The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0107.000 2004-2006Harry Kim Mayor COUNTY OF HAWAII 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuaktm Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 (808)329-5226 • Fax (808)326-5663 February 8, 2005 Gary Safarik, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawai `i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Gary Safarik and Council Members: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) Request: A -5a to RM -2.5 Applicant: Suffolk Investment, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:19 Xate Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) Request: A -5a to CN -20 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:1 Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Peter L. Hendricks Deputy Managing Director VIM- a--� Y - As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sincerely, ( in�� Harry Kim W Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department L.r, Z '+) 2 I IawaiS County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider to Comm No. Ref. �� ReVaf. Late [ Lb Harry Kim Mayor County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION 101 Paualu Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808) 961-8288 • Pax (808) 961-8742 February 8, 2005 Gary Safarik, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Safarik and Members State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) Request: A -5a to CN -20 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:1 The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on January 21, 2005, considered the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone applications for Puaa Development, LLC for approximately 14.973 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District and from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial — 20,000 foot (CN -20) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 1st and Puaapuaanui 1st, North Kona, Hawaii. A motion was made to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council. There were three votes in favor of the motion and two against. Because five votes are needed for the Planning Commission to take action, the three to two vote constitutes a "no action" by the Planning Commission. The "no action" itself constitutes an unfavorable recommendation. The application will be forwarded to the County Council with the unfavorable recommendation, along with a copy of the hearing transcript. The applicant requested that the docket be transmitted to the County Council rather than having the Planning Commission revote on the application at a subsequent meeting. Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Gary Safarik, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council Page 2 Accordingly, we are hereby transmitting this letter that explains the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission. The favorable recommendation of the Planning Director, along with the proposed bill and the Planning Department's Background Report and Recommendation, are also being included. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Norman Hayashi of the Planning Department at 961-8288. Sincerely, Fred Galdones, Chairman Planning Commission Enclosures cc: Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Planning Department — Kona Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu Mr. Brian Cook Mr. Sidney Fuke PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 21, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (SLU 04-010/REZ 04-024) and PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 04-009/REZ 04-025) was called to order at 3:35 pm. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT: Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones William Graham C. Kimo Alameda Jeffrey McCall Earl Fujikawa Rene' Siracusa Francis Smith Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works Sidney Fuke representing Suffolk Investment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Michael Riehm representing Suffolk Investment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Brian Cook representing Puaa Development LLC And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (SLU 04-010/REZ 04-024) Continued hearing on the following applications: a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Multiple Family Residential — 2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district. The property is located between Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and Kuakini Highway, directly west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 1 s` and Puaapuaanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:19. APPLICANT: PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 04-009/REZ 04-025) Continued hearing on the following applications: ATrACID=: Cann. 107 (Bills 31 & 32) a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.973 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of zone for 14.973 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial — 20,000 -foot (CN — 20) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki I" and Puaapuaanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:1. SPRINGER: We are now on Agenda Item No. 4. The Applicant is Suffolk Investment, LLC, SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024. This is a continued hearing on the following applications. a. State Land Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural 5-A, 5 -acre to a Multi -Family Residential - 2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district. The property is located between Hawai'i Belt Road (Highway 11) and Kuakini Highway, directly west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puapuaiki 15` and Puapuanui IS` North Kona, Hawaii, TMK 7-5-17:19. Staff? Mr. Darrow, are you ready? DARROW: Sure. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you. DARROW: If I can ask Corp. Counsel a question? Ivan, did you want to address the issue of doing both of them at the same time? TORIGOE: Oh, okay. I don't know if, I think we should probably get the Applicant to come and make his request if he wants to do a consolidated infrastructure presentation. SPRINGER: Okay, Mr. Fuke, if you would please come forward at this time. And, at this time, I'd like to ask the Applicant's representative and any individuals who have signed up to testify or who wish to testify on this matter to be sworn in at the same time. I have five folks who have listed themselves, Joel Gimpel, Harold Murata, Josephine Keliipio, Ann Peterson and Janice Palma-Glennie. If you could raise your right hands, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. SPRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, if you could please give us your name and address, for the record. FUKE: Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Sidney Fuke, I'm a Planning Consultant. I'm here working on both the, both petitions, the Suffolk Development and also the Puaa Development. My business address is 2 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo, Hawaii. As the Corporation Counsel had noted, I would like to request that, you know, provided that there's no objection on the part of either the Commission or the public, to have like the material that's presented relative to the item before you, which is the Suffolk application, also the applicable, you know, to the subsequent application, inasmuch as the, not purely in interest of time, but more in the interest of having a comprehensive understanding of both projects. Because from an infrastructure standpoint, they are closely tied. From a functional standpoint, they are also very closely tied. The only difference is that they are two different developers. SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, then what you're proposing is that we would hear a consolidated presentation on matters of infrastructure and function but we would go through the decision-making separately for each application? FUKE: If the Commission and the public would not have any objection, we would request that so. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioners, do you understand the request, have any questions on it or comments? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: It's fine with me. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa, you affirm that, also? SIRACUSA: Yes. SMITH: That's fine with me. SPRINGER: Commissioner Smith, that's positive. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Which are the two we're combining? SPRINGER: Four and five, Suffolk and Puaa. a F.111 SPRINGER: And the combination is strictly on infrastructure and a general discussion of function. Decision-making will still occur separately. Is that correct? 128JIN� Yes. SPRINGER: From the members of the public, is there any objection to that? Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you may continue. I'm sorry, Mr. Darrow, you may continue. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may address a few in-house issues first. This is a continued hearing for Suffolk Investment LLC, as well as Puaa Development. Previously, the Background Report and exhibits have been distributed to the Planning Commission. More recently, the Recommendations as well as conditions have been distributed. Very recently, we received comments from the Department of Transportation. It has been distributed to the Commissioners, as well as the Applicant's representative. In reviewing those conditions, on the comment letters they do, they are addressed pretty thoroughly within the conditions in the Recommendations. If I may direct your attention to the location map, again, the area of these applications is within the North Kona District of Hawaii. This white, white line that's running north - south through the map is the Queen Kaahumanu Highway or the Hawaii Belt Road. This area in yellow identified as Single -Family Residential zoning is the Pualani Estates Subdivision. Directly across from that makai is the area of these applications. The area identified in red is Puaa Development. The area identified with the blue dot is Suffolk Investment. Suffolk Investment has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to Urban as well as the Change of Zone application from Agricultural 5 -acre to Multiple -Family Residential - 2,500 square feet. This request, both requests would include 250 units within twenty-four 2- and 3 -story structures. There would be over 300 parking spaces for residents and guests, and a private 1 -acre park which would be located in this general vicinity on the site map. Looking at the site map, this is a previous submitted site plan. As you can see on the wall directly across from me that there has been some adjustments made to the site maps; and those would be addressed a little later by the Applicant's representative. The Puaa Development has submitted a similar application, a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for State Land Use Urban to, Agricultural to State Land Use Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5 -acre to Commercial Neighborhood -20,000 square feet. This is 14.973 acres of land. The project would include financial, possibly range of, uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. There have been some changes to that; and this would also include housing as well; and, again, that would be addressed more specifically by the Applicant's representative. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission to be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council. If I may address, very shortly, some conditions. To bring to your attention, there is a Suffolk Condition No. D, a condition, it's stated by the Applicant's representative that this was going to be a rental housing project. To be able to assure that, the Planning Director has placed in Condition No. D which states, "As represented by the Applicant, the project shall be restricted to the use of rental housing only for a period of not less than 20 years from the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Any change to this condition will require an amendment to the Change of Zone ordinance." There are numerous conditions related to traffic improvements; and, again, those appear to be, address the concerns of the Department of Transportation, as well as the Department of Public Works. 4 The Department of Public Works has recently asked that a change be made to Condition I on both this application as well as the Puaa. And that is that Condition I, after the word "provided" on the third line, that the words "on Kuakini Highway" be added. So it would say, "right tum deceleration shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 access." And that would be, again, on Suffolk condition, as well as Puaa condition. This concludes the presentation. Are there any questions? SPRINGER: Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Jeff, maybe this question is more to Mr. Takemoto than yourself. But in regards to whether the County should be processing these applications, I know in our Background material we have a letter from the Land Use Commission and reading, directed to Planning Director Chris Yuen on October 201h And in that letter, Land Use Commission says, "While we don't have specific objections, we do have strong objections to the manner in which these applications are being processed. We believe that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and had been deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission." So I would question Mr. Takemoto about what the Planning Department's discretion is as to whether we take these up or not and why they made the decision to go ahead and recommend approval at the County level for these two applications. TAKEMOTO: The Director, subsequent to the Land Use Commission's letter, had been in touch with the Executive Director of the Land Use Commission and, basically, there were two conditions that he wanted us to establish before agreeing to what we're doing. One is that we have confirmed that these are, in fact, separate owners and that this whole development was not, you know, some, what you call, there wasn't a relationship between the two developers. So, on that point, the Director did check them out and confirmed that they are independent and separate. The second point is that between the Land Use Commission and the County is just a matter of who's making the decisions. The issues and criteria concerns in terms of public interest are the same. So, for the Land Use Commission, they just wanted to make sure that the cumulative impacts of the two projects were being considered, `cause that is what actually would occur if these lots went before the Land Use Commission together, as basically you'll be looking at the impacts of both projects at one time. And we feel that we are addressing the cumulative impacts of the projects. GRAHAM: Thank you SPRINGER: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I'm having trouble with these maps, of putting these all together. This section, in the upper left-hand comer, is what you're showing us for the Suffolk. 61 But over here I have the parcel just below it that's darkened. And, so, and then the other one on the Puaa is, includes this one and the parcel to the right of it. So, I'm not sure what we're talking about when we're talking about Suffolk as opposed to what we're talking about when we're talking about Puaa. I'd like some clarification and guidance on this, please. DARROW: Sure, Commissioner Siracusa. The colored renderings that you have was submitted to you this morning; and, again, that'll be addressed more specifically by the Applicant's representative. The area that you're looking at on that map is a portion of Puaa. That, right there, is the Suffolk property which is identified here. So they are, to say the least, they're strangely configured lots. But this area here is the Puaa property just above the Suffolk property, so this is the relation of both. SIRACUSA: Yeah. So we have a breakdown of how that Puaa section looks, but we don't have a breakdown, really, what this color rendering here, for the other two areas. Makes it hard to envision the totality if we're supposed to look at this as a unity and, you know, in some respects. DARROW: Yeah. If I could defer that to the Applicant's representative, he'll address those issues with his presentation. Thank you. SPRINGER: Any other questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Graham, you have anything? GRAHAM: No. SPRINGER: Okay. Mr. Fuke, did you receive the Planning Department's Background Report and Recommendation? FUKE: Yes, and a copy was provided to both of the Applicants; and both have indicated that they had no objections to the proposed conditions. I would like to note, however, at some point in time, you know, I did pass out some proposed amendments; and these amendments are designed exclusively not to affect any of the substance of the conditions as proposed by the Director but deal more with clarity and just tightening up certain language. With that, Madam Chair, I'd like to also acknowledge the, you know, the presence of Mr. Brian Cook, who's head of Puaa Development. He's over here. With him is also his Planner -Architect, Michael Riehm, who did the design; and I'll go into that and Mr. Riehm will also go into a little bit more detail on the design. Mr. Dru McCrue, Dru McCabe, rather, he's from Colorado and he was not able to make it here, but he did give assurance that the conditions were acceptable. Before going on the presentation, however, I'd like to just touch very briefly upon like, I guess, the question that Commissioner Graham had raised in terms of the Land Use Commission. We do concur with what Mr. Takemoto had indicated. You know, first of all, like, neither of the Applicants had any part in creating that subdivision before you. Back in June of 2004, a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision action was approved by the Planning Director. And the 5 lots essentially, if you, if I can direct you to the map on my left, the farthest to, on the mauka side. There are actually, that area consists of approximately 64, 65 acres of land, and it's this general area. And there was a consolidation and resubdivision application which resulted in a creation of one lot which was like this, this is one lot. The second lot was over here. This is the third lot; and this is the fourth lot. There was the 5ch lot, which is this little guy over here; and that's the road lot. So there was a 4 -lot consolidation and resubdivision. After that was done, Puaa Development acquired three parcels - This top portion over here, and these two gray colored parcels. Suffolk Investment bought this property over here. There've been a lot of communications between Mr. McCabe and Mr. Cook, largely from an infrastructure standpoint; and I'll go into that to some detail a little bit later. But just in terms of trying to address the Land Use Commission's condition, it was not as though that, you know, neither of these, first of all, neither of these applicants had anything to do with the creation of this lot, trying to, you know, so-called undermine the intent of the land use law. They bought the properties as is. Secondly, as Mr. Takemoto pointed out, neither of these applicants have any relationship aside from a desire to do what they believe might be suitable for the community and try to specifically address both in terms of the affordable housing issue as well as the infrastructure question. The Land Use Commission's letter also talked about a Pualani- Makai master planned community. And I looked through the files, and there was nothing formally filed for a Land Use Boundary Amendment for that area. So these concepts were like independently developed and had no relationship with whatever was developed; and if it were filed, I don't believe there was any action on that. And, as Mr. Takemoto had indicated, I think, and that's partly the reason why I had made the request earlier that both of these applications should be more appropriately reviewed collectively, so at least the Commission and the public would have a better understanding of the cumulative impact of both projects. Having said that, I think that the staff's recommendation at the last meeting, you know, was deferred because they were waiting for Department of Transportation's comments. I think that during that time, over the last month-and-a-half, it was a good period because both applicants have had a chance to sit down and discuss some of the more critical issues that the Planning Department, particularly that the Planning Director had. And, you know, we acknowledge, you know, the insights and the input provided by the Director, particularly the issues relating to infrastructure and, also, the affordable housing issues. So after we complete the presentation, I would hope that, you know, it's not as though that neither of these applicants are not concerned with the infrastructure, not concerned with affordable housing. But I think that as we go through this presentation, we would 7 hope that you can find that these projects will actually help, not necessarily hinder the fulfillment of those two objectives. Oh, I'm sorry, like what I forgot to mention was that, you know, when they had that 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision, what was also required, wisely by the Planning Department, was the setting aside of a 60 -foot wide roadway easement that would effectively connect Kuakini Highway with the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway; and this is the 60 -foot wide roadway easement. The staff kind of generally, maybe I should just, first of all, talk about like the Puaa neighborhood, the neighborhood shopping center. Very briefly, I think that what motivated the Puaa to come forth with this neighborhood shopping center concept was primarily to look at trying to find an area that would service the needs of an under -served area; and at the same time by being able to service the need, you'll be able to mitigate the traffic issue. And I'd like to direct you to this map over here which is a map that was, it's Figure 10 that was taken out of the County's Keahole to Honaunau Traffic Circulation Plan. And, generally, this first red dot here represents the area of Keauhou, and then this other dot here represents Kailua. And it's basically like a 7 -mile stretch between Keauhou and Kailua, and then, you know, you have essentially no commercial areas. So the thought was to have, and at the same time, if you look at these maps you can find like there's a lot of subdivisions coming along in that area. This is kind of like a blow-up of that particular area. Again, this is Keauhou and this is the subject property. What this map more accurately shows is that this area shaded in blue is the already existing Kahakai Estates Subdivision. This area on the mauka side of the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the developing of Pualani Subdivision; and that Pualani Subdivision is basically on this map over here. If and when, not if, when that Pualani Subdivision is completed, there will be a new road that connects from, and this is Hualalai Road, there will be a new road that connects from Hualalai Road all the way down to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway in this particular area. So the thought that Mr. Cook and his people had was by having a neighborhood commercial center in this particular area, you'd be able to capture a lot of the existing and developing residential homes in this, the central part of that area between Kailua and Keauhou. Because absent that you're taking, you're forcing the traffic to go either down to Keauhou or to Kailua and beyond. And so this is the whole idea. By having this extension, knowing that it's going to be completed probably within the next year or 18 months at the latest, that this area will be fully signalized, this roadway will be completed. So the thought then was how you're going to bring this connection down to Kuakini Highway, and that was partially like this answer. At the time as we discussed it with the Planning Director, there was always the issue about, there were two issues, as it related to this proposed commercial neighborhood shopping center. One was that not trying to create a strip mall kind of appearance and, secondly, was still trying to see whether there was a way that some measure of affordable housing could be addressed within this particular area. So what you see on the map on 0 Jeff s or the staff s, what would that be, your left - yeah, I'm sorry, I'm left-handed so I get confused - is the original proposal. You see the original proposal, it kind of like stretches from this point here to the, on the north side going all the way down to the south side over here. But what you see, the difference is that it's only on the northern quadrant is the proposed commercial area and portion of like at the intersection of, you know, this new mauka-makai road. The balance of the property would be set aside or reserved for housing. There is a condition that's outlined in the Planning Director's Recommendation that mandates the requirement for housing to be constructed in conjunction with a minimum of 50 units to be constructed in conjunction with the occupancy of any of the commercial area. So it's definitely, you know, you can't have the commercial area without this multiple -family development. And so the focus there was really just trying to address the housing needs. Mr. Cook, in his acquisition of the property, was able to secure like 51 affordable housing credits. You will notice that in your, in the Director's proposed condition, none of these existing credits can be applied to any of these projects. So that means that if the Council changes the ordinance, or whatever the prevailing affordable housing code is, he must, the developer must fulfill that requirement on site and cannot get credit. So in that way, like it's a direct way to address the affordable housing issue for the commercial area, let alone having this commercial neighborhood facility also service the existing and growing residential population of that area. The other project is by Suffolk Investment Corporation. It's, this area is another parcel consisting roughly about like 14 acres of land. And Suffolk has committed to the County, and we had submitted a letter, that this would be exclusively a rental housing project. And that's why like the Planning Director, as the staff had indicated, there is a condition that state, that stipulates that, as represented by the Applicant, that this will be a rental housing project. And we all know that what is really critically needed in this area because a lot of people can't afford to buy, you know, buy homes, that you need to provide rental. And, so, there is this stipulation that requires these 250 rental units to be constructed on the site. So that's one way to address the affordable housing issue. The other one is like traffic, traffic and more infrastructure concerns. So as I tried to indicate in the beginning, you know, you do have, we know that this roadway is coming down and it's going to be signalized, you know, from Hualalai Road, I mean, this Hualalai Road coming all the way down to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. What your staff is recommending, and what these developers have also committed themselves to, is that prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the commercial, or the multiple -family area, or also for any portion of this 250 rental unit housing project, this light has to be signalized. Because what Pualani is obligated to provide is just signalization to accommodate their project, not signalization to accommodate any traffic on the makai side. So your condition, the staffs condition requires this area to be signalized, but more so, or equally so, that this 60 -foot wide 9 roadway be developed in curb, gutter, sidewalk and be completed before occupancy is issued for these, the rental unit project or the commercial project. There is also this proposed access on the south end of the property which is designed to be exclusively a right -turn in and a right -turn out, provided that the State Department of Transportation allows that. But it's already a permitted access. This property is already permitted like two, you know, two accesses. So this would be your primary and this would be your secondary access. The Director's Recommendation also called for having the necessary improvements be done at this Kuakini Highway. And that Kuakini Highway, this point over here intersects with, if I can stretch this map, just follow me for a while, this lower side is Kahakai Estates. And, so, if you continue on you'll go directly into Kahakai Estates. So, you know, the intersections would line up over here. So the staffs condition requires like, you know, channelized intersection with left -tum pocket, so on and so forth. So that is the way that both Applicants believe that you'll be able to fulfill the, at least this particular region, the infrastructure needs very immediately by having, first of all, a commercial area that would service the neighborhood and minimizing excessive movements to either Keauhou or to Kailua and, secondly, at the same time, constructing major infrastructure work. So that if you're traveling on Kuakini and you need to get, you know, you need to move north, you'd have a safe place to get out, and which would be at this intersection and not over here, which is close to where the Kona Outdoor Circle is. The other thing about the Suffolk project which I forgot to note is that there will be, if you can look at the middle map over there, the concentration of units will be like more on the, that area; and then the bottom portion, although this is part of the property, is still like a portion of a floodway. So the intent is to have this area serve both as a floodway as well as like a passive recreation area, pretty much similar to in concept to what, you know, Hilo Bayfront area is. You have like a soccer field and, at the same time, when you have inclement weather then, you know, it's used as a drainage way as well. There is a sewer line that presently bisects the property that services Pualani. So both of these projects, if approved, will be sewered to the County system. Water is already available. They have over 510 water commitments for this property. Can I, Madam Chair, you know, with your indulgence, call upon Michael Riehm to kind of like give a little bit more description in terms of what he visualized, you know, in talking with Mr. Cook and understanding what the Planning Director's concerns were relative to minimizing the effect of any like strip type of appearance and like what he visualizes this neighborhood commercial facility would look like? SPRINGER: That'll be fine, as soon as he gives us his name and address for the record. 10 RIEHM: Michael Riehm. I'm with the firm of Riehm Ownesby Planners Architects. The address is 75-128 Kamilo Street, Kailua-Kona. Thank you, Sidney. When we approach projects like this, especially commercial projects, one of the most difficult things to do is to fit them into the neighborhood, not only aesthetically and in terms of the architecture but also in terms of traffic and, most importantly, pedestrians. So when we first looked at this project, our goal was to make it neighborhood -friendly and to fit it into the local environment as best as we could. What we first looked at was rather than allowing the commercial to go all along the frontage of the highway here, we decided to do a much more compact shopping village. The main reason for doing that was by making it more compact we could put more services closer to people who would park in this facility that would help mitigate them from driving from one shop to the other using their car. So by putting the vast amount of commercial services, which would be mixed use, including both retail and office, everybody who would park in the shopping center would be within a two -minute walking distance of any shop in the project. The other thing that we looked at was integrating it into the community in terms of secondary road access. Like Sidney said, this would be a multi -family rental project. We decided to have a connector street that could go in and attach this, providing more circular access around the center. One of the things that is real important to us is making this a pedestrian -oriented center. And things, studies have shown that if you provide a safe walking distance, a five-minute walking distance, that people will use or walk to a destination versus driving a car. So the location of this center, particularly in relationship to the other development, most of these residents would be within a five-minute walking distance of these basic services. The other thing that we wanted to do was to create a character in this neighborhood, this neighborhood shopping center. That was more of a, what I would call a traditional town development versus what Sidney had said before, you know, avoiding the look of a strip shopping center. And some of the devices that we use are, I'll go ahead and point those out. As you come into the project, we want to create what we would call more of like a main street character; and this is a character that would encourage pedestrian activities. We would have a mixed use of office and retail along that. And I've included some photographs of some examples of what I call pedestrian -oriented commercial villages that I believe you all have copies of. What makes that work is that the architecture, the buildings are brought closer to the street, we'll provide street trees, traditional lighting fixtures, the parking is done parallel to the street, and it provides a buffer between the pedestrians and the roadway. And we're using this main street character to more or less establish the character of this shopping center being more of what we would call a traditional neighborhood development versus a strip shopping center. 11 The way that it's laid out also allows convenient access for people who want to just get in their car, buy, get their products and leave, but it also would encourage people to stay and hopefully become more of a, what I would call a small town center versus just a very quick shopping experience. So, in summary, there's a number of devices that we would use architecturally. I think the landscaping is very important, the development of the streets to be pedestrian - oriented, street trees, traditional lighting fixtures; and, hopefully, this would look more like some of our most, or nice shopping areas here on the Big Island versus some of the more suburban sprawl type projects. Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioners, any questions for the architect? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I'm a tree person so, of course, my first question about this is going to be -. I see you have a lot of trees marked on here. I assume they're shade trees, or maybe not. Maybe I should ask that as a question. RIEHM: I hope they are. SIRACUSA: I hope so because I always look for the tree in the parking lot to park under. I don't like my car to heat up, and I know a lot of other people feel that way, too. So I'm wondering what types of trees you had in mind for this and whether their canopies would be consistent with their root systems in terms of, you know, affecting the paving. RIEHM: Well, let me just preface this by saying that I'm not a landscape architect so I couldn't tell you exactly what type of trees that we would use. But the landscaping is a very critical thing, especially for large paved areas. These definitely would be done as canopy trees or shade trees. For example, my favorite, one of my favorite parking lots on the island is the Prince Kuhio Mall in Hilo with the beautiful monkeypod trees. Now, a lot of people have problems with monkeypod but there are ways to mitigate their tree growth. So other projects that I think are remarkable are what they did on Oahu with the Mililani project with all those beautiful monkeypods that they had planted in their town center. So I think an integral part of this would be not only the shade trees in the parking lot but, most importantly, the trees that we would be using along our main street to create that pedestrian atmosphere. The type of tree, I don't know. I mean, that would be up to the landscape architect for the project. SPRINGER: Thank you. Any follow-up questions, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioner McCall? 12 MCCALL: I guess my question on what you said on the TIAR that was done, I'm not sure whether, I think it was never addressed. But on situations like this, from what I understand, the general idea is you'll be putting multi -family housing here, rental housing. It seems to me what in effect we're actually to do is reduce the housing out on Ocean View, Waikoloa and a number of people who are actually, you know, driving into Kona to work, or whatever. But I've never seen, you know, I suppose it requires conjecture to say that this actually is going to potentially relieve some of the traffic, say, on Queen K Highway coming in, or coming through Kainaliu, or something. I mean, I've never see anything, I suppose that's a little bit too hypothetical to actually put down in a TIAR. So can you address that in any way? FUKE: This is Mr. Brian Cook who has a wealth of experience in homebuilding here in the Kona area, so I just as soon defer it to him. SPRINGER: And, Mr. Cook, if you could please give us your name and address for the record? COOK: Yes. My name is Brian Cook. Address is 75-5608 Hienaloli, Road No. 25, Kailua-Kona. SPRINGER: Thank you, sir. You may proceed. COOK: When we first looked at this property, the developers who we had acquired the property from had it subdivided it into five lots, as Sidney said. They had played out this proposed, what we call a "strip mall," running the whole frontage of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. We didn't want to create that type of development. We think our community here, I've lived here in Kona for over 15 years and been in Hawaii for 45 years; and in construction and development all these years we've seen a lot of things done bad and some things done good. When we go in and try to do a project, we've not motivated by density. We've motivated by trying to create something that's needed in our community. Living here ourselves, we see project after project that isn't really taking care of the concerns of the, of our community. As a developer, when I first started back in the 1960s, water, sewer and drainage were the three criteria that you would worry about. As we got into the `70s then the environmental assessment areas got in; and then coming over to the Big Island, it was the archaeological, and now it is traffic infrastructure. So when we looked at this project, we said, if we develop something that is not just neighborhood -friendly as far as a commercial area, we have been talking to Suffolk who has the adjacent property, and to create the neighborhood shopping center and the rental housing project, it takes the two projects together to pay for all the infrastructure to be developed. If you take a look at, if you're familiar with Kailua-Kona, creating a neighborhood shopping center like this will benefit projects on the makai side of the road coming from the south to the north of Kailua circle, you come up to Komohana Kai, there's Kuakini Makai, and Kahakai, and going mauka, you go from Sunset coming north 13 all the way through Kona Vistas, and to Pualani Estates. And the Lako Street intersection, I understand they said that the, the engineer told me yesterday that they have finished the road design, and they have awarded the contract to Isemoto, and they're concluding some final reports. And we hope that within a year we're going to be looking at two accesses coming off of Hualalai Road, which then means everyone living up in Holualoa and central area and Hualalai Road can come right down across the lighted intersection to a Neighborhood Commercial area; and we feel like this mitigates the traffic congestion and problems. Because if you look at what happens right now people will have to go from Holualoa all the way down Mamalahoa Highway to Pualani Road, and all the way down Pualani to Crossroads and Lanihau. We're trying to do something that's going to benefit our community where we're going to lessen some of the traffic. The rental housing project, very important to our community. Single-family homes are, someone was saying earlier that they're up over, like there's like a hundred under 500,000. I don't think there's more than 12 or 15 homes on the market now for under 500,000. It has gotten to be a critical issue here. Working with the Planning Director, our project, we're looking at maybe a Neighborhood Commercial and a hundred multi- family units; and we will abide by the, whatever the County Council comes up. Whether it's 20 percent or 30 percent affordable housing, we'll build it within that community. We've gotten the assurance from Suffolk Development. They also, whether it's 20 percent or 30 percent, they will create the rental housing on those guidelines. So we feel like if you have a neighborhood shopping center and some of the people down south can move into town and have a grocery store right there, if the husband has a car and the wife doesn't, she can walk to grocery store. And we need to do more things like that to help mitigate traffic. If we don't, it's just going to get worse. And even our project as we propose it, if you folks approve it and it goes before the County Council and we get it approved, for us to go through the engineering to get a design approved by DOT, we have a FEMA issue of a flood plain running through the project so we have to go through the County and FEMA, and that process, to get the plans processed and approved and actually developed, is probably going to take us three years. So we won't be building apartments or shopping centers for that period of time. Our community is really going to be suffering by then. That's why we need to consider projects like this that are going to mitigate some of the traffic woes and not add to them. FUKE: If I can just kind of supplement and directly answer your question, so, by increasing the inventory at the affordable housing range, then it could possibly minimize people having to find places in Hawaiian Ocean View and Waikoloa. SPRINGER: Thank you, gentlemen. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I have heard, you know, like prices like $250,000, for example, mentioned when people talk about affordable housing as single-family units. But I'm wondering for rental housing, what kind of range are we looking at for, say, a single bedroom, two-bedroom, that sort of thing? 14 COOK: I think that what we received from the County, a one -bedroom, I think, was $956 a month, two -bedrooms are $1,100 and something, and three-bedroom, $1,300 and something. Those are the guidelines. FUKE: The County affordable housing, and perhaps Mr. Takemoto can speak to that directly, but the County proposed ordinance, they do have like guidelines in terms of, you know, when you try to satisfy the affordable housing requirement for rental, what would be the rental rates for the 80 or 100 percent and whether it's one -bedroom, two -bedrooms or three -bedrooms. And, so, those would be the guidelines that they would have to adhere to. The other provision, I think, as I mentioned earlier is that, you know, the Director had recommended per the representation of the Applicant that this be a rental. So you have a 20 -year cap that is going to be rental, so you don't have the opportunity for the project to be condominimized no sooner than it's developed, you know. And the only way that it can be condominimized, of course, is that you have to, the Applicant would have to go through the same process that they're going through trying to get the initial entitlement, which is County Council action. SPRINGER: Is that sufficient, Commissioner? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I really, I just -. I'm blown away by the thought that a single bedroom apartment could be $900. And I think I'm going to have to urge my County Council to review those and make those levels more realistic, because otherwise they're really not serving the needs of most of our people. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner. Deputy Director? SIRACUSA: Right now we're stuck with what it is, right? TAKEMOTO: Let me just briefly address that. The definition of "affordable" is pretty much a formula; and it's based on the income group that you're trying to reach. "For Sale" housing, it's, I think goes from 100 percent of median income to 120 percent; and the factors that determine the affordable sales price is based on the interest rates prevailing at that time and the income group that you're trying to hit. So we're trying to provide homes for sale for income groups that earn less than 120 percent of the median income. Now, rental we're trying to dip further lower. So about 80 percent of the median income is the target for the rental housing. And the basis to determine the affordable rent is that the rent should not exceed 30 percent of this median income group income, 30 percent. Those are kind of like Federal guidelines from HUD. Below 80 percent it gets very difficult for private sector to burden, to take on that burden of providing housing that reaches down at that lower levels of rent. And so below 80 percent public policy is that perhaps that should be the realm where government should step in and provide public housing or encouraging non -profits to step in with all kinds of other incentives. 15 SPRINGER: Commissioners? I have a couple of questions. Will the affordable units be concentrated or will they be dispersed throughout the project? FLJKE: Well, Mr. Cook can talk about Puaa. But as far as like the Suffolk project, it's, that would have to be determined ultimately by, I guess, both projects will ultimately have to be determined by the County Housing Agency, which is the, which consists of the members of the County Council. So they could then stipulate whether it's like spread out, you know, within the project area, or concentrated, or however. SPRINGER: Thank you. I have another question regarding the Department of Transportation correspondence that's dated January 21, 2004. In the first section, the first paragraph, it says that there are assumptions regarding certain improvements that will be provided by the adjacent Pualani Estates. Can you discuss that with us? Fi_1KE: They were referring to the signalization at that main intersection, so we know that that's a fact that it's going to go in. COOK: I talked to the developers and they said that they have the, the plans are being processed for the street lights for the, three -sided street lights, and they anticipate it will probably be about a year. They're obligated to install them before that road opens up to Hualalai, but they're saying within a year to year -and -a -half. SPRINGER: Thank you. FUKE: So in answer to, you know, your question about Department of Transportation's comments, we received a copy this morning. And we noticed that as we went through all of them then they have been addressed, I think, very well by the Planning Director's recommended condition. And, in that regard, like I had also passed out, you know, if there are no further questions, you know, by the Commissioners or you, Madam Chair, I did pass out earlier like proposed amendments to both the Puaa Development as well as the Suffolk Development. And these, do you want me to go through them right now? GRAHAM: Maybe we should take some public testimony pretty soon, huh? FLJKE: Oh, okay, sure. SPRINGER: Yes. I'm wondering and, Mr. Torigoe, the amendments that have been circulated are not, they're not the same for both. I'm wondering at what time we separate this discussion. We've had a good introductory discussion on the areas of commonality. I'm wondering when we should separate out discussion of, first, Suffolk and then Puaa. The amendments are not the same for both. Per Commissioner Graham's comments, we should be accepting testimony on the two or if the testifier should separate out their comments for one and the other? 16 TORIGOE: Well, I suppose that in order to allow any members of the public to testify intelligently about these things, I don't know if these amendments have been made available to the public at this point. If not, then, you know, perhaps they should be made available. And if there's going to be discussion regarding these, I suppose you may want to allow the public to have a look at these and present testimony before you go into your discussion. SPRINGER: Sidney, are we about ready to bifurcate the discussion and proceed starting with Suffolk? FUKE: Sure. Generally, though, you know, just for the Commissioners' information, both the proposed amendments are not really substantive in nature and they, because most of the conditions are, were the same for both Puaa and as well as like Suffolk. The amendments to the conditions would be identical. But if you wish to have it separated, then we can just look at the proposed amendments to Suffolk. SPRINGER: Commissioners, are you comfortable with some, proceeding in this way? We've had a discussion of the, a comprehensive discussion of the two developments, and especially with regard to public testimony. I'm thinking that we should now separate out the discussion and proceed with one Applicant and then the next. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: My thoughts on this would be perhaps if we, my thoughts would be that public testimony would probably also be the same for both applications. Perhaps if we take public testimony jointly, we could ask each testifier, you know, do their comments imply to both, or just to one. And in that way we could kind of, you know, go through where, so -. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Mr. Torigoe, would reading the proposed amendments to the conditions be sufficient with regard to public notice of them? TORIGOE: Well, that would be a start. Perhaps you could try reading them and then see if any member of the public would like to take some time to take a look at a copy, or perhaps obtain a copy, then that can be considered. SPRINGER: I would ask the staff if we have a copy of the amendments that could be made available to the public for review. PUKE: And, Madam Chair, perhaps like in the interest of having some general public information, if 1 were to review them, you know, using this process, I think that they'll be able to understand like what these changes are intended to do. SPRINGER: To read them? 17 FUKE: Sure. SPRINGER: Please? FUKE: Okay. Relative to the amendments, the suggested amendments to Suffolk's project, we would like to suggest that Conditions F, G and I, F, G and I relate to making improvements to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, you know, the traffic light, so on and so forth. G and I relate to the improvements to the 60 foot wide mauka-makai road, you know, through the property, and I refers to the improvements to Kuakini Highway. Now, if you look at all of those conditions, none of those conditions say when those improvements have to be in. And, so, what we're suggesting out of good faith and, you know, just out of clarity, and I think it's kind of understood but we would suggest that, you know, you just tack on the last sentence and, you know, add to the last sentence to all of those conditions. And that would read as follows: "Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures." SPRINGER: Commissioners, any questions on this amendment? Thank you. Mr. Fuke? FUKE: And on Condition L, what -. SIRACUSA: Page -? SPRINGER: We're on page 3 of the conditions. We're looking at the change of zone application. SIRACUSA: Oh, okay, okay. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. SPRINGER: We're looking at the Change of Zone application. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Sure. On Condition L, what we wanted to do is just to clarify this restriction. Because as it's currently written, it would prohibit non -habitable structures or improvements within the Zone AE or the shaded Zone X area. For example, you can have the project and, you know, you would want to have like your driveway or your landscaping or improvements in that area. That would be prohibited just based upon the language. So what we would like to suggest is that if you delete the first sentence and then you start with what I had suggested like, "No residential structures shall be constructed within areas designated AE or shaded Zone X by the FIRM map, as amended," etc., etc. And then the, and I think the intent is like, you know, to have the restriction, you know, of this relative to single-family residential lots, although the Applicant does not have any plans to have single-family residential lots, but to have the restrictive covenants be applicable only to single-family residential lots, and that no In single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. So I just kind of like wanted to make this separation, because I think the intent of that condition was two -fold. One is to make sure that, you know, you don't build structures where people are going to utilize in a floodway, and that's understandable. And so we wanted to just clarify that to say like, well, there may be other improvements that could go within the AE areas, such as your roadway, your landscaping, you know; and if you're going to have your park area maybe some improvements that are non -habitable, you know, they should be allowed within the AE area without having an absolute prohibition as initially recommended. And, secondly, if there are going to be any single-family residential lot subdivision, although the zoning would allow it but, you know, that's not the intent, but in the event that there are single-family residential lots then what you want to do is make sure that the respective lot owners know that they cannot build within any portion of the property that's designated Zone AE or shaded X. So that was more just designed for clarification. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comment on this proposal? TAKEMOTO: I understand the AE. Why Zone X? Fi JKE: What is the shaded Zone X? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. FUKE: I had to ask your staff. Maybe Mr. Hayashi can explain that. HAYASHI: The shaded Zone X is an area that's designated for 500 -year flooding. TAKEMOTO: No problem with your clarifications. SPRINGER: I just have a question. Your fourth amendment there, the insertion of the words, "If appropriate a copy of the proposed covenants." What would be an example of the inappropriate case? FUKE: Well, if there's no single-family residential lots. SPRINGER: I see. FUKE: Yeah. So that was the intent, yeah. SPRINGER: Thank you. Commissioners, we've heard the proposed amendments on the Suffolk Development conditions. Do you have any questions or comments on them? 19 GRAHAM: I'd just like to see the public get their testimony in so, cause it helps us focus our interest and all stuff, if we could, since they've been waiting so long. SPRINGER: Yeah, I think, Mr. Graham, what the intention is is to go through these so that the public has a chance to hear what the proposed amendments are, and then we'll invite them up as soon as we finish the Puaa conditions. GRAHAM: Okay. SPRINGER: So, Mr. Fake, if we may then tum to your proposed amendments for the Puaa Development. FUKE: Sure. The proposed amendments I found on Page 1 of what I passed out, conditions, the proposed amendment to Conditions F, G and I, again, would be identical to what we had proposed for the Suffolk project, and specifically to indicate when these improvements have to be in. And what we're saying is that they have to be in prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the non-residential structures or inspection of any, Final Inspection of any residential structures, the so-called concurrency issue that Mr. Takemoto had intimated earlier. Condition J requires like the designation of an easement; and that's very understandable because the County just wants to make sure that there are interconnectivities of road. And, so, what Condition J is talking about is like having an easement that would be directed to the properties to the north. And that easement, you know, if you look at that map over there, would preliminarily be, and it may change, would preliminarily be right after you get off the primary intersection and head north. SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comments on this proposed amendment to Condition J? FUKE: Well, what we were going to suggest was just to add the second sentence like, again, to clarify like when it has to be done. And then, basically, we're saying that the designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a CO for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. Again, it just makes it clear. And, you know, I had to add the easement and its terms because, you know, they're going to be providing the easement. And we would, the respective property owners would still have to get together to figure out like, you know, who's going to do what, what are the liabilities, the interim access, so on and so forth. So that's the description of the easement and its terms. TAKEMOTO: That's acceptable. SPRINGER: Thank you. FUKE: On Condition K was just more an editorial change. That thing was just an omission, the word, minor editorial change, add the term "to" between the words 20 "improved" and "County" in the first sentence. So it would read, "All roadways within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards." So that's an editorial change. Proposed Condition M would be the same thing as what I had suggested for proposed Condition L on the Suffolk project, which was to make clear that you can't have non- structural type of or non -habitable type of activities, you know, within the Zone AE area, such as your parking lot and your roadway and all that. Because if you were going to say that, if you leave it as it is and you have that easement designated as such, then that roadway would not be possible, you know, that north -south roadway interconnectivity. DARROW: I think that's different, Sid. Condition M? Fi_1KE: That would be to Condition M. Correct. DARROW: This is referring to the drainage. Condition O would be similar to the Condition L. FUKE: Oh, you are correct. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry, thank you very much, Jeff. The Condition M, what we're suggesting here was to say that not mandate that the study have to be submitted to FEMA, `cause you already have, an application to FEMA has already been filed, you know, for an amendment. And, understandably, you need to also have like additional drainage study done for all of the planned improvements within the project. And, generally, when you do a drainage plan, that's not subject to any FEMA amendment, you don't have to send it to FEMA. But the way that the language is written it implies, or at least it's not clear, that that same drainage study would have to be directed to FEMA. So we wanted to kind of like make it clear that, as well as like to indicate like when the drainage study would have to be done. So it would read, "The drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval." The drainage study is important to, prior to issuance of Plan Approval. Because once you get Plan Approval then pretty much you're on your way to doing specific design pursuant to the plans. So you need to pretty much know how your drainage system is going to work. And to delete the second sentence, and I just kind of added that, "If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency clearances and/or approval shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the AE zone or the corrected effective base flood plain." So, Public Works reviews the drainage plan and they can say like you need a FEMA amendment. If that's the case, then the plan has to go up to FEMA. So that's all we're saying, which is current law right now. And, then, again, making sure that all of the necessary drainage improvements have to be completed before occupancy is done, the concurrency notion. 21 SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Takemoto, any comments? TAKEMOTO: Let me kind of defer to Public Works. Ki, you got any concerns about this amendment? EMLER: Yeah, unfortunately, I didn't get this recommendation until yesterday late so I wasn't really, I didn't really go over the conditions on the drainage issues very well. I thought our conditions in our Recommendation were pretty well down. But I don't have any objection to the Applicant's proposed changes to the conditions. I think they're well done. Chapter 27 regulates that anyway; and, so, any work in the flood plain falls under Chapter 27. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Emler. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Emler while he's up. Thanks again. And, then, finally -? FUKE: Sure. And, finally, the last amendment is amendment to Condition O, which relates, again, to the prohibition of any type of improvements within the Zone AE or shaded Zone X, like I had discussed earlier on the Suffolk application. SPRINGER: Commissioners, any questions on these proposed amendments? Any other further discussion with the Applicant's representatives before we begin public testimony? DARROW: If I could just ask the Deputy Director a quick comment? Condition O and Condition L of Puaa and Suffolk, would it be more appropriate to say Zone X-500 versus shaded Zone X? TAKEMOTO: Do you know if shaded Zone X is a term of art? It would be clearer if it said X-500, or 500 -year flood plain, or something like that. DARROW: So X-500? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, or then put in parenthesis something like "500 -year flood zone?" SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, is that acceptable? FUKE: Sure, that's the intent. SPRINGER: Thank you. If the Applicant's representatives could stand back now. We have on our testimony sign-up sheet, Joel Gimpel, Harold Murata, Josephine Keliipio, Ann Peterson and Janice Palma-Glennie. I don't see Ms. Palma-Glennie in the audience but -. PETERSON: She left written testimony. 22 SPRINGER: Okay. PETERSON: And she wanted to know if the Planning Department could acknowledge her written testimony out loud. SPRINGER: Thank you. Then I think we have enough chairs for all of you. You've all raised your hands and been sworn in. Before you begin your testimony, if you could please give your name and address for the record; and we'll begin with you, Mr. Gimpel. GIMPEL: My name is Joel Gimpel. I live at 73-4686 Hinalani Street in Kailua-Kona. Good late afternoon. I represent the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. And we've reviewed both the Puaa and Suffolk applications for State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone; and I'd like to combine my comments on those two. I submitted written copies on each so that, to the staff so you'll have it in the record. We understand now that the Puaa proposal is to develop a commercial shopping center in the northern end of the property and housing at the southern end of the property. Principal access, of course, would be from Route 11 at the north end of the property, with a signalized and channelized intersection directly opposite the access to Pualani Estates. And the Applicant also proposed a right -in, right -out only access to Highway 11 at the south end. There would be a road with a 60 foot right-of-way through the project connecting with the Suffolk Investment property immediately makai. We have a number of concerns and suggestions regarding the Suffolk proposal, I mean, the Puaa proposal and recommend as you are doing, that it be evaluated in conjunction with the Suffolk application. Traffic on Route 11. The TIAR predicted that the project would add 3614 trips per day to traffic on Kuakini Highway and Route 11, which is already operating at capacity. But the TIAR, while predicting no change in the level of service at the Pualani Subdivision intersection with Route 11, which should be signalized, failed to take into account the traffic that will be added to that intersection by the 21 -unit Uluwehi Properties Development that has been approved by the County Council, and the 250 -unit rental development that's proposed by Suffolk Investment. And because the traffic counts used for the TIAR were taken before commercial delivery trucks were needed in the area, it also failed to account for the many delivery vehicles that will enter the development, especially in the morning peak hours. Furthermore, the TIAR projected, predicted that the proposed right-in/right-out driveway on Route 11 would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the afternoon peak hours. And, even with the right -turn acceleration lane, entering Route 11 will be dangerous because the speed limit at that point is 55 miles an hour. Second issue: Traffic on Kuakini Highway. Because of the existing and projected congestion on Route 11, we believe (and the TIAR predicted) that many drivers would 23 use Kuakini Highway to access and leave the project, which will invariably increase congestion on that two-lane road and result in increased traffic through the residential development proposed by Suffolk. Third: Trip Length Reduction argument. We understand and recognize that the proposed development will somewhat reduce trip length for area residents to and from commercial and office uses, but it will nevertheless add significantly to the already congested traffic on Route 11 and on Kuakini Highway. We have another, a few other safety issues with respect to the Puaa Development. We're concerned that speeding on the 60 foot wide mauka-makai road to be constructed that connects Route 1 I and Kuakini Highway will raise safety problems, especially as it crosses the proposed 250 -unit housing project makai of the subject property. So in view of those concerns, and of the Mayor's opposition to commercial development, where supporting infrastructure is already operating at capacity, as we know it is, we urge that you carefully evaluate these traffic -related considerations and apparent shortcomings of the TIAR, and delay the project until: 1) the community development plan is in place; and 2) infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. At the very least, we ask that you: 1) Prohibit occupancy until the Pualani Estates/Route 11 intersection is signalized and fully channelized, including a northbound left -tum pocket lane from Route 11. 2) Require the Applicant to provide right -turn deceleration lanes from Route 11 into both of the access driveways, and a right -tum acceleration lane from the right- in/right-out driveway onto Route 11. 3) Reduce the speed limit on Route 11 to 45 miles an hour from Hualalai Road south to the Kuakini Highway/Route 11 intersection. I know that isn't your jurisdiction but that could be your recommendation. 4) Require a left -turn pocket lane from Kuakini Highway into the mauka-makai road, and right -tum deceleration and acceleration lanes into and out of the mauka- makai road at its intersection with Kuakini Highway, and a pedestrian grade separation (either overpass or underpass) or a pedestrian -activated stoplight at that intersection to facilitate safe pedestrian access from nearby subdivisions along Kuakini Highway. Let's get rid of the cars to go shopping a few blocks away and allow people to cross Kuakini Highway into the area. 5) Lastly, limit speed on the mauka-makai road between Route 11 and Kuakini Highway to 25 miles an hour, require a traffic -calming design, and provide sidewalks and bike paths. 24 Briefly, I'd like to outline a couple of the considerations and concerns we had with the Suffolk Investment proposal. We do appreciate that the Applicant proposes to provide much-needed rental housing in the Kailua-Kona area. Nothing in the applications, however, describe the affordability of the rents to be charged. Because the shortage of affordable housing for low-income workers in the Kailua-Kona area contributes greatly to our traffic congestion, we urge that you require the developer to designate a substantial percentage, at least 30 percent, of the units on-site for low-income households, and that in -lieu of fees not be permitted, and that the developer also comply with other requirements for affordable housing that are in effect when construction begins. In addition, we recommend that you require the developer to restore the old Kailua- Keauhou Road, which is the Middle Road that's designated on Page 10 of Appendix D-2 on the application, that runs mauka of the old Kuakini Highway which is the western boundary of the project, and designate it as a bicycle and walking path which will benefit all area residents. We note that the project, that the TIAR anticipates that the project upon completion will add 1405 daily trips to the roadway network. In other words, Kuakini Highway/Route 11 and that Route 11 is already a capacity. Furthermore, the TIAR on this application didn't anticipate the service and delivery vehicles that will be entering and leaving the adjoining commercial complex that was proposed by Puaa Development. So thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: That's a lot to chew on there. But the first thing you're talking about a Community Development Plan that you'd like to see. Is that underway now? I'm not aware of what's going on with the development plan. GIMPEL: Yes, that is underway. The Council is considering the Draft 1 of the General Plan in which calls for the, and will be working on community development plans as well. And that we think is important because the current General Plan, until the revisions are adopted, isn't something to base this on. GRAHAM: I understand. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Other Commissioners, questions or comments of the testifier? The testifier's comments peaks some questions that I have for Deputy Director Takemoto. I'm interested in this failure to take the Uluwehi Development, is that correct, into consideration. I'm also interested in, if the Planning Department took into consideration the increased commercial traffic that would result from this development. And if you could, we had some discussion about the tension between providing much-needed affordable housing close to places of 25 employment and the burden onto the existing roads. Could you comment on those, Mr. Takemoto? TAKEMOTO: As far as the factors that went into the TIAR, I cannot comment on that. I haven't reviewed that study. But, you know, commonly, TIARs can be criticized just like an EIS, you know. Everybody who picks it up has something to say about it. So I would need to take the comments and compare it to the TIAR, and possibly get Public Works' input on that as well. SPRINGER: Okay. Then perhaps a more general statement regarding how the Planning Department evaluates the benefit of affordable housing close to places of employment against the cost of increased traffic? TAKEMOTO: This kind of goes to an earlier question raised by Commissioner McCall, actually, about, you know, the strategy here is to direct growth to the existing urbanized areas, which is called "in -field development," and provided that this in -field development does have an affordable housing component. Because the trend is that the people are being pushed out to the periphery because they cannot afford housing close to town where their jobs are so, which is what's causing these long commutes to Kona. So, to counter that, the idea is to direct growth to the in -field areas, which are the vacant urban areas in existing urbanized areas, that have infrastructure or can be developed to provide infrastructure. As long as there is a component for affordable housing so that these people have a choice to move closer to where they work, we cannot guarantee that that would actually happen. I think the whole exercise here is to provide opportunities and choice; because without even that, we don't stand a chance. And that is kind of a paradox to hear you increasing development in the urbanized area in the interest of reducing congestion, but that is the long-term solution. We need the, the congestion that is occurring now is a symptom of the existing conditions. So we need quick fixes to clear up as much as we can the congestion that's occurring now. But in the long term we need to reverse this land use trend to not aggravate the existing trends. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Takemoto. Commissioners, any questions of either Mr. Gimpel or Mr. Takemoto on this matter? Okay, thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Next, Mr. Murata, if you could please give us your name and your address for the record. MURATA: My name is Harold Murata. My address is 77-6452 Alii Drive, Apartment 305, Kailua-Kona. My compressed statement is the Suffolk-Puaa project should not be approved. The Suffolk Development proposes 300 parking stalls, the Puaa Development proposes over 520 stalls. This kind of high traffic -inducing project, such as these, do not fit into the existing transportation infrastructure in Kona. These projects will further impact traffic flows and traffic circulation, not only on the roadways here in central Kailua and in the vicinity. But if you go mauka, about 10 more miles south, the effects of all these cars that will be generated will spill over to the Honalo-Kainaliu area, and continuing on 26 to Kealakekua and Captain Cook. These areas are already suffering from traffic jams today. I don't know how many of you travel this route, but it can get pretty hectic. Traffic movement at the junction of the two roads, Mamalahoa and Kuakini, is jammed in the afternoons and evenings. On Kuakini Highway going southbound from the junction about three to five miles back, there's a traffic jam, cars creeping along. Some cars will scoot mauka, go to Mamalahoa, and then use that like a grand prix highway to get to the junction so that they can merge into the main line traffic, beat the others who are seating by further back. The drivers are pretty lucky because they can, you know, they can get in, what I call driver courtesy, you know, people are nice. But as projects like this increase the volume of cars, I think that kind of spirit, you know, karma, it's going to diminish. There's going to be driver, drivers are going to cut in and cut off, and that's not a healthy traffic situation. Access from driveways are getting more and more difficult. Farmers are, they have to adjust their life to sell their coffee because of all this heavy volume. If you don't get out in time, you know, it's going to, they have to adjust their lifestyle tremendously, the quality of life. Projects such as this worsens already a bad situation. If you were stuck in Honalo and Kainaliu, you'd go nuts. Signficant adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. You can use your reins and say, oh, slow down. Because once a project is approved, mitigation is pretty much out of the question, but avoidance can. It's time to do some thinking and say, you know, what can we do to prevent the worsening of the traffic situation. So I ask you, please don't approve this project that will add 800 -plus car stalls and over 5,000 average daily car trips. Don't add that to the inadequate transportation infrastructure. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Murata. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, Ms. Keliipio? KELIIPIO: My name is Josephine Keliipio. My address is 76-168 Royal Poinciana Drive, Kailua-Kona. And I have lived in this area, general area, where this commercial area is going to be built. I live on Alii Kai's, sorry, I live on Alii Kai, in Alii Kai Subdivision. It's a very old subdivision. It was built back in the `60s; and I moved into that area in '88. Now, if I were to walk from my home up to this commercial area would be about a little bit over a mile, because I'd have to follow the road up to the commercial area. And as much as this developer thinks that they're doing a good thing for the community, they're talking in terms of it being very car -oriented. In order for them to, in order for them to be useful to the Pualani Estates Subdivision, those people are going to have to cross that very, very busy, busy, busy, busy highway. And highways aren't nice to pedestrians, which means that they're going to have to jump in their cars and still drive across. Okay? So, as much as the developer is saying, oh, you know, this is going to be more walkable, yes and no. It's mostly no. It's still designed for the car. And I'm wondering how am I going to get over there and walk and shed some pounds, 27 which I need to. So it's not quite compatible with our surrounding neighborhoods. And the developer is only looking at how they can accommodate Pualani Subdivision, which is directly mauka of the highway, and how they can accommodate the rich guys in Kahakai Estates, which is about, maybe about 100 lots in there. We have 200 lots in our area. And I think there are lot of people that wouldn't mind walking up there if it was walkable to that area; and it's not walkable. And, so, I wanted to bring that to your attention to maybe quiz the developer on, you know, how walkable is it to the rest of us. I'm below Komohana Kai Subdivision, okay. And, so, how walkable is it for us because they didn't mention us; and, you know, we're kind of off the map over here, you know, where -. So, and, you know, and then this frontage road deal, that's ugly to put a frontage road right next to the highway. That's mainland style. Is there some way that they can hide that behind their building so that it's not obvious? Are we setting a bad precedent for other developers to do the same thing when they want to adjust their development because the land is irregular-shaped? Is that what we're going to do? And another question I have is, now, developer mentioned the town center. Now, you know, usually the community determines who, where the town center is going to be placed. Not, but we're letting the developer tell us where our town center is supposed to be? So these are all the, these are questions that come up that I'm hoping that you guys can quiz the developer on. You know, where I live, actually, the ideal town center for us would be right there next to the Lako Chevron Station. You know, from there south there's all that big area, acreage. That would be really ideal because people already walk across the highway and cars are used to stopping in that area, so it works well for us. But that town center that they're claiming -. And, and, please, can you ask the developer if we can get a rough idea of how large this town center is? Can he give us an example of an existing mall that's here either in Kona or Hilo, so that we can relate to how large this town center, this commercial area is going to be. Now, he cut it in half, right? According to the new, the changes, it looks like only half of this Puaa project is going to be the commercial area and then they're going to put homes on the other side. And, but, you know, you still want to know what kind of impact it's going to be, how ugly it's going to be next to the highway. And that frontage road really bugs me, because even though he has permit for that secondary access and even though his traffic study says that it's not going to affect us, it will. Right now there's nothing there, so the highway flows very smoothly in that area, very smoothly. And to put two, even if it's a right -turn in, right -turn out, it still affects traffic. And then I question that secondary access because right after that is the tum -off to go down Kuakini, and, so, this sort of disrupts the driver before the tum -off. And I'm just wondering, you know, what kind of impacts that secondary access is going to be to the next turn-off down in Kuakini. So, you know, there's just so many questions. I don't really think that this development is ready for, to go; and I think maybe we should wait until like two other people have WO said, wait till the regional plans are in place and the community can have better input into where our town center should be located. So, let's see what else that I want to say. Also, if this thing goes through, and if it goes through because they're going to put in all the housing, would be good to put in senior housing because I think Kona is very limited in that. And there was a woman that came, she left, she's trying to get into senior housing. So, those are considerations; and I think that, oh -. Mauka-makai road, one last thing. I have a real problem with mauka-makai roads. I live on a very important mauka-makai road where speeding was the norm until we had seven speed humps put in about three, four years ago. And, so, this mauka-makai road, maybe the developer can design it in such a way that it is no more than an eight percent slope. And the reason for that is if there's a speeding problem, it's easier to put in speed humps or some kind of traffic calming when it's not as steep. And in order for the, you know, the developer to put in a gradual less than eight percent slope road, he might need to start that mauka-makai road further up by the highway rather than, you know, in other words, to give more land for sweeping curves, more curves, to accommodate eight percent slope. But these are things that, can you guys please ask the developer abou? Because unless it's resolved, I don't think that this project should go through. Thank you. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Commissioner McCall? Question for the testifier? MCCALL: Yes. Could you identify where your subdivision is on the map? KELIIPIO: Where is it? DARROW: Royal Poinciana, this is Royal Poinciana here. What's your cross street? KELIIPIO: I'm way down at, it starts with a P. DARROW: Pakalana? KELIIPIO: Pakalana Road. DARROW: Pakalana, so that would be right in this area. The area that we're looking at in this application is here. You can see the streets. It appears that -. NOMURA: Microphone, please. DARROW: Oh, thank you, sorry about that. It appears to be able to access the Hawaii Belt Road. You have to actually go from Royal Poinciana or these subdivisions here, come up to Kupuna Street and then access off of Lako Street. 29 KELIIPIO: I'm .7 miles from that intersection, yeah, from that intersec —, at Lako and the Queen Kaahumanu; and then I'd have to walk across to that shopping center. That's going to be a real challenge, yeah? MCCALL: And my other point would be that still might be closer than driving all the way to Keauhou, or over to KTA, or something. KELIIPIO: So still jump in my car? You don't believe in walkability? MCCALL: No - SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner -. MCCALL: I'm not here to testify. But I'm just saying that even if you have to, some people will need to drive. They can't go to -. I mean, if they can go to shopping center or close enough to anybody that they can walk, that would be great. KELIIPIO: Mr. McCall, this is Kona. We have the weather to walk. Fifty percent of us are obese. Look at me, I'm on Weight Watchers, you know. So we need to walk, we need to be encouraged to walk by putting in the right developments that make us do that, make it pedestrian -friendly. Right now, everyone is designing Kona to be car - oriented. It's a real turn-off, well, for people like me. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, two things. One is, after I ask my question, if you, I'm going to ask Mr. Emler to comment on your questions about lowering the speeding by, you know, changing the grade or the speed bumps and that sort of question that you raised. But, first, I want to ask you if you have any concrete suggestions for making the area more walkable, more pedestrian -friendly. If you were me or if you were the planners or, you know, Mr. Fuke, and you wanted to plan for pedestrian access from any of these surrounding areas to this commercial complex, what would your suggestions be? KELIIPIO: Open up Kahakai Estates so we can go up that road, nice area. Or, let's see, we have a vacant property above us, there's some archaeological, it's vacant, you know, put a pedestrian walkway through that property so we can access Kuakini, to stop the traffic on Kuakini so that we can walk across it. You know, I mean, we could probably go down to Kahakai Estates and cross there but, you know, make the sidewalks super big, super wide so that the cars know that they need to stay back from the pedestrians. Improve the sides, the shoulders of Kuakini and Queen Kaahumanu, make them super wide so that pedestrians know they're safe. See, that's the problem, we're not safe when we're walking next to the road. You know, we've had people get killed on Alii Drive, you know. And this is a, these are two highways, and especially in that area. So, you know, it needs to be, somebody that's a pedestrian planner needs to come in here and help us. kro SPRINGER: Thank you. Follow-up? SIRACUSA: Okay. My second question was for Mr. Emler from Public Works, to come up and comment on your remarks about changing the grades so cars can't go so fast and that they could put in speed bumps. EMLER: Yeah, generally, we wouldn't restrict the grade on a local street to eight percent. However, Josephine has some knowledge of the guidelines for installation of speed humps because they were done in front of her house. Correct? Eight percent is the guideline maximum; and that is part of a, I believe it's part of the Traffic Code. I'm trying to think which code it's part of, but we do have some speed hump guidelines. The installation of speed humps in a County road that's proposed for dedication to the County would be sent to the Traffic Division for review and comment. I do not want to make a commitment at this point as to whether that would be allowed. However, I do concur with Josephine's understanding of the maximum grade. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No questions. SPRINGER: Okay. Other Commissioners? Thank you, Ms. Kehipio. Ms. Peterson, your name and address and then your testimony, please? PETERSON: Aloha, I'm Ann Peterson, 77-180 Kekai Place, Kailua-Kona 96740. Before 1 begin my testimony, I just want to say a little bit about traffic calming. And there are many, I don't like speed humps, personally. But there's all different other ways, bulb -outs and chicanes; and there's a lot of ways to get really creative that have been done in communities all over the nation that can slow people down. We know when we built mauka-makai's wide, 60 -Foot wide on a slope, that people are going to speed. So, you know, that should be built into any project that you guys take a look at. When I sat down here I was really in support of this project. I like Josephine's idea aboul having the community decide where a shopping area should be, but I am really supportive of shopping areas in, near neighborhoods. We need small, little units. I've lived in Japan for three years before moving here and there's zero zoning there. It was so convenient to walk right across the street to the drug store, get my hair done, go to the fish store, the tofu shop, everything was right there. It was wonderful. I didn't own a car before I moved to Hawaii and I've gained 40 pounds in 10 years; and I've lived in cold climates and, you know, it was never a problem. 31 And that's why I'm here today, is if this shopping area has the right kind of stores in it, not like the Pines. I don't know what happened to the Pines. I think that was a good idea that went bad. Now, who does that service? It draws people in. It doesn't have the kind of service stores that this kind of neighborhood needs -- and I don't know if that's something that you guys can control -- needs a supermarket, needs a laundry, you know, those kinds of things, a hairdresser that will service the people around there. I have a, this area was a real heartbreak for me. The old Walua Road, biking/pedestrian scenic route, if you're familiar with that area, it's up in the Sunset Subdivision. And we worked really hard to get that opened and we were going to extend that down into town. Mayor Yamashiro was on board with that. Henry Cho was on board with that. Curtis Tyler was on board with that. Peter Young was on board with that. We went on hikes in there. We brought in consultants from the mainland to help us figure out that we could use the two culverts that are there near Lako Street to go under the highway, you know, divert the water into one and have the other for a pedestrian/bike access. When I saw the construction going on in there in the storage unit, and talk about a total mis-use for that area, that's the kind of thing that belongs in the industrial areas. I don't know how that got in there. I was told in the Kona side Department of Planning by Norren that if anybody touched that right-of-way, they'd be "in big trouble;" and I don't want anybody to be in big trouble. But that, we found out later that got sold, that alignment got sold; and not only got sold once, it got sold six times by the State. And, yeah, I don't know how that kind of thing can happened but there's this major disconnect. This pathway was on the State Bike Plan as a bike route. It was on the County Department of Public Works Roads in Limbo to be a bike plan, to be a bikeway, bike and pedestrian -way I should say. But from what I understand, when the request comes through to purchase this, it doesn't, it goes to the Department of Finance. It doesn't go to Public Works. It doesn't go to, you know, the right people that have this broader vision of what's happening; and, so, this is a tragic disconnect. When I hear the developers talk about neighborhood -friendly and pedestrian -friendly, this could really be a wonderful little development, I think, in my head, but it needs to bring down the people - I'm sorry, I'm cold, I'm not scared, I'm just shaking - to bring people down from Sunset Subdivision and Kailua Village, or whatever, Kona Heavens, whatever they call it, Kona Heights, I don't know my subdivisions, sorry, but, and from down Lako Street. But as Josephine said we need more pedestrian -friendly. And that frontage road doesn't say pedestrian -friendly. It says you've got to get in your car to get here. Doesn't it? So I'm going to leave it at that. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Are there any questions for the testifier? Mr. Takemoto, then Commissioner Siracusa. TAKEMOTO: Ann, I'm a little bit confused on the Walua Road Extension of that pedestrian -way. Was the intent to come down Lako Street, cross Kuakini and then use 32 that old Kuakini Highway right-of-way that goes through the property? Is that what you're saying? PETERSON: Yeah, that Kailua-Keauhou Road. You know how Walua Road is, it's Walua Road up there and then when you get down by Tres Hombres, it's Walua Road again. Well, that, there's, if you look on the map, that old alignment is there, and I think on the older maps that was called the Kailua-to-Keauhou Government Road or, you know, it's gone through a number of names depending on which map you look at. But we weren't really sure how people would get from the upper to the lower; and that's why we thought initially they could cross at Lako Street. But the ultimate would be to open up that culvert and have, and extend. The road actually, the alignment actually extends behind that car dealership, Orchid Isle. And there could be a little switch -back down to the culverts, come under the culvert, and continue on along that alignment. Now, you know, I do want to say that the alignment is gone; and I don't think that it needs to be on that exact spot. You know, it could be closer to the highway, it could meander through this development. The developer should not be, you know, constrained in any way, I think, by this old alignment, even though there's some wonderful berms in there. It's just a beautiful old highway, scenic. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. Is it appropriate for me to ask a question of the developer or Mr. Fuke? SPRINGER: He'll be coming back. If you can reserve your question for him when he returns to the table. SIRACUSA: Okay. SPRINGER: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments for the testifier sitting at the table? I do have a question for you, Ms. Peterson. You mentioned Janice Palma-Glennie's testimony. You're saying that it was left with the staff, was it? PETERSON: She said she was going to leave it with -. HAYASHI: Yes, she gave the testimony to the staff. SPRINGER: Thank you, Norman. Has that -? HAYASHI: We'll make that as part of the record. SPRINGER: Has that been distributed or -? HAYASHI: No. She only had left one copy. SPRINGER: Thank you. 33 HAYASHI: So we could circulate it. SPRINGER: Okay. And it will also be copied and entered into the record. Thank you all. PETERSON: Aloha. SPRINGER: Aloha. PETERSON: Can I just applaud you all. It's really commendable what you're doing; and I know you're volunteering; and -. SPRINGER: Thank you, ma'am. If the developer's representative and the consultants could come back to the table, please. Mr. Fuke, may we invite Commissioner Siracusa's question at this time? FUKE: Sure. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SMACUSA: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you, I assume you were listening to the comments from the people that came up to testify from the community, and Mr. Cook as well. And I'm wondering if there is any way that you folks can see to address some of the concerns that were raised by members of the public in terms of moderating your plans in some way here and there and possibly cost-effective ways to address some of those issues that they raised? Or, would you be willing to, if we were to say let's defer to give you a chance to go back to the drawing board, and look and see how you could make a win-win for the community, as well as for your development? FUKE: One of the Applicants is here so I just as soon defer the question, the issue on the deferral issue to, you know, Mr. Cook. But before he responds, I think that there were like a number of suggestions that were offered. I think that, I'm not necessarily speaking for Mr. Cook but, I think, you know, just overall like from the standpoint of like the mitigation, the added mitigation, they can be accommodated. I think there has been some misunderstanding in terms of like when Mr. Riehm talked about like the village concept that the whole place is going to be, it had to be like pedestrian -accessible. And it was clearly, and I think as Commissioner McCall accurately pointed out, that the project, the commercial component was, you know, within the project component, plus the multiple -family portion that, you know, you could start the beginning of what, I guess, what Ms. Peterson was talking about, just trying to create a greater sense of village environment within the project. You can't go beyond that. But in terms of the beyond component, trying to minimize like the visual impact of, number one, like not having, you know, the sprawl, you know, the strip mall kind of 34 notion, by having this kind of revised proposal, I think, eliminates, visually eliminates that kind of notion. You can also have, introduce extensive landscaping within the proposed right-of-way, not the proposed right-of-way, but within the parallel roadway. You know, that would help visually screen and try to create more like a village enclave. We can't do much in terms of providing pedestrian movement from other subdivisions to over here. But within the project area to make it pedestrian -friendly, it can be done; and it has been suggested and made conditions, such as the provision of curb, gutter, sidewalk along the main spine, the spine -way. There were also discussions about, to further the notion of like a pedestrian -friendly along the Kuakini Highway portion, for example. It could possibly be, and this is something, I guess, Mr. Cook and Suffolk would have to look at, is, since they already have to make improvements to the Kuakini Highway, as proposed by the Planning Director, that you could have like a pedestrian -activated crosswalk, you know, as they have like in Kailua and other areas, you know, to make it more "like whatever you can," to make it more and more pedestrian -oriented. COOK: Yes. Listening to some of the comments by these folks, they bring some good points; and I think the first gentleman who spoke was referencing traffic concerns, speed limit and on the highway. Now the Hawaii Belt Road, the speed limit is 55 miles an hour in that area. When the traffic light goes in, I'm not sure but I think that would automatically reduce the speed limit to 45 miles an hour. I think that that is much better; and that's a preference to have that lower speed limit on the highway. And we will work with DOT and try to see if things like that can be accomplished. Some of these other comments of concern about how the intersection would be designed, the main intersection coming in connecting to the intersection at Pualani Estates would be a complete DOT -required intersection, which would be a deceleration lane and acceleration lane. There would be a pocket lane turning north. Then the southern right - turn only, again, there would be a deceleration lane; there would be an acceleration lane. The intersection of the new, they're calling it the Spine Road, to Kuakini Highway, the requirement there I'm sure will be there will have to be a pocket lane for the left -turn. So I think many of those issues, and I would like to meet with him, that gentleman, and talk to him further about it, `cause it seems like he has a lot of knowledge about traffic; and, certainly, that's an issue that we really want to make sure we all work together on. Some of the other issues, Josephine was asking about the percentage of grade on our project. And as I look at the topography map, it looks like that the roadway could be designed, for the most part, with possibly an 8 percent grade. As I looked at the current topo at Kuakini Highway, our elevation is in the neighborhood of 260, whereas when we get up to the main highway it's about 330. So I don't perceive it as being a steep intersection or a steep roadway. Lessening the speed limit in that area, too, is a good idea. I think that's good. 35 Josephine and, also, Ann were both mentioning, you know, how you can get pathways through different given areas; and we would be certainly willing to try to look at different areas. We don't control adjacent properties. But as I look at Royal Poinciana, that road goes up, and it just stops before it gets to the highway. You know, we would certainly try to work with them and see if there's any way we can get pathways and things like that to better accommodate people that want to walk, even if it's a distance to go to the store. The type of project we're proposing is truly what I feel like a Neighborhood -Commercial. We're not trying to create any big box stores. In meeting with the Planning Director and staff, we were sensitive to not creating a shopping center that would have a, like an Office Depot, or something that where people from outlining areas would come into there specifically. We're looking at more like a supermarket and getting some banks in there, getting a satellite post office in there, hair salons, barbershops, a restaurant -- a restaurant more fitting like the Kona Ranch House that we all had that we all enjoyed here for so many years -- health food stores, a bakery, a mix of office space, small retail shops, maybe a drugstore and then the gas station, car wash. We have two car washers in West Hawaii, one of them is by the County offices, it's very congested. The other one is out past Honokohau Harbor. Simple thing like that, we're driving all the way out there just to get our car washed. We're on the road creating more traffic. So we would want to work with the community; and we're not calling this a regional shopping center. It's just a neighborhood shopping center for the people of that area, and we will be soliciting their input as to what they would like to say in the way of retail shops and businesses there. SPRINGER: Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes, thank you very much for clarifying a lot of that. And I'm wondering if I look over can I see, you know, any kind of response from the testifiers as to how they, you know, feel, if they would be able to work with the developer on addressing some of those problems? SPRINGER: I see that you're nodding assent. If you have a verbal response, if you could come to a microphone, please. And, again, this is Ms. Peterson. PETERSON: Aloha. Just to say Joel had to leave, but his comments are from the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. Those are created by the whole committee, so you might want to come to one of those meetings sometime, get on the agenda, and hear the input from everybody. He kind of drafts something and everyone throws their two cents in. Your comments were encouraging, you know. I just, I hope the County can help get on board with, and figure out some way to complete that pathway. I know Roy has a passion about this as well, and I'm glad he's on board. And I know that having Michael Riehm at the table, he's very pedestrian -oriented, and that makes me feel very comfortable. SPRINGER: Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Commissioner Siracusa. 