maddoc <dbmkona@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 8:17 AM To: Planning Internet Mail Cc: Roy, Alex; Jackson, Maija Subject: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application Attachments: KV ROYAL VISTAS EXTENSION REQUEST AUG 2022.pdf ALOHA, Attached please find an extension of time and postponement and continuance request signed by Kona Vistas property owners and members of Kona Vistas HOA. Time is of the essence. Your immediate attention in this matter is requested. With aloha, Diane Blancett-Maddock August 6, 2022 County .f Hawaii Planning Depart ent 74-5044 Ane Keohokailole Hwy Kailua-Ko a, HI 96740 By Email as instructed: pjan _g_@FI Cc: Alex.Roy@hawaiicou tygov RE: Change off Zon g Application No. L-REZ-2022-00033 KONA THREE, LLC Tax Map Keys: (3) 76-6021:06116 and 017, Kona HI The below signed persons are property owners in K na Vistas and embers of the Kona Vistas Ho eow ers Association (HOA). Kona Vistas OA properties and the properties of so e of the undersigned are mediately adjacent to the proposed develop ent and within 300 feet of the development. With overwhel ing su port of the Kona Vista Ho eowners, the Kona Vist. OA Board voted to enga e a lawyer on behalf of the homeowners to opp se the developr e t as proposed. The petition by the opposing hoi eowners is a atter of record. The Board set aside substa tial funds for this ourpose and engaged Counsel, Attorney Steven Strauss for this p rpose. A new oar was elected in February of 2022. On August 6, 2022, a Kona Vista Homeowner was notified by Attorney Strauss, that effective last night (A g st 5), the current Kona Vista HOA Board President, Angie owman had instructed that his represent.tio agreement was terr inated. He f rther advised that he was unable to help anyone with cornr ents before the current deadline, f2 The below signed Homeowner's and the opposing hoi eowners who proceeded in g od faith under a reasonable expectation of legal representati n are suddenly and ithout proper notice left without legal representation or access to the files or evidence necessary to proceed at this time. We therefore petition, motion for, ad request an extef so of time and postponement and continuance of this matter for 90 days in order ts obtain assistance of cou se l in order to protect ur rights to contest . nd opp se this matter. In light of the history f this matter, specifically that this matter by developer is for n extension of 10 years to an expired zo ing approval iss ed early decades ago in 1984, a short continuance f 90 days to provide due process to effected property owners a d interested pa ies is not harmful or u reasonable. Time is of the essence. Your Mahaio ediate al biakarcif- Modlock-- ntion in this matter is requested. Diane Blanceft-M ddock 76-101 Kamehamalu Street (D r. 4, rt,A, 76 Y341 6 7 _„, 2 of 2 1-0AiL 4 kra-1:::b•a.,., KO A AOLCOM e:7 / 7 6 16 e A_ 7 c' - „if ol 7-t 71 4:67, /1-1-4L. eV) 7- ° 7 3 0 L.E.(1-.11--- 1 f. 4 1 ge; 7L -/O 7(0.-iccc . ALL -;?,, 7L/) y The bei proceeded ir represe tation are s h co me ts before the curr,nt .eadh e. ed Ho it er's the o osing home und r a re 'so e.xpectatio ddenly id tho t proper noticei e rs egai tho represent tion or access t. the flies or ev e ce necessary t pr this e. t -gal ceed at We therefore petition, otion f and request an xte so of time and postso e ent nd co fin a obt in assistance of 0 unsei ppose this atter,, ftIs matt- f order to protect ight •f the histo f ths rn tter, specific de eloper is for .n e son f 10 ye c des a in 1984, - issued .early ide ue pr cess t effected property et: harmful or reasonabe, rs 11011 go lays in order t r hts to co t s Hy t at this m-tter by an ex Fred zoning a pr c ntnunoe of 90 days to es ar. nter -,,sted parties is Time islo the essence. Y ur u iedate attent, n ths ma IT i, requested, aria! Dane B 0 KOco0 ddock 76-101 K 11 2 - et n • 0"100g1 (.07-'0;0•t (03 06, 010. 1,,A„it,) Mori, Ashley From: Jackson, Maija Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:00 PM To: D. Blancett-maddoc Cc: Roy, Alex; Planning Internet Mail; Kay, Christian; Darrow, Jeff Subject: RE: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application Attachments: KV ROYAL VISTAS EXTENSION REQUEST AUG 2022.pdf; Re_ No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application.pdf Aloha Diane, This email is in response to the attached request to postpone the Kona Three LLC rezone amendment application (PL- REZ-2022-000033) for 90 days in order for the homeowners listed in the attachment to obtain assistance of counsel. The Planning Department will not be postponing the hearing on this application for the following reasons: 1. The application is for a rezone amendment for which the County Council will make the final decision to approve or deny the request. There will be a minimum of 4 public hearings at which the homeowners and public may testify in person or by writing in opposition or support. One at Leeward Planning Commission, one at the County Council's Planning Committee and two at the full County Council. 2. The Zoning Code provides timelines for the Deputy Planning Director and Leeward Planning Commission to provide recommendations to the County Council for this application. In order to meet those deadlines and still provide the Leeward Planning Commission flexibility in their decision-making schedule, the hearing will need to be help in October. The Code allows for a longer time, if agreed to by the applicant. We provided your request to the applicant, and they declined to agree to extend the deadline. See attached response. Based on the above reasons, the Department will be tentatively scheduling this application on the October 20th Leeward Planning Commission agenda. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Maija Jackson, Planning Program Manager County of Hawaii Planning Department 808) 961-8159 COUNTY OF HAWAII Electronic i Information Center (EPIC) We hope that the County of IL..Ilawaln's EPIC system has mad° your applllueatlion process convenlient and dasy. Connectling wuth us for hellp lis just a cluck away. Cluck here to request support. For more intolnmatlion go to https://hawaiicountyhi-energovpub.tylerhost.net/Apps/SelfService#/home. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 1 From: D. Blancett-maddoc <dbmkona@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 8:17 AM To: Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Roy, Alex <AIex.Roy@hawaiicounty.gov>; Jackson, Maija<Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application ALOHA, Attached please find an extension of time and postponement and continuance request signed by Kona Vistas property owners and members of Kona Vistas HOA. Time is of the essence. Your immediate attention in this matter is requested. With aloha, Diane Blancett-Maddock 2 August 6, 2022 County .f Hawaii Planning Depart ent 74-5044 Ane Keohokailole Hwy Kailua-Ko a, HI 96740 By Email as instructed: pjan _g_@FI Cc: Alex.Roy@hawaiicou tygov RE: Change off Zon g Application No. L-REZ-2022-00033 KONA THREE, LLC Tax Map Keys: (3) 76-6021:06116 and 017, Kona HI The below signed persons are property owners in K na Vistas and embers of the Kona Vistas Ho eow ers Association (HOA). Kona Vistas OA properties and the properties of so e of the undersigned are mediately adjacent to the proposed develop ent and within 300 feet of the development. With overwhel ing su port of the Kona Vista Ho eowners, the Kona Vist. OA Board voted to enga e a lawyer on behalf of the homeowners to opp se the developr e t as proposed. The petition by the opposing hoi eowners is a atter of record. The Board set aside substa tial funds for this ourpose and engaged Counsel, Attorney Steven Strauss for this p rpose. A new oar was elected in February of 2022. On August 6, 2022, a Kona Vista Homeowner was notified by Attorney Strauss, that effective last night (A g st 5), the current Kona Vista HOA Board President, Angie owman had instructed that his represent.tio agreement was terr inated. He f rther advised that he was unable to help anyone with cornr ents before the current deadline, f2 The below signed Homeowner's and the opposing hoi eowners who proceeded in g od faith under a reasonable expectation of legal representati n are suddenly and ithout proper notice left without legal representation or access to the files or evidence necessary to proceed at this time. We therefore petition, motion for, ad request an extef so of time and postponement and continuance of this matter for 90 days in order ts obtain assistance of cou se l in order to protect ur rights to contest . nd opp se this matter. In light of the history f this matter, specifically that this matter by developer is for n extension of 10 years to an expired zo ing approval iss ed early decades ago in 1984, a short continuance f 90 days to provide due process to effected property owners a d interested pa ies is not harmful or u reasonable. Time is of the essence. Your Mahaio ediate al biakarcif- Modlock-- ntion in this matter is requested. Diane Blanceft-M ddock 76-101 Kamehamalu Street (D r. 4, rt,A, 76 Y341 6 7 _„, 2 of 2 1-0AiL 4 kra-1:::b•a.,., KO A AOLCOM e:7 / 7 6 16 e A_ 7 c' - „if ol 7-t 71 4:67, /1-1-4L. eV) 7- ° 7 3 0 L.E.(1-.11--- 1 f. 4 1 ge; 7L -/O 7(0.-iccc . ALL -;?,, 7L/) y The bei proceeded ir represe tation are s h co me ts before the curr,nt .eadh e. ed Ho it er's the o osing home und r a re 'so e.xpectatio ddenly id tho t proper noticei e rs egai tho represent tion or access t. the flies or ev e ce necessary t pr this e. t -gal ceed at We therefore petition, otion f and request an xte so of time and postso e ent nd co fin a obt in assistance of 0 unsei ppose this atter,, ftIs matt- f order to protect ight •f the histo f ths rn tter, specific de eloper is for .n e son f 10 ye c des a in 1984, - issued .early ide ue pr cess t effected property et: harmful or reasonabe, rs 11011 go lays in order t r hts to co t s Hy t at this m-tter by an ex Fred zoning a pr c ntnunoe of 90 days to es ar. nter -,,sted parties is Time islo the essence. Y ur u iedate attent, n ths ma IT i, requested, aria! Dane B 0 KOco0 ddock 76-101 K 11 2 - et n • 0"100g1 (.07-'0;0•t (03 06, 010. 