Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0315.000 2018-2020Harry Kim Mayor May 20, 2019 � 1 uufv Of �afuail Wil Okabe Managing Director Barbara I Kossow Deputy Managing Director (offire of f4L avirr 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2603 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 - (808) 961-8211 - Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy., Bldg. C - Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)323-4444 - Fax(808)323-4440 Aaron S. Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Chung and Members: SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 17-000223) Request: A -20a and O to RS -10 and FA -la Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust Tax Map Keys: 2-6-008:026 & 027 As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commission's letter and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sincerely, r�,Y�I Mayor MTransCounci101sonS LU 17-049REZ17-223 Enclosures /cc: Planning Department 934 34Comm. No. 1145 County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Ref. To: Ref. Date MAY 2 4 2019 Harry Kim Mayor Wil Okabe Managing Director ,MAY 2 0 NO County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Plione (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Chung and Council Members: SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 17-000223) Request: A -20a and O to RS -10 and FA -1a Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust Tax Map Key: 2-6-008:026 & 027 Joseph Clarkson, Chair Thomas Raffipiy, Vice Chair Gilbert Aguinaldo Dean Au Donn Dela Cruz John Replogle The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on May 2, 2019, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bills to change the State Land Use district from Agricultural to the Urban District and a Change of Zone from Agricultural — 20 acres (A -20a) and Open (0) to a Single -Family Residential — 10,000 square feet (RS -10) zoning district for approximately 14.95 acres of land and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural — 20 acres (A -20a) to a Family Agricultural — 1 acre (FA -la) zoning district for approximately 24.73 acres of land. The properties are located mauka (west) of Wainaku Street and north of Amau`ulu Road in the vicinity of Clem Akina Park, Pu`u`eo, South Hilo, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the request: State Land Use Boundary Amendment The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the Urban District for approximately 14.95 acres will not be in violation of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, the County General Plan and the Hawaii State www.hiplanningdept.com Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning(a hawaiicounty goy Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 2 Plan. Under the Land Use Commission Rules, one of the standards for considering an area for urban reclassification states that, "In determining urban growth for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land contiguous with existing urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-contiguous land, and particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county general plans." The project area conforms to this standard in that lands contiguous to the north, east and south of subject parcel are largely designated Urban and consist of urban type uses including a multi -family residential neighborhood across Wainaku Street to the east and adjacent to the south of the subject property. In addition, the County's Clean Akina Park is located directly adjacent to the east and while the Dodo Mortuary is located directly to the north of the subject parcel. The State Land Use Commission commented that the applicant is deliberately engaging in parcelization by delineating the SLU Boundary Amendment area to 14.95 acres (just under the 15 -acre statutory threshold for consideration of District Boundary Amendments by the LUC) to circumvent comprehensive review of the project. While the Director understands the LUC's concerns, by statute, the County has authority to review and approve SLU boundary amendments under 15 acres. The Planning Department comprehensively reviews such requests against LUC criteria and standards for the requested boundary amendments and will make its recommendation within that framework. Based on the preceding, the Director feels that this favorable recommendation for approval is not inconsistent with HRS or LUC riles. The reclassification action also conforms to the goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use -Single Family Residential Element of the General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map which designates the parcel for future urban growth (Medium Density Urban (MDU) on the lower 2/3'd of the property and Low Density Urban (LDU) for the upper 1/3`d. According to the General Plan, the MDU designation allows for village and neighborhood commercial and single family and multiple family residential and related functions (multiple family residential up to 35 units per acre) and the LDU designation allows for residential, with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre. Based on the preceding, the reclassification of the property from Agricultural to Urban and concurrent Change of Zone from A -20a and Open to RS -10, increasing residential density in the area, would be consistent with those more urban LUPAG designations. Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 3 The reclassification action would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Hawaii State Plan by providing urban type uses in close proximity to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are already available and converting marginal or non-essential agricultural lands for appropriate urban uses while maintaining more productive agricultural lands in the agricultural district. The Urban classification conforms to the standard that the development is within reasonable proximity to centers of trading and employment and to basic services such as schools, police and fire protection, transportation systems and water. The current proposed access to the project site is from Wainaku Street, a County - owned and maintained road with which is an existing approximately 20 -24 -foot wide paved roadway within a 57 -foot right -of way. The applicant proposes to construct a new fifty (50) -foot wide road along the northern end of Parcel 26, intersecting to Wainaku Street as the main access way built to County dedicable standards and dedicated to the County. Conditions of approval of the concurrent Change of Zone will require the development of a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) and additional improvements to the roadway facilities as may be required by the County Department of Public Works. According to the Department of Water Supply (DWS), water for the proposed project can be made available from an existing 10 -inch waterline along Wainaku Street fronting Parcel 26. Conditions of the accompanying Change of Zone Ordinance will require the applicant to construct and dedicate improvements to the County water system necessary to bring County water to all of the habitable lots in the proposed project. County sewer is available in the area and conditions of the accompanying Change of Zone Ordinance will require the applicant to conduct a sewer study, make sewer line improvements and connect as may be required by the County Department of Environmental Management and connect the entire project to a sewer system. All other essential utilities are available to the project site. Police services, fire services and schools are available approximately two (2) miles from the site, in Hilo. Urban Districts shall include lands characterized by "city -like" concentrations of people, structures, streets, urban level of services and other related land uses. This proposed reclassification action does not represent the creation of a new urban concentration, as the surrounding area is already an urban -like environment. There are many residential sized lots adjacent to and makai of the project site, Single - Family Residential (RS) and Multiple -Family (RM) zonings are situated makai and to the Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 4 south, and there is also a County park, single-family residences, apartments, and retail store less than a thousand feet from the site. As these urban type uses already exist in the immediate area, the urbanization of the project site will not contribute towards scattered urban development and be generally compatible with the surrounding area. There are no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The Federal Emergency Management Agency designates the subject property as Zone "X", which is determined to be an "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard", and it is not known to be prone to flooding. The topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. The property is not located in the tsunami inundation area. While the subject property is located within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's Agricultural (A -20a) zoned district, it has been fallow or used for cattle grazing, until recently when the upper portion of the property was planted in sweet potatoes. The State of Hawaii Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map classifies the majority of the subject property as Prime Agricultural Land with the remainder as Existing Urban Development. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the classifies the upper 2/3rd' of Parcel 26 as "C" or "Fair" soils with the lower 1/3rd as "Existing Urban Development." The U.S.D.A. Soil Survey classifies the soil on the subject property as Hilo Series (HoC and Hol)), characterized by moderately deep soil with a moderately fine texture. The runoff is relatively rapid and penneable, with slight to moderate erosion potential. As conditions of approval of the concurrent Change of Zone application, all development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared, and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. Any improvements to the subject property must comply with Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code, relating to Floodplain Management. Thus, the reclassification meets the standard which states that the lands included within the urban district, "...shall be those with satisfactory topography and drainage and reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami and unstable soil conditions and other adverse environmental effects." Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 5 The remainder of Parcel 26 and all of Parcel 27 directly mauka of the subject property will remain in the State Land Use Agricultural district and if approved by the County Council, will be rezoned from A -20a to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -1 a). This FA -1 a Zoning designation is intended to allow for an orderly land use transition and to act as a buffer between the proposed single-family residential uses makai and the existing, more intensive agricultural uses on lands directly mauka of the project area, which are owned and farmed by the applicant. The Hawaii Right to Farm Act, HRS Chapter 165, was enacted to protect farming operations on land in the State Land Use Agricultural District when adjacent land is reclassified out of the Agricultural District. A condition of approval will require the applicant to notify prospective purchasers, tenants or lessees of the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. The reclassification of this 14.95 -acre area of land from the Agricultural to the Urban State Land Use designation will not be detrimental to the reduction of this area from the agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawaii. Furthermore, an Urban classification would complement the existing and future land use pattern of the surrounding area in view of the urban uses already in existence in close proximity to the subject properties. Based on the preceding, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District complements the State Land Use District Regulations and County General Plan, and is supportive of the Hawaii State Plan. The accompanying draft bill to amend the State Land Use Boundaries Map is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. Change of Zone The applicant is requesting the following Changes of Zone to two (2) contiguous properties (TMK: 2-6-008:026 & 027, hereinafter Parcel 26 and Parcel 27) totaling 39.68 -acres: 1) A Change of Zone from Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) and Open (0) to Single - Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) zoning district for approximately 14.95 acres of land within Parcel 26; and 2) a Change of Zone from Agricultural -20 acre (A -20a) to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la) zoning district for approximately 24.73 Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 6 acres of land, which includes the remainder of Parcel 26 and the entirety of Parcel 27. The applicant is concurrently requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for a 14.95 - acre portion of Parcel 26. If the requested land use entitlement changes are approved, the applicant's current proposal includes plans to consolidate and resubdivide the 39.68 -acre project site into fifty-one (5 1) total lots, including: ■ Forty-nine (49) habitable lots consisting of nineteen (19) residential -agricultural lots ranging between 1+ to 2+ acres, and thirty (30) single-family residential lots consisting of a minimum of 10,000 square -feet in size; One (1) lot, consisting of approximately 1.7, acres, which would be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park in the RS -10 zoned area; and One (1) lot, consisting of approximately 2. 11 acres that is the site of an historic era cemetery, which would be set-aside and preserved pursuant to State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) requirements in the RS -10 zoned area. It should be noted that while the applicant is currently proposing a 51 -lot subdivision, the proposed zoning could allow a maximum density of 89 lots via subdivision (excluding land area to be set aside for roads, park expansion and cemetery preserve). The preceding is considered in the Director's analysis and recommendation for the proposed Change of 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 detennined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The change of zone requests from an A -20a and Open to a RS -10 zoning district conforms to applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. The project site consists of two (2) contiguous parcels. Parcel 26 consists of 18.57 acres, Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 7 while Parcel 27 consists of 21.11 acres. A majority of the site has been cleared and used for sugar cultivation in the past and more recently for cattle grazing and sweet potato cultivation. There is an internal network of farm roadways across the two properties. The topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. An approximately 1.5 -acre cleared and grassed portion of Parcel 26 has been used by the County as part of Clem Akina Park, under lease with the previous landowner. This section of Parcel 26 is currently zoned Open (0). Additionally, there is an historic era (late 1800s to 1940s) cemetery located within a bamboo grove directly above the Park on Parcel 26. The project site is bounded to the north and west by A -20a zoning consisting of agricultural fields, to the east by Wainaku Street, and to the south by Amau`ulu Road. Developments surrounding the property include the Dodo Mortuary property located along the northeast corner of the project area zoned A -3a and A -20a and operating under Use Pennits, Clem Akina Park (zoned Open), and residential neighborhoods located along the southeast corner of the project area and across Wainaku Street to the east (zoned RM -1). An agricultural study facility is located along the southwest corner of the property. The RS (Single -Family Residential) zoning district provides for lower or low and medium density residential use, for urban and suburban family life. It applies to areas having adequate facilities to carry out the above stated purpose. 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 14.95 -acre area being rezoned to RS -10 zoning conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map which designates the area for future urban growth - Medium Density Urban (MDU) on the lower 2/3rds of the Parcel 26 and Low Density Urban (LDU) for the upper 1/3rd. According to the General Plan, the MDU designation allows for village and neighborhood commercial and single family and multiple family residential and related functions (multiple family residential up to 35 units per acre) while the LDU designation allows for residential (with ancillary community and public uses), and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre. Based on the preceding, proposed RS -10 zoning would effectuate an increase in single-family residential density that would be consistent with the urban LUPAG Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 8 designations. Although `ohana dwellings are permitted in the County's RS zoned district, a condition will be included to incorporate restrictive covenants in the deed of all lots to prohibit `ohana dwellings on the lots to ensure that the infrastructure of the area is not overwhelmed by the additional residential density. In addition, the proposed RS -10 zoning is consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use -Single Family Residential Element of the General Plan: ■ To maximize choices of single family residential lots and/or housing for residents of the County. ■ Require developers to provide basic infrastructure necessary for development. ■ Areas shall have basic improvements and amenities necessary for immediate use. ■ To provide single-family residential areas conveniently located to public and private services, shopping, other community activities and convenient access to employment centers that takes natural beauty into consideration. The change of zone requests from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) to a Family Agricultural 1 -acre (FA -1 a) zoning district conforms to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Land Use -Agricultural Element. The FA zoning district is intended for lands within the State Land Use Agricultural District, where public services and infrastructure are appropriate to support the very low density residential needs of a rural community, where a substantial number of parcels are less than five acres in size, and where a mix of uses will not conflict with or be detrimental to existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area. The remainder of Parcel 26 and all of Parcel 27 directly mauka of proposed RS -10 zoning will remain in the State Land Use Agricultural district and will be rezoned from A -20a to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la). This FA -la zoning designation is intended to allow for an orderly land use transition and act as a buffer between the proposed single- family residential uses makai and the existing, more intensive agricultural uses on lands directly mauka of the project area, which are owned and fanned by the applicant. Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 9 The proposed change of zone to FA -la will allow for a much higher density than the current A -20a zoning would allow. Moreover, the land is classified as Prime Agricultural Land by the ALISH System and designated as "C" or "Good" under the Land Study Bureau rating system. These conditions will allow for small scale family agricultural uses in areas of moderate to high agricultural potential and act as a rural transition between the higher -density, urban lands makai and larger lot agricultural lands further mauka. In order to ensure that there is sufficient land area to allow for viable agricultural activity and that the infrastructure of the area is not overwhelmed by the additional residential density, the Planning Director recommends including a condition prohibiting a second dwelling unit and/or a condominium property regime on each subdivided lot. Finally, the proposed FA -la zoning is consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use -Agricultural Element of the General Plan: ■ Designate and allocate land uses inappropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. ■ The compatibility of agricultural and non- agricultural uses should be carefully reviewed and where appropriate, buffers required. ■ Agricultural land shall be used as one form of open space or green belt. All essential utilities and services are available to the site. Current access to the subject parcels is via a driveway to Parcel 26 from Amau`ulu Road, which is under private ownership in the section fronting the subject properties. Thus, the applicant is proposing all access to the project site via the construction of a new, County dedicable standard, fifty (50) -foot wide roadway running mauka-makai along the northern end of Parcel 26, intersecting to Wainaku Street as the main access way and terminating at the mauka property line of parcel 27. The applicant also proposes to build a County dedicable standard, fifty (50) -foot wide cul-de-sac within the proposed RS -10 zoned area between the proposed spine road and terminating prior to reaching Amau`ulu Road. Finally, the applicant proposes to construct two (2), twenty (20) -foot wide private, non-dedicable roads within the proposed FA -1 a zoned area between the proposed spine road and terminating prior to reaching Amau`ulu Road. The applicant proposes to dedicate the primary spine road and proposed cul-de-sac road to the County, while the smaller roads would be kept in private ownership. The Department of Public Works — Engineering Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 10 Division (DPW), recommends that the applicant provide improvements to Parcel 26's entire Wainaku Street frontage consisting of, but not limited to, driveway and sidewalk rehabilitation meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the approval of the Department of Public Works. Additionally, the applicant shall install streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Department of Public Works -Traffic Division. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. The preceding will be required as conditions of approval. As the applicant or any subsequent developer is not required to develop the proposed subdivision and to promote future roadway connectivity, the Director is recommending a condition requiring at least one (1), 50 -foot roadway connection to each of the following: 1) the southern property boundary at Amau`ulu Road; 2) the northern property boundary mauka of TMK: 2-6-008:010; 3) to the eastern (makai) property boundary at Wainaku Street; and 4) to the western (mauka) property boundary. In addition, the Director is recommending a condition requiring that any road providing connection to adjacent properties/roadways shall be built to County dedicable standards. According to the applicant, the current proposal to develop 49 habitable lots indicates the AM/PM peak hour traffic should be less than 50 movements, therefore no traffic study was prepared for the subject change of zone application. As previously stated, if the requested land use entitlements are granted the applicant or any subsequent developer of the property would not be limited to this proposal. Based on the requested zoning, a maximum of 89 lots could be created through subdivision (excluding land area to be set aside for roads, park expansion and cemetery preserve). As previously mentioned, near teen access to the project will be solely from Wainaku Street, creating the possibility for significant impacts on this roadway facility under the maximum development potential. In order to quantify and mitigate those impacts, the Director is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit to and get approval for a TIAR from DPW. The TIAR should incorporate the analysis of the traffic impact of the maximum number of lots that could be created by the resulting zoning designations prior to the subdivision of any portion of the rezoned area. Furthermore, the applicant shall be required to construct transportation system improvements as may be recommended by the TIAR, when required by DPW. County water for the project can be made available from an existing 10 -inch waterline along Wainaku Street fronting Parcel 26. Additionally, the Department of Water Supply (DWS) indicated that (2) lots on the proposed subdivision map may be Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 11 located partially outside of their pressure zone, requiring readjustment of the subdivision layout. DWS requires the applicant to acquire and maintain valid water commitments for the proposed subdivision as well as remit facilities charge payments and documents conveying the improvements and necessary easements to Water Board of the County of Hawaii. The applicant will also be required to construct water system improvements (including water mains, service laterals, water meters, and fire suppression improvements) to service all of the lots in the proposed subdivision prior to the granting of final subdivision approval: Finally, subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development, the applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the DWS' affected water system facilities, should they be necessary. The preceding will be added as conditions of approval. The subject properties are accessible to the County sewer. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has indicated that any new lot created via subdivision is required to connect to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 (Sewers) of the County Code. In addition, DEM requires the applicant conduct a sewer study in accordance with the then applicable wastewater system design standards prior to receiving approval to connect to the sewer system. Finally, the applicant shall provide such sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require, which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. DEM further indicated that should the applicant choose to connect to the existing privately -owned sewer line on Lehua Street, the County would not accept ownership of the line and the line would remain privately owned with responsibility for operation and maintenance of the line to remain the responsibility of the owners. Finally, DEM noted that should the applicant choose to connect to the 6 -inch sewer line in Amau`ulu Road, it would need to be upgraded by the applicant to meet current Design Standards prior to connection to the County Sewer System. The preceding will be added as conditions of approval. The applicant proposes to convey approximately 1.7 -acres of land to the County as part of the expansion of the Clean Akina Park, which is situated to directly adjacent to the south and east of Parcel 26. A majority of the area to be conveyed has historically been used as a part of the park under a lease agreement with the previous owner. The Department of Parks and Recreation (P&R) is interested in formalizing the expansion of the park and would be amenable to accepting ownership of the land for that purpose. The area to be dedicated is currently Zoned Open (0) which allows for public park use. While Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 12 that area is being rezoned to the RS -10, the RS district also permits neighborhood parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and similar neighborhood recreational areas and uses. Based on the preceding, a condition of approval will be added requiring the applicant to subdivide and convey the approximately 1.7 -acres of land for expansion of Clem Akina park as represented by the applicant. Finally, as the land to be dedicated would aid in the expansion of a regional park, the Director feels that the fair market value of the land should be credited against the applicant's fair share contribution. There are no municipal waste collection services in the County. According to the applicant, solid waste will be handled through commercial haulers or the individual homeowners into authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. All other essential utilities are available to the project site. Police and fire services are available approximately 2 miles from the site, in Hilo. There are no severe geological or topographical problems for the property that cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The project site has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified, or which would render the land unusable. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Public Works -Engineering Division, the property is located in Zone "X" or "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard." The topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. DPW requires that all development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. Additionally, DPW requires a drainage study be prepared for the project and that any resulting drainage system that is recommended from the study be constricted meeting with the approval of DPW. The preceding will be added as a condtion to this ordinance. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The project site is located approximately 1,435 feet from the nearest coastline and not situated within the Special Management Area and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There are no Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 13 identified recreational resources or public access to the shoreline or mountain areas, scenic and open space preserves, coastal ecosystems, marine resources or other natural and environmental resources in the area. Thus, the proposed request and use of the property will not adversely impact those resources. It is not anticipated that endangered or threatened candidate species of flora or fauna are located within the subject property as the project site has been historically used for sugar cane cultivation and more recently grubbed and cleared for cattle grazing and sweet potato cultivation. The 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: A draft Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) of the project site was completed by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc in July 2016 as part of an after -the -fact Grubbing Permit Application required of the applicant in response to a County grubbing violation. The draft AIS identified only one archaeological site (Site #50-10-35-30572), which consisted of a historic era cemetery used from the late 1800s through the 1940s. The AIS found 11 possible headstones in the cemetery indicating that people of Hawaiian, Asian, and other ancestry are interred there. The AIS indicated that the cemetery be "recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a burial treatment plan (BTP) to be prepared for and approved by the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) and the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)." A revised AIS was submitted to SHPD in February of 2017 and a draft BTP was prepared in February 2017 by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (attached to the application as Appendix B). The draft BTP recommended that the burials be preserved in place. The applicant proposes to accomplish this by creating a 2.11 -acre lot to preserve the cemetery along with other interim and long-term preservations measures as recommended by the Burial Treatment Plan. To date SHPD has not finalized review of the draft AIS to determine next steps (e.g. whether a BTP or a Preservation Plan is most appropriate action) or mitigation measures for the cemetery site due to an alleged civil and administrative violation action under HRS 6E-11. This violation action stemmed from an investigation into damage to the cemetery by heavy equipment during the land clearing activities that precipitated the County's grubbing violation. This investigation spanned several site visits and found damage to the cemetery from at least two (2) instances of unpermitted grubbing (including one instance after the County issued a stop Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 14 work order). The culmination of the investigation was a Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) Enforcement Action letter and associated 6E Violation Report from SHPD to the BLNR dated December 8, 2017. SHPD has indicated that they will not finish review of the draft AIS until the violation has been rectified. Based on the preceding, the Planning Director cannot provide a finding of no impact on historic resources in the area at this time. To ensure that impacts on the historic resource are appropriately identified and mitigated, the Director is recommending a condition requiring the applicant to secure review and approval of the draft AIS and implement interim preservation mitigation measures as may be recommended by SHPD prior to the issuance of any other land alteration pen -nits. Furthermore, the condition will require the implementation of mitigation for the historic area cemetery as directed by SHPD prior to issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. The valued cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area. As mentioned above, the draft AIS identified one archaeological site consisting of an historic area cemetery, which was assessed as significant under criterion "d" as it is likely to yield infonnation important to history and under criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the State. Possible adverse effect or impainnent of valued resources: While it is possible that native plants may be destroyed by ground alteration, there is no evidence that the flora located within the project area are particularly desired or used for cultural practices. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: As stated by the applicant, no gathering is taking place on the site. Thus, to the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. However, in addition to the AIS condition mentioned above, a condition of approval will be added for the protection of inadvertent finds should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platfonns, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered. Lastly, this recommendation is made with the understanding that the applicant remains responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requirements in connection with the proposed use, prior to its commencement or establishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance Aaron S.Y., Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 15 of building permit, compliance with the Fire Code, installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. Based on the preceding findings, the request to rezone the property from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) and Open (0) zoned district to a Single -Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS -10) and Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that would further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, 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. We are enclosing copies of the staff Background, Planning Director's Recommendation, the Power point presentation and a draft transcript of the hearing for your information to be provided under separate cover. Sincerdy, r oseph Clarkson, Chairman Windward Planning Commission LOIsonS LU 17-049REZ 17-223wpc 1 Enclosures cc: Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant Edmund Olson Trust No. 2 Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Ronald Kim, Esq., Corporation Counsel B01sonTnistS LUREZ.crkA22.19 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 17-000049) CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 17-000223) EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 14.95 acres of land and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) and Open (0) to a Single -Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) zoning district for approximately 14.95 acres of land and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) to a Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la) zoning district for approximately 24.73 acres of land. The subject properties are located mauka (west) of Wainaku Street and north of Amau`ulu Road in the vicinity of Clem Akina Park, Pu`u`eo, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-6-008:026 & 027. PROPOSED ACTION 1. Applicant's Request: 1) A State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for a 14.95 -acre portion of Parcel 26; 2) a Change of Zone from Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) and Open (0) to Single -Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) zoning district for the