36 SIRACUSA: Thank you. Mr. Murata, did you want to respond to that, also? MURATO: I'd like to give additional comments. SIRACUSA: Please, I would like to hear your comments, yes. SPRINGER: If you could please come to the microphone. SIRACUSA: I'm looking for a win-win here. SPRINGER: And if you could please come to the microphone, Mr. Murata. MURATA: I would like to comment, perhaps this is more to the Commission than to the developer. It has to do with 60 foot roadways. They're magnificent. They add a lot of traffic. I don't know, I think Deputy Director Takemoto may know. The right-of-way on Kuakini Highway when it ends in Honalo, then it comes, it goes into a country road in Honalo and the greater part of Kainaliu. I understand the right-of-way is 30 feet. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO: I don't know the exact right-of-way but it does narrow, because it turns into from a State highway, it turns into County, County road, through that town, and then it picks up again as a State highway. MURATA: Yeah, it's just mind-boggling to have so many, such a wide, large capacity for cars, you know, getting into constriction. So my question is how are issues such as this addressed? I think it's beyond the scope of the project itself. But it's the impact of the project in an urban area having a tremendous impact on the country road; and, so, that's my comment. SPRINGER: Mr. Murata, thank you for that comment and the question in it. Mr. Takemoto, can you respond to his concern of cumulative impacts and enlarging highways, which eventually narrow down to County roads? TAKEMOTO: Okay. When you're referring to the 60 -foot road, you're referring to the proposed mauka-makai that will eventually connect to Kuakini, yeah, the lower, the County Kuakini. And, if that's the case, then what they're dealing with is our existing road standards which require a 60 -foot for a collector. We can, so they're only doing what we told them to do, is my point. But aside from that, we recognize your concern that our current County standards need to be re -looked because it does encourage, it is very vehicle -oriented, very, it's designed to be as maintenance -free as possible. So you just pave as much as you can and minimize the landscaping; and that needs to be changed, we understand that. Within the 60 foot right-of-way, you can have a narrow travel -way and have more space for pedestrians and bicycles. So the width of the right-of-way may not necessarily be the issue, it's how you design within that right- of-way. And we can control that through subsequent phases of the project, whether 37 through Plan Approval, or if they come in through subdivision, we can do it at that stage as well. SPRINGER: I think the concern is also when that broad thoroughfare feeds onto the narrow County road. TAKEMOTO: When it intersects with Kuakini? SPRINGER: That's correct. TAKEMOTO: Okay. SPRINGER: Or with the traffic that's going to be coming out of this subdivision and eventually going up to Honalo where it narrows down again. TAKEMOTO: Well, the whole function I see as then value of that mauka-makai road is to provide another means for the residents within that project to get down to Kuakini, if they're heading to, say, Kailua. Instead of having to go all the way up to Kuakini, the upper Kuakini or Queen K, or actually it's Queen K at that point, loading up that highway for a short distance and coming back down to Kuakini, so avoiding that segment. So just bringing them down, and then they have a choice to go to Kailua. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: If that's the primary purpose, then I think we should be considering that a lot of those households would have children. They would be doing a lot of walking and running, a lot of them would have bikes. And, so, if some of that 60 -foot wide area could be used possibly for a bike lane, that might narrow the actual motor vehicle part of it and create an area where, that would be safe and that would encourage this pedestrian and biker -way. And you can lose a lot of weight riding a bike, too, you know. And I'm wondering if the developer would be willing to consider something like that as part of that 60 -foot wide road. COOK: Well, right now, as I stated, the County requires for a collector road a 60 -foot wide right-of-way. In Michael's layout, you'll notice coming off of that through the rental housing project, we have a much narrower road; and then going into the little neighborhood shopping center, again, it's a narrow road. Those would both be private roads wherein we could design the roads where they're more narrow, it slows traffic down, you have street trees; and that would be the intent. The area that runs through the commercial, what we're trying to propose is something like this where you have parking on the side, trees, a narrow road where you don't have traffic moving quickly. The neighborhood shopping center would own this road in private. The rental housing project would own this road in private. But we really, at this time, have no control over the 60 -foot wide corridor. It's a County requirement. FUKE: So if I can add to that -. 1E SIRACUSA: And the County requires that it all be used for four lanes, or whatever it is, or -? FUKE: No, if you look at the, Commissioner Siracusa, if I might direct you to Condition 8 that the Director has proposed. Basically what you're saying is that the Applicant has to, within the existing 60 -foot wide right-of-way, construct a roadway in that area with curb, gutters and sidewalk to County dedicable standard. So as Mr. Takemoto has indicated, if the County requires other improvements that would still satisfy the dedicable standard requirement, then that is the requirement that the developer has to comply with. So, you know, hearing what the community or members of the community raise relative to how to make it more pedestrian -friendly, if the administration is in a position to require that in conjunction with the Construction Plan Approval process, then the developer has to comply with. SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comment? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. Commissioner Siracusa just raised another point about children; and Kahakai Elementary School is possibly within walking -biking distance. And, so, the comment raised by the Kona Traffic Safety Committee about a safe pedestrian crossing at Kuakini, is that something already being incorporated? FUKE: Yeah, like I was, actually, I had a proposed language along that line but I didn't clear it with Mr. Cook. But, you know, they already have to make improvements along the Kuakini Highway section, you know, channelizing intersection and all that. So, if you were to amend Condition I on both applications to just read, you know, like if you look at on Page 2 on Condition I, this would be the Suffolk Investment, you know, `cause it's the same for either Suffolk or Puaa -. And if you go down to the first, second, the third sentence, it reads, "required improvements may include but not be limited to pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities." What I would suggest is that after "pavement and shoulder widening," you put in "pedestrian -activated crosswalk." PUBLIC: On Kuakini and Queen Kaahumanu Highway? FUKE: At the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, it would be a truly signalized intersection. So it's almost a mandate that they would have like a crosswalk at that point. PUBLIC: Okay, but -. SPRINGER: Excuse me, if you have questions if you could come forward and put them into the microphone. But if the testifiers could sort coalesce your thoughts and just bring them forward, that would be good. Okay. So, Mr. Fuke, in response to what we heard from the back of the room, you were saying that when the traffic signals are installed, there will be a crosswalk there. And what we're talking about now is across Kuakini to have a pedestrian -activated crosswalk. Is that correct? 39 FUKE: Yeah. That portion of Kuakim is under the County's jurisdiction; but the Queen Kaahumanu Highway portion, the Hawaii Belt Highway, that falls under the jurisdiction of the State. So if the State requires it or does not want to have a crosswalk, then there's very little that the Applicant can do. But there is a provision here that already states that they have to do whatever is required by the State to fix up that intersection to provide, you know, a four-way traffic system and the left -turn movements down to makai. SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, could you refresh my memory, and do we have a timeline on that traffic signal? FUKE: Sure. Both of them would be, as the suggested amendments I had offered earlier, would be prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for any activity on the property. SPRINGER: And do we have a timeline on the signalization of that intersection? FUKE: If you were to amend Condition I and put in the section that I just read, "the pedestrian -activated crosswalk," and the last sentence to Condition I would be as what I had read at the beginning of the meeting where like these improvements would be in prior to issuance of occupancy permit. SPRINGER: But what I'm wondering about is the signalization of the intersection on Kaahumanu Highway. Do we have a timeframe for that? FUKE: Same thing, too. SPRINGER: What date would that be then? COOK: Excuse me. I talked to the developers of Pualani Estates and they said that their plans are in now processing for the street light. They said that the roadway from Hualalai coming down to their project would be completed probably within a year; and they said that, at that time, they have to have the street light. So, to give or take six months, I would say between a year and 18 months that traffic light would be in. It would be a three-way traffic light. If our project is approved and going forward prior to that, we would hope to have our design done so that it would be completed at the same time their work is going on. SPRINGER: So about 18 months? COOK: Right. SPRINGER: Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? O GRAHAM: I just had one question for Mr. Fuke. It's sortof off topic of what we're talking about but it's with regard to the Suffolk project with the rental housing and there's going to be like 20 years held in rental housing. What does it mean when it comes down to ownership and stuff like that? Does that mean that Suffolk will continue to own the, all the property for 20 years and have somebody manage rentals, or what does that really mean as far as what's going to happen? COOK: My conversation with them, they intend to develop it and own it, I think. Now, that's not to say that they might not sell it in the years to come, but it would still remain the rental project. We didn't put the 20 -year date in there. The Planning Department did that. GRAHAM: So what does it mean? Let's say you sell something and it's going to still be a rental project. What does that mean, you put in some agreement, some sales conditions on a sale that -? FUKE: Oh, yeah, yeah. GRAHAM: That you can't occupy it or -? I just wondered, is that something that's commonly done -? COOK: Would that go with the deed? GRAHAM: Is that a problematic issue or what? FUKE: Yeah. That would go with the deed as part of the disclosure, correct. GRAHAM: And that's something that's commonly done so there's sort of language that's already established for doing that kind of thing -? FUKE: That is correct, yes. GRAHAM: That will keep it in rental? FUKE: Sure, yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. SPRINGER: At this time, I'd like to offer Ms. Keliipio the opportunity to comment. I think Commissioner Siracusa had asked about a response. If you care to say anything, a couple of the other testifiers have come forward. KELIIPIO: I think the Commissioners haven't asked them how large this project is going to be, and I think, to me, that's still a concern. Because, I guess, what I'm still looking at is how much of the highway traffic is it going to attract into that area 41 and to make sure that it is for the surrounding neighborhood. So, but if it is, I mean, it's good. It's good to have something like this if it's to service all of us, so that we all can get there and not necessarily on our cars. So that's kind of what I wanted to know, is like how large is it; and I think Ann had some other concerns about pedestrians. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Can her query about, I guess, the total number of acres or units -? COOK: I think she's addressing the size of the neighborhood shopping center. And, in general, as I said, we were looking at a supermarket, and we're looking at a supermarket, and something similar to the one in Waimea. If you take a look at the Safeway at Crossroads, I think it's about 44,000 square feet. We're looking at something more in the 35,000 square foot range for the grocery store. And, like I had said, we were going to be trying to get the banks in there, satellite post office and the amenities for a neighborhood shopping center. The Planning Director did restrict anything in excess of 45,000 square feet. So the, as we said earlier, we didn't want big box stores in the neighborhood either. We want to just have a truly neighborhood shopping center. And if we get through with the Planning Commission and before we go to the County Council, we would be trying to meet with people in the community and see what they want to see in that neighborhood shopping center. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Cook. So, Mr. Fuke, would that take the form of some organized public meetings with the members of the surrounding neighborhoods? FUKE: Yes. And related to that, you know, I don't want to leave that point out but as what Mr. Cook was referring to is a proposed Condition D by the Planning Director under the Puaa Development which restricts the no -single commercial business shall have more than 45,000 square feet. So that condition automatically eliminates those big boxes type and tries to create more like a pedestrian or village type of atmosphere within the commercial area. SPRINGER: Thank you. We've allowed a full and free discussion. We still have many more agenda items before us. We have had an expression on the part of the Commissioners to hear from the members of the public that came up to testify. Are you satisfied with the discourse with the community? SIRACUSA: Yes, I am. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Yeah, I feel comfortable that the community has had input; and I think that, it sounds like the developers are very cognizant of the need for community input and the need to fit in with the neighborhood. It sounds to me like they're going to continue to work with the community to fit in at some time. I'm definitely in favor of the project as it is. 42 SPRINGER: Okay, Commissioners, is there any, are there any questions or is there any further discussion with the Applicant's representatives, the consultants or the Planning Director? Mr. Takemoto, do you have any closing comments for us? TAKEMOTO: No, just one loose end. That pedestrian walkway that would possibly extend the Walua Road trail or whatever it is, I'm not sure how to word a condition. There's nothing addressed in here. But should that potential alignment traverse through the subject properties, whether it's Suffolk or Puaa, a condition to the effect that you would be willing to set aside an alignment to accommodate that pedestrian -way? COOK: I think we would work with the community. And I know Michael, he is on the Committee (PATH), I think. Are you still on it, Michael? RIEHM: Yes. COOK: Oh. And if it's appropriate to the properties that we own to help create something that would be a bikeway path, we would certainly work with the groups and community to accomplish that. SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto, are you anticipating including a condition to that effect? TAKEMOTO: Well, that would be the Commissioners' choice to do so. But something I suggest, although when I look at the right-of-way, I'm looking at a map, it does seem to, that old right-of-way seems to be outside the subject properties. But I'm not sure exactly how it goes and would need to have some dialogue with somebody more knowledgeable like Ann Peterson to exactly determine that. But to accommodate the potential that, should that be possible, to have it as a condition. SPRINGER: I'm looking at the Suffolk recommendation sheet for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. And on that map is the treadway that we're discussing, that which arches over the word "urban" and "agriculture." If so, it is outside of the subject property. On the back page where you have the State Land Use Boundaries map -. FUKE: Okay. You're referring to the map, okay, go ahead. SPRINGER: From the map and to our right of the project area, off of Kuakini Highway, there's the word "urban" and the word "agriculture" -. FUKE: Correct. SPRINGER: And there is what appears to be a roadway above that. FUKE: Yes. 43 SPRINGER: Is that what we're talking about? FUKE: I don't know, but there was, you know, that road actually, that sliver actually kind of continued on through the subject property. And what happened was that then the property was then subsequently acquired by the former or former property owners which resulted in the consolidation and resubdivision of the property. So if you're asking of like whether that roadway exists right now on the property -. COOK: Sidney, that is where the self -storage facility roadway goes up. FUKE: Goes up. COOK: There is a reservoir site up there. And, so, it starts right at the south side of our property, actually, within the adjacent property. And that roadway now goes up to the self -storage facility and reservoir, and then wanders back over by Lako Street. So that's not on our property. FUKE: Correct. SPRINGER: So even, so we're discussing a possible treadway that is not part of this subject application. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO: Not so much Puaa, possibly Suffolk, though. FUKE: On that small little portion on the makai section? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. FUKE: Yeah. TAKEMOTO: It could be accommodated within the proposed park area. So -. FUKE: Correct. That absolutely would not be a problem, `cause that's in an area that's all zoned AE right now in the floodway. Can I ask you another question, may I ask the Deputy Director a question? SPRINGER: Certainly. FUKE: You know, not withstanding all of the discussion on this pedestrian or the bikeway area, is it within the jurisdiction of the County offices to require like, you know, within the proposed 60 -foot wide right-of-way to achieve the objective that you were thinking about making as a separate condition? TAKEMOTO: What's ? 44 FUKE: Bikeway, pedestrian -friendly, you know, those kinds of things? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, that will be part of it; but I think that the intent of this Walua pedestrian -way is to provide a north -south off-highway route -. FUKE: Oh, okay. TAKEMOTO: Rather than mauka-makai. FUKE: So from that standpoint and inasmuch as the two makai properties are not part of this petition, then it would not be possible to require any conditions to that. But relative to the Suffolk property, because it falls within the, and it may be within the, you know, the former road right-of-way, you know, we would have no objection, you know, to having such a condition on the Suffolk property. SPRINGER: And that addresses a very short distance of this longer system? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, I take it, but it may not be necessary. Because if it is necessary, it would go through the proposed park area which is in the flood zone. SPRINGER: Yes, we understand the discussion and have agreement then that there would be no condition addressing this because the section of trail or road is already in the open space. Okay. Good. Commissioners, do you have any questions or discussion on this matter? If not, Commissioners, I'd like to go back to the Suffolk Investment, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment application and following any decision-making on that, next take up their rezoning application. So we're returning to Suffolk Investment, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment (04-010) and their Change of Zone (REZ 04-024). Do we have all of our correct papers before us? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Getting away from all the specifics and getting back to the overall situation, I carry along the same concern, I think, Commissioner McCall put forth at the beginning of, you know, how does the infrastructure handle something like this. I feel like it's well-planned with obviously a lot of input from the Planning Department as far as making rental housing, as far as a lot of other things. But still I see the, you know, we have a tremendous primary, primarily traffic infrastructure problem in Kona. And we're, if this is presumably to move forward, then whatever the effects it might have to help solve that problem, it's adding more urbanization which by itself is going to exacerbate the problem. So I think Commissioner McCall's words were conjecture. It doesn't feel just plausible on the face of it, to me, that the net result is going to be a positive one as far as the infrastructure deficit in Kona. As I thought about this as we go along, the last time I can remember voting in favor of a sort of large urbanization project in this area was back at the Kohanaiki one. And that case, you know, that was a year ago; and in that case they were putting forth a big 45 shoreline park that kind of compensates or something. So, you know, the only thing I can see is somehow as we do infill in Kona, we are running out of open space. So, to me, if the developer wanted to put up a real plum to kind of compensate, the real plum would be maybe one of these other two parcels be and totally turn into a public park and open space for Kona, or something like that. I know that's asking for a lot. But I feel like this project, although it's well planned, given the bad infrastructure deficit right now, I think it's going to be more harm than help to it. So I don't feel like I can vote in favor of it, given that overall picture. SPRINGER: Other Commissioners, comments? MCCALL: I guess, a little comment time. I guess, I generally am in favor of this. I think that your comments are very good, Graham, but I think this is a step in the right direction. I think there is potential for more traffic but I also see the potential for this to actually relieve traffic in other areas. I'm hoping to see what the potential for this actually giving us less traffic in Kainaliu, because there's going to be less people living in Ocean View. I mean, I followed six cars from Ocean View all the way to, you know, this morning, I mean, the same six cars, we came all the way from Manuka, you know; and I left them at, when I turned down, you know, right here in Kailua. But, you know, there's an amazing amount of traffic coming from Ocean View. And I see the potential for even two or three of those cars be coming from here from, you know, be generated locally rather than being all the way down there; and same thing whether they're coming from Kohala, or Waikoloa, or Honokaa. Because there's an incredible number of people who are commuting to Kona because that's, because there isn't a place to live here. I mean they're living in garages or living everywhere else. I think there's a good potential for this to actually, it may not actually relieve the traffic situation directly there in, you know, on Kuakini, but I see it relieving some of the traffic situation in Kona. You can have people that are going to live there that may only have to drive, maybe they still have to drive to work but they're only driving five miles to work instead of fifty miles. So I see this as definitely a step in the right direction. I mean, we certainly need the infrastructure also; and I think all the powers that be know that and are working towards that direction. But, I think, to me, this type of development needs to go forward, to me, regardless. I think this is important enough and it, to me, it's definitely a step in the right direction, so -. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: In a lot of ways, this is a push me/pull me. I can see Commissioner McCall's points and I can also see Commissioner Graham's points. And I'm wondering, there was another development on this side that Mayor Kim wanted to delay pending the development of, I believe was, or was it Queen Kaahumanu Highway? Is there a scheduled date for that now; and would that help to alleviate if we said let's hold it off until, just like they did with the other one, would that help to alleviate a lot of those traffic concerns? It would certainly give time for that mauka development to get their traffic signal in and stuff like that, and time for these developers to work more with, 46 closely with the community. Is there anything planned like that that would, on the State level that you know of, that would help to alleviate some of those traffic problems? SPRINGER: Mr. Takemoto? TAKEMOTO: That's actually a really good question. Along Queen K, there was the Clifto's project that you're referring to where Mayor Kim initiated the concurrency policy. The situation there is Queen K is like the only corridor in that region. Mauka of Queen K, there are no County network of roads. Makai there's nothing. So everything flows and depends on Queen K. And the State knowing that had prioritized improvements on Queen K, so the improvements were imminent. And based on traffic counts, that segment of the highway, Queen K from the airport to Henry Street, received the most volume of traffic. So that was a critical segment of the highway. In this case, I can think of two factors that kind of distinguishes it from the Queen K situation. One is that we are working towards a network of other local roads that take off the pressure on Kuakini. We're looking at Hualalai extensions that would give residents a choice to go a further distance along Hualalai and then dropped down, instead of always having to come down to Kuakini and load up that highway, and eventually connecting that Hualalai to Palani, so that it'll totally avoid that Queen K-Palani intersection. And another thing in this segment is the State; the level of service here is not as bad as Queen K; but it is bad and it's getting worse. But the State has not prioritized this area, this Kuakini, as highly as the Queen K improvements. So we're kind of caught in a bind here. So our strategy on, because their plans for Kuakini widening is 10 years out, at least, to get into the ground. So the strategy here was to put a redundant corridor that would take some of the traffic volume off of Kuakini, which was the Alii Parkway; and you know what happened to that one. It's still, it's not a dead issue but having Alii Parkway, or whatever the name is now, if it should come through, it would come out north of this project. And so that segment of Kuakini, should that road be completed, would be relieved of the substantial traffic volume that it gets now. SIRACUSA: Thank you. SPRINGER: I have a -. Do you have any follow-up, Commissioner Siracusa? Do you have any follow-up on that? SIRACUSA: No. SPRINGER: Okay. Thank you. I have a few questions. Does the County anticipate that people will move in from outlying areas or that new arrivals will occupy these newly -built structures if approved? TAKEMOTO: There's no way to control that; and, hopefully, people in the outlying areas just by market forces will be attracted into the infield areas just for quality of life choices. Instead of spending two hours on the road, commuting 50 miles, they can 47 just commute half an hour or less, or even walk. So the whole idea is to provide choice; and by imposing affordable housing requirements and limits, hopefully, that's hitting the local needs. Constitutionally we cannot restrict who qualifies for these homes. But income is the only way we can control it and, hopefully, that will hit the local people already living there. SPRINGER: My tendency is to concur with Commissioner Graham's comments that as well-planned and articulated the proposal as we have before us regarding this project, the existing and surrounding infrastructure is still overburdened. And I haven't heard anything if the Kuakini is not prioritized, and we're looking at a 10 -year timeframe for address of that. That definitely concerns me. To Mr. Torigoe, in our SMA discussion, it was very clear that the Topliss decision directs us to look at all factors, not to focus on traffic -related issues singularly as a reason perhaps to deny an application. Does Topliss apply to Land Use Commission Boundary Amendment applications and the rezoning applications? TORIGOE: I believe Topliss was, had solely to do with the SMA permit application; and so it really doesn't apply directly to this. SPRINGER: Okay. So the scope was limited to the SMA. Mr. Torigoe, it has been a long day. We went through a number of SMA, three SMA applications, where you gave us direction with regard to a split vote, what the outcome would be if there was a split vote. On these items, could you give us a similar overview with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Rezoning? You also gave us some timeframes if we did have a split vote; and if we deferred it, what that implication is to the Applicant. TORIGOE: Okay. Let's see. I think with respect to the zoning amendments, the County Code provides for a decision to be made within 90 days, I believe, after it is transmitted to you, which I think staff indicated that the time of your last hearing on this matter was when it was transmitted to you, or at least that's what staff is deeming it to be. In that case, the 90 days would be up sometime in March, I think, March 2"d. If that is the case then the February 18`h meeting would still be within the initial timeframe for the zoning. I think staff is now checking the Code to see if there's any difference with the State Land Use Boundary Amendments. Staff is indicating that the same timeframe would apply but I -. HAYASHI: There's no timeframe in the Code. TORIGOE: Okay, or that there's no timeframe in the Code with respect to State Land Use Boundary Amendments. So, as far as the zoning is concerned, I think the Applicant also has the option of asking for further continuances or of, well, basically, if the Commission is unable to render a decision one way or another within the 90 -day timeframe, then it either goes up to the County Council with a negative recommendation or the Applicant can ask for further extensions of time. M Staff is indicating that neither the rules nor the Code has any kind of deemed negative recommendation provision. So it seems that there would be the opportunity for the Applicant to request at least some extension of time to try and get a revote on these matters, to see if you can get five votes one way or the other. So it would seem that you got at least one more hearing that you can deal with this; and then, in the meantime, I think we can take a closer look at, you know, what your options are. SPRINGER: Commissioners, do you have a -? Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioners, do you have an understanding of our options that are before us? Do you have any further questions for Mr. Torigoe? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Wasn't it on the, one from the last meeting or something, the one that was on Palani Road that they had a split vote when I was not here, but rather than coming back to the Commission they decided to go directly to the Council? So might that be another alternative for this Applicant? TORIGOE: Right. And that's, I kind of alluded to that earlier in that once you hit that 90 -day deadline, if there's been no decision made on a zoning application, then it's deemed to be negative and it goes upstairs that way unless the Applicant asks for further extensions. GRAHAM: But that only takes place after 90 days? TORIGOE: Right. GRAHAM: Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I have the feeling that the, when we take the vote on Suffolk and Puaa, that we might not get the same mix of ayes and nays. And, so, I know my vote will not be the same on both of those. And I'm feeling that the commercial part of it should probably go on because that can benefit a very wide community without adding appreciably to traffic. Because local subdivisions would be able to go and use that, the services that that would provide, and without increasing density or, you know, putting more cars and people on the road in that area. So maybe, we were planning to vote on those separately, were we not? SPRINGER: That's correct. SIRACUSA: And, so, there is a possibility that, I'm wondering if that would affect the developer's decision on how they would move if one got approved and the other did not. SPRINGER: And my next question would be to the Applicant's representative. You've heard the discussion before us. And what would your pleasure be at this time? FUKE: Okay. First of all, can I just respond-? SPRINGER: Yes. FUKE: To Commissioner Siracusa's question. I think we indicated in the beginning that these are two separate entities and the infrastructure requirement, you know, to kind of make things easier, you know, are very, the requirements are very extensive that no one developer on its own would be in a position to complete. And, so, effectively, the denial of one would essentially result in the denial of the other one, even if you get an approval. Because the conditions would be so onerous to the point where nothing would happen. You know, having said that, I think that we understand like the Commissioners' concern about like, primarily like traffic. And it's really, it's really like an unfortunate situation because you not only have traffic but you also have that issue about affordable housing. And the question is like if projects are denied, then the question becomes who puts in affordable housing? And the only thing that you're going to have to look at is probably like the government. Because, generally, affordable housing conditions are made part and parcel of zoning changes. So you can have the 40 or 60 percent affordable housing requirement changed by the County Council tomorrow, I mean, you know, at its next meeting; but if it's not made a part and parcel of a zone change addition, then it really is like a hollow requirement. You know, you won't have it. The other thing, too, is like the same thing with the infrastructure question, I mean, it is a very real issue. But the question is like if all projects were denied, who builds the infrastructure? And that's very critical because you can stand still and homes will still be constructed on all of those subdivided, existing and undeveloped subdivided properties. They'll continue to be built; and they will not necessarily directly address the infrastructure question. The only way the infrastructure can be constructed, new infrastructure can be constructed, especially in this particular mini -region, is that you have to look at developers. It has to be a participation between the governmental sector and the private sector in getting infrastructure done. SPRINGER: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I want to thank Mr. Fuke for reminding me something that I had forgotten because he said it so long ago at the very beginning about the sharing of the infrastructure costs. And I realize in a lot of ways it's unfair to expect, and the traffic problems weren't of your creation; and, yet, whether your project goes forward or not is going to be dependent to a large extent on those problems that you never had anything to do with in the first place. But, you know, I guess those are some of the facts of life; and maybe we should just go ahead and take our votes and see how the chips fall. M SPRINGER: Mr. Cook. COOK: Yes, just one comment when you were saying earlier, maybe defer a project, deferring a project like we're proposing until the traffic light gets in. In order, if, if we had approval in rezoning today, for us to have our engineers design the flood plain issue and go through FEMA, and to design the State Highway intersections and the Kuakini, it will take us probably three years to get through all that process where we would actually have the site work done before any building starts, be it a commercial building or a rental housing project. In three years from now, our problems are going to be so much more acute than they even are today. I am very, very convinced that what we're proposing to do is going to help. It's not going to eliminate traffic problems at all, and they're going to get worse, but it'll help from getting as bad as it's going to get. Because when you have people living up in Holualoa that have to drive to all the way down to old Mamalahoa Highway and all the way down Palani Road, that creates a lot of traffic; and they're just going to go to the shopping center, go to the grocery store. What we're trying to provide, and it is in a central area, is a neighborhood shopping center where many of these developments and subdivisions that are existing and going to be built, that are already zoned and are on the way, will have a place to shop. And I'm not sure about TIAR's and how you can prove this or that. I just know that, I live here myself, been here 15 years, live up in Hualalai, I fight the traffic like everyone else. We really felt like what we're trying to propose and do is going to be helpful to our community. And I just, you know, as you look at these different neighborhoods and say, gee, if they can come to this neighborhood shopping center, they only have to cross a lighted intersection, it has got to help, it really does. And I have to go to the post office a lot of times, and if it's just one thing to do, and I get my car on the highway and go to Lanihau and fight the traffic and wait in line for 20 minutes. If a satellite post office is right there, in five minutes I'm down there and I'm back up to my house. I mean, it's just, it seems to make common sense that when you look in our community and all the developments in that area, if people can shop right there, it's going to eliminate a lot of the traffic that's out there everyday. The rental housing project that Suffolk is proposing, whether they're going to be people from the mainland renting or locals, we would hope they'll be the local folks, we would hope that there's some way they could get the people from living down south enter our community with a store right there. So if the husband has a car and the wife doesn't, she can take the baby buggy and take the kids up to the grocery store. Our community really is going to need something like this. There's no quick fix and it's not an easy solution. And for you folks it's very difficult. No matter what you do, someone is going to be mad at you. I mean, as a developer, I have the same thing all the time. But we really tried to think through this; and we're certainly open to discussion and dialogue in and people with ideas. But you really have to think seriously when you say, well, we're going to deny this because of a traffic problem. We're really trying to come up with avenues to help mitigate that, so -. 51 SPRINGER: Mr. Torigoe is reminding me that in our advisory capacity as we pass our decision whether it's yea or nay on to the County Council, a record of our discussion would go with that vote, and our concerns would be articulated as a part of that record. And when we come down to deliberating on the particular motions if we're careful to express our reservations, our concerns, those things that we feel positive about the matter, either way the vote goes, that's captured by the record and would be there for deliberation by the County Council should we choose to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I don't mean to be argumentative or anything like that. But just coming off the comments by Mr. Fuke and, excuse me, Mr. Cook, I don't doubt the good intention, I don't doubt the good planning. And, to me, it sounds sensible, what you're talking about with the regional area, what you're talking with the rental housing. But, you know, I've lived in West Hawaii for 30 years now, and I heard comments 20 years ago about how the traffic situation would get bad if this and that weren't done. And, you know, we've had 20 or 30 years of developers coming in and putting in a contribution to the infrastructure and doing all this, but the net result of it was we got a terrible infrastructure problem. So, it didn't have to happen that way. And if something was a little different in government or something was a little different somewhere, it probably wouldn't have happened that way. Those infrastructure contributions by the developers would have taken a different tum or the State would have done something. But I'm not convinced that whatever that little tum is, so that I could feel like, well, from now it'll start working in the right way, I'm not convinced that little tum has happened. You know, and if something kind of convinces me or, you know, that I can see this is on the road to improvement -. Whereas before it was working the same process, developers are putting in their contributions, the County doing what they can, it got worse and worse. I haven't seen that turn yet. So, I just don't feel like I can, I have the evidence that makes me believe now I can see things differently. I can't see things differently. That's my personal feeling. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Graham. I think, and another thing that we're laboring under as a regular user of these sections of highway, regardless of what the miles per hour are indicated on the signs, regardless of whether lanes are double - striped or the center lines are broken, there's just some human behavior isn't all that we would hope that it would be. So, just for myself, you know, I'm looking at what I know about the behavior that occurs on these highways; and I can just weigh in my 52 years of living in Kona. I've yet to see the traffic get better at any given year. But, Commissioner McCall, you've had a chance to express yourself. Commissioner Smith, do you have any comments to weigh in on with? SMITH: Yes, I have. I think this project is great, that we should push it forward. Other than that, I'm done. SPRINGER: Yeah, I think all of us have had a chance to express our reservations, our enthusiasm with the project as well. We've heard from a number of Commissioners to proceed and make motions and vote on them. Again, Mr. Fuke, 52 you've heard our discussion this evening, would you care to request a continuance, or would you like to see us proceed with the vote? FUKE: I think given the situation and as the way you had described, the ultimate decision -maker is, you know, it's really like the County Council; and I think that the dialogue expressed among the Commissioners and, you know, by the public, I think, you know, will all be made part and parcel of the public record. So the Council will be fully aware of like all of the, you know, the agony that the Commission has struggled with. And, so, deferring it for one month I don't think necessarily the outcome will be the same inasmuch as it'll probably the same Commissioners, maybe you might have like a different set of Commissioners but still five or six. And, so, I think it's going to be difficult to achieve like five -way, you know, having five votes one way or the other. So, given that situation, I would suggest that the Commission just take action on it. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. I would just say that the vote that I will cast is with reservations with regard to the discussion that we've had; and those reservations focus on the existing and surrounding infrastructure. This is a well -articulated project that represents good planning. But the context in which it is being recommended, I have concerns with. So anybody else care to weigh in on this matter before we entertain a motion? Would someone care to make a motion? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: I guess, Suffolk is first? SPRINGER: We'll take Suffolk first, we'll take their State Land Use Boundary Amendment application. MCCALL: Okay, Suffolk Investment LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-010), I will make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, given the proposed amendments articulated earlier. SPRINGER: So including the amendments, and the Background Report, and Recommendation of the Planning Director. MCCALL: That's correct. SPRINGER: Thank you. Is there a second? SMITH: Second. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. So the motion by Commissioner McCall and seconded by Commissioner Smith is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council, including the Background Report and the Recommendation of the Planning Director, and all the amendments that have been discussed during this discussion. Is there any discussion? Thank you, Jeffrey. Jeff, if you could take the roll call vote. 53 DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: Thank you. If we could take now the rezoning? MCCALL: For Suffolk Investment, LLC, Change of Zone application (REZ 04-024), I'll make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the Background Report, the proposed amendments and the, what else do I have -. SPRINGER: And the Recommendation? MCCALL: And the Recommendation. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner McCall. SMITH: Second. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. It has been moved by Commissioner McCall, and seconded by Commissioner Smith that a favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone be forwarded to the County Council. Is there any discussion? Mr. Darrow, roll call, please. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. 54 DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: Thank you. You'll be informed in writing of this decision. Sorry. There will be no written communication to you of this decision. It'll move on to the County Council. TORIGOE: Well, are you going to, well, you have a couple of options. Either you can move to defer it until, I guess, the next meeting, or you can just, I guess, you can just let it sit until the 90 days passes and then it goes up with a negative recommendation, unless the Applicant requests for the continuances. SPRINGER: Mr. Fuke, what is your pleasure then, having heard Mr. Torigoe's comments to us? FUKE: Yeah, I think we noted earlier that, you know, given the concerns and the struggles that the Planning Commission has, we don't believe that waiting an additional 30 days will affect the outcome of, you know, today's recommendations. So we would like to suggest that this matter just be directed to the County Council. TORIGOE: I don't think the rules make anything, tell you anything specific about what you do. I guess if you take no further action on this thing then it'll just go up after 90 days with a negative recommendation. SPRINGER: On the Hoawe application, we all received correspondence from the Planning, forwarded to us from the Planning Director that they were going to proceed to the County Council. So would that be the case, might Mr. Fuke send a memo to the Planning Director, and we'd be informed of his action? 55 TORIGOE: Well, it wouldn't hurt for Mr. Fuke to send a memo like that, just, you know, acknowledging that they're not going to be requesting any further continuances. But then he stated down on the record he already, so, you know, it's probably not necessary. SPRINGER: Do we need to do anything more, Mr. Torigoe, on this matter? TORIGOE: Perhaps what would be helpful, though, is for -. I guess, Mr. Fuke, just to be clear, are you requesting that the State Land Use Boundary Amendment matter also be sent up with a negative recommendation? Because this is, I guess, the staff and I looked at the rules and it really doesn't clearly state what happens if you don't have five votes, you know, within the 90 -day period, or any period for that matter. It basically just says that after close of the hearing within, there's supposed to be a decision made. FUKE: The request really would be for both applications inasmuch as they're kind of like, they're twin applications, basically. TORIGOE: Okay. So, I guess, with that request being on record, the, it sounds like the Planning Department would be authorized to go ahead and send the State Land Use Boundary Amendment up with a negative recommendation that is congruent to the treatment of the zoning application. Roy, you have any comment on that? TAKEMOTO: No, that's fine. We'll follow through. SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Takemoto. May we move on to the next agenda item? We tum our attention now to the Puaa Development applications; and we'll start with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. Is there a motion? MCCALL: Madam Chairman? SPRINGER: Commissioner McCall. MCCALL: As far as Puaa Development LLC's State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-009), I make a motion that we send a favorable Recommendation to the County Council with the Background Report and the Recommendation of the Planning Director, as we stated earlier. SMITH: Second. SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioners McCall and Smith. The motion and second is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council. Discussion? Again, I would state for the record that my vote will be made with reservations. Again, it's a well -articulated and well-planned application before us, but I am concerned of the context in which this application is being made and its cumulative impacts on the surrounding community. Commissioner Graham? 56 GRAHAM: I would also just like to add on top of what you just said, and Commissioner Sircusa's comment before, about the value of a commercial center. I do feel, as Mr. Fuke said, that the two really work well, work better together because this commercial center can serve with a walking distance by Suffolk Investment. But if, in fact, that's not there, then the commercial center standing alone looks like sort of a spot commercial zoning to me. So I feel like it's, you know, less attractive alone. Thank you. SPRINGER: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Darrow, the roll call vote, please. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye, with reservations. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: We now take up the matter of the rezoning application. Commissioner McCall. MCCALL: Puaa Development LLC Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-035), I make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the, let's see here, along with the Background Report and the Recommendation from the Planning Director, and the amendments that were articulated earlier. SPRINGER: SMITH: Getting better every time. Second. 57 SPRINGER: Thank you, Commissioners McCall and Smith for that. The motion is that a favorable recommendation for the change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council. Discussion? Mr. Darrow, we're ready for the roll call vote. DARROW: Thank you again, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye, with reservations. DARROW: And Madam Chair? SPRINGER: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. SPRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, will you be taking the same course of action with these two applications? FUKE: That is correct. That's correct. Thank you. SPRINGER: And that would be to go directly to the County Council? FUKE: Yes. SPRINGER: Would you like any more information on the record, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: No, I think that will suffice. Thank you. SPRINGER: Good. Thank you. FUKE: Thank you very much. It was a very healthy dialogue. SPRINGER: Good night. F-3 The discussion ended at 6:44 p.m. 59 spectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary RPuaaDev-REZ04-025.jwd 01-12-05 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of comments from the Department of Transportation, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing, or because of later Department of Transportation comments. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting a change of zone for 14.973 acres of land from an Agricultural (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) district. The applicant is proposing to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas including Pualani Estates and the neighboring subdivisions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway, as well as the proposed 250 -unit rental housing project adjacent to the subject property. The project would include uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. Because the County administration is trying to promote housing in the Kailua-Kona area, one proposed condition of zoning would require some units of housing to be developed onsite (housing is a permitted use in a CN zone). In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The proposed development may be permitted provided that applicable goals, polices and standards of the General Plan are met. -1- The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The project area is designated Urban Expansion Area, which allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial 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. The proposed request is to allow a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas. The area under consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this section of the North Kona District as depicted on the LUPAG Map. The proposed request from an Agricultural -5 acre (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Economic Element * Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. * Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. * The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. The applicant's objective recognizes the growing development needs for the region. The applicant is seeking to provide the community with further neighborhood commercial facilities that take advantage of the site's positive physical and regional attributes. -2- The proposed change of zone request would further the County's goals of providing an economic environment which allows new or existing businesses to expand and diversify the County's economic base, and thereby also increase the choice of occupations. The proposed change of zone request would be consistent with the Land Use and the Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. The request would be consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development, Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan: Land Use Element • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. • Zone urban- and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. • Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. • The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. -3- Commercial Development • Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. • Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities and neighborhoods. • Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers and transportation systems. • Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. • The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. LAND USE — MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate that physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. • Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, and recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. • The County shall encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites, buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements. • The rehabilitation and/or utilization of multiple residential areas shall be encouraged. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. HOUSING 0 • Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. • Maintain a housing supply that 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. • 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. • Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background and income. This proposed neighborhood commercial center would service the retail and office needs of the immediate surrounding areas, which includes, among others, the Pualani Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions. With the extension of the Pualani Estates access road, this road will also provide a direct connection from the mauka Holualoa area to the proposed shopping area. Proposed uses include financial institutions, restaurants, a grocery store, office space, and possibly a gas station. Under the Commercial Development Standards component of the General Plan, a Neighborhood Center is identified as one of three basic types of shopping centers. Neighborhood Centers are comprised of 5 to 15 shops, offer convenience goods and personal services to a market of approximately 3,000 people and are developed on properties 5 to 10 acres in size. Although the property is larger than 10 acres, a portion of the property is located within a flood zone and a large portion of the property will be used for road improvements. Also, a portion of the property will be used for residential purposes. To avoid the larger "big box" type of commercial developments which might draw people from outside the region, a condition will be added limiting the gross floor area to 45,000 square feet for any single commercial business. This 45,000 square foot -5- limit will allow a large supermarket (generally in the 30,000 square foot range) but not a "Home Depot" type "big box" (generally in the 100,000 square foot range). The commercial zoning also allows residential uses as permitted uses. As such, a condition will be added to require the applicant to pay the fair share contribution for any residential units that are developed on the subject property. There may be a concern that commercial development could sprawl along the Belt Highway. The property to the immediate north is currently zoned A -5a, and appropriate controls can be put in if that property comes in for zoning. To the south, there is the narrow triangular area containing the existing self -storage facility, then the Kuakini/Belt Highway Road intersection. To the south of the intersection, on the makai side, there is the Sadie Seymour Botanical Garden (Kona Outdoor Circle), then existing residential developments. There are issues with respect to the reimbursement of costs between this applicant and Suffolk Investment, LLC for shared infrastructure. These are not being made a condition of rezoning because there is a private agreement between the owners regarding reimbursements. Based on the above information, it is determined that the request conforms with the listed goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development and Economic Elements of the General Plan. The Kona Regional Plan Land Use Concept Map designates this area for Residential uses (Res -8). This designation indicates residential uses, up to 8 units per acre. Although the requested change of zone and proposed development are not consistent with this designation, it should be noted that the General Plan allows consideration of commercial zoning to facilitate and/or accommodate the commercial needs of residential areas. As numerous residential subdivisions have been developed in the area of the subject property since the publication of the Kona Regional Plan in 1982, there is a greater demand for the types of services offered by neighborhood commercial centers. There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by rezoning of the project site to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district upon 'a. public utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been identified and assessed and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated within this favorable recommendation. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, police and fire protection. Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which has a 165 and 225 -foot right-of-way. The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to address traffic impacts generated by the proposed development. The report concluded that there will be a need for traffic signals with or without this project at the project's main intersection located directly across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road. There will be a need for a left -turn lane in the northbound direction on the Hawaii Belt Road and possibly a right -turn deceleration lane will need to be added to improve the operation and safety at the main intersection. The report also recommended that a right -turn acceleration lane be added at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection. The State Department of Transportation will also require roadway and/or intersection improvements to safely accommodate the proposed development. All roadways within the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining parcels, will be required to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, and include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. To provide further roadway connectivity in the immediate area, the applicant will be required to provide a roadway connection to the property to the north. If the property to the north is developed, the connection will allow access to the Hawaii Belt Road at the main intersection for this property, thus minimizing the accesses along the Hawaii Belt Road. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 (SUB 7814). The declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "1" be completed as required by the Subdivision -7- Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. A condition will be added requiring the applicant to comply with the conditions of the declaration. The AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow #2, affects a portion of the subject parcel as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The flood way crosses onto the subject property near the middle of the eastern boundary of the property and runs northwest across the property to the west (makai) boundary. The applicant has filed a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway on the subject parcel. The remainder of the property is located within Zone X, area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. Water is available for the development of a neighborhood commercial center. The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will be required to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. As is typical of similar types of rezoning requests, approval of the accompanying change of zone request will require the applicant to prepare and secure approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for the proposed multiple family residential development. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. There are three fire stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. The proposed request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The property is not located in the Special Management Area. The project site is located approximately one mile from the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact recreational resources in the area. Therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. The proposed request will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: The applicant has presented the following information for the Planning Commission and the County Council to determine the valued cultural, historical, and natural resources within the area sought for rezoning: • An updated Archaeological Inventory Survey dated June 2004 conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc.(PHRI), who revisited the project site to update a previous study conducted by PHRI conducted in 1990. Response letter dated May 28, 2004 from Paul Rosendahl responding to DLNR- SHPD's review of the revised archaeological inventory survey (3`d Draft) letter dated April 20, 2004. A Botanical Survey dated October 2003conducted by Winona Char of Char and Associates. No professional survey was conducted regarding fauna resources. The valuable cultural historical and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres confirmed and identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C - shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their ME information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. Two (2) of the burials or possible burials may be within the project site (Sites 14084 and 14126). It is also proximate to the possible habitation site (Site 114123). Regarding flora, the botanical survey reports that the property is no longer used for grazing cattle and Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ilihee, ilima (Sida fallax), koali awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. Regarding fauna resources, the applicant believes that the faunal resources would consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White - eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended treatments for the archaeological sites on the property to preserve the valued archaeological resources of the area. Regarding flora and fauna, none of the identified plants are considered endangered or listed on the National or State Historic Registers. The botanical survey concluded that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. The property is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There has been a survey and an updated survey conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In a letter dated April 20, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division to Paul Rosendahl responding to the 3`a Draft of the revised -10- archaeological inventory survey, DLNR requests additional information and recommendations for a final review and approval of the significance assessments and recommended mitigation treatments. Paul Rosendahl sent a response letter dated May 28, 2004 identified as the 4 I Draft responding to DLNR's comments. DLNR has yet to send an approval letter. Conditions of approval will require the applicant to prepare a Burial Treatment Plan and preserve the burials in place. According to the applicant, access to the burials by lineal descendants will be made available. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from Agricultural (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map), Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. -11- COUNTY OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL - 5 ACRES (A -5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN -20) AT PUAPUA`AIKI IST AND PUAPUA`ANUI 1sT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-17:1. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION I. 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 Puapua`aiki I" and Puapua`anui I", North Kona, Hawaii shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20): Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of this parcel of land, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAHELO", being 792.90 North and 3,701.58 East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 2520 15' 50" 25.39 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2. 2470 49' 30" 51.21 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 3. 4 5 03 7 a 2570 53' 30" 70.98 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2590 17' 10" 52.07 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2530 38' 40" 70.53 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2570 47' 15" 34.22 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2400 35' 40" 69.30 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2490 07' 20" 38.23 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2520 23' 50" 80.60 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; -2- 10. 12. 13. 14 15 16. 2620 55' 50" 18.49 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2500 14' 10" 39.46 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2600 20' 00" 55.26 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2470 18' 30" 25.50 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2590 48' 15" 24.04 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2410 02' 45" 13.13 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 3340 11' 11" 1381.91 feet along Lot 1 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainders of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams and Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8559-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159); -3- 17 18 19- 20 21 22. 23 24. 2440 11' 11" 100.00 feet along Lot 1 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8559-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159) and along the Westerly side of Hawaii Belt Road (F.A.P. No. 11 A-03-69); 3340 11' 11" 425.10 feet along the Westerly side of Hawaii Belt Road (F.A.P. No. 11A-03-69); 490 30' 40" 36.94 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 640 16' 30" 30.78 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 760 57' 00" 33.90 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along of Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 780 13' 40" 95.23 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 580 19' 30" 38.20 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 660 28' 10" 25.69 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; -4- 25. 580 20' 15" 12.14 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 26. 1480 23' 30" 259.96 feet along Lot 1 (Tank Site), being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); 27. 580 23' 30" 56.33 feet along Lot 1 (Tank Site), being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); 28. 1540 11' 1 1" 369.99 feet along Lot 3 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); 29. 640 11' 11" 75.00 feet along Lot 3 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); 30. 1540 11' 11" 416.00 feet along Lots 3 and 5 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainders of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8559-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159) and Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 31. 2440 11' 11" 285.00 feet along Lot 5 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; -5- 32. 1540 11' 11" 98.00 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 33. 64° 11' 11" 123.00 feet along Lot 5 ofPualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; Thence, along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the right with a radius of 56.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 34. 940 15' 20.5" 56.12 feet; Thence, along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 1669.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 35. 1110 23' 00" 747.57 feet; 36. 980 26' 30" 37.85 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 37. 1850 25' 00" 181.16 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams to the point of beginning and containing an area of 14.973 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. in accordance with Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code, the County Council finds the following conditions are: -6- (1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which maybe adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: (A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this 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. Hawai `i Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII -7- v > RS -1.5 i A -la I / AGRICULT RAL (A -5a) RS -7.5 A -5a TO NEIGHBORHOOD OMMERCIAL (CN -20)- 14.971 Acs. Queen Kaahumanu Hwv. — A -5a x 191.90 N 3,101.58 E ! A -5a A -5a "KAHELO',&. A -5a- { —�I70ak A -1a A -5a CN.1 RM -5 RS -15 `V / N A Sa RM -5 rn ii J A -5a m �:? F Kuakini RM -7 - - t° Y - - / RS -1 cv-10 Q fi R - RM -q/ RM- .3 RS -1.5 5 5- CV -7.5 - 8]0 435 0 BIO 1.190 2610 34A0 4.5Fe e AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING COD AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A -5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN -20) AT PUAPUA-AIKI 1st AND PUAPUA-ANUI 1st, NORTH KONA, HAWAII PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII TMK. 7-5-017.001 Date. September 24, 2004 (Puaa Development, LLC: 1146) CPuaaDev-REZ04-025.jwd 01-12-05 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within ninety days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. C. Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. E. If Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. F. The applicant shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt -1- Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:1, at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including, but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -tum lane into T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:1. Intersection improvements shall be as required by the Department of Transportation. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -tum acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures, from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, SUB 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "1" to the main project intersection, including bridging the floodway, to County dedicable standards, and from Easement "1" to the southerly project access, to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. I. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, -2- drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. J. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an easement to the property to the north (TMK: 7-5-17: 2) to permit that property to access the main project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be in a location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. K. All roadways within the proposed development shall be improved County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:19 so that the property can be developed independently of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. L. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. M. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works. The drainage study shall be submitted to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a letter of map revision (LOMR) or a Physical Map Revision (PMR) shall be obtained before any development, other than the work approved under the CLOMR. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel. N. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. O. There shall be no construction of dwellings and related improvements or other substantial buildings within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by any applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. A copy of the proposed -3- covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. P. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. Q. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. R. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows, and shall upgrade the sewer line if necessary. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. S. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. T. A Data Recovery Plan and an Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director, in consultation with the Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. U. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation 0 measures have been taken. V. If the applicant, successors, or assigns develop residential units on the subject property, the applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit ($9,671.44 per single family residential unit). The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit (single family residential units) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit ($4,663.74 per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $96.75 per multiple family residential unit ($224.98 per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities; 3. $297.62 per multiple family residential unit ($444.36 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit ($194.55 per single family residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $2,617.77 per multiple family residential unit ($4,143.81 per single family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste -5- disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway may be credited against the road fair share. W. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. X. The project shall include housing. At least 50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50 units shall be constructed if all the commercial uses exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area. The additional units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area on the project site. Y. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This requirement shall be approved by the County Housing Agency prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite, and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu fees. Z. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. AA. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the 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 applicant, 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 In 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 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). 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. BB. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. -7- BPuaaDev-REZ04-025jwd 11-23-04 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 04-009) CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 14.973 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District and a Change of Zone for 14.973 acres of land from an Agricultural 5 -acre (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial — 20,000 -foot (CN -20) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 15` and Puaapuaanui I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Request: The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to Urban District for 14.973 acres of land; and a Change of Zone from Agricultural (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN - 20) district for 14.973 acres of land. 2. Project Description: According to the applicant, they are proposing to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas including Pualani Estates and the neighboring subdivisions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway. The project would include uses ranging from: • financial institutions • restaurants • grocery store • office space • and possibly a gas station. Tentatively, there would be 93,600 square feet of commercial retail and office space with over 520 parking stalls, including handicapped stalls and the required loading zones. The project would include multiple structures, some which will be two-story in height with a -1- maximum height of 30 feet. The applicant estimates the cost of the proposed improvements to be in excess of 10 million dollars. The cost would include roadway improvements, on-site improvements, landscaping and structures. Supportive Information: The applicant, Puaa Development, LLC, has recently purchased the property with the intent of developing a neighborhood commercial center. The applicant has submitted the following in support of the request. (See Exhibit A - State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone Applications) STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 4. SLU: Agricultural. County Zoning: Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a). 6. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Mainly Urban Expansion Area with a small portion designated Low Density Urban (southern part of property). The General Plan document indicates that the Urban Expansion Area designation allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial 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. Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan adopted by the Planning Commission in April 1984 designates the area as Residential (RES -8). County Zoning: Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a). 9. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies within the Coastal Zone Management area. The intent of the Coastal Zone Management Program is to guide and regulate public and private uses in the coastal zone management area with respect to recreational resources, historic resources, public access to the shoreline, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, marine resources, economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, and beach protection. 10. Special Management Area: The property is located approximately one mile from the shoreline and is not situated within the Special Management Area (SMA). The SMA is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program regulated by the County. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA -2- 11. Subject Property: The subject parcel has a total area of 14.973 acres. The property is irregular in shape. It is located on the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road, directly across of the Pualani Estates Subdivision. The Waiaha drainageway bisects the property, which has affected the configuration of the subject site. The site is vacant of any structures. The property was part of Subdivision 7814, which consolidated Lots A, B and 2 and resubdivided into Lots 1-5. The applicant was Westpro Development, Inc. 12. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Lands in the vicinity of the project area are zoned A- la, A -5a, RS -7.5, RS -10, RM -5, RM -7 and CN -10. Bordering to the west of the subject property is the location of a rezone request from A -5a to RM -2.5 for 14.872 acres, submitted by Suffolk Investment, LLC along with this application, to allow the development of a 250 -unit market rental housing project. Beyond Kuakini Highway to the west is the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, which is comprised of lots zoned RS -10. To the south of the project area is a 2.252 -acre property zoned CN -10 and a property zoned A -5a that has a mini -storage facility, office and residence, which was allowed by Special Permit No. 1003. Further south, across Kuakini Highway is the Kuakini Makai Subdivision, comprised of lots zoned RS -10, and the Alii Kai Subdivision, comprised of lots zoned RS -7.5. To the east and southeast are properties zoned A -5a and RM -5. Approximately 1/2 mile to the south at the intersection of Lako Street and Hawaii Belt Road, there are properties zoned CV -10 that include an auto dealership and a Chevron service station and mini mart building. Pualani Estates Subdivision, which is comprised of lots zoned RS -7.5, is located directly across the Hawaii Belt Road to the northeast. To the north are properties zoned A -5a. 13. ALISH System: The middle section of the property is classified as "Other" Agricultural Lands. The remainder of the property is unclassified. 14. USDA Soil Survey Report: There are two types of soils on the subject property: 1) Punaluu extremely rocky peat (rPYD): This consists of well -drained thin organic soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. The surface layer is black peat about 4 inches thick. It is underlain by pahoehoe lava bedrock. This soil is medium acid. The peat is rapidly permeable, although water moves rapidly through the cracks. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. -3- 2) Kaimu extremely stony peat, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rKED). The surface layer is very dark brown extremely stony peat about 3 inches thick. It is underlain by fragmental Aa lava. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is not suitable for cultivation. 15. Land Study Bureau Rating: The Land Study Bureau's overall master productivity rating for agricultural use is Class `B" or Very Poor. POSSIBLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 16. Flora/Fauna Resources: A botanical study was done of TMKs: 7-5-17: parcels 1, 19, 23, 25 and 26 by Winona Char of Char and Associates. In the report dated October 2003, it states that vegetation consists of kiawe and opiuma forest with scattered koa haole thickets. The report also states that because the property is no longer used for grazing cattle, the Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ilihee, ilima (Sida fallax), koali awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. The report concludes that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. Regarding fauna resources, no professional survey was conducted. The applicant believes that the faunal resources would consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White -eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. 17. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological inventory survey was conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PHRI). A revised report dated June 2004 has been submitted along with a response letter to DLNR-SHPD in response to DLNR's April 20, 2004 comment letter. According to the applicant, the survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were 1n determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non - burial site was a possible significant habitation site. Two (2) of the burials or possible burials maybe within the project site (Sites 14084 and 14126). It is also proximate to the possible habitation site (Site 114123). The applicant intends to prepare the appropriate Burial Treatment Plan and preserve the burials as is. 18. Cultural Resources: The subject site is not adjacent to and/or proximate to the shoreline. The applicant also notes that he has been in this area for over 10 years and has not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. The applicant will make the appropriate access accommodations if legitimate claims are made. The burials will be preserved as is with the appropriate buffers. Access to the burials by lineal descendants will also be made available. 19. Coastal Hazards: The subject property is located approximately one mile from the shoreline, is not an oceanfront parcel, and will not affect, or be affected by shoreline processes. 20. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Approximately 90% of the property is located within Zone X, an area considered to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. The remaining portion of the property lies within the AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow #2. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has been filed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway within the subject parcel. According to the Department of Public Works, the existing culvert crossing upstream at Queen Kaahumanu Extension is a 96" CMP (Corrugated Metal Pipe). The culvert downstream in Kuakini Highway is a 36" CMP. These culverts are not large enough to contain the 100 -year flood event. According to the applicant, a culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated area to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern sections of the property. There may be an issue relating to potential increased runoff due -5- to the added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, in which the applicant recognizes that drywells or similar type of accommodations may be required. 21. Air and Noise Quality: Air pollution in the Kona area is mainly derived from volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide, which converts into particulate sulfate and produce volcanic haze (vog) that persistently blankets the district. According to the applicant, the proposed development should not generate any direct air quality impacts, as the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, with the only discemable air quality impact associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. Noise quality in this area is influenced mainly by traffic along Kuakini Highway and the Hawaii Belt Road, averaging more than 55 Ldn. The applicant intends to install the appropriate landscaping to mitigate noise impacts that may be generated by the proposed development. 22. Visual Impacts: In the General Plan, the Natural Beauty element lists the viewplane from Queen Kaahumanu Highway going mauka and makai (various areas) as a listed vista of scenic beauty to be considered in relationship to the impact of the proposed development. The project site is located between the shoreline and the extension of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Any development of the site will generate some impact to the view of the coastline. The applicant has indicated that the proposed structures will be less then 30 feet tall, which is less than the 45 feet height limit allowed by the Zoning Code. 23. Traffic: The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to address traffic impacts possibly generated by the proposed development, which made the following conclusions: • there will be a need for traffic signals with or without this project at the project's main intersection located directly across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road; and • a left -tum lane in the northbound direction on the Hawaii Belt Road; and • possibly a right -tum deceleration lane to improve the operation and safety at the main intersection. 0 also recommended a right -tum acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection. There are several road improvement projects planned that may bring relief in this area. One is a long-term project proposed by the State Department of Transportation to widen Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kam III Road from two lanes to four lanes. The projected completion date is scheduled for 2011. The other project is the Alii Highway, in which construction is proposed in two phases, with the approximate 2 '/�-mile south section of the road (from Lako Street extension to Keauhou) to be constructed first. The Alii Highway (a.k.a. Kahului-Keauhou Parkway) (hereinafter referred to as the "Parkway") is a proposed 4.5 -miles, 2 -lane road, with bike and pedestrian paths, between Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway from the vicinity of Hualalai Road (north) to Keauhou (south.). This project is on hold until issues regarding funding and identified burial sites are addressed. The Department of Public Works submitted comments with the following recommendations regarding improvements to the roadways: • The 60 -foot wide roadways, depicted in figures 3 and 4, are proposed to serve a mix of commercial and multi -family residential and should be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutters and sidewalk. • Roadway connections to adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the approval of DPW and be open to public traffic. • The Hawaii Belt Highway, fronting the subject property, is under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). Comments and requirements concerning this road should be obtained from the HDOT. Kuakini Highway is a two lane County arterial within an 80 -foot right-of-way. It is our intention to request the entire frontage of Kuakini Highway be improved to the right-of-way property line meeting with the approval of the DPW if zone change amendments are applied to frontage properties. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of DPW. An exclusive left tum lane and a right turn deceleration shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. -7- Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. The TIAR assumes the access roads, including the approach to Kuakini Highway are completed by 2008 and should be required as a condition for granting a certificate of occupancy. • Install street lights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the DPW. The Police Department submitted comments stating that until such time as adequate roads are built to support the ever-growing population, construction, and additional vehicles on the roadways, development needs to follow the County's proposed policy on the principle of concurrency. The Police Department staff recommends the following: • This project access the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension only via existing intersections and that a new intersection not be created due to existing traffic problems on Queen Kaahumana Highway. • Due to existing traffic problems, staff will consistently recommend that new projects along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, its extension, and Kuakini Highway not be granted direct access to the highway. • The developer work in conjunction with other landowners along this corridor and develop a secondary road to provide north and south ingress and egress from the development. • If this development is unable to coordinate a secondary road, access should be limited to Kuakini Highway. All entry/exits onto Kuakini Highway should be fully channelized with both turning and storage lanes. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 (SUB 7814). The declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "1" be completed as required by the Subdivision M Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. (See Exhibit B — Declaration Re Road Construction) PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 24. Access: Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Hawaii Belt Road), which has right-of-way width that varies from 165 and 225 feet in the vicinity of the subject property. Pavement width is about 24 feet with 10 -foot pave shoulders. The subject site has two (2) permitted accesses to the highway. The principal access would be on the north end of the property across from the Pualani Subdivision Road. This access will be fully channelized and signalized. The access to the south will be limited to a right -in and right -out movement. There will also be a 60 -foot wide mauka/makai road also proposed through the property and other properties makai of the subject site. This road will eventually connect to the Kuakini Highway and serve as the rental housing project's access. 25. Water: According to the Department of Water Supply, water is available for the development of a neighborhood commercial center anticipated to use 10 units of water or an average of 4,000 gallons per day. The subject parcel is part of an assignment of 368 units to Westpro Development, Inc. 26. Wastewater: The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The Department of Environmental Management — Wastewater Division commented that the applicant needs to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. 27. Solid Waste: The applicant intends to utilize commercial haulers to dispose of refuse generated by the proposed development at the county landfill at Puuanahulu. The Department of Environmental Management — Solid Waste Division commented that the applicant needs to submit a solid waste management plan. 28. Essential Utilities and Services: Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. 0 There are three fire stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 29. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit C — November 17, 2004 Memo) 30. Department of Water Supply: (See Exhibit D — November 5, 2004 Memo) 31. Department of Environmental Management -Wastewater and Solid Waste Division: (See Exhibit E — September 29, 2004 Memo and attached guidelines) 32. Police Department: (See Exhibit F — October 18, 2004 Memo) 33. Fire Department: (See Exhibit G — October 6, 2004 Memo) 34. Department of Land and Natural Resources —Land Division: (See Exhibit H — October 25, 2004 Letter) 35. Department of Health: (See Exhibit I — October 20, 2004 Memo) 36. State Land Use Commission: (See Exhibit J — October 20, 2004 Letter) AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 37. Department of Land and Natural Resources - State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Transportation, NRCS and Kona Traffic Safety Committee APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL LETTERS 38. The applicant has submitted additional information. (See Exhibit K— Letters dated October 13, October 25, October 26, & November 9, 2004) PUBLIC COMMENTS 39. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any letters of support or opposition to the proposed request. -10- APPLICATIONS -AT 10 STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and COUNTY REZONING (A -5a TO CN -20) PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Puapuaaiki 1St and Puapuaanui 1St North Kona, Hawai i TMK: (3) 7-5-17: 1 (Lot 2) Prepared For: Puaa Development, LLC. Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant June 2004 EXHIBIT _A STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (15 ACRES OR LESS) COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) PETITIONER Puaa Development, LLC PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: Comt,_z DATE: July 5, 2004 AT1nuFcc• 75-5608 Hienaloli Road #21 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 PETMONEWS INTEREST IF NOT OWNER TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 324-0395 (Res.) (Fax) 12 -n443 LANDOWNER(S): Puaa Development, &- nt LLC ,, / LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): /�.e�•--� .� . - DATE: July 5, 2004 iaoe af-,VKT I 75-5608 Hienaloli Road, #21 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 ITAXMApKEy: 7-5-17: Portions of 1 & 19 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Kuakini Highway ZONING: A- 5 a SIZE OF PROPERTY: 14.973 acres ICURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Agricultural REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION Urban IAGENT: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 IHilo, HI 96720 I TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res•) (Fax) 969-7996 IPlease indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPS: Brian Cook I (See Instructions on Reverse Side) I APPLICANT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) Puaa Development, CCC APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: /.�'i+ ca . _ G�.- DATE: July 5, 2004 ADDRESS: 75-5608 Hienaloli Road, #21 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: PHONE:(Bus.) 324-0395 (Res.) (Fax) 324-0493 LANDOWNER(S): Puaa Development TTC LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): oP. Gi w>k- DATE: July 5. 2004 LANDOWNER(S) 75-5608 Hiealoli Road, X121 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 REQUEST: A -5a TO CN -20 TAX MAP KEY: (Existuigzonwg) 7-5-17: portions ofPlsed & Zoning) 9 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY Kuakini Highway SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 14,973 acres AGENT:_ Sidney M Fuke, Planning Cnna„lranr ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) 969-7996 lease indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Brian Cook ATTACHMENT Commercial, RM, Resort, & Industrial PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1. if your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? No If yes, please answer the rest of question I and then to question 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? C. if your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? _ If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 2. If you nave no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? No b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? No C. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? No C1. Keep it? Yes e. other (please state) f, If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. 