1,,A„it,) From: Darvn Arai To: Jackson, Maiia Cc: Roland Higashi; Richard Wheelock; Robert G. Williams Subject: Re: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:00:22 AM Aloha Mrs. Jackson. Thank you for making us aware of this request, and providing the opportunity for the Applicant to respond. On behalf of the Applicant, Kona Three, LLC, we ask that its change of zone amendment application be scheduled before the Commission's October 20, 2022 meeting in accordance with its processing deadline as prescribed by the Zoning Code. While the Applicant understands why this request to defer the hearing has been made, we are collectively all part of a process which the Applicant has spent much time and effort to comply since undertaking this amendment process as far back as 2017. The Applicant has no control over the decisions or actions of a homeowners' association or its individual members, but we would like to emphasize that this upcoming Commission meeting is just one of at least 4 individual public meetings that must occur before both the Leeward Planning Commission and the County Council. There is opportunity for due process, as concerned citizens can submit testimony regardless if they are represented by counsel or not. Finally, we note that the HOA, through its former attorney, Steven Strauss, has participated in the FEA process that preceded this amendment request and its comments are part of the official record. For the reasons stated above, the Applicant respectfully declines to waive 120 -day deadline by which to conduct a public hearing before the Leeward Planning Commission. Thank you very much. Daryn nr r From: Jackson, Maija<Maija.Jackson@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:53 AM To: Daryn Arai <Daryn.Arai@outlook.com> Subject: FW: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application Please respond to this one. From: Jackson, Maija Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 4:05 PM To: 'Daryn Arai' <Daryn.Arai@outlook.com> Subject: FW: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application Aloha Daryn, Attached is a formal request from residents of Kona Vistas to defer the hearing on this matter for 90 days. The Planning Department has not placed this rezone amendment application on the Commission's agenda yet but based on statutory deadlines in the Zoning Code it will likely be scheduled for the Commission's October 20th meeting, unless a longer time is agreed to by the applicant. Please provide a response to the attached document. Give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you, Maija From: D. Blancett-maddoc <dbmkona(a)aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 8:17 AM To: Planning Internet Mail <planningPhawaiicountv.gov> Cc: Roy, Alex <AIex.Rov@hawaiicountv.gov>; Jackson, Maija <Maija.Jackson« hawaiicountv.gov> Subject: No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 change of zone amendment application ALOHA, Attached please find an extension of time and postponement and continuance request signed by Kona Vistas property owners and members of Kona Vistas HOA. Time is of the essence. Your immediate attention in this matter is requested. With aloha, Diane Blancett-Maddock Mori, Ashley From:Sherry Bracken <jbkslb@kona.net> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 3:48 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Cc:PastorBrianKeiser@gmail.com; Villegas, Rebecca Subject:Comments on proposed changes to Royal Vistas by Kona Three, LLC Aloha, I’mwriting representing the Komohana Kai 2Homeowners Association. There are several subdivisions makai ofthe intersection ofLako and Kuakini. Komohana Kai 2, with 144 homes, isone offour different subdivisions down Lako Street and Kupuna. Our concerns: 1. The traffic study appears tohave been done inNovember, 2021, which was still during the time ofCOVID. Local traffic was lighter than usual, and tourists had not fully returned. Schools had not returned toin-person learning, and school traffic adds significantly totraffic around this intersection, down Lako Street, and down Kupuna Street. If this applicant isallowed toproceed OR tohave anextension, anew traffic study, under current conditions, must be required. Based onmy understanding oftheRoyal Vistas plan, itislikely that many children needing transport to Kahakai School will live inthearea. Itappears from what Iseethat there were nostudies thatspecifically addressed both morning and afternoon traffic onKupuna Street and Royal Poinciana, which isthe main path to/from Kahakai Elementary and Ali’iDrive, with some traffic using Lako Street toKololia and then toKupuna. Traffic studies must consider Kupuna, Royal Poinciana, Lako Street, and the side streets that empty onto them, aswell asstreets within the existing Pualani Estates subdivision and the intersections already cited bythe Developer. And County, orthe Developer, will have tofind ways tohelp mitigate the additional impacts totraffic because ofRoyal Vistas. 2. Morning and evening traffic between Henry Street and Kamehameha IIIisheavy, stop-and-goduring commute times. There has been talk ofthe segments north and south ofLako Street being widened. This should bedone in advance oforsimultaneously with adding numerous vehicles tothe roads. 3. The applicant cites several items as “Progress ofDevelopment”. The one copied below, the Lako Street Extension, is not “Progress.” Yes, there isaplan toextend Lako Street from Kuakini Highway toAli’iParkway (aka Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road) and Ali’iDrive. Asanote, Lako Street currently terminates onitsmakai end intheparking lotofthe Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity. Representing the Komohana Kai2Subdivision, in2007 and 2008, Isat onthe Lako Street Extension Context-Sensitive Solutions Advisory Group, which consisted ofindividuals from the community, from the Lutheran Church ofthe Holy Trinity, and from several segments ofgovernment. At that time, the intent was to begin the Design Phase inSummer, 2008, with construction beginning inSummer, 2009. The Advisory Group focused much ofits energy onhow best tocalm and mitigate theimpacts oftraffic through existing neighborhoods ofseveral hundred homes, with pedestrians, including school children, aswell asnormal slower-moving residential area traffic. However, nothing has happened relative tofurther community planning orstarting construction ontheLako Street extension. Before anynew traffic isintentionally placed onLako Street there must beanew plan thatwould address how best toapply traffic calming measures andprovide adequate protections for the existing neighborhoods below Kuakini Highway. The applicant says the only acceptable calming measure isspeed humps but we urge Planning toalso consider roundabouts, speed tables (such asattheintersection ofKealakehe Parkway and Ane Keohokalole Highway), and curves inroads. And Lako Street, with calming measures, and the “Ali’iParkway,” aka the Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road, would have tobecompleted before dumping (Iuse the word intentionally) potentially hundreds of additional vehicles onto Kuakini Highway, Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway, orour local streets below andabove the highway. 1 Since the approval of both the State Land Use District Boundary amendment and change of zone in 1984, the former and current Applicants have made significant progress towards completion of the overall single- and multiple-family residential project, as demonstrated by its accomplishment of the following milestones: 1. Lako Street extension (SUB 5738) Creation of right-of-way between Kuakini Highway and the Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road to accommodate initial segment of the proposed extension of Lako Street, approved on May 17, 1990. 4. The applicant speaks of “Affordable Housing Credits.” County Planning must confirm that these “Affordable Housing Credits” were not part of the recent affordable housing scandal involving County Employee Alan Scott Rudo and others. 5. We acknowledge that more housing is needed in Kona, including housing that people can afford to buy. Our concern is that Royal Vistas will provide too much density for an area with already-stressed infrastructure. 6. All nearby subdivisions have underground utilities. This must bea requirement for Royal Vistas aspart ofa “quality of life” measure. 7. We note that County Department of Water Supply in a letter dated December 16, 2019 (signed byKeith Okamoto) requested that the Developer provide reclaimed/reused water for non-potable needs. That should be arequirement for this or any other new development. it’snot clear to us that the Developer plans to do this. 8. The developer states there will be solar water heating. We wonder why any new housing project would not have photovoltaic, to help meet the State and County renewable energy goals? New construction isthe perfect time toinstall such. 9. Our community is plagued with developers who are granted extension after extension. As part of the Lako Street Advisory Group in 2007-2008, Ilearned there was a large condominium development approved forthe intersection of Ali’iDrive and the proposed terminus of Lako Street that had been approved initially in the 1970s, some 30years prior, and at that time, the developer was still intending to proceed despite changed conditions. Please beconscientious about your decision whether it’ssmart to approve a 10-year extension, and the conditions under which itisapproved. Iam copying the Pastor ofthe Lutheran Church oftheHoly Trinity, Brian Keiser, andHawaii County Council Member Rebecca Villegas. Thanks, with aloha, Sherry Bracken President, Komohana Kai 2HOA PO Box 895 Kailua Kona HI 96745 2 Mori, Ashley From:Wayne Hemby <wayneh72@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 1:17 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Comment onPL-REZ-2022-000033 DATE: August 8, 2022 TO: County of Hawai’iPlanning Department FROM: Clyde Hemby 76-147 Kamehamalu St Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 wayneh72@hotmail.com SUBJECT; Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10-year Time Extension to Comply with Condition I Complete Construction ofConstruction of Phase I) and Amendment to Condition N (Roadway Dedication) Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017; N. Kona, Hawai’i Iwould like toregister my comments, per your July 12, 2022 memo requesting comments onthe Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 The essence ofmy comments pertaining tothe application: 1. Iamfirmlyagainsttheconsiderationofa10-yeartimeextension 2. IamagainstmodificationoramendmentofConditionN CONDITION N Sidewalks, curbs and gutters will beanimportant part ofthesafety ofpedestrians andcyclists. Itisimportant thatthey have aflatand level place touseinorder toprevent the temptation ofusing the traffic lanebecause there islessslope and nodrainage grates tododge. The sidewalks would also benefit those with disabilities. Iwas amused attheclaim regarding “shoulders and swale, which has been expressed asthe preference ofresidents within the Kona Vistas Subdivision”. Ifthe developer has a comprehensive and current survey proving this claim, ask them to produce it. Since the developer owns lots, they may be counting themselves as “residents” which were the only ones asked about a preference. The answer to this question will tell you a lot about the claims of the developer and the reliance you can have for their “facts” 10 YEAR TIME EXTENSION 1 There hasbeen amyriad ofcomments addressing general concerns ofthe proposed Royal Vistas project. The common and important ones include: Traffic Gridlock-where the developer doesn’t state the studies are correct but are “defendable” Flooding-Which already happens and will be made worse without executing a plan to fix it. Cultural and Artifact- There are historical slides and artifacts that will be destroyed Emergency Services-A shutdown of Hwy 11 would force ambulance diversion to Waimea Schools- This development would draw new students to at or over capacity schools Wildlife Habitat- Hoary bats, owls, endangered Blackburn’s Sphinx Moths will lose habitat Sewage Hookup and Wastewater Treatment spare capacity is