same land area; and 3) a Change of Zone from Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la) zoning district for approximately 24.73 acres of land, which includes the remainder of Parcel 26 and the entirety of Parcel 27. The RS710 zoning district, with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, would allow a maximum density of 65 lots (excluding land area to be set aside for roads, park expansion and cemetery preserve), although the applicant is proposing 30 lots. According to the Zoning Code, the Single -Family Residential zoning district provides for lower or low and medium density residential use, for urban and suburban family life. It also applies to areas having facilities to carry out the above stated purposes. Requirements for establishing a land use in the RS district, including a list of the variety of permitted uses, are shown in Section 25-5-1 to 25-5-8 of the Zoning Code. (Planning Department Exhibit 1- Zoning Code Requirements for Single -Family Residential Districts) The FA -1 a zoning district, with a minimum lot size of 1 acre, would allow a maximum density of 24 lots (excluding land area to be set aside for roads), altho the applicant is proposing 19 lots. According to the Zoning Code, the Family Agricultural (FA) zoning district provides for a blend of small-scale agricultural operations associated with residential activities and which may be characterized by farm estates, small acreage farms, or subsistence lots. The FA district is intended for areas designated within the State land use agricultural district, where public services and infrastructure are appropriate to support the very low density residential needs of a rural community and where substantial number of parcels are less than five acres in size, and where a mix of uses will not conflict with or be detrimental to existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area. In addition, the FA district is intended to be primarily comprised of agricultural lands less than five acres in area, which are not classified as A or B lands under the land study bureau's master productivity rating, or classified as prime, unique, or other important agricultural lands. Provided, that this district may include lands so classified if the lands are situated within an urban expansion or other urban designation under the general plan land use pattern allocation guide (LUPAG) map. Section 25-5-60 to 25-5-67 of the Zoning Code (Planning Department Exhibit 2- Zoning Code Requirements for Family -Agricultural Districts) 2. Objectives of the Requests: If the requested land use entitlement changes are approved, the applicant's current proposed project includes plans to consolidate and resubdivide the 39+ acre properties into fifty-one (51) total lots, including: ■ Forty-nine (49) habitable lots consisting of nineteen (19) residential -agricultural lots ranging between 1+ to 2+ acres, and thirty (30) single-family residential lots consisting of a minimum of 10,000 square -feet in size; ■ One (1) lot, consisting of approximately 1.7 acres, which would be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park in the RS -10 zoned area; and ■ One (1) lot, consisting of approximately 2.11 acres, that is the site of an historic era cemetery, which would be set-aside and preserved pursuant to State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) requirements in the RS -10 zoned area. 3. Construction Timetable and Cost: The applicant expects to secure the required State Land Use district reclassification concurrent with the County rezoning approval within the next ten (10) to twelve (12) months. The subdivision process would begin -2- immediately thereafter. Tentatively, the applicant plans to complete the subdivision by the latter part of 2019 or early 2020. The estimated cost of improvements for this project is $3 million, given the need for road, drainage, wastewater and water infrastructure. 4. Landowner: Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 (Planning Department Exhibit 3 - State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone Applications and Additional Materials Dated September 11, 2017 and January 28, 2019 ) PROJECT AREA PERMIT HISTORY 5. State Land Use Docket No. A92-680 & Rezone Ordinance No. 96-48: The subject parcels are part of a 288 -acre area that was reclassified into the State Land Use Urban district on January 5, 1994 (A92-680). The then owner/applicant, C. Brewer Homes, Inc., proposed an 800 -lot residential subdivision, including a community center, school, and related amenities. The proposed lots would have varied in sizes from 7,500 to 20,000 square feet and property was also proposed to be dedicated to the County as part of the Clem Akina Park. The project area was subsequently rezoned into the RS -7.5 and CN -10 Zoned Districts by Ordinance No. 96-48, which became effective on May 2, 1996. 6. Reversion of Zoning and SLU Designation: The entire property was subsequently sold to David and Doris Greer in 1999. Due to the cost of developing the proposed 800 -lot project, the Greer's elected to have the County rezoning ordinance repealed via Ordinance No. 00-78 (effective July 31, 2000). In addition, at the Greer's request, the State Land Use Commission, reverted the classification of the property from the Urban to the Agricultural district in 2000. The Greer's developed the mauka portion of the 288 - acre area into farm lots consisting of 20-40 acres in size, including the subject properties. The current applicant subsequently acquired the entire 288 acres and continued with and improved the agricultural activities on the inauka end, while the subject properties were left in their current fallow/cattle grazing state. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 7. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural 8. GP LUPAG Map: Low Density Urban and Medium Density Urban. 9. County Zoning: A -20a and Open. -3- 10. Special Management Area (SMA): The property is located approximately 1,435 feet from the nearest coastline and not situated within the Special Management Area. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA 11. Subject Properties: The project site consists of two (2) contiguous parcels. Parcel 26 consists of 18.57 acres, while Parcel 27 consists of 21.11 acres. According to the applicant, most of the site has been cleared and used for sugar cultivation in the past and more recently for cattle grazing sweet potato cultivation. Access to the properties is currently via a driveway to Parcel 26 from Amau`ulu Road and there is an internal network of farm roadways across the two parcels. Furthermore, the topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. An approximately 1.5 -acre cleared and grassed portion of Parcel 26 has been used by the County as part of Clem Akina Park, under lease with the previous landowner. This section of Parcel 26 is currently zoned Open (0). Additionally, there is an historic era (late 1800s to 1940s) cemetery located within a bamboo grove directly above the Park on Parcel 26. 12. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The project site is bounded to the north and west by A -20a zoning consisting of agricultural fields, to the east by Wainaku Street, and to the south by Amau`ulu Road. Developments surrounding the property include Dodo' Mortuary property located along the northeast corner of the project area zoned A -3a and A -20a and operating under Use Permits, Clem Akina Park (zoned Open), and residential neighborhoods located along the southeast corner of the project area and across Wainaku Street to the east (zoned RM -1). An agricultural study facility is located along the southwest corner of the property. 13. ALISH: Prime Agricultural Land and Existing Urban Development. 14. Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System: "C" or "Fair" and Existing Urban Development. 15. U.S. Soil Survey: The soils on the site are classified as Hilo Series (HoC and Hol)). These soil series are characterized by moderately deep soil witha moderately fine texture. The runoff is relatively rapid and permeable, with slight to moderate erosion potential. -4- 16. FEMA: Zone "X", which is determined to be an "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard." 17. Flora/Fauna Resources: According to the applicant, the project site has been cleared of the scraggly remnants of sugar cane agriculture that was the prominent historical land use on the property. There is currently a patch of bamboo grove at the lower end of the Parcel 26, above of the Clem Akina Park. Prior to the clearing, there were also some introduced forest species such as African tulip, Chinese banyan and California grass. None of the plants on the property are considered threatened or endangered, nor are there any candidates for such status. A faunal survey was conducted in conjunction with the aforementioned State Land Use Boundary Amendment application in 1990. The survey noted that there were sightings of mongoose, mice, and feral cats. Because of its prior agricultural use, the survey noted no special or unique habitat for birds, however, the survey noted that the Hawaiian Hawk is fairly common in this area. The flora/fauna surveys submitted along with the previous SLU Boundary Amendment concluded that the original and denser 800 -unit project would not have any adverse impact on the floral or faunal resources of the property. That same conclusion could be assumed for this less dense and less expansive project. 18. Archaeological, Historic, Cultural Resources: A draft Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) of the project site was completed by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc in July 2016 as part of an after -the -fact Grubbing Permit Application required of the applicant in response to a County grubbing violation (Planning Department Exhibit 4 — Grubbing Violation Letter to the.applicants from the Department of Public Works dated March 22, 2016). The draft AIS identified only one archaeological site (Site #50-10-35-30572), which consisted of an historic era cemetery used from the late 1800s through the 1940s. The AIS found 11 possible headstones in the cemetery indicating that people of Hawaiian, Asian, and other ancestry are interred there. The site was assessed as significant under criterion "d" as it is likely to yield information important to history and criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people ,of other ethnic backgrounds in the State. The AIS indicated that the cemetery be "recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a burial treatment plan (BTP) to be prepared for and approved by the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) and the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)." A -5- revised AIS was submitted to SHPD in Febrary of 2017 and a draft BTP was prepared in February 2017 by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (attached to the application as Appendix B), which recommended that the burials be preserved in place. The applicant proposes to accomplish this by creating a 2.11 -acre lot to preserve the cemetery. Additionlly, the applicant intends to adhere to/implement the recommended• interim and long term preservation measures outlined in the draft BTP, which include the establishment of a construction barrier; archaeological monitoring during construction activities proximate to the burial; establishment of a twenty (20) -foot buffer (which is already reflected in the proposed site plan) with possibly plantings of ti leaf within the buffer; a ten (10) -foot structural setback from said buffer; a provision for access to lineal descendants; and a deed recordation of the cemetery lot. To date SHPD has not finalized review of the draft AIS to determine next steps (e.g. whether a BTP or a Preservation Plan is most appropriate action) or mitigation measures for the cemetery site due to an alleged civil and administrative violation action under HRS 6E-11. This violation action stemmed from an investigation into damage to the cemetery by heavy equipment during the land clearing activities that precipitated the County's grubbing violation. This investigation spanned several site visits and found damage to the cemetery from at least two (2) instances of unpermitted grubbing (including one instance after the County issued a stop work order). Details of the investigation are outlined in a letter from SHPD to the DPW and the Planning Department in response to their review of the after -the -fact grubbing permit application (Planning Department Exhibit 5 — Letter from SHPD dated October 18, 2016). The culmination of the investigation was a Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) Enforcement Action letter and associated 6E Violation Report from SHPD to the BLNR dated December 8, 2017. The Enforcement Action Letter recommended that the BLNR find: the applicant was in violation of HRS Section 6E-11 (c) by altering or damaging a known historic property without a permit; the applicant damaged four (4) individual burial sites and the cemetery as a whole; and that the BLNR fine the applicant $64,960. The violation was scheduled to be heard at the January 12, 2018 BLNR meeting, but was subsequently postponed and has yet to be re- scheduled. SHPD has indicated that they will not finish review of the draft AIS until the violation has been rectified. The applicant states that their attorney, Paul Alston, I on discussed, addressed, and successfully resolved the BLNR violation in 2018. At this time, the BLNR has not provided the applicant with any documentation to support that claim. In a January 2019 telephone conversation with Planning Department staff, SHPD staff indicated that the violation was no longer being pursued and the applications could move forward. Based on this information, the applicant requested that the applications be placed on the April 2019 Windward Planning Commission agenda. During a subsequent phone conversation in March 2019, SHPD staff indicated that they may be changing course and resurrecting the violation at the BLNR. Planning Staff has asked for a determination in writing and re -circulated a request for HRS Chapter 6E review of the proposed project. The Planning Department has not received a response from SHPD at the time of this writing. 19. Public Access: There is no known public access to the mountain or shoreline that traverses through the subject properties. 20. Traffic: According to the applicant, as they are proposing to develop 49 habitable lots the AM/PM peak hour traffic should be less than 50 movements, therefore no traffic study was prepared for the subject application. It should be noted, however, that based on the requested zoning, approximately 89 lots (excluding land area to be set aside for roads, park expansion and cemetery preserve), could be created through subdivision, triggering the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis Report. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 21. Access: Current access to the subject parcels is via a driveway to Parcel 26 from Amau`ulu Road, which is under private ownership in the section fronting the subject properties. Thus, the applicant is proposing all access to the project site via the construction of a new, County dedicable standard, fifty (50) -foot wide roadway running mauka-makai along the northern end of Parcel 26, intersecting to Wainaku Street as the main access way and terminating at the mauka property line of parcel 27. The applicant also proposes to build a County dedicable standard, fifty (50) -foot wide cul-de-sac within the proposed RS -10 zoned area between the proposed spine road and terminating prior to reaching Amau`ulu Road. Finally, the applicant proposes to construct two (2), twenty (20) -foot wide private, non-dedicable roads within the proposed FA -1 a zoned area between the proposed spine road and terminating prior to reaching Amau`ulu Road. The -7- applicant proposes to dedicate the primary spine road and proposed cul-de-sac road to the County, while the smaller roads would be kept in private ownership. The Department of Public Works — Engineering Division (DPW), recommends that the applicant provide improvements to Parcel 26's entire Wainaku Street frontage consisting of, but not limited to, driveway and sidewalk rehabilitation meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the approval of the Department of Public Works. Additionally, the applicant shall install streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Department of Public Works -Traffic Division. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices: 22. Water: According to the Department of Water Supply (DWS), water for the proposed project can be made available from an existing 10 -inch waterline along Wainaku Street fronting Parcel 26. DWS also indicated that there may be two (2) lots located partially outside of their pressure zone, requiring readjustment of the subdivision layout. Additionally, DWS indicated that following water system improvements will be required prior to the granting of final subdivision approval: Construction of necessary water system improvements including, but not limited to, water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak- flow and fire -flow conditions; ensuring minimum diameter of mains shall be 6 inches from Wainaku Avenue extending along the new roadway and into each cul-de-sac; providing service laterals that will accommodate 5/8 -inch sized meters to each lot; and installing fire hydrants spaced no more than 600 feet apart and within 300 feet of the driveway or access for each lot. On dead-end streets, the last fire hydrant shall be located at one-half the distance from the last house/unit, fronting the property line, or to the driveway/access for the property; and subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right- of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development; if necessary the applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department's affected water system facilities. Finally, prior to obtaining final subdivision approval, the applicant will be required to acquire and maintain valid water commitments for the proposed subdivision as well as remit facilities charge payments and documents conveying the improvements and necessary easements to Water Board of the County of Hawai `i. -8- 23. Wastewater: The applicant intends to construct a sewer line within the project area and extend a line to the -existing sewer line at either Kauila Street or Lehua Street which 'intersects on the makai side with Wainaku Street. There is an 8 -inch sewer line at Kauila Street and a private sewer line along Lehua Street. Those lines intersect with a 10 -inch line along Pu`u`eo Street. The other option would be to connect to a 6 -inch line along Amau`ulu Road which then widens to an 8 -inch at Ohai Street. According to the Department of Environmental Management -Wastewater Division (DEM), there is an existing 6 -inch County sewer line located within Amau`ulu Road, which abuts the subject properties. As such, the applicant will be required to extend a sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code. The applicant will also be required to conduct a sewer study in accordance with the applicable wastewater system design standards prior to receiving approval to connect to the sewer system. The applicant shall provide such sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require, which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. DEM further indicated that should the applicant choose to connect to the existing privately -owned sewer line on Lehua Street, the County would not accept ownership of the line and the line would remain privately owned with responsibility for operation and maintenance of the line to remain the responsibility of the owners. Finally, DEM noted that should the applicant choose to connect to the 6 -inch sewer line in Amau`ulu Road, it would need to be upgraded by the applicant to meet current Design Standards prior to connection to the County Sewer System. 24. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled through commercial haulers or the individual homeowners into authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. 25. Parks: As previously stated, the applicant proposes to convey approximately 1.7 acres of land to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park, which is situated directly adjacent to the south and east of Parcel 26. According to conversations with the Department of Parks and Recreation (P&R), a majority of the area -to be conveyed has historically been used as a part of the park under a lease agreement with the previous owner. P&R is interested in expanding the park and would be amenable to accepting ownership of the land slated for expansion of the park. 10 26. Essential Utilities and Services: All essential utilities are available to the project site. Police and fire services are available approximately 2 miles from the site, in Hilo. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 27. Department of Public Works: (Planning Department Exhibit 6 — October 30, 2017 Memo). 28. Department of Water Supply: (Planning Department Exhibit 7 — October 25, 2017 Memo) 29. Department of Environmental Management: (Planning Department Exhibit 8 — October 20, 2017 Memo) 30. Fire Department: (Planning Department Exhibit 9 — October 13, 2017 Memo) 31. DLNR-Engineering Division: (Planning Department Exhibit 10 — October 9, 2017 Memo) 32. DLNR-Commission on Water Resources Management: (Planning Department Exhibit 11— October 27, 2017 Memo) 33. Department of Health: (Planning Department Exhibit 12 — October 13, 2017 Memo) 34. State Land Use Commission: (Planning Department Exhibit 13 — October 9, 2017 Memo) AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS - NO RESPONSE 35. Department of Parks & Recreations, State Office of Planning, State Department of Agriculture, DLNR-State Historic Preservation Commission and DLNR-Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement Public Works -Building Division. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS 36. The applicant has submitted the following in response to agency comments: (Planning Department Exhibit 14 — November 7, 2017 Letter from Applicant) PUBLIC COMMENTS 37. Mr. Warren Inouye has sent several emails with concerns over the proposed project eliminating access from Amau`ulu Road and Wainaku Street to TMK: 2-6-008:024 i (Parcel 24), which is situated to the north of the subject parcels. Mr. Inouye claims ownership interest in Parcel 24 and indicates that he is an attorney representing other owners of the property. The attached exhibits document correspondences between Mr. Inouye, the applicant's project manager, John Cross, the applicant's planning consultant, -10- Sidney Fuke, the Applicant's attorney, Paul Alston and Planning Department Staff from July 2016 to present. After a review of Mr. Inouye's concerns, the Planning Department has been unable to find evidence of legal access from Amau`ulu Road across the subject parcels to Parcel 24, nor has Mr. Inouye been able to produce such evidence. Based on the preceding, the Director has determined that the access issue -is a civil matter between the applicant and Mr. Inouye and has no bearing on this Change of Zone application. (Planning Department Exhibit 15 — Email String from July 7, 2016 to July 18, 2016; Planning Department Exhibit 16 — Email from Warren Inouye dated April 17, 2019 in response to Planning Department email; Planning Department Exhibit 17 — email from Mr. Sid Fuke, transmitting Mr. Paul Alston's email which includes an email string from September 27, 2017 to May 2, 2018 and attachments.) -11- ZONING § 25-4-68 Section 25-4-68. Grounds for approval or denial. The director shall approve an application for recognition of a de minimis structure position discrepancy unless: (a) The discrepancy is greater than the difference as allowed by the de minimis structure position discrepancy definition, or (b) The director finds that the improvement was placed with knowledge that' it would violate the minimum yard or open space requirements; or (c) The improvement could be moved, or the discrepancy otherwise corrected, without significant expense, difficulty, or hardship to the applicant. (2002, ord 02-70, sec 3.) Section 25-4-69. Recognition of de minimis structure position discrepancy. If the director accepts the application for recognition of de minimis structure position discrepancy, the director shall notify the applicant in writing that the discrepancy is not a violation of the zoning code and that it may remain in place without a variance. (2002, ord 02-70, sec 3.) Section 25-4-70. Disclosure. A de minimis structure position discrepancy shall be disclosed by the owner to subsequent purchasers of the property in question. (2002, ord 02-70, sec 3.) Section 25-4-71. Appeals. The director's decision with respect to a de minimis structure position discrepancy is appealable to the board of appeals. (2002, ord 02-70, sec 3.) Article 5. Zoning District Regulations. Division 1. RS, Single -Family Residential Districts. Section 25-5-1. Purpose and applicability. The RS (single-family residential) district provides for lower or low and medium density residential use, for urban and suburban family life. It applies to areas having facilities, and to carry out the above stated purpose. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-2. Designation of RS districts. Each RS (single-family residential) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "RS" followed by a number which specifies the required minimum building site area in thousands of square feet. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) 25-73 Planning Dept. Exhibit § 25-5-3 HAWAII COUNTY CODE Section 25-5-3. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the RS district: (1) Adult day care homes. (2) Cemeteries and mausoleums, as permitted under chapter 6, article 1 of this Code. (3) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (4) Crop production. (5) Dwellings, single-family. (6) Family child care homes. (7) Group living facilities. (8) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. (9) Meeting facilities. (10) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (11) Neighborhood parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and similar neighborhood recreational areas and uses. (12) Public uses and structures, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (13) Temporary real estate offices, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (14) Utility substations, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (b) In addition to those uses permitted under subsection (a) above, the following uses may be permitted in the RS district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (1) Bed and breakfast establishments as permitted under section 25-4-7. (2) Care homes. (3) Churches, temples and synagogues. (4) Crematoriums, funeral homes, funeral services, and mortuaries. (5) Daycare centers. (6) Golf courses and related golf course uses, including golf driving ranges, golf maintenance buildings and golf club houses, provided that the property is within the state land use urban or rural district. Golf courses and golf driving ranges shall not be permitted within the state land use agricultural district unless approved by the County before July 1, 2005. (7) Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent, nursing and rest homes. (8) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities. (9) Schools. (10) Telecommunication antennas and towers. (11) Yacht harbors and boating facilities. (c) Buildings and uses normally considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the RS district. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 2012, ord 12-28, sec 3; am 2014, ord 14-86, sec 3.) Section 25-5-4. Height limit. The height limit in the RS district shall be thirty-five feet. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) . 25-74 ZONING § 25-5-5 Section 25-5-5. Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the RS district shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-6. Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the RS district shall have a minimum average width of sixty feet, plus two feet for each five hundred square feet of required building site area in excess of seven thousand five hundred square feet, except that no building site shall be required to have an average width of more than one hundred fifty feet. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-7. Minimum yards. The minimum yards in the RS district shall be as follows: (1) On a building site with a required area of seven thousand five hundred square feet to and including nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine square feet: (A) Front and rear yards, fifteen feet; and (B) Side yards, eight feet. (2) On a building site with a required area of ten thousand square feet to and including nineteen thousand nine hundred ninety-nine square feet: (A) Front and rear yards, twenty feet; and (B) Side yards, ten feet. (3) On a building site with a required area of twenty thousand square feet or more: (A) Front and rear yards, twenty-five feet; and (B) Side yards, fifteen feet. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 1997, ord 97-88, sec 1.) Section 25-5-8. Other regulations. (a) There may be more than one single-family dwelling on each building site in an RS district provided there is not less than the required minimum building site area for each dwelling. (b) One guest house, in addition to a single-family dwelling, may be located on any building site in the RS district. (c) An ohana dwelling may be located on any building site in the RS district, as permitted under article 6, division 3 of this chapter. (d) If a legal building site in the RS district has less area or average width than is required, then the yard requirements for the building site shall be the same as in the RS district having the largest requirements for which the building site can comply. (e) Exceptions to the regulations for the RS district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the commission within a planned unit development, or by the director within a cluster plan development. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 2015, ord 15-33, sec 3.) 25-75, ZONING § 25-5-57 Section 25-5-57. Other regulations. (a) If any legal building site in the RA district has an area less than one-half acre, then the yard and height requirements for the building site shall be the same as the yard requirements for the RS district. (b) Plan approval shall be required prior to the construction or installation of any new structure or development, or of any addition to an existing structure or development which is used for minor agricultural products processing. (c) An ohana dwelling may be located on any building site in the RA district, as permitted under article 6, division 3 of this chapter. (d) Exceptions to the regulations for the RA district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the commission within a planned unit development pursuant to article 6, division 1 of this chapter. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 2015, ord 15-33, sec 4.) Division 6. FA, Family Agricultural Districts. Section 25-5-60. Purpose and applicability. The FA (family agricultural) district provides for a blend of small-scale agricultural operations associated with residential activities and which may be characterized by farm estates, small acreage farms, or subsistence lots. The FA district is intended to be in areas designated as being within the State land use agricultural district, where public services and infrastructure are appropriate to support the very low density residential needs of a rural community and where substantial number of parcels are less than five acres in size, and where a mix of uses will not conflict with or be detrimental to existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area. In addition, this district is intended to be primarily comprised of agricultural lands less than five acres in area, which are not classified as A or B lands under the land study bureau's master productivity rating, or classified as prime, unique, or other important agricultural lands. Provided, that this district may include lands so classified if the lands are situated within an urban expansion or other urban designation under the general plan land use pattern allocation guide (LUPAG) map. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-61. Designation of FA districts. Each FA (family agricultural) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "FA" followed by a number and the lower case letter "a" which indicates the required number of acres for each building site. For example, FA -la means a family agricultural district with a minimum building site area of one acre. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Planning Dept. 25-87 Exhibit § 25-5-62 HAWAII COUNTY CODE Section 25-5-62. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in FA districts: (1) Agricultural products processing, minor, provided that the area or buildings used for such processing, shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any street. (2) Agricultural tourism as permitted under section 25-4-15. (3) Animal hospitals. (4) Aquaculture. (5) Botanical gardens, nurseries and greenhouses, seed farms, plant experimental stations, arboretums, floriculture, and similar uses dealing with the growing of plants. (6) Campgrounds, parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other similar open area recreational facilities, where none of the recreational features are entirely enclosed in a building. (7) Cemeteries and mausoleums, as permitted under chapter 6, article 1 of this Code. (8) Crop production. (9) Dwelling, single-family, as permitted under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes and as permitted under section 25-5-67(b). (10) Farm dwellings, as permitted under section 25-5-67(b) and (c). (11) Game and fish propagation. (12) Group living facilities. (13) Kennels. (14) Livestock, grazing; provided that any feed or water area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line. (15) Public uses and structures, necessary for agricultural practices. (16) Retention, restoration, rehabilitation, or improvement of buildings or sites of historic or scenic interest. (17) Riding academies, and rental or boarding stables. (18) Roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises. (19) Utility substations, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (20) Vehicle and equipment storage areas that are directly accessory to aquaculture, crop production, game and fish propagation, and livestock grazing. (21) Veterinary establishments. (b) The following uses may be permitted in the FA district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (1) Golf courses and related golf course uses, including golf driving ranges, golf maintenance buildings and golf club houses, provided that the property is within the state land use urban or rural district. Golf courses and golf driving ranges shall not be permitted within the state land use agricultural district unless approved by the County before July 1, 2005. (2) Telecommunication antennas and towers. ZONING § 25-5-62 (c) The following uses may be permitted in the FA district, provided that a special permit is obtained for such use if the building site is located within the State land use agricultural district: (1) Adult day care homes. (2) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (3) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (4) Family child care homes. (5) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. (6) Meeting facilities. (7) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (8) Public uses and structures, other than those necessary for agricultural practices, as provided under section 25-4-11. (9) Temporary real estate offices, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (10) Uses, other than those specifically listed in this section, which meet the standards for a special permit under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (d) The following uses may be permitted in the FA district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use if the building site is outside of the State land use agricultural district or a special permit is issued for each use if the building site is within the State land use agricultural district: (1) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (2) Churches, temples and synagogues. (3) Crematoriums, funeral homes, funeral services, and mortuaries. (4) Day care centers. (5) Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent, nursing and rest homes. (6) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities, includes stadiums, sports arenas, and other similar open air recreational uses. (7) Schools. (e) Buildings and uses accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the FA district. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 2008, ord 08-155, sec 12; am 2010, ord 10-17, sec 5; am 2012, ord 12-28, sec 8; ord 12-124, sec 7; am 2014, ord 14-86, sec 8.) Section 25-5-63. Height limits. The height limit in FA districts shall be thirty-five feet for any residential structure, including any single-family dwelling or farm dwelling, and forty-five feet for all other structures. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-64. Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the FA district shall be one acre. Other FA districts having larger areas may be designated in increments of one acre up to a recommended maximum of five acres. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) 25-89 § 25-5-65 HAWAII COUNTY CODE Section 25-5-65. Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the FA district must have a minimum average width of one hundred twenty feet for the initial one acre of required area plus twenty feet for each additional acre of required area; provided that no building site shall be required to have an average width greater than three hundred feet. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-66. Minimum yards. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum yards in the FA district shall be thirty feet for front and rear yards and twenty feet for side yards. (b) In the FA district, accessory buildings and enclosures (other than fences under eight feet high) for the shelter and confinement of any livestock shall be at least thirty feet from the side and rear property lines. (c) Appropriate additional setbacks from adjacent residential zoned lands may be required by the director for those facilities and uses which may include more frequently used machinery and equipment in order to minimize potential lighting, odor, vector and air and water quality impacts. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-67. Other regulations. (a) If any legal building site in an FA district has an area of less than one acre, then the yard and height requirements for the building site shall be the same as the yard and height requirements in the RA district. (b) One single-family dwelling or one farm dwelling shall be permitted on any building site in the FA district. A farm dwelling is a single-family dwelling located on or used in connection with a farm or if the agricultural activity provides income to the family occupying the dwelling. (c) Additional farm dwellings may be permitted in the FA district only upon the following conditions: (1) A farm dwelling agreement for each additional farm dwelling, on a form prepared by the director, shall be executed between the owner of the building site, any lessee having a lease on the building site with a term exceeding one year from the date of the farm dwelling agreement, and the County. The agreement shall require the dwelling to be used for farm -related purposes. (2) The applicant shall submit an agricultural development and use program, farm plan or other evidence of the applicant's continual agricultural productivity or farming operation within the County to the director. Such plan shall also show how the farm dwelling will be utilized for farm -related purposes. (d) An ohana dwelling may be located on any building site in the FA district, as permitted under article 6, division 3 of this chapter. 25-90 ZONING § 25-5-67 (e) Exceptions to the regulations for the FA district regarding heights, building site areas, building site average widths and yards, may be approved by the commission within a planned unit development. (f) Plan approval shall be required prior to the construction or installation of any new structure or development, or of any addition to an existing structure or development which is used for minor agricultural products processing. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999; am 2015, ord 15-33, sec 4.) Division 7. A, Agricultural Districts. Section 25-5-70. Purpose and applicability. The A (agricultural) district provides for agricultural and very low density agriculturally -based residential use, encompassing rural areas of good to marginal agricultural and grazing land, forest land, game habitats, and areas where urbanization is not found to be appropriate. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-71. Designation of A districts. Each A (agricultural) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "A' followed by a number together with the lower case letter "a" which indicates the required or minimum number of acres for each building site. For example, A-10ameans an agricultural district with a minimum building site area of ten acres. (1996, ord 96-160, sec 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-72. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the A district: (1) Agricultural parks. (2) Agricultural products processing, major and minor. (3) Agricultural tourism as permitted under section 25-4-15. (4) Animal hospitals. (5) Aquaculture. (6) Botanical gardens, nurseries and greenhouses, seed farms, plant experimental stations, arboretums, floriculture, and similar uses dealing with the growing of plants. (7) Campgrounds, parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other similar open area recreational facilities, where none of the recreational features are entirely enclosed in a building. (8) Cemeteries and mausoleums, as permitted under chapter 6, article 1 of this Code. (9) Crop production. (10) Dwelling, single-family, as permitted under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes and as permitted under section 25-5-77(b). (11) Farm dwellings, as permitted under section 25-5-77(b) and (c). 25-91 APPLICATIONS STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (AGRICULTURE TO URBAN) And COUNTY REZONING (A -20a t® FA -1a and RS -10) APPLICANT: EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST NO.2 PUUEO, SOUTH. HILO, HAWAI- I TAX MAP KEY: (3) 2-6-008: 026 & 027 Prepared For: Edmund C. Olson 'frust No. 2 Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant August 2017 Planning Dept. Exhibit LL. N C. az STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATIO*v r (15 ACRES OR LESS) n COUNTY OF HAWAII G PLANNING DEPARTMENT a> (Type or legibly print the requested information) A PETITIONER: Edmund C. Olso No PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 8/11/17 ADDRESS: 26-238 Hawai'i Belt Road Hilo, HI 96720 PETITIONER'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: TELEPHONE:(Bus.) (808) 365-5382 (Res.) LANDOWNER(S): LANDOWNER SI( (Fax) (May be by letter) ADDRESS: 26-238 Hawaii Belt Road, Hilo, HI 96720 TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008: 026 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Pu'ueo Farm Lots, Hilo, HI ZONING: A -20a SIZE OF PROPERTY:. 14.97 acres of 18.57 acres CURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Agriculture REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Urban AGENT: Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street Suite 212 Hilo HI 96720 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) (808) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Edmund Olson (See Instructions on Reverse Side) APPLICANT'S SIGNA' ADDRESS: 26-238 Hawaii Belt Road Hilo, HI 96720 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: PHONE:(Bus.) (808) 365-5382 (Res.) (Fax LANDOWNER(S): Edmunq,,�ATo 2 TE: 8/11/17 LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S):�-`l v DATE: 8/11/17 (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 26-238 Hawai'i Belt Road, Hilo, HI 96720 REQUEST: A -20a TO FA -la and RS -10 (Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning) TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008: 026 and 027 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Pu'ueo Farm Lots, Hilo, Hawaii SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 39.68 acres AGENT: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Edmund Olson CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION oz ° C j COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) M APPLICANT: Edmund C. Ols¢n' rust No., a APPLICANT'S SIGNA' ADDRESS: 26-238 Hawaii Belt Road Hilo, HI 96720 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: PHONE:(Bus.) (808) 365-5382 (Res.) (Fax LANDOWNER(S): Edmunq,,�ATo 2 TE: 8/11/17 LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S):�-`l v DATE: 8/11/17 (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 26-238 Hawai'i Belt Road, Hilo, HI 96720 REQUEST: A -20a TO FA -la and RS -10 (Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning) TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008: 026 and 027 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Pu'ueo Farm Lots, Hilo, Hawaii SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 39.68 acres AGENT: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Edmund Olson Residential Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE l If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? Yes if yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to quesCion 3. a. Hoar many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? 14+ ac b. Into what lot sizes? 10,000 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? 3mos d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? No if yes, please answer the following questions: on how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lots Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of.zone application form. 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? C. Sell or lease the land.to someone who has Ae plans? d. Keep it? 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. Do You think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? This project will increase the overall inventory of single-family residential lots in the area. 4. 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? -2- 5• Is the subject land currently being used'for any agricultural activity? No If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. 6 To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. 7• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvement? No If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes 5• 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. police Protection yes LLQ X -3- 14 Yes N.Q f. Fire Protection 9. Recreational Facilities h. Public Utilities I other For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Please refer to planning and environmental report. Signature: Address: 26-238 Hawaii Belt Road, .Hilo, HI 96720 Telephone: (808) 365-5382 Date: 8/11/17 6337A/50A -4- P.D. 5/84 Agricultural Rezoning 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? Yes If yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? 24+act b. Into what lot sizes? 1+ac 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? Imonth d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? no If yes, please answer the following questions: On how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lot Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a• Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? N/A b• Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? N/A C. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? N/A d. Keep it? N/A P. D. 2 5/84 1 If you intend to do either a, b, 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. Do you think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? Increases overall supply for small scale agricultural lots that allow a residence. 4. 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? 5. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? yes If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. Cattle grazing 6. Was your request to allow ,for the creation of smaller agricultural lots? Yes If so, did your plan include the following considerations? a. Commodity to be produced? What kinds of commodity? b. Suitability of the proposed lot -size for that commodity? C. Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in commercial agriculture? -2- d. Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential buyers or leases would put the subject area into some form of j agricultural use,? I Please state the proposed type of arrangement. Please refer to planning and environmental report for this request. Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together with your request for a change of zone. If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. 7• To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. Please refer to planning and environmental report for this request. 8• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvements? No If so, what kind? Please refer to planning and environmental report for this request. Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes , 9• What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? Yes Mn a. Schools b. Roads C Sewer d. Drainage -3- Yes e. Police Protection f. Fire Protection 9. Recreational Facilities h. Public Utilities r_ Other Me For those checked "yes", please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed, Signature:jo- � Address : 26-238 Hawaii Belt Road Hilo, HI 96720 Telephone: (808)365-5382 Date: August 11, 2017 -4- COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY REQUEST (AG TO URBAN) COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (A -20a to FA -1a and RS -10) EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST- II PU'UEO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI-I TAX MAP KEY: (3) 2-6-008: 026 and 027 INTRODUCTION Edmund C. Olson Trust - II ("Applicant") is proposing to develop two (2) contiguous parcels ("Site") consisting of 39.68 acres into a mixed residential - agricultural and single-family residential subdivision consisting of forty nine (49) lots. The subject property is located generally mauka or east of Wainaku Street and north of Amau'ulu Road. It is also contiguous to the County's Clem Akina Park to the south and a mortuary to the north. The former Hawaii Sugar Planters Association site is located at the southwestern end of the property. (Figures 1 and 2) If approved, the Applicant intends to subdivide the 39+ acre property into forty nine (49) lots, consisting of a nineteen (19) residential -agricultural lots ranging between 1+ to 2+ acres and thirty (30) single-family residential lots consisting of a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size. Also proposed are two (2) additional lots. One of those lets consisting of 1.7+ acres would be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park. Another lot which currently has an historic era (late 1800s through 1940s) cemetery and consisting of 2+ acres would be set aside and preserved. It should be noted that the Applicant originally planned to develop the site into twenty nine (29) 1+ acre sized lots. However, upon discussions with the County Planning Department who noted that the Site — especially the makai or eastern portion of the site - is part of an "urban in -fill area" with "Medium and Low Density Urban" designations on the County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") map, collectively it was believed that the Site would be more suitable for a denser residential project on the makai side. Based on such a direction, the Applicant revised its plan to reflect this current land use concept. To effectuate this land use concept, however, an area less than fifteen (15) .acres of the subject site must be reclassified into the State Land Use Urban District and subsequently rezoned into the Single -Family Residential (RS -10) zone. The balance of the site consisting of 24+ acres must be rezoned into the Family -Agricultural (FA -1a) district. Figure I F- uo vy I? II� { I p { i I i ! I I Suhiet I Site I { 3 ��� � '� � � { { I � si si I "WAUULd Ro. HIL01 BAY AW 77 IF' SE A 0A F �J- -LEILW S E. LkOUJ ST. Cf `F\Q C { LXrKAV, )NY w rwu u SI. Q� {,: �wj .G L) NLO SX. ",,,590 U L PL All] PL j H.l ELY i I L CL Al 'M lam L. ?L IF 11 Figure v II. PROJECT LOCATION As noted earlier, the subject property is located mauka or west of Wainaku Street in the vicinity of Clem Akina Park and a mortuary and north of Amau'ulu Road. The now defunct Hawaii Sugar Planters Association field station is situated contiguous to and adjacent to the southwestern edge of the subject property. Pukihae Stream forms the northern boundary of the subject property. There are a number of residences along the lower end of Amau'ulu Road, as well as the area makai of Wainaku Street. (Figures 1 and 2). The subject property is somewhat rectangular in shape, with the narrow ends at the eastern and western portions of the site. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Property Entitlement History The subject site is part of a 288+ acre area that was once proposed for an 800 -lot residential subdivision, including a community center, school, and related amenities., The proposed lots would have varied in sizes from 7,500 to 20,000 square feet. Like this project, an area was also proposed to be dedicated to the County as part of the Clem Akina Park. Consistent with the then General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") map designation of "Low Density Urban", the 288+ acre site was reclassified into the State Land Use Urban district on January 5, 1994 (A92-680). Subsequently, it was rezoned into the RS -7.5 and CN -10 district by Ordinance No. 96-48, which became effective on May 2, 1996. The then owner/applicant, C. Brewer Homes, Inc., sold the property to David and Doris Greer in 1999. Due to the projected high cost of developing the proposed 800- lot project and the Greers' desire to have more agricultural activities, they elected to have the County rezoning ordinance repealed. This occurred in 2000 on July 31, 2000 (Ord. No. 00-78). The State Land Use Commission, also at the request of the Greers, reverted the classification of the Site from the Urban to the Agricultural district in 2000 as well. The Greers developed the mauka portion of the 288 -acre area into farm lots consisting of 20-40 acres in size, including the subject Site. Unlike the mauka portion of the 288 -acre area, the Site, however, was not used intensively for agricultural purposes and instead was used primarily for cattle grazing. The Applicant subsequently acquired the 288+ acre site and continued with and improved the agricultural activities on the mauka end, while the subject Site was left in its current fallow/cattle grazing state. Bo Proiect Concept and Components As noted earlier, the Site consists of two (2) contiguous parcels totaling 39+ acres. The first parcel, identified by TMK: 2-6-008: 026, consists of 18.57 acres, while the other parcel (TMK: 2-6-008: 027), covers 21.11 acres. If approved, the Applicant intends to consolidate and then re -subdivide the 39+ acre property into forty nine (49) lots, consisting of a nineteen (19) residential -agricultural lots ranging between 1+ to 2+ acres and thirty (30) single-family residential lots consisting of a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size. Also proposed are two (2) additional lots. One of those lots consisting of 1.7+ acres would be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park. It should be noted that a portion of this area is already been used as a park. Another lot, which currently has an historic era (late 1800s through 1940s) cemetery and consisting of 2+ acres, would be set aside and preserved. The proposed 19+/- lots, consisting of 1+ acres and designed for family -agricultural uses, is designated Low Density Urban on the General Plan LUPAG map. However, the family -agricultural use was intended to allow for an orderly land use transition and buffer between the Site and with lands mauka of the Site which have some agricultural activities on them. The makai portion — largely due its Medium and Low Density Urban designations on the General Plan LUPAG map — is planned for a conventional 30+/- lot residential subdivision, consisting of 10,000 to 15,000 square feet in size. A fifty (50) foot wide road would be constructed as the main access way, with possibly two (2) 20 -foot wide private roads within the FA -1 zoned area and a conventional 50 -foot wide cul-de-sac within the RS - 10 zoned area. The primary spine road and proposed cul-de-sac road would be dedicated to the County, while the smaller roads would be kept in private. (Figure 3) _u.. �..e.._.. �'0�. 1 f , tS 7(,� /\ � In It is understood that the subdivision plan submitted herein may have to be adjusted prior to receipt of final subdivision approval to accommodate County subdivision requirements and appropriate conditions of the State Land Use and rezoning approvals. B. Proiect Timetable and Cost The Applicant hopes to secure the required State Land Use district reclassification concurrent with the County rezoning approval within the next ten (10) to twelve (12) months. The subdivision process would begin immediately thereafter. Tentatively, plans call for having the land'subdivided by the latter part of 2018 or early 2019. The estimated cost of improvements for this project is $3 million, given the need for road, drainage, wastewater, and water infrastructure. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use The subject site is designated Agriculture. The 14+ acre area for the proposed 10,000+ square foot lots would have to be reclassified into the Urban district. However, as the area is less than fifteen (15) acres, the County of Hawaii can process the reclassification request. E. , County General Plan The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") map designates the lower fourth of the property Medium Density Urban with the balance Low Density Urban. The Medium Density designation allows consideration for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3 - story commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre. " The Low Density designation allows uses that are single-family residential in character, ancillary community and public uses and convenience type of commercial uses. I The proposed 49 -lot project consisting of family -agricultural and residential lots would be consistent with both the Low and Medium Density Urban designations. As such, no General Plan amendment would be required to effectuate this project. 11 C. Hilo Community Development Plan The Hilo CDP was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1975 over 25 years ago and intended to further define the General Plan and provide short and middle range implementation strategies of the General Plan. Since the adoption of the Hilo CDP, there have been significant land developments in the City of Hilo, including the shopping complexes in and around the Puainako/Kanoelehua Intersection, expanded commercial uses near the University complexes and commercial/industrial uses along the southern portion of the Waiakea Houselots area. These developments render many of the CDP land use concepts obsolete. Although the document was reviewed by the County Council, the CDP was never adopted by ordinance. Further, the CDP's Land Use Concept Map did not extend north of Wailuku River. As such, there is no applicable CDP affecting the subject area. _Given the absence of the Land Use Concept map applicable to this site as well as the somewhat obsolete planning assumptions reflected in the 1975 CDP, the governing document is the GP LUPAG map. Likewise, the County Charter requires all change of zones to be consistent with the designation in the General Plan: In this case, the GP LUPAG designations are Low and .Medium Density Urban, and thus, the requested FA -1a and RS -10 zonings would be consistent with both the General Plan and County Charter. D. County Zoning The County zoning of the Site is Agriculture (A -20a). Although there are a number of A -20a zoned properties in this vicinity, there are also a number of single- and multiple -family residential zoned properties, particularly along the makai side of Wainaku Street. and the area adjacent to the HSPA's site fronting Amau'ulu Road. If approved, the Site would be subdivided in a manner generally meeting with both the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Notwithstanding the subdivision requirements, all uses and standards consistent with the requested FA -1a and RS -10 zones would be adhered to. E. Relationship to SIVIA Objectives and Policies 'The Site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). No SMA Use Permit is required. However, as the entire island falls within the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Area, a discussion of the request's relationship to the CZM Program follows. The Site is not adjacent to the ocean. It is more than a mile from the shoreline. As such, the proposed action should not have any adverse impacts on the area's coastal recreational and marine resources nor have any impacts on beach protection. The likelihood of this improvement having any impacts to the area's historic resources is not high. The Site was previously bulldozed by the Applicant and/or its predecessor in interest and was used for sugar cane production and, now, cattle grazing. There is an historic - era (i.e., late 1800s to 1940s) cemetery within a clump of bamboo grove that will be preserved in accordance with a SHPD-approved Preservation Plan. In the event any archaeological features are found during any earth disturbance activity, work will stop within the affected area and appropriate clearances from the SHPD and County Planning Department will be secured before work resumes. If needed, an archaeological monitoring program can be instituted as well during any land clearing activity. The proposed action will eventually involve the construction of improvements in a quasi -urban setting. Accordingly, there is a potential visual impact to the area's scenic and open space resources. However, the project would involve the construction of a single-family dwelling on each of the proposed lots. Further, although the Site is situated mauka of Wainaku Avenue, the closest dwelling will be situated at least 150+ feet from Wainaku Avenue. As such, there should be minimal visual impact to Mauna Kea. Relative to the Coastal Ecosystems, impacts should not be overly significant. In addition to the Site being at least a mile from the ocean, the project will be hooked up to the County's sewer line. Although the proposed action will result in single-family residential lots, there will also be some family- agricultural lots. The family - agricultural lots should provide additional opportunities for small-scale farming. In so doing, the project could aid the agricultural economy and the overall economic use of this site and the area in general. Because of its distance from the shoreline, the Site should not be subject to coastal hazards. Relative to the managing development objective,.this function is more applicable to the "authority" or approving agencies. However, it is noted that the request would operate and be constructed within the scope of the Zoning Code. The Site would be zoned FA -1a and RS - 10, and the requested use and design/parameters (parking, height, setback, etc.) would be consistent with said zoning. In that regard, the project would be consistent with this policy. Finally, in terms of the public participation objective, this is generally a public agency function. This is achieved through the Marine and Coastal Zone Management Advisory Group (MACZMAG) and the public hearing process required pursuant to the Planning Commission's Rules and County Council's meetings on these applications. Notices of these applications will become available through the posting of a sign on the property, as well as sending two (2) notices to surrounding property owners, one at the time the applications are filed and again, prior to the public hearing. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the requested improvements would be consistent with the objectives, policies and guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Policies, as outlined in Chapter 205-A-23, HRS and Planning Commission Rule No. 9 relating to Special Management Area. F. Other Permitting Reguirements As noted earlier, other permits would still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Subdivision Approval, possible driveway access permit, and the like. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. General Description The Site is generally rectangular in shape. It is bordered on the north by Pukihae Stream, except the lower area where it abuts a mortuary. The Clem Akina Park is situated at the lower southern edge of the property. The Site is vacant of any structures. The lowest portion of the Site is situated at about the 80 -foot elevation level near Wainaku Street and 190 near the top or western end of the site. The Site gradually rises from Wainaku Street to its westerly end. In spite of the rise, there does not appear to be any topographic 7 constraint in developing and utilizing the Site for the proposed 49 -lot subdivision. There are homes proximate to the Site. The general area has more of a rural, low density residential flavor. According to the State Commission on Water Resource Management, the closest rain gauge in this area is the Hilo Airport. The annual median rainfall for this area is approximately 131 inches. The average daily temperature ranges from a minimum of 61 degrees to 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns are generally easterly during the day and westerly during the evenings. D. Soils and Topography According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating, the Site is designated "C" (C-42 and C43) or fair. These soil series are of the Hilo and Wailea type; have moderately fine texture; are dark brown in color and generally non -stony. They are well -drained but moist and moderately suited for machine tillability. This type of soil is also confirmed by the USDA classification, which has the area classified as the Hilo Series (HoC and HoD). These soil series are characterized by moderately deep soil with moderately fine texture. The runoff is relatively rapid and permeable, with slight to moderate erosion potential. Because of its prior sugar cane use, the Site is designated "Prime" under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system. As noted earlier, the topography of the Site slopes in a west to east direction, with the lower portion being at the eastern end. The slope appears to be between 10 to 15 percent. C. Natural Hazards Drainage The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate map (FIRM) identifies the project area as Zone "X" (areas outside of the 500 -year flood). There are no existing drainage ways on the Site. - The Applicant has not observed any significant runoff or erosion in the recent past on the Site. There is, however, a small culvert on the makai end of the Site. This will be retained and shored up to allow for safe vehicular movements. Pursuant to County drainage requirements, appropriate drywell and/or similar means to capture runoff from any improvements will be built, if necessary, in conjunction with the appropriate permitting process. 2. Volcanic, Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards According to the United States Geological Survey maps, the Site is located within Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of ascending risks 9 to 1. The entire City of Hilo falls in the Zone 3 category. The Building Code designates the entire island of Hawaii Earthquake Zone" M and contains certain structural requirements to address the relative seismic hazard. All structures would have to comply with this standard. 3. Tsunami Hazard As the Site is located over a mile from the ocean, it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. D. Flora/Fauna In conjunction with the State Land Use reclassification and County rezoning processes, a flora survey was conducted. At that time - (1992), it was reported that at least 95 percent of the Site was covered in sugar cane. That is no longer the case today, as the Site has been cleared of the scraggly remnants of sugar cane. There is a patch of bamboo grove at the lower end of the Site, above of the Clem Akina Park. Prior to the clearing, there were also some introduced forest species such as African tulip (Spathodea africana), Chinese banyan(Ficus microcarpa), and California grass. None of the plants recorded during the survey were listed as threatened or endangered, nor were any candidates for such status. A faunal survey was also conducted in conjunction with the aforementioned applications in 1990. The results of the survey should not change from the present day, as there have been more activities in this area, including agricultural plantings. At any rate, the survey noted that there were sightings of mongoose, mice, and feral 0 cats. Because of its prior agricultural use, the survey noted no special or unique habitat for birds. There was a sighting of the Hawaiian Hawk (Fo). The survey noted that the Hawk is fairly common in this area. In light of the above, the reports concluded that the original and denser 800 -unit project would not have any adverse impact on the floral or faunal resources of the property. That same conclusion can be reached for this less dense and size -wise smaller project. E. Historic]Cultural/Archaeological Resources As noted earlier, although the Site was formerly bulldozed and cleared, an archaeological inventory survey of the Site was commissioned. A letter from the archaeologist — Glenn G. Escott of Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. -, dated June 15, 2016, summarizing the results of the survey is found in Appendix A. The report in its entirety has been submitted to the SHPD, with a copy to the Planning Department, for its review and appropriate action. Unfortunately, there has not been any response to date. The summary reconfirmed the Site's prior agricultural use and identified only one archaeological site (Site TS -1) — an historic era cemetery. Historic era was defined as one used from the late 1800s through the 1940s. The headstones in the cemetery indicated that people of Hawaiian, Asian, and other ancestry are interred there_ The cemetery is located on Figure 3 as a proposed 2+ acre lot. The cemetery was "recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a burial treatment plan (BTP) to be prepared for and approved by the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) and the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)". Subsequently, a draft of the BTP was prepared on February 2017 by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (Appendix B) To date, however, no response from SHPD has been received. Y The draft BTP recommended that the burials be preserved in place. That is the intent of the Applicant, as noted by having a 2+ acre lot created just for that purpose. Unless otherwise deemed by the SHPD, the recommended interim and long-term preservation measures outlined on Pages 78-80 of the draft BTP will be adhered to and/or implemented. These include the establishment of the 10 construction barrier; archaeological monitoring during construction activities proximate to the burial; establishment of a 20 -foot buffer (which is already reflected in the proposed site plan) with possibly plantings of ti leaf within the buffer; a 10 -foot structural setback from said buffer; provision of access to lineal descendants; and recordation of the cemetery lot. Further, if needed and beyond the aforementioned draft BTP, an archaeological monitoring plan can be prepared and implemented in conjunction with further land clearing activity. Relatedly, in the event any inadvertent discoveries are made during any land disturbance activity relating to this project, work will cease and the applicant will immediately notify the Planning Department and the SHPD and secure their clearances before proceeding further. G. Valved Cultural Resources In view of the recent 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. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated tradition and customary practices of this site. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access is not an issue. It is not known whether the subject or immediate surrounding area was used in the recent past for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians. The Applicant has not observed any native Hawaiians on the Site or adjoining'properties gathering plants. Thus, it would appear unlikely that the Site would serve such purpose today. In the event legitimate gathering claims are made by native Hawaiians, the Applicant intends to respect and honor such claims and provide the needed access within the Site. Given the historic -era cemetery, lineal descendants and other worshipers would be given access to the cemetery. The other protocols outlined in the draft BTP for this cemetery will be adhered to. 11 Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. H. Water and Coastal Resources The Site is located well over a mile from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of wastewater systems from the Site should not be significant, inasmuch as the project will be hooked up to the County system proximate to the site. Further, being a non -coastal property, no coastal access will be affected. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust A new County dedicable standard road will serve as the main road serving the proposed subdivision. The existing ambient traffic level in this area is confined pretty much to Wainaku Street, which is one of a major north/south road in this area. The addition of forty nine (49) lots should not add significantly to this ambient noise and air quality. There may, however, be short-term noise impacts associated with the construction of the required infrastructure for the proposed subdivision. In that event, contractors will be required to comply with appropriate noise and related mitigation measures of the State Department of Health. The proposed development should not generate any significant direct airug ality impacts. The only discernible air quality impact could be associated with the vehicular traffic to and from the Site. While there will be an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant, as the project will be principally generated by vehicles to and from the site. However, with higher EPA standards for automobile air emissions, the air quality impact associated with vehicular movements should not be significant. ` As such, with the exception of potential construction dust associated with the construction of the required subdivision infrastructure and eventually the residences thereon, the short and long term dust generated by the project should not be significant. Construction dust, however, like construction noise will have to comply with the State Department of Health's regulations. 12 J. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are areas listed as being a scenic resource. The Site is not listed as a scenic area. However, there were a few examples cited in the Hilo area, such as the view of Mauna Kea. In this situation, the views of Mauna Kea from Wainaku Street or Kaiwiki Road would not be affected. The subject property is situated north of Kaiwiki Road, whereas Mauna Kea is situated west. Relative to Wainaku Street, the, distance of any possible structure and the northwesterly direction of Mauna Kea from the subject property should not impede the view. VI. SOCIAL AND RENTED CONSIDERATIONS A. Surrounding Land Uses The land use in this area is generally rural/urban in nature. There are some small agricultural properties on the mauka or west side of the subject property, some of which are owned and operated by the Applicant. There are residences fronting Kaiwiki Road to the south and also along Wainaku Street to the east. There are urban type of uses, such as a park and mortuary adjacent to the makai portion of the Site. Given the existing and zoned conditions, the proposed State Land Use and rezoning entitlements for the proposed 49 -lot subdivision would not be incongruous with the emerging rural -urban pattern of this area. B. Economic Impacts The project would have some measure of limited economic impact, as it would make at least nineteen (19) fee simple lots with some measure of agricultural potential more readily available. This would be in an area where basic utilities or services are or can be readily made available. . Further, there will be some small short-term construction activity, particularly associated with the infrastructure construction for the entire project and eventually, 'residential structures. This could help with the area's economy. 13 C. Agricultural Impacts As noted above, the proposed project would have some measure of economic impact, as it would create additional farm lots that would be more suitable for families rather than corporate activity. As such, the proposed subdivision should help enhance the potential to have more agricultural activity on a portion of the Site rather than the entire Site's existing limited agricultural use vis avis, cattle grazing. Furthermore, the Applicant anticipates potential purchasers would be interested in cultivating small-scale cottage or gourmet type of food products. These may tentatively include tea, ohelo berries, and the like. In so doing, these uses could help serve as catalyst for the Site to be used more intensively for small-scale truck crop farming by other purchasers. As such, with the direct agricultural use plus the added tax revenues, the project could have some positive influence on the island and area's economy. VII. INFRASTRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Road Access to the project would be from Wainaku Avenue. A new 50 -foot wide right-of-way road is being proposed that could eventually — should the adjoining property be developed — intersecting with Amau'ulu Road. Wainaku Avenue is a County road with a 50 -foot wide right-of-way. In this area, there is a curb, gutter, sidewalk section and a 20-24 foot wide paved road. Although no access is planned from Amau'ulu Road, it should be noted that that County owned road has only a 30 - foot wide right-of-way with a 15-18 foot wide pavement. The proposed subdivision will result in 49 habitable lots, and thus, the AM/PM peak hour traffic should be less than 50 movements. As such, it is maintained that a traffic impact analysis report is not necessary for this project. A new access from Wainaku Avenue will be constructed by the Applicant at the northern most end of the Clem Akina Park and the exit of the adjoining mortuary. Said access will be developed in accordance with the standards and approval of the Department of 14 Public Works to assure there is adequate sight distance and safe vehicular movements from the existing and proposed accesses. Given the width of Wainaku Avenue, the sight distance of the proposed access and limited number of vehicular movements, the Applicant does not believe that a dedicated left -turn lane is necessary for this project. B. Water There is a 10 -inch County water line fronting Wainaku Avenue. This line will be used and extended into the proposed subdivision. The system will be designed and constructed in a manner meeting with the requirements of the Department of Water Supply, which may include some pressure -related improvements to address the mauka most lots. C. Wastewater There is no County wastewater system in this area. During the course of its review of the originally planned 29 lot subdivision, the Wastewater Division of the Department of Environmental Management "(DEM") commented that the project is accessible to a County sewer line via Amau'ulu Road. In subsequent discussions with the DEM, it was learned that the Section 23-85(a) of the County Subdivision Code requires the connection to an existing sewer line if a proposed subdivision is situated three hundred (300) lineal feet of an existing line. That is the case here. As such, the Applicant intends to construct a sewer line within the project area and extend a line to the existing line at either Kauila Street or Lehua Street which intersects on the makai side with Wainaku Street. There is an 8 -inch line at Kauila Street and a private line along Lehua Street. Those lines intersect with a 10 -inch line along Pu'ueo Street. The other option would be to secure an easement over an intervening parcel and connect to a 6 -inch line along Amau'ulu Street which then widens to an 8 -inch at Ohai Street. The Applicant understands that there may be a need to not only extend a line to one of those existing lines and possibly even upgrade the existing line. This is no different than having to connect and possibly upgrade an existing County water line. Further, the Applicant will seek reimbursement in accordance with Section 21-28 of the County Code. 15 D. Solid Waste Solid waste will be handled through commercial haulers or the individual homeowners into authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. With the proposed residential and family -agricultural use of the Site, the potential for uses with toxic or related chemical waste would be minimal, if at all. Further, most if not all agricultural waste will be retained and utilized on the property. E. Other Government Services As this area is already part of the Hilo urban area, it is already being serviced. No extension of government services would be required. The nearest fire station is the Central Fire Station located along Kinoole Street, less than two (2) miles from the subject site. Similarly, the Police Station is located in the same general area. Public schools are available within a two (2) mile radius of the Site. The Haaheo Elementary School and Hilo Union School are located less than a mile away. The County's Clem Akina Park is situated adjacent to the subject site, and the applicant intends to convey a 1.7+ acre area to the County, a portion of which is currently being used as a park. As such, the project should not result in the extension of any government services. Further, the required public facilities are located reasonably proximate to the subject site. F. Other Utilities All other utilities such as telephone, cable, and electrical services are available to the site. Vill. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity If the request were denied, the short-term use of the area would probably continue in less than intensive level of agriculture in the form of cattle grazing. The Applicant w6uld not have an opportunity to create a rural sized subdivision with some measure of agricultural potential and a residential subdivision that could address the area's housing needs. 16 From a long-term productivity standpoint, then, the additional nineteen (19) family -agricultural lots could provide a greater opportunity for the land to be used for more intensive, although on a smaller scale, agricultural activity while providing residential opportunity for family members. This would be more beneficial than its current quasi - fallow, grazing state. The single-family residential lots would increase the much needed inventory of residential lots in the community. B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources As the Site has been disturbed in the past, it is not likely that its development would result in an irreversible commitment of natural or archaeological resources. This was also confirmed in the - Archaeological Inventory Survey. The one site recommended for preservation — an historic era cemetery — will be preserved. The soil on the -Site has been classified for the most part "C" or fair by the Land Study Bureau. That combined with the prior sugar cane use of the site suggest that the Site has agricultural potential. Thus, the proposed subdivision with its family -agricultural component would make a portion of this Site more readily available for small-scale agricultural uses in an area where there are adequate public services and proximate to the core of Hilo. It would also provide a transition and buffer between the -agricultural activities mauka of the Site. Further, it is not likely that the Site has any significant archaeological features, other than the cemetery. This is evidenced by the prior grading of the site. Again, if needed, a monitoring program can be conducted during any land disturbance activity. C. Mitigative pleasures The Applicant intends to make improvements, if required, generally consistent with the subdivision process. Further, if there is any construction activity, contractors will be obligated to comply with appropriate State noise and air quality standards. Should unanticipated archaeological finds — beyond the cemetery - be discovered in conjunction with any further development of the Site, work will stop (as is required by the State and County) and clearance secured before work is resumed. The cemetery will be preserved and protected pursuant to the BTP. 17- Although there is a small culvert at the makai end of the site, there is no discernible existing drainage way on the property that would adversely affect the ability to develop the Site. Additionally, any and all required grading or grubbing work will be done in conjunction with the required permits and/or a SCS Agricultural Plan. This is to assure that the development of this Site does not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties. Finally, there will be no person or businesses to be dislocated by this project. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect 1. No Proiect Under the status quo alternative, the Site could continue in its limited cattle grazing and fallow status. The Applicant would thus not be able to make more small-scale agricultural and single-family residential lots available to the broader community in an area where there are adequate public services. 2. Alternative Density Under this alternative, the Applicant could seek a State Land Use Boundary amendment to Urban for the entire Site and subsequently seek a more intensive zoning, such as RS -10 and even RM -4 zonings, given the LUPAG Low and Medium Density Use classification of the Site and RS and RM zonings proximate to this area. These zoning categories would arguably be consistent with some of the surrounding zonings. Such an approach, however, may not be compatible with the policy of trying to foster more family-oriented type of agricultural activities with buffering against on-going agricultural activities, while being generally compatible with the surrounding low-density rural/urban uses. 3. Evaluation of Alternatives The project's impacts to the area's social and physical infrastructure would not be pronounced. Certain mitigative measures could be taken to address any possible impacts associated by the development of this project. Further, the IN project 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 FA -1a and RS -10 alternative. IX. REGULATORY ANALYSIS 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 Low and Medium Density Urban. This designation allows the requested FA -1a and RS -10 zonings without a General Plan amendment. B. General Plan Polices The requested zonings would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan document. For one, it may provide limited short-term economic opportunities largely through the construction of any improvements required for the subdivision. More importantly, however, longer-term opportunities would be created largely in the form of small-scale family -agricultural farms for at least a portion of the Site. In so doing, the resultant project should add revenues to the County and State coffers. The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or encouragement of solar energy and design features to take advantage of the sun and wind patterns. Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important to the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5) areas of environmental concerns - air pollution, water quality, soil pollution, solid waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the project would not be violative of any of those objectives. Aside from the very limited vehicular transmission, air pollution associated with the project should be negligible. All wastewater systems would be consistent with the requirements of the State Department of Health, inasmuch as the project would connect to the 19 County sewer line. This should be sufficient to address any potential groundwater or coastal water impacts. If required while not necessary for a project of this nature and size, a solid waste management plan could be prepared and implemented. The project will also not be a noisy one, except as may be associated with the limited small-scale farming operations, which would be adjacent to agricultural activities. Any noise -generating facility - such as air conditioners - would be carefully placed to minimize their noise impacts to adjoining properties. Further, it is unlikely that this Site would be used as a processing plant, as it would be more economical to send products elsewhere. The project area is outside of any floodway. Nonetheless, a drainage system will be designed and constructed (especially in conjunction with the subdivision approval process) in a manner to protect the property as well as to minimize the volume of surface runoff generated by this development. With the exception of an historic -era cemetery that will be preserved, the subject site does not appear to have historic sites due in large measure to the prior grading activity on the site. Further, during the development of this project, if any inadvertent sites or features are discovered, work will cease and resume only after proper clearances from the State and/or County have been received. While there have been sightings of the Hawaiian crow (Alala) or the owl (Pueo), this area is not their primary habitat. As such, the subject project should not have any significant impacts on rare or endangered plant or animal life in this area. As the requested FA -1a and RS -10 zonings would allow a dwelling, the project will indirectly fulfill the objectives of the housing element by creating at least forty nine (49) more lots. The Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an area's natural beauty. In this situation, the project — with the protective conditions — will be used in a manner where it blends with the existing terrain. As the project site is a little less than two (2) miles from the ocean, the usual coastal resources concern is not pronounced. There will be no interference with shoreline access. Then, too, by connecting to the County sewer system, impacts to the coastal water will be minimized. 