3, what specific building plans do you have for the subject land? Include in your answer the following: type of building (apartment, office, launderette, etc.); financing arrangement; timetable for construction; and any other information which you feel might help us in evaluating your request. Construct a neighborhood shopping center. 4. Have you performed any study which would demonstrate a need for your proposed building and/or development? No if so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided below. -2- Have you performed any study which discusses the environmental impacts your request would nave on the surrounding area and/or the County? Yes If so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided below. Please refer to accompanying planning and environmental report 6. Are there any buildings on the subject area? No If so, what kind? What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? ?• Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? No if so, please list the kinds of products grown on and how many square feet or acres of land per product? -3- ° To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? Yes If so, please describe the problem. 9. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvement? Yes If so, what kind? Please refer to planning and environmental report Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes 1G. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? a. Schools b. Roads C . Sewer d. Drainage e f Police Protection Fire Protection Recreational Facilities Recreational Facilities -4- yes ao x x x x x x x For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. 11. Have you performed any historic sites study and/or survey of the subject area? If so, what were the results? Please; also, submit a copy of the study together with this change of zone supplement. Please refer to attached planning and environmental report. Signature: "O/1.sw lle• Address: 75-5608 Hienaloli Road #21 Telephone: 324-0395 Date: July 5, 2004 -5- rzzan/SnA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATIONS FOR STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (A -5a to CN -20) PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC. PUAPUAAIKI IST AND PUAPUAANUI 1ST, NORTH KONA, HAWAII TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-17: 1 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Puaa Development, LLC., recently purchased the subject property with the intent of developing a neighborhood commercial center. As such, the applicant is requesting the rezoning of the subject site, consisting of a 14.973 acres, from Agricultural (A -5a). to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20). A State Land Use Boundary amendment is concurrently being requested to cover the area of the requested CN -20 zone. The subject site was created as a result of a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision application. Final subdivision approval was granted on June 4, 2004 and was assigned File Number 7814 (Appendix A) The subject parcel was assigned number 1. It. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property, consisting of 14.973 acres, is located on the makai side of the Hawaii Belt Highway, generally between the towns of Kailua and Keauhou in North Kona. It is situated within the land divisions of Puaapuaiki 1st and Puaapuaanui 15t, North Kona and is identified by TMK: 7-5-17:1. More specifically, the site is located on the makai side of the Highway, directly across of the Pualani Estates Subdivision. The subject site is located approximately'/ mile south of the intersection of Hualalai Road and the Belt Highway and Y4 mile north of the Kuakini Highway/Belt Highway intersection. There is a new self -storage facility on the south side of the subject property. (Figures 1 and 2) III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Concept and Components The applicant is proposing to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas. As proposed, the project would include a number of structures, which would house uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space, and possibly a gas station. Tentatively, there would be 93,600 square feet of commercial retail and office space with over 520 parking stalls, inclusive of handicapped stalls and the required loading zones. Some of the structures would be two-story in height, with a maximum height of 30 feet. The thought was to have multiple, rather than a single or two large structures to reduce the overall visual impact of the project. (See Figure 3) The principal access from the Hawai'i Belt Road would be at the north end of the property. This intersection would be fully channelized and signalized. A right -in, right -out only access at the south end is also proposed. There would also be a major road with a right-of-way of 60 feet through the project. This roadway would connect to the Kuakini Highway. The proposed development is intended to serve primarily residents of the neighboring residential subdivisions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision. While it would also capture some of the commuting traffic, it is not intended to be a regional shopping center. B. Project Timetable and Cost The applicant intends to secure the balance of the required permits and begin making the appropriate improvements immediately upon securing all development permits. Hopefully, this can be done by the middle part of next year. The applicant estimates the cost of the proposed improvements to be in excess of $10 million. This cost would include the traffic signal lights at the Highway, the on-site improvements, landscaping, and the structures. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use The subject property is designated Agriculture. As such, a boundary amendment to cover the requested CN -20 zone is required and is being filed concurrently with the requested zone change application. i $ '�. s \ cormacw \ wiw.awxre w.n I \ oru5wn ww5 \ \ I I / � 5 NegNSOIVIOLo r PUALANI VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPTUAL SrM PLAN 5 1 i Kimley-Korn and Associates, Inc. i %naHeights P, Y GNN ad I�a� na l�K c� a K� °F '� D f e� �to4�. ao Ohai P°p Tu l je�� Esc a14ti i P �✓ ' L N d Pl oQ ani ailua z ar ee of. rl LP r Y 3„ o Hoene e a Hoene w KPi ro �7,Wehi1 a Kai Fsr Q o,• 4 •- ul 93gailua Yew Est --- :o Pines CondosHalewili PI Halew 0. xarluake lyl� Wehdani • P R Places ua Village RQT ''ares .ace tP ed Hualalai Y o w NaniAina. I Makalauna Pl Colon � � (Wai Ahal y . ; (Mafia'O s 4pw Mahi'iu Lani PI ��y ebb p al n •Ia4� MakanaAloha p, 30 IVY �a �%d aloh Plantation �mCc q gona ' ; Makapono PI Makapono d. Siricrest 11 Kona Orchards aceCU ' a r 1 PualaniEst ub* d Site �eUa dui °� ro _�.F Anaaai 4 •�O t 'Y' �. 'kr x _ - Heights o I oo Orn Pj (under 5 nb !NS, I construction) p Q° dd ° Io 4 ° i Ytew .t r �t e o j Est o�10 Kohakai E 8 ,C , ,•c4 - - _ _ o d :;§, fd ra f A°aI'1 KMa inz ,ry aa� �`�CS�`a� yJ ICourtyard 'alas a°c �� A21 4l �! - `��o ooa ro� Th atlolani iGIPC at`E.. � a.cys! .. J o °ib�`Py °� 1 ° • 'N .o r et Cd a°o o f Oa �a d _ .A�� o a G�j ,t,. ka+Lehffi:aN ilani ar SIoL '� O � ila• � 4 � �J ' xycj enu Rti m : 4J4� r goi b8riie< d Ni o: • 4°� air � de.. °' ,. Wik lia �. '�- -Ln • • � . to u �� v '�o �e � o to o • r' As A Mari �o fOIra W °lte ��' b a - - • Ja -Y '>d� Y � '�> ' Ti Aili a 6 r• { %amana j�a Q , ,..` 5 • Trees 1 w�_ nQ° e�`o `� r' �9r' onap°lrS�ae� a a View FIGURE I FIGURE 2 B. County General Plan The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates the site Medium Density. As such, a General Plan amendment to the LUPAG map would not be required. Relative to the Medium Density designation, the General Plan I allows consideration for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3 -story commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre." The requested zonings and planned uses would be consistent with the uses envisioned within the Medium area. ' C. County Zoninq The County zoning of the requested area is Agriculture (A -5a). If the Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) request were approved, all related land use and development codes such as Plan Approval, parking, landscaping, fire, ADA, and the like would be complied with by the applicant. D. Other Permitting Considerations The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as noted earlier, other construction -related permits would ' still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Plan Approval, grading permit, building permit, Department of Health clearances, Highway improvement permit, and the like. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. I General Description The 14+ acre parcel is irregular in shape. The property's frontage along the Highway is over 1,800 feet. There is an intervening strip of land with a right-of-way of 60 feet. This strip is intended to serve as a service road to the project. The Waiaha drainageway bisects the property, thereby creating two developable areas. The drainage area affects the configuration of the subject site. (See Figure 2) The site is vacant of any structures. B. Climate, Soil and Topography Being on the leeward side of the island and located southwest of Hualalai volcano, the project site is generally sunny in the mornings with occasional afternoon clouds. The rainy season is usually during the summer, with wetter periods from November to January. The average annual rainfall is approximately 30 inches, with pan evaporation estimated at 55 inches per year. The mean annual temperature is approximately 75 degrees. Because the site is situated on the leeward side of the island, winds tend to be light and variable. Slight easterly winds occur during the day, while westerly or mountain winds are prevalent during the evenings. The property's elevation is approximately 300 feet. There is a less than 10% slope towards the makai end of the property. According to this author's interpretation of the Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating map, this site is classified "E" or Very Poor. It is of the A'a clinker soil series. This series is characterized by properties with little or no soil material and light brown to nearly black A'a. It is excessively drained and unsuited for machine tillability. Likewise, this author interprets the soil classification found in the US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) Soil Survey Report to be of the Punalu'u series (rPYD). The Punalu'u series consists of well -drained thin organic soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard slight. This type of soil was typically used for cattle grazing. Under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system, it appears that the site is classified as "Unique." C. Natural Hazards 1. Drainage The Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies more than 90% of the subject site to be within Zone X (areas outside of 500 -year flood), and the remaining area AE (floodway). The floodway is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 and bisects the middle portion of the subject property. A culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated area to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern sections of the property (See Figure 2). A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for this improvement and adjustments to the FIRM has been filed. This application is found in Appendix B. As there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event, drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works and State Department of Health via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process. With the proposed on-site drainage improvements, including the culvert and related improvements noted in the CLOMR application, all potential drainage and/or flooding issues could be reasonably addressed and mitigated. 2. Tsunami Hazard Given its elevation (300+) and distance from the nearest shoreline (1± miles), it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Thus, there should be little or no threat from high waves. 3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the subject site as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk, 9 to 1. This designation applies to much of North Kona. By way of comparison, the City of Hilo falls within zone 3. There is very little that can be done to protect structures and improvements on the site from lava flows. Relative to protection of life, however, this would be achieved through the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the County Civil Defense agency. Such notices will be prominently placed within office building. The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4, according to the County Building Code. As such, all structures built on the site will have to meet with the more restrictive seismic hazard structural requirements of the Building Code. D. Fauna Resources Although there was no professional survey conducted of the faunal resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or proximate to the subject site. This is due to the already developed state of the subject area and its immediate surrounding area. Nonetheless, due to the semi -developed state of this area, the faunal resources should be somewhat typical of other developed areas. One may thus find bird species such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White -eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. None of these are endangered animals. As such, it is unlikely that the development of this property would cause any adverse faunal impacts. E. Flora Resources A botanical survey was done of the subject and immediately surrounding area by Winona Char of Char and Associates. In its report, dated October 2003 and found in Appendix C, the author noted that the "vegetation on the site is dominated by introduced or alien species such as kiawe, 'opiuma, koa haole, and Guinea grass. " However, a few native or indigenous plants were found. These included the'uhaloa, 'ilihe'e, 'ilima, koali'awa, and 'ala'ala wai nui. No commissioned flora survey was conducted of the site. These native plants can be found in similar dry, lowland, disturbed habitats in Hawaii. None of the native or introduced plants were considered threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The author thus concluded that the development of this area "is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources." It continued, 'There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site." N F. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources An archaeological inventory survey was conducted of the requested and immediately surrounding areas by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PHRI). In response to the State Historic Preservation Division's comments (Appendix D), a revised report was prepared and subsequently submitted to the State (Appendices D-1 & D-2). The survey of the subject and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres identified 64 sites consisting of 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, plus a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only, with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were also determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The remaining 7 sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of these sites were burials or possible burials, while the one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. The archaeological sites relative to the subject site are reflected in Figure 5). You will note that 2 of the burials or possible burials may be within the project site (site numbers 14084 and 14126). It also proximate to the possible habitation site (site number 14123). The applicant intends to prepare the appropriate Burial Treatment Plan and preserve the burials as is. The site plan will be adjusted to accommodate the requirements of the Plan and decision of the of the Hawaii Burial Council. G. Valued Cultural Resources The recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai 0 Ka'Aina" decisions require decision -makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Furthermore, as noted in the botanical survey, while there are some endemic plants on the site, these plants are neither endangered nor threatened. The applicant also notes that since being in this area for over 10 years, he has not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such purpose today and/or in the recent past. Nonetheless, if legitimate claims are made, the applicant will make the appropriate access accommodations. The burials will be preserved as is with appropriate buffers. Access to these burials by lineal descendants will also be made available. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. H. Water and Coastal Resources The subject site is located over a mile from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems from the site should not be significant. Being a non -coastal property, nc coastal access will be affected. The proposed development will connect to the County's sewer fine, which bisects the proposed area. There is a 12 -inch line that extends from Kuakini Highway through the property to the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Thus, this should further reduce potential adverse groundwater or nearshore water impacts resulting from this project. Further as noted earlier, prior to the installation or use of any drywells on the site to address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC permit from the State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and coastal resources will be carefully examined. Noise. Air Quality, and Dust The existing background ambient noise level in this area is wind, foliage, birds, and the like. However, the significant manmade noise is influenced by the traffic associated along both the Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. With the traffic, the noise level is relatively high, averaging more than 55 Ldn. To mitigate this noise to the project, the applicant plans to install appropriate landscaping along the frontage of the property and to the sides. There will also be short-term noise impacts during the construction phase. To mitigate this impact, the development of this project — particularly the site work - will be limited to daylight hours and on weekdays. Contractors will also be required to comply with established State Department of Health guidelines and standards relating to noise and emission controls. The proposed development should not generate any direct air uo ality impacts. As the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, the only discernible air quality impact would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in part to the higher EPA standards for vehicular air emissions and the prevailing tradewinds. All of the required parking area within the project site will be paved with an all-weather, dust free surface. Landscaping will also be required as part of the Plan Approval requirement. As such, with the exception of minimal construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be insignificant. J. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site. However, the views of the coast and Hualalai Mountain are indirectly referenced. From a viewplane perspective, the subject site is situated between the shoreline and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. It is also located between Kuakini Highway and Hualalai Mountain. As such, any development of the site will generate some measure of visual impact. However, there are some mitigating factors. For one, there are structures located makai of the subject site that already obstruct the views of the coastline from the Extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. As such, the proposed development should not result in the further diminution of coastal visual impact. Similarly, the views of Hualalai Mountain would not be adversely impacted from Kuakini Highway, as the site does not directly front the Highway. Notwithstanding those circumstances, the proposed structures, be the one or two stories, will be less than 30 feet tall, way less than 9 the existing Zoning Code's 45 -foot height requirement for the Agriculture zone. Then, too, added mitigation will be achieved through the extensive landscaping planned for this area. As such, while the structures will be visible, their visual impact should not be overly pronounced. a scenic site. VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS A. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses in this area are a mixture of low to moderately dense residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. There are residential subdivisions located generally makai.of the Kuakini Highway. These include Kahakai Estates subdivision and al condominium project north of the subject area. On the mauka side of the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, there is the developing 384 -lot Pualani Estates residential subdivision. There is a small commercial office complex generally southwest of the subject site. On a separate parcel and in the same vicinity, there is a self -storage facility. There are also agricultural uses generally north of the subject site. The requested zoning would be generally consistent with the evolving mixture of commercial and residential land use pattern in this area. Nonetheless, because of there are some residential developments proximate to the subject area, mitigative measures will be taken. These measures deal principally with landscaping, lighting, and access. B. Economic Impacts The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in the construction and related industries. When completed, there would be additional employment. New workers would be needed to man the various uses. Tentatively, it is anticipated that at least 50 full-time equivalent jobs would be generated by this project. A commercial rezoning would also increase the tax revenues to the County. However, there could be some real property tax consequences for the adjoining agriculturally zoned properties. As 10 the assessed valuation of the subject property rises due to the higher commercial use, there could be some fallout to neighboring properties. However, landowners intent on keeping their property for residential or agricultural uses would have the option of dedicating their land for residential or agricultural uses. C. Agricultural Impacts The subject site has not been used for commercial agricultural purposes for over 25 years. With the exception of the agricultural activity generally north of the subject site, the surrounding areas consist of a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Further, the soil classification system of the Land Study Bureau designates the site as Class E or "Very Poor". While it does have agricultural potential, it is not unique from an agricultural resource perspective. Thus, its removal from potential agricultural use should not compromise the agricultural objectives of the County. Given the above, the agricultural impacts resulting from this rezoning should be negligible, if at all. VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Road and Traffic The subject site fronts the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This 2 -lane State highway has a right-of-way that varies between 165 and 225 feet in the vicinity of the subject site. The roadway width is about 24 feet, with 10 -foot paved shoulders. There is a striped median with a mauka left -turn lane that would serve the Pualani Estates subdivision. The subject site has 2 permitted accesses to the Highway. The northerly access — which fronts the entrance to the Pualani Estates subdivision — will be fully channelized and signalized. The southerly access will be limited to a right -in, right -out movement. A 60 -foot wide mauka/makai road is also proposed through this site and other properties makai of the subject site. This road would eventually intersect with Kuakini Highway. A traffic impact analysis report (TZAR) was prepared for this project and is found in its entirety in Appendix E. With a projected completion of 2008 and the assumption that the intersection of the 11 Highway and the Pualani Estates subdivision entrance road would be signalized, the TIAR made the following findings: A traffic signal at the Pualani Estates Subdivision road intersection is needed with or without this project. The AM peak with or without the project would be at Level of Service (LOS) C, while the PM peak would be at LOS D. The LOS at the right -in, right -out driveway would not operate at satisfactory levels during the PM peak. However, this would be only a temporary condition. While mitigation is not recommended, the report noted that a right -tum acceleration lane would improve the LOS. The proposed development may "improve area traffic conditions by reducing trip lengths to and from commercial and office land uses." The proposed "internal" road will help movements in this area, reducing the stress on the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway at this particular location. In terms of traffic mitigation, the TIAR concluded that at the project's main intersection, there will be a need for traffic signals (with or without this project) and a left -turn lane in the northbound direction; and possibly a right -turn deceleration lane to improve the operation and safety at the intersection. It also recommended a right -tum acceleration lane at the secondary entrance. B. Water Water will be secured from a 12 -inch County water line fronting the subject site along the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway extension. It is anticipated that the proposed development would need no more than 6,000 gallons of or 10 units of water per day. It should be noted that the subject and adjacent parcels have 386 water commitments. C. Wastewater There is a sewer line that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will connect to this line. 12 D. Solid Waste Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers who will dispose of the refuse at the county landfill at Pu'uanahulu. During the course of preparing the land for this project, the applicant intends to retain as much of the material on the property. This should thus minimize disposal at approved disposal sites. This and other waste reduction methods will be reflected in the required solid waste management plan to help address this situation. E. Other Government Services As this area is already part of an urban area, it already has access to a number of services. All of the required police, fire, and related services are available. Police protective services are provided from the stations at Kealakehe located less than 3 miles from the site and Captain Cook in South Kona. Within 5 miles from the site, there are 3 fire stations. These would be at Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Pu'uloa. There is also another station at Captain Cook. Emergency medical and paramedical services are also provided from these stations. The Kona Hospital at Kealakekua is located approximately 7 miles from the site and is managed by the State. This facility is one of 5 licensed hospitals on the island. As this project is a commercial one, it should have little or no direct impacts to schools, parks, and other related facilities. As the project may indirectly generate a school demand, it should be noted that the site is proximate to the Kealakehe (K-12) School complex. There are also public parks in within a 2 -mile radius. Thus, no extension of government services would be required, and existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the demand expected from this project F. Other Utilities All other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are available to the site. VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 13 The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the current use, which is open space. This will continue until the full improvements are made, which will hopefully be before the middle part of next year. This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or long-term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction and implementation of this project. There will be construction jobs created in the short-term and at least 50 full-time equivalent positions created. Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can supplement the State and County's fiscal resources. Because of its location, this project will provide a service that can be made reasonably accessible to the immediate neighborhoods. The required infrastructure - if needed - will be implemented by the applicant to mitigate potential impacts of this project. B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The area of the requested rezoning has already been extensively disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural or other resources (such as botanical and avifaunal) would not appear to be significant. However, there are potential burials on the north and southern corners of the subject site. These sites will be preserved. Inadvertent finds will be treated pursuant to acceptable practices and policies of the State. C. Mitigative Measures The applicant intends to provide any required off and on-site infrastructure in conjunction with the development of this project. These will include on-site drainage system, landscaping, water, and wastewater improvements. All of these will be done in conjunction with the permitting and permit implementation phases of this project. Off-site traffic -related improvements at the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway extension will also be provided. These will consist of a northbound felt -tum lane, participation in the installation of traffic signals, and the like. 14 If any inadvertent discoveries are made during any phase of this project, the Planning Department will be notified and appropriate mitigation will be taken before work is resumed. Landscaping will also be incorporated within the project site, as well as along the boundaries adjacent to residential properties. The landscaping would be consistent with the Planning Department's landscaping rules. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 1. No Proiect Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain in its present vacant, cleared use. Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its highest and best use, as envisioned by the General Plan and the commercial growth of the general area. 2. Development Based on Existing A -5a Zonina Under this alternative, the area of the requested zoning may still not be utilized agriculturally, given its current condition. The site would probably be subdivided into 2 lots. Residential uses would also not be too desirable, due to noise associated with the traffic. 3. Residential Rezoning Another option could be to utilize this site for a residential project. While that would still be consistent with the General LUPAG's map Medium Density designation, this option may not be really desirable from a noise perspective, given its proximity to the Highway. 4. Evaluation of Alternatives Leaving the property in its current state would not maximize the use of the land. The land could be subdivided, but its agricultural uses would be minimal. There would also be diminished tax revenues and less services to the public. While alternative residential densities are possible, those uses may not be really desirable, given its proximity to the Highway. 15 Neither of the above alternatives could deliver some relief to the traffic condition as would the requested commercial project. The proposed project would make improvements at the Highway intersection and provide a means for an internal connection to Kuakini Highway. Then, too, the use would provide needed commercial retail and office services to the area community, thereby reducing longer commutes. In that regard, the project in totality would be consistent with the land use objectives sought to be accomplished by the County General Plan LUPAG map. In view of the aforementioned, it would appear that none of the alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested CN -20 zoning alternative. ]X. REGULATORY ANALYSIS - County and State Land Use Policies A. General Plan LUPAG Map The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County. The LUPAG map designates the site Medium Density, a designation that allows the requested CN -20 zoning. Accordingly, this request would not be inconsistent with the LUPAG map. B. General Plan Policies The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow: Economic Element Goals • Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. • Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. 16 The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. • The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. Policies • The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. • The County shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. • The County shall strive for diversification of its economy by strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors. • The County shall encourage the development of a visitor industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. Land Use Element (Commercial) Goals • Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to its users. Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. Policies • Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers, and transportation systems. Should such services not be available, the development of more intensive uses should be in concert with a localized 17 program of public and private capital improvements to meet the expected increased needs. Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimum intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design controls shall be incorporated into the review of such developments Standards • Commercial developments shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and amenities. Commercial developments shall provide for adequate internal circulation amongst commercial facilities in the area. • Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided. • Commercial development shall maintain or improve the quality of the present environment through the consideration of visual, access, landscaping, and other design elements in their development. Preference shall be given to commercial lands with a reasonably level topography. Discussion If approved, the project would provide needed services to this region. Its location is ideal to service the residential subdivisions in this area, as well as capture some of the commuting traffic. Relatedly, all required infrastructures are there or, if not, will be provided by the applicant without taxing government's servicing ability. Further, while the site has some on-site developmental constraints, they are not insurmountable. For the most part, the site is designated "X" on the FIRM map, and any activities within the "AE" area will be drainage -related and 18 pursuant to County and Federal requirements. While there are two possible burials on the site, their locations are such that they would not restrict the development of this project. Although there may be a potential for some endemic birds to visit this area, the development of this site would not remove a critical habitat. Then, too, there are alternative areas that would be more suitable for any habitats. Furthermore, if there are inadvertent archaeological features found on the site, work will stop and the State DLNR and County Planning Department will be consulted before further activities occur within the affected area. Finally, all structures will be built to comply with the Zoning Code standards, such as parking, setback, height, landscaping, and so forth. C. Zoning If the request were approved, the site would be developed into a neighborhood commercial office and retail center. All structures and improvements would be developed consistent with the Zoning Code. No variances from the Code are anticipated. D. Hawaii State Plan Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range goals and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the growth and future long-range development of the State. Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies and goals and the project's relationship follows: Goals 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 A desired physical environment characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people 19 • Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and caring of participation in family life. Discussion The proposed project would achieve these goals. It would provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities for current and future residents of the island; contribute to the island's overall tax base and hence, increase both State and County revenues; and complement and support other economic uses and in turn, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of local and regional economies. This employment opportunity would come without adversely affecting the environment. There is no known wildlife or plant life listed as either endangered or threatened on the subject site. Then, too, while there are some significant archaeological features on the site, they will be preserved in accordance with the required burial treatment plan. Others will be mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan. Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly adverse. All required infrastructures will be in place by the applicant prior to occupancy of any portion of the project. These include traffic improvements, and the wastewater and water system. Furthermore, the provision and/or retention of natural landscaped buffers around the perimeter of and selected portions within the project site would also help mitigate any adverse visual and noise impacts to neighboring residential or agricultural properties. G. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of the State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within the CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas proximate to the coast and identified by the County as the Special Management Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's consistency to the CZM policies - regardless of its location - must still be made. 20 In that regard, please note the following: The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. (Please refer to discussions in Chapters V, VI, and. VII). Any effect that may result will be minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly outweighed by public interest. The proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the CZM program. Specifically: • there would be no impact to the area's recreational resources. This is not a shoreline property; • although the site has some historical resources, there will be appropriate mitigation. These include either their preservation or full data recovery, performed in a manner meeting with the approval of the State HPD; • the project will not affect any scenic and open space resources; • the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted; there will be more employment opportunities, and hence furthering the economic uses of the site; • the site is more than a mile from the shoreline, and thus there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or marine resource impacts; and • public participation will be achieved through the hearings on this request. The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan and other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Code. H. State Land Use Urban Standards As the requested area covers less than fifteen (15) acres, the County can process the request. Pursuant to the Planning Commission Rule No. 13, the request must meet certain standards. These standards and their justification follow: 1. Conformity to the General Plan 21 The project's relationship and conformity are demonstrated in sections IX A and B above. 2. Relationship to State Land Use Urban District Standards The State Land Use Commission's Rules provide the standards for determining the Urban district boundaries (Section 15-15-18). Their relationship to this request are noted as follows: a. "City -Like" Characteristics A concentration of people, structures, streets, and rural/urban level of services characterize this area. There are residences in this area; a neighborhood commercial center and a self -storage facility adjoining and/or proximate to the subject site. b. Factors of Urban Characteristics The site is proximate to centers of trading and employment. It is within an area where there are existing commercial and residential uses and intended to serve as a mini -employment center for this part of North Kona. All of the related urban amenities and services such as school, parks, and protective services are also located less than three (3) miles from the site. As such, basic governmental and utility services are readily available to this area. This reclassification will not necessarily result in providing a sufficient urban reserve area for growth, as the applicant intends to develop the property immediately. Further, the site represents more of an "in -filling" and as such, would not really be suitable for a growth reserve area. Nonetheless, its approval and development could make fringe properties more suitable for reserves. C. Natural Hazards Topographically, the site is suitable for development. 22 It does not have slopes in excess of 20 degrees. The site has no known unstable soil condition. Although there is a floodway that bisects the property, drainage improvements will be made of this area to minimize impact to the proposed area of development. It is outside of the tsunami zone and is not located within the high volcanic hazard area. It is located within Zone 4, comparable to other parts of North Kona. Although within the highest seismic zone (Zone 4), all improvements will be designed to meet with the prevailing building code. The applicable code is predicated on zone 4. of the earthquake hazards, this is a category that applies to this area, as well as all of North Kona. d. Contiquous to Urban Areas Although the site is not contiguous to an urban area, i is functionally contiguous. There is mini -storage to its immediate south. There is also an office complex south and makai of the mini storage facility. There are residentially zoned properties directly across of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway extension. e. Relationship to County Growth Plans This site does not represent the creation of a new urban concentration, as the surrounding area is already an urban -like environment. The subject site is designated on the General Plan LUPAG map for Medium Density Urban uses. The requested Commercial -Neighborhood zone is thus consistent with the General Plan. "Scatterization" Impact As the site does conform to the standards described earlier, this standard really does not apply. This applies to a situation where an amendment creates a potential "spot' zoning and thereby increasing the need to extend public services at considerable taxpayers' expense. In this situation, the general area is already urban in character, and the subject site is contiguous to this developing area. Its development 23 should thus not result in the expansion or extension of government services. g. Slope of Property There is a benign slope running in a mauka/makai direction. However, the difference — with the exception of the floodway — is less than 10 percent. The slope would not render the site undevelopable or pose an extraordinary development risk. Accordingly, the development of this site would not be violative of the "more than 20% slope" standard. 24 Jun -OT -2004 01:04ps Frar Hairy Kiln Muw June4,2004 BI Brooks WestPro Development, Ina PO ON 2808 Kw7ua-!Cana, HI 96745 Dear Mr. Brooks. amnita 17f �kkaii PLANXiNG DE "7111 NT 101 POWN 5WW Soft 3 • ROM HAW*H 967$0.3049 (900) 9618208 • Fax (909) 961-8742 FINAL PLAT NAP FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL NO. 7814 SUBDIVIDER:' WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC. IhMIeni lbbi 8abdhrr6ion" Proposed Consolidation of Ld A, Lot B, and Lot 2 And Resubdivision ft Lob 1 to 5, Inclusive And the Designation of Easemenis 1 to 4, Inelualw At Punpunalld tx and Puspuaanui la% North Kona, Island of Hwa. Hawal Tft W1 IWI, 019.1121. QZ and 026 (SUB 200042011 T-344 P.002/003 F-057 olid pheri. Yuen Arcwr Ray R. Ta meow V*%00 0a r This is m acknowledge receipt of ten (10) copier. or the fin at plat map dated May 31, 2004; one (1) CAD of final plat map, and Car60Callon or Staking for the referenced applIcation. Please be informed that final subdivision approval for recordation is hereby granted to the Ilrtal plat map as attached herewith inasmuch as all requirements of the Subdivision Code, Chapter 23, have been met You may wish to conauh your dwmay and surveyor for the preparation of the necessary legal documents and description of the cars fled final plat map for the purpose of rewrdation with the State of Hawae, Bureau of Conveyance, gy a copy of this letter, we are fonvarding a copy of the certified focal plat map to the listed officers for their so. Hawo(I county is an Signal OppaproM J°royWar and Rsuffl " APPENDIX A Jun -07-M4 01:040a Frac- T-244 P.002/002 F-857 PHI Brooks Wesft Development; kr- Page 2 June 4, 29M Copies of the delft final plat map are enclosed. l CKMOPHER d, YUEN Planning Dubclar. . ETC*n rauoer�n�o4ax�annrrmroPiruMs►.r�L'rat+�ac Encs. - 2 Cer ged FPM x� Manager, DWS WCenNW FPM Dimalm, DPW wMergfied FPM OisM ErMmnmenW ftM Program Chief, DOH w/Cerfified FPM Oletdd Engh w. OOTwCielffied FPM PLNG-KONA w/CerMed FPM DPW-ENG-KONA Tax Maps aml %am* Supervisor I w/CerbM FPM & CAD Real Prope* Tax DivWm-Kara wC artried FPM Igme Surveyke, uz Steven S.C. Lim, Esq., Cadsmith Bag, LLP SUB 7392 i3am From - i -au r.uuoruuo r -;ca Ii Federal Emergency Management,Agency CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable harry Kim Mayor, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo,11196720 Dear Mayor Kim: Washington, D.C. 20472 MAY 0 5 2004 IN REPLY REFER TO: CascNo.; 04-09-03078 Community. Hawaii County, HI Community No.: 155166 104 This responds to a request that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment on the effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FLS) report for your community, in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, Ina letter dated November 21, 2003, Mr. Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief, Engineering Division, Department of Public Works; County of Hawaii, requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that updated topographic information; channdization of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from Hawaii Belt Road to approximately 1,500 feet downstream; and construction of quadruple 10 -foot by 10 -foot reinforocd concrete box culverts approximately 200 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road would have on the flood hazard information abown on the effective FIRM and FIS report. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Mr. Joe Swanson, P.E., Senior Vice President, and Ms. Laurie S. Marin, Y.E., CFM, both with Kimley-Hon and Associates, Inc., and Mr, Kuba. In a letter dated May 3, 1995, we acknowledged that an elevation used in the original hydraulic analysis for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 was incorrect by 50 feet, and we stated that subsequent map revisions should include the corrected results. Therefore, these data were used as the eorrwted effective data for this CLOMR request. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for your community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplainmanagetnent criteria of the NFIP. The submitted existing conditions HEC -RAS hydraulic computes model, dated April 5, 2004, based on updated topographic information, was used as the base conditions model in our review of the proposed Conditions model for this CLOMR request We believe that, if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the plan entitled "Improvement Plans for Pualani Makai Channel Improvements to Waiaba Drainageway Splitflow No. 2," prepared by Kimley-Rom and Associates, Inc., dated October 29, 2003, and die data listed below are received, a revision to the FIRM would be warranted. As a result of the revised data described above, the.elevations of the flood having a 1 -percent cbanoe of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) increased compared to the effective 13ase Flood Elevations (BFEs) for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from just upstream of Hawaii Belt Road to just downstream of Hualalai Road. The maximutzr increase in HFE, approximately 47 feet, occurred approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. APPENDIX B 05%10/2004 15:17 FAX 05/07/04 FRI 15:27 FAX 703 060 3466 ALICIALL BAKEM 2004 Our review of existing conditions revealed that the BFEs increased in some arcs e and decreased in other areas compared to the corrected effective BFEs for Waiaba Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from, approximately 2,000 feet downstream to approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in BFB, approximately 5 'feot, occurred approximately 1,600 feet downstream of Hawaii Bt:1t Road. Tba ziL Intum de a in "BFE, approZim- ely5 feet, occutfnd appioxiini7Je1y 550 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. As a result of the proposed project, the BFEs will decrease compared to the existing conditions BFEs for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from Hawaii Belt Road to approximately 1,400 feet downstream. The maximum decreasc.in BFE, approximately 8 feet, will occur approximately 550 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. Asa result of existing conditions and the proposed project, the BFEs will increase in some area and decrease in other areas compared to the corrected effective BFFs for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow, No. 2 from approximately 2,000 feet downstream to approximately 1,250 fed upstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 5 fed, will occur approximately 1,6D0 foet downstr=m of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 13 feet, will occur approximately 550 fed downstteam of Hawaii Belt Road. As a result of existing conditions and the proposed project, the width of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area that would be inundated by the base flood, will increase in some areas and decrease n other areas compared to the effective SFHA width along Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from approximately 2,000 fed downstream to approximately 1,250 fed upstream: of Hµwau Belt Bond. The maximum increase in SFHA width, approximately 100 fed, will occur approximately 1,800 fat downstream of Hawaii B elt Road. The maximum degrease in SFHA width, approximately 450 feet, will occur approximately 100 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. As a result of existing conditions and the proposed proj act, the width of the regulatory floodway will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas compared to the effective floodway width along Waiaba Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from approximately 2,000 feet downstream to approximately 100 feet dOWn6ffeam of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum increase in floodway width, approximately 50 feet, wiM occur approximately 1,800 fed downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. The maximum decrease in floodway width, approximately 50 feet, will occur approximately 100 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. Upon completion of tho project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on revising the effective FIRM and FIS report_ • Detailed application and certification forms, which were used in processing this request; must be used for requesting final revisions to the maps. Therefore, when the map revision request for.tbe area covered by this letter is submitted, Form 1, entitled "Overview & Concurrence Form," must be includai (A copy of this form is enclosed.) • The detailed application and certification forms listed below may be required if as -built conditions. differ from the conceptual plans. If required, please submit new forms (copies of which are enclosed) or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the revised information. Form 2, entitled "Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form" Wd u 05/10/2004 15:17 FAX X1005 05/07/04 FRI 15:28 FAX 703 900 3468 M1t:BAKL BAISBK Form 3, entitled "Riverine Structures Form" Hydraulic analyses, for as -built conditions, of the base flood and the regulatory floodxsy, together with a topographic workmap showing the revised floodplain and floodway boundaries; must be submitted with Form 2. • Effective September 1, 2002, FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. In accordance with this schedule, the current fee for this map revision request is $3, 800 and must be received before we can begin processing the request. Please nota however, that the fee schedule is subj cot to change, and requesters are required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submittal. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or money order, made payable in U -S. funds to the National loo Insitz$nce oytam, or by credit card. The payment must be forwarded to the following addrem Federal Emergency Marutgement Agency Fce-Charge System Administrator P.O. Box 3173 Merrifield, VA 22116-3173 • As -built plans, certified by a rcgistercd professional engineer, of all proposed projoct elements • Community acknowledgment of the trap revision request After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has been completed, FEMjk. will initiate a revision to the FIRM and FIS report. Because the HFEs would change as a result of the project, a'90 -day appeal period would be initiated, during which community officials and interested persons may appeal the revised BFEs basal on scientific or technical dare. The basis of this CLOMR is, in whole or in part, a channel-modifrcation/culvert project. NFIP:regulatiom, as cited in Paragraph 60.3(b)(7), require that Communities assure that the flood -carrying capaeiiy within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated into your community's existing floodplain management regulations. Consequeatly, theultiroaie responsibility for maintenance of the modified channel and culverts rests with Your community This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFD Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain development and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State, county, and community officials; blued on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in the SHIA. If the State, county, or community has adopted mord restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or theNFIP in general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your community- Information on the CCO for your community may be obtained by calling the Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Quu9 05(10/2004 15:17 FAX 0 008 05/07/04 Mtl 15:26 YU 703 060 3466 Ci1UHAJCU.ISPAMR 4 Division of FEMA in Oakland, California, at (510) 627-7103. If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR, please call our Map Assistance Centex, toll free, at 1 -877 -FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, Max II. Yuan, P.E., Project Engineer Hazard Identification Section Mitigation Division Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Enclosures cc: Mr. Galen M. Kuba Division Chief Engineering Division Department of Public Works County of Hawaii Mr. Sac Swanson, P.E. Senior Vice President Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. For. Doug Belloato, P.E., CFM, Acting Chief Hazard Identification Section Mitigation Division Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate SENT BY: ; Harry Kim Mayor . 961 HS34 ; NUV-IU-UJ j:uPrm; vyilTlilTf� 1t1� �tl�V�itt Dixie Kaeuu Mawgwg Director DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 101 Papaxl strce1.$ 7 . H006110wa1196TW4224 (808) 961.8311 - Fos (too) 961 -UK November 18, 2003 Mr. Joseph C. Swanson, P.E., Project Manager Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Kailua-Kona, H196740 Subject: Pualani Makai CLOMR Application Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 TMK:7.5-017:019 rmuc I I e Bruce C. McClure Director Ronald K. Takahashi Depen Drn2Yw This is to follow the meeting with our staff on November 17, 2003 regarding the subject. We discussed issues that must be addressed with your submittal of a required grading permit application to construct the channel and culvert depicted in the subject application. The issues iftcluded the following: How critical is the shape of the typical drop structure to maintaining the flow velocities predicted by the hydraulic model?'lhe rock excavation will likely not be uniform and erodable material may be encountered. Will hardening of the drop edges and area below the drop be needed to preserve the necessary energy dissipation and prevent scow and undermining? Provide details, and specifications for hardening areas of erodable materials if encountered below freeboard elevation and any unstable slopes. Provide for quality control during construction. Address the ownership and maintenance of the channel. The capacity of the watercourse to convey the base flood must be maintained. Access for maintenance must be provided throughout. Fencing of the channel should be provided (required for a dedicable channel). Adherence to the Storni Drainage Standard, October 1970 is required for a channel to be dedicable. Ensure no adverse impact to the existing sewerlinc. Pualani Makai- CLOMR November 19, 2003 p.2of2 In addition please address the following: • Ensurn [hat superelevation and freeboard is provided for in the channel depth. • Ensure that the floodplain alteration does not create increased erosion hazard to downstream property and there is no adverse impact to adjacent properties or Kuakini Highway. • Provide an erosion control plan with necessary details. Comply with Chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Department of Health, which requires as NPDES permit for certain construction activity. • Show grading quantities on the plans. Our signature on the CLOMR application does not imply approval for any development of the property other than the flood plain alteration subject to the above. We recommend you communicate with the Planning Department and other of ected agencies regarding proposed uses of the property. Completion of the map revision process by the applicant, to include obtaining the required Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) when the flood plain is altered, is required. To that end we may seek to tie the completion of the LOMB to any other permit process such as a ( certificate of occupancy or final subdivision approval. If you have any questions, please contact Kiran Emler of our Kona office at 327-3530. ft, Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief Engineering Division KE c: ENG-HILO/KONA c Technical Support Data Notebook for Waiaha Drainageway S_plitflow No. 2, Hawaii County, Hawaii In Support of a CLOMR Application Pualani Makai Prepared for: Westpro Development, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 202 Kailua-Kona, 111 96740 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Copyright ® 2003 KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. October 2003 KHA Project #091888001 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reiiance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimiey- Hom and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose..........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Authority.........................................................................................................................................1 1.3 .Location.........................................................................................................................................1 1.4 General Site Characteristics..........................................................................................................3 1.4.1 Topography............................................................................................................................3 1.5 Methodology Used for Hydrology and Hydraulics.........................................................................3 1.5.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................3 1.5.2 Hydraulics..............................................................................................................................3 1.6 Results...........................................................................................................................................3 2 Study Documentation Abstract..............................................................................................................4 3 Survey and Mapping Information...........................................................................................................5 3.1 Field Survey Information................................................................................................................5 3.2 Mapping.........................................................................................................................................5 4 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................................6 5 Hydraulics..............................................................................................................................................7 5.1 Method Description........................................................................................................................7 f5.2 Work Study Maps..........................................................................................................................7 5.3 Parameter Estimation....................................................................................................................8 5.3.1 Roughness Coefficients.........................................................................................................8 5.3.2 Expansion and Contraction Coefficients................................................................................8 5.4 Cross Section Description.............................................................................................................8 5.5 Modeling Considerations.............................................................................................................10 5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis......................................................................................10 5.5.2 Bridges and Culverts...........................................................................................................10 5.5.3 Levees and Dikes....:...........................................................................................................10 5.5.4 Islands and Flow Splits........................................................................................................10 5.5.5 Ineffective Flow Areas.........................................................................................................11 5.5.6 Supercritical Flow................................................................................................................11 5.6 Floodway Modeling......................................................................................................................11 5.7 Problems Encountered During the Study....................................................................................11 5.7.1 Special Problems and Solutions..........................................................................................11 5.7.2 Modeling Warning and Error Messages..............................................................................11 5.8 Calibration....................................................................................................................................12 5.9 Final Results................................................................................................................................12 5.9.1 Hydraulic Analysis Results..................................................................................................12 5.9.2 Verification of Results..........................................................................................................16 6 Erosion and Sediment Transport .........................................................................................................17 7 FIS Report Data...................................................................................................................................18 7.1 Summary of Discharges..............................................................................................................18 7.2 Floodway Data.............................................................................................................................19 Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study ii 1,— 7.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Maps 7.4 Flood Profiles ........................................ List of Appendices APPENDIX A References APPENDIX B Data Collection and Field Photos APPENDIX C Survey Field Notes APPENDIX D Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Documentation APPENDIX E Hydraulic Analysis Supporting Documentation APPENDIX F Work Maps APPENDIX G 60% Construction Plans List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............. List of Tables Table 1: Study Documentation Abstract for FEMA Submittals ................. Table 2: Culvert Summary Table.............................................................. Table 3: Post -Project Conditions Standard Table 1 ................................. Table 4: Post -Project Conditions Culvert Results .................................... Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Floodplain Delineation Study ................................................20 21 ..............................................2 ethnical uata I Introduction 1.1 Purpose This flood plain/floodway delineation study was conducted to apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2. The CLOMR application is based on new topographic information, proposed channelization, and a new box culvert. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as Zone AE, which is defined as a special flood hazard area inundated by 100 -year flood; base flood elevations determined. The required FEMA application forms are included in this report. This report includes a duplicate effective model and an existing conditions hydraulic model that were used to prepare a proposed or project conditions model with the new channel and culvert in place. The CLOMR is requested based on the results of the post project conditions analysis with the channel and culvert in place. 1.2 Authority tf Mr. Bill Brooks of Westpro Development, Inc. (Kailua-Kona, Hawaii) retained the services of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the design of a flood channel in the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 through the proposed Pualani Makai commercial development. This report includes all supporting technical documentation for the CLOMR application. Acting on behalf of the client, the contact for this study from Kimley-Horn is: Mr. Joseph C. Swanson, P. E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 (808)987-4162 1.3 Location The project consists of channelization of approximately 0.34 river miles of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 from FIS Section G to FIS Section J (80 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Highway to 200 feet upstream of Kuakini Highway). The study area location is provided in Figure 1. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 1 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 0 o A 9 v_ -n Waiaha Drainageway Splidlow No. 2 Floodplain Delineation Study \N�O '10 N�OqO �P �P P� VICINITY VICINITY MAP N. T. S. 2 Technical Data Notebook 1.4 General Site Characteristics 1.4.1 Topography The upland areas of the watershed are contoured crop lands and wooded areas. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 has medium trees and heavy brush and ill-defined banks. The channel bottom is comprised of tall grasses, and lava rock, including areas with lava tubes. The bottom width of the channel averages 150 feet within the delineated portion with the exception of the area just west of the Hawaii Belt Road where it reaches a maximum width of 470 ft. See Appendix B for field reconnaissance photos. 1.5 Methodology Used for Hydrology and Hydraulics 1.5.1 Hydrology Hydrologic analysis was not performed for this project. The 100 -year discharge used for this CLOMR was extracted from the "North Kona Flood Plain Management Study" (SCS, 1984) by the Soil Conservation Service. The 100 -year flood discharge listed in Table C-3 (page 1 of 4) for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 is 2,670 cfs throughout the study reach. i 1.5.2 Hydraulics Hydraulic modeling was performed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -River Analysis System (HEC -RAS) program, version 3.3.1. Manning's roughness coefficient values were verified from field reconnaissance and extracted from the effective HEC -2 model. A digital terrain model (DTM) was used to create cross sections for hydraulic modeling within the project reach 1.6 Results The limits of flooding for the effective and proposed (project) 100 -year flood are shown in Appendix F — Work Map. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 lecthnlcal uata rvote000K Floodplain Delineation Study 3 2 Study Documentation Abstract Table 1: Study Documentation Abstract for FEMA Submittals Study Documentation Abstract Initial Restudy CLOMR LOMR Other for FEMA Submittals Study SECTION 2.1: Study Documentation for FEMA Submittals 2.1.1 Date Study Accepted 2.1.2 Study Contractor Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Contact Joseph C. Swanson, P.E. (Project Manager) Robert A. Eichinger, P.E, (Hydraulic Engineer) Address 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 101 7600 N. 15 Street, Suite 250 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 Phone (808) 987-4162 (602) 944-5500 09188800 Internal Reference Number 091888001 2.1.3 FEMA Technical Review Contractor Contact(s) Address Phone Internal Reference Number 2.1.4 FEMA Regional Reviewer Phone 2.1.5 State Technical Reviewer Phone 2.1.6 Local Technical Reviewer Mr. Kiran Emler, P.E. Civil Engineer V Phone Hawaii County (808)327-3530 2.1.7 Reach Description Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2, Hawaii Belt Road to Kuakini Highway. FIRM Map No. 1551660713D, Panel 713 of 1900; FIRM Map No. 1551660926E, Panel 926 of 1900. FI S Section G to FIS Section J 2.1.8 USGS Quad Sheet(s) with original Hawaii County TMK Map, Zone 7, Section 5, Plat 17, 19, 23, 25 and 26 (V Division) photo date & latest photo revision Web site: http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/maps/tmk/zone.htm date 2.1.9 Unique Conditions and Problems None 2.1.10 Coordination of Q's Discharges 100 -year discharge from 1984 SCS "North Kona Flood Plain Study' (Agency, Date, Comments) 100 -year discharge through study reach is 2,670 cfs. SECTION 2.2: FEMA Forms (following pages) Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Floodplain Delineation Study technical Data Note000K I FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 3067-014 OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM Expires September 30, 200S PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE IPublic reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears In the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergenc Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the forth is required t� obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA This request is for a (check one): ® CLOMR: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ❑ LOMR: A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or flood elevations. (See Parts 60 & 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW 1. The NFIP map panal(s) aneerea Tor an impacrcu wnuuuuiuca ,o Communi No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 City of Katy TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83 480287 Harris County TX 48201C 022OG 09/28/90 155166 Hawaii County HI 0713D 713 05116/94 35166 Hawaii County Hi 0926E 926 06/02/ i 2. Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 3. - Project Name/Identifier. CLOMR - Paulani Makai (Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 FIS Cross Section G - J) 4. FEMA zone designations affected: AE, X (choices: A, AH, AO, At -A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1430, VE, B, C, D. X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ® Improved Methodology/Data ® Regulatory Floodway Revision ❑ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding and structures (check all that apply) Types of Flooding: ® Riverine ❑ Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) Structures: ® Channelization ❑ Levee/Floodwall ® Bridge/Culvert ❑ Dam ® Fill ❑ Other, Attach Description ....____... a ..__..,,..e...ro c,..,., - MT -2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2 C. REVIEW FEE Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? Please see the FEMA Web site D. SIGNATURE Yes Fee amount: $4.000.00 ❑ No, Attach Explanation and All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: Joe Swanson, P.E. Company: Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: Fax No.: 75-143 Hualalai Road 808- 331-2779 808-331-2799 Suite 101 Kailue-Kona, HI 96740 E -Mail Address: joe.swanson@kimley-hom.com Signature of Requester (required): Date: 10/30/2003 As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Community Official's Name and Title: Kiram Elmer, P.E., Civil Engineer V Telephone No.: 808-327-3530 ommunity Name: Hawaii County, HI Community Official's Signature (required): Date: '- Community # 155166 CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifiers Name: Joe Swanson, P.E. OSE Ucens wait 11003-C Expiration Date: -4/3o/zoos. Company Name: Kimley-Horn and Ass o at E Giem- a 8-331-2779 Inc. NEER 808-331-2799 No Signature: .0 '�i Date: 10/30/2003 q7/ U.S:P• Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water -surface elevations ® Riverine Structures Form (Forth 3) Channel is modified, addition/revision of bridge/culverts, addition/revision of levee/floodwall, addition/revision of dam ❑ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) New or revised coastal elevations Seal (Optional) ❑ Coastal Structures Form (Form 5) Addition/revision of coastal structure ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans —1.__.._... o .,......,,..,,..,.., c...,., MT -2 Form 1 Pace 2 of 2 I E - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM O.M.B No. 3067-0748 Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the forth is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway SpiitFlow No. 2 I Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) N Not revised (skip to section 2) ❑ No existing analysis ❑ Improved data _ ❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1% -Annual -Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) i. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) Statistical Analysis of Gage Records Predpitation/Runoff Model [TR -20, HEC -1, HEC -HMS etc.] Regional Regression Equations Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. The document, "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage' lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found al: http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/en_modl.htm. 4. Review/Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, stale, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. B. HYDRAULICS 1. Reach to be Revised Description Cross Section Downstream Limit Above Kuakini Highway FIS G Upstream Limit Below Hawaii Belt Highway FIS J 2. Hydraulic Method Used Hydraulic Analysis HEC -RAS Version 3.1.1. [HEC -2, HEC -RAS, Other (Attach description)] Water -Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised FP 200.41 FP 200.41 FW200.34 FW 200.34 FP 310.06 FP 299.24 FW 310.00 FW 299.24 ... .... •. .r .r__..e rr..� .i _� I.AT7C......70.. r.ral nri B. 3. Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS, to aid in the review of HEC -2 and HEC -RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS can be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/frm_sofLhtm. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK - RAS. If you disagree with a message, please attach.an explanation of why the message is not valid in this case. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies will result in reduced review time. HEC-2/HEC-RAS models reviewed with CHECK-2/CHECK-RAS? ❑ Yes ® No 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model' Natural File Name: Plan: Duplicate Floodway File Name: Plan: Duplicatef Corrected Effective Model* Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Existing or Pre -Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Plan: ExistingCond Floodway File Name: Plan: ExistingCond Revised or Post -Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Plan: ProposedFP/FW Floodway File Name: Plan: ProposedFP/FW Other - (attach description) Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: *Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplain (Zone A) — for details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. The document "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/en_modl.htm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1% -annual -chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplain and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated o show the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the affective 1 %- and 0.2% -annual -chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. For CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? ❑ Yes ® No For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot 2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? T�19� If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structuresor proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT -2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ❑No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1% -annual -chance floodplain [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM O.M.B. No. 3067-0148 Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information. Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 50O C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Waiaha Dreinageway Splitflow No.2 Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. GENERAL Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below: Channelization ................complete Section B Bridge/Culvert .................complete Section C Dam ...............................complete Section D Levee/Floodwall .............complete Section E Sediment Transport ........ complete Section F (if required) Description Of Structure 1. Name of Structure: Paulani Makat Box Culvert Type (check one): ❑ Channelization ® Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam Location of Structure: 200 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Highway on Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 Downstream LimiVCross Section: HEC -RAS 10.45 Upstream Limit/Cross Section: HEC -RAS 10.65 2. Name of Structure: Paulani Makal Channel Type (check one): ® Channelization ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam Location of Structure: 80 feet below Hawaii Belt Highway to 160 feet above Kuakini Highway Downstream Limit/Cross Section: FIS G or HEC -RAS river station Upstream Limlt/Cross Section: FIS J or HEC -HAS river station 3. Name of Structure: Type (check one) ❑ Channelization ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed. FEMA Form 81-89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Pagel of 10 1 B. CHANNELIZATION Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2 Name of Structure: Paulani Makai Channel 1. Accessory Structures The channelization includes (check one): ❑ Levees (Attach Section E (Levee/Floodwall)] ❑ Superelevated sections ❑ Debris basin/detention basin ❑ Other(Describe): ® Drop structures - ® Transitions in cross sectional geometry ❑ Energy dissipator 2. Drawing Checklist Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions. 3. Hydraulic Considerations The channel was designed to carry 2,670 (cfs) and/or the 100 -year flood. The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one): ® Subcritical flow ❑ Critical flow ❑ Supercritical flow ❑ Energy grade line If there is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic Jump is controlled without affecting the stability of the channel. ❑ Inlet to channel ❑ Outlet of channel ❑ At Drop Stnictures ❑ At Transitions ❑ Other locations (specify): 4. Sediment Transport Considerations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. C. BRIDGE/CULVERT Flooding Source: Waiaha Drainageway SplitFlow N0.2 Name of Structure: Paulani Makai Box Culvert 1. This revision reflects (check one): ® New bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS ❑ Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS ❑ New analysis of bridgelculvert previously modeled in the FIS 2. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g.. HEC -2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8): HEC -RAS Version 3.1.1 If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could.not analyze the structures. Attach justification. 3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check the information that has been provided): ® Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length) ® Shape (culverts only) ® Material ❑ Beveling or Rounding ❑ Wing Wall Angle ❑ Skew Angle ® Distances Between Cross Sections 4. Sediment Transport Considerations ® Erosion Protection ® Low Chord Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ® Top of Road Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ® Structure Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ® Stream Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream ® Cross -Section Locations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes 0 No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. Rivrrine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 2 of 10 Response to Item No. 4 Sediment.Transport Characteristics for B. Channelization and C. Bridge/Culvert MT -2 Form 3 Paulani Makai CLOMR Sediment Transport was not considered. The Hawaii Belt Highway embankment and proposed upstream detention basin (by others under construction) will retain sediment and debris before entering the proposed Paulani Makai Channelization. The 100 -year flow velocities will move sediment through the proposed channel. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PAYMENT INFORMATION FORM 1 ..ommunity Name: Hawaii County, Hawaii IProject Identifier: Paulani Makai Channelization and Box Culvert THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED, ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FEE, TO ONE OF TWO POST OFFICE BOXES (SEE BELOW) OR FAXED TO THE FAX NUMBER BELOW. _ Type of Request: MT -1 application fee (Insert 3173 as the P.O. Box number in the address below) MT -2 application fee External Data Requests (EDRs) (Insert 398 as the P.O. Box number in the address below) Federal Emergency Management Agency Revisions Fee -Collection System Administrator P.O. Box 3173 Merrifield, Virginia 22116 Fax: (703)849-0282 Request No.: (if known) Amount $4,00.00 ® INITIAL FEE' ❑ FINAL FEE ❑ FEE BALANCE" ❑ MASTERCARD ❑ VISA ❑ CHECK ❑ MONEY ORDER Jote: Check only for EDR and/or Alluvial Fan requests (as appropriate). C"Note: Check only if submitting a corrected fee for an ongoing request j COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD II EXP. DATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Month Year CARD NUMBER Date NAME (AS IT APPEARS ON CARO): (please print or type) ADDRESS: (for your credit card receipt -please print or type) DAYTIME PHONE: Signature FEMA Form 81-107, Payment Information Form 3 Survey and Mapping Information 3.1 Field Survey Information Topographic mapping is from a survey of existing conditions upon Portion R.P. No. 6716, L.C. Aw. No. 4887, Part 2 to Thomas Sams; R. P. No. 7819, L.C. Aw. 8559-B, Apana 8 to Wm. C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159). at Puapuaaiki 1st and Puapuaanui 1St, North Kona, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii TMK: (3)7-5-17:19. The survey was performed on August 22, 2003 by Thomas G. Pattison, L. P. L. S. of Pattison Land Surveying, Inc. 3.2 Mapping The topographic mapping was provided with 1 foot contour intervals in AutoCAD format. The vertical datum was assumed from shown reference benchmark, a found nail in the centerline of the Hawaii Belt Road as referenced to mean sea level. The property boundary was provided from referenced records as listed above. Survey notes and certified topographic mapping is provided in Appendix C. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data NotenOOK Floodplain Delineation Study 5 2 Hydrology The regulatory flow rate of 2,670 cfs was used per the 1984 SCS "North Kona Flood Plain Study" Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 6 5 Hydraulics 5.1 Method Description The portion of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 being studied is located between the Hawaii Belt Road on the east and Kuakini Highway on the west. The Drainageway regulatory FIS HEC- 2 model (FIS Section A through FIS Section J) was obtained from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. This model was originally run on April 10, 1992 using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -2 program, version 4.6.0. The study reach begins at HEC -2 Section 8 (FIS Section G - upstream of Kuakini Highway) and ends at HEC- 2 Section 11 (FIS Section J - downstream of Hawaii Belt Road). The floodplain of Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 is wide and flat with poorly defined banks. Trees, grasses and other vegetation grow on a lava rock bed. The Effective HEC -2 model (OVR01.dat) of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 obtained from Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in September of 2003, was converted to a HEC -RAS model. The HEC -RAS model was then updated to reflect current topography. ( The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -RAS, Version 3.1.1 was used to conduct the hydraulic modeling. The study uses one-dimensional, steady flow, water surface profile calculations and the model is based on standard step -backwater methods using hydraulic cross-sections to describe the floodplain. The starting (initial) conditions were derived from the effective HEC -2 model at the most downstream FIS cross section. Starting water surface elevation was 6.0 feet at a downstream slope of 0.14 feet/foot for normal depth computations. 5.2 Work Study Maps This study uses new topography provided by Pattison Land Surveying, Inc., and created from field survey performed August 22, 2003. Digitial files were created and used with 1 -foot contour intervals. The surveyed topography was supplemented with the existing FIS aerial topographic work study maps (Contour data derived from R.M. Towill Corp., Honolulu, HI, 1984 for the 1984 SCS report "North Kona Flood Plain Study'). The scale of these work study maps is 1 inch equals 400 feet with 5 -foot contour intervals at elevations below 250 feet and 10 -foot contour intervals above 250 feet (Mean sea level was the vertical reference). The KHA work study map provided as part of this report (see Appendix F) were prepared from a Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 7 combination of digital topography and scanned images of the existing work maps. These maps are two-dimensional TIF images with no vertical component. The Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) work map is attached in Appendix F. It includes original SCS 1984 "North Kona Flood Plain Study" topographic mapping along with the existing FIS cross-section locations and floodplain and floodway boundaries. KHA has enhanced the work map to show cross-section stationing and labeling major features. The KHA project or proposed conditions water surface elevations, floodplain, and floodway are depicted on the work map. 5.3 Parameter Estimation 5.3.1 Roughness Coefficients A review of the Manning's n -values used in the Effective HEC -2 model determined the values to be 0.1 within the overbank areas and 0.06 — 0.08 within the channel. Kimley-Horn used the same Manning's n -values as used in the Effective HEC -2 model for the HEC -RAS duplicate effective model, existing conditions model, and a portion of the proposed conditions model. The proposed conditions model channel n -value is 0.035 for the channelized section of the study reach. 5.3.2 Expansion and Contraction Coefficients Expansion and contraction coefficients in the Effective HEC -22 model are 0.3 and 0.1, respectively. Expansion coefficients were added at the existing culvert under the Hawaii Belt Road and the proposed box culvert in the channelized reach. Expansion and contraction coefficients of 0.5 and 0.3 respectively were used at the culverts, for the collector channel, and the upstream transition section to more accurately reflect the hydraulic characteristics at the culverts. 5.4 Cross Section Description The hydraulic HEC -2 cross-section numbers and locations remain unchanged from the Effective FIS study. It should be noted that the beginning of each cross-section line is cross-section station 100. Waiaha Drainageway Splitnow No. 2 1 emnicai waca IvuLeuvun Floodplain Delineation Study 8 Effective Model: The Effective HEC -2 FIS model was obtained from the Michael Baker, Jr. Inc. Kimley-Horn reproduced the effective model and executed the input file in HEC -2. The reproduced effective model is provided on disk in Appendix E. Hardcopy printouts of the data file (waiaha.dat) and output file (WAIAHA.out) are provided in Error! Reference source not found.. The following models (plans) are contained in the HEC -RAS project file (WAIAHA.prj) and are provided on CD disk in Appendix E. The disk contains all associated project files (geometry, flow, plan, run, and output). Duplicate Effective Model (Plan): This HEC -RAS plan is the imported HEC -2 effective FIS model data. No changes were made to the imported file. Kimley-Horn checked the HEC -RAS output versus the output from the reproduced HEC -2 model. The HEC -RAS model matched the output (water surface elevations, top widths, etc.) from the HEC -2 effective model. Existing Conditions Model (Plan): This HEC -RAS plan updates the duplicate effective model by the addition of cross sections and incorporates new detailed topography. The FIS sections were updated with the new detailed topography (1 -foot contour intervals) and new sections were added in pertinent locations. The bank stations within the project limits were checked to assess their accuracy as compared to the topography on the work map. Bank stations were then adjusted in the model where appropriate. The existing conditions model ties into the effective FIS at FIS cross section G (HEC -2 model section 8) at the downstream limit and at cross section J (HEC -2 model section 11) at the upstream limit. An existing 96 -inch corrugated metal pipe culvert crossing is located at Hawaii Belt Road and the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2. This culvert was installed in 1982, prior to the 1984 FIS study. It is, however, shown in Appendix A of the North Kona Study on Sheet 6 of 13, as well as the FIS flood profile for Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No.2, but it was not included in the HEC -2 model prepared in 1984 as provided to KHA by Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. The culvert does not have the capacity for the 100 -year flood discharge for the Drainageway Both the North Kona Study and the FIS indicate that overtopping does not occur, when, as demonstrated in Kimley-Horn's hydraulic analysis, overtopping of Hawaii Belt Road does occur under the 100 - year event. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study g Post -Project Conditions Model (Plan): The Existing Conditions HEC -RAS Model was used to create the Post -Project or Proposed Conditions HEC -RAS plan. The post -project conditions model was created to reflect channelization of Waiaha Drainageway Spiitflow No. 2, the addition of a new four -barrel 10 -foot span by 10 -foot rise reinforced concrete box culvert, a new upstream collector channel, and transition section. Proposed model cross-sections are located at the same locations as in the Existing Conditions Model in addition to several new cross sections to model flow transitions and channel drops in the channelized reach. The proposed model ties into the same FIS cross sections as the existing conditions mode. 5.5 Modeling Considerations 5.5.1 Hydraulic Jump and Drop Analysis The floodplain analysis was conducted according to FEMA criteria for natural channels. A sub - critical analysis was performed to follow the Effective FIS study. Drop structures have been employed in the proposed channel as energy dissipators. The maximum drop is 3 feet. With the exception of the weirs of the drop structures, the profile remains sub -critical for the entire ( revised reach. 5.5.2 Bridges and Culverts There is one existing culvert at Hawaii Belt Road, and one proposed culvert located 200 feet downstream of Hawaii Belt Road. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the culverts. Table 2: Culvert Summary Table 5.5.3 Levees and Dikes There are no existing or proposed levees or dikes within the study reach. 5.5.4 Islands and Flow Splits There are no islands or split flows modeled within the study reach. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 10 5.5.5 Ineffective Flow Areas The HEC -RAS ineffective flow option partitions a cross-section between those areas that actively convey flow and those sections where water has little or no velocity. For purposes of floodplain mapping, floodwater is still shown in the ineffective flow area, but the cross-sectional area is not utilized for purposes of calculating the water surface. The only application of the ineffective flow option was applied for the Hawaii Belt Road 96 -inch culvert. 5.5.6 Supercritical Flow Supercritical flow was not modeled within the referenced reach to match the Effective FIS HEC - 2 model. 5.6 Floodway Modeling In the reach of proposed channelization, the floodway limit was set equal to the floodplain limit. Downstream of the channelization, floodway limits were defined by utilizing encroachment methods 1 and 4 in HEC -RAS. The procedure is based on calculating a natural profile as the first profile of a multiple profile run. Subsequent profiles were initially calculated with encroachment method 4. This method was used to get a rough estimate of the encroachment (( stations. A target increase of 1 -foot of rise was used to determine the encroachments based on equal conveyance reduction. Engineering judgment was used to refine the encroachment stations and encroachment method 1 was incorporated to define the floodway. No changes in floodplain or floodway limits were made for FIS cross sections A through G. 5.7 Problems Encountered During the Study 5.7.1 Special Problems and Solutions No special problems were encountered during the study. 5.7.2 Modeling Warning and Error Messages There are no model error messages. The model warning messages regarding conveyance ratio, energy loss, and velocity head changes between cross-sections were reviewed. These messages usually indicate a possible need for additional cross-sections. It was determined that additional cross-sections are not necessary. The model warning messages regarding divided flow were reviewed. It was determined that no modeling adjustments were necessary. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 11 5.8 Calibration At the downstream study limit (HEC -2 Section 8 or FIS Section G) the floodplain and floodway water surface elevations and top widths match the effective FIS water surface elevations. At the upstream study limit (HEC -2 Section 11 or FIS Section J) the proposed/project floodplain and floodway water surface elevations have been reduced over the effective FIS water surface elevations. The floodway encroachment stations- match the effective floodway stations at downstream limit (no change). The proposed/project floodway was mapped to the channelized banks through the channelized reach of the project. This includes the transition section upstream of the new box culvert. 5.9 Final Results 5.9.1 Hydraulic Analysis Results The results of the hydraulic modeling are summarized in the tables on the following pages. Table 3: Post -Project Conditions Standard Table 1 Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 12 7�9 k�M Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 12 Table 3: Continued 10.9 PF 1 2670 290.3 298.99 299.23 0.000132 3.94 677.73 78 0.24 10.9 PF 2 2670 290.3 298.99 299.23 0.000132 3.94 677.73 78 0.24 10.65 PF 1 2670 289.95 298.4 294.72 299.17 0.000508 7.02 380.32 45 0.43 10.65 PF 2 2670 289.95 298.4 294.72 299.17 0.000508 7.02 380.32 45 0.43 10.55 Culvert 10.45 PF 1 2670 289.6 296.23 297.47 0.005032 8.95 298.39 45 0.61 10.45 PF 2 2670 289.6 296.23 297.47 0.005032 8.95 298.39 45 0.61 10.21 PF 1 2670 289.6 294.57 294.57 297.08 0.014009 12.71 210.02 42.25 1 10.21 PF 2 2670 289.6 294.57 294.57 297.08 0.014007 12.71 210.03 42.25 1 10.2 PF 1 2670 286.6 293.3 294.69 0.005669 9.45 282.5 42.17 0.64 10.2 PF 2 2670 286.6 293.3 294.69 0.005657 9.44 282.71 42.17 0.64 10 PF 1 2670 286.5 292.58 291.68 294.45 0.008584 10.98 243.21 40 - 0.78 10 PF 2 2670 286.5 292.59 291.66 294.46 0.00854 10.96 243.62 40 0.78 9.975 PF 1 2670 286.35 291.53 291.53 294.11 0.014012 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.975 PF 2 2670 286.35 291.51 291.51 294.11 0.014175 12.95 206.23 40 1 9.97 PF 1 2670 283.35 289.64 291.39 0.007761 10.62 251.47 40 0.75 9.97 PF 2 2670 283.35 289.64 291.39 0.007732 10.6 251.78 40 0.74 9.95 PF 1 2670 283.2 289.4 288.38 2912 0.008101 10.77 247.92 40 0.76 9.95 PF 2 2670 283.2 289.41 288.36 291.2 0.008068 10.76 248.25 40 0.76 9.925 PF 1 2670 283.1 288.28 288.28 290.86 0.014011 12.9 207.02 40 . 1 9.925 PF 2 2670 283.1 288.26 288.26 290.86 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 9.92 PF 1 2670 280.1 286.49 285.28 288.16 0.007403 10.45 255.44 40 1 0.73 . 