inadequate Many more items seen in numerous comments Developer Problems/Ethics/Conflict of Interest Zendo Kern, who is the Planning Director was the consultant for the project and is in a position to influence if not approve the project. That is a clear conflict of interest. The developer has, according topublic record, made large political contributions to the current mayor’scampaign. There was a very public fight over confirming Zendo Kern which was voted 5-4 against and then suddenly ended up 5-4in favor. The developer has missed report filing deadlines to the land commission in the past. The developer is currently in litigation with a title company and Kona Vistas over a detail of a past annexation as a matter of public record in case number 3CCV-21-0000074. In this lawsuit they are using a law firm with a conflict of interest. In 38 years, the developer has failed to provide the land for affordable housing, which is really desperately needed, while proclaiming the development, which started as needed “workforce” housing, has devolved into investor speculation and rental (including STVR) units. The inclusion of STVR should trigger a complete re-examination ofthe project. In the document “workforce” is used 29 times and “STVR” only twice, even while, according to the document, the majority of the units could end up as STVR Other Irregularities It’sbeen reported by multiple sources that the sign for the Notice of Filing of Application is not visible from the roadway. It also appears that very few people were notified because of the Gomes and Calvary property situated between the development and residences means there are very few residences within 300 feet. It is not right to treat this development as ifit was a single house being built when itwill affect residents much further away. Theoptics arethat this isan attempt tosneak this approval past any opposition and quietly into the back door ofthe process. The document has 105references to “infill” which means areas adjacent toexisting developments, while itisactually adjacent to agricultural land on both sides (the Gomes and Calvary properties. This isnot an “infill and should not be allowed tobeclaimed assuch. The 68.837 acres should bereverted toagricultural status. Itis after all, between 2 agricultural properties. That makes asmuch sense as what the developer isdoing. They are noteven proposing “infill” with houses that match neighboring subdivisions but STVR properties, investment properties, multi-story Duplex, Fourplex and SixPlex units that will rise 40feet above the ground. 2 Itisashame that thecommunity development plan is allowing this overdevelopment, but Iunderstand the CDP is under review and hopefully will bechanged tokeep Hawaii Island from being as overdeveloped as Oahu. Maybe that’s why the developer is in a rush to start. Thank you for allowing me to file these comments. 3 Mori, Ashley From:Renee Inaba <inabaventures@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 3:45 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Oppose PL-REZ-2022-000033 We are opposed toany extensions oftime orgranting, extending expired permits related toapplication: Kona Three, LLC Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033. Housing density inKona isalready considered bymany tohave peaked out andisoverwhelming our infrastructure and resources. Our roadways arealready congested, causing lengthy delays aswell asaccidents inandaround Kailua Kona. Itisnot just aconcern about roadway infrastructure but also water supply aswell asschools and other infrastructure services which are already capacity challenged inthe area. Any development thatiseven considered, even assuming they had proper and timely permits, would have tonecessarily clear these kinds ofhurdles soasnot tocause more harm toourcommunities, i.e., any newdevelopments should necessary fund significant critical andquality oflife infrastructure expansion toassure noharm orextra burden onexisting taxpayers orresidents. The development inquestion has also appears not have performed sufficient traffic studies, impact studies, environmental studies and review, endangered species risk assessment (known hoary bat habitat, etc.), orcomplete archaeological and historical reviews ofthe property that they propose todevelop. There are lingering questions about the verylimited samples thatthey have done which seem inadequate tofully assess the impacts ofadditional development within analready densely populated area inKona. There willalways beissues related tolandcontouring and changes tothe actual flow ofthe land inclusive ofwaterways and possible flooding with any changes tothose contours orwaterways. Thisisaparticular concern onthisproperty, ahupua'a, and those around the perimeter and downslope. Development within Kona needs tobeclearly supportive oflocal culture, respectful ofhistorical andarchaeological sites, creature friendly for endangered species and others, ecological andinfrastructure neutral orpositive, waterway preserving toavoid adjacent and down slope liabilities anddamage, andspecies protecting. These concerns are many and significant. The cost and risk ofsuch adevelopment strain the risk-reward analysis for the whole ofthe community. Downstream costs and burden interms of cost, risk, and quality oflife should beweighed heavily when considering any development within Kailua Kona andparticularly inassessing extensions ofold permits and zoning issues. Mahalo for your attention tothis matter. We appreciate the opportunity toshare our concerns regarding this request. Today'sactions can have adverse future consequences even after thedevelopers are longgone. Aswe caretake our community and land it'sincumbent onustopreserve the key precepts and principles ofour state motto. Derek and Renee Inaba PO Box 524 Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i96745 Sent from Yahoo Mail onAndroid 1 Mori, Ashley From:Jim Johnson <jjohnson424@outlook.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 11:14 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Comment onPL-REZ-2022-000033 Attachments:220805 RoyalVistas Flyer V1.2.docx James H. “Jim” Johnson 76-157 Kamehamalu St. Kailu Kona, HI96740-8937 1 To: planning@hawaiicounty.gov SUBJECT: Comment on PL-REZ-2022-000033 I have reviewed the Kona Three, LLC Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-00033 for the proposed "Royal Vistas" development and have the following comments: There should NOT be a 10-year time extension There should be sidewalks, curbs and gutters installed per the original agreement There are many reasons a time extension should not be granted, but concerns with the horrible traffic flow being made worse by a new unsignalized intersection, significant cultural sites and artifacts that have not been fully cataloged, concerns that flooding will be made worse and there is no current plan to control flooding are just a few of the reasons. Regarding Condition N, I do not believe subdivision residents prefer swales and paved shoulders over sidewalks, curbs and gutters. If the developer has a current survey or poll, please ask him to produce it. As a safety matter, the sloped swales would tend to have pedestrians and bikers moving into traffic lanes which can result into accidents with serious injuries or death. Ask yourselves if it is reasonable to think those people would prefer to be on sloping ground and dodging drainage grates or on a flat sidewalk, and you will choose the sidewalk, curb, and gutter option. Kona Vistas has swales and they do not handle rains well and we don’t have the degrees of slope that is planned for this project. Hence, instant damage to residents’ property. I have been a resident of Kona Vistas for over 18 years and lived through the construction of the Lako extension. Every day when I leave the subdivision to go toward town on Hwy. 11, I am frustrated by the flow and hence, cannot understand how an additional traffic flow could be added without expansion of the highway. That does not seem to be on the long-term plans for the State Division of Highways, so why would approval for this proposed subdivision be allowed before a resolution on traffic is made. Sincerely, James H. “Jim” Johnson 76-157 Kamehamalu St. Kailua Kona, HI96740-8937 Mori, Ashley From:Diane Logan <logande@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 7:22 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Oppose Royal Vistas permit application Attachments:Royal Vistas Opposition 2022.pdf Aloha, As a resident of Pualani Estates, Istrongly oppose the Royal Vistas permit application. The HOA'sconcerns are included as an attachment, and Ishare these concerns as well. As an individual community member, Ioppose this application as the community does not have the resources to provide basic services (e.g., health care, mental health care, transportation) forthese "new" residents. This proposal does not address thehouseless issues the community iscurrently facing. These are not affordable units forcurrent residents. Our schools are already overcrowded and underfunded. Asasingle parent, aclinical psychologist, and ahomeowner, Ioppose this application and hope you will also. Mahalo, Dr. Diane Logan 75-6111 Lea Pl, Kailua Kona HI 96740 PO Box 5488 Kailua Kona HI 96745 808.785.5443 1 The Board of Directors of Pualani Estates at Kona, a subdivision of 362 single-family homes, several hundred yards north of the proposed Royal Vistas project, hereby strongly objects to the requests for time extensions to secure final plan approval and completion filed by the Applicant, Kona Three LLC, for components of the proposed Royal Vistas project. Work on this portion of the project, construction of the multi-family residential component that was supposed to have commenced 15 years ago, has never progressed, and the current applicant, who acquired the property nearly seven years ago, now seeks another 10-years to complete that first increment. We believe that the application must be denied for the following reasons: 1. The traffic studies submitted by the applicant are woefully inadequate because they were taken during times when the COVID pandemic had caused a significant decrease in visitors and business operations that resulted in greatly reduced traffic on Highway 11. adequately account for traffic volume that would result from other proposed developments in the area that the widening of Highway 11 to four lanes, though needed, is neither planned nor funded, and is therefor uncertain for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the current traffic conditions on Highway 11, which are already well below acceptable standards during the weekday morning fully channelized entrance to the subdivision from Highway 11. Apparently, this connection would not be signalized, therefore causing additional delays and creating an additional traffic hazard. 2. We remain concerned about the inadequacy of the archaeological studies that purport to support the project because there is much evidence that the property includes features of the Holualoa Slide and rock walls that are mistakenly described as agricultural walls. In addition, only a small percentage of the property has been inspected for archaeological features deserving of preservation. 