HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0704.007 1998-2000 MAUNA LANI TERRACE
On the Kohala Coast /Big Island of Hawaii
April 14, 2000
Honorable James Y. Arakaki R[CBVED '
and Members of the Cotmty Council ;Ime.-__.-___-.. 4y..._-._..-_..-.-_..
County of Hawaii Uate ti /-`1Y
ZS Aupuni Street 4 County Council;`.;' ~ .
i__...__
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Resolution for Time Shaze No. 229 00
Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC -The Villages of Aina Le'a
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members:
In considering the resolution to permit timeshare in the Villages ar Aina Le'a, we respectfully
request the Council to defer any action until the applicant's traffic impact study is more
rigorously evaluated with regard to defining, financing and implementing the necessary
changes to Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersections affected by the project. The extreme
potential traffic problems created by this project will impact virtually every Island resident
traveling this section of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and absolutely need to be resolved prior
to voting on the resolution-
The applicant's traffic impact study is not totally valid due to the fact that several major
considerations and key statistics were omitted:
1) The traffic volume occurring in front of the Mauna Lani Resort is not
representative because of the considerable current and projected
construction on the Mauna Lani Property which will increase greatly. This
was not taken into account.
2) Projected expansion of other developing resorts on the coastline will
greatly impact the present traffic volume. These are key statistics which
were omitted.
If traffic through Waimea during highway construction was any indication of
the slow down that will take place on Queen Kaahumanu Highway., then
the rood congestion problem needs to be resolved prior to any decision
which would impact traffic volume.
Comm. No. 7~~• 0 D7
File No. ZNCy
K~,. T~: Pl
Itef. Date AFR_1 R 2000
68-1399 Mauna Lani Drive Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 (808) 885-6886 Fax: (808) 885-8546
Chairman James Y. Arakaki
Members of the Hawaii County Council
April 14, 2000
Page two
TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT REPORT
jJnder ConeLsians and Recommendations
The items in bold type represent the findings and recommendations made in the applicant's
traffic study report.
• The study intersections making left-turns onto Queen Kaahumanu
Highway will still experience a noor level-ofscrvice"
• Improvements will be needed: possible traffic signal, fully
channetized road with exclusive tarn lanes, and acceleration and
deceleration lanes.
QUESTIONS:
1) Who will finance the construction of all required highway
improvements?
2) Is this solely developer cost? If partly a taxpayer cost, what are projected
costs to the State and County, and what will our tax burden be?
3) When will improvements begin and be completed?
• "A full warrant study should be conducted to determine if and when
a traffic signal should be installed."
The warrant study does oat address the following issues. These issues should
be included in the new warrant study.
- Wait time from turn lanes during peak hours fuming into and out of
and Mauna Lani Dr. and Aina Le'a from Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
- Increase in traffic from construction crews, landscaping news and
heavy earth moving equipment.
- Traffic from maintenance crews, cleaning service sad personnel to
stall' a timeshare project.
- Trallic tiom prospective timeshare sales and other real estate
purchasers.
- Acceleration and deceleration rates for the earth moving trucks,
lumber delivery trucks, cement trucks, etc.
- Traffic generated from golf course development and residential
construction which will occur during other phases of development of
the property.
Chairntan James Y. Arakaki
Members of the Hawaii County Council
April 14, 2000
Page three
- Forecasts from projected traffic from other developing resorts on the
coastline that will greatly increase and impact the present volume
numbers and should be included.
Taa Consequences For Increased
Beach and Highway Usage
Until there is some legislation in place to account for the increased usage on public beaches and state
highways, we would ask that the Council defeat or defer the resolution for timeshare. The tax
consequences for additional beach and highway maintenance simply must be considered, cost analysis
submitted, and implementation for payment resolved before any resolution for timeshare be passed
which would obhgate Island residents to new taxes.
While not sophisticated calculations, the following figures generally reflect the potential number of
new tourists which need to be accommodated in terms of traffic on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway
and the potential use of public beaches and park facilities that need to be maintained.
Considering that timeshare users are tourists, usage of public facilities such as state parks, beaches and
other venues will be greatly utilized and generate a huge expense to the County of Hawaii that would
probably necessitate increased taxes to pay for maintenance.
NUMBER OF UNITS
1 Unit = 50 rental weeks per year (wpy)
RENTAL UNITS TOURISTS*
AVAILABLE (yrly.)
PHASE I ISO Units a 30 wpy 7,500 22,000
300 Units x 50 wpy 15,000 45,000
600 Units x 50 wpy 30,000 90,000
750 Units x 50 wpy 37,500 112,500
•3 Persons per unit -These are conservative occupancy rates. The KPMG report indicates an occupancy
rate double that of norn~al resort use.
The impact of the rezoning request from the applicant is clearly evident and extremely significant
to neighboring communities. We think voting on timeshare without the benefit of rigorous study of
other implications is the wrong thing to do.
Sincerely, / ~ 1 ~ ~ 1
}i
Doane Tnggs Ken Mc Gowan Barry Sn~barger
President Vice President Treasurer
Mauna Lani Terrace Mauna Lani Tetrace Mauna Lani Terrace
Association Association Association