992 PF 2 2670 280.1 286.49 285.26 286.19 0.007376 10.44 255.75 40 0.73 9.855 PF 1 2670 279.85 285.03 61 0.014011 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.855 PF 2 2670 279.85 285.01 61 0.014176 12.95 206.23 40 1 M89 9.85 PF 1 2670 276.85 283.14 0.007756 10.62 251.52 40 0.75 9.85 PF 2 2670 276.85 283.15 89 0.007729 10.6 251.81 40 0.74 9.8 PF 1 2670 276.6 281.78 281.78 264.36 0.014012 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.8 PF 2 2670 276.6 281.76 281.76 284.36 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 9.795 PF 1 2670 273.6 280.11 281.74 0.006997 10.26 260.27 40 0.71 9.795 PF 2 2670 273.6 280.11 281.74 0.006973 10.25 260.57 40 0.71 Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data NotebooK Floodplain Delineation Study 13 C Table 3: Continued 9.765 PF 1 2670 273.35 278.53 278.53 281.11 0.014011 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.765 PF 2 2670 273.35 278.51 278.51 281.11 0.014171 12.95 206.25 40 1 9.76 PF 1 2670 270.35 276.7 278.41 0.007541 10.52 253.88 40 0.74 9.76 PF 2 2670 270.35 276.7 278.42 0.007524 10.51 254.07 40 0.73 9.75 PF 1 2670 270 276.6 278.19 0.006696 10.11 264.12 1 40 0.69' 9.75 PF 2 2670 270 276.61 278.19 0.00668 1 10.1 264.32 40 0.69 9.735 PF 1 2670 270.1 275.28 275.28 277.86 0.014012 12.9 207.02 40 1 9.735 PF 2 2670 270.1 275.26 275.26 277.86 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 9.73 PF 1 2670 267.1 273.29 272.28 275.09 0.008146 10.79 247.47 40 0.76 9.73 PF 2 2670 1 267.1 273.3 1 272.26 275.1 1 0.008111 10.77 1 247.82 1 40 0.76 9.715 PF 1 2670 267 272.18 272.18 274.76 0.014013 12.9 207.01 40 1 9.715 PF 2 2670 267 272.16 272.16 274.76 0.014175 12.95 206.23 40 1 9.71 PF 1 2670 264 270.56 272.17 0.006832 10.18 262.36 40 0.7 9.71 PF 2 2670 264 1 270.56, 272.17 0.00682 10.17 262.5 40 0.7 9.65 PF 1 2670 263.6 269.91 268.78 271.65 0.007675 10.58 252.4 40- 0.74 9.65 PF 2 2670 263.6 269.92 268.76 271.65 0.007647 10.57 252.7 40 0.74 9.635 PF 1 2670 263.5 268.67 268.67 271.26 0.014017 12.9 206.99 40 1 9.635 PF 2 2670 263.5 268.66 268.66 271.26 0.014176 12.95 206.23 40 1 9.63 PF 1 2670 260.5E264.89 44 268.88 0.005761 9.61 277.71 40 0.64 9.63 PF 2 2670 260.545 268.88 0.005741 9.6 278.04 40 0.64 9.55 PF 1 2670 259.73.9 264.9 267.49 0.014019 12.9 206.98 40 1 9.55 PF 2 2670 259.73 264.89 267.49 0.014172 12.95 206.25 40 1 9.54 PF 1 2670+25673 263.73 265.14 0.005627 9.54 279.91 40 1 0.64 9.54 1 PF 2 2670 256.73 263.74 265.15 0.005607 9.53 280.23 40 0.63 9.46 PF 1 2670 256 261.17 261.17 263.76 0.014022 12.9 206.97 40 1 PF 2 2670 256 261.16 261.16 263.76 0.014174 12.95 206.24 40 1 PF 1 2670 253 260.05 261.44 0.005502 9.47 282.02 40 0.63 N9.36 PF 2 2670 253 260.06 261.45 0.005483 9.46 282.34 40 0.63 PF 1 2670 252.1 257.27 257.27 259.86 0.0140712.9 206.94 40 PF 2 2670 252.1 257.26 257.26 259.86_L 0.014171__L__12.95_L 206.25 40 1 9.35 PF 1 2670 249.08 255.6254.25 257.23 0.006968 10.24 260.63 40 0.71 9.35 PF 2 2670 249.08 255.6 254.24 1 257.23 1 0.006949 10.24 260.87 140 0.71 Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 14 Table 3: Continued 9.31 PFI 2670 248.7 253.87 253.87 256.46 0.014052 12.91 206.82 40 1 9.31 PF 2 2670 248.7 253.86 253.86 256.46 0.014169 12.94 206.26 40 1 9.3 PF 1 2670 245.7 252.88 254.22 0.005209 9.3 287.23 40 0.61 9.3 PF 2 2670 245.7 -252.89 254.23 0.005197 9.29 287.46 40 0.61 9.05 PF 1 2670 244.73 249.9 249.9 252.49 0.014068 12.91 206.75 40.01 1 9.05 PF 2 2670 244.73 249.89 249.89 252.49 0.014169 12.94 206.28 40.01 1 9.04 PF 1 2670 241.73 248.01 246.9 249.76 0.007792 10.63 251.15 40.01 0.75 9.04 PF 2 2670 241.73 248.01 249.76 0.007789 10.63 251.19 40.01 0.75 9 PF 1 2670 241.55 246.72 246.72 249.31 0.014063 12.91 206.78 40.01 1 9 PF 2 2670 241.55 246.72 246.7 249.31 0.014045 12.91 206.87 40.01 1 8.8 PF 1 2670 241.05 245.87 245.87 247.49 0.010109 11.27 401.41 152 0.91 8.8 PF 2 2670 241.05 245.85 245.85 247.81 0.012243 12.04 306.15 80.19 0.97 8.7 PF 1 2670 237 241.21 241.06 242.08 0.044401 7.49 356.47 166.83 0.9 8.7 PF 2 2670 237 241.39 241.08 242.13 0.033749 6.89 387.37 168.56 0.8 8.4 PF 1 2670 228M200.34200.77 34.52 0.053548 7.38 413.88 264.75 0.66 8.4 PF 2 2670 22834.74 0.071408 8.61 310.13 135 1 8 PF 1 2670 19500.74 0.008475 4.58 582.65. 204.09 0.48 8 PF 2 2670 19500.77 0.008625 527142 0.49 7 PF 1 2670 192 ..95.67 0.04724 6.93 385.04 263.26, 1.01 7 PF 2 2670 192 194.9 194.9 195.68 0.046734 7.05 378.52 250 1.01 6 PF 1 2670 185 186.75 186.75 187.59 0.044476 7.39 361.2 213.96 1 6 PF 2 2670 185 186.74 186.74 187.59 0.044733 7.41 360.56 213.94 1.01 5 PF 1 2670 140 - 144.29 144.06 145.11 0.055216 7.25 368.13 171.61 0.87 5 PF 2 2670 140 144.17 144.17 145.59 0.070176 9.56 279.15 100 1.01 4 PF 1 2670 90 92.76 92.76 93.47 0.048345 6.75 395.75 286.91 1.01 4 PF 2 2670 90 93.36 93.15 94.5 0.031508 8.56 311.75 110 0.9 3 PF 1 2670 54 55.41 55.23 55.64 0.029495 3.87 689.62 794.01 0.73 3 PF 2 2670 54 55.78 55.78 56.59 0.046217 7.23 369.05 230 1.01 2 PF 1 2670 40 43.62 42.34 43.73 0.055828 2.61 1023.64 565.13 0.34 2 PF 2 40 44.32 42.32 44.46 0.032091 3.04 879.69 250 0.29 1 PF 1 g2670 5 5.85 5.52 5.95 0.140108 2.5 1067.56 1250 0.48 1 PF 2 5 6.16 1 6.16 1 6.75 1 0.565637 6.14 434.76 375 1.01 Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 15 Table 4: Post -Project Conditions Culvert Results m 12 PF 1 324.19 324.17 '4 0.02 1' 0 0 815.1 1446.68 408.22 t 671.88 12 PF 2 3324.19 324.17 0.02 0 0 815.1 1446.68 408.22 671.88 11.8 PF 1 324.18 324.16 0.02 814.74 1447.17 408.09 671.63 11.8 PF 2 324.18 324.16 0.02 814.74 1447.17 408.09 671.63 11:6 Culvert 11.4 PF 1 314.85 313.86 0.99 0 0.49 42.08 2600 27.92 212.32 11.4 PF 2 314.85 313.86 0.99 0 0.49 42.08 2600 1 27.92 212.32 11.3 PF 1 299.3 299.29 0.01 0 0 2670 385 11.3 PF 2 299.3 299.29 0.01 0 0 2670, 385 10.9 PF 1 299.23 298.99 0.24 0.01 0.05 2670 78 10.9 PF 2 299.23 1 298.99 0.24 0.01 0.05 2670 78 10.65 PF 1 299.17 298.4 0.77 2670 45 10.65 PF 2 299.17 298.4 0.77 2670 45 10.55 Culvert 10.45 PF 1 297.47 296.23 1.24 0.27 0.13 2670 45 10.45 PF 2 297.47 296.23 1.24 0.27 0.13 2670 45 10.21 PF 1 1 297.08 294.57 1 51 0.01 0.34 2670 42.25 10.21 PF 2 297.08 294.57 1 2.51 0.01 0.34 2670 42.25 5.9.2 Verification of Results A review of the results indicates a reasonable water surface profile for the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 study reach. A review of calculated flow velocities in each hydraulic model indicates that they fall in a reasonable range given the physical characteristics of the proposed channelization project. Floodway revisions are supported with the hydraulic modeling performed. Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 16 M This section does not apply to this study. Erosion and Sediment Transport Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 17 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 7 7.1 Summary of Discharges FIS Report Data No revisions were made to the effective Flood Insurance Study Summary of Discharges. The 100 -year discharge used in this CLOMR application through the entire study reach was 2,670 cfs (see SCS 1984 "North Kona Flood Plain Study"). Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 18 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study 7.2 Floodway Data Waiaha Dr �1 Floodplain 19 1 e hnloal Uata Notet) oK N � rvcoroo�000 . 0000000000 U Z } z 3 � O MmpNrOJ c]r(ON w F O N LU 3� LU z O z Q w w } LL Q O O 73 on tO7mm m OJ Yr(O N r 47 vm � O(D CV Oi Q ~ R' F= -O vu'O]rn� m0)NN N N F 3° IL 3 } y 0 °o a LL 0 t07mc7 m0I p r<o N O z W g c7 m fV � t0 V O tD fV Oi t U C Z O Q � v m O mm N N N N o m W K U LL Q � 3 a 3 Z U � O W� za N�� w i w LL C W <LL O W NO�O)mry � Z W QQ mm rcDr0000 mMMNchmON NO r 3 Wo N h O O O LL p w N M0 O�� U W 2 W Z W W } ~ 40 LLi O 0 � O m N ��ru�m mu�rrn < y N ch C7M <�fJ �O f U 0U K � v w z _ O W Q y T K 3 CD zo m a3i N w W Q _2 0 O) p } 0 O C � w > O w O d LL m co Q d U C Z O y m 3QfdUO WwC7x—� U � 3 7.3 Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Maps Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 20 Technical Data Notebook Floodplain Delineation Study . COPY. BOTANICAL SURVEY PUALANI MAKAI NORTH KONA, HAWAII by Winona P. Char CHAR & ASSOCIATES Botanical Consultants Honolulu, Hawai'i Prepared for: WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT INC. October 2003 APPENDIX C BOTANICAL SURVEY PUALANI MAKAI NORTH KONA, HAWAII INTRODUCTION The approximately 63.4 -acre Pualani Makai project site is located on TMK: 7-5-17: Parcels 1, 19, 23, 25, and 26. The project site is bounded by a plant nursery to the north, the Hawai'i Belt Road to the east, a medical/dental office complex to the south, and Kuakini Highway to the west. Elevation ranges from about 215 feet above mean sea level (msl) along its northwestcorner to about 335 feet msl at its southeast corner. Substrate on the Pualani Makai project site consists of pahoehoe lava overlain by well -drained, shallow soils; low,. rocky outcroppings are scattered throughout the site (Sato et al. 1973). The vegetation on the site is typical of that found on the lower slopes around Kailua-Kona and consists of woodland and scrub forest dominated, by trees of kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and 'opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce) and koa haole or ekoa (Leucaena leucocephala) shrubs. Field studies to assess the botanical resources on the ±63.4 -acre project site were conducted on 04 September 2003 by a team of two botanists. The primary objectives of the field studies were to: 1) prepare a general description of the vegetation on the site; 2) inventory the flora; 3) search for threatened and endangered species as well as species of concern; and 4) identify areas of potential environmental problems or concerns and propose appropriate mitigation measures. u 9 SURVEY METHODS Prior to undertaking the field studies, a search was made of the pertinent literature to familiarize the principal investigator with other botanical studies conducted in the general area. A topographic map and a recent, colored, oblique aerial photograph were examined to determine vegetation cover patterns, terrain characteristics, access, boundaries, and reference points. A walk-through (pedestrian) survey method was used; the project site is easily accessed from the highways which border the east and west boundaries. In the field, notes were made on plant associations and distribution, substrate types, disturbances, drainage, exposure, topography, etc. Plant identifications were made in the field; plants which could not be positively 'identified were collected for later determination in the herbarium, and for comparison with the most recent taxonomic literature. The species recorded are indicative of the season ("rainy" vs. "dry") and the environmental conditions at the time of the survey. A survey taken at a different time of the year, and under varying environmental conditions would no doubt yield slight variations in the species list, especially of the weedy, annual plants. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION An earlier botanical study of the project site was made by Whistler in 1990. This study included the easement along Kuakini Highway and part of the new reservoir site. For the most part, the vegetation composition has not changed significantly since the 1990 study. The vegetation consists of kiawe and 'opiuma forest with scattered koa haole thickets. However, the property is no longer used for grazing cattle and Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) now forms a very K dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. Tree canopy cover is from 40 to 60% on the project site with the kiawe and 'opiuma trees 15 to 30 feet tall; some of the larger kiawe trees, especially on the northwest portion of the property, can reach 45 feet in height. Thickets of koa haole shrubs, 5 to 12 feet tall, are scattered here and there. Along the western half of the project site, however, koa haole thickets, 18 to 20 feet tall, become abundant and make up 50% of the woody cover. Dense, tall, robust clumps of Guinea grass dominate the understory especially on those areas with soil. Most of the other species tend to occur on the rocky outcroppings where there is less competition from the Guinea grass. On these areas, succulent, annual species such as fameflower (Talinum fruticosum), pigweed (Portulaca oleracea), Portulacaip losa, and air plant (Bryophyllum pinnatum) as well as other weedy herbs including false mallow (Malvastrum coromandelianum), Sida cordifolia, 'uhaloa (Waltheria indica), wild spider flower (Cleome gynandra), etc., are common to abundant. Prickly shrubs of lantana (Lantana camara), 3 to 4 feet tall, are locally common in areas with shallow, stony soil. The larger rock outcroppings are covered by lichens. A few native species are associated. with these larger outcroppings. These are the 'ilihe'e (Plumbago zeylanica), a scandent shrub with clusters of white flowers; koali 'awa (Ipomoea indica), a member of the morning glory family with pink to pale blue flowers; and 'ala'ala wai nui (Peperomia blanda var. floribunda), a small succulent with fuzzy leaves. An inventory of all the plants observed on the project site during the field studies is presented in the checklist at the end of this report. W DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Pualani Makai project site has been used for grazing cattle for a long time. As a result, the vegetation is dominated by introduced or alien species such as kiawe, 'opiuma, koa haole, and Guinea grass. Introduced, species are all those plants which were brought to the islands by humans, intentionally or accidentally, after Western contact, that is, Cook's arrival in the islands in 1778. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are 'uhaloa, 'ilihe'e, 'ilima (Sida fallax), koali 'awa, and 'ala.'ala wai nui. In the earlier 1990 botanical survey, the five native species mentioned above as well as kakalaioa (Caesalpinia bonduc), spurflower (Plectranthus parviflorus), and one plant of alahe'e (Psydrax odorata) were reported from the project site. All of these plants are indigenous, that is, they are native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere. None of. the plants recorded from the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a, 1999b; Wagner et al. 1999). All of the plants can be found in similar dry, lowland, disturbed habitats throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In conclusion, the proposed development of the Pualani Makai site is not expected .to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. 0 LITERATURE CITED Evenhuis, N.L. and L.G. Eldredge, editors. 1999-2002. Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers Nos. 58-70. Sato, H.H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973. Soil survey of the island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1999a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list, plants. March 23, 1999. Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. December 31, 1999. Wagner, W.L., M.M. Bruegmann, D.R. Herbst, and J. Q.C. Lau. 1999. Hawaiian vascular plants at risk: 1999. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers No. 60. Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i. 2 vols. University of Hawai'i Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Bishop Museum Special Publication 83. Wagner, W.L. and D.R. Herbst. 1999. Supplement to the Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i, pp. 1855-1918. Ins Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i. Revised edition. 2 vols. University of Hawai'i Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Whistler, A. (Char & Associates). 1990. Phase II, North Kona District, Hawai'i August 1990. 5 Botanical survey, Pualani Development -- Prepared for S. Fuke & Associates. PLANT SPECIES LIST -- Pualani Makai The following checklist is an inventory of all the plants observed on the Pualani Makai project site during the field studies. The plant species are arranged alphabetically by families into each of two groups: Dicots and Monocot.s. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the flowering plants are in accordance with Wagner et a1. (1990) and Wagner and Herbst (1999). The few recent name changes are those reported in the Hawaii Biological Survey series (Evenhuis and Eldridge, editors, 1999-2002). For each species, the following information is provided: 1. Scientific name with author citation. 2. Common English and/or Hawaiian name(s), when known. 3. Biogeographic status. The following symbols are used: I = indigenous = native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere. I? = questionably indigenous = data not clear if dispersal to the islands by natural or human -related mechanisms, but but weight of evidence suggests probably natural. X = introduced or alien = all those plants brought to the Hawaiian Islands by humans after Western contact, that is, Cook's arrival in the islands in 1778. R Scientific name DICOTS ACANTHACEAE (Acanthus family) Barleria cristata L. AMARANTHACEAE (Amaranthus family) Amaranthus spinosus L. Amaranthus viridis L. ANACARDIACEAE (Mango family) Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi APOCYNACEAE (Dogbane family) Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don ARISTOLOCHIACEAE (Birthwort family) Aristolochia littoralis Parodi ASCLEPIADACEAE (Milkweed family) Stapelia gigantea N.E. Brown ASTERACEAE (Daisy family) Bidens pilosa L. Emilia fosbergii Nicolson Tridax procumbens L. CACTACEAE (Cactus family) Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill CAPPARACEAE (Caper family) Cleome gynandra L. CARICACEAE (Papaya family) Carica papaya L. CLUSIACEAE (Mangosteen family) Clusia rosea Jacq. Common name barleria spiny amaranth, pakai. kuku slender amaranth, pakai Christmas berry, wilelaiki periwinkle Dutchman's pipe, pelican flower carrion flower, Zulu giant Spanish needle, beggar's tick flora's paintbrush, pualele coat buttons panini, papipi wild spider flower, hohohina papaya, mikana autograph tree, copey, Scotch attorney CONVOLVULACEAE (Morningglory family) Ipomoea indica (J. Burm.) Merr. koali 'awa, koali 'awahia Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker-Gawl. field bindweed CRASSULACEAE.(Orpine family) Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Oken air plant, life plant, 'oliwa ku kahakai 7 Status X x x M VII M x X x x r x V X I X x Scientific name Common name Status CUCURBITACEAE (Gourd family) Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach Momordica charantia L. EUPHORBIACEAE (Spurge family) Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp. Phyllanthus tenellus Roxb. Ricinus communis L. FABACEAE (Pea family) Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench Crotolaria incana L. Desmanthus pernambucanus (L.) Thellung Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. Prosopis pallida (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Kunth Senna occidentalis (L.) Link coccinia, ivy gourd X. wild cucumber, hedgehog gourd, teasel gourd X wild bittermelon X hairy spurge, garden spurge X X castor bean, koli, pa'aila x klu X partridge pea, lauki X fuzzy rattlepod, kukaehoki X slender mimosa X Florda beggarweed X indigo, 'iniko X koa haole, ekoa X 'opiuma X ki awe X coffee senna, 'auko'i X LAMIACEAE (Mint family) Leonotis nepetifolia (L.) R. Br. lion's ear X MALVACEAE (Mallow family) Abutilon grandifolium (Willd.) Sweet . Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Garcke Sida cordifolia L. Sida fallax Walp. Sida rhombifolia L. Sida spino.sa L. hairy abutilon X false mallow, hauuoi X X 'ilima I Cuba jute X prickly sida X MORACEAE (Mulberry family) Ficus elastica Roxb. ex Hornem. Indian rubber tree X Ficus microcarpa L.f. Chinese banyan X NYCTAGINACEAE (Four-o'clock family) Boerhavia coccinea Mill. 3 X Scientific name Common name PASSIFLORACEAE (Passion flower family) Passiflora foetida L. running pop, pohapoha PHYTOLACCACEAE (Pokeweed family) Rivina humilis L. PIPERACEAE (Pepper family) Peperomia blanda var. floribunda (Miq.) H. Huber PLUMBAGINACEAE (Leadwort family) Plumbago zeylanica L. PORTULACACEAE (Purslane family) Portulaca oleracea L. Portulaca pil.osa L. Talinum fruticosum (L.) Juss. RUTACEAE (Citrus family) Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack STERCULIACEAE (Cacao family) Waltheria indica L. TILIACEAE (Linden family) Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq VERBENACEAE (Verbena family) Lantana camara L. Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Vahl MONOCOTS COMMELINACEAE (Spiderwort family) Commelina benghalensis L. POACEAE (Grass family) Chloris barbata (L.) Sw. Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Melinis minutiflora (Willd.) Zizka Panicum maximum Jacq. Pennisetum setaceum (Forssk.) Chiov. coral berry, rouge plant 'ala'ala wai nui 'ilie'e, hilie'e pigweed, 'akulikuli kula talinum, fameflower mock orange 'uhaloa, hi'aloa, kanakaloa bur bush lantana, lakana Jamaica vervain, owi, of hairy honohono swollen fingergrass, mau'ulei wiregrass, manienie ali'i Natal redtop, Natal grass Guinea grass fountain grass 9 Status X X I I X X X X I? X X X X X X X X X (ANDA LINGL. GOVERNOR OF NAWAII April 20, 2004 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES Dr. Paul Rosendahl Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. 224 Waianuenue Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Dr. Rosendahl: HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING, ROOM 555 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI. HAWAII 96707 BOARD OF AND NATURAL REBOlACES MMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DAN DAVIDSON OEPUTYDIRECTOR-L1N0a ' C�� i ERNEST Y.W. LAU DEPUTY DIRECTOR- WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND CLEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANOES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATONANOOWSTAI,LAVGS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORC ENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND Wq JFE NISTOWCPRESERVATON KANOOIAWE VRAND RESERVE COMMISSON "NO STATE PARKS LOG NO: 2004.1248 DOC NO: 0404MM04 SUBJECT: 6E42 Historic Preservation Review of Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey (3 Id Draft) Ahupua'a of Puapua'a 1"' and 2"d, North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3)7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26 Thank you for your cover letter and seven page attachment dated March 3, 2004, together with a copy of the revised report entitled Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Makai Project (Carlson and Rosendahl, March 2004, PHRI report number 2290-030104) for our review. The revisions were undertaken in response to our December 16, 2003 review of the second draft report (Log No. 2003.2453, Doc No. 0312MM04). In our last review, we asked you to provide a better indication of the total number of features on the subject property and to re-evaluate your conclusions and recommendations for several sites. We also requested some specific information about the features tested by Rechtman Consulting in 2002 and suggested additional field work to meet these requests. A goodfaith effort to address our concern regarding the number and distribution of agricultural features was made by your staff during field work conducted in February 2004. You have documented an agricultural mound and outcrop complex comprised of over one thousand mounds and outcrops scattered across the subject property. To complete your evaluation of this complex you will need to assign the new agricultural features a site number, evaluate their significance and make recommendations regarding mitigation (see our attached comments). Given the density of features now reported, we feel some additional investigations are warranted during the data recovery phase of this project, as well as on-site monitoring during the initial ground disturbance within this project area. A total of 68 Sites are thus far identified. The sites include platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, and walls believed to date to the pre -contact period, along with a historic period roadway and ranching features. Thirty-five sites are found significant for their information content only, and are recommended for "no further work.' Of these 35 sites, 14 were subjected to data recovery during the investigation of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility area within the project area. Twenty-eight of the total sites are found significant for their information content and recommended for further work. One non -burial site, 14123, is determined significant under Criteria C and D, and recommended for preservation. APPENDIXD RECEIVED APR 2 3 200- Dr. Paul Rosendahl Page 2 Three burial sites have been identified to date: (1) Site 14091 Feature A, a mound/platform covering a lava blister, which is evaluated as significant under Criteria D and E; (2) Site 14132, a lava tube containing the remains of at least 10 individuals evaluated as significant under Criteria D and E, and (3) Site 14124 Feature C, a platform, determined significant under Criteria C, D, and E. Since the original 1990 survey additional burial testing has been undertaken both by your firm and by Rechtman Consulting. Despite this, we believe that unrecorded burials may still be present. There are still a number of untested platforms on the subject property whose tentative functional interpretation is either habitation or habitation/agriculture. We believe that a burial function cannot be ruled out for these features, given the results of the burial testing work by your firm in 2002 and the testing reported in 2002 by Rechtman Consulting. Human remains were in one of the three platforms that were excavated (see Attachment for details). Before we can approve your report, you need to either conduct additional excavations to determine the presence/absence of human burials, or change the functional interpretation of these features to "possible burial.' We have some last comments regarding the maps, profiles, and descriptions for the burials testing conducted by PHRI and Rechtman Consulting. Please see our comments. Finally, we noted that you changed some functional interpretations and recommendations in the current draft report. We do not believe that these changes are supported by the archaeological data or historical information. Please see our detailed comments in the Attachment and revise the report for our final review and approval of your significance assessments and recommended mitigation treatments. If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact MaryAnne Maigret in our Hawaii Island Office (329-3690) or Dr. Pat McCoy in Honolulu at 692-8029. Aloha, --,, > /J z, / P. Holly McEldowney, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division MM:jen Attachment c: Chris Yuen, County of Hawaii Planning Department Kai Emler, County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Kai Markell, SHPD Burials Site Program Chair, Hawai'i Island Burial Council Historic Preservation Review, Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey (Third Draft) Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pua/ani Makal Project (Carlson and Rosendahl, March 2004, PHR/ report number 2290-030104) Ahupuaa of Puapuaa 1" and 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3) 7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26 (Carlson and Rosendahl 2004) Comments on Attachment submitted with March 2004 revised report: Attachment Page 1, Paragraph 4 Review and Clarification of Site Function Uncertainties: In our December 16, 2003 review letter, we asked for additional work to determine the total number of features on the subject property. Appendix D, Page D-8, "Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features" addresses this request. We believe the new discussion of feature types and density within each of the eight surveyed zones provides a much better indication of the density and distribution of the mounds and modified outcrops on the subject property. Over 1000 modified outcrops and mounds are described. Modified outcrops outnumber mounds, and although differences in density and distribution are described, these differences are attributed to either topographic conditions or previous land disturbance from cattle ranching. You report that the presumed agricultural features do not cluster around presumed habitation complexes. While the additional fieldwork conducted in February 2004 was successful in confirming the relative abundance and general distribution patterns of what you call "minor" agricultural features in the project area, there is no interpretation of the data in terms of the number of sites and their significance. You need to provide a discussion of the number of sites that might be represented and their significance, and also include recommended site treatments. We believe that given the large number of features some additional work is warranted to investigate agricultural practices and the relationship of the agricultural features to sites you have interpreted as residential. Attachment Page 1, Paragraph 7: Previous Archaeological Work, Appendix D The remainder of your attachment responds to our request that you integrate/reconcile the Rechtman 2002 study with your inventory report One of the particular items we wanted you to address was Rechtman's comments regarding Sites 14123, 14124, and 14126, which he believed might be a complex of ceremonial features. Presently, you consider 14123 to be a habitation/agriculture site (no longer ceremonial), an excellent example of a site type, and have recommended it for preservation. Site 14124 is considered a habitation/agriculture/burial complex, significant under Criterion C, D and E. Only the burial feature is recommended for preservation. No further work is recommended for the other two sites. Site 14126 is presently considered an historic feature related to sugar cane cultivation, (the possible burial tested negative), and no further work is recommended. You do not support a hypothesis for ceremonial use at any of these sites. Attachment, Page 2, Paragraph 3 Regarding Site 14123, you state that "We believe the original (our emphasis) PHRI interpretation that the site was for habitation/agriculture should stand for the following reasons: Attachment Page 2 Your argument is based on 1) the presence of seven "planting areas or water catchment areas..... in the near vicinity of the site, " 2) A lack of vital criteria by which heiau can be discerned 3) The presence of a burial in Site 14124 does not make it a heiau. You have also collected new evidence and argue that Site 14126 is related to historic sugar cultivation and a railroad line. We believe the original site description in your Inventory Survey for Sites 14123 and 14124 should be reviewed: Sites 14123 and 14124 are large complexes centered around large pahoehoe and as bedrock outcrops (See Figures B-10 and B-12 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments. They both have well-built wails which extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However, the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5 by 5 meter area on the edge of the outcrop that is paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This area grades off into jumbled rubble and boulders, yet a large area in the vicinity of these paved area is quite open and level. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks like a stage (to use a contemporary analogy). The function of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function. The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 is smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop itself has a large enclosure -like forth. The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large, essentially rectangular platform. This feature has been interpreted as a possible burial platform. Overall these two sites are impressive compared to any other site in the project area and warrant extensive further work and possibly preservation "as is.'........... The evolving review and interpretation of these sites, evaluation of their significance, and their recommended treatments over the last three drafts is as follows: ➢ 1992 Original Draft. PHR/ presents site description for 14123 with two features thought to be ceremonial. Table 11 lists Site 14123 as significant under Criteria C, D, and provisionally under E. Provisionally recommended forpreservation with interpretive development. ➢ 2nd draft, (2003) Site description and Table D-1, dated January 2003, Site 14123 becomes significant under Criterion C and D only following negative results for burial in Feature E. Site is still recommended forpreservation with interpretive development. 3'd Draft (2004) Site 14123 still considered significant under Criterion C and D, is recommended for both no further work and preservation 'as is." The original interpretation of 14123 was ceremonial. It is only in the third draft when the ceremonial designation is not supported. Our understanding was that the ceremonial aspect of the site was tied to the large pahoehoe pavement at Feature A, not to the possible burial at Feature -E: The only new information concerns the absence of a burial there, so we are -not -sure -- why this change was made. Attachment Page 3 Rechtman suggested that not only was 14123 a possible ceremonial site, but that Sites 14124 and 14126 may be related complexes, and therefore, ceremonial in nature as well. We believe that the link between 14123 and 14124 should be explored further, and pending the outcome of our discussion below of Site 14126, additional work at 14126 might be necessary, but to answer different research questions. With respect to 14123 and 14124, we offer the following comments on your three arguments against any ceremonial function for these two sites: First PHRI argument against ceremonial function: 1) Recently, on 2/6/04, PHRI re -inspected Site 14123. At least seven planting areas or water catchment areas were noted in the near vicinity of the site. These are holes in a'a lava bedrock that measure approximately 1 to 1.5 m wide by 1.5 to 2.0 m in depth. They were not aligned or patterned in any way, and are not judged to be foundation holes for haku lele, due to their size and random distribution. The site description for 14123, Feature A, mentions three "faced depressions" that "may have served as water catchment depressions.` The map for 14123 does not depict these features. If you now note seven of these features, they, along with the originally reported depressions, should be portrayed on a map before conclusions about their distribution or patterning can be discussed, or their presumed function. Certainly, the presence of pit features does not in itself indicate ceremonial function, but we feel their presence within the overall context of the site should be further explored. We're also not convinced that you have any evidence for assigning agricultural use to these pits. Given the presence of over a thousand small planting features and soil on this property, what unique purpose would two -meter deep pits serve in proximity to the slab pavement and burial platform at 14123 and 14124, respectively? They are noted also at Site 14102, Feature C, but the depths are not provided so their similarity to these pits is not known. Second PHRI argument against ceremonial function: Rechtman does not state the criteria by which he has judged Site 14123 to be a heiau. The SHPD has repeatedly stated that judgmental criteria must be given in the order to support a site's function. Site 14123, in our opinion, does not meet the criteria for heiau. Hammatt at al. (1997) compiled a list of heiau attributes, drawing from sources such as Bennett (1930), Valerie (1985), Kirch (1985), Kolb (1991), and Stokes and Dye (1991). The attributes included upright stones and branch coral, prominent location on bluff and cliff tops, historic references, area, and architectural attributes, which include depressions (used for bone pits or to support idols), altars, paving, multiple levels or tiers, and large, free-standing walls. Site 14123 meets only one of the criteria: its location on a bluff. Comment We disagree. If you apply the criteria you mention, it is arguable that the architectural attributes, paving, depressions, and prominent topographic location criteria are met. If you apply the criteria to Site 14124 as well, it includes prominent topographic location, depressions, and free standing walls. Attachment Page 4 Third PHRI argument against ceremonial function: Concerning Rechtman's statement that Sites 14124, 14123 and 14126 form a complex, again no arguments are presented by Rechtman to substantiate this. Site 14124 contains a burial, but this alone is not sufficient to make it part of a complex, since isolated burials can and do exist in many locations. Proximity of the three sites is also certainly not a criteria, since there are other sites all over the project area with similar distances between them. We do not think you should dismiss a possible relationship between these sites. Burial function and proximity are not the only aspects of this site to consider. The original PHRI site description finds them both "unique within the project area," both sites are nestled into the same boulder outcrop feature, and similar types of pits are described in both sites. The condition of the skeletal remains at 14124 Feature C suggests it is not a typical interment, and this, coupled with the possible ceremonial use of 14123 Feature A, is interesting. We also feel you should examine 14124 Feature B, the walls, with a more critical eye and explain what the "boundary" interpretation is all about. What is the wall demarcating? Since both sites are assessed as significant under Criterion D and Criterion C, and Site 14124 is now significant under Criterion E because of its burial function, we feel both Sites should be recommended for preservation with additional mapping and excavation to provide better interpretation and to justify adequate preservation buffers. Attachment, Page 3, Paragraph 1 Concerning Site 14126 and its relationship to Site 14123 (as hypothesized by Rechtman), you offer an alternative interpretation of this site which you feel discourages the interpretation that Sites 14123, 14124 and 14126 form a complex. You believe Site 14126 may be related to historic sugar cane cultivation and associated railroad activities because you found a railroad be and a piece of railroad engine equipment near the site, and the platform resembles those documented by Hunt and McDermott (1993) in the Puainako Street Extension Project This is quite interesting and a topic worth exploring in the regions of Kona where sugar was produced. Please clarify if your intent is to suggest that sugar was cultivated on or near the subject property, or, if the loading platform idea connects to transportation networks for sugar products unrelated to the growing areas. We're puzzled at your statement that "A review of a portion of the 1928 USGS Kailua Quadrangle depicts a railroad (sugarcane) line on the subject property in approximately the same area as Site 14126." We are not aware of any studies documenting a rail line at this elevation. The West Hawaii Railroad, which was associated with sugar cultivation in the mauka regions of North Kona, is at a higher elevation in this ahupua'a. If you wish to pursue this interpretation you need to provide not only the map you believe depicts a rail line on the subject property, but some supporting historical documentation as well. You also need to provide photos of the railroad equipment and a reference for your interpretation of these artifacts. You may want to expand your discussion, as such a finding would have significant implications for the interpretation of functional and age for other features on the property as well. Attachment, Page 3, Paragraph 5 Our apologies for our mistake in stating the total number of platforms identified in the survey. You correctly point out that Table 2, not Table 11, indicates there were 13 identified in the initial Attachment Page 5 survey. (There is a Table 11, by the way, it is on Pages 40-41, Titled "Rationale for Site Significance and Treatment') We understand that no new platforms were identified during the most recent field work. We appreciate your field staff having compared the Rechtman field notes and sketch map to PHRI sites in the field- we understand this was a challenging task in light of the absence of Gear field markings of the sites observed by Dr. Rechtman. Of the thirteen platforms, four were tested. Of the four, one, Site 14124 Feature C, tested positive for human remains. All of the remaining platforms are recommended for data recovery. We feel the additional untested platforms cannot be ruled out as burial features and should therefore be subjected to testing before we approve this report, or, a functional interpretation of "possible burial' applied, so that any additional burials identified during the additional work can be incorporated into your Burial Treatment Plan with a determination from the Hawaii Island Burial Council. Attachment, Page 7, paragraph 3 Regarding Site 14091, we now agree that accepting Rechtman's findings, along with the profile that indicates the bubble is about 2 meters wide is probably preferable to opening up the feature again. Comments on Revised Appendix D Item 6, Page D4: Thank you for providing the map of Site14132, the burial cave. We would like you to include the plan view maps and profiles from Rechtman's testing for Sites 14091 and 14129 as well, which are found in his report along with the map of 14132. For test excavations at Site 14123, Feature E, Site 14124, Feature C, and Site 14126, Feature B, you have provided profiles in Figure D-3. The excavation descriptions in Appendix D indicate that 14123E and 141268 did not contain any cultural material, and that is reflected in the profiles you provided. However, for Site 14124, Feature C, the burial, we do not understand why you provided a south wall profile when the human remains and pahoehoe slabs which apparently were associated with the remains are described in the eastern portion of the unit. Please provide the relevant profile information from this excavation. Page D-12, Subsequent Work in General Vicinity Paragraph 4 The Graves (1991) report you refer to, PHRI Interim Report 1055-060491, was for the portion of the current subject property known as the Wastewater Treatment Facility area, which is addressed under Item #2 in Appendix D. Data recovery at 14 sites was completed. If there is now a completed, final data recovery report for this area we'd like you to summarize it here. The data recovery report you do summarize would appear to be for the property situated immediately upslope from the current subject property, last described in Graves (1991), Interim Report 962-032291. You state that 58 Sites underwent Data Recovery, with 394 auger tests and 176 excavation units. Surely this information could be more fully discussed, as it has a direct bearing on the interpretation of the sites in the remainder of the property. Attachment Page 6 Additional Needed Revisions Please update Table 2, and create a Revised and Updated Summary of Identified Sites and Features. Add a column that indicates the date and study in which the field tasks were completed (to distinguish between Haun DR, PHRI DR, Rechtman due diligence, PHRI additional testing, etc, etc.) There have been substantial updates and changes since the original draft and the report currently lacks a comprehensive reference table. Please place it in Appendix D to accompany Table D-1, Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments (Jan 2003). Since there are now nine additional investigations/field sessions on the subject property since the original 1990 survey, each with bearing on the revised significance assessments and recommended treatments, please prepare a revised Conclusions and Discussion section (presently pp. 33-37). Updated conclusions and recommendations will combine effectively with the revised tables. Site Significance and Recommendations, Table D-1: Why are Features B and C of Site 14091 designated under Criterion E? Only feature A tested positive for a burial. Per your summary of Site 14081 and the SHPD "conditional approval for the [Wastewater Treatment data recovery] area', Site 14081 was to have been designated an excellent example of a site type with a recommendation for preservation "as is". You have now altered your recommendation for further data collection only, with significance assessed only under Criterion D. The original designation under Criterion C was apparently misapplied and applies only to the value of the subsurface deposits, which you feel is more correctly addressed under Criterion D and data recovery excavations. This is acceptable. Site 14123: We would like to see additional investigations at this site to better interpret the site, as it is assessed as significant as an excellent example of a site type. Site 14124: Due to what we feel are reasonable similarities between Site 14123 and 14124, with additional concerns about the relationship between Feature C and Feature A, we would like to see all three features preserved and additional work undertaken to clarify the function of these features and their relationship to Site 14123. Site 14126: Your interpretation of this Site during the most recent field investigations needs to be reconsidered before we accept your recommendation for no further work. If you maintain your belief that the site is historic, additional work through data recovery may be warranted. PHR May 28, 2004 Project 2290 Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. FI X290 Historical • Cultural Resource Management Studies & Services Waianuenue Avenue • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • (808) 969-1763 • FAX (808) 961-6998 P.O. Box 23305 • G.M.F., Guam 96921 • (671) 472-3117 • FAX (671) 472.3131 Dr. P. Holland McEldownev, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division Kakuhihewa Building, Room 555 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei, Hawai'i 96707 Subect: Submissionfor-Review PHR[Report 2290-060104(4' Draft) Pualani Makai Project Land ofPuapuaa 1 and 2, North Kona District Island ofHawai'i (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25, 26) Dear Dr. ivlcEldowney: Enclosed for your approval is a copy of PHRI Report 2290-060104, for the Pualani Makai project in North Kona. This is the latest revised version (4t° Draft) addressing the review comments in your letter dated 20 April 2004; Log No:2004.1248; Doc No:0404MM04). For your convenience, your review comments are reproduced here (attached), and we have individually addressed each comment. Thank you for your assistance on this project. If you have any questions, please call me at our main Hilo office (808)969-1763. Si ly yours, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. President and Principal Archaeologist Encl: One bound copy ofPHRI Report 2290-060104 Attachment: SHPD Review Comments and PHR[Responses cc: Bill Brooks, Westpro Development, Inc., without report MaryAnne Maigret, SHPD Kona Office, with report APPENDIX D-1 Attachment (current responses are in blue) Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey (Third Draft) Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Makai Project (Carlson and Rosendahl, March 2004, PMU Report 2290-030104) Ahupuna of Puapuaa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3)7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26 (Carlson and Rosendahl 2004) Attachment Page 1, Paragraph 4 Review and Clarification of Site Function Uncertainties: In our December 16, 2003 review letter, we asked for additional work to determine the total number of features on the subject property. Appendix D, Page D-8, "Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features" addresses this request We believe the new discussion of feature types and density within each of the eight surveyed zones provides a much better indication of the density and distribution of the mounds and modified outcrops on the subject property. Over 1,000 modified outcrops and mounds are described. Modified outcrops outnumber mounds, and although differences in density and distribution are described, these differences are attributed to either topographic conditions or previous land disturbance from cattle ranching. You report that the presumed agricultural features do not cluster around presumed habitation complexes. While the additional fieldwork conducted in February 2004 was successful in confirming the relative abundance and general distribution patters of what you call "minor" agricultural features in the project area, there is no interpretation of the data in terms of the number of sites and their significance. You need to provide a discussion of the number of sites that might be represented and their significance, and also include recommended site treatments. We believe that given the large number of features some additional work is warranted to investigate agricultural practices and the relationship of the agricultural features to sites you have interpreted as residential. PHRI Response: PHRI has amended the report to state that the over one thousand mounds and outcrops in the project area are part of a single site - the Kona Field System (SIHP Site 6601). We have added information concerning the significance of the Site 6601 features and recommended site treatments in the Conclusion section. We do not understand what the additional investigations might constitute, and for what purpose. Please provide guidance on this matter. We are currently recommending no fivther work -for the features. Attachment Page 1, Paragraph 7: Previous Archaeological Work. Amendix D The remainder of your attachment responds to our request that you integrate/reconcile the Rechtman 2002 study with your inventory report One of the particular items we wanted you to address was Rechtman's comments regarding Sites 14123, 14124, and 14126, which he believed might be a complex of ceremonial features. Presently, you consider 14123 to be a habitation/agriculture site (no longer ceremonial), an excellent example of a site type, and have recommended it for preservation Site 14124 is considered a habitation/agricultu r/burial complex, significant under Criterion C, D and E. Only the burial feature is recommended for preservation. No further work is recommended for the other two sites. Site 14126 is presently considered an historic feature related to sugar cane cultivation (the possible burial tested negative), and no further work is recommended. PHRI Response: We assume you mean "no further work is recommended for the other two features. " The current recommendation is that Site 14124 undergo detailed mapping, and Site 14123 undergo excavation at Feature C, the enclosure. Site 14126 is not considered a historic feature relating to sugar cane cultivation. Appendix D, page 6, stated "it is possible, therefore, that Site 14126, Feature B, relates to historic sugar cane and associated railroad activities; it is notpossible, however, to confirm this." PHRI will test Site 14126, Feature A, the enclosure, in order to provide information concerning research questions being formulated for the data recovery plan. It is possible that this may provide information concerning Feature B possibly being used as a historic loading platform. You do not support a hypothesis for ceremonial use at any of these sites. Attachment, Page 2, Paragraph 3 Regarding Site 14123, you state that "We believe the original (our emphasis) PHRI interpretation that the site was for habitation/agriculture should stand for the following reasons: Your argument is based on 1) the presence of seven "planting areas or water catchment areas in the near vicinity of the site, 2) A lack of vital criteria by which heiau can be discerned 3) The presence of a burial in Site 14124 does not make it a heiau. You have also collected new evidence,and argue that Site 14126 is related to historic sugar cultivation and a railroad line. PHRI Response: We reiterate that only Feature B, Site 14126, may be related to historic sugar cultivation and a railroad line; Feature A of Site 14126 is a prehistoric enclosure. We believe the original site description in your Inventory Survey for Sites 14123 and 14124 should be reviewed Sites 14123 and 14124 are large complexes centered around large pahoehoe and as bedrock outcrops (See Figures 6-10 and B-12 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments. They both have well-built walls which extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However, the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5 by 5 meter area on the edge of the outcrop that is paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This area grades off into jumbled rubble and boulder:, yet a large area in the vicinity of these paved area is quite open and level. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks like a stage (to use a contemporary analogy). The function of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function. The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 is smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop itself has a large enclosure -like form The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large, essentially rectangular platform This feature has been interpreted as a possible burial platform Overall these two sites are impressive compared to any other site in the project area and warrant extensive further work and possibly preservation "as is." The evolving review and interpretation of these sites, evaluation of their significance, and their recommended treatments over the last three drafts is as follows: 1992 Original Draft: PHRI presents site description for 14123 with two features thought to be ceremonial. Table 11 lists Site 14123 as significant under Criteria C, D, and provisionally under E. Provisionally recommended for preservation with interpretive development 2nd draft, (2003) Site description and Table D -I, dated January 2003, Site 14123 becomes significant under Criterion C and D only following negative results for burial in Feature E. Site is still recommended for preservation with interpretive development. 3rd Draft (2004) Site 14123 still considered significant under Criterion C and D, is recommended for both no further work and preservation "as is." The original interpretation of 14123 was ceremonial. It is only in the third draft when the ceremonial designation is not supported. Our understanding was that the ceremonial aspect of the site was tied to the large pahoehoe pavement at Feature A not to the possible burial at Feature E. The only new information concerns the absence of a burial there, so we are not sure why this change was made. PHRI Response: After receiving your latest review letter, a careful review of the site was made, and PHRI visited the site several times in order to better understand the site's function. This led to the conclusion that the site may have had a ceremonial aspect. This is primarily due to the fact that when the site was recently inspected, in April 2004, it was found that some of the large pahoehoe slabs at Feature A may have been placed there, due to the presence of what appeared to be paving beneath some of the slabs. Other large slabs, however, appeared natural, having been partially broken from the surface by geological uplift (see revised Conclusion section). Rechtman suggested that not only was 14123 a possible ceremonial site, but that Sites 14124 and 14126 may be related complexes, and therefore, ceremonial in nature as well. We believe that the link between 14123 and 14124 should be explored further, and pending the outcome of our discussion below of Site 14126, additional work at 14126 might be necessary, but to answer different research questions. Response: We have examined the information for the sites and have visited the sites, and we have concluded that no link is apparent. Proximity is not a factor; the sites are 75-100 feet from each other; many other sites in the project area are 75-100 feet from each other. When comparing the two sites, Site 14124 has walls, a burial, and several depressions. Site 14/23 has walls, several depressions, a possible ceremonial "stage," and habitation caves. That these two sites have walls and depressions in common does not seem to its to warrant the conclusion that they therefore are linked, as these feature types are not uncommon at other sites in theproject area. The fact that Site 14123 may be a ceremonial site is not proof of a link with a nearby site, but rather the opposite: it points out the uniqueness of the site. In short, we cannot justify that the three sites are related, and therefore we are not stating this in the report. PHRI will, however, allow that Site 14123 may have had a ceremonial aspect and may be a heiau, based on the archaeological evidence, and we have revised the report to reflect this. PHRI will excavate Feature C at Site 14123 (at SHPD request for firther research), and Feature A at Site 14126 (for different research goals) in the hope that this may provide fivther information concerning the junction of the sites. With respect to 14123 and 14124, we offer the following comments on your three arguments against any ceremonial function for these two sites: First PMU argument against ceremonial function: 1) Recently, on 7/16/04, PM re -inspected Site 14123. At least seven planting areas or water catchment areas were noted in the near vicinity of the site. These are holes in as lava bedrock that measure approximately 1 to 1.5 m wide by 1.5 to 2.0 in in depth. They were not aligned or patterned in any way, and are not judged to be foundation holes for haku Tele, due to their size and random distribution. The site description for 14123, Feature A, mentions three "faced depressions" that "may have served as water catchment depressions." The map for 14123 does not depict these features. If you now note seven of these features, they, along with the originally reported depressions, should be portrayed on a map before conclusions about their distribution or patterning can be discussed, or their presumed function. Certainly, the presence of pit features does not in itself indicate ceremonial function, but we feel their presence within the overall context of the site should be further explored. PHRI Response: As noted, theplanting areas were in the vicinity of Feature A, but were not mapped in as being a part of the site. We will map the pit features during data recovery work and also examine the implications of these features. We're also not convinced that you have any evidence for assigning agricultural use to these pits. Given the presence of over a thousand small planting features and soil on this property, what unique purpose would two -meter deep pits serve in proximity to the slab pavement and burial platform at 14123 and 14124, respectively? They are noted also at Site 14102, Feature C, but the depths are not provided so their similarity to these pits is not known. PHRI Response: We agree they could be water catchment pits or they could be agricultural pits. Your reference to the "over a thousand small planting features" is incorrect The thousand or so modified outcrops and clearing mounds are the result ofclearing the area ofstones; in otherwords, they are only"agricultural" in that they are the result ofclearing land to create areas suitable forplanting. We have not suggested that the features themselves were used for agriculture. Second PHU arcunnent against ceremonial function Rechtman does not state the criteria by which he has judged Site 14123 to be a heiau. The SHPD has repeatedly stated that judgmental criteria must be given in the order to support a site's function. Site 14123, in our opinion, does not meet the criteria for heiau. Hammatt et al. (1997) compiled a list of heiau attributes, drawing from sources such as Bennett (1930), Valerie (1985), Kirch (1985), Kolb (1991), and Stokes and Dye (1991). The attributes included upright stones and branch coral, prominent location on bluff and cliff tops, historic references, area, and architectural attributes, which include depressions (used for bone pits or to support idols), altars, paving, multiple levels or tiers, and large, free-standing walls. Site 14123 meets only one of the criteria: its location on a bluff. Comment: We disagree. If you apply the criteria you mention, it is arguable that the architectural attributes, paving, depressions, and prominent topographic location criteria are met. If you apply the criteria to Site 14124 as well, it includes prominent topographic location, depressions, and free standing walls. PHRI Response: We'd like to point out that the sites are not on prominent bluffs, as suggested earlier. They are, rather, on upthrusted areas of bedrock that more or less resemble huge outcrops. The only criteria that the sites meet are architectural: the site/sites have pits, paving, and multiple levels, which are also common features in manv sites. As mentioned earlier, however, PHRI has allowed that the site may be a possible heiau, and this is noted in the Conclusions. Third PHRI argument against ceremonial function: Concerning Rechtman's statement that Sites 14124, 14123 and 14126 form a complex, again no arguments are presented by Rechtman to substantiate this. Site 14124 contains a burial, but this alone is not sufficient to make it part of a complex, since isolated burials can and do exist in many locations. Proximity of the three sites is also certainly not a criteria, since there are other sites all over the project area with similar distances between them. We do not think you should dismiss a possible relationship between these sites. PHRI Response: PHRI maintains that the evidence that these sites are associated is lacking to the point where we would rather not speculate. Perhaps the planned data recovery work at the sites will provide some useful information with which to address this topic. Burial function and proximity are not the only aspects of this site to consider. The original PHRI site description finds them both "unique within the project area," both sites are nestled into the same boulder outcrop feature, and similar types of pits are described in both sites. PHRI Response: The sites are not "nestled into the same boulder outcrop feature. "They are on separate outcrops of the same general type. Yes, they are unique in their settings, but one must ,keep in mind that their similar settings may have, in essence, more to do with the vagaries of geological formation, rather than the conscious actions of humans. The condition of the skeletal remains at 14124 Feature C suggests it is not a typical interment, and this, coupled with the possible ceremonial use of 14123 Feature A, is interesting. PHRI Response: It's true that that remains are not typical, but neither are they uncommon. We also feel you should examine 14124 Feature B, the walls, with a more critical eye and explain what the "boundary" interpretation is all about. What is the wall demarcating? PHRI Response: We aren't sure what the "boundary" interpretation is, since an explanation is not given in the original survey report; however, based on the information available it may be delineating a boundary of the complex itself, since it was thought the sites may represent a complex Perhaps the function of the wall will become clearer after re -mapping and reexamination during data recovery work Since both sites are assessed as significant under Criterion D and Criterion C, and Site 14124 is now significant under Criterion E because of its burial function, we feel both sites should be recommended for preservation with additional mapping and excavation to provide better interpretation and to justify adequate preservation buffets. PHRI Response: As mentioned, additional mapping and excavation will be done dining data recovery work, and Site 14123 and Site 14124-C(burial) are recommended for preservation. Attachment, Page 3, Paragraph I Concerning Site 14126 and its relationship to Site 14123 (as hypothesized by Rechtman), you offer an alternative interpretation of this site, which you feel discourages the interpretation that Sites 14123, 14124 and 14126 form a complex. You believe Site 14126 may be related to historic sugar cane cultivation and associated railroad activities because you found a railroad tie and a piece of railroad engine equipment near the site, and the platform resembles those documented by Hunt and McDermott (1993) in the Puainako Street Extension Project This is quite interesting and a topic worth exploring in the regions of Kona where sugar was produced. Please clarify if your intent is to suggest that sugar was cultivated on or near the subject property, or, if the loading platform idea connects to transportation networks for sugar products unrelated to the growing areas. We're puzzled at your statement that "A review of a portion of the 1928 USGS Kailua Quadrangle depicts a railroad (sugarcane) line on the subject property in approximately the same area as Site 14126." We are not aware of any studies documenting a rail line at this elevation. The West Hawaii Railroad, which was associated with sugar cultivation in the mauka regions of North Kona, is at a higher elevation in this ahupua'a. If you wish to pursue this interpretation you need to provide not only the map you believe depicts a rail line on the subject property, but some supporting historical documentation as well. You also need to provide photos of the railroad equipment and a reference for your interpretation of these artifacts. You may want to expand your discussion, as such a finding would have significant implications for the interpretation of functional and age for other features on the property as well. PHRI Response: We don't wish to pursue this further. We merely wished to state that the fact that a railroad rail and a possible piece of railroad equipment was found, and the fact that the platform resembles those documented by Hunt and ,VcDermott (1993) in the Puainako Street Extension Project is interesting and may provide another explanation for the existence of the platform. It is true that it is difficult to tell from the 1928 map exactly where the railroad line is. Attachment, Page 3, Paragraph 5 Our apologies for our mistake in stating the total number of platforms identified in the survey. You correctly point out that Table 2, not Table Z indicates there were 13 identified in the initial survey. (There is a Table 11, by the way, it is on Pages 40-41, Titled "Rationale for Site Significance and Treatment') We understand that no new platforms were identified during the most recent fieldwork We appreciate your field staff having compared the Rechtman field notes and sketch map to PHU sites in the field - we understand this was a challenging task in light of the absence of clear field markings of the sites observed by Dr. Rechtman. Of the thirteen platforms, four were tested. Of the four, one, Site 14124 Feature C, tested positive for human remains. All of the remaining platforms are recommended for data recovery. We feel the additional untested platforms cannot be ruled out as burial features and should therefore be subjected to testing before we approve this report, or, a functional interpretation of possible burial" applied, so that any additional burials identified during the additional work can be incorporated into your Burial Treatment Plan with a determination from the Hawaii Island Burial Council. PHRI Response: It may be worthwhile to review the individual platform site descriptions. These are provided as an attachment to this letter. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (the feahnes/sites in the site descriptions have been assigned numbers) are built upon bedrock outcrop with insufficient volume of rock to contain a burial. Number 3 was field inspected by PHRI in February 2004. Number 4 was tested by PHRI in February 2004, with negative results. Numbers 10, 11, 12, and 13 were initially recorded as burials or passible burials. When PHRI conducts afield survey, all suspicious mounds or platforms are recorded as burials or possible burials and are tested. This is a matter of routine procedure. Originally, none of the platforms resting on bedrock and judged to lack sufficient rock material to provide space for a. burial were designated as possible burials for that reason. The reason that PHRI does not believe the platforms listed above should be re-evaluated or tested are therefore two: (1) platforms originally designated possible or burial platforms have been checked by PHRI (or in one case, RC; this was originally slated to be tested by PHRI); (2) the remaining platforms are on bedrock with insufficient bedrock to provide space for a burial. However, since the SHPD continues to request testing, we are proposing the following testing program, although our position remains that the evidence indicates no further testing is necessary. We will amend Table D-1 to state possible burial to be tested" for the following platform sites: Sites 14079 (single feature), Site 14102-B, Site 14104-B, Site 14105-E, Site 14107-D and E, and Site 14108 (single feature). PHRI also is wondering if SHPD would provide a rationale to serve as a guide to burial testing in the future. Does SHPD now want all platforms, regardless of appearance or likelihood to contain burials, tested? What criteria in physical appearance would be used to determine whether or not to test for burials? In the past, this has been left up to the crew supervisor to determine. Attachment, Page 7, paragraph 3 Regarding Site 14091, we now agree that accepting Rechnnan's findings, along with the profile that indicates the bubble is about 2 meters wide is probably preferable to opening up the feature again. Comments on Revised Appendix D Item 6, Page D4: Thank you for providing the map of Site 14132, the burial cave. We would like you to include the plan view maps and profiles from Rechtman's testing for Sites 14091 and 14129 as well, which are found in his report along with the map of 14132. PHR1 Response: This is now included in Appendix D-1 For test excavations at Site 14123, Feature E, Site 14124, Feature C, and Site 14126, Feature B, you have provided profiles in Figure D-3. The excavation descriptions in Appendix D indicate that 14123E and 14126 did not contain any cultural material, and that is reflected in the profiles you provided. However, for Site 14124, Feature C, the burial, we do not understand why you provided a south wall profile when the human remains and pahoehoe slabs which apparently were associated with the remains are described in the eastern portion of the unit Please provide the relevant profile information from this excavation. PHRI Response: The pahoehoe slabs were in the eastern one-half of the platfcnn, and the HSR scattered party were scattered in a general area in all directions. Neither the pahoehoe slabs nor the scattered bone parts were in any o the sidewalls. Page D-12, Subsequent Work in General Vicinity Paragraph 4 The Graves (1991) report you refer to, PHRI Interim Report 1055-060491, was for the portion of the current subject property known as the Wastewater Treatment Facility area, which is addressed under Item #2 in Appendix D. Data recovery at 14 sites was completed. If there is now a completed, final data recovery report for this area we'd like you to summarize it here. PHRI Response: A final report has never been completed or submitted; however, the information is complete enough to summarize and this has been done (subsequent work in general vicinity section). The data recovery report you do summarize would appear to be for the property situated immediately upslope from the current subject property,- last described in Graves (1991), Interim Report 962-032291. You state that 58 Sites underwent Data Recovery, with 394 auger tests and 176 excavation units. Surely this information could be more fully discussed, as it has a direct bearing on the interpretation of the sites in the remainder of the property. PHRI Response: This has been done. Additional Needed Revisions Please update Table 2; and create a Revised and Updated Summary of 1dentifted Sites and Features. Add a column that indicates the date and study in which the field tasks were completed (to distinguish between Haun OR, PHRI OR, Rechtman due diligence, PHRI additional testing, etc, etc.) There have been substantial updates and changes since the original draft and the report currently lacks a comprehensive reference table. Please place it in Appendix D to accompany Table D-1, Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments (Jan 2003). PHRI Response: This has been done. Since there are now nine additional investigations/field sessions on the subject property since the original 1990 survey, each with bearing on the revised significance assessments and recommended treatments, please prepare a revised Conclusions and Discussion section (presently pp. 33-37). Updated conclusions and recommendations will combine effectively with the revised tables. PHRI Response: This has been done. Site Significance and Recommendations, Table D-1: Why are Features B and C of Site 14091 designated under Criterion E? Only feature A tested positive for a burial. PHRI Response: This is an error, and has been corrected. Features B and C are no longer designated under Criterion E. Per your summary of Site 14081 and the SHPD "conditional approval for the [Wastewater Treatment data recovery] area", Site 14081 was to have been designated an excellent example of a site type with a recommendation for preservation "as is". You have now altered your recommendation for further data collection only, with significance assessed only under Criterion D. The original designation under Criterion C was apparently misapplied and applies only to the value of the subsurface deposits, which you feel is more correctly addressed under Criterion D and data recovery excavations. This is acceptable. Site 14123: We would like to see additional investigations at this site to better interpret the site, as it is assessed as significant as an excellent example of a site type. PHRI Response: We will place excavation units within Site 14123 enclosure, Feature C, and have changed the recommendation for the site to Further Data Recovery. Site 14124: Due to what we feel are reasonable similarities between Site 14123 and 14124, with additional concerns about the relationship between Feature C and Feature A, we would like to see all three features preserved and additional work undertaken to clarify the function of these features and their relationship to Site 14123. PHRI Response: At Site 14124 there is no midden to excavate. Feature C platform has been excavated and Feature C has been tested for human remains. PHRI recommends documenting and mapping the "excavated depressions" around the site. Per the telephone conversation with PARI on 5/4/04, we recommend preservation, after further mapping of Features A and B, of Feature C burial only. We will place excavation units within Site 14123 enclosure, Feature C, and have changed the recommendation for the site to preservation and further data recovery . Site 14126: Your interpretation of this Site during the most recent field investigations needs to be reconsidered before we accept your recommendation for no further work. If you maintain your belief that the site is historic, additional work through data recovery may be warranted PHRI Response: Site 14126, Feature A enclosure is slated for additional data recovery. This may turn up additional data concerning the possibility that the site is historic. Site Descriptions 1. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14079 PERI: 764-8 SITE TYPE: Platform/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Flat to undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, pasture grasses, air plants, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 10.75 m by 9.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is crudely constructed of boulders stacked around a bedrock outcrop. Its outer wall is faced in a number of areas. Fill of cobble and boulder rubble forms most of the interior of the feature. However, there is a small soil -filled area in the approximate center of the feature. Along the NE side of this soil area is a boulder with a shallow, concave bowl in its upper surface; it may have served as a salt pan. Site 14080 is situated c. 3 meters to the south of this feature. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14102 PHRI: 764-33 SITE TYPE: Complex (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of seven features: an enclosure (Feature A), a modified outcrop/platform (Feature B), and four pit depressions in an outcrop (Feature C). FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 8.00 m by 6.80 m by 0.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a crudely stacked boulder wall, forming an enclosure that is partly laid on a natural outcrop to the east. The wall is broken to the west by cattle where it abuts a second large natural pahoehoe outcrop, at Feature C. 2. FEATURE B: Platform/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture/Habitation? DDWENSIONS: 7.00 m by 2.00 m by 0.92 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform appears primarily natural. Only slight modification exists, through piling and arranging boulders. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14104 PHRI: 764-35 SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Feature) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Lantana, opiuma, grasses, halos, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: two platforms (Features A and B), and two mounds (Features C and D). 3. FEATURE A: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 8.00 m by 5.0 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is well constructed. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble- and boulder -filled floor. It sits on a prominent knoll. 4. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 9.00 m by 7.00 m by 1.30 m (appro)L) DESCRIPTION: This platform is similar to Feature A, but is less substantial and well -constructed. It is built on and around a bedrock outcrop and is boulder -faced on three sides. FEATURE C: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.25 m by 2.00 in by 0.60 m (approx.) FEATURE D: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 13.00 m by 2.00 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of boulders and cobbles. It is nearly terraced on the uphill, east side. It slopes makai. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14105 PHRI: 764-36 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, ldawe, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: two terraces (Features A and C), and a platform (Feature B). The overall site measures c. 25.0 to (E -W) by 24.0 m (N -S). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 to by 9.00 in by 0.80 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of boulders stacked two courses high, creating a retaining wall which is filled behind with cobbles and earth. 5. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Indeterminate(Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 12.00 m by 6.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is constructed of stacked boulders around a bedrock outcrop, leveled with cobble and boulder fill. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14107 PHRI: 764-38 SITE TYPE: Complex (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, ldawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered -altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of six features: a wall (Feature A), three caves (Features B, C, and F) and two platforms (Features 0 and E). The overall complex measures c. 44 m to 27 m. It is situated directly south of site14106. FEATURE A: Wall FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 20.00 m by 14.00 m by 1.20 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This wall is S-shaped and constructed of roughly -faced boulders. The wall appears to follow a natural bedrock contour. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DEWENSIONS: 5.50 m by 4.50 m by 1.45 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. FEATURE C: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DEVIENSIONS: 7.10 m by 4.10 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. 6. FEATURE D: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 13.50 m by 8.50 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a square boulder alignment, with a boulder and cobble pavement inside. Cattle and vegetation have impacted the area. A rock alignment runs in an L -shape to the west 7. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 m by 5.80 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is a square structure built out from a natural bedrock outcrop, with a low terrace on the east side. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles extending from the outcrop to form a raised, flat surface. FEATURE F: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.85 m by 4.90 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a roughly circular, natural lava, blister. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated within this cave. They produced a coral abrader, two adze fragments, and a moderate amount of midden. 8. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14108 PHRI: 764-39 SITE TYPE: Platform/enclosure TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, ldawe, opiums, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 20.00 m by 16.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a platform/enclosure constructed by piling boulders and cobbles on and around a decomposing bedrock outcrop. The outcrop itself forms portions of the walls and platform. The enclosure is breached or tumbled down to the west, nwkai of the platform. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14114 PHRI: 764-45 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiums, koa-haole, vines. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: a terrace (Feature A). a terrace/wall (Feature $), and a platform (Feature C). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.20 m by 3.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles abutting a bedrock outcrop. Cattle and vegetation have impacted this feature. There is a small, faced depression on top of the feature at the north end. FEATURE B: Terracetwall FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 19.00 m by 1.00 m by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a sinuous terrace that forms a wall in some sections. It is faced in places, and constructed of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. 9. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 6.40 in by 6.00 in by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly square, raised platform with two levels. It is roughly -faced in areas and abuts an outcrop at the west side. The surfaces of the two levels are rough, but essentially level. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14123 PHRI: 764-54 SITE TYPE: Complex (5 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, Idawe, koa-haole, opiuma, papaya, autograph tree, vines, lantana, CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag.-ceremonial?-poss. burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of five features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), two caves (Features B and a wall (Feature C), and a paved surface (Feature E). The overall complex measures c. 80 in by 37 in. This is a large outcrop that has been modified and built onto in a number of areas. This site warrants extensive examination and further work, and possibly preservation. It is the largest single site in the project area. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 50.00 in by 35.00 in by 1.06 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This modified outcrop is basically a large rectangle. The northeast to northwest sides of the feature seems to be the most modified. The northwest section has an area paved with large. c. 1.0 in by 1.5 m slabs of pahoehoe. This may have served as a ceremonial area. Three faced depressions noted atop the outcrop may have served as water catchment depressions. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 2.50 in by 0.92 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a natural lava blister arch with two entries. Midden was observed on the interior surface of this cave. FEATURE C: Enclosure FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 34.00 in by 1.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is an irregularly shaped walled enclosure. A portion of the wall's extent is situated on the top west side of Feature A, in the vicinity of the paved area. The interior of this feature is heavily overgrown. FEATURE D: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 11.50 in by 6.70 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a natural blister with a boulder -stacked, double-faced wall encircling the entry. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated inside this cave. Numerous volcanic glass and basalt flakes, an adze fragment, two abraders, and a moderate amount of midden were recovered. 10. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation-poss. burial DIMENSIONS: 4.50 in by 3.00 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is basically square, faced on all sides with boulders, and paved with cobbles. A faced depression is present on the top of the feature. This may be agriculturally related. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14124 PHRI: 764-55 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large bedrock outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag. DESCRIPTION: This site is similar in general form to site 14123, except that it exhibits a lesser degree of modification. It consists of three features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), a wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature C). The overall complex measures c.44 in by 38 m. This is a large outcrop that has been modified in a number of areas on and around it. This site warrants extensive examination and further work, and possibly preservation. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 44.00 m by 38.00 m by 4.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly circular outcrop with a wall built on it, running northeast and northwest. There are several excavated depressions over its extent. FEATURE B: Wall(s) FUNCTION: Boundary DIDIENSIONS: 1)13.50 m by 0.10 m by1.35 m (approx.) 2)19.00 m by 1.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) 3) 5.00 m by 1.00 m by 0.65 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Three double faced -walls of stacked boulders run around the north and east margins of feature A. These three sections may have been connected at one time. 11. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Burial DIMENSIONS: 5.70 m by 4.00 m by 0.85 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is located in a flat area inside the Feature A perimeter. It is roughly rectangular, and built of fared -boulder walls with cobble and boulder fill. There is a slight depression in the top surface. Rock sizes range from 0.10 m to c. 0.40 m. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14 126 PHRI: 764-57 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture -possible burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: an enclosure (Feature A), and a platform (Feature B). The overall complex measures 19.0 m (N -S) by 6.5 m (E -W). FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation -Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.50 m by 3.50 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This enclosure consists of a roughly circular, well -faced, stacked boulder and cobble wail. 12. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture burial? DIMENSIONS: 3.00 m by 3.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is circular in shape, crudely -faced on all sides, and essentially level, although it is collapsing to the east 13. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14129 PHRI: 764-60 SITE TYPE: Platform TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, lantana, Idawe. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Possible burial DIMENSIONS: 2.5Cm by 2.50 m by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a circular platform constructed of large boulder slabs crudely -stacked and faced, and filled with a cobbles and limited slab pavement. There is a small taint of piled rocks on top of the platform on the SW edge. There are additional mounds/modified outcrops in the vicinity. Report 2290-060104 Archaeological Inventory Survey Pualani Makai Project Lands of Puapua`a 151 and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawaii Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Archaeological • Historical • Cultural Resource Management Studies & Services APPENDIX D-2 Report 2290-060104 Archaeological Inventory Survey Pualani Makai Project Lands of Puapua6a 1s2 and 2nd North Kona District, Island of Hawai6l (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26) Arne K. Carlson, B.A. • Supervisory Archaeologist and Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. • Principal Archaeologist PREPARED FOR Mr. Bill Brooks, Project Director Westpro Development, Inc. 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 201 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 JUNE 1004 PNIIPaul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Archaeological • Historical • Cultural Resource Management Studies d Services HAWAII: 224 WW..a Avaoua • Hila, Havnii 96720 • (609) 969-1763 GUAM: P.O. Box D305 • G.M.F., Guam 96921 • (671) 472-3117 PREFACE The fieldwork for the archaeological inventory for the Pualani Makai project was completed in March 1990, and the report on the fieldwork findings was completed in June 1990. However, at the request of the former property owners (Pualani Development Company), and due to concerns related to development work, the report was never fully reviewed by the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Instead the SHPD was asked to review only sections of the report relevant to a portion of the parcel on which a proposed wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) was to be built (Graves 1991). The SHPD reviewed and approved the relevant sections (letter of October 22, 1990, from D. Hibbard, SHPD, to D. Kanuha, Director, Hawai'i County Planning Department). Following SHPD approval, a data recovery plan for the WWTF portion was submitted to the SHPD (Jensen 1991), and the data recovery fieldwork was completed. An interim report on the data recovery fieldwork was submitted to the SHPD (Graves 1991), but again, for various reasons related to development work, a final report on the data recovery was never completed. Recently, the Pualani Makai project was reactivated. PHU was asked to resubmit for SHPD review, on behalf of the new owner of the property, the final report on the archaeological inventory survey for the entire Pualani Makai project. Because much of the report was originally written in 1990, a number of concerns arose. The most important was that since 1990, SHPD review standards for archaeological inventory survey reports have gradually beenrevised and -upgraded. PHRI-Principal Archaeologist Dr- Paul H. Rosendahl discussed this issue and other concerns with Dr. Ross Cordy, Chief Archaeologist, and Dr. Patrick McCoy, Hawai'i Island Staff Archaeologist for the SHPD. Based on these conversations, it was felt that it would be fair and prudent to generally review the report following 1990 standards. PHRI proceeded to revise and complete the report, and to address additional concerns raised by the SHPD. One concern was whether the inventory report should exist as a stand-alone document, covering the overall project area, or whether it should leave out the approved WWTF section, or include new information gathered during subsequent WWTF data recovery work; or include new information from other subsequent archaeological projects conducted in the Pualani Makai project area. There have been several subsequent projects conducted, including: a burial testing project by PHRI (Dunn 1990), another burial testing project by Robert Rechtman (done in 2000 or 2001; copy of the report being obtained), an additional inventory survey of a small portion of the Pualani Makai project area done in 1995 (Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System; Head and Rosendahl 1996), a data recovery project for the Pualam Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System done by Alan Hann & Associates (copy of the report being obtained), and monitoring work at the Pualani Makai Utility Corridor by PHU (currently in progress). It was decided that to avoid confusion, the report should for the most part stand alone. Rather than incorporate new information, references to the subsequent projects would be made, and any relevant information on the subsequent projects would be placed in an appendix. Hence, this preface explains the context within which this report was written, including subsequent projects, and Appendix D summarizes subsequent archaeological work and specifies the present status of significance assessments and general mitigation treatments for all sites for which further archaeological work (data recovery and/or preservation) remains to be done. Also discussed with the SHPD were: (a) revisions to Table 10 (General Significance Assessments and Recommended Treatments); (b) addition of a section discussing settlement patterns and predicted site patterns for the project area; (c) addition of site plan maps, and (d) review and clarification of any site function uncertainties. As a result, the original Table 10 was revised to utilize current SHPD evaluation criteria, a short summary of settlement patterns and predicted site patterns was added to the Introduction section, and site plan maps were added as Appendix C. Per the discussion with the SHPD, available drafted maps are included in Appendix C, as are clear, legible photocopies of field maps. In regard to reviewing and clarification of any site function uncertainties, this concern arose from a comment made in the SHPD review letter for the WWTF area (letter of October 22, 1990, from D. Hibbard, SHPD, to D. Kanuha, director, Hawaii County Planning Department). In the letter it is stated "There are a number of sites where function is not clear ... it might have been useful to have gathered more information to resolve these uncertainties." In this regard, PHRI reviewed the records for the sites mentioned in order to determine if definite functions could be assigned on the basis of extant information. It was determined that the original functional determinations should stand until further data collection (i.e., limited data recovery) can take place at the sites. Another issue concerning site function is the nature of habitation sites in the project. In general, the designation "habitation" was not refined into the sub -designations "temporary" or "permanent" The reasons for this are detailed in the Conclusion section. Nevertheless, since it would be helpful in understanding significance assessments and treatments for habitation sites, an attempt was made during the revision of this report to present "likely" designations based on extant information. Table 11 includes these designations. Finally, Table 11 is a table recently added to the original report. The table summarizes final significance evaluations and proposed mitigation treatments for each site in the project area and should prove helpful to the reader, the reviewer, and to future archaeological investigators in the project area. Leonard Kubo Senior Editor June 2004 References Cited Dunn, A.E. 1990 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey: Testing of Potential Burial Feature Pualani Development - Phase 11, Land of Puapuaa Ist and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). PHRI Report 972-121290. Prepared for Pualani Development Company, c/o Mr. Sidney Fuke & Associates. Graves, D.K. 1991 Pualani Residential Community (Phase II), Archaeological Data Recovery, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lands of Puapuaa Ist.and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.19). PHRI Interim Report 1055-060491, Prepared for Pualani Development Company. Head, J.A., and P.H. Rosendaid 1996 - Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System, Land of Puapua`a 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5- 17:Por.1). PI41U Report 1590-013096. Prepared for International Assets Limited c/o Ronald M. Knoll Consulting Group. Jensen, P.M. 1991 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, Pualani Development Company, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Land of Puapuaa 1" and 2North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1025-020191. Prepared for Pualani Development Company. Im SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL INVENTORY FINDINGS At the request of Mr. Sidney Fuke of Sidney Fuke & Associates, on behalf of their client, Pualani Development Company, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) in 1990 conducted a 100% coverage, variable -intensity archaeological inventory survey of the approximately 65 -acre Pualani Development - Phase 11 project area, in the Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3- 7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). The overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawaii State Land Use Commision, and (b) a Change of Zone Application to be made to the Hawaii County Planning Commission. Survey fieldwork was conducted February 26 to March 9, 1990 under the supervision of Supervisory Archaeologist Arne K Carlson, B.A. During field investigations, 64 sites consisting of 138 component features were identified. The sites range in physical condition from poor to good and consist of both single and multiple features. Formal feature types present include modified outcrop, C -shape, terrace, mound, wall, possible trail, cairn, enclosure, L -shape, platform, cave, and road. Probable functional interpretations were determined for most features. Functional feature types include habitation, boundary, transportation, marker, burial, possible burial, possible ceremonial, agriculture, possible agriculture, and features of indeterminate function. Field investigations also included limited subsurface testing. of seven sites. Thirteen 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated. Carbon samples from -two sites were submitted for C-14 age determination analysis. Two sites were found to contain relatively rich prehistoric cultural deposits. r Of the 64 sites identified, 57 are assessed as significant solely for information content. At 17 of these 56 sites, sufficient information has been collected and no further archaeological work is recommended. Further data collection is recommended for 40 of the 56 sites. Of the remaining seven sites, four are assessed as potentially culturally significant and valuable for information content. These sites may contain burials; further data collection is. recommended for them, and preservation "as is" is provisionally recommended, pending data collection results. Two sites are assessed as significant for information content, as excellent examples of site types, and as potentially culturally significant. One of these sites may be a ceremonial site and both sites may contain burials. For these two sites, further data collection is recommended, and preservation "as is" is provisionally recommended, pending data collection results. The final site is evaluated as significant for information content and as culturally significant. This site is a burial cave containing the remains of at least four individuals. Further data collection and preservation "as is" are recommended. iv Contents Introduction I Background 1 Scope of Work 1 Project Area Description 1 Previous Archaeological Work 4 Summary of Historical Documentary Research 5 Summary ofAhupua'a Settlement and Predicted Site Types Field Methods and Procedures 7 Findings • 10 Surface Findings 10 Summary of Subsurface Findings and Surface Collections 20 Summary of Test Excavations 20 Data Analyses 0 25 Age Determinations 25 Indigenous Artifacts 27 Ecofactual Remains 30 n Conclusion 33 Discussion 33 General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments 37 References Cited 44 Appendix A: Historical Documentary Research A -I by Helen Wong Smith, M.A. . Appendix B: Site Descriptions B -I Appendix C: Additional Figures I C -I Appendix D: Summary of Subsequent Archaeological Work in the Pualani Makai Project Area and Vicinity, and Updated Significance Assessments and Recommended Mitigation Treatments for Project Area Sites D-1 v Figures Figure I. Project Location Map 3 Figure 1. Site Location Map 11, Figure A-1. Copies of Surveys and Maps of Lands Belonging to the Estate of Lunalilio A-4 Figure B -I. Site14073, Plan Map • B-3 Figure B-2. Site 14074, View to N (Neg. 1430-3) B-5 Figure B-3. Site 14074, Plan Map B-6 Figure B-4. Site 14076, Plan Map • B-8 Figure 13-5. Site 14076, Feature.F (Right), Feature G (Left), and Feature H (Background), View to NE (Neg.1430-7) B-10 Figure 13-6. She 14081, Plan Map • B-12 Figure B-7. She 14107, Plan Map • B-24 Figure B-8. She 14111, Plan Map • B-27 Figure B-9. She 14123, Plan Map • B-32 Figure B-10. She 14123, Feature A, Pahoehoe Slab -Paved Area, View to S (Neg. 1432-18) 8-33 Figure B-11. She 14124, Plan Map • 8-35 Figure B-12. She 14126, Feature B, View to N (Neg.1432-34) B-37 Figure &13. Site 14127 Plan Map • B-38 Figure 8-14. Site 14 12 9, View to S (Neg. 1434-30) B-40 Figure B-15. Sites 5143 and 14130 B-42 Figure B-16. She 14132, Plan Map B-43 Figure C-1. She 5 13 6, Wall, View to the East (PHRI Neg. 1430 -IIA) C-3 Figure C-2. Site 5139 (a) Plan Map (b) View to the South (PHRI Neg. 1431-27) C-4 Figure C-3. Site 5144, Wall, View to the Southeast (PHRI Neg. 1434-31 A) C-5 Figure C-4. She 14075 C-6 Figure C-5. She 14077, Features A -D C-7 Figure C-6. She 14078, Features A -D C-8 Figure C-7. She 14075, She 14079, and She 14080 C-9 Figure C-8. She 14082, Features A-E C-10 Figure C-9. She 14083, Features A -F • C-1 I Figure C-10. She 14084, Features A -C C-12 Figure C-11. Site 14085, Features A -H _ C-13 Figure C-12. Site 14086 • C-14 Figure C-13. Site 14087, Old Kailua-Keauhou Road, View to the South (PHRI Neg. 1430-15A) C45 Figure C-14. She 14088, Old Road, View to the North (PHRI Neg. 1430-16A) C-16 Figure C-15. Site 14089, Wall, View to the West (PHRI Neg. 1430-18A) C-17 Figure C46. Site 14090 C-18 Figure C- 17. She 14091, Features A -C C-19 Figure C-18 Site 14092 C-20 Figure C-19. She 14093 C-21 Figure C-20. She 14094 C-22 Figure C-21. She 14095 C-23 Figure C-22. She 14096 C-24 Figure C-23. She 14098, Features A -D C-25 Figure C-24 She 14099, Features A -F C-26 Figure C-25 Site 14100 C-27 Figure C-26 Site 14101 C-28 Figure C-27. She 14102, Feature A C-29 Figure C-28. She 14102, Features B and C C-30 vi Figure C-29. Site 14103 C-31 Figure C-30. Site 14104, Features A and 8 C-32 Figure C-31. 