3. Although the earlier proposal to access Highway 11 via road extensions through the Gomes property to Ho`omama Street and Paulehia Street in Pualani Estates, which intersect with Puapuaanui Street, had supposedly been dropped, the current application appears to resurrect it as identified under the Kona Community Development Plan. We emphasize that the proposal, if approved, must not be understood to allow a substitute for an appropriate and direct access from Royal Vistas to Highway 11. 4. The application for the project relies on outdated information regarding the adequacy of public school capacity in the area to accommodate the hundred additional students that would be residing in the first phase of the project when completed. 5. The application fails to acknowledge the inevitable harm to endangered species, including Hoary Bats, and native flora that would result from the proposed development. Nor does it deal adequately with the water shortages that have been plaguing the area in recent years, or with the possible effects and mediation or prevention of waterflow disruptions, including flooding, that could result from alterations to the landscape. 6. Finally, we object to the application because too much time (15 years) has elapsed since this project was first proposed, and 10 years have passed since the first phase was to have been completed. Mori, Ashley From:Frankie Hemby <frankie.hemby@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 1:36 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Comment onPL-REZ-2022-000033 Honorable Planning Committee, Iwish tocomment on:Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Amendment toChange ofZone Ordinance No. 02-131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC Request: 10-year Time Extension toComply with Condition I Complete Construction of Construction ofPhase I) and Amendment toCondition N (Roadway Dedication) Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017; N. Kona, Hawai’i Comments to bereceived byAug 9, 2022 were opened by your memo dated July 12, 2022 Ioppose the10-year time extension andtheadjustment toCondition N Tosave everyone'stime Iwill briefly say that the developer andthe project donot deserve consideration orany modification tothe terms agreed to. There have been hundreds orthousands ofreasons given for stopping ormodifying this development andthey apparently have allfallen ondeaf ears Thank You Mary Hemby Kailua Kona 1 Mori, Ashley From:Jerry Miki <jmiki@hawaii.rr.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 2:48 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Change ofZone Ordinance TO: Planning Department Hawaii County SUBJECT: Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Change ofZone Ordinance No. 02-131 regarding Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:016and 017: N. Kona. Hawaii for Royal Vistas Dear Planning Department, In December 2018 Kona Vista owners were invited to attend a presentation concerning the Kona Vista Three project. The presenter, Mr. Zendo Kern used charts depicting 450 homes and condos high-density to be built on the north side of our Kona Vista community. When questioned about traffic, safety concerns, road access, etc., we were assured by Mr. Kern that everything would be taken care of. When owners protested, the developer stood up and arrogantly declared that it was our own fault for not researching the 1980’s Environmental Impact Statement (which was outdated by 30 years then) before purchasing a home in Kona Vistas. Since then traffic along Queen Ka’ahumanu highway has increased, the greedy developers plan to shoehorn two-and three story 176 market rate rentals in addition to 274 market rate for sale units to allow short term vacation rentals into a ecologically narrow, rocky ravine unsuitable for large multi-dwelling apartments. We request Planning Commission members don hiking boots and survey this property on foot to judge first hand whether it is safe to expect so many people to be jammed into this space. We question whether Planning Director Zendo Kern, who slickly tried convincing Kona Vista owners of this project, is caught in a conflict-of-interest situation with the developers, his former employer. We aren’t against single family homes with safe entrance and exit roads on this property. My family has lived and worked in Kona since the early 1900’s, always expecting leaders who would see that Kona grew in a measured and rational manner. But this project reflects pure greed and exploitation by outsiders. Please, Do the Right Thing. Restore Pono to our Aina. Sincerely, John Miki & Bonnie Hildebrandt-Miki 1 jmiki@hawaii.rr.com 76-4344 Kinau Street Kailua Kona, Hi 96740 2 Mori, Ashley From:Mark Powell <markp50@att.net> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 11:03 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Change Zone Ordinance 02 131 Kona Three, LLC, TMK (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017 Aloha, These types of high density projects need to be closer to the Village so as to not encourage driving for services such as grocery, drug, restaurants, and bus service, etc. In December 2018 the Applicants and there consultant Mr. Zendo Kern met with the owners of the Kona Vistas subdivision to unveil their plans for the property listed in the application. Most owners were shocked at the size and scope of the project. After their presentation a special homeowners meeting was held the following week. With standing room only all the HOA members wanted the board to oppose the project as planned. The board voted unanimously (7-0) to oppose this project as planned. (Planning Director Conflict??) Not at any time has the applicants or consultant met with the owners about their major concerns and try and reach an agreement, which should have happened. However this proposed project should be rejected for many reasons. Most of all letting Any Short Term Vacation Rentals. This goes against everything the County says it needs in housing and only be allowed in certain districts. Are normal citizens going to be able to afford the rents, purchase price, and monthly condo fees? Will there be CC&R's? It doesn't fit with the surrounding properties of single and two story family homes. There buildings need to be limited to a height of 25 feet. Less blocking of views. Using Kekuanaoa Place for the major entry and exit is way too dangerous. The grade near Lako exceeds County standards. It is blind turning off Lako down the steep grade and twelve short driveways are all along this street which 4 are very close to Lako. This street has a limited view (turn) of Lako when pulling out and on a curve. Standard curbs, gutters, and sidewalks would need to be installed if this road is chosen. Traffic then should be limited to just that street No others, no turning on to other streets to prevent running all over the neighborhood endangering existing residents and children. A much better and the safest street would be Liholiho Place. A very short dead end street that only has five driveways all with a clear view. Also a better view up and down Lako. The applicants own the property between the dead end street and the project so it isn't a problem. Doesn't follow the County's plan of Mauka to Makai roads which is extremely important in emergencies such as fire, earthquake, etc, connect with I'O place at the top. All roads in there complete project needs to be County roads. No Private Gates blocking roads in there project. Asking for a 10 year permit extension is ridiculous being so much changes during that time. I haven't heard of any buildings the applicants have ever built. Who's going to build it? No significant work was ever done for 1 over 20 plus years so what makes anyone think it can be done now. No significant work was ever done when a permit was in place. And because the move of business being built north this plan should be moved north for job housing. Drainage is a major factor now so adding these ugly monster structures (200 feet X 200 feet X 40+ foot tall) and roads will dramatically increase runoff and flooding in the lower areas. If you look at the FEMA flood map, most of this property should be unbuildable. The blocking of views of existing homes is also major factor along with decreased values looking at these out of place monster structures. Height limit of 25 feet! Should be enforced. The land has proven to have major Pre and Post contact artifacts. Only one small area of 5 acres was lightly probed with a shovel finding some significant finds. This must be explored fully before any permitting. It appears the consultant just passed off the threatened and endangered specs. We know and see the hawks and Pueo (owls) there. These animals do live and hunt this property. It doesn't appear they did any sound testing for the Hoary bats. That was brought out in the first environmental report that testing needed to be done at a certain time of year. The giant moth is another one that needs more work in finding true answers. The number 1 threats to the above specs is collision with man- made structures/buildings, loss of habitat/ tree cover. Also the high potential of shore bird kills hitting the glass or structures. Facts that the consultant missed, Pueo (owls) have nest scrapes in or on the ground and up to 10 feet off the ground. Hoary bats nest usually 8 to 16 feet off the ground feeding in areas of foliage. This needs to be really studied along with the Giant Moth. The consultant missed everything. The highway needs to be fully widened to 4 lanes, it's a total F rating now. The County, and Applicant needs to work with the State on a complete plan for the widening. More of their property may be needed and the State may need there fill for the widening. Traffic at Lako is always an issue. Some of the problems are no right turn lane on Lako, no north bound acceleration lane from Lako, Kuakini highway has 2 south bound merge lanes which cause cars to move into other lanes (left up Lako, right down Lako, or get into the middle lane to go south) in a very short distance that cause more backups and accidents. The best for all would be bring Kuakini straight to their proposed entry and install a signal light which can be synchronized with the Lako light. Much safer for all and traffic would move much better. This application needs to be rejected until the above issues are worked out. Planning now will save later. Mahalo John Powell Kailua-Kona markp50@att.net 2 Mori, Ashley From:Peri Steffenhagen <pesteffe@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 8, 2022 7:08 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Deny the Royal Vistas Development Permit Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, I'm writing on behalf of my husband and myself to say that we share the concerns laid out by our neighborhood legal representatives. We concur with the conclusions that have been drawn. We are opposed to granting the permit for the Royal Vistas Development in its current state. We love our home here and look forward to continuing to enjoy it in perpetuity in the manner in which we've become accustomed. Furthermore, we are committed to honoring the Hawaiian culture by preserving and making it