Hale‘iwa Improvement District ProjectHale‘iwa, North Shore, O‘ahu

October 10, 2017

Public Informational MeetingEnvironmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice

Waialua Elementary School67-020 Waialua Beach Road

Waialua, HI 96791

Department of Design and ConstructionCity and County of Honolulu

Meeting Purpose / Desired Outcomes

• Community and landowners understand the alternatives, issues and process.

• Obtain community and landowner input on the ID alternatives and on environmental, social and technical issues for evaluation in the EIS.

• Answer questions about the project, the ID and the EIS process.

2

Introductions

City and County of HonoluluRobert Kroning, P.E., DDC Director Ann Shimatsu, P.E., DDC Project Manager, Civil DivisionBob Sarae, P.E., DDC Civil DivisionHarrison Rue, DPP, Community Building and TOD Administrator

R. M. Towill CorporationJimmy Yamamoto, P.E., Vice PresidentJim Niermann, AICP LEED AP, Principal PlannerGordon Ring, P.E., LEED AP, Principal EngineerMichele Leong, Planner

3

Opening Remarks4

Housekeeping

• Sign-in Sheet

• Meeting Documentation

• Comment Forms & Box

• Refreshments

• Restrooms

5

Meeting Agenda

• Presentation by the Project Team.• Project Update

• Conceptual Alternatives for EIS

• EISPN Comment Period

• Full-group Discussion / Q & A

6

Ground Rules

• Stick to the agenda.

• Save questions for the end. Reference slide #.

• Listen respectfully.

• Respond to ideas and issues, not individuals.

7

Hale‘iwa Improvement District Project Area8

Improvement District

City Council Resolution 09-338, CD11. Walkways2. Landscaping3. Undergrounding Utilities

ROH Chapter 14, Articles 23 to 29Establishes Improvement District Process

9

Improvement District Process

• Costs shared by the City and adjacent landowners.

• Utility companies share a portion of utility costs.

• Basis for cost assessment may include:–Street frontage / lot area–Land use–Type of improvements–Assessed value of property

• The intent is to make it work.

10

Complete Streets Ordinance

• Requires the City to employ a multi-modal approach to roadway projects.

• Goal is to balance needs of pedestrians, bicycles, transit and motor vehicles.

• Requires multi-modal traffic study.

• ROH Section 14-33

11

12

Community Involvement, Agency Consultation

Background ResearchSpecial Studies

Community InterviewsAgency Consultation

Workshops#1 & #2

Prelim. AlternativesMulti‐modal Study

Final EIS Preparation

Design Meetings

Draft EIS

Pre‐Draft EIS Meeting(s) Alternatives Review

Community Involvement / EIS Process

Site Conditions AnalysisEngineering Analysis

Preliminary Design  Concepts

EIS Prep Notice

Draft EIS Meeting(s)Public Review Period 

Pre‐Final EIS MeetingID Alternative Final EIS / ROD

Current Status

• EISPN Comment Period

• Conceptual Alternatives

• Multi-modal Traffic Study – in progress

• Agency Consultation – ongoing

• Special Studies for EIS – ongoing

13

Key Feedback So Far

• Strong support for pedestrian improvements

• Preserve rural character and human scale

• Keep the ID improvements simple

• Preference to keep the road as-is, no left-turn lanes

• No strong preference for overhead vs. underground utilities (except costs)

• Parking – concern over loss of street frontage parking, support for centralized parking

• Concern about ID costs and allocation

• Concern about losing land to the project

• Construction impacts – hard on small businesses

14

Hale‘iwa Improvement District15

16Hale‘iwa Improvement District

Existing Conditions• Two-lane, rural commercial street

• ROW width varies from 30’ to 50’

• No existing walkways except in isolated locations. No bike lanes.

• Buildings located near roadway

• Accustomed street-front parking

• Trees and utilities located near roadway

• Bus service through town – 13 bus stops

• Congested conditions during daytime (visitor traffic, busses)

• 60-foot road widening setback

17

• Low-Speed Road• Drainage – maintain exist. flow pattern• Multi-modal design - improve experience for

pedestrians, bicyclists and transit• Consider Complete Streets features • Dimension Guidelines

– 22’ Roadway– 6’ Walkway (8’ at bus stops and commercial core)– 5’ Bike lane (If Provided)– 4’ Buffer for landscaping, drainage and furniture

• Overhead and Underground Utilities

Design Criteria18

• Conceptual Alternatives– Alt 1 – 65’-69’ ROW– Alt 2 – 42’ ROW– Alt 3 – 52’ to 56’

• Complete Streets Treatments– Raised Crosswalk– Bike Lanes– Furniture zone / buffer– Traffic Circles

• Parking – perpendicular, parallel, angled

19Design Summary

20Typical Road Sections65’ to 69’ ROW

Dimensions may be modified in final design.

21Typical Road Sections42’ ROW

Dimensions may be modified in final design.

22Typical Road Sections52’ to 56’ ROW

Dimensions may be modified in final design.

Alternative 1: 65’ to 69’ ROW 23

Alternative 1: 65’ to 69’ ROW 24

25Alternative 2: 42’ ROW

26Alternative 2: 42’ ROW

27Alternative 3: 52’ to 56’ ROW

28Alternative 3: 52’ to 56’ ROW

Complete Streets• The City is required by ordinance to consider

complete streets principles in transportation project planning

• Improves mobility for all street users.

