2007-07-20 TSEASCAPE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

County Council is now addressing. In our view, one-and-a-quarter parking spaces for each studio apartment may be reasonable, but one- and two-bedroom apartments should have at least two spaces per unit plus space for guests. Indeed, the ordinance that’s currently before the County Council requires two parking spaces per residential unit plus one for every two units for guests; that totals 765 for this project. Accordingly, we believe that many more spaces, perhaps at least as much as 600, are required for the proposed number of residential units. And additional parking will of course be needed for the commercial building. We urge, however, that parking needs be balanced with the need for green areas, which might dictate the need to reduce the number of rental units contemplated in the application, given that’s only 10 acres all together. The third concern is alternative transportation. Because this development is more than a mile from the nearest grocery store, and even farther from educational, civic and other commercial centers, all of which currently require travel along Highway 19, we believe that autos and school buses will necessarily be the primary modes of transportation. To encourage safe walking and cycling, we suggest that the developer provide shared-use paths connecting to civic, education, and commercial centers in the general area. The traffic analysis and circulation plans should include appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities connecting this development to the community, and provision for public transportation and shuttle service capabilities. We have some other concerns. Although the State is responsible for public school education, the County has to note the effect of a large, school-age population on road infrastructure and traffic safety issues. Incredibly, neither this application nor the accompanying TIAR mentions schools, or the significant school traffic that will be generated by this and adjacent developments. Here, because the nearest schools are not within a safe or reasonable walking distance, we can expect that 200 or more school-age children will require bus or other transportation along Highway 19, Kaiminani, and Highway 190/Palani Road, adding greatly to the congestion on those roads during peak hours. In that regard, we question the applicant’s failure to recommend any traffic congestion mitigation at several key area intersections, because, as asserted by the applicant, the Levels of Service with or without this project wouldn’t change. That assertion is misleading, because Level of “E,” for example, means delays of between 30.1 to 45 seconds. So if the average delay had been 30.1 seconds before this development, and the development increased the delay by 14 seconds, it would still be Level of Service “E” despite the delay having increased nearly 50%. Therefore, even if the additional delays inevitably caused by this development don’t change the Level of Service, we believe that mitigation measures are appropriate and should be required. We also note that the TIAR accompanying the application was based on a traffic count that is more than one-and-a-half years old, and that traffic has notably increased since then. Perhaps, an updated TIAR prepared by a traffic consultant chosen by the County and using more recent traffic counts and paid for by the applicant will be more objective. Finally, the developer ought to include traffic calming features in the internal road layout and on the roads immediately external to the project. So to summarize our recommendations in interest of better traffic safety and flow, we urge: 1) require a second access route, 2) require at least 600 parking spaces, or better yet, require what the current draft ordinance before the County Council requires, or reduce the number of dwelling EXHIBIT B 7