possible to share the artifacts and history with which this land is imbued. We are also for the protection of the natural environment including the flora, fauna, aquifers, and other components that constitute our environs. Thank you, Peri Peri Steffenhagen Pualani Estates Homeowner 1 Mori, Ashley From: Cheryl Tanguay <cheryl.tanguay@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 8:13 PM To: Planning Internet Mail Subject: Pulama la KONA Historical Preservation Council Objects to the Application No. PL- REZ-2022-000033 Attachments: KV Royal Vistas Objection220809.pdf; Harry Kim 191223.pdf Aloha, Planning Department, The Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02- 131 regarding Tax Map Keys: (3) 7-6-021:016 and 017: N. Kona. Hawaii for Royal Vistas, does not have the support of the Pulama la Kona Historical Preservation Council. Please see the attached letter from Antu Harvey representing the Historical Preservation Council which contains the 1953 report by Henry KeKahuna stating the existence of an ancient mauka-makai trail near the Holualoa Drainway and his knowledge of remnants of a holua run down along 10 Place and through the parcel we are trying to save. As the Kona Community Development Plan is undergoing a comprehensive review and are seeking this type of input as well, I will be forwarding this to them shortly. Certainly, with the Community developing an understanding of the irreplaceable antiquities that are being lost by reckless development, the expectation is reasonable that treasures on the TMKs referenced here need to be preserved and NO FINAL DECISION is appropriately made BEFORE the review of the Kona Community Development Plan for the General Plan Land Use Guide has been completed, as was also the position given to Kona Three LLC in 2019 by then -mayor Harry Kim. I have also attached Harry Kim's "Comments For Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment for Proposed Royal Vistas Housing Project for the TMKs in question" for your easy access and draw your attention to the paragraph numbered "2". Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Tanguay cheryl.tanguay@gmail.com Kona Vistas 1 Fwd: Re: Com r 9-024 Kona village Antu Harvey c ntu,horrrey gma l,core> t her Tanguay .--cheryt:tang ay: arrcal9,r Cr rnarkph0 <mnarkp5, £ ntt.net>, `D BIancett-ri-adddbmkohaideel_com john nnett <W 266 Aloha rheryt Now is your effort going? I came ac os- this report by Henry tcekahuna 1953,. Have you seen I -I n e.ata.Ersho in_eu .r e kahuna kek uI . Ise r1 repo In Matess that the hetau and hul a date back to the the Holualoa Past Office vias in 1953_ Not sure If. it helps, But, support Best viahes, Antu Pula Kona Fier tr, -e Preservati h To l om dev rte Cheryl Tanguay ccheryLta rguayc gtnatl,c: > Wad, Apr 10. 2019 at 6 06 PM 1400s) an that the Imes + ru brought dawn trt tt Phoprrr.o down through Where In 1956 (and b f rr r t e how tar back - 1930:?)the P was in the building by Luther Aungst to James Arnarrr_o3 The current 6O building was built In 1961, NOTE l am not aware et any stories of hofua right clear there - but I have heard of an ancient mane a maka and I have heard that remnants of a holua run down along 10 place and through the parcel you are trying t e Ukulele GSliSry is. now -but was moved a strew= t 1 0 sold nearby and the Hoiur 1oa Oram ° a£ i5 near there. he r+ m Kt.kahuna 3 Kola_ EVP `g Offer OILE**S4- Pis_ b e et2R a pe- 0,18_ r7J€ x OFA SOS so, A E W- 4 A rE 144 PIf 7 prem 4, Or _ frOSI SOX Harty Kinl Aligyor abbe Amogrng areeme Wen Heerail Office 74-5444 ur k1+642 1666.664526624 HEMEN 963646 T.94622 C*28) 1114776 1;:te 5228) .121-3.563 December 23 „ 2019 Lefiativre„ PhD Statutes Cou.sulting Senie es lac, P.O. Box 191 HI 96721 Dear Ms„ 1 1411 1' TANNING 11,,,,„ 1111111 1,11,0, 111 11 111411F 'T hi Y meet bee Duane Kan uha Ekerloy Director Ewe 320624 Office 1,2,4 Paust6 Saw; Suet 3 192222, 4946662 96720 Phone a9a)9674264g Fes. RN) 9614742 SUBJECT: Conunerils for Early. Consultation for Ensironmental Amend for Prp ued Ryar Vistas .11:Musing Suollect Tax.....nw KO*: 3!1[17642.1::010....,!4:‘,„..917 , lionsulea 1 & 2"ds liassal/n Th.is is in cespon,se to vont .Letteir d.ated Noversbee 18. 2019 tothiesting eat1),11 earkStd.tatiall. comments tear an envirotrimental. assessment hating prep:used for 450 i.r.itulti.sitemilie residemital Prat destelohnsent arid related improvements on tete above roleirenis'eti, pcoperryt lactleding att,d. roadway irn.proveracras within, Couritysewiaeti. pa.rcel.s 1 and 19. 1 Tile subject proNsties are zoned '.Muittipletisauhrly Residential, with a minim,urn building site 615.000 square feet per thirelling unit (h.B1-51.„ by the, Cotatty of' Histise0i and ihrstienated. as herbals by the St.ate Land hise Ceramisatost. R.elleir to Coun.ty of Hawaii CP:di:nonce No,„ witi.ch. amended pre tti.aus ordinances to estiiibhsht the zoning on the: properties.. ,und State Land laise Commission. Docket No 141. to deteminte the status of chadition compliance .1161- these land use eitrilletsterits„ 2... The General Plan Laud 101se Pattern Ahocstiot a Guide (1.1.TP.A.G) snap destignation lets the properties are Urban El:,,ttiptansion and letteut .Density elithant He aware that the tiltiounty General. Milan is undergaing a, crumpselitenive revitesis and these lands use destgriations may change soon upon adoption elan 41:n1:e9ded. General Plan. The property 1,s col located staOP iti the Spa hitanagernerri istirest (ISMA) and is si fueled about .4,500 :feet muuka. oft i.de1i el net 6662513 6339522 ,66 Eqval Opper62466 row r and Emploper Michele Lefebvre, PISD Stantee 11....foinstating. Services. the, Page : December 23„. 2019 4. Ile property Ss in an area affected by the Kona Corrintasurtity Developrnent Plan, which was adopted by the fistwadi Counttf Council by Ordinance No„ 08-1 3 1 gthil amended in 2 0 t 9 by ordinanee Not. 19-91 Please indicate how the proposed project: htteiets the goals., objectives, pokeies, agsd actions of the CDP. 5,, The EA should describe the specific drainage and roadway improvernenta proposed within the Co,,unity propert,y an8 analysis of ism:tilers and alternatives ,cogssidered, iL Vv'e sn,ingly recommend you es iegst the Pg waning Depaninein files s elated to these properties because they BOMA 11A-MatiOn related, to land uscenring Ilistory, euhural a,nd lKsioric resintrces„. flooding, traffic, and public sentiment regardin,g th,c proposed project The files can 'be vjeo,,,ed the or Koziol office. Please schedule an iippoifitmeni 5,p, that earl ensure id i the files are tivallable for viewing, 7, ple,45e,,, iodude file Ei,,,14 ennstatafion prooe5s, surrounding property owners and comnitturity associations. pc ucling but not lintiteil to, Kona Vistas Subd,,ilisioni Poiadani Estates Subdffision. Ktiaikiini Mahalsu v1 i m. nd property owners d cc t y' east of e subject jyropeoties, 0,,:je look foarward to reviewing the iiraft wt.tcri. it is availabie, 11 you have a.ny questions,. please feel free to contact Kiiijn lacks.= tat 964-81 59„. NIICHAJEL, YEE Planning Director 1111d 4.1t3.4 '5 201 9 hilsiorty ollettert Ronald 111.1an Deputy Corporation counsel Mori, Ashley From:Art Javar <art.javar@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 8:59 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Comment onPL-REZ-2022-000033 To Whom itMay Concern; After reviewing the Kona Three, LLC Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033, for the proposed Royal Vistas” development, Ihave the following concerns / comments: a). No ten (10) year time extension b). Recommend sidewalks, curbs, & gutters per original agreement While there are many reasons not to grant an extension, listed below are afew I’ve prioritized: 1. Added traffic to an already heavily traveled roadway, inother words, current road infrastructure isalready overwhelmed. 2. Possible Hawaiian cultural site / artifacts being affected 3. Flood control not addressed Regards, Art & Lisa Javar Sent from my iPad 1 Mori, Ashley To:Kay, Christian Subject:RE: Royal Vista Letter of Opposition From: Elizabeth Dunn <elizabeth.dunn135@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 9:13 AM To: Kay, Christian <Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Royal Vista Letter of Opposition Hello Christian: Here'smy letter of opposition regarding the Royal Vista project. Thanks very much. Elizabeth Dunn 1 Mfuufs!pg!Pqqptjujpo!Sfhbsejoh!uif!Spzbm!Wjtubt!qspkfdu Bvhvtu!:-!3133 J!bn!pqqptfe!up!uif!Spzbm!Wjtubt!qspkfdu!gps!uif!sfbtpot!mjtufe!cfmpx; DpoÒjdu!pg!Joufsftu!cfuxffo!uif!dvssfou!Qmboojoh!Ejsfdups!\[foep!Lfso-!boe!ijt!sfmbujpotijq! xjui!uif!qspkfdu!bqqmjdbou!Ebszo!Bsbj-!boe!puifs!gpsnfs!Ibxbjj!Dpvouz!tub!uibu!nbz!cf! jowpmwfe!xjui!uijt!fyufotjpo!sfrvftu!)Tjeofz!Gvlf-!boe!Lfo!Wbo!Cfshfo-!gps!fybnqmf*/!Uif! dvssfou!Qmboojoh!Ejsfdups!dboopu!nblf!boz!sfdpnnfoebujpo!po!b!qspkfdu!mjlf!uijt-!boe!bu!uijt! tdbmf-!tjodf!if!podf!xbt!uif!qspkfdu!bqqmjdbou/! Op!Qmboojoh!Ejsfdups!tipvme!cf!nbljoh!boz!sfdpnnfoebujpo!po!b!qspkfdu!mjlf!uijt/!Uijt!ljoe! pg!Qmboojoh!bqqmjdbujpo!tipvme!hp!cfgpsf!uif!bqqspqsjbuf!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!ps!Dpvouz! Dpvodjm!gps!bdujpo/!Uifsf!jt!op!tvdi!uijoh!bt!b!tub!ÆÑsfxbmmÇ!boe!up!uijol!tp!jt!objwf!boe! jotvmujoh/! Uif!sfdfou!boe!tipdljoh!dbtf!pg!dpssvqujpo!sfhbsejoh!bpsebcmf!ipvtjoh!dsfejut!jt!b!ipssjcmf! fybnqmf!pg!xibu!vodifdlfe!tub!nfncfst!)boe!jobuufoujwf!tvqfswjtpst@*!dbo!hfu!bxbz!xjui/! Uif!Dpvouz!tipvme!qfsgpsn!bo!bveju!pg!qspdfevsft!boe!qspdfttft!jo!bmm!efqbsunfout/!Uif! ebnbhf!up!uif!qvcmjdÉt!usvtu!jo!jut!fmfdufe!boe!bqqpjoufe!pdjbmt!xjmm!tvfs!gps!zfbst!gspn!uijt! jofydvtbcmf!uifgu/ Uifsf!tipvme!cf!foibodfe!ps!ofx!mbohvbhf!jo!b!Tvotijof!Mbx!uibu!qsfwfout!bmm!gpsnfs! Ibxbjj!Dpvouz!tub!gspn!cfjoh!qbsu!pg!b!ufbn!uibu!tvcnjut!Qmboojoh!bqqmjdbujpot!gps!Ñwf! zfbst/!Hjwfo!ipx!rvjdlmz!uijt!jtmboe!hpft!uispvhi!Qmboojoh!Ejsfdupst-!uibu!tipvme!ifmq!xjui!b! cvfs!gspn!uif!Æpme!cpz!ofuxpslÇ/!Uijt!bqqmjft!up!bmm!efqbsunfout!.!Qmboojoh-!Qvcmjd!Xpslt-! Qbslt!boe!Sfdsfbujpo/!Bmm!pg!uifn/! Uifsf!tipvme!cf!b!npsbupsjvn!po!bmm!Qmboojoh!fyufotjpo!sfrvftut/!Voujm!uifsf!jt!uif! jogsbtusvduvsf!.!spbet-!tfxfs-!xbufs-!qbslt-!nfejdbm!boe!efoubm!dbsf-!puifs!tpdjbm!tfswjdft!.!jo! qmbdf!up!beesftt!uif!jodsfbtf!jo!ipnft-!boe!sftjefout-!uiftf!qspqptbmt!tipvme!opu!npwf! gpsxbse/! Mppl!bu!uiftf!uxp!mboenbsl!Qmboojoh!mbx!dbtft!bcpvu!npsbupsjb!boe!jogsbtusvduvsf;! Dpotusvdujpo!Joevtusz!Btt(o!pg!Tpopnb!Dpvouz!w/!Djuz!pg!Qfubmvnb-!boe!Bttpdjbufe!Ipnf! Cvjmefst!fud/-!Jod/!w/!Djuz!pg!Mjwfsnpsf/!Uiftf!Dbmjgpsojb!Tubuf!Tvqsfnf!Dpvsu!efdjtjpot! dpoÑsnfe!uibu!fbdi!djuz!vtfe!jut!qpmjdf!qpxfs!bqqspqsjbufmz!up!sftusjdu!uif!jttvbodf!pg! cvjmejoh!qfsnjut!voujm!uif!jogsbtusvduvsf!xbt!jo!qmbdf-!boe!uibu!sftusjdujoh!uif!ovncfs!pg! cvjmejoh!qfsnjut!xbt!bqqspqsjbuf!voujm!uif!jogsbtusvduvsf!xbt!jo!qmbdf/!Ibxbjj!Dpvouz!dpvme! ftubcmjti!uif!tbnf!qspwjtjpot!jg!ju!ibt!uif!qpmjujdbm!xjmm!up!ep!tp/! Op!Tipsu!Ufsn!Wbdbujpo!Sfoubmt!)TUWS*!jo!ofx!ipvtjoh!efwfmpqnfout!mjlf!uijt/!Uijt!jtmboe! offet!bpsebcmf!ipvtjoh-!boe!bu!sfoubm!sbuft!uibu!xpsljoh!gbnjmjft!boe!joejwjevbmt!dbo!bpse/! Pvs!ofjhicpsippet!bsf!opu!qtfvep!sftpsu!bsfbt/!Xf!eje!opu!cvz!qspqfsujft!up!mjwf!jo!boe!ibwf! vodpouspmmfe!