• Good for business.

• Features that might work in Hale‘iwa:– Bicycle Facilities– Raised Crosswalks– Furniture Zone / Buffer– Parklets– Traffic Circles

29

Bicycle Facilities

• 5-ft. wide bike lane, separated from walkway

• Sharrows – share the travel lane with motor vehicles

• Improve bicycling convenience and comfort to encourage less reliance on motor vehicles

• Connect to regional bike path system

• Equitable access for kids, teens, workers

30

Bicycle Facilities31

Raised Crosswalks

• Table-top crosswalk across travel lane.

• Raised intersection.

• Provides traffic calming (speed table).

• Improves visibility for drivers and pedestrians.

• Creates landmark.

32

Raised Crosswalks33

Furniture Zone / Buffer

• 4-foot wide area to provide separation from travel way and pedestrian walkway.

• Used for:– Landscaping – Drainage– Utilities– Street Furniture (benches, signs, trash cans)

34

Furniture Zone / Buffer35

Furniture Zone / Buffer36

Furniture Zone / Buffer37

Parklet

• Parklet– Seating, landscape features, shade/shelter.– Provides social/respite space, creates a

landmark.– Can be customized to fit into available space,

minimizing impacts to the adjacent area.

38

39

Parklet

40

Parklet

Traffic Circles

• Eliminates stop-control, allows continuous flow.• Alternative to left turn lanes.• Allows cars to make a U-turn instead of left turns.• Improves motor vehicle movement and

pedestrian access into adjacent properties.• Minimizes turn conflicts.• Creates a landmark/entry feature.

41

Traffic Circles – Hale`iwa Road42

Traffic Circles – Hale`iwa Road43

Parking

• Space availability – ROW, physical constraints.• Safety / integration of parking with walkway

design. • Convenience / business needs (customers,

loading, deliveries).• Design:

– Perpendicular– Parallel– Angled

44

Parking45

Parking46

Street frontage parking: Parallel parking.

Pā‘ia, Maui Makawao, Maui

Parking47

Street frontage parking: angled parking.

San Francisco, CA Makawao, Maui

Reverse angle “safety” parking Nose-in angle parking

48

• 13 Bus stops – create breaks in traffic that facilitate left turns and pedestrian crossings.

• 3 bus stops are candidates for removal due to low ridership and proximity to adjacent bus stops.

B B

BB B

BB

BB B

BB

B

Bus Stops

Alternatives Cost Comparison49

• Cost categories:– Construction mobilization/demobilization– Demolition– Utility Relocation – electrical/telcom, water, lighting– Paving, Concrete Walkways & Driveways– Drainage improvements– Landscaping and street furnishings– Land acquisition– Tie-in to property frontage– Building retrofit

Order of magnitude costs (subject to change pending design):Alternatives Cost Comparison

50

Cost Category Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Construction Mob, Traffic Control $3,250,000 $1,710,000 $2,375,000Travel way Construction $5,650,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000Bike Lane Construction $1,120,000 $0 $1,120,000Walkway Construction $3,030,000 $2,440,000 $2,590,000Furniture Zone – landscaping & features $600,000 $300,000 $300,000Utility Relocation $4,340,000 $1,990,000 $2,530,000Drainage Improvements $6,425,000 $2,560,000 $3,000,000Contingency (20%) $4,885,000 $2,100,000 $2,685,000

Total $29,300,000 $12,600,000 $16,100,000

Does not include costs for:• Land / Easement Acquisition• Building Upgrades / Retrofit• Tie-ins to existing property frontageUndergrounding Electrical cost estimate = $14,200,000Traffic Circle cost estimate = $600,000 (excluding land acquisition and

property adjustments)

Basis for ID Cost Allocation51

• Street frontage / lot area• Land use / zoning• Type of improvements• Value of existing, impacted improvements• Assessed market value of property• Utility company cost-share

Project Schedule52

Complete Project Alternative Designs for Inclusion in EIS

Summer 2018

Complete EIS Summer 2019

Complete Preliminary ID Report Fall 2020

Council Action on the Preliminary ID Report

2021

Key Project Milestones:

Q & A

• Listen respectfully.• Respond to ideas and issues, not

individuals• One person speaks at a time.• Allow everyone to speak once before

speaking a second time.• Keep comments and discussion concise

and to the point.

53

Q & A54

What’s Next?

• EISPN Comment Period – October 23, 2017• Finalize multi-modal study and alternatives.• Prepare Draft EIS for publication Fall 2018.• Work with City agencies to review alternatives.• Next community meeting summer 2018.

55

EISPN Comments Due:October 23, 2017

Ms. Ann Shimatsu, P.E., Project ManagerDepartment of Design and Construction

City and County of Honolulu650 South King Street, 15th Floor

Honolulu, HI 96813

56

Contact:

James Niermann, AICP, LEED APPlanning Project Coordinator

Email: JimN@rmtowill.com

Phone: (808) 842-1133

R. M. Towill Corporation2024 North King Street Suite 200

Honolulu, Hawaii 96819

57

MAHALO

Department of Design and ConstructionCity and County of Honolulu