14105, Features A -C • C-33 Figure C-31. Site 14106 C-34 Figure C-33. Site 14108 C-35 Figure C-34. Site 14109, Features A and 8 G36 Figure C-35. Site 14110 C-37 Figure G36. Site 14112, Wall, View to the West (PHRI Neg. 1430-34A) C-38 Figure C-37. Site 14114, Features A and 8 C-39 Figure C-38. Site 14115 C-40 Figure C-39. Site 14116 C-41 Figure G40. Site 14117 C-42 Figure C-41. Site 14118 C-43 Figure C-42. She 14119, Features A -D C-44 Figure C•43. She 14120 C-45 Figure C-44. She 14121 C-46 Figure C-45. She 14122 C-47 Figure C-46. She 14126, Feature A and 8 C-48 Figure C-47. She 14127, Feature D, View to Northeast C-49 Figure. C-48. She 14128 C-50 Figure C-49. Site 14129 C-51 Figure C-50. She 14131 C-52 Figure D-1. Location of Subsequent Archaeological Work D-2 Figure D-2. She 14132, Showing Locations of Burial Remains D-5 Figure D-3.She 14091, Feature A, Mound/Modified Outcrop D-6 Figure D-4. She 14129, Platform D-7 Figure D-5. Unit Profiles D-9 Figure D-6. Survey Areas D-12 Tables Table I. Correlation of Site Numbers • 9 Table 1. Summary of Identified Sites and Features 12 Table 3. Frequencies of Formal Feature Types • 18 Table 4. Frequencies of Functional Feature Types • 19 Table S. Frequencies of Functional Site Types • 19 Table 6. Summary of Apparent She Ages • 21 Table 7. Summary of Radiocarbon Age Determinations • 16 Table 8. Detailed Distribution ofArtifactual Remains 18 Table 9. Detailed Distribution of Ecofactual Remains • 31 Table 10. Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments 38 Table I I. Rationale for She Significance and Treatment 40 Table D-1. Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments dune 2004) D-23 Table D-2. Final Summary of Identified Sites • D-25 vii INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND At the request of Mr. Sidney Fake of Sidney Fake & Associates, on behalf of their client, Pualani Development Company, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted a 100% -coverage, variable - intensity archaeological inventory survey of the approximately 65 -acre Pualani Development-- Phase II project area, in the Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5- 17:1,19,23,25,26). The overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawai'i State Land Use Commission, and (b) a Change of Zone Application to be made to the Hawai'i County Planning Commission. The survey fieldwork was conducted February 26 to March 9, 1990 under the supervision of Supervisory Archaeologists Ame K. Carlson, B.A., and Will Shapiro, B.A., and under the overall direction of Principal Archaeologist Dr. Paul H. Rosendahl. Crewmembers included Field Archaeologists Ed Archer, . Ranae Ganske, Robert Noah, and Steve Tachera. Approximately 35 man -days of labor were expended conducting the field work. Upon completion of the work, an interim report summarizing findings, general significance assessments, and recommended general treatments was provided to Mr. Sidney Fake of Sidney Fuke-& Associates (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990). SCOPE OF WORK The basic purpose of the inventory survey was to identify — to discover and locate on available maps — all sites and features of potential archaeological significance present within the specified project area. An inventory survey comprises an initial level of archaeological investigation. It is extensive rather than intensive in scope, and is conducted basically to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources within a specified project area. This level of survey indicates both the .general nature and variety of archaeological remains present, and the general distribution and density of such remains. It permits a general significanse assessment of the archaeological resources, and facilitates formulation of realistic recommendations and estimates for any subsequent mitigation work as might be necessary or appropriate. Such work could include further data collection involving detailed recording of sites and features, and limited excavations; and possibly subsequent data recovery research excavations, construction monitoring, interpretive planning and development, and/or preservation of sites and features with significant scientific research, interpretive, and/or cultural values. The basic objectives of the inventory survey were fourfold: (a) to identify (find and locate) all sites and site complexes present within the project area, (b) to evaluate the potential general significance of all identified archaeological remains, (c) to determine the possible impacts of proposed development upon the identified remains, and (d) to define the general scope of any subsequent further data collection and/or other mitigation work that might be necessary or appropriate. Based on a review of available background literature and on familiarity with both the general project area and the current requirements of pertinent review authorities, and based on discussions with Mr. Fuke and with Ms. Virginia Goldstein, staff planner and historic sites specialist in the Hawai'i County Planning Department, and with Dr. Ross Cordy, chief archaeologist with the Hawai'i State Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Sites Section/State Historic Preservation Office (DLNR-HSS/SHPO), the following specific tasks were determined to constitute an adequate and appropriate scope of work for the inventory survey: 1. Conduct limited archaeological and historical documentary background research involving review and evaluation of readily available archaeological and historical literature, historic documents and records, and cartograghic sources relevant to the immediate project area; 2. Conduct 100% -coverage, variable -intensity (30-90 ft intervals) ground survey of the project area, with the actual extent and intensity of coverage determined on the basis of (a) existing terrain and vegetation cover, and (b) nature and density of identified sites and features; 3. Conduct limited subsurface excavations at selected sites and features identified within the project area to (a) determine the presence or absence of potentially significant buried cultural features or deposits, and (b) to obtain suitable samples for age determination analyses; and 4. Analyze background and field data, and prepare appropriate reports The inventory survey was carried out in accordance with the standards for inventory -level survey recommended by Hawai'i State Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Sites Section/State Historic Preservation Office (DLNR-HSS/SHPO). The significance of all identified remains were to be assessed in terms of Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Chapter 6E-42, Hawaii Revised Statutes (DLNR 2001). DLNR-SHPD and the Hawai'i County Planning Department both use these criteria to evaluate eligibility for both the Hawai'i State and National Register of Historic Places. Identified remains were also to be assessed in terms of PHRI CRM (Cultural Resource Management) value modes, which are discussed further in the Conclusion section of this report. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The Pualani Development - Phase II project area (Figure 1) consists of approximately 65 acres located in the Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5- 17:1,19,23,25,26). It is bounded on the west by the old Kuakini Highway, on the east by the New Kuakini Highway Realignment, on the north by a stone wall following the south boundary of the Land of Kahului 2nd, and on the south by a stone wall following the north boundary of the Lands of Holualoa 1st and 2nd. The entire project area falls within the area defined as the Kona Field System (50-10-37-6601 *), a very large archaeological complex consisting of aboriginal Hawaiian dryland cultivation and habitation features. A number of ethnohistoric planting subzones crosscuts the Kona Field System. Schilt (1984:6) summarizes these zones. The project area falls in the approximate center of the kola (coastal area) subzone which ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). In addition, Schilt (1984), while conducting an archaeological survey of the Kuakini Realignment Corridor, designated the entire section of the corridor that fell within Puapua'a 1st and 2nd as a part of a large Garden complex, that continued both mauka and makai of the realignment corridor. The project area lies southwest of Hualalai volcano. Rainfall in the project area ranges between 30-40 inches per year, and the mean annual temperature is approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit (Armstrong 1983). Terrain within the project area consists predominantly of gently sloping and undulating slopes and ridges, with numerous bedrock outcrops. Elevation ranges from approximately 180 feet above mean sea 2 Figure 1. Project Location Map level to approximately 300 feet AMSL. The underlying bedrock is made up of Hualalai pahoehoe and 'a'd flows (Steams 1966). There are many bedrock outcrops in the area. Soil in the area consists of moderately to poorly drained, extremely rocky organic peat formed over underlying lava bedrock. This soil is classified as part of the Punaluu Series (Soil Conservation Service 1973). The area is drained by two small intermittent streams. The project area falls within the Lantana-Koa Haole Shrub vegetation zone (Armstrong 1983). Vegetation cover is relatively thick and homogenous. It consists primarily of an overstory of kiawe (Prosopis pallida [Humb. and Bonpl. ex Willd.] HBK), opiuma (Pithecellobium dulce [Roxb.] Benth.), monkey pod (Samanea saman [Jacq.] Merr.), kukui (Aleurites moluccana [L.] Willd.), and koa-haole (Leucaena leucocephala [Lam.] de Wit). Understory species consist of grasses, lantana (Lantana camara L.), bitter yam (Dioscorea bulbifera L.), laua'e (Microsorium scolopendria [Burin.] Copel.), air plant (Bryophyllum pinnatum [Lam.] Kurz.), and panini (Opuntia sp.). Recent/modem human modifications to the landscape are apparent in a few portions of the project area. The most visible of these is the old Kailua-Keahou Road running just mauka of the old Kuakini Highway (the western boundary of the project area). There is evidence that an old dirt track ran east -west through the approximate center of the project area, although it is highly overgrown and not clearly visible in most areas. Cattle graze throughout the project area and have created many winding trails. A number of barbed wire fences run through the area as well; these appear to have been neglected for a considerable time. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK The present survey was the second archaeological project within the overall Pualani Development area. The first project was conducted by PHRI in 1988 and consisted of an archaeological inventory survey of land to the east, within Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, and directly inland of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor (Walker and Rosendahl 1988). The Realignment Corridor itself, which cuts across these ahupua'a, was investigated in the early 1980s by Schilt (1984). Both these projects have provided information that is directly applicable to the current project area. Schilt's work gives a relatively thorough outline of the range, frequency, and cultural nature of archaeological remains in the ahupua'a of Puapua'a (1984). Formal features types identified in the corridor include modified outcrops, platforms, enclosures, walls, trails, and open soil areas. Functional types determined for these sites include agriculture, habitation, and transportation. Schilt identified, among other miscellaneous features, "an almost continuous complex of gardening features" (1984:317) within Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, to which she assigned a single site designation (137-66). She states that "there is also a continuation of the complex makai of the ROW [the current project area], although sites makai tend to be in a poorer state of preservation" (1984:317). Schilt also commented that this extensive complex extended mauka of the right-of-way, into the project area investigated by Walker and Rosendahl (1988). In total, six of the sites (walls, dryland agricultural features, and a kerbstone -lined trail) identified by Schilt extended mauka of the right-of-way (Walker and Rosendahl 1988:5). During the current project, it was found that at least five, and possibly six, of Schilt's sites extend makai into the current project area. Moreover, all five of these sites extend through the right-of-way, and are represented on both sides of the highway. Based on her relatively intensive investigations within the realignment corridor, including 36 volcanic Plass and six radiocarbon dates, Schilt developed a five phase cultural chronology for the region of the project area (1984:284). During Phase I (Pioneer Settlement, c. AD 1050-1400) there was sporadic use of the area for habitation, mostly in the lowland slopes. During the later portion of this phase, development of the upland subzones of the Kona Field System may have started. 4 During Phase II (Garden Developments c. AD 1400-1600/1650) small gardens began to be established and temporary habitation increased in the kola, or coastal subzone of the Kona Field Sytem (within which the project area is situated). Erosional deposition of soil, disrupted from development of upland areas, began to occur in the kula subzone during this time. During Phase III (Refuge, Habitation, and Intensive/Extensive Gardening, c. AD 1600/1650-1779), extensive agricultural development of the mauka portion of the kula had become established. Cultivated crops included sweet potato, wauke (used in making tapa), and probably gourds. Habitation was rarely permanent, however, but was more often seasonal or temporary. The dryland agricultural Kona Field System, dependant solely upon rainwater for irrigation, became fully developed during this period. An increase in social stratification, population, and overall cultural complexity at this time also resulted in an increase in warfare/social conflict. Defensive refuge caves began to be utilized. During Phase IV (Historic Habitation and Gardening, c. AD 1779-1850), cultivation of the kula slopes decreased, yet continued. Cultivated crops included not only traditional ones, but also included such crops as watermelon, cabbage, tobacco, and pineapple (1984:282). Permanent habitation was generally in the makai portions of the kula. Near the end of this period land began to be converted from agriculture to grazing. The final Phase V (c. AD 1850 -present) saw land use shift completely to grazing following the awards of kula lands to chiefs, missionaries, and others. Previous archaeological work conducted in the general vicinity of the project area, within or adjacent to the Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, includes a reconnaissance survey at Waiono Meadows (Allen 1984), a survey of a shoreline parcel in Puapua'a (Hammatt 1980), reconnaissance surveys and excavations within or adjacent to Kahakai Elementary School (Dye 1978, McNeill 1982, Soehren 1981, Welch 1982, Walker and Rosendahl 1985a, Delimont et al. 1985), reconnaissance surveys within or adjacent to the Alii Drive Realignment Corridor (Ching et al. 1973, Hommon and Rosendahl 1983, Walker and Rosendahl 1985b), and a reconnaissance of a portion of Kahului 2nd (Soehren 1976). SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH The project area lies within the ahupua'a of Puapua'a.lst and 2nd, in the district of North Kona. These ahupua'a have been only rarely documented, and very briefly at that. The following discussion is a brief outline of the history of the area. Appendix A, the complete historical documentary research by Helen Wong Smith, presents more information on the history of the area, including legends, anecdotes, historical accounts, and information on Land Commission Awards. Early accounts relevant to Puapua'a include accounts concerning the Kailua-Kona area. These indicate that the high-ranking chiefs 'Umi-a-Liloa, Kalaniopu'u, and Kamehameha I resided in Kona. During the early historic period, Kailua was a preferred port as well as the center of island government. The earliest account specific to Puapua'a is by English missionary William Ellis. Ellis describes Puapua'a as green and agriculturally productive. He also describes Kauakaiakaola Heiau in detail (Ellis 1963). This heiau is situated in the Land of Puapua'a 1st outside the present project area, on the coast at Puapua'a Point. A study by Taylor (1948) provides comments on the acquisition of the heiau by a Mr. Curtis V. Crellin, on restoration of the heiau, and also on the land situated behind the heiau. Silva (in Walker and Rosendahl 1985a) indicates 19 Land Commission Awards (LCAs) were granted within the Land of Puapua'a. None of these appear to have been situated in the present project area. Kelly (1983), Barrere (1975), and Kuykendahl (1938, 1953, and 1973) have presented historical overviews of the Kona District and general Hawaiian historical research. Their accounts of events and Hawaiian lifeways in precontact and historic periods are relevant to the project area, but the accounts include no specific references to the project area. A prehistoric population increase after AD 1600 led to periodic warfare, presumably caused by population pressure and increasing social stratification (caves, modified into barricaded refuges, are considered evidence of this warfare). When Captain Cook arrived in AD 1778, warfare was still rife. Continued contact with the west revolutionized traditional Hawaiian warfare, and Kamehameha I emerged as the dominant chief. By AD 1795, Kamehameha I had conquered all the major Hawaiian Islands and established his power base in Kailua, Kona. By the mid- to late -1800s, as western contact increased and drastically altered traditional Hawaiian lifeways and land use practices, and as epidemics from introduced diseases greatly reduced the native population, the Kona Field System was essentially abandoned. Except for small, individually owned farms and large coffee plantations near Captain Cook and Kealakekua, traditional farming was replaced by ranching (see above). Dependence on ranching, coffee cultivation, and small-scale farming continued until the late 1950s when economic emphasis shifted towards the tourist industry. SUMMARY OF AHUPUA`A SETTLEMENT AND PREDICTED SITE TYPES Previous archaeological and historical studies conducted within Puapua'a 1 and 2, and the near vicinity, indicate that settlement in the ahupua `a was similar to that described by Schilt in her five -phase, cultural chronology for the general vicinity. The reader is referred to the Previous Archaeological Work section in this report for a detailed summary of the Schilt phases. In brief, there was settlement of the coastal area associated with permanent habitation and ceremonial features, higher up were kula fields with scattered temporary and possibly permanent habitations. In the kalu'ulu areas were more agricultural high elevation and high rainfall fields with temporary and a few permanent habitations. This graded into the forest zone higher up. Of particular relevance to the current project area, which is in the kula zone, Schilt notes that in Puapua'a, extending from her project area (Kuakim Highway Realignment Corridor) makai (seaward) (and therefore into the current project area), there is a continuation of a complex of gardening features. She also notes that this same complex extends mauka from her project area, into the area investigated by Walker and Rosendahl (1988). In her project area, Schilt identified enclosures, modified outcrops, open soil areas, and trails, and these were assigned agriculture, habitation, transportation, and ranching functions. Dating analyses indicated agriculture and habitation took place initially about AD 1400-1650. Intensive agriculture and semi-permanent to permanent habitation took place generally about AD 1600/1650-1779 to early 1800s (Schilt:277-278). Following this there was a decline of use that took place from AD 1799-1850. The findings in the Walker and Rosendahl (1988) project area, just inland of the current project area, confirmed Schilt's findings. Present in the area were numerous agricultural features, of which only a sample was recorded by Walker and Rosendahl (1988). Walker and Rosendahl estimated that if one accounted for every agricultural feature present, then agricultural features would comprise about 75% of all features in their project area. Walker and Rosendahl also identified habitation features associated with agriculture — terraces, C- and L -shapes, enclosures. Both Puapuaa 1 and 2 were found to contain major coastal -inland trails associated with habitation complexes. The Walker and Rosendahl project yielded only three hydration -rind age determinations dating overall to AD 1653-1729. The findings of Landrum et al. (1990) at the Kahakai Development Project Area, just makai (seaward) of the current project area, and extending to about 50 feet from the shoreline, identified agricultural features and many permanent and temporary habitations (platforms, terraces, enclosures, C -shapes, caves, rock shelters, modified outcrops). Numerous burials were also identified, and these were located in platforms, terraces, and lava blisters. Dating results indicated initial occupation of AD 610-890 at two features; however, this was seen as anomalous and perhaps related to short duration, transient exploitation in the area. In general, the dating ranges fell into the late prehistoric to early historic period, ranging from AD 1400-1600. The findings of Corbin (2002) on an approximate 10 -acre parcel inland of the current project area and adjacent to the Walker and Rosendahl (1988) project area revealed numerous agricultural modified outcrops and clearing mounds, associated with clearing for the cotton industry or prehistoric agriculture. Since 1990, several sites within the project area have been tested for possible burials. Site 14132 tested positive and bad at least ten burials, and Site 14091 contained human skeletal remains (Rechtman Consulting; see Appendix D). Site 14124, Feature C tested positive, with disarticulated human remains of one individual found (PHRI Memorandum 2274-122402). In 1995 (Head and Rosendahl 1996; see Appendix D) conducted an inventory survey of a small portion of the Pualani Makai project area and identified a trail, remnant, a boundary wall, an agricultural platform, and a C -shape. These features were considered part of the overall Kona Field System. Based on the above, and considering all previous findings within the current project area and vicinity, it is predicted that within the project area will be found habitations, both temporary and permanent, and associated with the habitations may be burials and perhaps heiau. In the more inland areas there is likely to be numerous Kona Field System features in the form of cleared areas, mounds, modified outcrops, platforms, and terraces. Associated with the agricultural features may be scattered temporary habitations in the form of caves and small surface structures such as C -shapes, small platforms, and modified outcrops. Burials may be found in small platforms and in overhangs and caves. Running mauler-makai through the project area may be trails linking coastal and inland areas. Dating results for the current project area are predicted to generally date to post AD 1400. FIELD METHODS AND PROCEDURES Fieldwork was conducted February 26 to March 9, 1990 by four crewmembers under the supervision of Supervisory Archaeologists Ame K. Carlson, B.A., and Will Shapiro, B.A. Site identification was accomplished by way of systematic pedestrian transects oriented mauka-makai across the project area. Intervals between sweeping crewmembers were 30-50 feet, depending on vegetation and terrain encountered. Ground surface visibility varied greatly over the project area. Cattle trails allowed fair visibility in many areas. In other areas dense vegetation cover in a few cases made it difficult to delimit site areas, and to determine the presence or absence of portable remains. [If any of these sites are to undergo future data recovery work, they will have to be cleared of vegetation, and any newly discovered features will need to be added to the original inventory site description.) As sites were identified, they were assigned a PHRI temporary site number — a consecutive number prefixed by the PHRI project number (e.g. 764-1). Sites were marked with pink and blue surveyor's flagging tape, and their locations were plotted on aerial photographs (scale 1 in = approximately 200 ft., and 1 in = approximately 100 ft) furnished by the client. As well, each site or the primary feature within each site complex was marked with an aluminum tag bearing the site number, the date, the letters "PHRI", and the PHRI project number (89-764), to aid in future site reidentification. Sites were tallied and were briefly described as to formal type, functional type, and number of observed component features. Recording and evaluation of identified sites was conducted subsequent to initial identification. Additional sites and features located during this latter stage were added to the inventory, and were recorded and evaluated. Recording of sites was completed using standard PHRI site survey and feature record forms and consisted of written descriptions of each feature and site, and preparation of scaled maps and drawings of individual features and site complexes. Written descriptions included notation of site and feature dimensions, estimation of the limits of cultural deposits, notation of formal type and presumed functional type, and description of surrounding terrain and vegetation. In addition, features were photographed using 35 mm black -and -white film (PHRI Field Rolls 764:1-6). Sites were evaluated as to general significance assessment and recommended general treatment at the time of recording. Sites have either been assigned permanent State Inventory of Historic Places (S1HP) site numbers, or have retained their old SIH? designation (see Table I - Correlation of Site Numbers). Five sites identified during the current survey had been previously recorded (see Schilt 1984, Walker and Rosendahl 1988). One of these sites, Schilt's D7-66 (SW number 50-10-28/37-5137), is a large site including garden plots and related features — essentially a section of the Kona Field System. Many of the features identified during the current survey could be included in this site. However, in order to facilitate recording, no sites or features identified during the current project were assigned this number, or the SIHP designation of the Kona Field System (50-10-37-6601). Alternatively, it has simply been recognized, explicitly, that some of the newly identified sites and features do fall into these large agricultural complexes. Seven sites were subjected to limited subsurface test excavation in order to determine the nature of subsurface deposits and in order to recover samples for age determination analysis. All test units were plotted on site maps. Units were dug by arbitrary 10 centimeter levels. Excavated soil was processed through nested 1/4- and 1/8 -inch mesh to facilitate recovery of portable artifacts and midden. One hundred percent of the cultural material (including midden, artifacts, and other samples) was extracted from the 1/4 - inch mesh, while diagnostic artifacts and judgmentally selected samples were extracted from the 1/8 -inch mesh. Soil samples were taken from selected test units and were described using standard procedures and terminology as set forth in the Soil Survey Manual (Soil Survey Staff 1962). Radiocarbon samples (charcoal concentrations) were recovered whenever encountered. In addition to limited test excavations, judgmental/selective surface collection of portable artifacts and midden was conducted at a number of sites. Table 1. CORRELATION OF SITE NUMBERS SIHP Site No. PHRI Temp. Schilt (1984) Walker &Rosendahl 50-10-37- or 28- Site No. 764- Site No. (1988) Site No. 28-5136 2 D7-65 T-9 14073 1 14074 3 - - 14075 4 - - 14076 5 - _ 14077 6 - - 14078 7 - - 14079 8 - - 14080 9 _ _ 14081 10 14082 22 - - 14083 24 - - 14084 25 - - )4085 26 - - 14086 27 28(37-5139 28 D7-67 T-7 14087 11 - - 14088 12 - - 14089 14 37-5143 65 D7-70 T-2 5144 61 D6.14 T-17 14090 15 - - 14091 16 - - 14092 17 - - 14093 18 - - 14094 19 14095 20 - - 140% 21 14097 23 - - 14098 29 - - 14099 30 - - 14100 31 - - 14101 32 - - 14102 33 - - 14103 34 14104 35 - - 14105 36 14106 37 - - 14107 38 - - 14108 39 14109 40 - - 14110 41 - - 14111 42 - - 14112 43 - - 14113 44 - - 14114 45 14115 46 - - 14116 47 - - 14117 48 - - - 14118 49 - - 14119 50 14120 51 14121 52 14122 53 - - 14123 54 - - 14124 55 - - 14125 56 - - 14126 57 - - 14127 58 - - 14128 59 - - 14129 60 - - 14130 62 - - 14131 63 - - - 14132 64 __ _- FINDINGS SURFACE FINDINGS Sixty-four sites consisting of 138 component features were identified within the project area. These sites are summarized in Table 2 and their approximate locations are shown on Figure 2. Four of these sites had been identified during earlier archaeological projects (see Table I and Schilt 1984, Walker and Rosendahl 1988). The remaining 59 sites are newly identified. Detailed descriptions for all identified sites are presented in Appendix B, which includes for each site 1. Site number - State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers. SW numbers are four or five -digit numbers prefixed by 50-10-37- or 28- (50=State of Hawai'i; 10=Island of Hawai'i; 37=USGS 7.5' series quad map ["Kealakekua, Hawai'i "], and 28=USGS 7.5' series quad map ["Kailua, Hawai'i "]; 2. A site type designation - provides formal feature type for sites consisting of a single feature, or designates the site as a complex if the site is comprised of more than one feature. Also lists total number of features present; 3. A description of the terrain in the vicinity of the site; 4. A list of site vegetation - lists principal species of plants within and in the vicinity of the site; 5. A statement of site condition - overall state of preservation of the site (poor, fair, good, or excellent); 6. An assessment of site integrity - degree of post abandonment modification by human agencies (unaltered, partially altered, and completely altered), and nature of modifications, if any; 7. A probable age for the site - (e.g., historic or prehistoric); 8. An overall functional interpretation - probable or possible (?) overall function for each site; or, if a plausible function could not be determined, an indeterminate function was assigned; 9. A site description - a brief description of the site including types of constituent features, portable remains present, if any, and other site data; and 10. Feature dimensions - maximum length, width, and height or depth. Dimensions immediately followed by a description of feature construction, associated portable remains, and other descriptive information. The identified sites consist of 25 complexes and 40 single -feature sites. Twenty-seven formal types are represented at the sites (see Table 3). These include mound/modified outcrop (N=29), wall (N=13), 10 14078 . 14078 • 14080 14082 • 14082 4088 \ / • 14093 • • 14088 14088 \ 14091 140 • 14099 • 14101 • 14097 11.Op8. 5199 ♦�� d� 14105 -1? •4/F '\ 14100 .14090 11103 • U732 • • 114107 ,1 �\ 14103 \ ;414111 •14102 •14104 7 •14105 \ \ • 14110 • 14109 - j1( \`\ • 1111♦ y . 14113 \ , / .141 17 `j � U715 '�! �? • 14118 M/ I. ,�•. 14121• \ 1f 119 7 i •14122 .\ 14120 1 J.•" 1.11124 1 i- 14129 \ • 14125 k, 14123 (/7 • 14127 • 14129 14990 • 11125 y/G yyl/Y • U19/ $111 / T1 0 300 500 0 80 100 130 Figure l SITE LOCATION MAP 1140731 .sl'^ , �.x 14074 • 14075 ,\ • 14073 14085 • 14077 .14064 .14063 , 14088 • 14097 11.Op8. 5199 ♦�� d� 14105 -1? •4/F '\ 14100 .14090 11103 • U732 • • 114107 ,1 �\ 14103 \ ;414111 •14102 •14104 7 •14105 \ \ • 14110 • 14109 - j1( \`\ • 1111♦ y . 14113 \ , / .141 17 `j � U715 '�! �? • 14118 M/ I. ,�•. 14121• \ 1f 119 7 i •14122 .\ 14120 1 J.•" 1.11124 1 i- 14129 \ • 14125 k, 14123 (/7 • 14127 • 14129 14990 • 11125 y/G yyl/Y • U19/ $111 / T1 0 300 500 0 80 100 130 Figure l SITE LOCATION MAP Table 2. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED SITES AND FEATURES SIHP Site No. 50-10-28- Formal Site/Feature Type Tentative Functional Interpretation *CRM Value Mode Assess. R I C #Field Work Tasks DR SC EX Comments 5136 Wall Boundary L L L North boundary of project area separates Puapuaa 1st and Kahului 2nd 14073 Complex (15)+ Agriculture- M L L + + No comment A -O Mounds/ habitation? modified bedrock outcrops 14074 C -Shape Habitation- M L L + + + Tested this site agriculture? 14075 Wall Boundary M L L + - - Kuaiwi wall? 14076 Complex(8) Habitation- M L L + - + Tested Feature A A Enclosure agriculture B Linear mound/ modified outcrop C -H Mounds/modified outcrops 14077 Enclosure/ Agriculture- M L L + - + No comment mod. outcrop habitation? 14078 Complex (2) Agriculture M L L + - + No comment A Terrace B Terrace 14079 Platform/ Agriculture- M L L + - + No comment mod. outcrop habitation? *Cultural Resource Management Value Mode Assessment: -Nature: R = scientific research I = interpretive C = cultural -Degree: H = high M = moderate L = low #Field Work Tasks: DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions) SC = surface collections EX = limited excavations +Number of component features within complex. 12" Table 2. (cont.) SIHP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX 14080 Complex (2) Agriculture- M L L + - - Kuaiwi wall? A Walled terrace possible B Linear mound- transportation possible trail L 14081 Cave Habitation 14082 Enclosure/ Agriculture - Research potential mod. outcrop 14083 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14084 Complex (3) Agriculture - A Terrace possible burial B Mod. outcrop C Mound 14085 Complex (2) Agriculture A Caim B Terrace/mod. outcrop L 14086 Complex (3) Indeterminate - A Mound agriculture? B Linear mound C Linear mound SIHP 50-10-28/37- 5139 Wall Boundary 14087 Road Transportation 14088 Road Transportation 14089 Wall Boundary 5143 Alignment- Transportation trail section H L M + + + Tested this site M L L + - + No comment M L L + - - No comment M L L/H + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L Possibly bulldozer disturbance L L L - - - Separates Puapuaa 1st and 2nd L L L - - - Walled each side M L L - - - Research potential in terms of historic research L L L - Mauka boundary of Kuakini Highway; west boundary of project area M L M + - No comment 13 Table 2. (cont.) SIHP Formal Tentative Site No. Site/Feature Functional 50.10-28- Type Interpretation 5144 Wall Boundary 14090 Modified outcrop Agriculture 14091 Complex (3) Agriculture - A Mound/ possible burial L L L mod. outcrop Forms south bndry. B Mod. outcrop of project area C Mod. outcrop separates Puapuaa 14092 Walled terrace Agriculture 14093 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14094 Complex (2) Agriculture A Linear mound B Mound 14095 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14096 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14097 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14098 Complex (2) Agriculture - A Mod. outcrop habitation? B Wall 14099 Mod. outcrop Agriculture - water catchment? 14100 Complex (8) Agriculture - A Mod. outcrop/ habitation? C -shape B-H Mod. outcrops 14101 Cairn Marker 14102 Complex (7) Agriculture - A Enclosure habitation? - B Mod. outcrop/ platform C 4 pit depressions CRM Value Field Work L + Mode Assess. Tasks Comments R I C DR SC EX M L L L L + Forms south bndry. M L of project area + No comment separates Puapuaa 1st and Holualoa 2nd M L L + - No comment M L L/H + - + No comment M L L + + No comment L L L - - No comment M L L + - No comment M L L + No comment L L L - No comment L L L - No comment M L L + + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment 14 Table 2. (cont.) SIHP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX 14103 Enclosure/ Agriculture - mod. outcrop 14104 Complex (4) A Platform B Platform C Mound/mod.outcrop D Linear mound 14105 Complex (3) A Terrace B Platform C Terrace 14106 Wall 14107 Complex (6) A Wall B Cave C Cave D Platform E Platform F Cave Agriculture - habitation? Habitation - agriculture Agriculture - habitation? Boundary Habitation - agriculture 14108 Platform/ Agriculture - Mound enclosure habitation? 14109 Complex (2) Agriculture - A Mound/ habitation? mod. outcrop B Enclosure/ mod. outcrop 14110 Cairn Marker 14111 Complex (4) Habitation - A C -shape agriculture B L -shape C Mound D Mound 14112 Wall 14113 Wall M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L + + + Tested Feature F M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L - - - No comment M L L + + + Tested Fea's A& B Boundary L L L - - Boundary L L L - - IS I No comment No comment SIHP Site No. 50-10-28- Formal Site/Feature Type Tentative Functional Interpretatio 14114 Complex (3) Agriculture - A Terrace habitation? B Terrace/wall Kuaiwi wall? C Platform Habitation - 14115 C -shape Habitation 14116 Wall Boundary 14117 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14118 3 mounds Agriculture 14119 Complex (4) Agriculture A -D Mounds/mod. outcrops 14120 Activity area Indeterminate 14121 Mound Agriculture 14122 Complex (2) Agriculture A Terrace L B Mound Kuaiwi wall? 14123 Complex (5) Habitation - A Mod. outcrop agriculture - B Cave ceremonial? - C Enclosure poss. burial D Cave L E Platform No comment 14124 Complex (3) Habitation - A Mod. outcrop agriculture - B Wall possible burial C Platform work area 14125 Culvert with Drainage + walls No comment 14126 Complex (2) Habitation - A Enclosure agriculture - B Platform possible burial Table 2. (cont.) CRM Value Field Work Mode Assess. Tasks Comments n R I C DR SC EX M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - - Kuaiwi wall? M L L + - - No comment M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment L L L Historic activity work area M L L + - + No comment M L L + - + No comment M/H H M/H + + + Tested Feature D M/H H M/H + + + No comment L L L - M L L/H + V No comment + No comment Table 2. (cont.) SIHP Formal Tentative CRM Value Field Work Site No. Site/Feature Functional Mode Assess. Tasks Comments 50-10-28- Type Interpretation R I C DR SC EX 14127 Complex (2) Habitation A Mound B Enclosure 14128 Terrace/ Habitation mod. outcrop 14129 Platform Agriculture - possible burial 14130 C-shaped terrace Habitation 14131 Enclosure Habitation - agriculture 14132 Cave Burials 764-13 Subsumed under Site 764-12 M/H L L + + + Tested Fea's A & B M L L + + No comment M/H L L/H + - + No comment M L L + - + Original Feature B was determined to be a continuation of previously recorded Site 5143 M L L + - + No comment M/H L H + 17 No comment Table 3. FREQUENCIES OF FORMAL FEATURE TYPES Formal Type Number Percent Mound/modified outcrop 28 20.3 Modified outcrop 21 15.2 Wall 12 8.7 Mound 11 8.0 Platform 10 7.2 Cave 7 5.1 Terrace 7 5.1 Enclosure 6 4.3 Linear mound 4 2.9 Enclosure/modified outcrop 4 2.9 Pit depression 4 2.9 C -shape 3 2.2 Cairn 3 2.2 Road 2 1.4 Terrace/modified outcrop 2 1.4 Walled terrice 2 1.4 Platform/modified outcrop 2 1.4 Activity area 1 0.7 C-shaped terrace 1 0.7 Culvert with walls 1 0.7 L -shape 1 0.7 C-shape/modified outcrop 1 0.7 Platform/enclosure 1 0.7 Terrace/wall 1 0.7 Alignment/trail 1 0.7 Linear mound/modified outcrop 1 0.7 Linear mound/possible trail 1 0.7 TOTAL: 138 99.6 platform (N=10), cave (N=7), terrace (N=7), enclosure (N=6), linear mound (N=4), enclosure/modified outcrop (N=4), pit/depression (N=4), C -shape (N=5), cairn (N=3), road (N=2), terrace/modified outcrop (N=2), walled terrace (N=2), platform/modified outcrop (N=2), activity area (N=1), C-shaped terrace (N=I), culvert with walls (N=1), L -shape (N=1), C-shape/modified outcrop (N=1), platform/enclosure (N=I), terrace/wall (N=1), alignment/trail (N=1), linear mound/modified outcrop (N=1), and linear mound/possible trail (N=1). The number of features constructed by the modification of bedrock outcrops is 59, or 43% of the total number of features. Probable functional interpretations were determined for most features (Table 4) and sites (Table 5). Seventeen functional site types are represented by the 64 sites in the project area. Site types include agriculture (N=16, 25%), agriculture -possible habitation (N=11, 17.2%), boundary (N=9, 14.1%), habitation (N=5, 7.8%), habitation -agriculture (N=5, 7.8%), agriculture -possible burial (N=3, 4.7%), 147 Table 4. FREQUENCIES OF FUNCTIONAL FEATURE TYPES Functional Type Number Percent Agriculture 67 48.6 Habitation 18 13.0 Boundary 12 8.7 Agriculture -habitation? 12 8.7 Agriculture -burial? 4 2.9 Water catchment 4 2.9 Indeterminate -agriculture? 3 2.2 Marker 3 2.2 Transportation 3 2.2 Habitation -agriculture 3 2.2 Indeterminate 1 0.7 Burial - 1 0.7 Ceremonial? 1 0.7 Drainage 1 0.7 Habitation -burial? 1 0.7 Habitation -agriculture? 1 0.7 Agriculture -transportation? 1 0.7 Agriculture -water catchment? 1 0.7 Indeterminate -habitation? 1 0.7 TOTAL: 138 99.9 Table 5. FREQUENCIES OF FUNCTIONAL SITE TYPES Functional Type Number Percent Agriculture 16 25.0 Agriculture -habitation? 11 17.2 Boundary 9 14.1 Habitation 5 7.8 Habitation -agriculture 5 7.8 Agriculture -burial? 3 4.7 Transportation 3 4.7 Marker 2 3.1 Habitation -agriculture -burial? 2 3.1 Agriculture -water catchment? 1 1.6 Burial 1 1.6 Drainage 1 1.6 Habitation -agriculture - ceremonial? -burial? 1 1.6 Indeterminate 1 1.6 Indeterminate -agriculture? 1 1.6 Habitation -agriculture? 1 1.6 Agricultwe-transportation? 1 1.6 TOTAL: 64 100.3 19 transportation (N=3, 4.7%), marker (N=2, 3.1%), habitation -agriculture -possible burial (N=2, 3.1%), agriculture -possible water catchment (N=1, 1.6%), burial (N=1, 1.6%), drainage (N=1, 1.6%), habitation - agriculture -possible ceremonial- possible burial (N=1, 1.6%); indeterminate (N=1, 1.6%); indeterminate - possible agriculture (N=1, 1.6%); and agriculture -possible transportation (N=1, 1.6%). The number of sites with feature(s) having an agricultural function is 40, or 62.5%. A general age was determined for each site during recording. Table 6 summarizes the apparent ages of all the sites. The primary age distinction made was between prehistoric and historic. The age estimations were based on a number factors, including the nature of portable remains present, location, feature type, construction methods, and presumed functional type. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE FINDINGS AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS Limited subsurface testing was undertaken at seven sites (14074, 14076, 14081, 14107, 14111, 14123, and 14127). A total of 13 test units (3.25 sq m) were excavated. Test excavations were conducted primarily to recover samples for age determination analysis, and secondarily, to determine the nature of cultural remains and deposits. Sites were judgmentally selected for testing on the basis of a number of criteria, including (a) the presence of possible hearths, and (b) surficial indications of apparent, relatively deep, and/or rich cultural deposits. In addition, judgmental surface collections of artifacts and cultural material were conducted at four sites. The specimens collected included (a) those that were felt to be potentially time diagnostic, (b) those that were felt to be intrinsically significant, (c) those that were felt to be in danger of destruction or loss, and (d) those that were felt to be representative of the primary activities carried out at the sites. Surface collected specimens were plotted on site maps. Descriptions, tabulations, and analyses of the recovered samples and artifacts are presented in following sections, and test excavation units are summarized below. Results of the radiocarbon age determinations, and descriptions of portable artifacts and ecofactual remains are presented in the Data Analyses section. SUMMARY OF TEST EXCAVATIONS Site and Feature: 14074 Formal Type: C -shape Feature Function: Habitation -Agriculture? Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: (50 by 50 cm) Description: This unit was placed in the approximate center of a C -shape built on a raised bedrock outcrop (Figure B-3, Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 23 centimeters. A single stratum was identified overlying pahoehoe bedrock. The soil consisted of black (2.5Y 2/0) silty loam. Two charcoal samples were collected from this stratum. One of these was submitted for age determination analysis and provided a corrected age range of AD 1030-1470. No artifacts or midden were recovered from this unit. 20 Table 6. SUMMARY OF APPARENT SITE AGES Site 50-10-37- or 28- Age Site 50-10-37- or 28- Age 28- 5136 Historic 14101 Prehistoric 14073 Prehistoric 14102 Prehistoric 14074 Prehistoric 14103 Prehistoric 14075 Prehistoric 14104 Prehistoric 14076 Prehistoric 14105 Prehistoric 14077 Prehistoric 14106 Historic 14078 Prehistoric 14107 Prehistoric 14079 Prehistoric 14108 Prehistoric 14080 Prehistoric 14109 Prehistoric 14081 Prehistoric 14110 Prehistoric 14082 Prehistoric 14111 Prehistoric 14083 Prehistoric 14112 Historic 14084 Prehistoric 14113 Historic 14085 Prehistoric 14114 Prehistoric 14086 Prehistoric?/historic? 14115 Prehistoric 28/37-5139 Historic 14116 Prehistoric?/historic? 14087 Historic 14117 Prehistoric 14088 Historic 14118 Prehistoric 14089 Recent 14119 Prehistoric 37- 5143 Prehistoric 14120 Recent 5144 Historic 14121 Prehistoric 14090 Prehistoric 14122 Prehistoric 14091 Prehistoric 14123 Prehistoric 14092 Prehistoric 14124 Prehistoric 14093 Prehistoric 14125 Historic 14094 Prehistoric 14126 Prehistoric 14095 Prehistoric 14127 Prehistoric 14096 Prehistoric 14128 Prehistoric 14097 Prehistoric 14129 Prehistoric 14098 Prehistoric 14130 Prehistoric 14099 Prehistoric 14131 Prehistoric 14100 Prehistoric 14132 Prehistoric TOTALS: Prehistoric: 51 sites (79.7%) Prehistoric?/historic? 2 sites (3.1%) Historic: 9 sites (14.1%) Recent: 2 sites (3.1%) 64 sites Sites with a prehistoric or possible prehistoric component: 53 sites (82.8%) Sites with a post -contact or possible post -contact component: 13 sites (20.3%) 21 Site and Feature: 14076, Feature A Formal Type: Enclosure Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the center of a small soil -filled area on the outside, northern slope of an enclosure. The enclosure is built on a raised bedrock outcrop (Feature A, Figure B-4 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 18 centimeters. A single stratum was identified overlying decaying pahoehoe bedrock. The soil consisted of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loam. The only cultural material recovered was a small piece of waterworn coral which came from the surface of the unit. Based on these results, this patch of soil is interpreted as a small planting area. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the southwest comer of the interior of an enclosure (Feature A, Figure B-4 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 33 centimeters. Two strata were identified: Layer I consisted of a black (2.5Y 2/0) silt loam which extended to varying depths as a result of the undulating bedrock substratum, but which consistently terminated at c. 2 cm above the bedrock; Layer 11 consisted of an approximately 2 cm thick stratum of very dark brown (10YR 2/2), silty clay loam overlying bedrock. A small charcoal sample was recovered from Layer I, but was not submitted for age determination analysis. The only artifact recovered from the unit was a coral abrader. The unit produced moderate amounts of midden, primarily Cypraea sp. Site and Feature: 14081 Formal Type: Cave Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed across the northeast comer of a shallow oval depression (HF -1) on the north side of the main chamber of the cave (Figure B-6 in Appendix B). The feature is interpreted as a frrepit. The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 17 centimeters. The surface of the unit was covered with a 1-2 cm layer of ash flecked with charcoal. Below this was a stratum consisting of black to very dark brown (10YR 2/1-2/2) silt loam; within this loam were small pockets of charcoal and small cobbles. Three charcoal samples, recovered from this unit were submitted for age determination analysis. Two of them provided corrected age ranges of AD 1280-1640 and AD 1160-1480. A third sample contained insufficient carbon. No evidence of the outline of the depression was evident in the profiles of the unit. However, this apparent deficiency may reflect the poor lighting in the cave. A few artifacts and a moderate amount of midden were recovered from the first 10 centimeters of the unit; the second level was sterile. Artifacts recovered include a bird bone pick, a fragment of worked bone, and six volcanic glass flakes. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the southwest portion of the main chamber of the cave in an area with abundant surface midden (Figure B-6 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 17 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (10YR 2/1-2/2) silt loam with small cobbles overlying bedrock. Three charcoal samples were recovered from this unit, two of which were submitted for age determination analysis. One of them contained insufficient carbon, while the other provided a corrected age range of AD 1640 -present. A moderate amount of midden and a few artifacts, including modified bone and shell pieces and a number of volcanic glass flakes, were recovered from the unit. 22 Site and Feature: 14107, Feature F Formal Type: Cave Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the central portion of a small blister cave (Figure B-8 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples were recovered from the unit. A few artifacts and a small amount of midden were recovered. Artifacts recovered include small adze fragments, an abrader of coral and one of an echinoid spine, and a modified piece of shell. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the central portion of the cave directly northeast of TU-1 (Figure B-8 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples were recovered from the unit. A single adze fragment and a small amount of midden were recovered. Site and Feature: Site 14111, Features A, B Formal Type: Feature B: L-shape; Feature A: C-shape Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed centrally along the inside of the eastern leg of an L-shape (Feature B, Figure B-9 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 20 centimeters (although most of the unit terminated at 10 centimeters below surface). A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples, artifacts, or midden were recovered from the unit. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in a soil area along the southeast side of a C-shape (Feature A, Figure B-9 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 17 centimeters (although most of the unit terminated at 10-12 centimeters below surface). A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples or artifacts were recovered from the unit. A single cowrie shell fragment was recovered. Site and Feature: Site 14123, Feature D Formal Type: Cave Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the northern portion of the main entrance chamber of a small cave (Feature D, Figure B-11 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 23 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) humic silt loam. Three charcoal samples were recovered from the unit. However, none of these were submitted for age determination analysis as they were small and it was thought they were probably contaminated by surface organic litter. A few artifacts and a small amount of midden were recovered. Artifacts recovered include a small adze fragment, a coral abrader, an echinoid abrader, and a number of volcanic glass flakes. 23 Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the northern portion of the main entrance chamber of the cave, directly south of TU -1 (Figure B-11 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. A single stratum consisting of black to very dark brown (10YR 2/1-2/2) humic silt loam was identified. A single charcoal sample was recovered from the unit. However, it was not submitted for age determination analysis as it was small and was thought to be contaminated by surface organic litter. A small amount of midden and two volcanic glass flakes were recovered. Site and Feature: Site 14127, Features A, B Formal Type: Feature A: Mound; Feature B: Enclosure Feature Function: Habitation Apparent Age: Prehistoric Test Unit 1: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in a soil area in the central portion of a small mound (Feature A, Figure B-14 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 15 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) silt loam. A single charcoal sample was recovered from the unit; it was not, however, submitted for age determination analysis, as it was very small. A few artifacts and a small amount of midden was recovered. Artifacts recovered include a coral abrader and two volcanic glass flakes. Test Unit 2: 50 by 50 cm Description: This unit was placed in the opening of a small cupboard in the northeast comer of an enclosure (Feature B, Figure B-14 in Appendix B). The unit was excavated in arbitrary 10 centimeter levels to bedrock, to a maximum depth of 18 centimeters. A single stratum was identified consisting of black to very dark brown (IOYR 2/1-2/2) silt loam. No datable samples, artifacts, or midden were recovered from the unit. 24 DATA ANALYSES AGE DETERMINATIONS Six samples collected from two sites (14074 and 14081) were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for radiocarbon age determination analysis. All of the samples consisted of charcoal. Beta Analytic determined that, after pretreatment, two samples (PHRI Lab. Nos. RC -751 and RC -753, both from Site 1408 1) had insufficient carbon for analysis. The charcoal samples were first examined for rootlets, then were given alternate acid and alkali soakings to remove carbonates and humic acids. All of the samples were small and were given extended counting time (four times the normal amount) to reduce statistical error. C -13/C-12 stable isotope ratios were determined for all samples. Results of age determination analyses are presented in Table 7. The results are reported as corrected calendric age ranges at two sigma (95.4% probability). The dates were calibrated according to tables presented in Smiver and Pearson (1986). Site 14074 One C-14 sample from this site was analyzed. The sample yielded a calendric age range of AD 1030- 1470, placing this site well into the prehistoric period. This is consistent with the single artifact (an adze) recovered from the surface of the site. It is not possible to estimate the duration of use of this site. However, based on the very limited cultural material recovered from the site during testing and recording, short-term use is probable. This date places the site in the Expansion Period (AD 1100-1650) of Kirch's (1985) Hawaiian cultural -historical sequence, and places it in the Pioneer Settlement Phase (AD 1050- 1400) of Schilt's (1984:276-277) chronological sequence for Kona. Interestingly, however, the nature of this site does not fit Schilt's model of cultural patterns during this phase. This is discussed further below. Site 14081 Five charcoal samples from this habitation cave were submitted for analysis. Samples RC -751 and RC -753 contained insufficient carbon after pretreatment. Two samples from TU -1, excavated in a hearth, yielded corrected age ranges of AD 1280-1640 and AD 1160-1480. These dates place this site well into the prehistoric period, which is consistent with the artifacts recovered from the site. More specifically, they place the site in the Expansion Period (AD 1100-1650) of Kirch's (1985) Hawaiian cultural -historical sequence, and place it in the middle to late portion of the Pioneer Settlement Phase (AD 1050-1400) of Schilt's (1984:276-277) chronological sequence for Kona. The third sample, from TU -2, produced a corrected age range of AD 1640-1955. This date, which is somewhat inconsistent with the dates obtained from TU -1, may reflect a number of things. The fust is that the sample may have been contaminated by small amounts of recent carbon, as it came from Level I of TU -2, and the charcoal was collected from the screen, and as such cannot be accepted as valid. Alternatively, the date may reflect a second and later occupation of the cave. However, no independent evidence for more than one occupation of the cave was collected (i.e., no stratification of cultural deposits was apparent and the collected artifact assemblage does not appear to reflect any changes over time). Given the limited level of investigation conducted at this site to date, farther work is necessary in order to resolve the above question. 25 Table 7. SUMMARY OF RADIOCARBON AGE DETERMINATIONS PHRI Lab. C-14 Age C-13/ C-13 Adjusted *Calendric Lab.No. No. Provenience Yrs. B.P. C-12 C-14 Age Range RC- BETA- (one sigma) Ratio Yrs. B.P. Yrs. AD Site 14074 748 37345 TU -1, 700±140 -26.6 670±140 1030-1470 Layer I, Level 2, 10-23 cmbs Site 14081 749 37346 HF -1, 490±100 -25.1 490±100 1280-1640 TU -1, Surface 750 37347 HF -1, 650±130 -25.7 630±130 1160-1480 TU -1, Layer I, Level 1, 0-10 cmbs 751 37348 HF -1, — — — Insufficient TU -1, carbon Layer I, Level 1, 10-I1 cmbs 752 37349 TU -2, 50±100 -23.1 80±100 1640-1955# Layer I, Level 1, 0-10 cmbs 753 37350 TU -2, — — — Insufficient Layer I, carbon Level 2, 10-17 cmbs *Calibrated according to Stuiver and Pearson (1986). Range at two sigmas. # Denotes influence of bomb C-14. 26 INDIGENOUS ARTIFACTS Seventy-three (73) indigenous artifacts were recovered from various sites in the project area. Following Kirch (1983:341), indigenous artifacts are defined as those fabricated using traditional Hawaiian manufacturing techniques and locally available raw materials. Artifacts were collected from the surface and from test excavations. No historic artifacts were recovered. The distribution of artifacts is presented in Table 8. Forty-seven (47) flaked and/or polished stone artifacts (basalt, scoria, and volcanic glass) were recovered (64.4% of the indigenous artifact assemblage). The remainder of the assemblage (26 pieces, 35.6%) is made up of modified bone and shell artifacts, and coral and echinoid items. A number of categories of artifacts are represented, including fishing gear, tools, ornaments, flaked stone/lithic debitage, domestic implements, recreational artifacts, and miscellaneous. Overall, the indigenous portable artifact assemblage is not fully representative of the range of traditional Hawaiian artifacts. Absent from the collection are domestic implements such as awls, stone pounders, grindstones, and shell scrapers. The following discussions describe selected artifacts from these various categories. Fishing Gear. Fishing gear includes one fishhook, and five octopus lures (all from the surface of Site 14081). The fishhook is made of bone and measures 33.8 min in length and 16.4 mm in width. It is a finished and complete rotating hook with an incurved point. It has a type HT4 head. This is typically a late fishhook form. The octopus lures are made from whole Cypraea sp. shells, a small hole perforated on each end. The lures are complete although in eroded condition. Tools. Tools consist of nine abraders (one scoria, six coral, and two echinoid (Heterocentrotus mamillatus spine), and seven basalt adzes or fragments. The scoria abrader is a relatively large, tabular, rectangular abrader collected from the surface of Site 14081. It measures 102.9 mm in length and 45.8 mm in width. The adzes and fragments are made from a fine-grained basalt that has been roughed -out (flaked) and subsequently polished to varying degrees. One of the adzes from Site 14074 is a complete blank with a small amount of polishing on one side. However, it appears to have been reworked; previous polishing has flaked off the surface. It measures 136.4 mm in length and 136.4 nun in width. Two adzes were collected from the surface of Site 14081. The fust of these is a small, complete adze with polishing on all sides. The working edge shows no sign of use. It measures 46.4 mm in length and 18.5 mm in width. The second specimen from Site 14081 is a complete adze that has been used and reworked to such an extent that it has become very short. It measures 82.1 mm in length, 57.7 mm in width, and 40.3 mm in thickness. An adze fragment collected from Site 14107 consists of a fragment of the butt end. It is quite thin and exhibits signs of having been completely polished. It measures 31.9 min in length, 25.8 mm in width and 9.7 mm in thickness. The remaining adze pieces are all fragments collected from various sites and which probably flaked off the original complete tool during use. Flaked Stone/Lithic Debitage. Thirty-eight unmodified flakes of volcanic glass and one flake of basalt were recovered from various sites. The basalt flakes and one of the volcanic glass flakes were collected from the surface of the project area. The flakes were small and are interpreted as either lithic debiage resulting from stone tool manufacture, or are possibly tools themselves although no evidence of retouching or utilization was observed on any of these flakes. Such tools have been interpreted as indigenous "pocketknives" (Barrera and Kirch 1973:185-186). Their function has been interpreted in many ways, as tools for the manufacture of fishhooks and other bone items, as knives for butchering and scaling fish, as bark scrapers, or as Qgihj scrapers, to name a few. 27 mi om m<—y p z C � F GD ti N aha O O O O t A F N ^1 E ri o C] ry o � C y d cs r GL o 0 0 rn F o i eq Hy O L 7 O O O In � � +O L O O C z a w c� c� b a � ora Qy�wO� U .Z.4 y mi om m<—y p z 0 o i 00 000 +O � O O C mi om m<—y p z Modified/Other.Six modified bone pieces and two modified shell pieces were recovered. They are all pieces of indeterminate function with cut and/or abraded surfaces. Domestic Implements. The domestic implements collected from the project area include two bird bone picks recovered from Site 14081. Ornamental Artifacts. A drilled dogtooth was recovered from the surface of Site 14081. It measures 32.2 mm in length and 10.4 mm in width. Apparently, the first attempt at drilling the hole resulted in the tooth beginning to crack. This first attempt was abandoned before it went all the way through, and a second hole was drilled just below it. This piece almost certainly functioned as a pendant. Recreational Artifacts. A possible ulu maika gaming stone was recovered from the surface of Site 14081. It measures 45.2 mm in diameter and 26.4 mm thick. It is made of coral and its surface is quite weathered. It is interpreted as only a possible ulu maika because it is quite small. It may in fact be a circular coral abrader. ECOFACTUAL REMAINS The variety and distribution of ecofactual remains recovered from test unit excavations are summarized in Table 9: A total of 513.33 g of midden was sorted -300.07 g of marine gastropod remains, 21.09 g of bivalvia remains, 135.45 g of other (Echinoidea and Crustacea) remains, 28.36 g of vertebrate remains, and 42.44 g of vegetal remains, which includes kukui (Aleurites molucanna), and charcoal. Marine gastropods represent the majority of recovered midden (58.4% total midden). The most common gastropods were Cypraeidae (233.24 g). and Conidae (37.92 g), which together represent 52.8% of the total midden recovered. The single greatest amount of midden recovered through excavation was from two test units at Site 14081. This site accounts for 64.7% of the total ecofactual remains recovered during the present project. The next largest amount of maiden recovered, accounting for an additional 18.9% of the total midden recovered, was from two test units at Site 14123. These two sites account for 83.6% of the total midden recovered from the project area. 30 N F �s�saossl<I ��sl�l Ms �O�O '+00 e0 eO P Off[ p O to .rr b OOO 1� oNG C� O� O� C— O P ,+f O C C C 1. — ,leI N ,INI ' N �`eRcaM m m m m ^ee g cs 31 .N. O N O YN1 ' CCC Cc'i m via Om ' O vvi 00 8888888 C O C O C C C ®[- M®[ -lam r� H 32 O O . . 88NN 1 '. O �n ,n as v 88818 88 O C C G O O CONCLUSION DISCUSSION Aside from the management of archaeological sites as cultural resources, archaeological investigation primarily revolves around a number of research issues aimed at describing past life -ways and outlining cultural developments and changes. Ideally, such research will lead to, or aid in explaining cultural changes and processes. Sites are examined in light of general questions of chronology, settlement and exploitative patterns, site and assemblage variability, material culture and technology, diet and economy, and socio -religious patterns. The degree to which a site can aid in addressing the above research questions is reflected in the value assigned to the site under the Scientific Research category of significance (CRM value Category R in Table 2). The value assigned to the site under the Cultural significance category (CRM value Category C in Table 2) is an indicator of the degree to which the site reflects modem, yet traditional cultural sensibilities. While the value assigned to the site under the Interpretive significance category (CRM value Category I in Table 2) reflects the potential that the site holds to aid in edifying the public in terms of past life -ways. Without taking advantage of the research information potential offered by a site, the cultural significance and value of the site cannot be fully appreciated, and the interpretive potential of the site cannot be actualized. The following discussion provides a summary of the research information gathered during the current project and presents some conclusions and ideas about the prehistory and history of the area. As a whole, the archaeological sites and features found within the Pualani Development - Phase II project area provide a significant archaeological data base with which to investigate prehistoric life -ways of the area, particularly in terms of agricultural land -use patterns and developments. The large number of agricultural sites and features demonstrates intensive agricultural use of the area in the past. In addition, evidence of early use of the area demonstrates exploitation of the area before the agricultural period. During the inventory survey, 64 sites consisting of 138 features were identified. The component features consist of 27 formal types representing 19 functional types. Nine of these functional types, however, are either indeterminate or are of a possible nature. The sites themselves consist of 17 functional types, which are made up of the functional types of the features and combinations of these types (Table 5). The tabulation of formal feature types presented in Table 3 is somewhat misleading in that it does not explicitly indicate the true magnitude of use of bedrock outcrops for feature construction. This is primarily because the formal type "modified outcrop" has been divided into a number of sub -types (i.e., mound/modified outcrop). In order to give an idea of the extent of outcrop use in the area, it is noted here that 42.8% of the total number of recorded features owe their structural form and integrity to bedrock outcrops. Moreover, this proportion does not include the less significant modified outcrops noted in the vicinities of many of the sites, but not recorded at this level of investigation. Also, this proportion does not account for the fact that many other features, although not modified outcrops per se, are built in integral relationship to unmodified outcrops, such that both features and outcrops create the overall essential form of any given site. Other formal types found within the project area include walls, platforms, caves, terraces, enclosures, linear mounds, pit, C -shape, L -shape, cairn, road, and alignment. As stated above, many of these, except the roads, caves, and most of the walls, to some extent owe their general form to bedrock outcrops. RXI Features that have been interpreted as functioning for agricultural purposes are the most common features in the project area. This is not surprising given that the project area is situated within the agricultural Kona Field System. Two previous archaeological projects in the immediate vicinity had much the same results (see Schilt 1984, Walker and Rosendahl 1988). Schilt described the section of the Kuakini Realignment Corridor that fell within Puapua`a 1st and 2nd as containing "an almost continuous complex of gardening features..." (1984:317). She assigned this complex a single site designation (D7-66; SIHP Site 28/37-5137). During the current survey, clusters of features were assigned individual site designations; yet, it is recognized that many of the features recorded during the current survey, taken as a whole, form a makai extension of the agricultural complex first noted by Schilt. Incidentally, many of the agricultural features recorded mauka of the realignment corridor could be ascribed to this agricultural site complex as well (Walker and Rosendahl 1988). Assigning individual designations to these features, rather than lumping all or many of them under the previously existing agricultural complex designation, was done in order to facilitate recording, to provide a realistic picture of the extent and density of features, and to facilitate the formulation of appropriate resource management goals and tasks. The ubiquitous features of this agricultural complex primarily consist of modified outcrops and mounds (see Figures B-1 and B-5 in Appendix B). Many of the other formal feature types, such as platforms, linear mounds, terraces and the smaller habitation features (discussed below), also functioned for agricultural, or directly related, purposes as well. Generally, there appears to be a more dense distribution of agricultural features towards the mauka side of the project area, and a greater diversity of formal and functional feature types towards the makai side. This general distribution pattern, however, may not reflect the original pattern due to historic land modifications (road construction and other historic activities) in the makai portion of the project area. The agricultural features functioned as planting mounds/mediums and/or were created as a result of land clearing in order to increase the number and extent of agriculturally suitable soil areas. In the mauka side of the project area, there are a number of relatively extensive and level soil areas that are more or less surrounded by modified outcrops and rock mounds. Most of the agricultural features in the project area probably relate to Schilt's Cultural Phase III: Refuge, Habitation, and Intensive/ Extensive Gardening, which took place c. AD 1600/1650-1779 (1984:284). This conclusion is based primarily on the fact that Schilt conducted relatively extensive investigations within Site D7-66 and ascribed this large garden complex to the above phase. Given that many of the sites identified in the current project area could be included in this large complex, there is little reason to ascribe the agricultural sites identified during the current survey to any other Phase. However, there is a possibility that this assumption may be at least partially incorrect. Site 14074 (see Figures B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B) was initially interpreted as a habitation feature. This interpretation was based on formal type and the fact that an adze was found in the feature. However, testing of the feature produced no cultural remains as would be expected at a habitation site, and it is now thought that this feature may be agricultural. The single C-14 date obtained from the site (AD 1030-1470) places it well into Schilt's Phase I: Pioneer Settlement, which took place c. AD 1050-1400. If the site is agricultural, then a revision of Schilt's chronological phases may be necessary. Perhaps agricultural practices developed much earlier in this area than previously supposed, and that not all the agricultural sites in the area are representative of the intensive agricultural phase. Of course a single date from a 50 by 50 cm test unit excavated in a single site of questionable function is scanty evidence with which to revise an accepted chronology. Moreover, the date itself may be incorrect or misleading; it may simply be dating a plant that happened to live and die at the feature and, as such, have no cultural relevance. Nevertheless, the question is raised. Further work at this site and others in the project area is necessary in order to clarify this and other similar questions. Walls are another feature type in the project area related to agriculture. Most of the walls in the project area are historic (these are discussed below). The prehistoric walls identified include Sites 14075, 14080, 34 and possibly 14116. These walls may represent so-called kuaiwi walls of the Kona Field System, which functioned as boundaries delineating rectangular fields within the agricultural system. Such features are described by Schilt as "a maze of continuous walls of stacked stone, or in some cases of low earthen mounds (varying in height from 0.5 to 1.0 m and in width from 1.0 to 3.0 m)" (1984:3). The walls of Sites 14075 and 14080 are quite small, relatively insubstantial, and are in poor condition. The Site 14116 wall is low and squat, yet is quite massive and core -filled and is in moderate condition. The walls, however, hardly resemble a maze. This dissimilarity with the classic walls of the Kona Field system could be attributed to a few factors. The most likely would be that the area lies on the outskirts of the core of the field system, and the maze of walls was never fully developed in this region. Alternatively, earlier walls may have been destroyed during historic times by cattle grazing through the area, or the rocks may have been taken from the prehistoric walls to create the historic walls in the area (but this is unlikely given the surplus of rocks everywhere in the project area). Another alternative is that these features are not kuaiwi walls at all. The two insubstantial walls may in fact be the last remains of a mauka-makai running trail, and the third wall may once have formed a boundary. Such questions require further investigation, such as tracing out these walls and detailing their respective courses. A single trail section was positively identified in the project area Site 5143 (see Figure B-15 in Appendix B). This site consists of an alignment of boulders bordering a narrow trough-like depression. The extant portion of this trail runs within 10 meters of Site 14130. It was determined that this section was a continuation of a trail that runs mauka-makai along the southern boundary of Puapua'a 2nd. This trail was originally identified by Schilt (1984). The determination that the section within the current project area is a continuation of the trail identified by Schilt, was based solely on the location and orientation of a trail illustrated in Schilt (1984:219). Further investigation of this site is necessary; the route of the trail should be plotted. -Between 15 and 20 percent of the features identified within the project area have been interpreted (solely or partly) as habitation features. Most of these probably reflect temporary or seasonal occupation while gardening. During recording, however, little attempt was made at determining the degree of habitation (i.e., permanent or temporary). In most cases such a determination was not possible given the current level of investigation. Much site clearing and excavation of features have to be done before such distinctions can be made. Schilt (1984) described the nature of habitation during the height of agricultural exploitation of the area in a number of ways: temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent. She described habitation sites as "situated atop small to large prominent outcrops" (1984:281); and in other cases as "caves... used intensively for temporary shelter and working areas" (1984:284). Habitation features of both these types have been identified in the current project area. The fust type is represented at Sites 14074, 14076, 14104, 14111, 14115?, 14123, 14124, 14127, 14128, 14130, and 14131 (see Figures B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-14, and B-15 in Appendix B). These sites all contain habitation features such as C -shapes, platforms, and enclosures, situated prominently on outcrops and/or centrally within the site. The habitation features often have associated agricultural features, and in most cases midden was recovered or observed at these features. It should be noted that Sites 14123 and 14124 are significantly larger and more complex than the other sites. It seems likely that these two sites functioned for more than just temporary or seasonal habitation. Further investigation is needed in order to determine this. The second type of habitation feature (caves) is represented at Sites 14081, 14107, and 14123 (see Figures B-6, B-8, B-10, and B-11 in AppendixB). A number of these features exhibit structural modifications, primarily low, stacked walls around the entrances. Three of the cave features were tested during the current project. The first of these, Site 14081 clearly functioned as more than a temporary shelter or work area. Relatively substantial cultural deposits and a wide variety of artifacts were recovered. 35 In addition, two radiocarbon dates (AD 1280-1640 and AD 1160-1480) from this site places its earliest occupation before the establishment of extensive agriculture in the area (as outlined by Schilt 1984:276- 284). A third date from this cave (AD 1640-1955) may represent a second, later occupation which took place during the most intensive period of agriculture in the area. Site 14081 may have also served as a refuge cave; such caves were not uncommon during this period (Schilt 1984: 276-284). The entrance is very narrow and appears to have been partly filled with boulder and cobble rubble. This narrowing of the entrance could represent a defensive modification to the cave. The other two caves that were tested (Site 14107 F:F; and Site 14123 F:D) fit well with Schilt's description of temporary shelters used while tending to agricultural crops. Their form, location and the limited variety of cultural remains recovered do not suggest more than temporary habitation. However, the cave at Site 14123 is a feature (along with another small cave) within a large complex that probably served more than just a temporary habitation function. Unfortunately, no dates were obtained for these two caves. Sites 14123 and 14124 are large complexes centered around large pahoehoe and 'a'd bedrock outcrops (see Figures B-10 and B-11 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments. They both have well built walls which extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However, the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5 by 5 meter area on the edge of the outcrop that is paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This area grades off into jumbled rubble and boulders, yet a large area in the vicinity of this paved area is quite open and level. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks like a stage to use a contemporary analogy). The function of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function. The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 is somewhat smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop itself has a large enclosure - like form. The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large, essentially rectangular platform. This feature has been interpreted as a possible burial platform. Overall these two sites are impressive compared to any other site in the project area and warrant extensive further work and possibly preservation "as is." A number of features have been evaluated as possible burials (see Figures B-13 and B-16 in Appendix B). These include features at Sites 14084, 14123, 14124, 14126, and 14129. It is unknown at this point whether or not these features are burials. Testing needs to be undertaken. Generally, these features are well constructed platforms or mounds, that appear to have been built with care and a greater amount of work than other features in the area. The only definite burials found in the project area are located in Site 14132 (see Figure B-17 in Appendix B). This site consists of a relatively small lava tube. The remains of at least four individuals are located approximately 16 meters within the entrance of the tube. A second tube, running off the main tube was not explored as it is quite narrow and the long bones of a single individual were situated approximately a meter in from the opening. It was not deemed appropriate at the time of recording to disturb these bones in order to continue exploration of the tube. If these burials are not to be preserved "as is" further investigation will be required. The above discussion has focused on the prehistoric occupation and use of the project area. While the archaeological landscape of the project area is dominated by prehistoric features, historic use of the area is represented as well. Historic use of the area, however, appears to have been limited in intensity and extent. The primary historic features are the walls that essentially run along and define the ahupua`a boundaries. These include Sites 5136, 5139, and 5144 (see Figure B-7 in Appendix B). These walls were probably contracted after AD 1850 and were maintained for an indeterminate period of time. It was during this time that ranching became the primary use of the area (Schilt 1984). Other walls in the area probably reflect such land use as well, including Sites 14106, 14112, and 14113. There does not appear to have been any historic habitation in the project area except perhaps at Site 14120. This site consists of a number of RL! historic features including a concrete foundation with raised sides and an overturned water wagon. This wagon is a large iron/steel tanker type vehicle/trailer? with steel wheels, and it is probably worth considering the idea of conserving the wagon as a historic relic. This historic activity area, which served an unknown function, lies between what is the current Kuakini Highway on the west side of the project area, and the old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road (Site 14087). The only other historic site of note in the area is what appears to be a section of the oldest N -S road that ran through the area. This road section consists of a cobble- and boulder -filled road bed retained by a stacked boulder terrace on the downslope side. It is a short section of road situated at the north end of the project area, between the two more recent roads. This site warrants a limited amount of historical documentary research which could potentially provide information useful in outlining historic transportation routes, not to mention information interesting in terms of local history. Overall, the project area offers good potential for examining past lifeways, particularly in terms of the development, nature, and overall system of prehistoric agriculture in the area. Early, pre -agricultural occupation is represented in at least one site, and probably others. The late prehistoric period is best represented in the project area; most of the agricultural features can be ascribed to this period (this assumption, however, could be questioned). The historic period appears to be represented almost solely by historic walls which probably directly relate to the shift in land use from agriculture to ranching. This shift would have occurred during the early historic period. Further archaeological investigation could provide valuable information, and such information could only enhance our understanding of past culture and lifeways in the area. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDED GENERAL TREATMENTS General significance assessments and recommended general treatments for all identified sites are summarized in Table 10. Significance and treatment are summarized in further detail in Table 11. Specific fieldwork tasks for sites requiring further work are presented in Table 2. Significance categories used in the site evaluation process are based on Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Chapter 6E-42, Hawaii Revised Statutes (DLNR 2001). The DLNR-SHPD uses these criteria for evaluating cultural resources. The site was assessed for integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and in terms of the following criteria: (1) Criterion A. Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (2) Criterion B. Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) Criterion C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; (4) Criterion D. Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; (5) Criterion E. Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural practices, beliefs, events or oral accounts. Sites with potential cultural significance are evaluated under guidelines prepared by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) entitled "Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review" (Draft Report, August 1985). The guidelines define cultural value 37 Table 10. Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments* Feature Integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation + A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 28- + + + 5136 + + _ + _ 14086 + + _ + _ 28/37- + + + 5139 + + _ 14087 + + _ + 14088 + + _ + 14089 + + _ + 37- + _ _ + + 5144 + + - + - 14093 + + _ + _ 14096 + + + 14097 + + _ + _ 14099 + + _ + _ 14106 + _ + _ 14110 + + + _ 14112 + + + - 14113 + + _ + _ 14120 + + - + 14125 + _ + + _ Subtotal: + 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 28- 14073 + + + 14074 + + + 14075 + + 14076 + + + 14077 + + + 14078 + + 14079 + + + 14080 + _ + + 14081 + _ _ + + 14082 + _ _ + + 14083 + + + 14085 + _ + + 37- 5143 + _ + + 14090 + + + 14092 - + - + 14094 + _ + _ + 14095 + - + + 14098 + _ + 14100 + _ + _ + 14101 + _ + _ + _ 14102 + + _ + _ 14103 + + _ + 14104 + + + 14105 + + _ + 14107 + + _ + This table was created in 1990. It has since been revised and updated and it presented as Table 0-1 in Appendix D 38 Table 10. (Continued Feature Integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 14108 + + + 14109 + + _ + _ _ _ 14111 + - + - - - 14114 - + _ + 14115 - + + 14116 - + _ + 14117 - + - + 14118 - + _ + 14119 + + + 14121 + - + 14122 + - + 14127 + _ + _ + 14128 - + + 14130 + + _ + 14131 _ + _ + Subtotal: 0 0 0 40 0 40 0 0 0 28- 14084 - - + * + 37- 14091 + + * + 14126 + * + 14129 + + * + Subtotal: 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 4 14123 + + * + _ _ 14124 - + + * + _ Subtotal: 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 14132 + - - - + + + _ + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 Total: 0 0 2 64 7 47 17 0 7 *Provisional assessment; final assessment pending further data collection General Significance Categories: A = Important for historical contribution to significant events and/or broad patterns of history 8 = Important for association with the lives of important individuals in history C = Excellent example of site type at local, region, island, State, or Notional level D = Important for information content E = Culturally significant Recommended General Treatments: FDC = Further data collection necessary (detailed recording, surface collections, and limited excavations, and possibly subsequent data recovery/mitigation excavations) NFW = Nor further work of any kind necessary, sufficient data collected, no preservation potential PID = Preservation with some level of interpretive development recommended PAI = Preservation "as is", with no further work (and possible inclusion into landscaping) 39 Table 11. Rationale for Site Sienificance and Treatment Site # SI nf. Significance Rationale/Comments Treat. Treatment Details/Comments 5136 D Historic wall to mark ahupus a boundary; collapsed and intersected NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation by various mads potential 5139 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 5143 D No comment FDC Trail continues upslope outside project area; mule of trail should be plotted 5144 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14073 D Agricultural and likely temporary habitation; more information FDC Detailed recording to collect further information and needed to fully assess function I possible excavation to assess function 14074 D No comment FDC Excavation of one unit revealed no cultural material; numerous unrecorded outcrops in area; further recording of Information needed 14075 D May be kuaiwi FDC Further examination of wall extending beyond site may confirm kualwi function 14076 D Possible permanent habitation at Feature A FDC Detailed recording and examination to collect further information and further possible excavation to Ga' function 14077 D Agricultural and possibly temporary habitation; more information FDC Detailed recording to collect further Information and needed to full assess function possible excavation to assess function 14078 D Need further testing to further assess function FDC Detailed recording to collect further information and test unit in soil -filled area 14079 D Agricultural and possibly temporary habitation; more information FDC Detailed recording to collect further information and needed to fully assess function excavation in soil area to further assess function 14080 D,C Agricultural or transportation; possible kuaiwi; or possibly a section FDC Detailed recording to collect further infomation; of ball with low walls extending down either side. More information follow out posslbie trail or wall. needed to fully assess function 14081 D Likelytemporary. habitation with high research potential. _ FDC Detailed recording to collect Iudher .information; surface collection, further excavation of cultural deposits 14082 D No comment FDC Detailed recording of additional outcrops in vicinity 14083 D No comment FDC Detailed recording to collect further information. 14084 D, E' Agriculture; composition and form suggests Feature C is a possible FDC, Numerous other unrecorded features in vicinity. burial, hence E' designation PAI* Test Feature C for possible burial. PAI If burial. 14085 D No comment FDC Additional clearing and detailed recording to collect further Information; possible excavation 14086 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14087 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14088 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14089 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14090 D No comment FDC Detailed recording of remaining information at site; numerous unrecorded outcrops in vicinity 14091 D, E' Agriculture; composition and form suggests Feature A is a possible FDC, Detailed recording of remaining Information at site; burial, hence E' designation PAI' I testing of Feature A for possible burial. 14092 D No comment FDC Detailed recording to recover remaining information at site; possible excavation 14093 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation otential 14094 D No comment FDC Detailed recording of remaining Information at site; numerous unrecorded mounds and modified outcrops In the vicinity 14095 D No comment FDC Further clearing may reveal additional features and cultural remains; detailed recording, possible excavation 14096 D No comment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation otential 14097 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potent! 14098 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation; further work to clarity FDC Further detailed recording of remaining Information function of Feature A and possible excavation 14099 D No comment NFW Sufficient information wllecled; no preservation potential 14100 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation at Feature A; further work FDC Further detailed recording of remaining information to clarify function and possible excavation Note: See Table 10 for Key to Significance and Treatment 40 Table 11. (Continued) Site # SI nf. Significance Rationale/Comments Treat. Treatment Rationale/Comments 14101 D No comment FDC Further recording and possible excavation may determine what feature is markin 14102 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation at Features A and B; FDC Feature C may be for water catchment; further further work to clarify function recording and possible excavation may clarify function 14103 D Agriculture and likely temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further recording of site; unrecorded features in function vicinity', possible excavation 14104 D Agriculture and likely permanent habitation; further work to clarify FDC - Further detailed recording of remaining information function and possible excavation to clarify function 14105 D Agriculture and likely temporary or permanent habitation at Feature FDC Further recording to collect remaining information; B; further work to clarify function possible excavation to determine more definite function 14106 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation antial. 14107 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording may clarify functions of features D and E; possible surface collection and further excavation; Feature F tested. 14108 D Agriculture and temporary/pernanent(7) habitation; further work to FDC Further recording and examination may clarify clarify function function; possible excavation 14109 D Agriculture and possible temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further recording and examination may clarify function function possible excavation 14110 D No comment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation potential ,14111 D Likely temporary habitation, agriculture FDC Further recording and examination, surface collection, and possible excavation. Features A and B he" been tested 14112 D No comment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation 14113 D No comment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation tential 14114 D Agriculture and possible temporary habitation; further work to clarify FDC Further recording and examination may clarify function - function; possible excavation 14115 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording of remaining Information; possible excavation 14116 D Possible kualwi FDC Further recording may reveal age of wall 14117 D No comment FDC Further detailed recording of remaining information 14118 D No comment FDC Further detailed recording of remaining Information; possible excavation; numerous unrecorded mounds in vicinity 14119 D No comment FDC Further detailed recording of remaining information; possible dismantlin 14120 D No comment NFW Sufficient information collected; no preservation potential 14121 D No comment FDC Further examination and recording of remaining information 14122 D No comment FDC Further examination and recording of remaining Information 14123 C, D, Permanent habitation; further work to clarify function and FDC, Further recording, testing, surface collection and E' significance PAI' possible preservation: largest single site In project area with sinnificant deposits. 