Òz.cz.ojhiu!ufobout!ofyu!epps!up!vt/!UibuÉt!xibu!uif!ipufmt!bsf!gps/!Sfxsjuf!uif! TUWS!dpef!up!fyqmjdjumz!tbz!uijt!boe!sfrvjsf!Dpeft-!Dpwfobout!ps!Sftusjdujpot!)DDSt*!gps!ofx! ipvtjoh!efwfmpqnfout!up!sftusjdu!ibwf!TUWS!vtft/!Mpoh!ufsn!sfoubmt!bmmpx!gps!ipvtjoh!gps! jtmboe!sftjefout/!Qbsuz!ipvtft!ep!opu/!Tupq!vtjoh!pvs!ofjhicpsippet!bt!cbolt!gps!mpdbm!ps! pvu.pg.tubuf!efwfmpqfst/! Uif!bqqfbsbodf!pg!dpoujovfe!joejfsfodf!bcpvu!uif!eftusvdujpo!pg!Obujwf!Ibxbjjbo!bsujgbdut! cz!uif!Dpvouz!pg!Ibxbjj!boe!jut!qbje!ps!wpmvouffs!tub/!Efwfmpqnfou!pg!mboet!xjui!jnqpsubou! dvmuvsbm!bsujgbdut!tipvme!cf!iboemfe!npsf!tfotjujwfmz!.!opu!kvtu!vtjoh!uif!difdlmjtu!bqqspbdi!pg! TIQE/!Ibxbjj!Dpvouz!tipvme!dsfbuf!jut!pxo!efubjmfe!qspdftt!up!dpoubdu!dvmuvsbm!ps!mjofbm! eftdfoebout!sfhbsejoh!efwfmpqnfou!po!mboet!xjui!uiftf!lopxo!bsujgbdut/!Uijt!efubjmfe!tufq. cz.tufq!qspdftt!tipvme!cf!qptufe!po!b!ofx!Dpvouz!xfcqbhf!gps!bo!ipoftu!boe!usbotqbsfou! sfqsftfoubujpo!bcpvu!ipx!uijt!jttvf!xjmm!cf!beesfttfe!gps!ofx!qmboojoh!bqqmjdbujpot/!! Fmj{bcfui!Evoo Mori, Ashley From:dkim@cfxc.com Sent:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 6:03 PM To:Planning Internet Mail Cc:'Chris Kim'; dkim@cfxc.com Subject:Comment on PL-REZ-2022-00033 Ihave reviewed the Kona Three, LLC Change ofZone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-00003 for the proposed Royal Vistas” development andhave the following comments: There should not be a10-year time extension. There should besidewalks, cubs and gutters installed per the original agreement. There are concerns with the heavy traffic flow being made worse byanew unsignalized intersection, significant cultural sites and artifacts that have notbeen addressed, flooding could bemade worse and there isnot acurrent plan tocontrol flooding. Inregards toCondition N, swales and paved shoulders should not beimplemented over sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Sloped swales and maytend tohave pedestrians andbikers move intotraffic which would increase the possibility ofaccidents and death. Regards, Diane and Christopher Kim Kona Vistas 1 Mori, Ashley From:james leek <bileeks91@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 9:28 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Subject:Comment onPL-REZ-2022-000033 Ihave reviewed the Kona Three, LLC change ofZone Amendment Application No . PL-REZ-2022-00033 for the proposed Royal Vistas" development and have the following comments: There should NOT bea10year time extension There should besidewalks, curbs and gutters installed per the original agreement There are many reasons atime extension should not begranted. Iam concerned with the terrible traffic flow being made worse, the noise, nottomention, that flooding will bemade worse and there is no current plan to control flooding which is my understanding. In my opinion, we would also have smaller real estate appreciations. , Regarding Condition N, Ido not believe subdivision residents prefer swales and paved shoulders over sidewalks, curbs and gutters. If the developer has a current survey or poll, please ask him to produce it. This is safety hazard issues. Sincerely, Sandra Leek 76-4331 Leilani Street 1 Mori, Ashley From:Mike Park <mikepark7045@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 10:35 AM To:Planning Internet Mail Cc:Jeff Enstrom; Noreen Enstrom; Pam Park Subject:Change of Zone Amendment Application No. PL-REZ-2022-000033 - Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02-131 Aloha, We are residents ofKona Vistas (76-4319 Kekuanaoa Place) after recently moving intothe area inDecember 2020. While we have only lived inKona Vistas for a short period, we previously lived in Keauhou (Hale Kehau) so have been familiar with the issues surrounding North Kona and the traffic along Highway 11 since 2014. It was therefore surprising to us when we heard about the Zone Amendment Application for the proposed Royal Vistas development. There are clearly significant issues that would preclude the building ofFORTY units letalone 450units and we would like to categorically express our strong opposition to this development from moving forward. We have also read (albeit not in detail) the 1913 page document titled Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance 02 131 Applicant: Kona Three, LLC and this has brought many other issues to light that need tobeaddressed before any approvals should be considered, in our opinion. These include thefollowing: As previously mentioned, the project’simpact onlocal infrastructure, particularly traffic in the surrounding neighborhood and the stretch of Kuakini Highway that runs below the area is a huge concern. The traffic studies submitted bythe applicant appear woefully inadequate as they were taken during times when the COVID pandemic had caused a significant decrease in visitors and business operations that resulted in greatly reduced traffic on Highway 11. Furthermore, the studies don’tadequately account for traffic volume that would result from other proposed developments in the area that are also being considered by the Planning Department. Nor do applicant’sstudies acknowledge that the widening of Highway 11to four lanes, though needed, is neither planned nor funded, and is therefor uncertain for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the current traffic conditions on Highway 11, which are already well below acceptable standards during the weekday morning and afternoon “rush hours,” should prevent developments in the area that would add significantly to traffic on Highway 11. We are also concerned regarding the proposed “Royal Vistas” roadway that would serve as a fully channelized entrance to the subdivision from Highway 11. Apparently, this connection would not be signalized, therefore causing additional delays and creating an additional traffic hazard. As we live onKekuanaoa Place, and this has been identified as an access route off of Lako Street (tothe Royal Vistas development), we must express serious reservations and concerns about the increased traffic flow through this small artery and the challenges of getting back on to Lako Street given the pitch of Kekuanaoa AND the poor sight lines when looking makau on to Lako from the stop sign. This intersection will create traffic back up and a high risk entry point for accidents. Even though this proposed development has been in planning stages since 1984, we are still concerned about the inadequacy of the archaeological studies that purport to support the project because there is much evidence that the property includes features ofthe Holualoa Slide and rock walls that are mistakenly described as agricultural walls. In addition, only a small percentage of the property has been inspected for archaeological features deserving of preservation. Finally, we object to the application because too much time (15 years) has elapsed since this project was first proposed, and 10 years have passed since the first phase was to have been completed. Yet not one brick has1 been laid. Clearly, previous iterations ofthe Planning Committee have seen similar issues and problems that have precluded them from allowing Royal Vistas from advancing. We remain hopeful that ouremail andissues aregiven appropriate consideration. We alsoknow thatyou are likely aware ofsome ofthese issues based onsupporting and similar letters that have been submitted inthe past from other Kona Vistas residents aswell asneighbouring subdivisions inPualani Estates. Equally important, the development has had 38years toadequately convince the County ofHawaii that thisproject is worth proceeding with and, yet, the developer isstill seeking another 10year extension. Itwould appear pretty clear that this isnot aproject worth advancing. Thank you for taking the time toread and understand our concerns. Mike Park 76-4319 Kekuanaoa Place Kona, Hawaii cc: Pamela Park Jeff and Noreen Enstrom 2 Daryn Arai Land Use Planning Consultant P.O. BOX 4501, HILO HAWAII 96720 PHONE: (808) 895-3218 EMAIL: DARYN.ARAI@OUTLOOK.COM November 15, 2022 Mr. Jeffrey Darrow Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Darrow: Response to Community Comments regarding Amendments to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02 131 (PL-REZ-2022-000033) Applicant: Kona Three, LLC TMK: (3) 7-6-021: 016 and 017; North Kona, Hawaiʻi This is in response to comments submitted by members of the community and posted in your EPIC system, relating to the above-described action. Given the number of comments and breadth of concerns expressed, the Applicant has consolidated these comments and concerns into specific focus areas to which it then provides its responses. I. Short Term Vacation Rental (STVR) uses 1. Claim that project will provide opportunities for short-term rentals, compromising affordability. Response: The Applicant is not presenting the Royal Vistas project as a short-term vacation rental community, but understands that owners of the “For Sale” market units will ultimately decide whether to allow short-term vacation rentals of their units or not. The 174 “For Rental” units, which are not permitted to be used as STVRs, are intended to provide a more affordable housing solution for those who are not able to enter the fee-ownership market. The remaining 274 “For Sale” units will be governed by a condominium association, who will collectively decide whether these 174 individual unit owners will allow the option of short-term vacation rental use as allowed by County Zoning laws. While the Royal Vistas project is presented and will be marketed as a residential development, the Applicant is not in the position to restrict uses that are allowed by zoning laws. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 2 of 11 November 15, 2022 II. Archaeological/Historical Resources 1. Claim that mauka-makai portions of project site align directly with remain portion of an ancient Holua located on the north property of the “Holualoa Inn”. Walls of Holua Slide have been mistaken as agricultural walls. Response: Not True. The Applicant disputes the claims of an ancient “holua” existing within the project site. These claims are based on cited “evidence” that some “kuaiwi” (rock walls) within the project site are parallel, thereby promulgating a theory that someone came and took out all the interior rocks of the holua except those on the outside of the holua, leaving these parallel walls standing where it was mistakenly claimed to have been interpreted as agricultural walls by the archaeological surveys. This theory was based on the supposition that an ancient holua once existed mauka of the project site about a half mile away on the Holualoa Inn property, as advertised by the operators of the Inn. However, an Archeological Inventory Survey of a Grant Increment Road Remnant Property done in 2004 by Rechtman/Desilets has debunked this supposition by documenting that the “holua remnant” as advertised by the Inn operators was actually a State road remnant, and NOT a holua. This Report was done for and approved by the State Department of Land & Natural Resources as well as the State Trails Administrator “Na Ala Hele”. In addition, SCS did a Parallel Walls study on the 76 acres in 2019, and confirmed the walls were kuaiwi and not part of a holua. 