14124 C, D, Possible temporary habitation or burial; further work to clarify FDC. Further recording, testing, surface collection and E' function and significance PAI' possible preservation 14125 D No wmment NFW Sufficient Information collected; no preservation potential 14126 D, E' Possible temporary habitation and possible burial; further work FDC. Further recording and examination; possible needed to clarify function PAI' excavation. Feature B may be burial 14127 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording, surface collection, possible excavation of surface midden. Tested Features A and B. 14128 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording and examination; possible excavation in surface midden' Feature B tested 14129 D, E' Possible burial; further work to clarify function and significance FDC, Further recording and possible testing PAI' 14130 D Likely temporary habitation FDC Further recording and examination, and possible excavation U deposits noted 14131 D Possible permanent habitation FDC Further recording, examination, and excavation in cultural de sits. 14132 D, E Burial cave FDC, Further detailed recording and preservation as is PAI *Provisional assessment, final assessment pending further data collection 41 as "...the contribution made by an historic property to an ongoing society or cultural system. A traditional cultural value is a cultural value that has historical depth." The guidelines further specify that "[a] property need not have been in consistent use since antiquity by a cultural system in order to have traditional cultural value." To fiuther facilitate client management decisions regarding the subsequent treatment of resources, the general significance of the archaeological sites identified during the inventory survey was also evaluated in terms of PHRI CRM (Cultural Resource Management) value modes — potential scientific research, interpretive, and/or cultural values — which are derived from the above federal criteria. CRM value mode assessments for individual sites are presented in Table 2. In evaluating information content (CRM value = research value), all the sites located within the project area were examined in light of several major research issues identified during background research. These issues revolve around general questions of chronology, settlement and exploitative patterns, site and assemblage variability, material culture and technology, diet and economy, and socio -religious patterns. These research issues have been discussed in more detail in the preceding discussion section. In evaluating value as an excellent example of a site type (CRM value = interpretive value), sites located within the project area were examined in light of their possessing qualities that would potentially make them valuable for educational or interpretive purposes. Attributes that would provide a representative example of particular kinds of behavior, activities or conditions in the past, were examined. Sites with cultural significance (CRM value = cultural value) would include those sites with traditional uses and significant meaning in the present context of a traditional way of life. Burials and religious complexes fall within this category. Other site types that are assigned a high degree of cultural significance include those that have been shown — through historic documentary research, informant interviews, or other means— to possess significant cultural meaning to present day peoples and society as a whole. Of the 64 sites identified within the Pualani Development project area, 57 are assessed as significant solely for information content. No further work is recommended for 17 of these 56 sites. These 17 sites, primarily consisting of historic or recent land division walls, historic cattle walls, historic or recent roads, and small isolated modified outcrops presumably used for prehistoric agriculture, have been recorded and described at such a level as to sufficiently mitigate their possible destruction. These sites were evaluated as of low overall significance, based on a number of criteria including: (a) the sites have no associated deposits and portable remains, (b) a number of the sites are recent in age, and (c) no significant information other than location and general form and function could be gathered from these sites. The remaining 40 sites assessed as significant solely for information content require further data collection. A number of these sites appear to contain relatively rich subsurface deposits and/or surfrcial scatters of cultural remains. Further testing and/or surface collections need to be conducted at these sites in order to gather remaining significant information. In addition, many of these sites require further more detailed recording in terms of preparation of detailed maps. There is relatively dense vegetation cover at these sites, and considerable time and effort will be required to clear the sites and thereby allow more accurate, detailed site maps to be drawn. A few sites will probably require research -oriented mitigation excavations (e.g., Site 14081). Of the remaining seven sites, four are assessed as potentially culturally significant and valuable for information content. These sites may contain burials and are provisionally recommended for preservation "as is," pending further data collection. Further testing will have to be conducted at these sites to determine 42 whether or not the indicated features are burials, in addition to gathering further information from the sites. If the features are, in fact, burials, then preservation "as is" is recommended as the most desirable action. If this alternative is not possible or not preferred, then disinterments, in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and procedures, could possibly be undertaken (see below). Two sites (14123 and 14124) are assessed as significant for information content, as excellent examples of site types, and as potentially culturally significant. These are large sites that may contain burials, and one site may be a religious complex. Further data collection is recommended. Preservation "as is" is provisionally recommended pending further data collection results. The final site (14132) is a burial cave containing the remains of at least four individuals. Further data collection in terms of detailed recording is recommended, as well as preservation "as is." As above, with the possible burials, if this course of action is not possible or not preferred, then disinterments, in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and procedures, could possibly be undertaken. Disinterments must comply with Chapter 6E - Historic Preservation, Section 43 (Haw. Rev. Stat., as amended). The DLNR-HSS would be notified and would contact the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (ORA). A treatment plan for the burials would be worked out with DLNR-HSS. A search for direct lineal descendants — consisting of publishing in a newspaper of general circulation a public notice to notify possible direct lineal descendants — would be required. If direct lineal descendants are found, a plan for final disposition of the remains would have to be developed in consultation with the descendants and, prior -- —. to disinterment, a disinterment permit would have to be obtained from the Slate Department of Health.tis recommended that any disinterred remains eventually be reinterred at an appropriate facility either within the project area or in a nearby cemetery. Although several sites are recommended for preservation, it is not thought that such action would prevent or seriously constrain future development in the project area. Aside from the burials and possible burials, two sites in the southeast comer of the project area are recommended for preservation (14123 and 14124). It is believed that preservation of these sites "as is" would maintain their integrity for the future so that the apparent significant scientific, cultural, and interpretive values they possess is not lost. As an important initial step prior to further archaeological work in the project area, it is recommended that all identified sites be accurately located and plotted by professional surveyors, with the aid of an arcbaeologist, on an appropriate scale topographic map of the project area. This locational plotting would greatly aid development planning by allowing further archaeological work determinations (further data collection, data recovery and/or preservation) to be more accurately considered on a site -by -site basis. The assessments and recommendations presented here have been based on the findings of a 100% coverage, variable -intensity surface and limited subsurface inventory survey of the project area. There is always the possibility, however remote, that potentially significant, unidentified cultural remains could be encountered in the course of future archaeological investigations or subsequent development activities. In such situations, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately. 43 REFERENCES CITED ACNP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) 1985 Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review. Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (Draft report, August) Allen, M.S. 1984 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Waiono Meadows Development Project Area, Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, Holualoa 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 119-070584. Prepared for Waiono Meadows Ranch, Ltd. Armstrong, R.W. (ed.) 1983 Atlas of Hawai'i. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai'i. (Second edition) Barrers, W. Jr., and P.V. Kirch 1973 Basalt -glass Artifacts from Hawai'i: Their Dating and Prehistoric Uses. Journal of Polynesian Society 82(2):176-187. Barrere, D.B. 1975 Kamehameha in Kona: Two Documentary Studies. Pacific—Anthropological Records No. D. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 36 CFR Part 60 National Register of Historic Places. Washington, D.C.: Dept. Interior, National Park Service. Ching, F.IGW., E. Neller, S.L. Palama, and P.B. Griffin 1973 The Archaeology of North Kona, from the Ahupua'a of Kahului to the Ahupua'a of Kahalu'u. Surface Survey: Realignment of Ali'i Drive. Hawaiian Archaeological Journal 73-2. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc.. Corbin, A.B. 2003 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, Land of Puapua'a- nui, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:3-7-5-17:21). PHRI Report 2308- 041503. Prepared for Uluwehi Properties, LLC. DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) 2001 Chapter 284: Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review to Comment on Chapter 6E-42, HRS, Projects. Hawaii Administrative Rules; Title 13, Department of Land and Natural Resources; Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Division Rules. (May) (Draft rules) Delimont, K., A.E. Hann, and P.H. Rosendahl 1985 Intensive Survey and Test Excavations, Kahakai Development Project Area, Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 157-070185 (Draft). Prepared for K.G. (Hawaii) Construction. (With J. Landrum III) Dye, T.S. 1978 An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Four Alternative Sites for the Kailua- Keauhou Elementary School. Ms. 031078, Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Company Ltd. ML Graves, D.K. 1991 Pualani Residential Community (Phase 11), Archaeological Data Recovery, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.19). PHRI Interim Report 1055-060491, Prepared for Pualani Development Company. Hammatt, H.H. 1980 Archaeological Survey of a Shoreline Property, TMK:7-5-20:22,34) Puapua'a, Kona, Hawai'i Island. Report 14-158. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii. Hommon, R.J., and P.H. Rosendahl 1983 Archaeological Investigation of the Ali'i Drive Realignment Corridors, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. Science Management, Inc. (Honolulu) and P.H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (Hilo). Prepared for Belt, Collins & Associates. Jensen, P.M. 1991 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, Pualani Development Company, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Land of Puapuaa 1" and 2n°, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1025-020191. Prepared for Pualani Development Company. Kelly, M.. 1983 Na Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona, A History of Land Use in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Report Series 83-2, Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Kirch, P.V. 1983 Indigenous Artifacts. IN Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane-Waimea- Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawai'i: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect. Departmental Report Series 83-1, Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. (Edited by J.T. Clark and P.V. Kirch, pp. 341-347). 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks; An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1953 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1854-1 a74. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1967 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1874-1893. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. McNeill, J.W. 1982 Appendix: Report on Archaeological Monitoring of the Kahakai Elementary School Site. IN Welch 1982:97-99. Schilt, R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Report—Series 84-1. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. :VI Soehren, L.J. 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Portion of Kahului 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii Island. 1981 Kahakai Elementary School Archaeological Surveillance of Soil Investigation. Letter report to Mr. Edward Masuoka, Chief, Project Management Branch, DPW, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai'i. (Cited in Welch 1982) Soil Survey Staff 1962 Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Dept. Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service. Handbook No. 18. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office. Stearns, H.T. 1966 Geology of the State of Hawaii. Palo Alto: Pacific Books, Publishers. Stuiver, M., and G.W. Pearson 1986 High -Precision Calibration of Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950 to 500 BC. Radiocarbon 28, pp.805-838. Soil Conservation Service 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawai'i, State of Hawai'i. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Soil Conservation Service -and Univ. Hawaii Agri. Experiment Station. Taylor, C.B. 1948 The Restoration of a Heiau. Paradise of the Pacific 60:pp.46-49,125. Walker, A.T., and P.H.Rosendahl 1985a Full Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kahakai Development Project Area, Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 141-111984. Prepared for KG (Hawaii) Construction. 1985b Supplementary Report: Archaeological Reconnaissance of TMK Parcel 76 and the Alii Drive Realignment Corridor, Full Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kahakai Development Project Area, Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 141-013185. Prepared for KG (Hawaii) Construction. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision, Lands of Puapua'a 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. PHRI Report 367-041988. Prepared for Pualani Development Company, Kailua-Kona. Welch, D.J. 1982 Archaeological Survey and Excavations of the Kahakai (Kailua-Kona) Elementary School Site, North Kona, Hawai'i. Ms. 051082. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. 46 A-1 HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH by Helen Wong Smith, B.A. Historical research on Puapuaa 1st and 2nd has been conducted by Carol Silva (1985) as part of an earlier PHRI survey (Kahakai Development project area [Walker and Rosendahl 1985a]). A summary of Silva's report is presented here, in addition to data found at the State Survey office and Bureau of Conveyances. Early accounts relevant to Puapuaa include those concerning the Kailua-Kona area. These accounts indicate that the high-ranking chiefs Umi-a-Liloa, Kalaniopuu, and Kamehameha I resided in Kona. During the early historic period, Kailua was a preferred and often visited port, as well as the center of island government. Residences of a'1 stretched from Kahelo,_at. the =.k4end of-Puapuaa 1st, to Lanihau, north of Kailua Bay. Native historian Samuel Kamakau writes: There were chiefs and families of chiefs of Oahu, Molokai, Kauai, Maui. The sands of Kaiakeakua (Kailua Bay) were worn down like a dromedary's back by the many feet of chiefs and chiefesses tramping over them, and at Kamakahonu could be seen at night the sparkle of lights reflected in the sea like diamonds, from the homes of the chiefs from Kahelo to Lanihau. The number of chiefs and lesser chiefs reached into the thousands (Kamakau 1961:221-222). Silva maintains thateven later, the "members of chiefly lines, Ruth Keelikolani, Alexander Liholiho and his queen Emma, and Kalakaua, just to name a few, maintained this fondness and spent much time upon her shores" (Silva 1985:A-3). The earliest account specific to the Puapuaa vicinity is by English missionary William Ellis. Ellis describes the Puapuaa area as green and agriculturally productive. He also describes Kauakaiakaola Heiau, which is situated in Puapuaa 1st. Ellis' observations are presented here: Leaving Kairua, we passed through the villages thickly scattered along the shore to the southward. The country around looked unusually green and cheerful, owing to the frequent rains, which for some months past have fallen on this side of the island. Even the barren lava, over which we travelled, seemed to veil its sterility beneath frequent tufts of tall waving grass, or spreading shrubs and flowers. The sides of the hills, laid out for a considerable extent in gardens and fields, and generally cultivated with potatoes, and other vegetables, were beautiful. The number of heiaus, and depositories of the dead, which we passed, convinced us that this part of the island must formerly have been populous. The latter were built with fragments of lava, laid up evenly on the outside, generally about eight feet long, from four to six broad, and about four feet high. Some appeared very ancient, others had evidently been standing but a few years. At.Ruapua (Puapuaa) we examined an interesting heiau, called Kauaikaharoa, built of immense blocks of lava, and found its dimensions to be 150 feet by 70. At the north end was a smaller enclosure, sixty feet long and ten wide, partitioned off by a high wall, with but one narrow entrance. The places where the idols formerly stood were apparent, though the idols had been removed. The spot where the altar had been erected could be distinctly traced; it was a mound of earth, paved with smooth stones, and surrounded by a firm curb of lava. The adjacent ground was strewed with bones of the ancient offerings. The native informed us that four principal idols were formerly worshipped there, one of stone, two of wood, and one covered with red feathers. One of them, they said, was brought from a foreign country. Their names were Kanenuiakea; (great and wide spreading Kane), who was brought from Tauai, Kaneruruhonua, (earth -shaking Kane), Roramakaeha, and Kekuaaimanu. (Ellis 1963:72- 73) Ellis goes-on-,M.Aescribe "smaller temples" along the coast which were dedicated toKuura and Hina by fishermen. These temples were most likely )Ct]' u , defined as "heiau near the sea for worship of fish gods" (Pukui and Elbert 1986:187). In his comprehensive listing of heiau throughout the islands, Thrum recorded the same hei u described above by APPENDIX A Ellis. In this list and an accompanying article on be of Hawaii Island, Thrum notes: Kauaikahaola Puapuaa I; an early heiau, rebuilt by Kamehameha; about 170x75 ft. in size, of two divisions. Its walls yet in fair condition; entry way on seaward side (Thrum 1908:43). Thrum's reference to Kauaikahaola corroborates Ellis' observations (Thrum 1908:70). Kamakau explains that it was common practice for Kamehameha I to restore heiau in the Kailua vicinity, including carving keiki-pu'inu'i (tall images) for them (Kamakau 1961:203). In more recent times, Kauaikahaola Heiau has been visited by historians HenryKekahunaand Theodore Kelsey. Silva presents Kekahuna's detailed notes of a visit to "Kauakaiakaola" on November 30, 1949 (Silva 1985:A- 5,6). At that time, the heiau appears to have been in fair condition. In addition, Silva includes an article published in the Paradise of the Pacific (Taylor 1948, Holiday Edition:46- 49, 125) which covers the heiau in great detail. In Taylor's article, the area behind the bgigU is described: Naluahine remembered the heiau as a center of village life when he was a child, for the coast was then inhabited by fishermen. Although the rituals of the heiau had ceased, there were still kahunas (priests) living in grass houses near the walls of the heiau. These kahunas were men who could fortell the time for good fishing hauls. They continued the worship of the old fishing gods, Kuula and Hina On the flat lands above the heiau site, Naluahine said, there was a racetrack in the 1880s. Races were run there between the blooded horses of Parker ranch and other Kona ranches. The races attracted people from allover the islands, including King Kalakaua and his court. By 1900, the people of the fishing village drifted away to other places and the village of Luapua was deserted. Nothing remained except the stone walls of the heiau and the stone foundations of the village grass houses (Taylor 1948:49). During the reign of Kamehameha III, the most important event in the reformation of the land system was incorporated. The Great Mahele separated and defined the undivided land interests of the King and the high-ranking chiefs and kowhild A-1 (originally, this title referred to the person in charge of a tract of land on behalf of the king or a chief; it is in the later statutes that the chiefs or landlords were referred to as "konohikis') (Chinn 1958:vii and Chinen 1961:13). More than 240 of the highest ranking chiefs and konohiki in the kingdom joined Kamehameha III in this division. The first Mahele was signed on Jan. 27,1848 by Kamehameha III and Princess Victoria Kamamalu by her guardians Mataio Kekuanaoa and Ione Ii. The last Mahele was signed by the King and E. Enoka on March 7, 1848 (Chinn 1958:16). The Mahele did not convey any title to any land. The chiefs and konohiki were required to present their claims to The Land Commission and to receive awards for the lands quitclaimed to them by Kamehameha III. Until an award for these lands was issued, title remained with the government. Because there were few surveyors at the time of the Mahele, the lands were divided by name only, with the understanding that -the ancient -boundaries would control until a survey of such lands could be made in the future. This was done to expedite the work of the Land Commission in awarding lands to the chiefs and konohiki. However, these chiefs and konohiki were still required to pay commutations to the government for them to receive Royal Patents on their awards. These lands awarded to the chiefs and konohiki became known as Konohiki Lands (Chinn 1961:13). Lands were identified and separated in 1848 as Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne), Government Lands, and Konohiki Lands. These were all "subject to the rights of native tenants" (Laws of Hawaii 1848:22). These rights were brought into question when the King, the government and konohiki began selling off parcels of land. To clarify the situation, the Privy Council, on December 21, 1849, adopted four resolutions as a means of protecting the rights of native tenants (Chinn 1958:29). These resolutions authorized the Land Commission to award fee simple title to all native tenants who occupied and improved any portion of Crown, Government, or Konohiki Lands. Except for the houselots located in the districts of Honolulu, Lahaina, and Hilo, these awards were to be free of commutation (ibid). Before receiving awards for their lands from the Land Commission, the native tenants were required to prove that they actually cultivated those lands for a living. They were not permitted to acquire waste lands or lands which they cultivated "with the seeming intention of enlarging their lots." Once confirmed, they were required to be surveyed before the Land Commission was authorized to issue any award. These lands became known as "Kuleana Lands" APPENDIX A (ibid.). Until its dissolution on March 31, 1855, the Land Commission issued thousands of awards to the native tenants for their kuleana. Even so, less than 30,000 acres of land were awarded to the native tenants as kuleana lands. The Indices of Awards (Board of Commissioners 1929), which lists the original claimants and parcel acreages given during the Great Mahele, indicates that 19 separate claims were registered and awarded for the Puapua'a lands. The largest parcel in Puapuaaiki (Puapua 1) ahupua' a consisted of 170 acres of land deeded to an early foreign resident named Thomas Sams. Puapua 2 was granted to Wm. C. Lunalilo, as LCA 8559-B, and consisted of 379 acres. Of the remaining 17 claimants, individual awards ranged from 0.09 to 3.75 acres, with 13 claimants receiving lands larger than an acre. In Puapuaa 2nd, a review of testimonies for awards granted in this ahupua 'a indicated that there existed a fair number of kihanai (cultivatedparcels* usually in. taro or sweet potato) and houselots. Often, claimants said that there were long-time residents, swearing; "People of the land are very old residents, at the time of Kamehameha I, (LCA 7947). Silva states that Puapuaa "was a populous and productive residential area, apparently self-sufficient, with abundant ocean and agricultural resources (1985:A-7). A comparison of ahupua' a boundaries between the USGS map and Conies of Surveys and Maps of Lands Belonging to the Estate of Lunalilo, indicates that Puapuaa 2nd was also known as Puapuaanui (Figure A-1). A Certificate of Boundaries (dated March 4, 1885) for Puapuaanui includes the inscription "e H.N. Greenwell, ka mea nona keia aura is manawa," (for H.N. Greenwell, whom the land is for at this time). Another reference is found at the Bureau for the year 1891, in Book 120, page 387, Grantor J.S. Antonio, regarding interest in leasehold and fixtures in Puapuaanui: In consideration of the cancellation and surrender to me of my note of $1,000 to Greenwell ... and for $1 ...I hereby transfer... all of my right ... in and to the leasehold premises called Puapuaanui, together with the fixtures and appurtenances but to no portion of the furniture, dairy fixtures or appurtenances, cattle or other livestock, which I will reserve the right to remove. From this entry we can conclude that there was dairy activity in the area during the late 1800s. Little in the way of graphic or cartographic material was uncovered during the preparation of this preliminary study. Two maps on file at the State Survey Division A-3 proved to be little more than shell -line drawings with discrepancies in shoreline contours as well as in boundaries. Neither delineated any of the original 19 native awards mentioned in the land records, with the exception that T. Sams and Wm. C. Lunalilo are shown as having owned Puapuaaiki and Puapuaanui, respectively. Kelly (1983), Barrere (1975), and Kuykendall (1938, 1953, 1967) have presented historical overviews of the Kona district and general Hawaiian historical research; while their accounts of events and Hawaiian lifestyle in precontact and historic times are relevant to the project area, they include no specific references to the project area. Schilt, in her discussion of leeward Hawaii expansion and settlement patterns, provides a general chronological sequence for the Kona area (Schilt 1984:270-304). According to her analysis, initial occupation of the area began circa AD 1000. From AD 1000 to c. AD 1400, occupation and settlement were centered in the pristine upland zones and in the coastal fringe. Agriculture in the upland zone eroded the soil; the eroded soil was deposited on lower, agriculturally marginal slopes. From AD 1400- 1600, the erosional deposition continued, and the once agriculturally marginal land gradually became more fertile. Consequently, agriculture expanded into the newly fertile zones, and the population increased. By AD 1600, what is now known as the Kona Field System was fully established, and settlement within the system had begun. The population increase and its accompanying pressure led to periodic warfare, particularly after AD 1600. When Captain James Cook arrived in AD 1778, warfare was still rife. Contact with the West revolutionized traditional Hawaiian warfare, and one aIii• Kamehameha, emerged as the dominant chief. By AD 1795, Kamehameha had conquered all the major Hawaiian Islands and had consolidated his power base in Kailua, Kona. By the mid- to late- 1800s, as Western contact drastically altered traditional Hawaiian land use practices, and as epidemics from introduced diseases greatly reduced the native population, the Kona Field System fell into disuse. Except for small, individually owned farms and large coffee plantations near Captain Cook and Kealakekua, traditional farming was replaced by ranching. Dependence on ranching, coffee cultivation, and small- scale farming continued until the late 1950s when economic emphasis shifted toward developing the tourist industry. APPENDIX A Ad FigureA-1. COPIES OF SURVEYS AND MAPS OF LANDS BELONGING TO THE ESTATE OF LUNALILO APPENDIX A A-5 REFERENCES CITED Barrere, D.B. 1975 Kamehameha in Kona: Two Documentary Studies, Pacific Anthrtlpolortical Records No. 23. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Board of Commissioners 1929 Indices of Awards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Ouiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: Star -Bulletin Press. Chinen, JJ. 1958 The Great Mahele• Hawaii's Land Division of 1848. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 1961 Orieinal Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd. Kamakau, S.M. 1961 Ruline Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Kelly, M. 1983 Na Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona, A History of land Use in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Re rt Series 83-2. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Kuykendall, R.S. 1938 The Hawaiian Kinedom 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1953 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1854-1874. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 1967 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1874-1893. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Schilt, A.R. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Silva, C.L. 1985 Preliminary Historical Documentary Research, Kahakai Development Project Area, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii TMK: 3-7-5-20:1. IN Walker and Rosendahl (1985:A1 -A9). Taylor, C.B. 1948 The Restoration of a Heiau. Paradise of the Pacific Holiday Edition:4649, 125. APPENDIX A A-6 Thrum, T.G. 1908 List of Heiaus. The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. Honolulu: T.G. Thrum. 1908 Tales from the Temples. The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. Honolulu: T.G. Thrum. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1985a FullArchaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kahakai Development Project Area, Puapuaa Ist and2nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 141-111984. Prepared for KG (Hawaii) Construction. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Pualani Subdivision, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.28,29. PHRI Report 367-041988. Prepared for Pualani Development Co. APPENDIX B: SITE DECRIPTIONS SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-5136 (Figure C-1) PHRI: 764-2 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, kiawe, opiuma, grasses, lantana, air plant. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 500.00 in by 0.65 in by 1.20 in (approximate length within project area) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a wall of five to seven courses, with stacked cobbles and boulders, double-faced and core -filled, that separates the ahupua'a of Puapua`a Ist and Kahului 2nd. It forms the north boundary of the project area. This boundary wall was probably built during the historic period, when ahupua'a boundaries were being formally delineated. The wall extends both mauka and makai of the project area. It is collapsed in places, and interrupted by various roads intersecting it from north to south. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28/37-5139 PIM: 764-28 SITE TYPE: Wall (Figure C-2a,b) TOPOGRAPHI`-Undulatingslape - VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 570.00 in by 1.40 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a double-faced, core -filled wall of boulders and cobbles stacked six courses high. It runs mauka-makai and probably forms the boundary between Puapua`a 1 st and 2nd. It has been knocked down in spots to allow cattle trough. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-5143 PHRI: 764-65 SITE TYPE: AlignmenvTrail section TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Transportation DIMENSIONS: 14.00 in by 0.95 in by 0.20 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of an alignment of boulders and cobbles running mauka-makai. It appears to be one edge of a trail that continues upslope out of the project area. It is in poor condition, but warrants further work in terms of detailed recording. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-5144 (Figure C-3) PHRI: 764-61 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, opiuma, grasses. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic M FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 420.00 m by 1.10 in by 0.95 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a double-faced, core -filled wall. The mauka half forms the south boundary of the project area. The makai half is the mauka border of a recent side road, and at the makai end it connects with both sites 14087 and 14089. This wall probably separates the ahupua'a of Puapua'a 2nd and Holualoa 1st. It was probably built during the historic period when ahupua `a boundaries were being formally delineated. The wall extends both mauka and makai of the project area. It is collapsed in places. NO.: State: 50-10-28-14073 PHRI: 764-1 SITE TYPE: Complex (FigureB-1)(15 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair -poor INTEGRITY: Unaltered (cattle disturbance) PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site consists of agricultural mounds constructed of piled boulders and cobbles on and around bedrock outcrops. A water wom piece of coral was noted within the complex, but was not a part of any particular feature. A number of additional mounds/modified outcrops were noted in the near vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. Given the relative density of features in the area, it is thought that a portion of the site may have been used for habitation. FEATURE A: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.70 in by 2.25 in by 0.35 in (approx.) FEATURE B: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.30 m by 1.50 in by 0.50 in (approx.) FEATURE C: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.75 in by 1.70 m by 0.60 in (approx.) FEATURE D: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.40 in by 2.50 in by 0.50 in (approx.) FEATURE E: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.00 m by 2.50 in by 0.35 in (approx.) FEATURE F: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 m by 3.50 in by 0.60 in (approx.) FEATURE G: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.00 in by 1.00 in by 0.30 in (approx.) FEATURE H: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.50 in by 3.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) &2 FEATURE I: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 in by 1.50 in by 0.00 in (approx.) FEATURE J: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.80 in by 6.50 in by 040 in (approx.) FEATURE K: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 2.70 in by 0.70 in (approx.) FEATURE L: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.50 in by 2.50 in by 0.58 in (approx.) FEATURE M: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 5.20 in by 2.70 in by 0.80 in (approx.) FEATURE N: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS_4 00 in by.I.00 m by 0.70 zn(appro .) FEATURE O: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.50 in (approx.) SITE NO.: State: 50.10-28-14074 PHRI: 764-3 SITE TYPE: C -shape (Figures B-2 and B-3) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope. VEGETATION: Kiawe, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -Agriculture? DIMENSIONS: 7.50 in by 5.70 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a C-shaped structure constructed on the top of a raised bedrock outcrop. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles stacked two to three courses high and faced in a few areas. Cobble/rubble fill forms most of the bulk of the structure. An adze blank was collected from the surface of this feature, and a SC by SC cm test unit was excavated within the C -shape. A C- 14 date of A.D. 1030-1840 was obtained from this site. No cultural material was recovered from the test unit. As a result, it is thought that this feature may possibly have served an agricultural function. There are numerous modified outcrops/mounds in the immediate vicinity of this central feature. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14075 (Figure C-4) PHM: 764-4 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric F -M Figure B-1. Site 14074, View to N (Neg. 1430-3) I II X O I _ rte• x.11.0 \/�\� i , I TU -1 FLAT ■ SOIL FILL n ADZE IlC 1)e a �CIO 1 0 10 15 m0 1 2 3 4 Figure 8.3. Site 14074, Plan Map M FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 13.5 in by 1.5 m by 0.8 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a low wall segment running mauka-makai. It is constructed of piled and stacked boulders one to three courses high. The observed extant section of this wall slopes downhill into relatively flat pasture. It is thought that this wall probably continued uphill and downhill beyond its current length, and may be a kuaiwi wall of the Kona Field System. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14076 (Figure B-4) PHRI: 764-5 SITE TYPE: Complex (8 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Kiawe, bunch grasses, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site consists of eight features. The overall complex measures c. 20.0 m (E -V7) by 18.5 in (N -S). The layout of the site can be categorized as a central habitation feature (Feature A) surrounded by agricultural features. FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 13.50 in by 12.00 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of piled and stack boulders and cobbles forming an enclosure. Bedrock is incorporated into the walls of the feature in a number of spots. A cupboard measuring c. 50 cm by 50 cm by 50 cm deep, with a capstone and with a piece of coral inside, is present in the north wall of the enclosure. A number of cleared, leveled, and soil -filled areas that are built into the outside of the wall presumably functioned as small planting areas. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated in this site. TU -2, placed inside Feature A, produced moderate quantities of midden, while TU -1, placed in one of the small, exterior planting areas, produced no cultural material. FEATURE B: Linear mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 2.25 m by 0.60 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a linear mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.75 to by 2.75 in by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE D: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 5.50 in by 3.0 in by 1.1 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE E: Mound/Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.25 in by 1.95 in by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. B-7 f I N 0 5 10 16 4 �k CORAL -' Figure B-4. Site 14076, Plan Map 8-8 FEATURE F: Mound/Modified outcrop (Figure B-5) FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.75 m by 1.50 in by 1.0 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE G: Mound/Modified outcrop (Figure B-5) FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.75 in by 1.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE H: Mound/Modified outcrop (Figure B-5) FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.50 m by 2.50 m by 0.95 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a mound constructed of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a natural outcrop. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14077 (Figure G5) PHRI: 764-6 SITE TYPE: Enclosure/Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 15.00 m by 14.00 in by 0.500 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of an enclosure. It is constructed of boulders piled on and around a raised outcrop. The outcrop itself forms the wall of the enclosure in sections. The central area is soil -filled. SITE NO.: State: 50- 10-28-14078 (Figure C-6) PHRI: 764-7 (2 Features) SITE TYPE: Complex TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Bunch grasses, koa-haole, air plant, kiawe. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two terraces (Features A and B). The overall dimensions are c. 21.5 in (N -S) by 15.5 in (E -W). Dense vegetation and groundcover obscure the surrounding ground surface. Additional clearing may yield other features in the site vicinity. FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 13.50 m by 8.50 in by 1.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a crude boulder terrace built around a pahoehoe outcrop. Its west side has been crudely faced, and has collapsed somewhat. Two small terraces have been constructed along the east side of the feature. A small piece of water wom coral was noted on this feature. FEATURE B: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 12.75 in by 9.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a crude boulder terrace built around a pahoehoe outcrop and faced on its east and south sides. A small piece of water wom coral was noted on this feature. Gni Figure B -S. Site 14076, Feature F (Right), Feature G (Left), and Feature H (Background), View to NE (Neg. 1430-7) &10 SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14079 (Figure C-7) PHRI: 764-8 SITE TYPE: Platform/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Flat to undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, pasture grasses, air plants, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 10.75 m by 9.00 m by 1.10 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is crudely constructed of boulders stacked around a bedrock outcrop. Its outer wall is faced in a number of areas. Fill of cobble and boulder rubble forms most of the interior of the feature. However, there is a small soil -filled area in the approximate center of the feature. Along the NE side of this soil area is a boulder with a shallow, concave bowl in its upper surface; it may have served as a salt pan. Site 14080 is situated c. 3 meters to the south of this feature. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14080 PHRI: 764-9 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Flat to undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, air plants, grasses, Iantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Transportation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: a walled terrace (Feature A) and a linear mound (Feature B). The overall complex measures c. 18.0 m (S-E/N-W) by 13.0 to (N -S) by 1.00 m. These features may in fact be a section of a trail with low walls running down either side. Feature A runs down slope for c. 5 meters and ends, but also runs upslope. for an unknown distance (in very dilapidated condition), and possibly connects with site 14075. Feature B starts in the vicinity of the terraced portion of Feature A and runs down slope for an unknown distance. Alternatively, these may be kuaiwi walls. FEATURE A: Walled terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 18.00 m by 4.00 m by 1.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a short terrace built around a bedrock outcrop. Down slope from -th outcrop, the terrace becomes a low wall, which runs for approximately five meters and ends. Upslope, the terrace becomes a low wall as well, which continues upslope for an unknown distance. FEATURE B: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture? DIMENSIONS: 13.00 m by 1.00 cm by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a linear mound that begins in the vicinity of the terraced portion of Feature A. It runs parallel to Feature A, approximately 2.0-2.5 meters to the north, and continues down slope for an unknown distance. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14081 PHRI: 764-10 SITE TYPE: Cave (Figure B-6) TOPOGRAPHY: Sloping, overgrown pahoehoe VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma trees, lantana, bushes, various grasses, lauae ferns CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation &11 B-12 J J W Da U << W LLW 1. N O zoJJ Fm Om NO Y I T < UI" N m f a ,.l 7 O Y W O 2 0 p • Z J • J W I N 0 2 W D � O W 6 m m W 6 Q Y _$ wwq� o FSnp ¢<p 3 E <OO o r,y m <`p tm=p pj < IrFLrF ya W S OO W W QJQ qJq O m O 0 0 0 2 Q V 0 0 co U < O 2 O m moo <> O m O'U U U N m n II n II II II u M x x ^1 Itu N'x I • I i I B-12 DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 3.00 in by 0.85 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a cave with a cultural deposit. A medium-sized koa-haole tree c. I Ocm in diameter is growing at the cave entrance. From this koa-haole tree, Site 5136 (rock wall) is located c. 6 in distant at 340 degrees. The cave opening is narrow, measuring c. 1.00 in wide and 0.60 in in height, and is filled with rubble. From the opening, a tunnel -like entrance leads into the main chamber. The tunnel entrance measures c. 3 in in length at 110 degrees, and is c. 85 cm in height and c. 5 in wide at the center, lowering to 0.70 in high before it opens up into the main chamber. The main chamber area contains the majority of midden, surface artifacts and a shallow circular depression which is interpreted as a hearth feature. A surface deposit of ash is found surrounding this depression. Numerous artifacts were collected from the surface of the main chamber (see the Indigenous Artifacts section). The main chamber measures c. 8 in (E -W) by 5 in (N -S), with an average height of c. 1.4 in. Two 50 by 50 cm test units were excavated in the main chamber. Three dates were obtained, providing corrected age ranges of A.D. 1280-1640, 1160- 1480, and 1640 -present. The cultural deposit appears essentially to continue to bedrock at c. 20cm b.s. Two side tube chambers run off the main chamber, and contain noticeably less culture material. One of the tubes is oriented at 80 degrees for c. 17 in, where it bends to 25 degrees for 6.5 in and ends. The average width is c. 3.3 in, and height is c. 1.5 in tol.7 in. The other tube is much narrower, with an entrance measuring c. 1.5 in wide and 0.75 in high. It is oriented at 240 degrees for c. 8.5 in, then opens up into an area measuring c. 8 in (N -S) by 5 in (E -W), with an average height of 1.5 to 2 in. From this open area the tube chamber continues due west. There is a collapsed section of roof at this point, separating the westward continuation of the tube into two sections. The northern section measures c. 2.4 cm wide. The southern section varies from c. 4.7 to 7.0 meters in width. The northern section's height is c. 1.3 in, and the southern is c. 1.1 in. As they progress to the west, these two sections reconnect after c. 12.5 meters. At c. 51n west in the north section is an octopus lure. At the point where they reconnect, the width is c. 4.20 in and the height is c. 1.08 in. From this point the chamber contains little to no cultural material, extends for another c. 25 meters at 240 degrees, and ends. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14082 (Figure C-8) PHRI: 764-22 SITE TYPE: Enclosure/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Sloping pasture. VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 in by 9.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop forming an enclosure. It is constructed of boulders piled against bedrock outcrops. Some facing is present on the outer southwest side of the enclosure. It is constructed of one to four courses of stacked boulders and cobbles. There are some additional modified outcrops in the vicinity, These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14083 (Figure C-9) PHRI: 764-24 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope with pahoehoe bedrock outcrops. VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 15.00 in by 15.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop constructed of boulders and cobbles on and around the bedrock. &13 SITE NO.: State: 50.10-28-14084 (Figure C-10) PHRI:764-25 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope. VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Possible Burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: a terrace (Feature A), a modified outcrop (Feature B) and a mound (Feature C). The overall complex measures c. 22.0 in (E -W) by 21.0 in (N -S). Shell midden was noted when the site was fust identified during the survey, but not relocated during recording. There are numerous additional features in the vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. Only those flagged during the survey were recorded, as a result of time constraints. FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 9.00 m by 6.00 m by 0.76 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. It is faced in one section. FEATURE B: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.5 m by 1.75 in by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of cobbles and boulders piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture -possible burial DIMENSIONS: 6.75 in by 6.00 m by 0.26 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a roughly -circular mound of boulders and cobbles built atop a bedrock outcrop. It resembles a burial mound more than an agricultural mound. It contains a large amount of small, fist -size cobbles, and it appears that substantial time and effort were expended in its construction. There is a possible upright located to the southwest. It is similar to other burial mounds found in the Kona Field System area. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14085 (Figure C-11) PHRI: 764-26 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, lantana, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: a caim (Feature A), and a terrace (Feature B). The overall complex measures c. 10.5 in (N -S) by 6.0 in (E -W). It is likely that additional features are present in the vicinity, but obscured by dense ground cover. Additional clearing is recommended. FEATURE A: Caim FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cairn is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. &14 FEATURE B: Terrace/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.25 in by 5.00 in by 0.60 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. It is faced in one section. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28-14086 (Figure C-12) PHRI: 764-27 SITE TYPE: Complex TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole, air plants. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Possibly altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric/possibly historic (3 Features) FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Indeterminate -agriculture? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of a large mound (Feature A), and two linear mounds (Features B and C). The overall complex measurements are c. 20 in by 15 in. These three features may be the result of bulldozer disturbance, or at least have been altered by such disturbance. FEATURE A: Mound FUNCTION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 5.80 in by 5.50 m by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Piled boulders form this mound. FEATURE B: Linear mound FUNCTION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.85 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Linear -piled boulders and cobbles constitute this mound. FEATURE C: Linear mound FUNCTION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 3.00 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Boulders and cobbles are piled in a line to form this mound. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14087 (Figure C-13) PHRI: 764-11 SITE TYPE: Road TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope on either side VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, koa-haole, lantana, air plants CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered, yet not maintained in any way PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Transportation DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a section of the "Old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road." This road would have served as the N -S transportation route prior to construction of the Kuakini Highway. It measures c. 610 in (N -S) by 10 to 12 in (E -W) by 1.20 in. The roadbed is asphalt and is bordered by two double-faced, core -filled walls. The wall thickness averages c. 0.75 m, and the height c. 1.0 in. Near the south end, the road crosses a drainage culvert identified as Site 14125, the walls of which connect to the walls of this site. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14088 (Figure C-14) PHRI: 764-12 SITE TYPE: Road TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope on either side VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, koa-haole, lantana. 8-15 CONDITION: Fair -poor INTEGRITY: Altered by two later roads built over it PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Transportation DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a section of an old N -S running road. There is a stone wall to the east. The roadbed is a filled terrace retained by a boulder -faced wail on the west side. The roadbed is paved with flat boulders and packed, gravelly soil. The wall to the east is a double-faced, core -filled boulder wall four to six courses high. PHRI Temporary Site Numbers 764-12 and 764-13 (wall and road) were combined. This site lies between site 14081 ("Old Kailua-Keauhou Road') and the "New Kuakini Highway." This is the oldest of the three roads in the vicinity, all of which run roughly north to south. This site predates Site 14087 "Old Kailua-Keauhou Road," and both predate the "New" Kuakini Highway to the west. The road enters the project area at the north, running through site 5136, and terminates at the recent wall (site 14089) bordering the "New" Kuakini Highway. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-28/37-14089 (Figure C-15) PHRI: 764-14 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses, opiuma, lantana, au plants. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Recent FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 73.00 in by 1.25 in by 0.85 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a wall running north to south, adjacent to and east of "Kuakini Highway". It forms the makai boundary of the project area. The section of this wall in the project area measures c. 73 cm (N -S). and c. 1.25 in in width by 0.85 in. in height. It is constructed of stacked pahoehoe cobbles and boulders, faced and core -filled. It is a recent construction which parallels the new "Kuakini Highway" along its east side. It continues north and south out of the project area. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14090 (Figure C-16) PHRI: 764-15 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope and pahoehoe outcrops VEGETATION: Grass, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 3.00 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles on and around a bedrock outcrop. There are numerous other modified outcrops in the near vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14091 (Figure C-17) PHRI: 764-16 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope and pahoehoe outcrops VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE- Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -possible burial DESCRIPTION: This site consists of two modified outcrops, and one mound/modified outcrop interpreted as a possible burial. ME FEATURE A: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture -possible burial DIMENSIONS: 3.00 in by 2.50 in by 0.59 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders stacked up and around a bedrock outcrop, and subsequently filled with cobble rubble. The feature is well-defined, and has a flat, cobble -filled interior surface. Given this feature's regularity and careful construction, it has been interpreted as a possible burial. FEATURE B: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.90 in by 3.20 in by 0.58 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a low, circular feature of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 8.00 in by 7.20 m by 1.30 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a bedrock outcrop exhibiting limited modifications. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14092 (Figure C-18) PHRI: 764-17 SITE TYPE: Walled terrace TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair -poor INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 26.00 in by 10.00 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a feature that alternates length. It is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles, one anchored against bedrock outcrops in a number of spots. between a terrace and a wall along its to three boulders high. The feature is SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14093 (Figure C-19) PHRI: 764-18 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 6.50 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around an outcrop. It is slightly depressed in the center. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14094 (Figure C-20) PHRI: 764-19 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture 817 DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of a linear mound (Feature A) and a piled mound (Feature B). The overall complex measures 20.00 in (N -S) by 4.25 in (E -W). Numerous additional mounds/modified outcrops are present in the vicinity. They appear to be agricultural mounds. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. FEATURE A: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 2.50 m by 0.22 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of piled cobbles and boulders. FEATURE B: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.25 m by 1.80 in by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of piled cobbles and boulders. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14095 (Figure C-21) PHRI: 764-20 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiums, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 8.00 in by 5.00 in by 0.06 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists mostly of a natural bedrock outcrop, exhibiting slight modification where a few slab -boulders were removed. Further clearing may yield additional cultural features and/or portable remains. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14096 (Figure C-22) PHRI: 764-21 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 19.00 in by 14.00 in by 2.20 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a large, mostly natural bedrock outcrop, exhibiting slight cultural modification through piling of boulders. Overall, this site appears more natural than cultural. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14097 PHRI: 764-23 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 16.00 in by 14.50 in. by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site appears to be a mostly natural, decomposing outcrop, modified by tree growth and cattle. It has been culturally modified only slightly through piling of boulders. 8-18 SITE NO.: State: 50-1C-37-14098 (Figure C-23) PBRI: 764-29 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features, a modified outcrop and a short wall. The overall site measures c. 21.5 in by 7.0 in. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture/habitation? DIMENSIONS: 11.50 m by 6.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled and stacked on and around a bedrock outcrop. It has a curvilinear shape. The top is relatively flat, and a smaller modified bedrock outcrop nearby creates an overall C -shape. It is crudely faced in one section. FEATURE B: Wall FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 1.10 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This short wall consists of stacked boulders placed atop and running along a bedrock outcrop to the east of Feature A. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14099 (Figure C-24) PHRI: 764-30 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses, lantana, opiuma, haloa, pepperomia. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -water catchment? DIMENSIONS: 16.00 in by 9.00 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a large, natural outcrop that stands c. 2 to 3 in above the surrounding ground surface. It appears more natural than cultural. However, there is a collapsed blister on the top which appears to have been excavated, forming a depression. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14100 (Figure C-25) PHRI: 764-31 SITE TYPE: Complex (8 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of eight modified bedrock outcrops and one modified bedrock outcrop in the form of a C -shape. The overall complex measures c. 28 in by 16 in. FEATURE A: C-shape/Modifred outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 9.00 in by 8.00 in by 0.60 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a modified outcrop built in the form of a C -shape. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. The modifications create both ends of the C, with bedrock forming the back wall. ME FEATURE B: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.00 in by 2.30 m by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled primarily down-slope from a bedrock outcrop, forming an overall circular feature. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.50 m by 2.00 m by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE D: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 to by 1.50 m by 0.45 in (approx,) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE E: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.40 in by 2.10 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE F: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.70 to by 1.50 in by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE G: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.00 in by 1.50 in by 0.50 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE H: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.80 in by 1.50 in by 0.7 cm (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a bedrock outcrop. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14101 (Figure C-26) PHRI: 764-32 SITE TYPE: Cairn TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Marker DIMENSIONS: 1.35 m by 1.35 in by 0.95 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of piled boulders and cobbles. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14102 PHRI: 764-33 SITE TYPE: Complex (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric &20 FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of seven features: an enclosure (Feature A), a modified outcrop/platform (Feature B), and four pit depressions in an outcrop (Feature C). FEATURE A: Enclosure (Figure C-27) FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 8.00 in by 6.80 in by 0.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a crudely stacked boulder wall, forming an enclosure that is partly laid on a natural outcrop to the east. The wall is broken to the west by cattle where it abuts a second large natural pahoehoe outcrop, at Feature C. FEATURE B: Platform/Modified outcrop (Figure C-28) FUNCTION: Agriculture/Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 2.00 in by 0.92 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform appears primarily natural. Only slight modification exists, through piling and arranging boulders. FEATURE C: Pit depressions (4) FUNCTION: Water catchment? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 7.00 in by 1.56 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: These four pit depressions appear to have been excavated. They are located on a large, natural outcrop which stands c. 2.5 in higher than the surrounding ground. These depressions could have been lined with leaves to collect water, with a gourd used as a vessel. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14103 (Figure C-29) PHRI: 764-34 SITE TYPE: Enclosure/Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, grasses, lantana CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 6.75 in by 5.75 in by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a large, roughly rectangular pahoehoe outcrop, with its center either collapsed or excavated. Rocks from the center have been piled and stacked around the outside. The wall has been faced on the outside to the north and west. A single, small piece of water worn coral was noted on this feature. Two to three unrecorded mounds or terrace -like modified outcrop features lie c. three to six meters northwest of the main site, and an additional terrace lies approximately three meters to the east. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14104 (Figure C-30) PHRI: 764-35 SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Feature) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Lantana, opiuma, grasses, haloa, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: two platforms (Features A and B), and two mounds (Features C and D). 1-21 FEATURE A: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 8.00 m by 5.0 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is well constructed. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble - and boulder -filled floor. It sits on a prominent knoll. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 9.00 m by 7.00 in by 1.30 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is similar to Feature A, but is less substantial and well -constructed. It is built on and around a bedrock outcrop and is boulder -faced on three sides. FEATURE C: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.25 in by 2.00 in by 0.60 in (approx.) FEATURE D: Linear mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 13.00 in by 2.00 in by 1.00 or (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of boulders and cobbles. It is nearly terraced on the uphill, east side. It slopes makai. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14105 (Figure C-31) PHRI: 764-36 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, kiawe, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: two terraces (Features A and C), and a platform (Feature B). The overall site measures c. 25.0 in (E -W) by 24.0 in (N -S). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 in by 9.00 in by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of boulders stacked two courses high, creating a retaining wall which is filled behind with cobbles and earth. FEATURE B: Platform FUNCTION: Indeterminate/Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 12.00 in by 6.00 in by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is constructed of stacked boulders around a bedrock outcrop, leveled with cobble and boulder fill. FEATURE C: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 11.00 in by 5.00 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of stacked boulders two courses high, with cobble fill behind. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14106 (Figure C-32) PURI: 764-37 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole. &22 CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 101.5 m by 0.85 m by 1.20 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a wall of stacked boulders, double- faced and core -filled, three to four courses high. At its west end, this wall abuts site 5139. From there, it runs approximately N -S for 27 meters. There is a constructed opening in this section. The wall then turns east and runs c. 74.5 meters, where it ends against a large kiawe tree. A wire fence runs north to south from this end point and connects with site 5139. An L-shaped wall approximately 3 cm long is situated between this site and site 5139. This site probably delimited some kind of cattle -holding area. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14107 PHRI: 764-38 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-7) (6 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered -altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of six features: a wall (Feature A), three caves (Features B, C, and F) and two platforms (Features 0 and E). The overall complex measures c. 44 in to 27 m. It is situated directly south of site 14106. FEATURE A: Wall FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 20.00 in by 14.00 in by 1.20 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This wall is S-shaped and constructed of roughly -faced boulders. The wall appears to follow a natural bedrock contour. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 5.50 m by 4.50 in by 1.45 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. FEATURE C: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 7.10 in by 4.10 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a circular -shaped, natural lava blister with stacked and faced walls at the entry. FEATURE D: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 13.50 in by 8.50 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a square boulder alignment, with a boulder and cobble pavement inside. Cattle and vegetation have impacted the area. A rock alignment runs in an L -shape to the west. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 5.80 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is a square structure built out from a natural bedrock outcrop, with a low terrace on the east side. It is constructed of boulders and cobbles extending from the outcrop to form a raised, flat surface. &23 `•:� ra_t Q O ��qq• Pr .qPB O. CORAL # •+ •••48oe ,, (��^el4o OPENING i R '•L .m 91 l MIDDEN X, OA�QO e �d X i m pyo .. . 4 1 moi' I 0:99 -i o ��' PAVING 1 0o a. a o a; F H eeeg oo. yVp •'•DoO'b°°e o. orD .QaO •o. �•�R I no i 10 15o•_X .� m0 1 2 3 4 �• ......... INTERIOR LIMITS OF CAVE ' —. CAVE ENTRANCE ' r T T T TDEPRESSION I i TERRACE Figure B-7. Site 14107, Plan Map B-24 FEATURE F: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.85 in by 4.90 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a roughly circular, natural lava blister. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated within this cave. They produced a coral abrader, two adze fragments, and a moderate amount of midden. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14108 (Figure C-33) PHRI: 764-39 SITE TYPE: Platform/enclosure TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DIMENSIONS: 20.00 in by 16.00 m by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a platform/enclosure constructed by piling boulders and cobbles on and around a decomposing bedrock outcrop. The outcrop itself forms portions of the walls and platform. The enclosure is breached or tumbled down to the west, makai of the platform. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14109 (Figure C-34) PHRI: 764-40 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: opiuma, koa-haole, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site consists of two features: a mound/modified outcrop (Feature A), and an enclosure (Feature B). The overall complex measures c, 10.50 in (N -S) by 6.50 in (E -W). FEATURE A: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 4.50 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is constructed of boulders crudely stacked on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE B: Enclosure/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 7.50 in by 5.00 in by 0.55 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This enclosure -like, modified outcrop looks like a lava blister, with the center collapsed and rock -fall removed. Its crude construction, while cultural, shows that a minimum of effort was expended in its creation. While the interior has little space for habitation, the now -collapsed sides may previously have been walled with more room. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14110 (Figure C-35) PHRI: 764-41 SITE TYPE: Cairn TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: opiuma, koa-haole, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric &25 FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Marker DIMENSIONS: 0.50 in by 0.50 in by 0.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a small cairn constructed of piled boulders. There are numerous additional mounds and modified outcrop features in the vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14111 PHRI: 764-42 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-8) (4 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, grasses, halos, periwinkle, opiuma CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: a C -shape (Feature A), an L -shape (Feature B), and two mounds (Features C and D). The overall complex measures 12.0 m (E -W) by 11.0 m (N -S). FEATURE A: C -shape FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 7.75 m by 6.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This C-shaped alignment is set on a level pdhoehoe outcrop. It is constructed of stacked and piled boulders and cobbles. The east end of the C -shape has collapsed. A basalt adze fragment was recovered from the surface in the interior of this feature. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated off the south side of this feature. A single cowry shell fragment was recovered. FEATURE B: L -shape FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 3.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This L-shaped alignment is constructed of stacked boulders and cobbles. It is well -faced on the inside. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated inside this feature, but no cultural material was recovered. FEATURE C: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.00 in by 1.75 in by 0.97 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of cobbles and boulders stacked on and around a natural outcrop. FEATURE D: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.25 in by 1.75 in by 0.87 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of cobbles and boulders stacked on and around a natural outcrop. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14112 (Figure C-36) PHRI: 764-43 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, grasses. lantana, opiuma. CONDITION: Wall of Site 14087 ("Old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road"). It appears to have served as a cattle wall, a drainage diversion, or both. &2b TU-; ■ o 1F CORAL Q De ^o Qo n�� O e x••N's Q � o Coe e^ � t Ods CVPRAEIDAE."-"-• FRAGMENT; O RAL 9POLISHEDO n o� ea JJ BASALT BASALT �O J''• a FLAKE as TU-2 0 N e 0 s 10 ;s m 0 1 2 3 4 Figure B-8. Site 14111, Plan Map - B-27 - SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14113 PHRI: 764-44 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 80.00 in by 0.75 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a boulder wall, double-faced and core -filled, and four to six courses high. The wall connects on the north end with site 5139, and on the south end with site 14089, forming a triangular enclosure. It appears to have served as some kind of cattle wall. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14114 (Figure C-37) PERI: 764-45 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole, vines. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -habitation? DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of three features: a terrace (Feature A). a terrace/wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature C). FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.20 m by 3.00 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles abutting a bedrock outcrop. Cattle and vegetation have impacted this feature. There is a small, faced depression on top of the feature at the north end. FEATURE B: Terrace/wall FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 19.00 in by 1.00 m by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is a sinuous terrace that forms a wall in some sections. It is faced in places, and constructed of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Agriculture -Habitation? DIMENSIONS: 6.40 in by 6.00 in by 1.30 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly square, raised platform with two levels. It is roughly faced in areas and abuts an outcrop at the west side. The surfaces of the two levels are rough, but essentially level. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14115 (Figure C-38) . PHRI: 764-46 SITE TYPE: C -shape TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 5.50 m by 0.75 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a roughly -faced C -shape, constructed of boulders and cobbles stacked and piled two to three courses high. &28 SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14116 (Figure C-39) PHRI: 764-47 SITE TYPE: Wall TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good/fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric?/Historic? FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary DIMENSIONS: 51.00 in by 25.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This wall is roughly faced on both sides, constructed of stacked boulders, and core - filled. Over most of its extent it is relatively low and wide. It possibly connected to site 5140 (Schilt 1984) at onetime. It runs makai from the edge of the Kuakini Realignment corridor for approximately 51 meters, then makes a tum to the south and runs another 25 meters. It may at one time have continued to the vicinity of site 14123. This could possibly be a kuaiwi wall. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-31-14117 (Figure C-40) PHRI: 764-48 SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 15.00 in by 13.50 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a modified outcrop constructed of boulders and cobbles piled on and around a decomposing bedrock outcrop. A single cowry shell fragment was noted on this feature. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14118 (Figure C-41) PHRI: 764-49 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, opiuma, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: (6.50 in by 5.50 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of three roughly circular mounds of piled boulders and cobbles. A single cowry shell fragment was noted on one of the mounds. There are numerous additional mound features in the immediate vicinity. These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-14119 (Figure C-41) PHRI: 764-50 SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, pasture grasses, opiuma, halon CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four mounds/modified outcrops (Features A -D). The overall complex measures c. 16.5 (E -W) by 8.0 in (N -S). 829 FEATURE A: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.75 m by 3.75 m by 1.30 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE B: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.75 in by 1.75 m by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. FEATURE C: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 1.50 m by 1.50 m by 0.80 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. FEATURED: Mound/modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 m by 3.50 in by 0.70 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of crudely stacked boulders and cobbles on a bedrock outcrop. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14120 (Figure C-43) PHRI: 764-51 SITE TYPE; Activity area TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, grasses, lantana, koa-haole. CONDITION: Poor INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Recent FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Indeterminate DIMENSIONS: 60.00 in by 30.00 in by 0.20 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a historic ranch or farming storage and/or work activity area. There are concrete stone and asphalt foundations/level areas, and a stacked boulder wall that joins the makai wall of site 14087. There is an opening through the wall at this point. A wooden gate opens from this site, through site 14089 to the Kuakini Highway to the west. An old, overturned water wagon with metal wheels is located at this site. This artifact perhaps has some intrinsic historic value. The overall complex measures 60.0 in (N -S) by 30.0 m (E -W). It is probable that historic/recent habitation structures existed in the area some time ago, but have since been destroyed. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14121 (Figure C-44) PHRI: 764-52 SITE TYPE: Mound TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 4.80 in by 4.40 m by 0.45 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a piled boulder and cobble mound. ®-30 SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37- 14122 (Figure C-45) PHRI: 764-53 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana, vines CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: a terrace (Feature A) and a mound (Feature B) The overall complex measures c. 27 in by 14.5 in. FEATURE A: Terrace FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 14.00 in by 4.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is well -faced on the east side, leveled, and filled with boulders and cobbles. FEATURE B: Mound FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 4.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound is constructed of piled boulders and cobbles. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14123 PHRI: 764-54 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-9) (5 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large outcrop VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma, papaya, autograph tree, vines, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag.-ceremonial?-poss. burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of five features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), two caves (Features B and a wall (Feature C), and a paved surface (Feature E). The overall complex measures c. 80 in by 37 in. This is a large outcrop that has been modified and built onto in a number of areas. This site warrants extensive examination and further work, and possibly preservation. It is the largest single site in the project area. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop (Figure B-10) FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 50.00 in by 35.00 in by 1.06 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This modified outcrop is basically a large rectangle. The northeast to northwest sides of the feature seems to be the most modified. The northwest section has an area paved with large. c. 1.0 in by 1.5 in slabs of pdhoehoe. This may have served as a ceremonial area. Three faced depressions noted atop the outcrop may have served as water catchment depressions. FEATURE B: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 6.00 in by 2.50 in by 0.92 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This cave is a natural lava blister arch with two entries. Midden was observed on the interior surface of this cave. FEATURE C: Enclosure FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 34.00 in by 1.00 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature is an irregularly shaped walled enclosure. A portion of the wall's extent is situated on the top west side of Feature A, in the vicinity of the paved area. The interior of this feature is heavily overgrown. &31 O 10 20 30 0! 2 4 0XVIi ENTVIANCE �r �Ilt INTERIOR LIMITS IN CAVE X q �6 Locat,on -f East Wall P,.ro.; FACED DEPRESSION CORAL : .......... ......... ............... BASAU jjTU-10, FLAKE N SHELL T•• atl HEA" WEROROWTH csq - J Figure B-9. Site 14123, Plan Map iB-32 B-33 FEATURE D: Cave FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 11.50 m by 6.70 in by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a natural blister with a boulder -stacked, double-faced wall encircling the entry. Two 50 by 50 centimeter test units were excavated inside this cave. Numerous volcanic glass and basalt flakes, an adze fragment, two abraders, and a moderate amount of midden were recovered. FEATURE E: Platform FUNCTION: Habitation-poss. burial DIMENSIONS: 4.50 in by 3.00 m by 0.90 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is basically square, faced on all sides with boulders, and paved with cobbles. A faced depression is present on the top of the feature. This may be agriculturally related. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14124 PHRI: 764-55 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B -ll) (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope around a large bedrock outcrop VEGETATION: Grass; kiawe, koa-haole, opiuma, lantana. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation-ag. DESCRIPTION: This site is similar in general form to Site 14123, except that it exhibits a lesser degree of modification. It consists of three features: a modified outcrop (Feature A), a wall (Feature B), and a platform (Feature C). The overall complex measures c.44 in by 38 in. This is a large outcrop that has been modified in a number of areas on and around it. This site warrants extensive examination and further work, and possibly preservation. FEATURE A: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 44.00 in by 38.00 in by 4.00 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This is a roughly circular outcrop with a wall built on it, running northeast and northwest. There are several excavated depressions over its extent. FEATURE B: Wall(s) FUNCTION: Boundary DIMENSIONS. 1)13.50 in by 0.10 in by1.35 m (approx.) 2)19.00 in by 1.00 in by 1.10 in (approx.) 3) 5.00 in by 1.00 in by 0.65 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Three double faced -walls of stacked boulders run around the north and east margins of Feature A. These three sections may have been connected at one time. FEATURE C: Platform FUNCTION: Burial DIMENSIONS: 5.70 in by 4.00 in by 0.85 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is located in a flat area inside the Feature A perimeter. It is roughly rectangular, and built of faced -boulder walls with cobble and boulder fill. There is a slight depression in the top surface. Rock sizes range from 0.10 in to c. 0.40 m. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14125 PHRI: 764-56 SITE TYPE: Culvert with walls TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses, opiuma. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered 834 Figure 8-11. Site 14124, Plan Map 835 `4 Ff ` � , kit( f2 a.< ..�.: •q. �=i \, :.ori.".' c A. •.C°...0• *, •0 . . Oe. Location Of i .South Wall Profile (WALLS) _ Aef_ (MODIFIED Ourrcp P) ;It 0 10 20 30 1 "I 0 z a e e . ii •DEPiiESSION i Figure 8-11. Site 14124, Plan Map 835 PROBABLE AGE: Historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Drainage DDVIENSIONS: 5.30 m by 3.20 to by 0.00 to (approx,) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a concrete culvert under a stone and asphalt mad (Site 14087). Stacked, double-faced walls run parallel to and along each side of the drainage channel. The north wall is c. 23 in and the south wail c. 16 in long, and both join the site 14089 wall along the "Kuakjni Highway." These walls join the walls of site 14087 as well. The height of the road above the floor of the culvert is c. 2.0 meters. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14126 (Figure C-46) PIM: 764-57 SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grass, kiawe, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture -possible burial DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of two features: an enclosure (Feature A), and a platform (Feature B). The overall complex measures 19.0 m (N -S) by 6.5 m (E -W). FEATURE A: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation -Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 3.50 m by 3.50 m by 0.90 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This enclosure consists of a roughly circular, well -faced, stacked boulder and cobble wall. FEATURE B: Platform (Figure B-12) FUNCTION: Agriculture/burial? DIMENSIONS: 3.00 m by 3.00 m by 1.10 to (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This platform is circular in shape, crudely -faced on all sides, and essentially level, although it is collapsing to the east. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14127 PHRI: 764-58 SITE TYPE: Complex (Figure B-13) (4 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Opiuma, koa-haole. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION: This site complex consists of four features: a mound (Feature A), an enclosure (Feature B), a modified outcrop (Fe C), and a C -shape (Fe D). The overall complex measures c. 60.0 (NW -SE) by 10.5 (NE -SW). The site is located on a prominent knoll offering a good view makai. FEATURE A: Mound FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 4.00 to by 4.00 m by 0.70 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This mound consists of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. It is situated on a natural outcrop, and may have originally been C-shaped or connected with Feature B (enclosure/terrace). It is faced on one side. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated in this feature. Two volcanic glass flakes, a coral abrader, and a small amount of midden were recovered. Surface midden was scattered around this feature. 8-36 Figure B-12. Site !4126, Feature B, View to N (Neg. 1432-34) &37 c) ROCK (3XD FACED storE 01OCTO N, eEDADCK Figure B-13. Site 14127, Pion Map 10 is 0 1 2 3 4 FEATURE B: Enclosure FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 10.50 m by 5.00 in by 1.30 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This feature consists of a roughly rectangular wall of piled and stacked boulders and cobbles. An offset opening has been constructed into the west side. A 50 by 50 centimeter test unit was excavated in the opening of a small cupboard in the northeast comer of the enclosure. No cultural material was recovered. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 7.2 in N -S by 3.0 in E -W by 0.65 in DESCRIPTION: This feature is a modified outcrop with 'a'd small boulders, ranging in size from 0.10 to 0.40 in and built atop an outcrop. There are two large pahoehoe slabs at the southwest end, approximately 0.40 and 0.50 m in diameter. A small midden area exists in soil at the southwest end of the feature in the form of approximately one dozen Cypraeidae marine shell fragments. FEATURE D: C -shape FUNCTION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 3.25 in (N -S) by 3.5 in (E -W) by 0.40 in. DESCRIPTION: This is a C -shape open to the southwest. Bedrock is built upon to take advantage of a natural depression. It is composed of large and small a'a boulders ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.40 in, with a few larger, from 0.50 m to 0.60 in. It is built upon a natural bedrock outcrop of the north and northeast sides, and is stacked two to three courses. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14128 (Figure C-47) PHRI: 764-59 SITE TYPE: Terrace/modified outcrop TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, lantana, opiuma, ilima, lantana, kiawe CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DIMENSIONS: 11.00 in by 4.00 in by 0.80 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a terrace built out from a bedrock outcrop and forming a level flat area. It is constructed of piled boulders, crudely faced in front to level the area before the outcrop. In a bedrock outcrop c. 2.5 in down slope from the terrace, there is a small, mostly natural formation that is like a C -shape. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14129 PHRI: 764-60 SITE TYPE: Platform (Figures B-14 and C-48) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: koa-haole, lantana, ldawe. CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture -Possible burial DIMENSIONS: 2.5Cm by 2.50 in by 1.10 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a circular platform constructed of large boulder slabs crudely stacked and faced, and filled with a cobbles and limited slab pavement. There is a small cairn of piled rocks on top of the platform on the SW edge. There are additional mounds/modified outcrops in the vicinity. B-39 SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14130 PHRI: 764-62 SITE TYPE: C-shaped terrace (Figure B-15) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Koa-haole, lantana, grasses. CONDITION: Good -fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered -altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a C-shaped terrace of boulders and cobbles built out from a bedrock outcrop. A few cowry shell fragments were noted on this feature. The feature measures 8.00 in by 6.5 in by 0.70 in (approx.). SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14131 PHRI: 764-63 SITE TYPE: Enclosure (C-49) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating slope VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, opiuma CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Altered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation -agriculture DESCRIPTION: This site consists of an enclosure delimited by a double-faced, core -filled wall of boulders stacked four to six courses high. This feature measures c. 17.0 in (N -S) by 14.0 m (E -W). The wall in the southeast is collapsed where cattle have entered. The wall is anchored against bedrock in a few spots. There is a filled, platform -like pile of boulders outside the SW comer. Coral and echinoid fragments were noted inside the enclosure in the SW corner. SITE NO.: State: 50-10-37-14132 PHRI: 764-64 SITE TYPE: Cave (Figure B-16) TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating VEGETATION: Grasses, kiawe, lauae ferns CONDITION: Good INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Burial DIMENSIONS: 1.50 in by 1.20 in by 1.00 in (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a cave that contains two main tubes. The tube to the north is void of cultural modifications and remains, while the tube to the south contains human skeletal remains. The north tube measures c. 4.0 in (E -W) by 2.0 m (N -S). The south tube is c. 19.0 in (N -S) by 6.0 in by 1.10 in. A minimum of four individuals are represented by three complete mandibles and one fragmented mandible. Two long bones are located in the narrow entrance of an unexplored tube approximately halfway down the south tube. Within the south tube, near its far end, are numerous skeletal fragments (ribs, vertebrae, scapulae). No long bones were noted in the main tube. One cranium is located at the end of the south tube, crushed under a slab. &41 a°8 d�'��°�g�p 6 op 14130 v�0 SPARSE MIDDEN \ 5143 r--TRAILM I -- i / 0�5 10 110 15 }} 0 1 1 2 a 3 ♦ � Figure 8 -IS. Sites 5143 and 14130 J� g_42 I SCATTERED HUMAN REMAINS 14 INDIVIDUALS MINIMUM) ft 0 5 10 15 m 0 1 2 3 4 ...... INTERIOR LIMITS OF CAVE Figure B-16. Site 14132; Plan Map &43 CRUSHED CRANIUM UNDER SLAB I ROOF FALL CAVE ENTRANCE d• I ROOF FALL h UNEXPLORED TUBESSCAPULAE 4 LONG BONES rMANDIBLE I r-i SCAPULAE INNOMINATE � SCATTERED HUMAN REMAINS 14 INDIVIDUALS MINIMUM) ft 0 5 10 15 m 0 1 2 3 4 ...... INTERIOR LIMITS OF CAVE Figure B-16. Site 14132; Plan Map &43 CRUSHED CRANIUM UNDER SLAB I 764-061190 ADDITIONAL FIGURES C-1 This appendix comprises figures for project area sites for which there are no figures in the original inventory survey report (the main text of the current document). The appendix includes figures that have been drafted, copies of original field maps, and photographs. No figures exist for only two sites in the project area: Sites 14113 and 14125. Site 14113 is a historic wall that appears to have served as a cattle wall. The wall is adequately documented in PHPJ field records, and the extent of the wall is certain, as it connects two other sites. Site 14125 is a concrete culvert under a modem, asphalt road. The culvert functions as a drainage. This site is also adequately documented in PMU field records. Guide to Aonendix C Fieures Site Feature Fi ure Type Original Field Drafted Ma .Photograph 5136 + 5139 + + 5144 + 14075 + 14077 A -D - + 14078 A -D + 14075 + 14079 + 14080 + 14082 A-E + - 14083 A -F + 14084 A -C + 14085 A -B + 14086 A -C + 14087 + 14088 + 14089 + 14090 + 14091 A -C - + 14092 + 14093 + 14094 +- 14095 + 14096 + 14098 A -D + - 14099 + 14100 A -H - + 14101 + C-1 764-061190 C-2 Guide to Appendix C Figures (Cont.) Site Feature Fi ure Type Drafted Originaal Field photograph 14102 A -C + 14103 + 14104 A -D - + 14105 A -C + 14106 + 14108 + 14109 A -B + 14110 + 14112 + 14114 + 14115 + 14116 + 14117 + 14118 + 14119 A -D + 14120 + 14121 + 14122 + 14126 A -B + 14127 + 14128 + 14129 + 14131 + C-2 f `V..' il' ! •. I n dAd h l l p" 1 n �G1� •. ^ � •;ice . _: ._'� .;';*?r f r f `V..' il' ! •. I n dAd h l l p" 1 n �G1� •. p �; y ,/,� � �d � - VC �� A y �.. � ,i .. .. �� . C � �� Y � S 'e p F � t t �" a ..,. _ � _ � � �,c i ;� \� � � `. � _ e t ' I � ! ' I f ` - ��._. � �. �• ��'� � � � - , �, :� - --'� '. i -.w �,,, � r,. a' � � a -�� ,�i � t � � �.. - _.. � ', e ,.� _ �_ '. �_, r ; � "' _. � � , �'l'�' � ,. �' � _ ' � �;� � -� �� Gz .J 7.1 �� ( �. 1 t i � �. �, Y � r *. ! ey—��'� ��s ♦P ! � 1� el �' L{.�,11�� v '.J.� � i� ��., i? IAV. l� '�� t�! r �� i ��.�.'t-.... r',�1�/:":. �t !/!.-. .�..�♦. �.,&�i M1;?K,��. I\�.-�fr\,�ft �. 'tea. .. ��-•��. � `- _ a � '6 �9golb 0s r 2. Fea. A-0 Irm 1/ 0 Fea. A PA -a j .. a M Ito I 10 m o� Q TEST Mff (Tu -1 l 2) s AUOET T[ET IA-Lte P) S EEMOGIc ZT DOWNSLOPE (3'i9 FACED WALL Sm ETACNED WALL i OSPPEEEION ® PACKDIPT AS AYOPPNO" STACK figure C-13. Site 14087, Old Kailua-Keauhou Road, View to the South (PHRI Neg. 1430-15A) GIS i 0 I&IN1 Summary of Subsequent Archaeological Work in the Pualani Makai Project Area and Vicinity, and Updated Significance Assessments and Recommended Mitigation Treatments for Project Area Sites The original archaeological inventory survey for the Pualani Makai Project took place in mid 1990. Since then, a number of archaeological projects have been conducted in the project area. Findings during these subsequent projects have led to revisions of significance assessments or recommended treatments for several sites, and significance assessments and recommended treatments have been added for sites newly identified during subsequent projects. Included in this appendix are summaries of these subsequent projects in terms of findings and conclusions, an updated table of significance assessments and recommended treatments that includes all project area sites (Table D-1, at end), and a table summarizing the findings at all identified sites (Table D-2, at end). Subsequent to the original inventory survey, the following listed projects were conducted in the project area (the projects are described in detail below; numbers correspond to numbers on Figure D-1): 1. Additional Inventory Survey: Testing of Possible Burial Feature (Site 14084, Feature Q. PHRI Memorandum 972-121290 (dated 12 December 1990, to S. Fuke & Associates, from P. Rosendahl); 2. Pualani Wastewater Treatment Facility Data Recovery; PHRI Interim Report 1055- 060491 (Graves 1991); . 3. Pualani Water Transmission System Inventory Survey; PIM Report 1590-013096 (Head and Rosendahl 1996); 4. Pualani Makai Utility Corridor Monitoring; in progress; PHRI Report 2232-091302 (PHRI 2002); 5. Archaeological Data Recovery, Site 14130 (Pualani Water Transmission System Data Recovery). Haun & Associates - work and report done in 2001; 6. Testing of Possible Burial Features. Rechtman (2002); 7. Additional Inventory Survey: Testing of Remaining Possible Burial Sites; PHRI Memorandum 2274-122402 (dated 24 December 2002, to B. Brooks, Westpro Development, Inc., from P. Rosendahl, PHRI); 8. Archeological Field Inspection — Proposed Rock Crusher Site; PM Memorandum 2274-010903 (dated 9 January 2003, to M. Maigret, SHPD, from P. Rosendahl, PHRI; 9. Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features 10. Additional Survey of Road Access Corridor. 11. Additional Excavation to Determine Presence/Absence of a Possible Burial, Site 14104 (Feature A). 12. Additional Fieldcheck, Sites 14123 and 14124 PUALANI PROPOSED \ WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY Z - .;O';..4� 1'40 VO x 4oH7_`��ro �_ "aFt3e ---! '•14471 ,k�„rr?�'FN : i x;,` r 14092 140H9 •14097NN*, �. x,'�.P✓. x��n•bT .�r '"'.. • •14095 �m M 090 409114094 01409e /y 11410e .! 014101 y"a 14105 St ; 141 uI' •' 4099 • i .+• 14132 14103 ,14107 •14108 '^ 14102 i"�x 3:14111 • 14T04 774113'4 "s " • • / ��\ 14110 141011 014114 li •14115` •1411 .4 I 141 77 '� 1> •74 N78 � 14121 • !. 14122 122 14119 1- _ ;14124 ' 74120 11 `,14723 1412 1y_ 1 014127 6�y14129� . PUALANI DEYELOPIMENT - •14123 PHASE 11 PROJECT AREA 014131 /13 M » 0 300 500 2 0 50 100 150 PUALANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PROJECT AREA .��.m PROTECT AREA BOUNDARY O NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO LIST ON PAGE D -I Figure D-1. Locations of Subsequent Archaeological Work 7,1 9836 Lim s 19837 D-3 1. In late 1990 PHRI conducted burial testing in the Pualani Makai project area (PHR1 Memo 972- 121290, dated 12 December 1990, to S. Fake & Associates, from P. Rosendahl). Specifically, Feature C of Site 14084, a mound in the Wastewater Treatment Facility portion of the project area, was tested for presence of a burial (Figure D-1). Prior to excavation the mound and immediate area was cleared of vegetation. A 1.0 square meter unit was then excavated into the center of the mound; no human remains were identified. Site 14084 had been assessed during the inventory survey as significant for information content and as potentially culturally .significant due to the possible presence of a burial. Based on the negative findings of the burial testing project, the site is now assessed as significant for information content only, with no further work recommended (Table D-1). 2. In April -May 1991 PHU conducted archaeological data recovery at 14 sites within the 15 -acre Wastewater Treatment Facility, within the northwest portion of the overall Pualani Makai Project Area (Figure D-1). The data recovery work was guided by an SHPD-approved archaeological data recovery plan (Jensen 1991). The data recovery fieldwork included vegetation clearing, updating previous field records, detailed mapping and description, and test excavations. The fieldwork recovered sufficient information to address the research topics outlined in the data recovery plan. For 13of the 14 sites no further archaeological work was recommended (14073-14080, 14082-14085, and 14098). The remaining site, Site 14081 (cave), was considered significant as an excellent example of a site type (Criterion C), for information content (Criterion D) and possibly for cultural value (Criterion E) due to the possible presence of human remains within a cave chamber, under a rock mound. Further data collection was recommended for the site. Subsequent fieldwork indicated the possible burial remains were not within the bounds of the current project area. Based on Graves' interim report on her findings (Graves 1991), the SHPD granted conditional approval for the project area -pending confirmation that the significance for Site 14081 (cave) would be changed from Criterion D (information content) to significant for Criteria D and C (excellent example of a site type)(Table D-1), that the treatment for the site would be changed to preserve "as is," and that a final data recovery report for the project would be submitted (letter dated 8 October 1991, to P. Rosendahl, PHRI, from D. Hibbard, SHPD; and letter dated 17 July 1992 to P. Rosendahl, PHRl, from D. Hibbard, SHPD; Log No., 5851, Doc. No. 0252x). Due to project delays, the final data recovery report has yet to be completed. During the current project to update the inventory report the significance of Site 14081 was reassessed, as it appeared Graves (1991) recommendation that the site be assessed as significant as an excellent example of a site type (Criterion C) was not warranted. Based on this reassessment PHRI has dropped the Criterion C significance for the site because: (a) Graves does not justify her recommendation, (b) PM could not justify the recommendation, and (c) the belief that Graves misapplied the criterion, linking it mistakenly to the quality of the significant cultural deposits at the site (Graves 1991:4, para.l). Site 14081 is now assessed as significant for information content (Criterion D) only and is recommended for farther data collection of the significant information at the site (Table D-1). 3. PHRI conducted an additional inventory survey of a small portion of the Pualani Makai project area in 1995 (Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System; Head and Rosendahl 1996)(Figure D-1). During the survey, six sites were identified. Four sites had been previously identified during the. original inventory survey (main text): 5143 (trail remnant), 5144 (boundary.wall), 14129 (agricultural platform and possible burial), and 14130 (C -shape). Two sites were newly identified: 19836 (possible burial) and 19837 (additional agricultural features of the Kona Field System). During the original inventory survey Sites 5143 and 5144 were assessed as significant for information content; further data collection was recommended for 5143, and no. further work was recommended for 5144. During the . additional inventory survey, the information content at the sites was fully recovered, and both sites are now assessed as requiring no further archaeological work (Table D-1). During the original inventory survey, Site 14129 was assessed as significant for information content and possibly for cultural value due to the possible presence of a burial, and further data collection and possible preservation was recommended. Based on the additional inventory survey findings, the site retained its original significance assessment and was recommended for preservation "as is." The site subsequently underwent burial testing by Rechtman (see below) and no burial was identified. The site is now assessed as significant for information content and as requiring no further archaeological work (Table D-1). During the original inventory survey Site 14130 was assessed as significant for information content and further data collection was recommended. Based on the additional inventory survey findings, the . significance and mitigation recommendations are unchanged. Newly identified Site 19836, a possible burial platform was tested during the additional inventory survey and no D-4 human skeletal remains were identified. The site is assessed as significant for information content only and no further archaeological work is recommended (Table D-1). Newly identified Site 19837, additional Kona Field System features, was assessed as significant for information content and as requiring further data collection, not specifically but as part of a sample of Kona Field System features in the overall Pualam Makai project area. The above significance assessments and recommended treatments for the sites identified/reidentified during the additional inventory survey were approved by the SHPD in a letter dated 27 March 1996 to P. Rosendahl, PHRI, from D. Hibbard, SHPD; Log No. 16567, Doc. No. 9603PM15. 4. Monitoring work at the Pualani Makai Utility Corridor by PHRI is currently in progress. Findings during monitoring work will be detailed in a final report after all monitoring work is completed. The monitoring is being guided by a monitoring plan (PHRI 2002) approved by the SHPD (letter dated 20 September 2002, to P. Rosendahl, from D. Hibbard SHPD). To date, the findings of the monitoring work has required no changes to significance assessments or treatments for project area sites. 5. In mid 2001 Haun & Associates conducted data recovery excavations at Site 14130, a C-shaped terrace in the project area (Figure D-1). Three to four square meters were placed at the site in order to establish the age of the site and to obtain additional information on the variety of activities that took place there. The excavation findings indicated that the site appeared to have both a prehistoric and historic component. Prior to the Haun & Associates project, Site 14130 had been recommended for further data collection.Due to the negative data recovery findings, the site is now recommended for no further work- The orkThe findings of the project were approved by the SHPD in July of 2001 (letter dated 11 July 2001, to Haun & Associates, from D. Hibbard, SHPD). 6. In 2000/2001 Rechtman Consulting conducted burial testing in the project area as part of a due diligence study (Rechtman 2002)(Figure D-1). Rechtman examined three sites: 14132, 14091, and 14129: Site 14132 was a lava tube. During the Rechtman project the entire extent of the subsurface tube was completely recorded and it was found to contain the skeletal remains of at least ten individuals (Figure D-2). Site 14091, Feature A, was a mound/modified outcrop (identified as a platform by Rechtman) that when tested was found to contain human remains in a lava blister below the mound. Therefore, its significance evaluation has been modified to include category E (cultural value) and the general recommendation has been changed to preserve "as is" (Table D-1 and Figure D-3). Site 14129 was a platform that when tested yielded no burial remains (Figure D-4). Due to the negative findings, Site 14129 is now assessed as having significant information that has been sufficiently collected for proper analysis and interpretation of the site (see below). No further archaeological work is necessary at the site. In the future it is necessary that the two sites with burial remains (14132 and 14091) undergo preservation work (Table D-1). Originally, Site 14132 was recommended for further data collection in the form of a complete map from Rechtman Consulting. This has been .provided, and the recommendation -for the site has been changed to no further work with preservation "as is" (Table D-1). The Site 14129 platform, 2.50 in by 2.50 in by 1.10 m (approx.), consists of large boulder slabs crudely stacked and faced, and filled with cobbles; the platform has some slab paving. There is a small cairn of piled rocks on top of the platform on the southwest edge. There are additional mounds/modified outcrops in the vicinity. In September 2002, this platform was tested by Rechtman Consulting for the presence/absence of human remains. A 1.0 in by 1.0 in unit was placed in the approximate center of the platform. The platform rocks were 0.10 in to 0.30 in in diameter. The unit was excavated to approximately 0.20 in below surface to bedrock. Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer I). Soil in Layer II was brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; weak; medium; granular, non -sticky; non -plastic. No cultural materials were recovered, and the unit was abandoned upon reaching bedrock (see Rechtman 2002:Fig.10). D-5 ` _ D 1 2 1 ' 4 S N I [Taken from Rechtman (2002)] v rroF .�11 Figure D-2. Site 14132, Showing Locations of Burial Remains A Figure D-3.Site 14091, Feature A Mound/Modified Outcrop KC -0150 FM (Map Taken From Rechtn= (2002) 71 - 1 ! C- 60 NST -';c= I il N Y 11 f 4, D-7 Figure D-4. Site 14129, Platform Aftl-r't �� i i L---�---1 5C0.1r "^ C.h1• f✓C--J.foC.1 --e i`.iieii, \� S•�r,�`` C ' t ^ i \a (Map Taken From Rechtman (2002) D-8 7. In December 2002, PHRI conducted burial testing in the project area (PRAT Memorandum 2274- 122402, dated 24 December 2002, to B. Brooks, Westpro Development, Inc., from P. Rosendahl, PHRI). Three previously identified platforms were tested for human skeletal remains (Site 14123, Feature E; Site 14124, Feature C; and Site 14126, Feature B. During the fieldwork, each feature was measured, sketched, photographed, and then dismantled. Of the three features, only Site 14124, Feature C yielded human skeletal remains (see Table D-1 for revised assessments/treatments for the sites). Site 14123, Feature E, is 4.50 in by 3.00 in by 0.90 in (approx.) platform. This platform is basically square, faced on all sides with boulders, and paved with cobbles. A faced depression is present on the top of the feature. Although it was initially thought that the platform was agricultural -related, it was also thought that it might contain a human burial. In December 2002, this platform was tested for the presence/absence of human remains. All materials were screened through '/.-inch mesh. The east one-half of the platform was excavated. Rock sizes in Layer I ranged from 0.10 in to c. 0.40 in in diameter. Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer I). Soil in Layer II was brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; weak; medium; granular; non -sticky; non -plastic. The unit was excavated to 1.5 in, when bedrock was encountered (Figure D-5)(see Figure B-9 for profile location). No cultural materials were recovered, and the unit was abandoned. Site 14124, Feature C, is a platform that was originally thought to be a burial. It measures 5.70 in by 4.00 in by 0.85-0.90 in (approx.) This platform is located in a flat area inside the Feature A perimeter. It is roughly rectangular, and built of faced -boulder walls with cobble and boulder fill. There is a slight depression in the top surface. Rock sizes range from 0.10 in to c. 0.40 in. In December 2002, this site was tested for the presence of a human burial. Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer 1). Soil in Layer II was dark grey (10 YR 4/1) silt loam; weak; fine; -granular, non -sticky; non -plastic (Figure D-5) (see Figure,B-9 for profile location). All materials were screened through'/. -inch mesh. At approximately 0.60 in below the soil surface, two pahoehoe slabs were revealed in the eastern one-half of the platform. Below these, and in a horizontal area approximately 1.20 in by 0.80 in, disarticulated human remains were discovered. The remains were encountered from approximately 0.65-0.75 mbs, were very fractured, and comprised a partial mandible, the orbital area of the cranium, a partial pelvis, a partial radius, ulna, or tibia, 24 small rib fragments (all under 4.0 cm in dia.), 218 unidentified fragments between 2.0 and 5.9 cm in diameter, and 48 unidentified fragments under 1.0 cm in diameter. The total number of bone fragments was 329 (PRAT Memo 2274-122402). At this point excavation discontinued and the remains were covered with a plastic bag, which was then covered with an approximate 5.0 cm of dirt fill. A small concentration of charcoal was noted in the area of the remains. No other cultural remains were recovered. Site 14126, Feature B, a platform; was also tested for the presence/absence of human remains in December 2002. This platform (Figure B-12) is circular in plan view, is crudely faced on all sides, and has an essentially level surface, although it is collapsing to the east. It is 3.00 m by 3.00 m by 0.80-0.90 in high. The eastern half of the platform was excavated. All materials were screened through '/.-inch mesh. Little soil was present in the architectural layer (Layer I). Layer II was brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; weak; medium; granular, non -sticky; non -plastic (Figure D-5). The unit was excavated.to 0.1 in, where bedrock was encountered. No cultural materials were recovered, and the unit was abandoned. During the fieldwork at Site 14126, Feature B, a railroad tie and a probable piece of railroad engine equipment were noted relatively close to the platform. A review of a portion of the 1928 USGS Kailua Quadrangle depicts a sugarcane railroad line in approximately the same area as Site 14126. The platform also resembles platforms historically noted as sugar cane loading platforms (cf. Hunt and McDermott 1993). It it possible, therefore, that Site 14126, Feature B, relates to historic sugar cane and associated railroad activities; it is not possible, however, to confirm this. a O O O N O EM D-10 8. On 9 January 2003 PHRI conducted an archeological field inspection at a proposed 22,500 square foot rock crusher site in the project area (PHRI Memorandum 2274-010903, dated 9 January 2003, to M. Maigret, SHPD, from P. Rosendahl, PHRI). The site is in the southeastern corner of the project area, about 110 feet seaward of Ka'ahumanu Highway (Figure D-1). Visibility during the inspection was good; during the inspection no archaeological sites of any kind were found within the rock crusher site. Based on the findings, PHRI recommended approval of the site for a rock crusher operation. 9. Additional Fieldwork to Further Assess Minor Agricultural Features - On February 4, 5, and 6, 2004, PHRI conducted additional fieldwork in the project area in order to gather information necessary to address several concerns the SHPD expressed after their review of an earlier draft of the current report (SHPD letter dated 16 December 2004, Log No:0312MM04; Doc No:2003.2453). The SHPD's primary concern was that there may be features on the Pualani property that were not noted, nor recorded, during the original inventory survey (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990): Rechtman study differs significantly from yours in that a total feature count is estimated at over 1000 features. Six hundred of these features are estimated within areas outlined on his project area map, with the remainder collected as point data. Clearly this differs significantly from your total feature count of 138. The largest concentration of mounds and outcrops noted on the Rechtman map is labeled "155". The Site Record Form for T131 -T155, dated 9/11/02 describes T155 as "area of 500 — agricultural features mostly mounds and modified outcrops." This description does not resemble the description for four sites you recorded in the same area: 14108, 14115, 14116 or 14117. This suggests there are more features in this area than you observed in your survey. Initially, PHRI found the above statements puzzling, since we were certain that the differing counts of sites/features in the project area was because Rechtman had attempted to account for every single feature in the project area, including all minor agricultural features of the Kona Field System while PHRI had clearly accounted for the minor features in the report, but had made it clear that only major archaeological features were recorded to inventory level (and thus included in the 138 count). However, when we checked the report we could find no section that specifically addressed this point. This was an oversight on our part. We did find, however, numerous references in the Site Description section to the ubiquity of such features, and this at least makes it clear PHRI was aware of the features, and did not intend to ignore the fact that they are present in the project area: These features were not assigned numbers; tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-1). There are numerous modified outcrops/mounds in the immediate vicinity of this central feature (Site 14074). These features were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-3). There are numerous additional features in the vicinity. These features (Site 14084) were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation" (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-12). D -II Numerous additional mounds/modified outcrops are present in the vicinity. They appear to be agricultural mounds. These features (Site 14094) were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-11). Numerous additional mound features in the immediate vicinity. They appear to be agricultural mounds. These features (Site 14118) were not assigned numbers, tabulated or recorded in any detail at this level of investigation (Carlson and Rosendahl 1990:B-22). Because of the omission and what appeared to be discrepancies in feature counts, the SHPD and PM subsequently agreed that PHRI would conduct additional fieldwork in the project area to assess and characterize the minor agricultural features in the area. The fieldwork included pedestrian re -survey of the entire project area and reevaluation of the total number of minor agricultural features in the project area, and qualitative assessments of the features. The qualitative assessments would include: general locations and distribution of features, general size and constituency, and whether or not they were clustered around other major sites/features (e.g., enclosures or platforms) in the project area. The general methodology for the additional fieldwork was as follows: 1. The project area was divided into areas. Areas A, B, C, and D were designated by PHRI. Areas based on Rechtman's areas (Rechtman 2002) included Areas 133, 139, 155, and Rechtman's Mound Area (Figure D-6); 2. Each area was subjected to pedestrian survey with transects spaced 5.0 to 15.0 meters, depending on vegetation and visibility. The pedestrian survey was conducted by PHRI Supervisory Archaeologist Alan B. Corbin, M.A., assisted by PHRI Assistant Field Archaeologist/Senior Editor Leonard Kubo on February 4, 5, and 6, 2004, In many areas there was thick grass; however, the minor features like mounds and modified outcrops were recognized visually as areas that "stood out" due to lack of grass, and the larger modified outcrops were high enough to be easily visible. The findings in the individual sections are presented below. Area 139. Rechtman noted approximately 100+ mounds/modified outcrops in this area. During the current survey this approximate count was confirmed. The features were primarily low mounds, with fewer modified outcrops than in other areas of the project area. The mounds were primarily oval in plan view and were composed of medium to large 'a'd cobbles and boulders. In size, the features ranged from one to six meters in maximum length and were generally 0.50 to 0.75 meter high. They were not concentrated in any particular area, but were scattered. Area 133. The minor archaeological features in this area were primarily modified outcrops; specifically, basalt outcrops upon which field 'ad cobbles and boulders had been tossed in the process of clearing land. The outcrops were generally 2.0-6.0 m Elong, had generally one course of stones, and were generally no more than 0.50 m in height, with the majority being somewhat lower. The outcrops were not clustered, but rather, reflected natural, random occurrence. The mounds in this area were primarily oval in plan view and were composed of medium to large 'a'a cobbles and boulders. The features were generally one to six meters long, but most of them were one to three meters long. The mounds were generally 0.30 to 0.50 meter high. Rechtman estimated over 200 minor features in this area. The current findings generally concur with Rechtman's estimate. D- 13 Area 155. Rechtman characterized this area as containing probably over 500 minor agricultural features. The current findings are in general agreement. Area 155 is about three times as large as Area 133, and the amount of agricultural features found proportionate to area is approximately equal in both areas. The outcrops in this area are generally 2.0-6.0 m long, are generally composed of one course of stones, and are generally no more than 0.50 in in height. The outcrops are not clustered, but rather, reflect naturally occurring distribution. The mounds in this area were very similar to-mounds throughout the project area: they were composed of medium to large 'a'd cobbles and boulders and they were mostly about one to three meters long and 0.30 to 0.50 meter high. The mounds were not clustered in any particular area. Rechonan's Mound Area. This area contained more mounds than modified outcrops. These were similar to those noted in Area 139. They were primarily oval or round in plan view and were composed of medium to large 'a'd cobbles and boulders. They were one to six meters long, and were generally 0.30 to 1.0 meters high. Approximately 30 mounds/modified outcrops were identified. They were not concentrated in a particular area, but were scattered. Area A. In this area the modified outcrops consisted of bedrock outcrops onto which small to medium stones were thrown. The mounds in this area were relatively small, averaging 2.0 by 2.0 meters. At least 120 modified outcrops/mounds are present in the area, with more modified outcrops than mounds. This does not significantly disagree with the approximate number identified by Rechtman and shown on his map (Figure D-6). Rechtman on his map encircled smaller areas of two or more mounds. This tends to give the impression of clustering; however, the field examination indicated there is no clustering of features. Area B. In this area Rechtman found approximately 35 mounds and modified outcrops. This number of features was confirmed in the field. This area is the most makai area of the project area and has been greatly disturbed by activities related to cattle ranching. The current number of features, therefore, may not represent what was prehistorically present. The mounds and modified outcrops in the area are relatively few and are scattered broadly (Figure D-6). Area C. This area encompasses two large sites (14123 and 14124), and is characterized by large areas of naturally upthrusted bedrock. Since the area is dominated by the two large sites, there are relatively fewer mounds and modified outcrops in the area. Approximately 20 modified outcrops and mounds were identified in the area, with more modified outcrops than mounds. The features were similar in nature to those in Area 139 and Area 133. The features were generally 2.0 to 6.0 in long, and were generally one course and no more than 0.50 in high, with the majority being somewhat smaller. The features were not clustered, but were scattered randomly. Area D. In this area PHRT found approximately 50 modified outcrops/mounds, an amount similar to what Rechtman identified. Generally equal numbers of modified outcrops and mounds were found. There appeared to be more features in the southerly portion of the area; however, these could not be characterized as clustered. Features were more dispersed in other areas. It appears that a large section of the northeastern portion of the area, has been at least partially affected by bulldozing and clearing (Figure D-6), and it may be that these areas originally contained more minor features. Summary. During the field survey, the field crew attempted to relocate the features Rechtman noted on his map of the project area. In a general way, this was successful in that the numbers of features identified by Rechtman in the general area matched the numbers of features identified by PHRI. However, it was impossible to determine exactly which features in the field matched the ones Rechtman noted on his map. This was because Rechtman did not mark in the field the features he identified. Without marking, positive feature identification was not possible. D-14 Rechtman's defined areas (Areas 139, 133, 155, and Rechmran's Mound Area) constitute about 40% of the project area. During the current work, these areas were found to contain the majority of minor archaeological features (100+, 200+, and 500+ features, respectively). The amount of features corresponds generally to what Rechtman found. The remaining portions of the project area were found to contain roughly 225+ other minor features. This also approximates Rechtman's findings. In total, over 1,000 modified outcrops and mounds were noted during the current study. The features are generally dispersed over the entire project area; although there are generally more features in certain defined areas, the features still could not be characterized as "clustered." If there are more features in particular survey areas, it seems to be due to the natural occurrence of more bedrock outcrops in the area, or more stones in the area. In general, there are more modified outcrops than mounds, and mounds are more plentiful in the southeastern portion of the project area (Rechtman's mound area and northern portion of Area 139). In regard to the association of the minor features with major features, it appears that the minor features do not cluster around larger habitation features, e.g., enclosures or platforms, but rather, are scattered. 10. On February 26, 2004, PHRI Supervisory Archaeologist Alan B. Corbin, and Assistant Field Archaeologist/Senior Editor Leonard Kubo, surveyed along a proposed access road corridor extending through the Pualani Makai Development Project. The centerline had been staked, numbered, and marked with chartreuse -colored flagging (Figure D-1). The aim of the survey was to identify and relocate any previously located archaeological sites within the project corridor. The project corridor extended c. 50 feet on either side of the centerline. During the survey, five sites were found to be within 50 feet of the centerline stake (Sites 14104, 14107, 14116, 14125, and 14089). None of the sites are slated for preservation. However, Site 14104, Feature A is slated for further .data recovery. This is a well -constructed platform, 8.00 in by 5.00 m by 1.00 in. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble- and boulder - filled floor; and it sits on a prominent knoll. The purpose of the future data recovery work on this platform will be to determine the presence/absence of human skeletal remains within the platform. 11. On March 17, 2004, PHRI Supervisory Archaeologist Alan B. Corbin, and Assistant Field Archaeologist/Senior Editor Leonard Kubo conducted burial testing at Site 14104, Feature A platform. This site lies along the route of a proposed access road corridor extending through the Pualam Makai Development Project, and was near the centerline (see #10, immediately above)(Figure D-1). Feature A is a well-constmcted platform, 8.00 m by 5.00 in by 1.00 m. It is boulder -faced on all sides and has a level, cobble- and boulder -filled floor. Rock sizes varied, but were primarily from 0.10 m to 0.40 m in diameter. The feature sits on a prominent knoll. Feature A was tested for human skeletal remains by placement of a 1.0 by 1.0 m test excavation unit. The excavation was terminated on bedrock Only a small amount of soil was present in the center of the platform. No human skeletal remains were found. 12. On April,30, 2004, Paul H. Rosendahl (PHRI) re -inspected Sites 14123 and 14124 and made the following observations concerning Site 14123: (a) the inventory survey description and map do not fully describe the site configuration or component details, and a more accurate map will need to be generated during data recovery; (b) Feature A (modified outcrop) has many more modifications than indicated in the site plan map; (c) there is no evidence that Sites (4123, 14124, and 14126 form a larger site complex, as suggested by Dr. Robert Rechtman (Rechtman 2002); and (d) the tentative functional identification of the site as ceremonial/habitation is still appropriate, and the preservation of the site is still the appropriate recommended general treatment. During the fieldwork one of the large pahoehoe slabs on Feature A was moved. Rock paving was found beneath the slab, thus substantiating that at least some of the slabs had been placed; other slabs appeared to be natural and attached to the outcrop. D-15 Concerning Site 14124, the following was observed: (a) the inventory survey recording does not fully describe site configuration or component details, and a more accurate map will need to be generated during the data recovery phase; (b) Feature A (modified outcrop) has many more modifications than indicated in the site plan map; (c) there is no evidence that Sites 14123, 14124, and'14126 form a larger site complex, as suggested by Dr. Robert Rechtman (Rechtman 2002); the tentative functional identification of the site as ceremonial/habitation is still appropriate, with preservation of Feature C (burial) still the appropriate recommended general treatment Subsequent Work in General Vicinity Several subsequent archaeological projects have been conducted in the general vicinity of the current project area. area. These include (a) Archaeological Data Recovery Pualani Residential Community Phase II - Wastewater Treatment Facility (Graves and Goodfellow 1992; unpublished PHRI Report 1055- 100192); (b) Pualani Residential Community Phase II Archaeological Data Recovery, (Graves and Goodfellow 1993); (c) Ali'i Highway Phased Mitigation Program (Haun et al. 1998); (d) Archaeological Inventory. Survey of Two Parcels in Holualoa 2nd and 3rd (Wolforth 2000); and (e) Archaeological Inventory Survey, Walua Apartment Project (Corbin 2001). During the Graves and Goodfellow 1992 data recovery project at the Wastewater Treatment Facility (unpublished PHRI Report 1055-100192), data recovery focused on 14 sites, with a total of 131 component features. Treatments included detailed mapping and recording, surface collections and test excavations. Several conclusions were reached during the data recovery program. Evidence was provided for pre -AD 1000 use and occupation of a cave within the project area (Site 14081). Habitation sites associated with agricultural features appear to post date AD 1000, with permanent habitation inferred by AD 1300. The project area lies within the bounds of the Kona Field System, and its use as an agricultural complex continued into the historic period. Modifications to the cave after AD 1600 suggest its use as a refuge. During the Graves and Goodfellow (1993) data recovery project 55 sites with 723 component features were identified. Treatment measures included detailed mapping and recording, surface collections, test excavations, and auger holes. Cultural layers were identified in 144 excavation units. Thirty-one horizontal features, including 25 hearths, an oxidized soil stain, a series of post molds, and four ash deposits were excavated at various sites. The data recovery work has provided evidence for early (before AD 1000) use and occupation of the project area, which lies within the bounds of the Kona Field System. After AD '1000, permanent garden areas and dispersed habitation complexes developed and then proliferated, particularly between AD 1400 and 1650. Use of the project area as an agricultural complex continued into the historic period. During the Ali'i Highway Phased Mitigation Program (Haun et al. 1998) 177 sites with 1,548 features were identified in the project area. Most sites had been identified during previous work Fifty-eight sites were assigned a permanent habitation function. Four of these sites were also assigned a burial function, and two of the four were assigned a ceremonial function as well. A temporary habitation function was assigned to 28 sites. Of these, four were also assigned a burial function, one was assigned a ceremonial function, and two were assigned a burial/ceremonial function. The most common non -habitation site function was agriculture (40 sites), followed by ranching (livestock control; 16), ahupua `a boundary (14); burial (11), transportation (7), and water catchment (1). The 1,584 features had the following functions: agriculture (1,029 features), permanent habitation (306), burial (53), temporary habitation (43), livestock control (30), religious or ceremonial (15), marker (14), ahupua'a boundary (14), transportation (12), storage (3), water catchment (2), communication (2), and recreation (1). Three features were assigned a temporary habitation and burial function. The function of 21.features was undetermined. D-16 During the archaeological inventory survey of the Two Parcels in H61ualoa 2nd and 3' project area (Wolforth 2000), seven sites with 26 features were recorded: one heiau (Site 3829), three residential sites (5600, 6317, 6374), and three walls (6316, 6340, 21391). Site 5600 consisted of a wall, two midden deposits, three platforms, a terrace/pavement, five enclosures, two pahoehoe outcrops with bedrock mortars, a burial cave, and a papamu. Functional interpretations included habitation, recreation, boundary enclosures, house floor pavement, recreation, and boundary walls.. Sites 6316 and 6340 were ahupua`a boundary walls. Site 6317 consisted of an enclosure, a wall, and a platform functioning for permanent habitation. Site 6374 consisted of an enclosure, three platforms, a mound, a modified outcrop, and a terrace -all functioning for permanent habitation. Site 21391 was an enclosure wall. During the archaeological inventory survey for the Walua Apartment Project (Corbin 2001), 27 sites were identified. Eight of the 27 had been previously identified during an earlier inventory survey that covered a portion of the current project area (Head et al. 1994). Nineteen sites consisting of 22 features were newly identified. Seven of these sites were tested. The 22 features comprised the following formal types: modified outcrops (8), walls (5), enclosure (1), terrace (1), platform (2), lava blister cave (1), rock alignment (1), shrine (1), paved area (1), and papamu (1). REVISED CONCLUSION The following summarizes research information gathered during and subsequent to the original 1991 inventory survey and presents some conclusions about the prehistory and history of the area. During the original 1991 inventory survey. and subsequent surveys, 68 sites consisting of 48 features (not counting the ubiquitous mounds/modified outcrops of the Kona Field System) have been identified. The 48 features consist of 27 formal types representing 19 functional types. Feature types identified include wall, platform, cave, terrace, enclosure, pit, C -shape, L -shape, cairn,mad, and alignment. Functional interpretations include permanent and temporary habitation, transportation, water catchment, and agriculture. Minor Agricultural Features of the Kona Field System Over 1,000 minor features of the Kona Field System were noted within the project area. These are generally dispersed over the entire project area. The features do not cluster around the larger habitation features, e.g. enclosures or platforms, but rather, are scattered. If there are more features in particular areas, it seems to be the result of more stones in the area and more bedrock outcrops. There are more modified outcrops than mounds, and mounds are more plentiful in the southeastern portion of the project area. Ttie features apparently were created as a result of land clearing in order to increase the available arable area. It is believed that in general the features themselves were not used to grow plants. The Kona Field System was fust described by Schilt (1984; see main text for references not listed at end of this appendix). Schilt described the section of the Kuakini Realignment Corridor that fell within Puapuaa 1° and 2od as containing "an almost continuous complex of gardening features...." (1984:317). She assigned this complex a single site designation, while other researchers have given different site numbers to this complex. The Kona Field System has also been noted as being extensive in the adjacent and mauka Pualani Residential Community project area (Graves and Goodfellow 1993:66). Many of the other formal feature types identified in the project area, such as platforms, linear mounds, terraces and the smaller habitation features, also functioned for agriculture or related purposes. Generally, there appears to be a more dense distribution of these other feature types towards the mauka side of the project area, and a greater diversity of formal and functional feature types towards the makai side. This D-17 general distribution pattern, however, may not reflect the original pattern due to historic land modifications (road construction and other historic activities) in the makai portion of the project area. Walls Most of the walls in the project area are historic. The prehistoric walls include Sites 14075, 14080, and possibly 14116. These walls may be kuaiwi of the Kona.Field System, which functioned as boundaries delineating rectangular fields. Such features were described by Schilt as "a maze of continuous walls of stacked stone, or in some cases of low earthen mounds (varying in height from 0.5 to 1.0 in and in width from 1.0 to 3.0 m)" (1984:3). The walls of Sites 14075 and 14080 are quite small, relatively insubstantial, and are in poor condition. The Site 14116 wall is low and squat, yet is quite massive and core -filled and is in moderate condition. This dissimilarity to the classic walls of the Kona Field system could be attributed to a few factors. The most likely is that the area lies outside the central area of the field system, and the maze of walls was never fully developed in this region. Alternatively, earlier walls may have been destroyed by historic cattle grazing, or rocks may have been taken from prehistoric walls to create the historic walls (but this is unlikely given the surplus of rocks everywhere in the project area). Another alternative is that these features are not kuaiwi at all. The two insubstantial walls may in fact be the last remains of a mauka-makai running trail, and the third wall may once have formed a boundary. Sites 14123 and 14124 . Sites 14123 and 14124 are large sites centered on and around large pahoehoe and 'a'd bedrock outcrops (see Figures B-10 and B-12 in Appendix B). They are unique in the project area due to their size and the relative sophistication of some of the features. Both outcrops contain depressions/pits that were possibly excavated and may have served as water catchments or planting areas. They both have well built walls that extend from one side of the central outcrop. Site 14123 has two small blister caves and a well built, roughly rectangular platform. However, the most interesting feature of this site is a roughly 5.0 by 5.0 meter area on the edge of the outcrop paved with large pahoehoe slabs. This paving is probably partly natural and partly created. Overall, this section of the outcrop looks like a stage (to use a contemporary analogy). The function of this feature is indeterminate. It has been ascribed a possible ceremonial function due to the presence of what appears to be stone paving beneath some of the slabs, indicating considerable time and effort in the construction of the feature. Portions of the partially surrounding walls also indicate substantial effort. Due to the effort involved, and the overall appearance of Site 14123, it is possible that it is a heiau, although no mention of such an apparently large heiau is in the literature (cf. Kelly [1983], Barrere [1975], Kuykendall [1938, 1953, 1967], and Helen Wong[19901). The bedrock outcrop forming the basic feature of Site 14124 is somewhat smaller than that at Site 14123. The outcrop.itself has a large enclosure -like form. The center is depressed and heavily overgrown. Within this large depression is a relatively large,. essentially rectangular platform. This feature was tested and found to contain a burial. Overall these two sites are impressive compared to other sites in the project area Burials A number of features in the project area were evaluated as possible burials (see Figures B-13 and B-16 in Appendix B) by PM and other organizations. These include features at Sites 14084, 14091, 14123, 14124, 14126, 14129, and 14132. After testing, it was revealed that Sites 14091, 14124, and 14132 contained human remains, while the others proved negative. Generally, the burial features were well constructed platforms or mounds, that appeared to have been built with care and a greater amount of work than other features in the area. The burials were not clustered in any particular area, but were scattered. Preservation "as is" is recommended for the burials. D-18 Other Major Topics of Interest During the various fieldwork projects and research investigations within the current project area, several conclusions have been reached concerning the following major topics. Chronoloey Developing a chronological framework for the project area was a primary objective, and data collection projects have focused on finding materials suitable for radiocarbon dating. Twenty four samples, collected from six sites constitute the radiocarbon database for the project area. Goodfellow divides the results of the analysis of this database into three temporal phases: Phase I (AD 800-1400), Phase II (AD 1400-1650), and Phase III (AD 1650-1900)(Graves and Goodfellow 1992: unpublished manuscript). Initial occupation of the project area occurred at the cave site (Site 14081), which provides evidence for use as early as AD 800. Habitation sites associated with agricultural features appear to post date AD 1000. This may be a result of the introduction of new crops (i.e., the sweet potato) suitable for cultivation in thin soils and and conditions. Hommon (19.76:267) has suggested that the sweet potato was introduced (possibly from Tahiti) around AD 1270, and made possible cultivation of the kula zone. The presence of structures interpreted to be indicative of permanent habitation (e.g., Site 14078) by AD 1300 substantiates this hypothesis, and is further supported by data retrieval at the Pualani Residential Community (PRC)(Graves and Goodfellow 1993:65). The cave (Site 14081) continued to be occupied during Phase II, although on a periodic rather than extended basis. This occupation may have been related to the periodic exploitation of marine resources by upland agriculturalists. This inference is drawn from the number of small hearths located within the various stratigr-aphic layers of the cave and the associated midden and artifact assemblage. Site 14082, a temporary habitation, is also occupied during this phase. Phase III sees recurrent occupation at Sites 14074, 14082, and 14083, as well as continued occupation of the cave. Structural modifications to the cave entrance, possibly during the transition from Phase II/III may provide evidence that the cave was used as A refuge. These data are consistent with trends noted at the Pualani Residential Community, in which Phase I is characterized by a low, relatively stable population (as signified by the number of dated features) which begins to increase by the 15th century. This increase is interpreted as signifying an intensification of agriculture, and may signal, or be a result of, population growth. It is interesting to note, however, that while the number of dated features appears to decline in the PRC area during the proto-historic period, it appears to rise in the current project area during Phase III. While this trend may be a result of the differences in sample sizes, as suggested by Goodfellow (Graves and Goodfellow 1992), it could also be interpreted as an effort to increase agricultural production in the more marginal zones. If the mauka lands reached maximum production .during the 1600s we would expect to see an intensification in other areas. Another alternative is that the more productive uplands were "wom out," forcing the populace to seek new garden areas. Increased use of the makai area could also be related to social stratification. The elite classes (ali'i) were congregating in increasing numbers in the coastal areas of Kailua and Kealakekua and may simply have needed to increase the numbers of retainers in the immediate area to provide them with services and the largesse to maintain their status. After the Great Mahele of 1848, and the introduction of cattle, native populations may also have been forced into a subsistence economy on the most marginal agricultural lands. In any event, data from the current project, as well as historic documents, indicate aboriginal use of the area well into the 1800s. D-19 Subsistence While the terrain and soils in the project area are considered unsuitable for present day agriculture,. ethnographic evidence suggests that it was quite productive under traditional Hawaiian methods, and produced a variety of food crops such as sweet potatoes, gourds, dryland taro, and breadfruit These methods included clearing lands by burning, and by careful mulching of the plants to.retain moisture (Kamakau 1976). This is supported by an examination of the soils. Schilt (1984) has suggested that soil deposition in the area could be a result of slopewash from further upslope. This also helps to explain the increase in the number of dated features within the current project during Phase III. Perhaps the topsoil had finally accumulated to the point that intensive gardening was feasible. The soil also appears to have been supplemented with crushed marine shell and ash in some areas. These materials may have acted as fertilizer to enrich the soil for gardening. These soils were systematically retained in garden areas defined by terraces and other structures. Architectural remains provide the most convincing evidence for an agricultural subsistence base within the project area Agricultural features clearly dominate the architectural assemblage. The abundance and diversity of these features suggests that all available land in the project area was intensively and systematically cultivated. This is supported by the observation that habitation complexes appear to be confined to the rocky basalt outcrops, presumably to leave the more arable land for crops. The presence of marine resource remains in the project area reveals an additional dimension to the subsistence base, and suggests inferences about coastal -upland interaction and changes in population. Goodfellow notes that a comparison of the number of marine taxa represented within the midden assemblage indicates an increase in the abundance and diversity of food items through time. This may be a result of a broadening of the resource base due to population pressures, or may indicate increased access to different marine species. The scarcity of marine resources recovered in the project area suggests an agricultural subsistence base. People living in an agricultural area probably were not dependent upon marine resources for subsistence, and probably relied a great deal on their own produce. Unfortunately, organic materials do not preserve well in the archaeological record, so it is difficult to gauge subsistence (based on organic remains) in an agricultural setting. In addition, the relationship of agriculture to animal husbandry makes it unlikely that scraps of discarded food items would have a chance to accumulate given that these products could be fed to pigs, dogs and fowl. The presence of these species in the faunal assemblage supports the notion that a surplus of food enabled animal husbandry to flourish. The artifact assemblage does not particularly support a hypothesis of an agricultural subsistence base, although it must be noted that most farming implements were probably- made of wood and would not preserve well. A wooden digging stick, the o'o pahu, is virtually the sole implement described by ethnographic sources as having been used in the preparation and planting of agricultural fields (Handy and Handy 1972:117). Ecofact deposits within the cave (Site 14081), however, are dominated by fish (Osteichthyes) remains. Perhaps the cave was used periodically by upland agriculturalists making forays to the coastal area to exploit marine resources. This is supported by an examination of the artifact assemblage, which is dominated by fishing gear such as octopus lures, fishhooks, and implement manufacturing tools such as abraders. Duration and Intensity of Occupation Another of the primary research objectives for all the projects within the project area was to determine the duration and intensity of occupation at individual sites and features. Duration, in this case, refers to D-20 whether structures were occupied permanently (continuously within a given time span) or temporarily (on a periodic basis). Duration was defined using ecofact abundance and artifact diversity as a measure of permanence. From the argument presented above regarding the subsistence base (agricultural) and the differential preservation of remains (organic materials compared to shell midden), it seems unlikely that we can use relative abundance as a measure of duration. Except within the cave, excavations did not reveal stratigraphic breaks within cultural layers that would indicate periodic use. Thus, the assignment of individual features into categories such as permanent, temporary, and possible habitations was extremely subjective, and was, for the most part, based on direct comparisons between features in the project area. An examination of traditional agricultural practices may help to define occupation duration within the project area, and in the larger Kona Field System. Two resources (Handy and Handy 1972 and Kamakau 1964) mention the necessity of being on hand to pull mulch away from plants during rainstorms, to allow the moisture to penetrate the earth. It also had to be replaced quickly to retain that moisture. Therefore dryland farming practices must be considered labor intensive, with a labor force on hand for mulching and weeding. An industry of animal husbandry, e.g. pigs, would also require daily care and control of animals. Thus a complex of permanent habitations, if only seasonal, must be inferred by at least Phase II, if not earlier. Habitation Between 15 and 20 percent of the features identified within the project area have been interpreted (solely or partly) as habitation features. Most of these probably reflect temporary or seasonal occupation while gardening. Schilt (1984) described the nature of habitation during the height of agricultural exploitation of the area in a number of ways: temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent She described habitation sites as "situated atop small to large prominent outcrops" (1984:281); and in other cases as "caves... used intensively for temporary shelter and working areas" (1984:284). Cave sites in the project area are represented by Sites 14081, 14107, and 14123 (see Figures B-6, B-8, B-10, and B -Il in Appendix B). A number of these features exhibit structural modifications, primarily low, stacked walls around the entrances. Three of the cave features were tested. The first of these, Site 14081 clearly functioned as more than a temporary shelter or work area (see above). Relatively substantial cultural deposits and a wide variety of artifacts were recovered. Non -cave habitation sites are represented by Sites 14074, 14076; 14104, 14111, 14115(?), 14123, 14124, 14127, 14128, 14130, and 14131 (see Figures B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-11, B-14, and B -I5 in Appendix B). These sites all contain habitation features such as C -shapes, platforms, and enclosures, situated prominently on outcrops and/or centrally within the site. The habitation features often have associated agricultural features, and in most cases midden was recovered or observed at these features: It should be noted that Sites 14123 and 14124 are significantly larger and more complex than the other sites. Site 14124 contained a burial, while Site 14123 contains two caves. It seems likely that these two sites functioned for more than just temporary or seasonal habitation. Site 14123 may represent a heiau, judging by its walls and a "staging area", the construction of which indicates significant importance for the site. Habitation areas are usually composed of more than one structure, with multiple structures forming a site complex. The larger complexes comprise a variety of structural types; e.g., terraces, enclosures, platforms and modified outcrops. While most of the features within these site complexes are designated as possible or temporary habitations, some of the larger complexes have at least one structure that appears to have been more permanent than the others, based on subjective evaluations. This may be due to three general reasons: (1) that structures within a complex are contemporaneous, and each structure functioned in a different way, thus accounting for the disparity of ecofacts and artifact assemblages; (2) that the structures are not contemporaneous and represent a progression of more/less intensive occupation periods; or (3) that D-21 the items being quantified, such as marine shell abundance and artifact diversity, are not a true measure of occupation intensity but reflect activity areas and/or discard patterns. None of these hypotheses can be entirely eliminated based on previous data collection in the project area, though ethnographic evidence suggests that the first hypothesis is the most likely. Hopefully, data recovery work within the current project area may help solve these interpretative problems. Eachanee The initial settlement of the Kona Coast may have included such elements as seasonal exploitation of resources, with temporary residences constructed in maximum resource'zones (i.e., coastal areas and the well -watered uplands). Population growth during later times may have mandated less mobility and better - defined tentorial boundaries, which would have resulted in permanent habitation complexes (settlements) in each of these zones. These settlements were undoubtedly dependent on each other in order to attain the full spectrum of natural resources. Supporting evidence for this hypothesis is the presence of well-defined trails that appear to link coastal and upland sites. A natural outgrowth of this interdependency might be craft specialization, in which items are produced/procured by specialists and exchanged. Exchange does not appear to be limited within the ahupua'a boundaries. The presence of Mauna Kea basalts and Puu Anahulu trachyte in the project area suggests that resources from a much larger area were being used. It is likely that the chiefs controlled this distribution system, particularly in later time periods. Findings within the current project area provide no evidence for interaction with the upland slopes (apa'a) or the upland jungle (ama'u). The mauka (easternmost) terminus points of trail systems (Sites 5143 and 15108) noted in Puapua'a are unknown to date, although it could be inferred that they do lead to the upland zones from which specialized resources, such as feathers or timbers, were extracted. Historic Use of the Area The above discussion has focused on the prehistoric occupation and use of the project area. While the archaeological landscape of the project area is dominated by prehistoric features, historic use of the area is represented as well. Historic use of the area, however, appears to have been limited in intensity and extent The primary historic features are the walls that essentially run along and define the ahupua `a boundaries. These include Sites 5136, 5139, and 5144 (see Figure B-7 in Appendix B). These walls were probably constructed after AD 1850 and were maintained for an indeterminate period of time. It was during this time that ranching became the primary use of the area (Schilt 1984). Other walls in the area probably reflect such land use as well, including Sites 14106, 14112, and 14113. There does not appear to have been any historic habitation in the project area except perhaps at Site 14120. This site consists of a number of historic features, including a concrete foundation with raised sides and an overturned water wagon. This historic activity area, which served an unlmown function, lies between what is the current Kuakini Highway on the west side of the project area, and the old Kailua-Keauhou Middle Road (Site 14087). The only other historic site of note in the area is what appears to be a section of the oldest N -S road that ran through the area. This road section consists of a cobble- and boulder -filled road bed retained by a stacked boulder terrace on the downslope side. It is a short section of road situated at the north end of the project area, between the two more recent roads. D-22 References Cited Corbin, A.B. 2001 Archaeological Inventory Survey Walua Apartment Project, Land of Waiaha 1, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TNM3-7-5:18:7). Report 2086-030101. PHRL Submitted to Maryl Group, Inc. Graves, D.K., and S. Goodfellow 1992 Final Report Archaeological Data Recovery Pualani Residential Community Phase II -Wastewater Treatment Facility, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:Por.19). PHRI unpublished Report 1055- 100192, Prepared for Pualani Development Company. 1993 The Gardens of Kona Revisited: Pualani Residential Community Phase II — Archaeological Data Recovery, Lands of Puapuaa 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:28,29). PHRI Report 962-031592. Prepared for Ronald M. Knoll Consulting Group. Harm, A. E., J. D. Henry, J. A. Jimenez, M. A. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. R. Wolforth 1998 Alii Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I - Archaeological Intensive Survey, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii vol. 1, Summary. Report 1320- 052798. PHU. Submitted to County of Hawaii c/o R.M. Towill Corporation. Hunt, T.L., and M.J. McDermott 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, PU'ainako Street Extension Project, Lands of Waiakea, Kukaau 1 and 2 and Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. Submitted to Okahara & Associates, Engineering Consultants. Head, J.A., and P.H. Rosendahl 1996 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Estates Subdivision Water Transmission System, Land of Puapua'a 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5- 17:Por.1). PIM Report 1590-013096. Prepared for International Assets Limited c/o Ronald M. Knoll Consulting Group. Jensen, P.M. 1991 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan, Pualani Development Company, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Land of Puapuaa 1" and 2', North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1025-020191. Prepared for Pualani Development. Company. PHRI 2002 Archaeological Monitoring Plan, Utility Corridor Construction Work, Pualani Makai Project, Lands of Puapua'a I" and 21, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). Rechtman, R 2002 Due Diligence Archaeological Study for TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). Puapua'a Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. Prepared for Bill Brooks, West Pro Development, Inc. Rosendahl, P.H. 1990 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey: Testing of Potential Burial Feature Pualani Development - Phase II, Land of Puapuaa 1 st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-17:1,19,23,25,26). PHRI Report 972-121290. Prepared for Pualani Development Company, c/o Mr. Sidney Fuke & Associates. Wolforth, T.R., T.D. Henry, and R.B. Rechtman 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Two Parcels in Holualoa 2' and 3'": Settlement Distribution near the Shoreline at Holualoa Bay, Lands of Holualoa 2' and 3nd, North Kona, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 3-7-7-4:22 and 47). Report 1941-092500. PHRI. Submitted to Ralph Berezan, Langley, B.C., Canada D-23 Table.13-1. Revised and Updated Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments (June 2004) -- . - - Site/Fea. Integrity Slgni icame Evaluations. __ - General Recommend3tibns-- - -" --Designation..__ A ---El .-- C-__ -D=- E - - _ FDC NFW PID PAI 5136 + + - + 5139 + - + 5143 + + + -- - 5.144__ + +- -- 14073 - - - 14074 + + + - 14075 + - + _ - 14076 + + - + - - 14077 + + - + - 14078 + + _ 14080 + + + - - 14082 + + - + - - 14063 + + - + - - 14084 + - + _ _ 14085 + + - + 14086 + + - + - 14087 + + - + - - 14088 + - + - - 14089 + + - - + - - 14093 + + - - + - 14096 + + - + - - 14097 + _ _ + _ _ 14098 + _ _ + - - 14099 + + - + 14106 + - + - - 14110 + + - + _ - 14112 + + - + - 14113 + + - + - - 14120 + _ + _ _ 14125 + + - + - 14126 (B) + + - + - 14129 + + 14130 + + + - - + Subtotal: 0 0 1 34 1 0 34 --0 0 14079 14081 + - + - + 14090 + - + - + 14092 - + + 14094 + + - + 14095 + + - + 14100 + + - + 14101 + + - + D-24 SitelFea. Integrity Significance Evaluations General Recommendations Designation A B C D E FDC NFW PID PAI 14102 (B)101* .+ + - + - 14103 + + _ + _ 14104 (B)**' + + _ + _ 14105 (E)*'* + + - + 14107(D,E)' + + _ + _ 14108 * + - + _ + _ 14109 + + _ + _ 14111 - + - + - 14114(C)*"` - + - + 14115 - + _ + _ 14116 - + _ + _ 14117 + - + - 14118 + _ + _ 14119 + + _ + _ 14121 + - + - 14122 + + - 14124 (A,B) + + - + - 14126 (A) + + - + - 14127 + + - + - 14128 + _ + _ 14131 + _ + _ _ - 19837* + _ + _ _ _ Subtotal: 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 14091 (13,C) + - - - + - + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 14132 + _ _ _ + + + _ + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 14091 (A) + + + _ _ _ + Subtotal: 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 14123 + _ + + _ + + Subtotal: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 -1 14124 (C) + _ _ + + + _ + - - Subtotal: 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Total: 0 0 2 69 3 31 37 0 3 'Provisional assessment; final assessment pending further data collection "Possible burial feature (mound) in section of subsurface cave site located under adjacent property —Possible burial feature; to be tested —Identified during Head and Rosendahl (1996) project General Significance Categories: A = Important for historical contribution to significant events and/or broad patterns of history B = Important for association with the lives of important individuals in history C = Excellent example of site type at local, region, island, State, or National level D = Important for information content E = Cutturalty significant Recommended General Treatments: FDC =.Further data collection necessary (detailed recording, surface collections, and limited excavations, and possibly subsequent data recovery/mitigation excavations) NFW = Nor further work of any kind necessary, sufficient data collected, no preservation potential PID = Preservation with some level of interpretive development recommended PAI = Preservation "as is' with no further work (and possible inclusion into landscaping) Table 0.2. Final Summary of Identified Sites D-25 SIHP _ - -Site Site/Feature - - - Type-'— Tentative Functional - --" -_ :-..,D&-_. Interpretation-- Feld Work Tasks. Original Survey --_Type -Additional - Fieldwork Vnce- _ .,,$,��+_ -- -- - -. -- ------- - - --_ Feature- - -- - - r -- -,:-SC=:. -.- - (Company/Date) 50-10- 28- 5136 Wall - Boundary -- - .:--..- ---`--- ---- - . 14073 Complex (15)+ Agriculture- habitation? + - - - + PHRI/1991 . -- - - DR,EX- SIART _ _ -- A -O--_-, - Mounds/modified -outcrops - - -- --- - 14074 C -Shape Habitation- a riculture7 + + + PHRI/1991 DR,EX - START 14075 Wall Boundary + PHRI/1991 DR,EX START 14076 Complex(8) Habitation- agriculture + - + PHR/19911 DR,EX START A Enclosure B Linear mound/modified outcrop C-H Mounds/modified outcrops 14077 Enclosure/ mod. outcrop Agriculture- habitation? + _ + PHRI/1991 DR,EX SIART 14078 Complex (2) Agriculture + + PHRI/1991 DR,EX SIART A Terrace B Terrace 14079 Platform/ mod. outcrop Agriculture- habitation? + _ + PHRI/1991 DR,EX SIART 14080 Complex (2) Agriculture- possible transportation + _ _ PHRI/1991 DR,EX START A Walled terrace B -'-- - Linear mound- possible trait - - - 14081 Cave Habitation + + + PHRI/1991 DR,EX FDCR 14082 Enclosure/ mod. outcrop Agriculture + _ 14083 Mod. outcrop Agriculture + - - 14084 Complex (3) Agriculture- possible burial + - + - A -Terrace - -. B Mod, outcrop C Mound PHRI/1991 TPBF ne ative 14085 Complex 2 Agriculture + + - A Cairn -B - Terrace/mod outgo - — 14086 Complex (3) Indeterminate- ndeterminate-a riculture? agriculture? -- A Mound B Linear mound C Linear mound - - - -- - 5139 -- Wall Boundary - - - - - - 14087 Road Transportation - - - - 14088 Road Transportation - - - - 14089 Wall Boundary----- ------------------- Table D-1 (Continued) D-26 SIHP Site No. Site/Feature Type Tentative Functional Interpretation Field Work Tasks Original Survey Additional Fieldwork Since 1991 (Company/Date) Type Feature Tested/Results 5143 Alignment- bail section Transportation + - - PHRI/1995 DR - 5144 Wall Boundary - - - PHRI/1995 OR ' 14090 Modified outcrop Agriculture + 14091 Complex 3Agriculture- + + RC/2001 TPBF/DR Positive A Mound/ mod. outcrop possible burial B Mod. outcrop C Mod, outcrop 14092 Walled terrace Agriculture + + 14093 Mod, outcrop - Agriculture 14094 Complex (2) Agriculture + A Linear mound B Mound 14095 Mod. outcrop Agriculture 14096 Mod. outcrop Agriculture - - - 14097 Mod. outcrop Agriculture - - - - 14098 Complex (2) Agriculture- habitation? A Mod. outcrop B Wall 14099 Mod, outcrop Agriculture - 14100 Complex 8) Agriculture- + + A Mod. Outcrop/ C- shape habitation? B-H Mod, outcrops 14101 Caim Marker + + 14102 Complex Agriculture- + + A Enclosure habitation? B. Mod. Outcrop/ platform C 4 pit depressions 14103 Enclosure/ mod. outcrop Agriculture- habitation? + - + 14104 Complex (4) Habitation- agriculture + - + A Platform PHRI/2004 TPBF Negative B Platform C Mound/mod.outcro D Linear mound 14105 Complex (3) Agriculture- habitation? * - + - A Terrace B Platform C Terrace 14106 Wall Boundary- - 14107 Complex (6) Habitation- + + + Tested Fee. F - A Wall Agriculture B Cave C I Cave Table D-2 (Continued) - - - D-27 SIHP - Site No. _ Site/Feature Type Tentative Functional - Interpretation Field Field Work Tasks Original Survey- - - Fieldwork Since 1991 -.--- - - - - - - . Type Feature -TestedlResults - - - D - Platform- -.E Platform -F Cave 14108 Platform/ enclosure Agriculture- habitation? + - + - 14109 - Complex (2) - Agriculture- habitation? +- A - Mound/ mod. outcrop 8 Enclosure/ mod. outcrop 14110 Cairn Marker 14111 Complex (4) Habitation- agriculture + + + Tested Fea. A&B - A C -shape 9 L -shape C Mound D Mound 14112 Wall Boundary - - - 14113 Wall Boundary - - - - 14114 Complex (3) Agriculture -- habitation? A Terrace B Terrace/wall C Platform 14115 C -shape- Habitation + + - 14116 Wall Boundary + - - - 14117 :- Mod. outcrop _.-. _. Agricti_lture 1. 14118. 3 mounds Agriculture + _ + 14119 Complex 4 Agriculture + + - - - A -D Moundslmod. outcrops 14120- Activity area Indeterminate - - - 14121--- Mound Agriculture + + - 14122 - Complex 2 - -Agriculture - - + - - --_ - — - _ -= ----- "----^--.—_ --- .-.--- A Terrace --- - ---- - - - - B Mound 14123 - Complex (5) Habitation- agriculture- + -- - _+ - ---- + -- Tested.. Fea=D- - - --- -— - _.-- -_. - - - A-- Mod. outcrop - --- — -- - - - B - Cave ceremonial?- C Enclosure poss. burial - Table 0.1 (Continued) D-28 Key: DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions) SC = surface collections EX = limited excavations +Number of component features within complex. SIART=Sufficient Information to Address Research Topics FDCR=Further Data Collection Recommended TPBF=Testing Program for Burial Features '=Discovered after original inventory survey RC=Rechtman Consultants Haun=Haun 8 Associates Additional SIHP Tentative Site/Feature Fieldwork Since Feature Site Functional Field Work Tasks Original Survey Type Type 1991 Tested/Results No. Interpretation (Company/Date) D Cave E Platform PHRI/2002 TPBF Negative 14124 Complex (3) Habitation- + + + riculture- agriculture- I A A Mod, outcrop B Wall Possible burial C Platform PHRI/2002 TPBF Positive 14125 Culvert with Drainage - - - walls 14126 Complex (2) Habitation- + - + agriculture A Enclosure B Platform Possible burial PHRI/2002 TPBF Negative 14127 Complex (2) Habitation + + + Tested Fea. A 8 B A Mound B Enclosure 14128 Terrace/ mod. Habitation + - + - outcrop 14129 Platform Agriculture- + - + RC/2001 TPBF,DC Negative possible burial 14130 C-shaped Habitation + - + Haun/2001 EX,DR FDC terrace 14131 Enclosure Habitation- + - + agriculture 14132 Cave Burials + RC/2001 TPBF/DR Positive 19836' Platform Burial? PHRI/1995 TPBF Negative 19837' Additional Ag. Features - - PHRI/1995 FDC FDC Kona Field System Features 764-13 Subsumed under Site 764-12 Key: DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions) SC = surface collections EX = limited excavations +Number of component features within complex. SIART=Sufficient Information to Address Research Topics FDCR=Further Data Collection Recommended TPBF=Testing Program for Burial Features '=Discovered after original inventory survey RC=Rechtman Consultants Haun=Haun 8 Associates Traffic Impact Analysis Pualani Makai Village Center Kailua-Kona, Hawaii Prepared For: Pua'a Development, LLC Prepared By: LICENSED 2 k PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER t No. 11003•C Kimley-Horn and Associates, Ina 75-5742 Kuakini Highway, Suite 202 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 This work was prepared by me or under my supervision 091888003 March 2004 Copyright O 2004 Kirnley-Horn aad Associates, Inc. Si true Expiran Date of the License 4/30/06 APPENDIX E C] ❑ � - M and Assoc&s, Inc. Table of Contents PURPOSE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXISTINGCONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................2 AdjacentLand Use....................................................................................................................................................2 PhysicalCharacteristics............................................................................................................................................2 TrafficVolumes........................................................................................................................................................2 PROJECTED TRAFFIC Future Traffic Forecasting Site Traffic Forecasts ....... Total Traffic ...................... TRAFFIC AND EVIPROVEMENT ANALYSIS......................................................................................4 Levelof Service Analysis.........................................................................................................................................4 Left -Turn Storage Analysis.......................................................................................................................................5 Right -Tum Lanes......................................................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... .... .................. 6 List of Tables Table1 — Land Use and Intensity................................................................................................................. 1 Table 2 — LOS for Two-way Stop Controlled Intersections......................................................................... 4 Table 3 — Level of Service: Unsignalized Intersections............................................................................... 5 Table 4 — LOS at Signalized Intersection of Pualani Subdivision/Queen Kaabumanu Highway ................ 5 Table5 —Left -Turn Storage......................................................................................................................... 6 KA-Tpto\091888003 -Pualani MaM\Mort 2-24-04.doc Traffic Impact Analysis March 2004 Pualani Makai Village Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii oMo KFtrel FlOrn M and Associates, Inc. PURPOSE This report documents a traffic impact analysis for Pualani Makai Village Center located between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway north of their junction in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., has been retained by Pua'a Development, LLC to perform the traffic impact analysis for the proposed development. The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on surrounding streets and intersections. The specific objectives of this study are: • To evaluate lane requirements on all existing roadway links and at all existing intersections within the study area; • To determine future level of service (LOS) for all existing intersections within the study area and recommend any capacity -related improvements; • To determine necessary lane configurations at all new driveways within the proposed development in order to provide acceptable future levels of service; and To evaluate the need for auxiliary lanes at all study area intersections. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is located between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway north of their junction in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. The project location is shown in Figure 1. The overall development consists of 14.97 acres adjacent to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The site is anticipated to be developed with both retail and office land uses. Table 1 illustrates the land use and intensity of the proposed development. Table 1 — Land Use and Intensity The proposed development is located makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway is proposed at two locations via a frontage road. The frontage road will provide full access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway at the future signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road. The frontage road will also provide a right-in/right-out only access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway south of the Pualani Subdivision Road intersection. An internal road will be constructed, which will begin at the frontage road and extend makai to Kuakini Highway. This road will provide a full access onto Kuakini Highway and will align with the access for the residential access makai of Kuakini Highway. The internal roadway is anticipated to alter travel patterns in the area and result in a slight reduction in the reliance of Queen Kaahumanu Highway to satisfy area travel demand. The projected project buildout is 2008. Trac Impact Analysis 1 March 2004 Pualani Mekai Village Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii .nA 01 Retail 94,000 S.F. Office 24,000 S.F. The proposed development is located makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway is proposed at two locations via a frontage road. The frontage road will provide full access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway at the future signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road. The frontage road will also provide a right-in/right-out only access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway south of the Pualani Subdivision Road intersection. An internal road will be constructed, which will begin at the frontage road and extend makai to Kuakini Highway. This road will provide a full access onto Kuakini Highway and will align with the access for the residential access makai of Kuakini Highway. The internal roadway is anticipated to alter travel patterns in the area and result in a slight reduction in the reliance of Queen Kaahumanu Highway to satisfy area travel demand. The projected project buildout is 2008. Trac Impact Analysis 1 March 2004 Pualani Mekai Village Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii �_❑ -Horn _ and Associates, Inc. i, EXISTING CONDITIONS ADJACENT LAND USE The existing project site and a majority of the area surrounding the site is currently undeveloped; however, there are several planned developments in the area. Pualani Estates is a proposed single-family development consisting of 296 dwelling -units located adjacent to the project site, on the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This proposed development will share the proposed signalized access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. There are three residential developments currently under construction along Kuakini Highway in the vicinity of the site. All three developments are located north of the Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection. Kona Hawaiian Village is located the farthest north and consists of 270 time-share units in a resort style development. Kona Hawaiian Village's main access is located on Alii Drive, but it has a construction access onto Kuakini Highway, which will likely provide a secondary access to the development in the future. Kona Sea Villas is located south of Kona Village and is a multi- family development consisting of 72 dwelling units. The entrance to Kona Sea Villas is located on Kuakini Highway north of the proposed site. Kahakai Estates is located the farthest south and adjacent to the proposed development. Kahakai Estates consists of 67 moderately sized lots and 31 larger one -acre lots. The proposed development access to Kuakini Highway aligns with the access to Kahakai Estates. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The existing roadway network within the study area includes Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini . Highway. j Queen Kaahumanu Highway is a north -south two-lane arterial highway between Kailua-Kona and i Kawaihae. North of Kuakini Highway, the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour. The roadway currently consists of 12 -foot wide lanes with 10 -foot paved shoulders. The existing right-of-way varies between 165 feet and 225 feet in the vicinity of the site. A striped median with left -tum lanes has been constructed as part of the Pualani Estates development near the proposed development. The state Department of Transportation is planning on widening Queen Kaahumanu Highway to a four -lane cross- section from Henry Street to the Kuakini Highway junction, but a timetable for these improvements has not yet been established. Kuakini Highway is a north -south two-lane collector highway between Kailua-Kona and Honola. Kuakini Highway intersects Queen Kaahumanu Highway in a "T" intersection with a channelized right - tum lane for southbound vehicles. The right -tum lane becomes an additional southbound lane until it is becomes a right only lane at Lako Street. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Turning movement counts were obtained from other traffic impact analysis completed in the vicinity of the project. Volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway were obtained from the traffic counts collected in November 2001 and documented in the Pualani Estates Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis Report completed by Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. in December 2001. The existing traffic volumes on Kuakini Highway were obtained from the Lako Street Extension Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by The Traffic Management Consultants in July 2003. The counts on Kuakini Highway were collected in July 2003. These counts were performed between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Traffic Impact Analysis 2 Mamb 2004 Pualani Makai Village Center, Kailm Kona, Hawaii and Assodabs, Inc. Traffic counts obtained from these reports are provided in the Appendix. The existing volumes are shown in Figure 2. PROJECTED TRAFFIC FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING As documented in the Pualani Estates Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis Report, regional traffic growth was analyzed in the Traffic Analysis Report Kahului to Keauhou Parkway. This report found a traffic growth rate of approximately 1.69 percent per year in this region. The annual growth rate of 1.69 percent was applied to the 2003 traffic volumes at the Kuakini Highway/Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection to obtain future through volumes at the site access/Kuakini Highway intersection. Because Kahakai Estates shares a common access onto Kuakini Highway traffic from this development was added to the forecasted through volumes. A traffic impact analysis report was not available for Kahakai Estates; therefore, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 7`h Edition, was used to obtain daily and peak -hour trip generation rates and inbound -outbound percentages for this 98 dwelling unit development. These trips were assigned to Kuakini Highway based on existing traffic patterns. In the Pualani Estates report, traffic volumes at the 2010 horizon year were reported. In addition, the Pualani Estates traffic report anticipates a significant change in traffic patterns upon construction of Pualani Subdivision Road. The 2010 traffic volumes without Pualani Estates was reduced to 2008 volumes using the above-mentioned annual growth rate. The site generated trips from the Pualani Estates were added to the 2008 traffic volumes, resulting in the background traffic volumes for the study area intersections on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The 2008 Traffic Without Project for the study area intersections is shown in Figure 3. The proposed extension of the Pualani Makai Village Center's internal road to Kuakini Highway is anticipated to alter travel pattern in this area of the community. Traffic generated from Pualani Estates no longer is forced onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway to satisfy regional travel demand. Instead it is anticipated that some traffic from Pualani Estates will utilize the internal road to access Kuakini Highway and lessen the travel demand on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. SITE TRAFFIC FORECASTS ITE's Trip Generation, 7`" Edition, was used to obtain daily and peak -hour trip generation rates and inbound -outbound percentages, which were then used to estimate the number of daily and peak hour trips that can be attributed to the proposed development. The trip generation characteristics of the site are summarized in the Appendix. As documented in the ITE publication, Trip Generation, 7h Edition, shopping centers do not typically generate all new traffic on a roadway system. The total traffic generation is a combination of pass -by trips, or traffic drawn directly from the passing traffic flow on the adjacent streets, and primary trips, which represent new traffic drawn to the facility. In order to assess the pass -by trips, the data published in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook was used to estimate the pass -by percentages for the commercial parcels. It should be noted that pass -by trip generation reductions do not reduce driveway traffic volumes and pass -by reductions are shown in the Appendix. Taking into consideration internal capture and pass -by trips, the proposed development is expected to add 3,614 total daily trips, 118 AM peak hour trips, and 269 PM peak hour trips to the network. Traffic Impact Analysis 3 March 2004 Pualani Makai Visage Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii C]=" lqmle,-Hom and AssowW, Inc. Site traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadways based on existing traffic patterns obtained from the peak period 2008 traffic volumes without project shown in Figure 3. The distribution and site traffic assignment are shown in Figure 4. TOTAL TRAFFIC The results of the traffic assignment were added to the year 2008 traffic volumes without project shown in Figure 3 to produce total traffic volumes for the study area, shown in Figure 5. TRAFFIC AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS All of the study area intersections are future intersections; therefore, an existing LOS analysis was not completed. The intersections in the study area were evaluated for both with and without the project in 2008, using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 and Figure 5. The LOS for the study area intersections in 2008 was evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized and signalized intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual gives LOS ratings from A to F based on the average control delay per movement at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. Table 2 shows the LOS criteria used in the analysis. Table 2 — LOS for Two-way Stop Controlled Intersections The results of the LOS analysis at the study area unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 3. The LOS worksheets are provided in the Appendix. Traffic Impact Analysis 4 March 2004 Pualaoi Makai Village Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii ❑C❑ ==, Inc. Table 3 — Level of Service: Unsignalized Intersections M e`;p.r .ix"'w Inrsect,o._?ra i •.^ SRS iYd'''`,D "^' .ri rDt a ,sem R' ht-7nai ht -Out Driveway and Queen Aaahumanu Highway 2008 Without Project AM Peak PM Peak 2008 With Project AM Peak C I PM Peak IE Site Access and Nuakini High w 2008 Without Project AM Peak A B B B PM Peak A B B B 2008 With Project AM Peak A A B B B B B B PM Peak I A I A I IB B B B B B It should be noted that the Pualani Estates report recommended the signalization of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway/Pualani Subdivision Road intersection; therefore, this intersection is assumed to be signalized at project buildout and has been analyzed separately. The LOS for the signalized intersection is shown in Table 4. Table 4 — LOS at Signalized Intersection of Pualani Subdivision/Queen Kaahumanu Highway The intersections of Kuakini Highway/Site Access and Queen Kaahumanu Highway/Pualani Subdivision Road are expected to operate at a satisfactory LOS; however, the right-in/right-out driveway on Queen Kaahumanu Highway does not operate at satisfactory levels for the year 2008 analysis. The right -turns exciting the site onto Queen Kaahumanu at the Right-in/Right-out Driveway do not operate at an acceptable LOS in the PM peak hour. This is common for stop controlled jntetsections on an arterial roadway. This poor LOS occurs only in the PM peak hour and it is anticipated to be a temporary condition only. Site traffic will likely find alternative routes if the delay becomes too long, using the Pualani Subdivision Road/Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection or exiting onto Kuakini Highway. Mitigation is not recommended at this time; however, a right -tum acceleration lane would improve the LOS for the right -out movement and reduce the impact to through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. As shown in the above tables, the addition of project traffic did not have an adverse impact on the LOS at the study area intersections. In fact, the site may help to improve area traffic conditions by reducing trip lengths to and from commercial and office land uses. Although the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Pualani Subdivision Highway requires signalization without project traffic, Pua'a Development LLC will contribute to the signal installation at this intersection. LEFT -TURN STORAGE ANALYSIS The intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway was analyzed to determine the left -tum storage needed to accommodate the expected traffic volumes in the year 2008. Traffic Impact Analysis 5 March 2004 Pualani Maim Village Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii Kirtdey-Ho n and Associalems, Inc. The calculations associated with these conclusions are included in the Appendix. The recommended storage lengths are based on total traffic volumes shown in Figure 5. Table 5 — Left -Turn Storage ueen Ifaahumanu Hi hwa and PualaniSubdiv7100feet Northbound Approach: Eastbound A roach: It is recommended that a left -turn lane with 100' of storage and a 100' left -tum lane be provided in the eastbound direction at Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. In the northbound direction, a storage length of 100 feet is also recommended; however, due to the high speeds on Queen Kaahumanu Highway a taper length and deceleration length of 400 feet is recommended to meet AASHTO guidelines. RIGnT-TURN LANES Right -tum lanes are often recommended on roadways where right -turning vehicles create delays or safety problems for other traffic movements. The need for a right -tum lane at unsignalized intersections and site driveways depends on the speed of traffic on the road, the volume of traffic turning right, and the through traffic volume in the same lane as the right -turning traffic. The Federal Highway Administration's Access Management for Streets and Highways provides the following minimum criteria for the provision of right -turn deceleration lanes: • Greater than 10,000 vpd on adjacent streets; Highway speed at least 35 mph; Greater than 1,000 vpd driveway volumes; and At least 40 ingress right -turns during the peak period. Review of total traffic under the buildout condition in previously referenced Figure 5 reveals that none of the study area intersections meet the need for a right -tum deceleration lane; however, considering the congested traffic conditions on Queen Kaahumanu Highway during peak periods, southbound right -turn deceleration lanes could improve the operation and safety at the study area intersections. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development is located between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway north of their junction in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. The overall development consists of 15 acres of land adjacent to Queen Kaahumanu Highway to be rezoned from residential to commercial land uses. The site is anticipated to be developed with a mixture of retail and office land uses. Access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway will be provided at two locations via a frontage road at the future signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and at a proposed right -in and right -out only access south of the Pualani Subdivision Road intersection. An internal road will be constructed to provide full access onto Kuakini Highway aligned with the access for the residential access makai of Kuakini Highway. The projected project buildout is 2008. Traffic lmpact Analysis 6 Masa 2004 Pualani NI" Village Cenicr, Kailua Kona, Hawaii Kir" Horn and Assodales, Inc. The following summarize the salient conclusions and recommendations of this report: The project proposes the extension of the Pualani Subdivision Road south of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. An internal roadway will provide access to Kuakini Highway and is anticipated to offer an alternative route to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This extension is anticipated to re -direct turning movements from Pualani Estates to through vehicles and improve the operating efficiency of the propose signal. In addition, the extension of the internal roadway to Kuakini Highway will alter travel patterns in the area and yield a slight reduction in the reliance of Queen Kaahumanu Highway to satisfy area travel demand. The resulting LOS analyses indicates that motorists at the future signalized intersection of Pulani Subdivision Road/Queen Kaahumanu Highway will experience slightly less delay than they would have without the proposed internal street extension. • The proposed development is anticipated to improve overall area circulation by reducing trips lengths to and from commercial and office uses. • Based on the results of the analysis, the addition of project traffic did not have an adverse impact on the LOS at the study area intersections. At the intersections of Queen Kaabumanu Highway/Pualani Subdivision Road and Kuakini Highway/Site Access the turning movements into and out of the adjacent developments are significantly larger than those into and out of the project. • At site buildout, a left -tum lane will need to be constructed along Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Pualani Subdivision Road in the northbound direction to serve project traffic. • Although warranted without the addition of site traffic, Pua'a Development LLC will contribute to the installation of the future signal at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Pualani Subdivision Road. • Based on the projected traffic volumes entering the site, additional right -tum deceleration lanes are not warranted at any of the study area intersections to serve project traffic; however, considering the current traffic conditions on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, right -tum deceleration lanes are recommended to improve the operation and safety at these intersections. • The right-tums exiting the site onto Queen Kaahumanu at the Right-in/Right-out Driveway do not operate at an acceptable LOS in the PM peak hour. This is common for stop -controlled intersections on an arterial roadway and mitigation is not necessary; however, a right -tum acceleration lane is recommended to improve the LOS for the right -out movement and reduce the impact to through volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Traffic Impact Analysis 7 March 2004 Pualani Makai Village Center, Kailua Kona, Hawaii ;: E Kimley-Horn ❑MMIJ and Associates,lnc. Vicinity Map A Co r R. % Hualalai Ido d r� N •n r. } ualan' Aoad I - states Kahakai Estates o T. N OF WAIA A n' To RuwM/M vl £: NORM KON", M1 " t '• a Traffic y sp . Lir � Impact � and Associates, Inc. i Existing Traffic Volumes Hualalai Road * November 2001 Turning Movement counts from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report Pualani Estates Subdivision **May 2003 Turning Movement counts from Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the proposed Lako Street Extension rn ❑�� andA socia � and Associates, Inc. 2008 Traffic Without Project Hualalai Road I ❑�❑ Kmley-Hom I� and Associates, Inc. Traffic Assignment and Distribution Hualalai Road KimleyHom and Associates, Inc. 2008 Traffic With Project Q N C G Hualalai Road 2 LO Pualani 1 r1910� y Estates �; r slm � Eff pUa/ani SUboi�• _ \�� . �u Pualani "boo, Estates Estates ?Aar s Kahakai t Estates 9(44 E-- XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PualaniMakai Village Center Figure Traffic Impact Lako Street L-xiansqon Traffic impact A-na)yds Report WON KU*V-W"u AY K"All MK WAY July 214, 2002 2 NUALALAI ROAD ROAD -4 (tit 4 L^KO STREET RtaRTAY :4 r) tN ROYAL PVw K^WA"3CHOOL ACCP35 RD 13 (�I' I ROYAL PO111CN OR ALI ORM Figure 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic rK. I I J Lako Street Extension Traffic impact Analysis Pep6d July t4, 2003 QD Q— w�ANuw�N—u M "AY V 101T 49 .o W MNI MONWAY ,ST NUAuw � S NUAuw ROAD —� A ROAD US v 11 I 5 I TARO STREET I t1 I m f5fE— 12D �'�.yS1 I � 4- - xlr,Nw►v — — — —D 1ST I tl � M7 �m I j �5 LARO STReli ROYAL PDWCV.NA I OgryE IwMARAl BCNOOL ♦tress Ra --g mx ROYAL POINGAN/. DRIVE 07 A I fic ALM (1'1 ORNE .� DRwr �^ as 4 354 MOf� m Jl Figure 4. Existing PM Peak Hour -Traffic 10 uocw T.wi1C ..D,D.E RM1O Q umaaDhAce IlYBM1WffilCDI1PT1l1D Q IeycLar gRM�aawRrocawnM Figure 4. Existing PM Peak Hour -Traffic 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT PUALANI ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPENDIX 1 TABLE 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY AT HUALALAI ROAD (NORTH .INTERSECTION) Mav 30. 2000 DOT Reference Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Time Volume Time Volume 1 7:15 — 8:15 1,331 3:00 — 4:00 1,039 5 7:00 — 8:00 895 3:45 —4:45 1,207 Total 7:15 — 8:15 2 225 3:30 — 4:30 2,193 Movement 1 = North bound traffic. Movement 5 = South bound traffic. Reference: Hawaii State Department of Transportation Highway Planning Branch Note: Movements shown in Table 1 are referenced from the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (DOT) data and do not correlate to movements in the report. y k a z i kz S i a w C-4 N O N M N O M N m M o m n l0 N � w w v m C-4 m N � 10 r M co n M i �s 'E 3 ♦ �—a A Z �r.n o�n n�o.��o rwow�oM Mor W Fla ^> s O m N Of co w Cl) Cl) mm O to N O u'9 r O r n G O u'1 M w of m m m O n O� w to O w N V N N m w M e fo N e� N N N r F N N r r 11w r } M o o m o m o M o 0 o m o m cn o M o 0 0 U ca LL L 0 o < 2 � N �o W N N O .0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N > O E = r m > T > c W Q m Y— Z = J T_ T— T— T_ T— T_ C - O U ` > N i > W i > tE N > W N > tp N > t0 N_ > c0 ca U= w 0 0 y 0 0 y O y 0 0 y 0w> O � y N W US�U2�'U2�US�L) y C) �U2~ W > > QS U- y m> F- o o oo u-, o W Z Q r r m w m Z W -1< 111 — v o M c o Q U F- ,. F- Q Ro m a m 0 m m 2 T m 3 � L O 0) N OMM Z 2 1 U H .. O O Jm C O ma m R' W U > O m c m Co 'c a o m ` CL 75 c m �- m a c m 0 p o C L m p " E 0-0 o > m p m n � m H m � m U a � C T m a h u U p N O O cr C T 3 j y Q C � w m fU � yw N ~ C r m m 3 E m a m m E V U m >O m m E o 7 N C 3 R m 3 2 0l E 3 L E m c' o a t0 -o E acY o rn a gamic U y 0 Q E �_ C O m ] O — m m m N ca U C m m 0 Z -cu M a� aov�lov� car cn a c'1 E o ro N 0 c m E m C O ma m R' W U > O m c m Co 'c a o m ` CL 75 c m �- m a c m 0 p o C L m p " E 0-0 o > m p m n � m H m � m U a � C T m a h u U p N O O cr C T 3 j y Q C � w m fU � yw N ~ C r m m 3 E m a m m E V U m >O m m E o 7 N C 3 R m 3 2 0l E 3 L E m c' o a t0 -o E acY o rn a gamic U y 0 Q E �_ C O m ] O — m m m N ca U C m m 0 Z -cu M a� � 3 O O O O O O O O QY Y $. W� J O O O O< T N O N t0 1,=I 10 O O O M N N N N M M M n M M N N �rZ 2 f` m O m � 0 0 OD O m O q 10 O 10 4 0 of C I— W > is O O M T M V' tp cp T t0 Ir N u� M T N N N N Ln eI f T n N �T N T N N N T T N N N 7 T N N O N N O N < N O N N O N N M O N M Cl M (h M M m n M n M? M N N M m m n m M m M M M } F M N T M a0 O m I- T m T 7 0 Q T Y7 O h M O M N T T m N T O N T T T T T T T T U_ Q o 30: N LL U < C N 3] - N M 1� C N N— - m fD I� •- O N M T M O t0 M T CO a0 O� m 0 7 0 OO N I T r I T N N N N N N N N T T N N E (n 9 O Z N_ m A G J _V U) y iJ U W fO W> N WrU=XW N f0 VI t9 c9 c0 Q W C 9 Q O O O .>T �_N wa m>TH�Q a a o o o O M Q O W z a e Q U6 Z.� O W o u� o -¢i Q W o M v o M v ri m Ni M v c v v 0J m d 0 ? t0 C) rn C) V 3N IL L LL O� < _ r F- O m E m E m 3 > m N L 0 2 > m Z N m cn m 7 — W O H m N H W Z Z O U Fw Q D O Q > IL J CD M ar 'e D a � d m � U m C U > O m m � � N � C d O U Co c al m E 'a O a) L N 0 � L L D N j m U O � c r d o " E � m � m n m o 'C: y L Q) T m � N U7 N .5 T 7 Q C T m a CU 7O a w N � L � � C r B NC6 EE U N O> m v m E o o ° > E C ? m T 70 c 3 m U m j CM " 3 Er 2 aci d m _ E E 3 E L c 0 O. m E a Y m a N c Y m ) T N Z > 7 m i U 0 O N0- 0 0 0 m aL U o N ? C S m m _ G 0 y ^ n 01- O N m Z F -i 0 Z vo rums) co m m m r O C a) E 7 O > _ 4j E > u u u u u u »» ar 'e D a � d m � U m C U > O m m � � N � C d O U Co c al m E 'a O a) L N 0 � L L D N j m U O � c r d o " E � m � m n m o 'C: y L Q) T m � N U7 N .5 T 7 Q C T m a CU 7O a w N � L � � C r B NC6 EE U N O> m v m E o o ° > E C ? m T 70 c 3 m U m j CM " 3 Er 2 aci d m _ E E 3 E L c 0 O. m E a Y m a N c Y m ) T N Z > 7 m i U 0 O N0- 0 0 0 m aL U o N ? C S m m _ G 0 y ^ n 01- O N m Z F -i 0 Z 3 i 3 a O N N �1 F - Z > s w uj w 00,0, r m to 0w N CD O IF m m r -co m IMmomro n N a— n O LL'1 CL) w to N w Q O w nN M r N m h N n 0 WN m N C7 N 7 n N N r, N m ry �fJ m N m N r m N t7 Jn r m N m, N N N m N N U m � 3 tl F.� - Z c v� mCn '- m r O nv N mc- o nr ` mm ry o Cl) M V 42 N N r n (O t0 u7 m OL L = > 0 rT N S = C w cc 0 N U>> U=~ U 2~ (9 U=~ (0 U= F fO U= F tQ 17R H U= F w O Y m W > H Q_ o u� o w Z Q r� r� Z¢ UW ,n o o o J Q v o r e o Q U a0 in T 3 .2 _o, .0 Q N f Y H U m O LLL O M N Q E fnL d2 M o c Cl) Y Z o c w G LL NO F— W Z z 0 gaw �o< dJOO] yY a o N m h O N o E N r tO v N N 0 L c N E QJ d > It 11 it 11 n o »> co rn :E7i :;,: ;M, �: m o2 v vin." v N N L N 1� QJ O V O H io < tp x LG t 3 i 7 ♦ i P Y3 > < T� I} f� O 1� O e- O Q O et N O N a0 O o th O e N O N F- Z i > W w W 0 t0 C=) N O C1 Of N o H V O V O O N r O n. a0 N O n N Qr u] O to N u] N b tp M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N } to m< O O Cf N N N o7 O Of O —1" 14 T p N N r r N N N N N N N N N N N U m o l 1 LL 3 N � � N r 'm ZC �v r N .- O <v O O O t(I a0 t0 O H t` N O N O h N N O E 3 vv vM �a ev a n ev< O v 3 > ° > Z m in Y 2 > a W R JT. '> cy i 9 > :V W UY F-m> Q U o o W d 77 Ri ZTZ O cn of v v v v u� 2 4 U JLFI-j F r inm u u N II E o` 0 U U O cc L if > LL > >> > T 0 0 0 2 2 2 w N m N t0 S N d d a a a e N w' C N m y r. N Y E r rn o 2 ar 0 iF ?h N c m E u > > u u u u o § N n 0 u u N II E o` 0 U U O cc L if > LL > >> > T 0 0 0 2 2 2 w N m N t0 S N d d a a a e 01 CO ar N iF ?h N H. £. fill SM W NU Om F7 �N r »I 1 y �(lzl(zt)a�n Sol SOl }. � .(vrnV61H NMv^N m a'Y �6 101(a) ](a) 10(5) -Zn --1 sm. FIBl1ILx1•en 901 j j a 0 �N N� .j �IPe q(aaq•un .� IYl(Y) f31(dY�hlt3) SOl AtVZ)-en L131td) IIbtHLoz)-an d �r = o Om �6 101(a) ](a) 10(5) -Zn --1 sm. FIBl1ILx1•en 901 j j �—IMKZO) 'A (RIM sol lone) 1an3) [ Z -GA —> Spl L fE L1U1L)sA� Spl s" Y Flo F° > > 14 N X O V m Mil 93 F a $ �BLnBoua;A WIWI Idl(d)(f�lld) IE641(BL U-�i. �tj 1 sol [6O&](M*ASol a I s \ N� �Y Om lone) 1an3) [ Z -GA —> Spl L fE L1U1L)sA� Spl s" Y Flo F° > > 14 N X O V m Mil F lone) 1an3) [ Z -GA —> Spl L fE L1U1L)sA� Spl s" Y Flo F° > > 14 N X O V m Mil Shopping Center (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 302 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 328 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation uata Piot ana 70,000 7- 60,600 50,000 N 'tJ C W n F m V L N tT t`d Q z @ IM rciaM6111 10,000 7 X. .' ........: : ....:..............X. : X ... X X' XX. X :X .. :'� ,XX : XX :X : X :X XX,: .... --- :....:... .. ..: .. ..# X .