2. Claim of inadequacy of archaeological studies with only a small percentage of Project Site being studied. Response: Not True. The record reflects full-coverage of the Project Site by various archaeological studies conducted over the past 30 years, as described below: A. 1992 Hammatt Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS) covered approximately 170 acres of both the RS- (Kona Vistas) and RM-zoned (Royal Vistas) lands, approved by State SHPD. This report was sufficient to obtain State and County approval for grading permits and development of the Kona Vistas subdivision consisting of about 215 single-family lots. B. 2007 Hammatt Inventory Update of lower 30 acres of RM-zoned land for proposed Affordable Housing Project. C. 2016 SCS AIS of 5-acre portion of Parcel 17 originally planned for HPA campus. Approved by State SHPD. D. 2018 SCS Archeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) on 5-acre portion. Approved by State SHPD. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 3 of 11 November 15, 2022 E. 2018 SCS Inventory Update of 66 acres of RM-zoned lands. State could not locate their Approval Letter of previous Hammatt AIS in State’s files, so required a new AIS on the RM-zoned lands. F. 2019 SCS Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) on approx. 76 acres including the RM-zoned lands. State approved. G. 2019 New SCS AIS on approx. 76 acres including the RM-zoned lands. State approved. H. 2019 SCS Burial Treatment Plan (BTP) for burial site found in 5-acre AIS. Approved by State. I. 2019 SCS AMP for 76 acres of RM-zoned lands. Approved by State SHPD. J. 2019 SCS Parallel Walls Study for 76 acres. K. 2020 Preservation Plan (PP) for RM-zoned lands. Approval pending. In summary, exhaustive archaeological investigations and studies have been conducted throughout the entire Project Site that have documented all important archaeological sites and its features, with proper mitigation implemented in accordance with State law under the auspices of the State SHPD. The single burial site discovered will be preserved in accordance with State law per the approved Burial Treatment Plan. III. Biological Resources 1) Claim that the project application fails to acknowledge harm to the Hoary Bat and native flora and the loss of habitat for protected species. Response: Not True. A “Botanical Survey and Vertebrate Fauna Assessment” on the property was prepared by Ron Terry, Ph. D in 2017. The results on native flora are summarized in the following: “All plant species found in the survey area during the survey are listed in Table 1. Of the 65 species detected, five were indigenous (native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere) and none were endemic (found only in the Hawaiian Islands). All native plants found are very common throughout the island of Hawai‘i and the State, and no rare, threatened or endangered plant species were present.” The Division of Forestry & Wildlife concurs with the mitigation measures included in the Royal Vistas Housing Project Environmental Assessment that are intended to avoid construction and operational impacts to State-listed species including the Hawaiian Hoary bat or ʻŌpeʻapeʻa, the Hawaiian Hawk or ʻIo, the Blackburn' s Sphinx Moth and seabirds. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 4 of 11 November 15, 2022 The Applicant will also be observant of the presence of the Hawaiian Goose or Nene anywhere within the project site and if encountered, will cease any construction activities within 100 feet (30 meters), and the bird or birds will not be approached. The Applicant will ensure that work may continue only after the bird or birds leave the area of their own accord. If a nest is discovered at any point, the Hawaii Island Branch DOFAW Office will be contacted immediately. The Applicant will take measures to minimize activities that will attract vulnerable birds to areas that may host nonnative predators such as cats, rodents, and mongooses. Proposed common areas such as the community centers will be managed by the associations to reduce attracting both vulnerable birds and their predators. IV. Adequacy of Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR). 1. Claim that TIAR traffic counts were conducted during COVID event and therefore undercounted traffic. Response: Not True. Actual traffic counts were conducted on April 30, 2019 and August 14, 2019 (Section 1. B. Vehicular Volume; Page 9, TIAR). The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a danger on January 30, 2020; the US Department of Health & Human Services issued a similar declaration the following day, and Governor David Ige declared a COVID emergency on March 4, 2020. The first COVID-19 case in Hawaii was recorded on May 6, 2020. Therefore, the most recent traffic count was taken on a school day over 6 months prior to Hawaii experiencing its first case of COVID-19. In accordance with the Trip Generation section of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (per National regulations) it was determined that the Project will generate 117 total (in and out) new trips in the AM, and 137 total (in and out) new trips in the PM. Recent discussions with the County have encouraged the project’s internal roadway connection with the adjoining Kekuanaʻoa Place be completed as part of Phase I instead of deferred to completion of Phase II in order to facilitate left turn and southbound movements onto the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and to optimize the distribution of the project’s traffic load between the project’s main entry and Lako Street. As presented within the TIAR, when Phase II is complete, the vast majority of Project residents will continue to use the Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway for ingress/egress as it is superior to Lako Street. The traffic engineers have determined that there will be an increase of 37 vehicles during the Peak AM period plus 24 vehicles during the PM Peak period that will use Lako Street. This equates roughly to one additional vehicle Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 5 of 11 November 15, 2022 every minute and a half in the morning and one additional vehicle every two and a half minutes in the evening at the Lako Street intersection. 2. Claim that TIAR failed to consider traffic from other proposed projects. Response: Not True. Section III on Page 18 of the TIAR specifically includes a nearby church; youth gym & sports facility; and the Pualani Makai mixed-use project. The traffic volumes from these projects were added to the traffic count volumes and included in calculations. 3. Claim that unsignalized intersection causes delay and hazards. Response: Not True. TIAR Section III F 2 (f) on Page 31 analyzes Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and Royal Vistas roadway as well as its design as a Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) unsignalized intersection performance in 2024. All major movements and most minor movements operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS), with the one exception being the west-bound left-turn movement (turning south toward Keauhou from the Project). This west-bound movement has 29 vehicles during the 1-hour AM Peak which have LOS F, but their v/c (another method of measuring delays) is 0.49, which is acceptable. There is no reference to this movement causing a traffic hazard. Similarly, TIAR Section IV C 2 (f) on Page 44 analyses the same intersection in 2029 and finds all major and most minor movements operate at acceptable LOS, again excepting the west-bound left movements, which has 29 vehicles in AM operate at LOS F (v/c 0.49-acceptable) and 12 vehicles in PM operate at LOS F (v/c 0.52- acceptable), again, with no reference to the Project creating hazardous conditions at this intersection. Finally, TIAR Section V C 2 (f) on Page 56 analyses the same intersection in 2039 and finds all major and most minor movements operate at acceptable LOS, again excepting the west-bound left movements, which has 29 vehicles in AM operate at LOS F (v/c 0.81-acceptable) and 12 vehicles in PM operating at LOS F (v/c 0.52- acceptable) with no reference to hazardous conditions. The Applicant notes that “The HDOT does not object to the amendment requests to allow a 10-year time extension related to Condition I and road dedication requirements under Condition N.” Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 6 of 11 November 15, 2022 In summary, while a certain specific left turn movement onto the highway at this intersection will operate at LOS F, the overall function of this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. As recommended by HDOT, the Applicant has no objection to the inclusion of a condition that will require the Applicant to coordinate with HDOT on any mitigation measures that may be required, including any pro-rata contributions, related to the state highway improvements directly related to traffic generated by the proposed Royal Vistas residential project. Part of this coordination will include a 10-year development schedule showing the phases, number of units, and the associated transportation improvements to be completed before occupancy of each phase. 4. Claim that TIAR fails to acknowledge widening of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway to 4 lanes. Response: Not True. TIAR Section III A on Page 17 notes that “Based on the HDOT Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii (July 2014), Kuakini Highway [Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway] from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road will be widened by 2 travel lanes and include bicycle facilities and sidewalks.” As the highway is widened to 4 lanes, the LOS is expected to improve significantly. However, the TIAR also noted that “This [widening] project would have a significant impact on traffic operations. The installation of bike facilities and pedestrian facilities may lead to an increase in bicycle and pedestrian traffic, in which case bicycle and pedestrian safety will need to be further analyzed. Due to the difficulty of crossing a 4-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 MPH, stop-controlled intersections may need to be signalized or converted to roundabouts.” 5. Claim that no specific counts on Kupuna Street and Royal Poinciana, Lako and side streets to monitor school-based traffic and effects on these intersections. Implement traffic calming measures throughout affected area prior to proceeding with Project. Response: The TIAR focuses on traffic volumes and turning movements at major intersections, to assess the capacity of these arterial roadways and its intersections with collector roadways to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes generated by the proposed project in accordance with standard practice. The implementation of traffic calming measures is limited to select collector and local streets in coordination with the County Department of Public Works, and is focused on vehicular speeds, not volumes or turning movements. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 7 of 11 November 15, 2022 6. Claim that traffic along Highway 11 (Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway) below acceptance standards, therefore no further developments should permitted. Response: Not Accurate. The TIAR was accepted by the County Planning Department as satisfying its Concurrency requirements with the HDOT having no objections to the requested amendment to the rezoning ordinance, provided that the Applicant coordinate with HDOT regarding appropriate mitigating measures to address project-related impacts upon State highway facilities. V. Public Services and Facilities 1. Claim that amendment request utilized outdated information regarding school capacity and therefore did not adequately assess impact of accommodating students from first phase of project. Response: The Applicant’s Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) looked at 2018 student enrollment projections from the State Department of Education, hardly “outdated”. Regardless, the FEA assumed that approximately 99 students could potentially arrive within this district across all grade levels. Furthermore, since the Project will be constructed in phases, occupancy would occur over an extended period of time and not all new students would be added at once but rather over a longer period of time. 2. Claim that proposed project fails to deal with water shortages. Response: The Applicant has paid in full for about 700 water credits via the Kona Source Agreement (1982) and the Kealakekua Source Agreement (1986). Both of these water systems were developed using the Project’s (and other Project’s) funds, and have been delivering water to thousands of Kona residents (including the residents of Pualani Estates and Kona Vistas) for decades now. Current water shortages are due to operational issues concerning pumps used by the Department of Water Supply, and are beyond the scope of this Project to influence. As encouraged by the Department of Water Supply and where feasible, the project would include water efficient fixtures and provide water-saving recommended measures for residents. To minimize water demand, the project would minimize landscaping and use xeriscape landscaping where landscaping is installed. In addition, the project aims to implement and balance xeriscape with the provision of safe and adequate recreational space for residents. The project would utilize reclaimed or reuse water for landscaping, if possible. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 8 of 11 November 15, 2022 3. Claim that project will create waterflow disruptions and increase flooding due to land alteration. Response: Not Accurate. As noted, Kona has many (7 major) areas where rainwaters flow down the mountain. Many neighborhoods, including parts of Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates, are impacted by these drainageways, which are overseen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and administered by the County of Hawaiʻi in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Traversing through and along the Project Site is the Holualoa Ditch, which is within the County-owned streambed and no changes are planned for this drainageway except for a single culvert as it goes under the extension of Kekuana’oa Street . Also traversing the Project Site is the Horseshoe Bend Ditch, which is also in a County-owned streambed on the upper portion, with the lower half traversing over the Project Site. Preliminary plans anticipate containing these lower on-site waters by trenching a deeper ditch where needed, as approved by the Federal, State and County agencies. Note that by law, the Project is required to eliminate any increase in drainage on-site, so that no Project-related runoff waters are diverted to these ditches. The Applicant has not diverted any of on-site runoff to date as doing so must first require approvals from applicable governmental agencies. 4. Request for underground utilities, photovoltatic systems, pedestrian and bike facilities. Response: While desirable, the sheer cost of underground utilities will force the project to depart from its original mission, which is to build housing units that offer a variety of housing types for both the rental and buyer segments of the mid-market, which includes the workforce group. Solar water heating will be provided, and the Applicant will explore photovoltaic systems to reduce the overall electrical demands of this project. However, interior roadways within and throughout the Project Site will include curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements, with the exception of the existing section of Kekuanaoa Place that currently maintains paves shoulders and swales. As these interior roads are required to be constructed to County-dedicable standards, the Applicant will work with the County to explore the inclusion of a bike lane along these dedicable roadways. Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 9 of 11 November 15, 2022 VI. Affordable Housing 1. Criticism that the project does not provide for affordable or workforce housing opportunities. Response: To address housing shortages in Kona, the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) identifies Objective HSG-4: Build More Units and Policy HSG-4.2: Workforce Housing. The workforce gap group (up to 180% of median income) includes the part of the population that earns too much to qualify for affordable housing programs, yet too little to buy or rent decent housing close to their jobs. The Project would build units that offer a variety of housing types for both the rental and buyer segments of the mid-market which includes the workforce group. Although the Project is not specifically a workforce project, it would provide a housing option for the workforce gap group. Applicant Kona Three, LLC and the County of Hawaiʻi entered into an agreement on January 10, 2022 to satisfy its affordable housing obligations (Condition J of Ordinance 02 131) for the development of the entire 173.66 acres of land encumbered by both the State Land Use District Boundary amendment and change of zone ordinance approved in 1984, which includes the 215 single family residential units within the existing Kona Vistas subdivision as well as the 450 multiple family housing units within the proposed Royal Vistas project. Should these amendment requests be approved to allow the proposed Royal Vistas project to proceed forward, the Applicant will pursue discussions with the County to determine the best affordable housing product to provide to the residents of North Kona, whether it be via on-site affordable units, re-exploring the potential use of the approximately 11 acres located makai of the project site originally intended for affordable housing before it was abandoned by the County, or the purchase of affordable housing credits. These options are all on the table and it will ultimately be the County’s decision on how to best satisfy the Applicant’s affordable housing obligations should these amendment requests be approved. VII. Project Roadway Interconnectivity 1. General concerns to project roadways connecting to either Kona Vistas or Pualani Estates roadway systems. Response: The Project is planned to have a single access from Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway for Phase I, and a secondary access to Kekuanaʻoa Place in Kona Vistas Unit 4 for Phase II. Comments from the County’s Traffic Division compels the Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 10 of 11 November 15, 2022 Kekuanaʻoa Place connection be moved up to Phase I. This project has no planned access to Pualani Estates due to intervening privately-owned lands. However, in conformance with the connectivity standards of the Kona Community Development Plan, the interior project roadways will be aligned, constructed and dedicated to the County in order to facilitate the future extensions of Kekuanaʻoa Place to Paulehia Street and Leilani Street to Hoʻomama Street between Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates subdivisions. VIII. Opposition to amendment to Condition N. 1. Claim of elimination of sidewalk improvements within project to the detriment of safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Response: The Applicant believes that there is a misunderstanding regarding the intent of this amendment request. As stated within its request, the Applicant has every intention of providing sidewalk improvements along all connecting roadways throughout the project, with the exception of the non-dedicable driveways leading to the multiple family residential complexes. The existing Condition N talks about avoiding “telescoping” the shoulder treatment where the roadways cross a zoning line. As Kekuanaʻoa Place is the only road that currently connects to the project site, Condition N requires that the existing section of Kekuanaʻoa Place from Kamehamalu Street to the project site be torn up and reconstructed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The Applicant polled the 7 nearest lot owners along this section of Kekuanaʻoa Place several years ago and they verbally expressed their opposition to the replacement of the existing asphalt swale with concrete sidewalks. Furthermore, it would make better sense to maintain the existing swales along Kekuanaʻoa Place up to the Holualoa Ditch, where it then transitions into curb, gutter and sidewalks as it proceeds into the Project. IX. Timely completion of proposed project 1. Argues that 15 years have lapsed since project was first proposed, and 10 years since first phase of Kona Vistas was completed; stating that its “Time to go back to drawing board”. Response: It has actually been 40 years since the Project was first presented to the State Land Use Commission, which culminated in the approval of an Urban District Mr. Jeffrey Darrow, Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department Page 11 of 11 November 15, 2022 boundary amendment in 1983 for lands that include both the project site and fully- developed Kona Vistas subdivision. In 1984, the County approved the rezoning of these Urban District lands to support the development of A) 215 large lot single family dwelling lots sold at market rates; and B) 450 multi-family dwellings for the middle-class earners of moderate income. Over the next 32 years the 215 market-rate single-family lots were completed and sold. What is sorely missing is the development of residential units for moderate income families. This project will bring 450 mid-market dwellings units to an area with a highly constrained real estate market, and is geared towards existing residents, not new arrivals. Rentals in Kona are in desperate demand, and will appeal to teachers, firemen, policemen, younger professionals, contractors, fishermen, the “move-up” market; etc. Locals moving into these new units will free up existing housing stock in Kona, thereby providing opportunities to other residents, many of them on the lower echelon of income. We hope that this response corrects some of the misinformation presented in comments submitted to the department and at the very least, provides the Applicant’s perspective on some of the criticisms about the project itself. As always, should there be any questions or need for additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Daryn Arai Land Use Planning Consultant copy by email: Kona Three, LLC