(. .. .. .. .. .. .X . X XC X x 'X 7�J(,.XXX X X x X X X XX : X 1CSOC.. XX X.... X..X ...... ;... .. .... .. .. . . XX X X 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 X =1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve "--" Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.83 R2 = 0.78 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 14&1 Institute of Transportation Engineers Shopping Center* (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: Directional Distribution: 98 287 61 % entering, 39% exiting . Trip Generation per iuuu Sq. Feet Gross L-Vasaure At tla Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.03 0.10 - 9.05 1.40 Data Plot and E( z 1,600 1,500 1,400 1.300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 600 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 X =1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.60 Ln(X) + 2.29 W = 0.52 Trip Generadon,71th Edition 1452 Institute.of Transportation Engineers ll I I J Shopping Center (820) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000. Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 4.07 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 379 Directional Distribution: 48% entering, 52% exiting trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.75 0.68 - 29.27 2.75 Data Plot and Equation L' X Actual Data Points X 1000 2000 X =1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40 Trip Generation; 7ftEdition M ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.81 1453 Institute of Transportation Engineers 8,000 7,000 N c 6,000 LL n F 2 5,000 d m 4,000 m m Q 3,000 F- 2,000 1,000 n L' X Actual Data Points X 1000 2000 X =1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40 Trip Generation; 7ftEdition M ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.81 1453 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 78 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 199 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Frip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 11.01 3.58 - 28.80 6.13 Data Plot and 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 z000 1,000 0 0 100 200 300 X Actual Data Points 400 500 600 700 800 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.77 Ln(X) + 3.65 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 ----- Average Rate R2 = 0.80 rip Generation, 71h Edition 1 1158 Institute of Transportation Engineers F General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 217 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 223 Directional Distribution: 88% entering, 12% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.55 0.60 - 5.98 1.39 Data Plot and N O C 3,000 1,000 --,--...x XX X X: X� x 0 0 X Actual Data Points ........ ............. .. ......X ....... .. ..... X X k- X .. ............x ............ X X 1000 2000 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: LnM = 0.80 Ln(X) + 1.55 Trip Generation, 7tkt Edition 3000 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.83 1159 Institute of Transportation Engineers J Generat Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 235 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 216 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% drip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.49 0.49 - 6.39 1.37 uata NIOt ana 4,000 To 1,000 X ..._......_ X.... X. X' X ~ x ...................... X 0 1000 2000 3000 X =1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 1.12():) + 78.81 R2 = 0.82 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1160 Institute of Transportation Engineers N CL c c m 0v c C 0 ci .o c. s as v� � a a 0 a Il F�0 c a o CV rL Y y 0 m C m y J f0 a W wC rc Y F F Z 2 c c co a 0 E O N M N m a N N 00 rn CD 9 v li c c c c c c c F a s as m o a Il wC rc Y F F Z 2 c c co a 0 E O N M N m a N N 00 rn CD 9 v li � $1 coI- LO 38 ITE 0 Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 n a c c c E L d d c r m m c c c a � a ofOi N N N m m co coo 0 c n O N N c� a �0 m co m N M In v u> m W r C J }}7 LL LL U. UO OU 0 S 0 m 0 O O O v n 0 h l() R � f a i M co cMo co M M rn 7 7 m m w OJ p A c'0@m E L L L 0 0 o m m m m m m m m U M A N N N r � N cMo N r N tO+J M L.L 11L J J J J F § E E m 5 LL LL b LL c Il g 25 O E 0 m m J o W 0 0 0 0 � $1 coI- LO 38 ITE 0 Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 n a c c c E L d d c r m m c c c a � a ofOi N N N m m co coo 0 c n O N N c� a �0 m co m N M In v u> m W r C J }}7 LL LL U. UO OU 0 S 0 m 0 O O O v n 0 h l() R � f a i M co cMo co M M rn 7 7 m m w OJ p A c'0@m E L L L 0 0 o m m m m m m m m U M A N N N r � N cMo N r N tO+J M U) U z N N m M 0 10 10 1° U U U U U U a a a a a a N N N N m rn m rn rn rn rn rn os m Y co Y W Y Y m } m fq W N O O J J JO r o N n U) U z N N m M 0 10 10 1° U U U U U U a N CL y0 00 y0 v0 00 0f!� Y O N J 01 CL L 0 1° a d Uas., Q Q m Q m in v a C d C W 04 a0 GX d N F` m T3 V m I_ c J tll m m (L WWI 0 10 10 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Ida r IM N J m m I INc y0 00 y0 v0 00 0f!� J U U Q m Q m Q m Q Q m Q m D v _-— c c c c o LL m m cc 0 T 0 E 0 0 T 0 T 0 T 0 m ¢ cc m Q a: N m 0 N m m m rn v Pj N m — m co N N r CO V N N N r N N N co co coO N PmJ N' � � m t0 CJ a O O) CCJ UJ uJ a m m m p m CO p r m 9 m m m' v a v N m a (7 v m v to 0 N N N ON n co N M 0 0 C m m m O m l O m O m m N W m D 7 � 0 Z O Z Z C OO U U a 3 �> n } ? J -' Z 0 0 0 rri rdr�� c E CC 0 0 0 n. m m LL Z m g = m 3 l/J d 0_ m in m 0 o N N a m$$ M Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 0 ITE 39 40ITE ■ A Generation Handbook Chapter 5 EEIE ) )) \ §§ . g m a\\ s s § E ) \ \ /! _. (\( { f J §_W &0\ ` )7' !zto . ® 0 £ 7§ 2 =@E* ° U §!k ® "0 � o "0 § f %CL \RF ,coco p ■$ §! \% .�� 5 J § [\ CL Colo k 2 _- ` m� � e § IL �§ \{_ Zia § \ i \ 2 7 ) \ £ } \ .§08 ) , ui )}\�§/\ &D0 ]� C[ � . °±P .a. §a5 2 40ITE ■ A Generation Handbook Chapter 5 EEIE N CL L V d 4) N c o U vJa °' c oca U a t 0 CL � to jS y T3 m C � Vi J N !0 a W W G W c W vvi vDi N O W O � W W 2 c �p m o o EW v �' E o 3 '0 W z O ;O�22 S O1 0I = O N UW Y m m m W °if W m m m o E o c o m o L L d 'c 0 U) n m E i 3 °c � a O 0 3 EL 0 if 0 1 3CD w v 0 0 o CD m .n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qaa m$ a Ng$§SoBog$og� Tog 0¢ O d' CO r O N Iq O O O t0 m m 0 c0 CO N < fD m N O m N V N m N N N m O W W WW W W W \W \W \W W W W \W \W W \W \W W a�> m m (D LO m D) m CO V ^' CO O) O o N m O t0 N¢ N N N m N C m n m 1* m m m N ib a r Zam o m o z� m N CO O J a i>— u0i ° 0 u0i m m m v om 0 0 a m u� cD � tD m �n ¢a g s n a f a m m a u a w a a a a a d d d d d G R F- d tD iri N m 0 co m 0 rD co m co 0 m co 0 co co v o 0 4 4 a 4 cL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 x 4 4 m m a v LL W W W WW W W W W W W g� W M N m n0� z� z z z z z z z z z m m m m m m m' mm mm m m m 0 m 00 mm mm % 7B�� m m m m m m m m mHo'M m W CO m 0 CO m 3 N Ecb >jj W`m C m 7 5 CC mC Cm a < } Y Y> ci r r u- a ci > c w .a .LL a a° Z u z m Z Z Z 0 a H 3 c 0 c 0 c Q a o_ m m H 3 F a m E O c o E X U m ? c W Q C7 V pWW y 3 c 3 3 Q 3 m o10m CL wN� m m m R O N (D p T N N LO tb t0 10 0 c0 N Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 ■ ITE 41 co % � �7 g �\ S! §§ § R % \ CO to .7C" _«tea +a+«! § n V �. \0 Q V�a. r 2•¥C. 4)§ E CL >� G. ui e§� n m �\ . \ 2 7# � § IL co % � �7 g �\ S! §§ § R % \ CO to .7C" _«tea +a+«! § r%—#— oine Figure 5.5 Shopping Center (820) Average Pass -By Trip Percentage vs: 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area on a: Weekday, P.m. Peak Period Number of Studies: 100 Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GLA: 329 120 110 100 90 so 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 600 800 700 am 000 1000 1100 1200 X =1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area X Actual Date Pointe Road Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = -0.291 Ln(X) + 5.001 R2 = 0.37 l Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 ■ ITE 43 I Figure 5.6 Shopping Center (820) Average Pass -By Trip Percentage vs: P.m. Peak Hour Traffic on Adjacent Street On a: Weekday, P.m. Peak Period Number of Studies: 28 Average RM. Peak Hr. Traf. on Adj. Street: 3,122 nft/o Pint 90 90 70 t- 20 10 x m X x rn m c ...... .....X...X ...................... U so .......:........ m x o_ 3E a t so T m x x M e o_ 49 o+ x m m 30 t- 20 10 x X x ...--- x;.. ...... .....X...X ...................... ... .......... .......:........ x x 3E x x x x x x y� x k :x X 0t 0 1000 2000 7000, 4000 Soon 9000 7000 am 9000 X = P.M. Peak Hour Traffic on Adjacent Street X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given I 44 ITE 0 Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 R2 = .. I i (D .. .1 000 0 0 10, 0 0 0 Ipn ce)) LO Lo 00 c c c c c c 000 aoo Loiov LO00� LL IL � LL LL ._ cn (1)co0 r O p pN O O N 1w- N N p N N O o O O 10 '00 0 0 X v v r r X X X X X r m LO Npr O If) CA LO It V r M r r r 11 II II 11 11 11 ♦- E- F- H H F- C) p Co04 C-4 OC) r LU w w � 1w- � � p >> V O 0 7 :3 C14O O O w 1: a: LU ow w Ya N FN c0 a s C O) (1) T a a t0 c7o¢n. p¢aN �rV 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:23 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: 2008 AM Peak Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: 2008 AM 2008 AM Existing Default Impact Fee AM AM Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:23 -Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report AM Volume Northbound Southbound 0 Eastbound 177 Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Added Left Thru Right Volume #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PassBy Base 0 1253 77 97 836 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 2744 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site P 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 Total 0 1253 77 97 836 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 2744 #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Base 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2283 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site P 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 Total 0 -1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2283 #3 Site Access and Kuakini Base 11 253 0 0 177 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 652 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PassBy 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 Total 11 253 0 0 177 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 652 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c). 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:23 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.010 Loss Time (sec): 3 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.2 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1114 77 97 743 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1253 77 97 836 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1319 81 102 879 0 0 0 0 122 154 232 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1319 81 102 879 0 0 0 0 122 154 .232 PCE 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 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 0 1319 81 102 879 0 0 0 0 122 154 232 ---------_-- I --------------- --------------- --------------- _--------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1615 137 1900 0 1900 1900 0 1729 690 1039 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.69 0.05 0.75 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.94 0.07 1.01 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.01 1.01 Delay/Veh: 0.0 20.6 2.7 101.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 25.0 77.7 77.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 20.6 2.7 101.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 77.7 77.7 HCM2kAvg: 0 32 1 44 11 0 0 0 0 3 15 15 Traffix 7.6.0715 (C) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:23 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ---------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.01 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� volume Module: Base vols: 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1400 0 0 1003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1400 0 0 1003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- --------------- ---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 2ocK xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x`c= xxxx xxxxx xxx� x = ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx =OCK xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----------- I --------------- --------------- -------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxa xxxx =CCK Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: x + i # Movement: LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Sharedqueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx � xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:23 Page 5-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Site Access and Kuakini Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ___--____-__-__ ------------ I--------------- II--------------- I--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1; 0 0 II--------------- I---------- _.____-_____--___--__I 0 0 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 233 0 0 163 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -Initial Bse: 11 253 0 0 177 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 12 267 0 0 187 8 35 0 24 0 0 154 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 12 267 0 0 187 8 35 0 24 II--------------- II--------------- II_ 0 0 154 -____---__-___I ------------ I--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxXx 7.1 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx I--------------- I xxxx 3.3 --__--___--___-I ------------ I--------------- I--------------- Capacity Module: Cn£lict Vol: 195 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 557 xxxx 191 xxxx xxxx 267 Potent Cap.: 1390 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 444 xxxx 856 xxxx xxxx 777 Move Cap.: 1390 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 354 xxxx 856 xxxx xxxx 777 Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.10 xxxx 0.03 --------------- xxxx xxxx 0.20 _--___-___--___� - ----------- --------------- --------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.7 Stopped Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.8 LOS by Move: A * * * x # * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR = RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 466 � xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd.StpDel: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * B ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.8 10.8 ApproachLOS: * * B B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:42 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: 2008 PM Peak Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: 2008 PM 2008 PM Existing Default Impact Fee PM PM Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:42 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report PM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound 0 Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 1128 174 250 1316 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 3336 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site P 0 -23 0 0 -26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -49 Total 0 1128 174 250 1316 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 3336 #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Base 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2720 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site P 0 -23 0 0 -26 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 -49 Total 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2720 #3 Site Access and Kuakini Base 27 192 0 0 260 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 699 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site P 0 -6 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 Total 27 192 - 0 0 260 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 699 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:43 Page 3-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.342 Loss Time (sec): 3 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.4 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------------------� Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ ------ ------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1003 174 250 1170 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1128, 174 250 1316 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1187 183 263 1385 0 0 0 0 107 154 232 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1187 183 263 1385 0 0 0 0 107 154 232 PCE 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 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 0 1187 183 263 1385 0 0 0 0 107 154 232 ------_----- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1615 247 1900 0 1900 1900 0 1729 690 1039 ------------ I --------------- --------------- ---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.62 0.11 1.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: #*## !*+! Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.79 0.14 1.34 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.34 1.34 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.1 1.8 191.7 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 207 206.7 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 7.1 1.8 191.7 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 207 206.7 14CM2kAvg: 0 17 1 110 '29 0 0 0 0 3 23 23 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:43 Page 4-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A( 0.01 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1371 0 0 1493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1371 0 0 1493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- --------------- ---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Y-0= FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ----------- I ------- -------II--------------- --------------- II -------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxX xxxx xxxX xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx M= xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Xxxx X3= xxxxx xxxx =M xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----------- I - ----------- II--------------- -------------II--------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx XYLYMx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx XXXXX XXXXX xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: + x * + f { f k + f # + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: Xxxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 24, 2004 13:49:43 Page 5-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project --------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Traf£ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ Intersection #3 Site Access and Kuakini Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.31 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R --------------- L - T - R ---------------� ------------ Control: --------------- Uncontrolled --------------- Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 --------------- 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- 0 0 0 0 1 ---------------� --------------------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 177 0 0 239 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 27 192 0 0 260 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 User 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 PHP Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PAY Volume: 28 203 0 0 274 39 17 0 22 0 0 154 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 28 203 0 0 274 39 --------------- 17 0 22 --------------- 0 0 154 ---------------� ------------ Critical Gap --------------- Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 XXXx xxx xxxxx XXxxxxx 7.1 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx --------------- xxxx 3.3 ---------------I ---------------------------11--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 313 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 629 xxxx 293 xxxx xxxx 203 Potent Cap.: 1259 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 397 xxxx 751 xxxx xxxx 843 Move Cap.: 1259 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 319 xxxx 751 xxxx xxxx 843 Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx Xx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx 0.03 --------------- xxxx XX0.16 ---------------I ------------I---------------11--------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x3D= xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 Stopped Del: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.2 LOS by Move: A * * * + * + ! * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xx 474 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxo 13.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * + * B ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.3 10.2 ApproachLOS: * * B B Traf£ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ !.._ 1 ? k f� S {� Y S h t 4 Y i� �_..4� i 1{ r `.1 � r � ,, } �nMi � �6 k �'� Y vt � r � �. � ��6 1 < [ A e'F P9 *`� �'g� � � ��nVf( y�i yi � V � p � � ^, y�pe _.4 r k T° r� to 3 ..r Y. � '7 y._ ��F' �L �i i�i��p �l lyf,,� a f�5 ��'} :,� F �� 1 - r � �t - � v. f h �] � n a ,�,�-bis � -, `� � ` 4 � '.. �J� —P`k.� 1 �.. f � i' S'r6 � n c�t.'i �. 'Y. `,. a +1 1 Y � _-1 � f � � ,t _t. ��. b. �+ 4 , ' j' P .. . � _ alt L, . _ _ � .: ., ,,. y..i' l - > ill 1* C� W �. .l 1 i 4 t 1 _ Yr L Y �� J l l Z I 2 ! _ i 5 J r t r _ G � },- }- �._ i.N x 1 � SH � F Y f Y 4 l ix !I: � f .+ �L�J � l t � x M':: +; _ � J _rte _� '.� ��.�.v7:.. -_ � '.. �J� —P`k.� 1 �.. f � i' S'r6 `,. a +1 1 Y � _-1 � � � 5 C � l � � ��. b. 1 _ Jl 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:42 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: 2008 AM Peak Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: 2008 AM 2008 AM Existing Default Impact Fee AM AM Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ R 3 i 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:42 Page 2-1' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for AM Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 New Trips 1.00 Commercial 51.00 30.00 51 30 81 60.4 1 New Trips 1.00 Office 33.00 4.00 33 4 37 27.6 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 84 34 118 88.1 2 Pass -By Trip 1.00 Commercial 8.00 8.00 8 8 16 11.9 Zone 2 Subtotal ............................. 8 8 16 11.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 92 42 134 100.0 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:42 Page 3-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ________________________________________________________________________________ Trip Distribution Report Percent Of Trips AM To Gates 1 2 3 4 5 6 Zone----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- 1 24.0 36.0 10,0 8.0 10.0 12.0 2 32.0 49.0 11.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:42 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report AM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K Base 0 1253 77 97 836 0 0 0 0 116_ 146 220 2744 Added 34 0 0 0 11 11 12 3 6 3 5 0 85 Site P 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 Total 34 1249 77 97 845 11 12 3 6 119 151 220 2823 #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Base 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2283 Added - 0 34 0 0 6 15 0 0 9 0 0 0 64 Site P 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 Total 0 1360 0 0 957 15 0 0 9 0 0 0 2341 #3 Site Access and Kuakini Base 11 253 0 0 177 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 652 Added 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 10 0- 4 4 4 38 PassBy 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 Total 11 252 9 7 176 8 33 10 23 4 4 150 688 a Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ ,2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:43 Page S-1 --------.------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K }f*rtr*+r*}+x+x*xx+rx+t*t+*fi+i*fi tfi!#+}++fit+xx*!f}t}**}e}+ffilx}!xfi lxfi+rfi#*}!x}ret Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.010 Loss Time (sec): 3 (y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.2 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------I(---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1114 77 97 743 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1253 77 97 836 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1319 81 102 879 0 0 0 0 122 154 232 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1319 81 102 879 0 0 0 0 122 154 232 PCE 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 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 0 1319 81 102 879 0 0 0 0 122 154 232 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1615 137 1900 0 1900 1900 0 1729 690 1039 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.69 0.05 0.75 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **•* }r** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0-.94 0.07 1.01 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.01 1.01 Delay/Veh: 0.0 20.6 2.7 101.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 77.7 77.7 User DelAdj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 20.6 2.7 101.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 77.7 77.7 HCM2kAvg: 0 32 1 44 11 0 0 0 0 3 15 15 }rfi}!f}+fi+rfi*x*+rfi+t}fitx+rfi+t+++r*rr++x*tr}!*xr++*fi rfi tfi+tfi if*+}!**+x+f}+x+lr*!fifi Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08;54:43 Page 6-1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------`-------- 2008 AM Peak Period - Without Project ------------- ------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.013 Loss Time (sec): 3 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.1 Optimal�Cycle:OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1114 77 97 743 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1253 77 97 836 0 0 0 0 116 146 220 Added Vol: 34 0 0 0 11 11 12 3 6 3 5 0 Site Pass -8: 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 34 1249 77 ,97 845 11 12 3 6 119 151 220 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 '0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 36 1314 81 102 889 12 13 3 6 125 159 232 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Reduced Vol: 36 1314 81 102 889 12 13 3 6 125 159 232 PCE A4j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 36 1314 81 102 889 12 13 3 6 125 159 232 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.22 1.00 0.85 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.90 0.90 0.76 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 1.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.41 0.59 Final Sat.: 410 1900 1615 137 1872 24 452 570 1140 1446 704 1026 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.69 0.05 0.75 0.47 0.47 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 0.12 0.94 0.07 1.01 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.39 1.01 1.01 Delay/Veh: 3.0 20.7 2.6 102.9 6.0 6.0 23.9 22.8 22.8 25.6 78.2 78.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 3.0 20.7 2.8 102.9 6.0 6.0 23.9 22.8 22.8 25.6 78.2 78.2 HCM2kAvg: 1 32 1 44 11 14 1 0 0 4 15 15 t#t+*#tfir*fi#r#Rxfi*+xrfi x*r+#*#x*rr}xtx_x**{*#_{*x;r�*xr*fi*+t*#Y*+r+t#fix#t*♦}rrx+Rfi+* Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004.08:54:43 Page 7-1 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.01 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1400 0 0 1003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1400 0 0 1003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- --------------- 11 --------------- ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx x -x xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----------- I--------------il--------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * Y + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:43 Page 8-1 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) kx+xxkk:k*xxx+*t*kxkxxk!*x*x*+kkl+k*rxx*x*xxxkxk*+Y*+xYkk *kkYxlkk*x*x++xx!*+x+*x Intersection #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K xx+xkxxx+k*xlxk*+xk*xx+lx*+kxkxk+xxxkx+x+x#xlx+kxk*+*ex+kklklx+kkx+x*x+*kxxlx*iek Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.81 x#*x*xxk*Y*!+#x**x*k*xf xk***kfi+Yxkxxk!*+k+++xYxYlkY*4x+x+xtx kfik*x!x!*!xk*xk****k Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II________ L - T - R -_-___-I ------------ I--------------- I--------------- II--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 II____ 0 0 0 0 0 -_-_______-I ------------ --------------- I--------------- II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Ease: 0 1330 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 34 0 0 6 15 0 0 9 0 0 0 Site Pass -B: 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1360 0 0 957 15 0 0 9 0 0 0 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9.5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1432 0 0 1007 16 0 0 9 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1432 0 0 1007 16 0 0 9 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx ___________________________ --------------- --------------- xxxx xxxxx ___-__-_-_____-� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1015 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 ___________________________ --------------- --------------- xxxx xxxx xxxx _--______-_-___� Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * x Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:43 Page 9-1 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) }Y**+*********}*xxt***x***+*Y***********Y+******Y*Y***+*******************}**Y** Intersection #3 Site Access and Kuakini Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound - West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------� --------------------------- Control: Uncontrolled --------------- Uncontrolled --------------- Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- 0 0 1! 0 0 --------------- 0 0 1! 0 0 ---------------� ------------ Volume Module: --------------- Base Vol: 11 233 0 0 163 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 11 253 0 0 177 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 12 267 0 0 187 8 35 0 24 0 0 154 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 12 267 0 0 187 8 --------------- 35 0 24 --------------- II 0 0 154 ---------------I --------------------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.1 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx --------------- xxxxx xxxx xxxxx --------------- 3.5 xxxx 3.3 --------------- xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ---------------� ------------ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 195 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 557 xxxx 191 xxxx xxxx 267 Potent Cap.: 1390 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 444 xxxx 856 xxxx xxxx 777 Move Cap.: 1390 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 354 xxxx 856 xxxx xxxx 777 Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.10 xxxx 0.03 --------------- xxxx xxxx 0.20 ---------------I ------------ I --------------- -Level Of Service Module: --------------- Queue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 Stopped Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xO= xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.8 LOS by Move: A x * + x * * + * + * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 466 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * + + * * B * } ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.8 10.8 ApproachLOS: * - B B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 AM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:43 Page 10-1 2008 AM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future volume Alternative) fix+x*++tx*fi+Y+xx#+++tY*x#fifi+fi*+x+t+Yxxtx+xrxe+tx*+#xtYY++**++xxtt+fi+****fixYxxtrt Intersection #3 Site Access and Kuakini Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: Bf 14.41 *fifir:fifi+rx+*fi++xr*++fi+rx+rxxx*xxx*+x#x+x Yxf xfi+#+++rfi xx+*fi xYxYtx++##+++Yrt*rxtx+fi Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 11 233 0 0 163 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse:. 11 253 0 0 177 8 33 0 23 0 0 146 Added Vol: 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 10 0 4 4 4 PasserByVol: 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 11 252 9 7 176 8 33 10 23 4 4 150 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 12 266 9 7 186 8 35 11 24 4 4 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 12 266 9 7 186 8 35 11 24 4 4 158 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5- 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 194 xxxx xxxxx 275 xxxx xxxxx 579 503 190 515 502 270 Potent Cap.: 1391 xxxx xxxxx 1300 xxXx Xxxxx 429 474 857 473 474 773 Move Cap.: 1391 xxxx xxxxx 1300 xxxx xxxxx 336 467 857 447 468 773 Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.20 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx X.xxxx xxxxx xxxx Xxxxx Stopped Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx XX 450 xxxxx xxxx 747 xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.4 xxxxx xxxxx 11.2 xxxxx Shared LOS: x # Y + + x x B t Y B t ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.4 11.2 ApproachLOS: * * B B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 3 i t - t t _a 4 } 5 Y � r _ J sr r " x� t r rr a _ s G I 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:27 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Distribution Report Percent Of Trips PM To Gates 1 2 3 4 5 6 Zone----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 36.0 29.0 7.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 2 44.0 39.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:27 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report PM volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K Base 0 1128 174 250 1316 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 3336 Added 57 0 0 0 34 34 79 12 29 4 6 0 255 Site P 0 -23 0 0 -26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -49 Total 57 1105 174 250 1324 34 79 12 29 106 152 220 3542 #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Base 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2720 Added 0 57 0 0 29 38 0 0 42 0 0 0 166 Site P 0 -23 0 0 -26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -49 Total 0 1336 0 0 1421 38 0 0 42 0 0 0 2837 #3 Site Access and Kuakini Base 27 192 0 0 260 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 699 Added 0 0 12 18 0 - 0 0 12 0 17 15 20 94 Site P 0 -6 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 Total 27 186 12 18 256 37 16 12 21 17 15 166 783 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:28 Page 5-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *{f}+*f{*Y*+**x*Y*}*+YY{xYxxY+*xYxfY{xxx+*Y{+YxxYx*}#xY+Y*++#YYxx*#*+x#f{**}*f Y{ Intersection #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K **{*Ytx##{+*fxxx{f}*{+##Y}*Y*+*fY*+f**f#+*xxx4*fY*}x*+x+x{f{*Y**Y{*{*+{#}f+**fY# Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.342 Loss Time (sec): 3 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.4 optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II - --------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1003 174 250 1170 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1128 174 250 1316 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume:. 0 1187 183 263 1385 0 0 0 0 107 154 232 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1187 183 263 1385 0 0 0 0 107 154 232 i PCE 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 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 0 1187 163 263 1385 0 0 0 0 107 154 232 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1615 247 1900 0 1900 1900 0 1729 690 1039 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.62 0.11 1.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** ***# Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.79 0.14 1.34 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.37 1.34 1.34 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.1 1.8 191.7 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 207 206.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 7.1 1.8 191.7 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 207 206.7 HCM2kAvg: 0 17 1 110 29 0 0 0 0 3 23 23 +**+#**+#Y#**+*+*x*+fxY*{*x#*Y*f{fx}*Y{x+x*#f*x1x{*tf+{{*f**ff#{ff}4#!xf ***#Y##* Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX. AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:28 Page 6-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++fi xxx+r+xxx*+*xx*f#+xxxxfifixxrrxxxx+frxx*rrx**+xxfi **f +r+xxfifix+++*++rr+rxx*f++++x Intersection #1 Pualani Subdivision Rd & Queen K rxxrfrr*+x+f ixxx+e+fifixrfi+*xfr++x*+ffrx**f rfi x*+rxx*x xffx+fi*f**fi****frrrf*f*r++rxx cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.304 Loss Time (sec): 3 (Y+R = 4 Sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.0 Optimal Cycle:OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include - Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1003 174 250 1170 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1128 174 250 1316 0 0 0 0 102 146 220 Added Vol: 57 0 0 0 34 34 79 12 29 4 6 0 Site Pass -B: 0 -23 0 0 -26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 1105 174 250 1324 34 79 12 29 106 152 220 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 60 1163 183 263 1393 36 83 13 31 112 160 232 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 1163 183 263 1393 36 83 13 31 112 160 232 PCE 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 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 60 1163 183 263 1393 36 83 13 31 112 160 232 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.07 1.00 0.85 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.89 0.89 0.70 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.03 1.00 0.29 0.71 1.00 0.41 0.59 Final Sat.: 129 1900 1615 257 1845 47 585 497 1201 1338 707 1024 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.46 0.61 0.11 1.03 0.76 0.76 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** f++r Green/Cycle: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.78 0.14 1.30 0.96 0.96 0.82 0.15 0.15 0.48 1.30 1.30 Delay/Veh: 12.1 7.1 2.0 176.1 21.9 21.9 68.6 26.5 26.5 29.5 190 190.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 12.1 7.1 2.0 176.1 21.9 21.9 68.6 26.5 26.5 29.5 190 190.1 HC112kAvg: 9 17 1 101 36 31 9 1 1 4 23 23 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:28 Page 7-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project Level Of Service Computation Report ,2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) x*fi;xx*fi#x*fi#**xfi;x*++x#*#fi+rrx*fi+x**++xx**#xx*fifi#x*+;xxx+#++:**#xxx*+xxx*x*x#xx Intersection #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 0.01 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I ---__-_--__----I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include - Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II------_--------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bse: 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1371 0 0 1493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1371 0 0 1493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- _--------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxo FollowUpTim:xxxxx -xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -- --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---_----__---__� Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 20= xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx -----------I--------------II--------------- ---------------II--------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * # x x * # * x Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxyx xxxx xlu= xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * + # # * + # ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * # # Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 02:54:28 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 R -In/ R -Out and Queen K #*++x*xxr+rrrxxx+fi xxfifirxxrx#**xxxxxrxxfi xfixrx•x****r*x**+**x**+x***********#fi**fi# Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 39.21 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- ii --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth 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 Initial Bae: 0 1302 0 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 57 0 0 29 38 0 0 42 0 0 0 Site Pass -B: 0 -23 0 0 -26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1336 0 0 1421 38 0 0 42 0 0 0 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1406 0 0 1496 40 0 0 44 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1406 0 0 1496 40 0 0 44 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx zxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx x xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I ---------------ll--------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1516 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 148 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 148 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.30 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 39.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * E Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 39.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * E Tra£fix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:28 Page 9-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Site Access and Kuakini xfi}RR{R***}++**}{+*+}{{Y+++*RRRx*x}YxrYRR*;*Yxxx}r++*xYr++x*rtrYrYrRr**xx*fir}YY+R Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.31 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- Control: Uncontrolled ---------------II---------------II---------------I Uncontrolled Stop Sign stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0. 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 177 0 0 239 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 27 192 0 0 260 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 28 203 0 0 274 39 17 0 22 0 0 154 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 28 203 0 0 274 39 17 0 22 II 0 0 154 ---------------I ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.1 xo= 6.2 xxxxx xxxx 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 313 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 629 xxxx 293 xxxx xxxx 203 Potent Cap.: 1259 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 397 xxxx 751 xxxx xxxx 843 Move Cap.: 1259 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 319 xxxx 751 xxxx xxxx 843 Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.18 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level of Service Module: Queue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 Stopped Del: 7.9 X -x xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.2 LOS by Move: A • * { r } * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR- RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 474 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A B ApproachDel: )ocxxxx xxxxxx 13.3 10.2 ApproachLOS: } * B B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ 2008 PM Peak Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:54:28 Page 10-1 2008 PM Peak Period Without Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Site Access and Kuakini Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.71 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- --------------- I--------------- II__ -----____---- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1l 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II -----__-----__-I Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 177 0 0 239 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 27 192 0 0 260 37 16 0 21 0 0 146 Added Vol: 0 0 12 18 0 0 0 12 0 17 15 20 Site Pass -B: 0 -6 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 27 186 12 18 256 37 16 12 21 17 15 166 User 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 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 28 196 13 19 269 39 17 13 22 18 16 175 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 28 196 13 19 269 39 17 13 22 18 16 175 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- I--------------- II__ ___--- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 308 xxxx xxxxx 209 xxxx xxxxx 681 592 289 604 606 203 Potent Cap.: 1264 xxxx xxxxx 1374 xxxx xxxxx 367 421 755 414 414 843 Move Cap.: 1264 xxxx xxxxx 1374 xxxx xxxxx 274 406 755 381 399 843 Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.21 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- --_____----___-� Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 7.9 xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * # Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 424 xxxxx xxxx 710 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx -1.2 xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.7 xxxxx xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * B ApproachDel: xx,rYrx xxxxxx 14.7 12.2 ApproachLOS: * * B B Tra£fix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to K -H, PHOENIX, AZ - ,y`�, h r 'I z { r 1, r q,, n r 1 ry 1� j G a t L t I. f I t - r 1 U 4 i _ 1 1 . L nL t i y SAMPLE CALCULATIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Storage: _ [((veh/interval) + z x (SQRT(veh/interval)))/L] x 25 ft/vehicle N = (veh/interval) j N = [(V) x (C/3600)] Where: Where: z = 1.282 for 90 % confidence level (Most commenly used) z = 1.645 for 95 % confidence level V = vehicles per hour C = cycle length in seconds 25 ft/veh = Average Length of Vehicles L = number of left tum lanes UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Storage = [(V/60 minutes) x 2 minutes] x 25 ft/vehicle Where: V = vehicles per hour 25 ft/veh = Average Length of Vehicles I R-1284 STATE OF HAWAII BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES JUN 18, 2 R04ECORDED 08:02 AM Doc No(s) 2004.123556 NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIiiIIIIIIIBllif REGI TRARLOFCONVEYANCES 20 1/13 Z6 LAND COURT SYSTEM REGULAR SYSTEM Return by. MAIL (X ) PICKUP ( ) TO: S.V. (Bud) Quitiquit Brooks Tom Porter & Quitiquit, LLP 75-1000 Henry Street, Suite 208 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: HET ORIGINAL /��T- 1400 2.033 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: DECLARATION RE ROAD CONSTRUCTION PARTIES TO DOCUMENT: DECLARANT: WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation, whose mailing address is 75-143 Hualaiai Road, Suite 202, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 TAX MAP KEY (3) 7-5-017:001; 019; 023; 025 and 026 Westpro/Puulani Makai/6/3/04 (SUB 2000-0201) EXH DECLARATION RE ROAD CONSTRUCTION This Declaration is made this � day of June, 2004, by WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation, whose mailing address is 75-143 Hualalai Road, Suite 202, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 ("Declarant"). RECITALS: This Declaration is made with respect to the following facts: A. Declarant is the owner of those certain parcels of real property situate at Puapuaaiki 1" and Puapuaanui I, District of North Kona, Island of Hawaii, County and State of Hawaii identified on the tax maps of the Third Taxation Division of the State of Hawaii as Tax Map Key Nos. 7-5-017:001, 019, 023, 025 and 026 (collectively, the "Property"). 13. Declarant has applied for and obtained a consolidation and resubdivision of the Property into five Lots (Subdivision Application No. SUB 2000-0201), i.e., Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; a copy of the final approved subdivision plat map is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. C. Incident to the consolidation and resubdivision of the Property into Lots 1 through 5, a sixty (60) foot wide easement for roadway and utility purposes was created on, over and across portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of the subdivision ("Easement "1 ""), which said Easement "1 " is shown on the final plat map attached hereto as Exhibit A. D. As a condition of final approval of Subdivision No. 2000-0201, the Planning Department of the County of Hawaii required that the Property, and the subdivided Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof, be subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "I " be completed as required by the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non-residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. DECLARATION: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofand in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 by the County of Hawaii, the undersigned Declarant hereby covenants and agrees that each and every one of the subdivided Lots within the Property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, occupied, built upon or otherwise used, improved or transferred, in whole or in part, subject to the covenant and agreement of the Declarant, and/or its successors in interest from time to time as the owner(s) of one or more of the Lots, that before any certificates of occupancy (for non-residential structures) or final inspections (for 2 residential structures) shall be sought from or issued by the County of Hawaii for any improvements on any one or more of the Lots, the Declarant, or its successors in interest from time to time as the owner(s) ofone or more ofthe Lots, shall complete the design, construction and improvement of the roadway over and upon Easement "1" according to the then extant conditions and requirements of the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii. It is further declared and agreed that nothing set forth in this Declaration shall be construed as constituting a taking of private property by the County of Hawaii. In consideration ofthe foregoing Declaration and the covenant ofthe Declarant herein set forth, the County of Hawaii covenants and agrees that upon completion of the design, construction and improvement of the roadway upon and over Easement "1" according to the then extant conditions and requirements of the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii, the County of Hawaii will execute and record a suitable instrument releasing and discharging this Declaration, and the equitable servitude herein contained, as an encumbrance on the Property and the subdivided Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof. WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation By ALAN DICKLER Its President COUNTY OF HAWAII By DIXIE KAETSU Its Mayer.Managing Direct" APPROVED: COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT By e::� L Pl g Director County of Hawaii "Declarant" COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Chief Engineer, County of Hawaii APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Dellfity Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii Dated: 6//5 11 STATE OF HAWAII ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAI'I ) On this i6AzI day of 2004, before me personally appeared DIXIE KAETSU, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that she is the Managing Director of the County of Hawai'i, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said County of Hawai'i; that the foregoing instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the County of Hawaii by authority given to said Mayor of the County of Hawai'i by Section 5-1.3(g) of the County Charter, County of Hawai'i (2000), as amended, and assigned by the Mayor to the Managing Director pursuant to Section 6-1.3(h) of the County Charter; and said DIXIE KAETSU acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said County of Hawai'i. VII INIA M. TOLENTINO tary Public, State of Hawaii My commission expires: 4/22/2005 STATE OF HAWAII ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII ) On this day of 3 LLA e. , 2004, before me personally appeared ALAN DICKLER, to me personally known (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, who, being by me duly sworn or affirmed, did say that such person(s) executed the foregoing instrument as the free act and deed of such person(s), and, if applicable, in the capacity shown, having been duly authorized to execute such instrument in such capacity. D,NIOTA#9), 7 Pnnt Name: f j �s.1Notary Public, state of Hawaii My commission expires: "72 f t,. i Fifs3 tEi--------- If 44 A iiia � C 1 c �tFaF aF ° r� W m X = T W D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII F(H Niou 19 RM 10 06 DATE: November 17, 2004 Memora- :-'!"ENT TO ✓ Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief V _ engineering Division SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (04-009) Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC Location: Puapuaaiki and Puapuaanui 1" N. Kona, HI TMK: 3 / 7-5-017:001 We reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows: DRAINAGE All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. 2. The applicant shall be informed that if they include drywells in the subject development, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit may be required from the Department of Health, State of Hawaii. 3. A drainage study shall be submitted prior to issuance of any construction permit and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW. 4. The "AE" and "V flood zones depicted on the final plat dated May 31, 2004 and approved on June 4, 2004 is not consistent with the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated June 2, 1995. Any development within the flood zone will be subject to the requirements of Chapter 27 - Flood Control, of the Hawaii County Code. The applicant has submitted a flood study prepared by a licensed professional civil engineer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to channelize Waiaha Drainageway, Splitflow No 2. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be obtained before any development (other than the work approved under the CLOMR) occurs in the AE Zone or the corrected effective base flood plain. During the base flood event (2670 cfs), Waiaha Splitflow No. 2 is indicated on the map to overtop Kuakini Highway fronting the adjacent property to the north because the culvert crossing at Kuakini Highway is not designed to carry the base Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer EXHIBIT Memorandum to PD (REZ 04-025) November 17, 2004 Page 2 of 4 flood discharge. 2. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership. A maintenance program for the channel should be required. EARTHWORK All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Hawaii County Code. 2. The applicant shall comply with chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Department of Health, which requires an NPDES permit for certain construction activity. ROADWAYS The 60 foot wide roadways, depicted in figures 3 and 4, are proposed to serve a mix of commercial and multifamily residential and should be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutters and sidewalk. 2. Roadway connections to adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the approval of DPW and be open to public traffic. 3. The Hawaii Belt Highway, fronting the subject property, is under the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). Comments and requirements concerning this road should be obtained from the HDOT. 4. Kuakini Highway is a two lane County arterial within an 80 foot right of way. It is our intention to request that the entire frontage of Kuakini Highway be improved to the right -of- way property line meeting with the approval of the DPW if zone change amendments are applied for the frontage properties. 5. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of DPW. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn decelaration lane shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include but not be limited to pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. 6. The TIAR assumes the access roads, including the approach to Kuakini Highway are completed by 2008 and should be required as a condition for granting a certificate of occupancy. 7. Install street lights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the DPW, Traffic Division. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Memorandum to PD (REZ 04-025) November 17, 2004 Page 3 of 4 TRAFFIC The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) analyzes the proposed approaches to Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension using projected traffic volumes from other traffic studies. It does not address impacts to other area intersections. The TIAR may underestimate ambient traffic growth as some area projects under development or zoned for development have not been included. The TZAR does not consider the imminent mauka connection of Lako Street to Hualalai Road or the proposed Lako Street Extension to Alii Drive. For Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension, the TIAR indicates that an improved and signalized intersection at the at the Pualani access road remains at overall level of service C in the AM peak hour and will deteriorate to overall LOS D, in the PM peak hour, with some movements operating at LOS F. DPW defers to the Department of Transportation regarding required improvements to Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension approaches. The TIAR concludes that traffic generated by the project will not significantly impact Kuakini Highway makai of the subject project. See ROADWAYS, Item 5 for DPW recommended improvements to Kuakini Highway. 2. For comparison, the TIAR prepared for the Lako Street Extension (referred to in the subject project TZAR) analyzes the intersection of Lako Street and Kuakini Highway. The existing LOS is reported to be satisfactory. With no improvements and no Lako Street Extension, it is projected to operate at an overall LOS E in 2009 with the mauka Lako Street connection to Hualalai Road and additional traffic from nearby developments but not the subject development. The horizon year for the subject development is 2008. 3. The Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan identifies the Hawaii Belt Road (Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension) from Hualalai Road to Kuakini Highway, fronting the subject property, as a roadway operating at level of service (LOS) E, during both AM and PM peak hours. Traffic counts were used from the Department of Transportation Traffic Survey Data. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS E (for segments of urban streets) is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections and inappropriate signal timing. DOT presently has a study contract on this corridor to obtain recommendations to increase efficiency of the signals, giving priority to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 4. Any and all traffic control devices that are requested in the future, for said development, shall be designed and installed by the development at no cost to the Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Memorandum to PD (REZ 04-025) November 17, 2004 Page 4 of 4 County of Hawaii. These devices include but are not limited to crosswalks and other lane and pavement marking adjustments, warning and regulatory signs, ADA compliance items, flashing lights, streetlights and traffic signals. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Kiran Emler of our Kona Engineering Division office at 327-3530. KE copy: ENG-HILO/KONA PLNG-KONA Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAI`1 345 KEKDANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961-O NutFAX 98011' M61�8167 November 5, 2004 U 77 !t 1I'' ii LLJJ ii . ENT TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 04-009) REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) REQUEST: A -5A TO CN -20 APPLICANT — PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC TAX MAP KEY 7-5-017:001 We have reviewed the subject applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone and have the following comments and conditions. The subject parcel is part of an assignment of 368 units to Westpro Development, Inc. Therefore, water is available for the development of a neighborhood commercial center anticipated to use 10 units of water, or an average of 4,000 gallons per day. However, the anticipated maximum daily water usage and peak -hour flow, as recommended by a registered engineer, shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval. The Department reserves the right to make the final determination and may request that the applicant secure additional units, if water is available. The Department requests that Westpro Development, Inc., the assignee of the 368 units, provide a breakdown of the 368 units between Tax Map Key 7-5-017:001, 019, 023, 025, and 026 for our record keeping. Should there be any questions, please call Ms. Shari Komata of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 252. Sincerely yours, /it/tonPavao, P.E. Manager SHK:sco copy - Mr. Sidney Fuke E XIB I T Mr. Brian Cook, Puaa Development, LLC ... Water brincg6 rrorgre3J... The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410. Or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD) Harry Kim Mayor tQQY OPT Barbara Bell Director Nelson Ho Deputy Director :J=z' IItIIt �i lxttfUtttt r i C'iJ iDEPARTN'1&NT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 a Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 • (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 MEMORANDUM Date . September 29, 2004 To CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Plarnu Director From BARBARA BELL, Direct( SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Request. Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) Request: A -5a to CN -20 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC TMK: 7-5-17:1 We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER DIVISION: ( ) No comments ( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code. J (-) Other: ��/,�'1✓P dN4rvloF'/•rte .S"�t4%7 A i! cP.✓ar /laR. SOLID WASTE DIVISION: d.l ( ) No comments ( ) Commercial operations may not use transfer stations for disposal. ( ) Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be reused to its fullest extent. ( ) Ample room should be provided for recycling. ( ) Greenwaste may be disposed of at the drop sites located at the Kailua and Hilo transfer stations. ( Y� ) Other: 5yztA%'- soup WASTE has 8=M(�RT PLA.R (Y :eC Tb wrACA4,--D GuiOCL/NES) cc: SWD, WWD "H1131W)6025a Hawaii County is an equal opportunityprovider and employer. Harry Kim Mayor Baruara Bel( Director Lona Tyson Sold waste Dmajon CAj# County of Hawai6i DEPARTMENT' Ol" ENVMONMFNT.AI, MANAGEMENT 25 Aapani Se eel, Room 2 [0 a Hit : tri 96720A— Z (908) >G 1.6081 a Fax (808) 90:. 5086 October 13, 2003 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Guidelines INTENT AND PURPOSE This is to establish guidelines for reviewing solid waste management plans, for which special conditions are placed on developments. The solid waste management plan will be used to.- (1) encourage recycling'and recycling programs, (2) preu cYthe waste generated by the proposed development to anticipate the loading on County transfer stations, landfills and recycling facilities, and (3) predict the additional traffic being generaterf he --?use of ,vaste and recycling transfers_. REPOR i The consultant's report will contain the following: Description of the project and the potential waste it may be generating: i.e. analysis of anticipated waste volume and composition. This includes waste generated during the construction and operational phases. Greenwastes will be included in this report for both cons` action grubbing and future operational landscape maintenance. Description and location of the possible sites for waste disposal or recycling. We will not allow the use of the County transfer stations for any commercial development; commercial development as defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division. 3. Since the Department of Environmental Management promotes recycling, indicate onsite source separation facilities by waste stream; i.e. source separation bins of glass, metal, plastic, cardboard, aluminum, etc. 4. Identification of the proposed disposal sae and transportation methods for the various components of the waste disposal and recycling system, including the number of truck traffic and the route that truck will be using to transport the waste and recycled materials. Solid Waste Management Plan Guidelines Page 2 of 2 5. The report will include any impacts to County waste and recycling facilities, and the appropriate mitigation measures. All recommendations and mitigation measures will be addressed. 6. Description of the waste reduction component that analyzes techniques to be employed to achieve a reduction goal. 7. Analysis will be based on the highest potential use or zoning of the development. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS A solid waste management plan will be done for all commercial developihents, as defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division. We will require the developer to provide or resolve all recommendations and mitigation measures as outlined in the report; besides any conditions placed on the applicant by the Department of Environmental Management. 3. A licensed environmental or civil engineer will draft and certify the solid waste management plan. CONCUR: Barbara Bell DIRECTOR Harry Kim Mayor '01 October 18, 2004 County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 (808) 935-3311 • Fm(808)961-2389 Lawrence K. Mahnna Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri Deputy Police Chief TO CHRISTOPHER J. Y EN, PLANNING DIRECTOR !1 FROM D WRS, MAJOR, AREA II OPERATIONS SUBJECT and Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) Request: A -5a to CN 20 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC TMK: 7-5-17:1 Staff has reviewed the above -referenced application and has the following comments. Until such time as adequate roads are built to support the ever-growing population, construction, and additional vehicles on the roadways, development needs to follow the County's proposed policy on the principle of concurrency. Major concerns on this proposed development deal with traffic issues. The developer is proposing two entrances on the mauka side of the development coming off of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension. Note that the development is directly across the street from the Pualani Estates subdivision. The developer had planned one of the accesses to be via a signalized intersection, which will serve Pualani Estates on the mauka side. Note that there is no set date as to the completion of this signalized intersection. Due to the existing traffic problems on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, staff recommends that this project access the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension only via existing intersections and that a new intersection not be created. Note that due to existing traffic problems, our staff will consistently recommend that new projects along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, its extension, and Kuakini Highway not be granted direct access to the highway. E X H BIT "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" 0 a- p . /'i CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR OCTOBER 18, 2004 PAGE 2 Staff recommends that the developer work in conjunction with other landowners along this corridor and develop a secondary road to provide north and south ingress and egress from the development. As the Planning Department is already aware, this rezoning request was submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request by Suffolk Investment, LLC, under REZ 04-024. Both projects are using the same planning consultant, and staff recommends that neither project be allowed direct access onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. If this development is unable to coordinate a secondary road, access should be limited to Kuakini Highway. All entry/exits onto Kuakini Highway should be fully channelized with both turning and storage lanes. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Major John Dawrs at 326-4646, ext. 246. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Harry Kim Mayor AM OCT 12 AM jo 4 ountp of Waivai`i PLA*jjt'jC;j OL; A{ j FMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT I ir-1�r Akupuni Street • Suite 103 a Hilo, Hawaii 96720 - (808)%1-8297 a Fax(808)961-8296 October 6, 2004 TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 04009) REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) REQUEST: A5a TO CN -20 APPLICANT: PUNA DEVELOPMENT, LLC TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-17:1 Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads Darryl J. Oliveira Fire Chief Desmond K. Wert' Deputy Fire Chief "Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. "2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). "3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire -fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Praoider and Employer. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Page 2 October 6, 2004 "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fin; apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief." (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. "a) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15%) "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301: "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207:" Reh LIVEIRA NA:Ik LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR a NAWAS LD -NAV PUAA SLU 04-009.RCM PEFER T. YOUNG GNRPEREON aSS aN 04 WATER RESOURCE RUNAcfLeA' DAN DAVIDSON DEPUTY DPIEROR.IANO [ YVONNE Y. RU DERRY DREROR. WMER t�T. STAA6F'HAWM'v"' l DEPARTMENT 42WND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION Honorable Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 Dear Mr. Yuen: POST OFFICE BOX 621 O0NobeU,PgWA08 09 t204 AONAM RESOMUSS TAATRG AND OCEAN RECREATE," SUREAU OF CONVEYANCES CpAA WS ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEWNT CONSERVATAN AND COASTAL LANDS C RVATAN AIA RESORQS FXORC S ENGREERRG FORESTRY AND VRDM NISTORK MWRVATAN EANOOLAWE WAAEA RESERVE coElEasalDN wa STATE PINKS Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to CN -20 I. D. No.: SLU 04-009 and REZ 04-025 Applicant: Puss Development, LLC Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department TMK: (3) 7-5-017: 001 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. A copy of the document pertaining to the subject matter was distributed or made available to the following Department of Land and Natural Resources, Divisions for their review and comment: - Division of Forestry and Wildlife - Engineering Division - Commission on Water Resource Management - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands - Land -Hawaii District Land office Enclosed please find a copy of the Engineering Division and Commission on Water Resource Management comments. Based on the attached responses, the Department of Land and Natural Resources has no other comment to offer on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Nicholas A. Vaccaro of the Land Division Support Services Branch at 1-808-587-0384. Very truly yours, DIERDRE S. MAMIYA Administrator C: HDLO EXHIBITor,13.32 LINDA LNGLEI'� [ f^ _ 1'111 E V DOVEANDAa HAWAII 2004 OCT 19 P 3: 42 STATE OF HAWAII !. DEPARTIWNT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609 October 8, 2004 LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 04-009.CMT MEMORANDUM: PETER T. YOUNG eN•RPEIgON eMSP N woo TIN RESOLW RlMANAGU cawrAsslDN a+wAYlA AEaowa wNIwEMRRr DAN DAVIppON YVDNNE V. MU D"R DwEcmft-WATIA AOJAM AEM01A1CMi lGTwG AND OC3.N1 RECAEAwdI lURFANa CD SOURCEM CpAAMMIDNINWAEANEMDIANA LAFM EM CWATMATON AND CDA S E WDM l.ONMENVATgNANDNEMERM ElipMlENf lMGN M WIL MLIFIE NWIORKFm� Aro MATIM NIMIDAIC rAlMWNVAwoN MNOOIAw! rsIAND AEMlNV[ CaAA55IDN AND MIAIF rAA16 Suspense Date: 10/18/04 TO: *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife *XXX Engineering Division *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands XXX Hawaii District Land Office FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Admini� - y� Land Division SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to CN -20 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department I.D. No.: SLU 04-009 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC TMK: 3rtl/ 7-5-017: 001 Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date. *Note: One copy of the document is available in the Land Division Office, Room 220. Should you have any question, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587-0384. If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we will assume there are no comments. ( ) We have no comments. Division: ✓)t ef7' 7 Date: ( Comments attached. Signed: Name://(<`� DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING DIVISION LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 04 - 009.CMT COMMENTS ( X) We confirm that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is located in Zones X and AE. The National Flood Insurance Program does not have any regulations for development within Zone X, however, it does regulate development within Zone AE as indicated in bold letters below. () Please take note that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is also located in Zone () Please note that the correct Flood Zone Designation for the project site according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is _ (X) Please note that the project must comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) presented in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR), whenever development within a Special Flood Hazard Area is undertaken. If there are any questions, please contact the State NFIP Coordinator, Ms. Carol Tyau-Beam, of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division at (808) 587-0267. Please be advised that 44CFR indicates the minimum standards set forth by the NFIP. Your Community's local flood ordinance may prove to be more restrictive and thus take precedence over the minimum NFIP standards. If there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances, please contact the applicable County NFIP Coordinators below: () Mr. Robert Sumimoto at (808) 5234254 or Mr. Mario Siu Li at (808) 523-4247 of the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting. (X) Mr. Kelly Gomes at (808) 961-8327 (Hilo) or Mr. Kiran Emler at (808) 327-3530 (Kona) of the County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works. () Mr. Francis Cerizo at (808) 270-7771 of the County of Maui, Department of Planning. () Mr. Mario Antonio at (808) 241-6620 of the County of Kauai, Department of Public Works. () The applicant should include project water demands and infrastructure required to meet water demands. Please note that the implementation of any State-sponsored projects requiring water service from the Honolulu Board of Water Supply system must fust obtain water allocation credits from the Engineering Division before it can receive a building permit and/or water meter. () The applicant should provide the water demands and calculations to the Engineering Division so it can be included in the State Water Projects Plan Update. (X) Additional Comments: Please take note that portion of the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, is also located in Zone X (Shaded). The National Flood Insurance Program does not have any regulations for development within Zone X (Shaded). () Other: Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Andr onden of the Planning Branch at 587-0229. Signed: 7 , ERI T. HIRAANNOO,, CHIEF ENGINEER Date: l0�t?1 LINDA LINGLE GoVE OFNAWu RECEIVED 'SION 2004 OCT 15 P 3: 5 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609 October 8, 2009 LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 09-009.CMT PETER T. YOUNG DNARPEARON BM10 Dc IWAM 1471M1 11RCE PEROII R COAMERRIW 011N WMEII IEE0EUNAfiGEIEM DAN OAYDEON DEPUTY DREQOR.UVC YYONNE Y. RU DEPVIYYDMCTOR. WATER ADUAYIC REEOURCU ROA ANDOCEANMCREATIN RUREAII or CONWYANM COI.RIWR ONWATER REROIANINNNGEWNT CON WATgNANO OAMXIAIM CONSERYATgN AND MIU S EIfOI1RMEM ENGPANDVVG "P RKMI W ATICH NK1pOC PRERERVAT1011 RugovwE GIAAND REREMVE CaNEARRgN wo RIME PARE Suspense Date: 10/18/09 MEMORANDUM: TO: *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife *XXX Engineering Division *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands XXX Hawaii District Land Office FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Admini rator Y Land Division SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to CN -20 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department I.D. No.: SLU 09-009 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC TMK: 3`d/ 7-5-017: 001 Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date. *Note: One copy of the document is available in the Land Division Office, Room 220. Should you have any question, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587-0389. If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we will assume there are no comments. /nivwision: e have no�gjomments. ( ) Commentsi�ttacCL },�t Signed: UL VI Date: OCT i Name: PAUL J. CONRY ADMINISTRATOR DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILD ILI E LINDA LINGLE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FILE NO.: RECEIVED 2004 OCT 22 P 3: 39 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ., COMMISS(OfOON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT r - P.O.BOX 621 ^' HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609 October 22, 2004 Ms. Dede Mamiya, Administrator Land Division Yvonne Y. Izu, Deputy Director Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) State Land Use Boundary Amendment — Puaa Development. LLC SLU 04-009.CMT PETER T. YOUNG CMRPERSON MEREDITH J CHING CLAYTON W. DELA CRUZ JAMES A. FRAZIER CHIYOME L. FUKINO, M.D. LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, M.O., J.D. STEPHANIE A. WHALEN WONNE Y. IZU DEPVL MEmoR Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. Our comments related to water resources are marked below. In general, the CWRM strongly promotes the efficient use of our water resources through conservation measures and use of alternative non -potable water resources whenever available, feasible, and there are no harmful effects to the ecosystem. Also, the CWRM encourages the protection of water recharge areas, which are important for the maintenance of streams and the replenishment of aquifers. [ x ] We recommend coordination with the county government to incorporate this project into the county's Water Use and Development Plan. [ ] 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. We are concerned about 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. A Well Construction Permit and/or a Pump Installation Permit from the Commission would be required before ground water is developed as a source of supply for the project. The proposed water supply source for the project is located in a designated water management area, and a Water Use Permit from the Commission would be required prior to use of this source. Groundwater withdrawals from this project may affect streamflows, which may require an instream flow standard amendment. We are concerned about the potential for degradation of instream uses from development on highly erodible slopes adjacent to streams within or near the project. We recommend that approvals for this project be conditioned upon a review by the corresponding county's Building Department and the developer's acceptance of any resulting requirements related to erosion control. [ ] If the proposed project includes construction of a stream diversion, the project may require a stream diversion works permit and amend the instream flow standard for the affected stream(s). ( ] If the proposed project alters the bed and banks of a stream channel, the project may require a stream channel alteration permit. [ ] OTHER: If there are any questions, please contact Ryan Imata at 587-0255. LINDA LINGLE r} GOVERNOK OF IRWAR STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609 October 8, 2004 LD/NAV Ref.: SLU 04-009.CMT MEMORANDUM: PETER T. YOUNG CNARPEASO/ EOARD OT MIDAIR NATLRAL RESO RM CANMRNOM (Al WATER RESOURCE LY/NOE RAT DAN DAVIDEON DEPUTY DRECIOR-LAND YVONNE Y.¢u DEINYDRECTOR-WATER AOY =REsoupm= EOAmG AND CctAN REo1GTKN 10 R 10I CONVEYANCES CIDVAUS NDN WATER KSo NANAGENENT CONSERVAT*NAWCOASTALLAIDS C RVATRM AND RESOURCES ENIORQEpR ENGNEERRD EORESTRYAND WIDVE NIETO IC NIESERVATON RAND0IAWE ERMD RESERVE COIAISSON wD SATE RINKS Suspense Date: 10/18/04 TO: *XXX Division of Forestry and Wildlife *XXX Engineering Division *XXX Commission on Water Resource Management XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands XXX Hawaii District Land Office yj�^i--� / FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Administrator Y Land Division SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Agricultural to Urban and Change of Zone A -5a to CN -20 Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department I.D. No.: SLU 04-009 Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC TMK: 3`d/ 7-5-017: 001 Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date. *Note: One copy of the document is available in the Land Division Office, Room 220. Should you have any question, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587-0384. If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we will assume there are no comments. ( ) We have no comments. Division: CAA.)a4yi Date: 1O I'w I bq AComments attached. Signed: Name: 'K -q&4,1 JL &fyG -, LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR .601 OPT M �y MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 2004 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Aaron A. Ueno kvdl District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) Request: A -5a to CN -20 Applicant: Puaa Development LLC Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:1 CHIVOME L. FUKINO, M.U. OIRELTOR OF HEALTH The subject project is located within or near proximity to the County sewer system. All wastewater generated shall be disposed into the County sewer system. Wastewater Branch supports the sewer requirements made by the County for the proposed project. The Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted at (808) 438-9258 to identify whether a Federal license or permit (including a Department of Army permit) is required for this project. Pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Act (commonly known as the "Clean Water Act"), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for " [a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters...." EXHIBIT ©ra)-Qac' 9_ Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 October 20, 2004 A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit coverage is required for the following activities: a. Storm water associated with industrial activities, as define in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 122.26(b)(14)(i) through 122.26(b)(14)(ix) and 122.26(b)(14)(xi); b. Construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavations, that result in the disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre of total land area. The total land area includes a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules under a larger common plan of development or sale. An NPDES permit is required before the commencement of the construction activities. C. Discharge of treated effluent from leaking underground storage tank remedial activities; d. Discharge of once through cooling water less than one (1) million gallons per day; e. Discharge of hydrotesting water; f. Discharge of construction dewatering effluent; g. Discharge of treated effluent from petroleum bulk stations and terminals; h. Discharge of treated effluent from well drilling activities; i. Discharge of treated effluent from recycled water distribution systems; j. Discharges of storm water from a small municipal separate storm sewer system; and k. Discharge of circulation water from decorative ponds or tanks. The Clean Water Branch (CWB) requires that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by a NPDES general permit for any of the above activities be submitted at least 30 days before the commencement of the respective activities. The NOI forms may be picked up at our office or downloaded from our website at hgp://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/cwb/forms/genl-index.html. The applicant may be required to apply for an individual NPDES permit if there is any type of activity in which wastewater is discharged from the project into State waters and/or coverage of the discharge(s) under the NPDES general permit(s) is not permissible. An application for the NPDES permit is to be submitted at least 180 days before the commencement of the respective activities. The NPDES application forms may also be picked up at our office or downloaded from website at htip://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/cwb/forms/indiv-index.htmi. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 11-55-38, also requires the owner to either submit a copy of the new NOI or NPDES permit application to the State Department of Land and Natural Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 October 20, 2004 Resources, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DOH that the project, activity, or site covered by the NOI or application has been or is being reviewed by SHPD. Please submit a copy of the request for review by SHPD or SHPD's determination letter for the project. If you have any questions, please contact the CWB at 586-4309. Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm run-offs from the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control." Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control." a. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. C. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at 933-0917. The applicant would need to meet the requirements of our Department of Health Air Pollution Rules, Chapter 60. 1, Title 11, State of Hawaii for fugitive dust control. If there is need to discuss these requirements, please contact our Clean Air Branch staff Ph. 933-0401. WORD:SLU04-009REZ04-025.my LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DIEVELOPIVIN&VOLFIZ6 LAND USE COMMISSION P.O. Box 2359 Pi Honolulu, Hawaii 96804-2359 Telephone: 808-587-3822 Fax: 808-587-3827 October 20, 2004 Mr Christopher T. Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: ANTHONY J.M. CHING EXECUTIVE OFFICER Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) A -5a to CN -20 Puaa Development, LLC Puapuaaiki 151 and Puapuaanui 151, North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-17: 1 (Lot 2) State Land. Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-010) Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) A -5a to RM -2.5 Suffolk Investment, LLC Puapuaaiki 151 and Puapuaanui 151, North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:19 (Lot 5) We have reviewed the subject applications forwarded by your memorandum dated September 24, 2004, and confirm that the subject sites, as generally represented on Figure 1 of the County Environmental Report (CER), are located within the boundary of the State Land Use Agricultural District. EXHIBMIG12148 r Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director October 20, 2004 Page 2 We understand that the subject sites, identified as Lot 2 and Lot 5 and consisting of 14.973 acres and 14.872 acres, respectively, were created as a result of a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision application for the Pualani Makai Subdivision. We further understand that Lot 2 will be developed into the Pualani Village Center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas, while Lot 5 will be developed into a 250 -unit market rental housing project to address the rental housing needs of the community. While we have no specific objections to the proposed uses themselves, we do have strong objections to the manner in which they are being processed as HRS §205-3.1 boundary amendments. We believe that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and have been deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. We also believe that Pualani Makai will be further segmented under separate boundary amendment applications for Lots 3 and 4 based on the Master Plan for the development. As you know, the Third Circuit Court has affirmed that projects, such as Pualani Makai, should be viewed as an integrated whole to ensure full and timely disclosure of their potential cumulative impacts upon the environment. We understand that the previous owner of the property intended to submit a boundary amendment petition to the Commission for Pualani Makai s predecessor, Pualani Development -Phase II. We note that the archaeological inventory survey (Appendix D-2 in the CER) conducted in support of the development explicitly acknowledged that "[t]he overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawaii State Land Use Commission...." With the recent reactivation of the development as Pualani Makai, we believe that it continues to -require Commission approval. Given the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity, the Commission normally defers to the judgment of the County of Hawaii regarding applications such as these. However, in this instance, we believe it appropriate for the County of Hawaii to seek clarification from the applicant why actions relating to the proposed Pualani Village Center and rental housing project should not be subject to a land use boundary amendment made to the Land Use Commission. Any findings or conclusions generated by the County in this matter should be forwarded to the Commission for its information and appropriate follow-up. Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director October 20, 2004 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject applications. Please feel free to contact Bert Saruwatari of my office at 587-3822, should you require clarification or any further assistance. Sincerely, ANTHONY J. I �fI G c' J Executive Officer c: Office of Planning SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 October 13, 2004 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: 2M OCT 13 RM 1114 PLANNINL. ri--- AflM1ApE{NT HV%1V%i`9I Subject: Applications for State Land Use Boundary Amendment and County Rezoning — Puss Development, LLC Pusaounanui 1't. North Kona. M. TMK: 7-5-17: 01 • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Subdivision • Land Use Pannus • Environmental Reports This is to follow up on my discussion with Mr. Jeff Darrow of your staff regarding the subject applications. While the General Plan LUPAG map was not designed to be specifically measurable - unlike a zoning map - he noted that based on your "GIS" maps, the LUPAG map designation of the subject property is Urban Expansion. The application noted that the designation of the site was Medium Density. I would like to use this means to confirm that we will defer the designation to your office. In defining an Urban Expansion Area, the General Plan states that such a designation "(A)Ilows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial 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." It goes onto note that the Medium Density designated areas would be suitable for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3 -story commercial; residential — up to 35 units per acre. " As such, since the Urban Expansion Area allows Medium Density uses and the submitted report was predicated upon a Medium Density designation, we trust that the supportive land use rationale contained in the report is still applicable. If not, please let me know, and I will attempt to address it further. Again, thank you very much. Sincerely, SIDNEY M. Planning Consultant Copy — Puaa Development, LLC via email 0,&o V 3 EXHIBIT .-AL SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 October 25, 2004 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Subdivision • Land Use Pennils • Environmental Reports LV OPT 26 58 COUNT,-, if' i"wimm At Subject: State Land Use (SLU 04-009) & Rezoning (REZ 04-025) Applications Puaa Development LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 01 Thank you for providing agency comments to date on the subject matter. In response to said comments, please note the following: The requirements of the Fire Department relative to access, water pressure, and fire hydrants will be complied with. These issues will be addressed in detail during the building and infrastructure permitting process. Relative to the Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) comments, as required of projects of this nature, a Solid Waste Management Plan will be prepared for the review and approval of the DEM prior to or in conjunction with the building permit process. Furthermore, the project will be connected to the County's sewer system. The required engineering calculations will be prepared and reviewed by the appropriate agencies also in conjunction with the building permit process. If there are further questions and/or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. incerel , S NEY M.FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Department of Environmental Management Puaa Development LLC w/ enclosures �6 w•- SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: October 26, 2004 ZON OU 26 Ptl T 58 f LAINI JII4". I Ce°tIVT Subject: State Land Use (SLU 04-009) & Rezoning (REZ 04-025) Aantications, Puaa Development, LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 01 Thank you for providing additional agency comments to date on the subject matter. In response to said comments, please note the following: • Planning • Variance • Zonirg • Subdivision • Land Use PennAs • Environmental Reports As recommended by the Department of Health, the applicant will have the project connect to the County's sewer line fronting Kuakini Highway. Furthermore, the consulting engineer is aware of the possible need of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and UIC permits. As such, if needed, said permit(s) will be secured prior to commencement of any construction activity on the subject site. During construction, the applicant will comply with appropriate noise, dust, and storm runoff regulations of the State Department of Health. The Police Department's comments are well taken. This project is predicted upon the completion of a fully signalized intersection, which will also service the Pualani Subdivision. The cost of this improvement will not be borne by government. It will be jointly shared between the applicant and the developers of the Pualani Subdivision. The applicant is also proposing a right -turn outbound movement from the project site to Kuakini Highway, as he believes that would help with the overall traffic circulation. This additional access, however, would be subject to the approval of the State. If it deems that access is not necessary or would frustrate traffic circulation plans in the area, the access will not be approved by the State. Additionally, the applicant is also proposing a new mauka-makai road between Kuakini Highway to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This roadway would go through the subject and adjoining properties makai of it. This and the developer of the adjoining property (Suffolk Investment LLC) would complete it prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for their respective projects. Thus, this and the other planned residential project (Suffolk Investment LLC) would help with the area's road infrastructure. They would also not be available for occupancy until the improvements noted above have been completed. Mr. Christopher Yuen October 26, 2004 Page 2 We trust that the information provided herein help address the comments. If not or if there are farther questions and/or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. incerely, VV." EY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Department of Health Police Department Puaa Development LLC w/ enclosures SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (608) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: November 9, 2004 ?081 NOU 9 PM 12 47 • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Subdivision • Lane Use Perm is • Environmental Fepons Subject: Applications for State Land Use (SLU 04-009) and Rezoning (REZ 04-025) - Puaa Development, LLC, TMK: 7-5-17: 01 and State Land Use (SLU 04-010) and Rezoning (04-024) — Suffolk Investment, LLC. TMK: 7-5-17: 19 Thank you for providing additional agency comments to date on the subject matter. We note that the State Department of Land and Natural Resources — Land Division did not have any substantive comments that were not already addressed by other agencies, such as the comments relating to the water system (Department of Water Supply) and floodway/drainage (Department of Public Works). Relative to the State Land Use Commission's comments, we note the following: First of all, neither of these applicants - Suffolk Investment, LLC (hereinafter "SIL") and Puaa Development, LLC (hereinafter "PDL") — had anything to do with the creation of the subject parcels. They acquired their respective interest in the parcels after the properties were subdivided. As such, there was no covert intent by these entities to create smaller parcels in an effort to by-pass the State Land Use Commission boundary amendment process. Additional, these entities are two distinct entities that do not have any financial interest with each other. SIL is based in Denver, Colorado, while PDL is based here in Hawaii. None of the principals of these entities have any ownership interest in both entities. Their business relationship extends only to the point of a common desire to share the needed infrastructure cost for their respective projects, but to accelerate the completion of a mauka/makai connector road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This roadway, when completed, would also address some regional transportation needs. Furthermore, neither of these entities is aware of a Pualani Makai master planned community. Their projects were conceived with an eye towards addressing their perception of the community's commercial and rental housing needs and implementing the County General Plan and not 0615 2 necessarily any specific private master plan. Mr. Christopher Yuen November 9, 2004 Page 2 3. While it is true that the archaeological report covered both and adjoining properties — suggesting an application to cover the entire area - neither of these entities was aware of the former property owner's plans to develop the entire property or to file a boundary amendment with the State LUC. Furthermore, you might also want to note that the master plan consultants for each of the projects were not the same. Finally, not having these applications reviewed by the State LUC does not at all suggest that the substantive and cumulative issues relating to these projects will not be publicly addressed and considered. As part of the County review process, the applications will be reviewed by relevant County but also State and Federal agencies; recommended upon by the Planning Director and Planning Commission, where a public hearing will be held; and finally, acted upon by the County Council. The Council will consider these applications at a minimum of three meetings, all of which input from the public and government agencies will be sought. As such, there will be ample opportunities for public and agency input before a final decision is made on these applications by the Council. In summary, neither of these entities was involved in any attempt to create smaller lots in an effort to by-pass the State LUC. They acquired their properties and independently conceptualized their plans. Their collaboration extends only to the point of sharing infrastructure costs (and consultants). Accordingly, they now wish to avail themselves to a permitting process that is a legally acceptable practice for properties consisting of less than fifteen (15) acres. It is also a process where there will be ample opportunity for public and agency input. Accordingly, the applicants respectfully believe that the County does indeed have the authority to process these applications and that substantive and cumulative impact concerns raised by the State LUC can be adequately addressed by the County. We trust that the above adequately responds to the comments. If not or if there are further questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. S' cerely, SI N Y M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — State LUC Puaa Development, LLC w/ enclosure Suffolk Investment, LLC w/ enclosure