20 There will be marginal impact to public facilities. The project's wastewater and water systems will be connected to the County's respective system. Vehicular access to the site is already fully improved to County dedicable standards and accessible by emergency vehicles. Schools and other public facilities are also located proximate to the site, most of them being less than two (2) miles away. Finally, in terms of the Land Use and Agricultural elements, the pertinent goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan note the following: ® Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County ® Protect and encourage the intensive utilization of the County's limited prime agricultural land ® 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 requests 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 ® The compatibility of agricultural and non-agricultural uses should be carefully reviewed and where appropriate, buffers required Rural -style residential -agricultural developments, such as new small-scale rural communities or extensions of existing rural communities, shall be encouraged in appropriate locations ® The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment ® Agricultural land shall be used as one form of open space or green belt. 21 In view of the foregoing goals and policies, it is noted that the requested zoning would be consistent with the Low and Medium Density Urban designations of the LUPAG map. It would also be generally compatible with the surrounding area. There are many residential sized lots adjacent to and makai of the Site. There are RS and RM zonings makai and to the south. There are also a County park, single-family residences, apartments, and store less than a thousand feet from the site. Agricultural uses, however, are found mauka or west of the Site, thus rendering this project to be a seamless transition from urban to agricultural uses. The soil of the Site is essentially classified "C" or fair by the Land Study Bureau. As such, because the resource is reasonably conducive for agricultural activities, the requested FA -1a zoning of a portion of the site should be conducive to the future homeowners' needs for a residence and family type of farm. It would also provide a buffer and nice land use transition between the lower RS -10 zoned area and the upperA-20a zoned area. The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity. C. Hilo Community Development Plano As noted earlier, the Hilo CDP was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1975 over 25 years ago and intended to further define the General Plan and provide short and middle range implementation strategies of the General Plan. Since the adoption of the Hilo CDP, there have been significant land developments in the City of Hilo, including the shopping complexes in and around the Puainako/Kanoelehua Intersection, expanded commercial uses near the University complexes and commercial/industrial uses along the southern portion of the Waiakea Houselots area. These developments render many of the CDP land use concepts obsolete. Although the document was reviewed by the County Council, the CDP was never adopted by ordinance. Further, the CDP's Land Use Concept Map did not extend north of Wailuku River. As such, there is no applicable CDP affecting the subject area. Given the absence of the Land Use Concept map applicable to this site as well as the somewhat obsolete planning assumptions reflected in the 1975 CDP, the governing document is the GP LUPAG map. 22 Likewise, the County Charter requires all change of zones to be consistent with the designation in the General Plan. In this case, the GP LUPAG designations are Low and Medium Density Urban, and thus, the requested FA -1a and RS -10 zonings would be consistent with both the General Plan and County Charter. U. Zoning aiad Subdivision The designated zoning of the site is Ag -20a. Should the FA -1a and RS -10 zonings be approved, the requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes would generally be complied, including use and related development standards. These include the possible incorporation of appropriate restrictive covenants relating to density, use, and design restrictions. E. State Land Use Agricultural 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 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 relationships 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 single and multiple -family residences in this area, as well as a widely used County park. There are commercial uses and schools less than a mile from the Site. 23 b. f=actors of Urban Characteristics The site is proximate to centers of trading and employment. It is less than a mile from Downtown Hilo. The immediately surrounding area is urban like in character with a park and a number of single and multiple family residences. All of the related urban amenities and services such as school, parks, and protective services are also located less than a mile 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. G. Natural Hazards Topographically, the site is suitable for development. It does not have slopes in excess of 20 degrees. The Site has no known unstable soil condition. Appropriate drainage improvements will be made to address any project generated runoff. The Site is outside of the tsunami zone and is located within a moderate high volcanic hazard area. It is located within Zone 3, comparable to other parts of the City of Hilo. 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. d. Contiguous to Urban Areas With the exception of the west side, the Site is contiguous to urban areas. 24 e. Relationship to Counter 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 Low and Medium Density Urban uses. The requested Single-family Residential (RS -90) and Family Agricultural (FA -9a) zones are 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 Site is contiguous at least on three sides to this developing area. Its development should thus not result in the expansion or extension of government services. There is a benign slope running in a mauka/makai direction. However, the difference 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. 25 SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT SERVICES ).c. 1347 Kapi'oIani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu, HI 96814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au, HI 96749 John Cross June 15, 20165 Edmund C. Olson Trust II 46 'Alnauula Road Hilo, HI 96720 john@olsontnist.com 808-987-4229 RE: Results of Archaeological Inventory Survey Field `Fork Aloha e John: At the request of Edmund C. Olson Trust II, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) conducted an archaeological inventory survey (AIS) of 39.68 acres of land [TMK: '(3)-2-6- 008:026 and 0271 located in Pu`u'eo Ahupua'a, Hilo, South Hilo District, Island ofHawai'i, Hawaii. The Property is owned by Edmund C. Olson Trust II. Prior to fieldwork, a search of geological maps, aerial photos, historical maps, historical documents, and archaeological reports was conducted. A pedestrian survey and site recording were conducted in March and April 2016 by Glenn Escott M.A. and Suzan Keris, B.A. A series of north/south transects spaced ten meters apart were walked across the entire project area. Ground cover consisted of mown grass, ornamental trees, and ferns and bushes. Ground visibility was very good. The project area lands were under sugarcane cultivation from the late 1880s until the last half of the 20`x' century. A flume depicted on historic maps across the western portion of parcel 027 is no longer present. A modern concrete box culvert marks the approximate location of where the flume passed under a plantation road. The modern box culvert was constructed for field runoff and drainage purposes. One archaeological site was identified at the eastern portion of Parcel 026. The site (Site TS -1) consisted of an historic era cemetery. Ten individual grave markers (Feature 1 through Feature 10) were recorded during the course of the AIS field work. The markers consisted of rectangular concrete slabs, low concrete borders, concrete and stone headstones, and wrought iron fence. The cemetery was located on Hilo Sugar Company land and was used from the late 1800s through the 1940s based on dates identified on the headstones. The headstones also indicate that people of Hawaiian, Asian, and other ancestry are interred at the cemetery. The cemetery features have been altered by weathering and land clearing activities and are in fair to poor condition. Site TS -1 is assessed as significant under criterion "d" as it is likely to yield information important to history and under criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the state. Site TS -1 is recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a burial treatment plan (BTP) to be prepared for and approved by the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) and the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Other than the modern box culvert and the cemetery, no other archaeological features were present on the project area. With Regards, Glenn G. Escott, M.A., Senior Archaeologist Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. 808-938-0968 ggescott@yahoo.com Ph: 808-597-1182 SCS... SERVENGALL YOUR ARCHAEOLOGICAL NEEDS Fax: 808-597-1193 Neighbor Island Offices o Hawaii Island a Maui • Kaua'i I SCS Project Number 1985 BTP-1 A BURIAL TREATMENT PLAT FOR SITE #50-10-35-30572 LOCATED ON A PORTION OF A 18.57 -ACRE PARCEL IN PU`U`EO APIUPUA'A, HILO, SOUTH HILO DISTRICT, IIAWAVI ISLAND, E[AWAI`I JTMK: (3) 2-6-008:0261 Prepared By: Glenn G. Escott, M.A. FEBRUARY 2017 Prepared for.- Edmund or:Edmund C. Olson Trust II 46 `Arnauulu Road Hilo, HI 96720 SCIENTIFIC CONSI,'1,I-ANT S .RVICI:S Inc. gr - 1347 __ •N.Llll 1347 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 408 Honolulu, H196814 Hawaii Island Office: PO Box 155 Kea`au, HI 9674 APPENDIX B TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS..............•............................................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................III INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................ 1 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 4 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOGICAL STUDIES AT THE PROJECT AREA..................................................20 ORAL INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................................26 RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLGY INVENTORY SURVEY STUDY ....................... :........................ .................................................................... 28 BURIALTREATMENT PLAN............................................. 77 SEARCH FOR LINEAL AND CULTURAL DESCENDANTS ............................................. 77 Research of Relevant Land Conveyance and Historical Documents .................................... 77 Publication of Notice in Newspaper..................................................................................... 77 PRESERVATION TREATMENTS........................................................................................................... 78 Interim Preservation Buffers... ........... ...................................................................................... 78 Long -Term Preservation Measures........................................................................................... 78 Access....................................................................................................................................... 78 Bureauof Conveyances............................................................................................................ 78 Maintenance................................................................................................................. ............. 80 REFERENCESCITED...............................................................................................................................81 APPENDIXA: PUBLIC NOTICES............................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 5,500 K -Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Site #30572 (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................... 2 Figure 2: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 36572 and Stratigraphic Trenches (Hilo Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)....................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Portion of South Hilo District Map Showing PLI'u`eo Ahupua`a and Location of ProjectArea (Lyons 1879)...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Map Showing Pi`opi`o and the Project Area Location (adapted from Kelly et al. 1981). ..............................................................I........... 7 Figure 5: Portion of Hilo Bay Depth Chart Showing Location of Homes and Gardens at Hilo Bay (Malden 1825)......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Portion of Hilo Map Showing Location of Pu`u`eo Land Commission Awards and Project Area (Baldwin 1891)................................................................................................ 12 Figure 7: Portion of `Amauulu Sugar Plantation Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Mill and Project Area (Monsarrat 1880)................................................................ I ..................... I...... 15 Figure 8: Portion of 15 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Camp, Flume, and Project Area (USGS 1917, Hilo Quad) .................................................. 17 Figure 9: Portion of 15 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Camp, Flume, and Project Area (USGS 1932). .................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Portion of 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Camp, Flume, and Project Area (USGS 1963, Hilo Quad) ................................. 19 Figure 11: Portion of 1965 Aerial Photograph Showing `Amauulu Camp; Plantation Roads, Flume, and Project Area (USDA 1965)................................................................................ 21 Figure 12: Portion of Modem Survey Map Showing Location of the Cemetery within the Project Area....................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 13: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Project Area Shaded Yellow and Previous Archaeological Studies (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, USGSHilo Quadrangle)....................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Map Showing Location of Current Project Area, Kennedy (1992) AIS Project Area, and Site #18074` (Adapted from Kennedy 1992:14) .................... 27 Figure 15: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 30572 and Stratigraphic Trenches (Hilo Quad, SSRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 16: Site 30572, Feature 1 Plan View Map............:........................................................... 32 Figure 17: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Looking North (25 cm scale) ........................... 33 Figure 18: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Looking Southeast (25 cm scale) .................... 34 Figure 19: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Upper Section Showing Concrete Inclusions.. 35 Figure 20: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Upper Section Showing Pipe ........................... 36 Figure 21: Site 30572, Feature 2 Plan View Map .............. ............... 38 Figure 22: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 2 Looking Southwest (25 cm scale). . ................. 39 Figure 23: Site 30572 Plan View Map......................................................................................... 41 Figure 24: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 3 Looking Southwest .......................................... 42 Figure 25: Site 30572, Feature 4 Plan View Map........................................................................ 44 IF Figure 26: Photograph of Site 3 05 72, Feature 4 Looking East .................................................... 45 Figure 27: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 4 Looking North ................................................. 46 Figure 28: Site 3 05 72, Feature 5 Plan View Map........................................................................ 47 Figure 29: Photograph of Site 3 05 72, Feature 5 Looking East .................................................... 48 Figure 30: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 5 Looking Northwest (25 cm scale) ................... 49 Figure 31: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 5 Showing Basalt Rock along the East Side, Looking Northwest (25 cm scale).........:............................................................................... 51 Figure 32: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 5 Showing Concrete and Bottle Glass at Southwest Corner of Capstone, Looking Northwest (25 cm scale) ...................................... 52 Figure 33: Site 3 05 72, Feature 6 Plan View Map........................................................................ 53 Figure 34: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 6 Looking West (25 cm scale) ............................ 54 Figure 35: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 6 Headstone Looking Northeast (25 cm scale).. 55 Figure 36: Site 3 05 72, Feature 7 Plan View Map........................................................................ 57 Figure 37: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 7 Looking Northeast (25 cm scale) .................... 58 Figure 38: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 7 Headstone Looking Northeast (25 cm scale).. 59 Figure 39: Site 30572, Feature 8 Plan View Map........................................................................ 61 Figure 40: Photograph of Site 3 05 72, Feature 8 Looking North (25 cm scale) ........................... 62 Figure 41: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Looking Southwest (25 cm scale) ................... 63 Figure 42: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Looking Northeast (25 cm scale) .................... 64 Figure 43: Photograph of Site 3 05 72, Feature 8 Marble Headstone Looking North ................... 65 Figure 44: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Cement Headstone (Reconstructed) ................ 66 Figure 45: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Cement Headstone (Reconstructed) Showing Crossand Characters...................................................................................I......................... 67 Figure 46: Site 3 05 72, Feature 9 Plan View Map ........................................................................ 69 Figure 47: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 9 East Segment, Looking North ......................... 70 Figure 48: Site 3 05 72, Feature 10 Plan View Map...................................................................... 72 Figure 49: Photograph of Site 3 05 72, Feature 10 Looking Northwest (25 cm scale) ................. 73 Figure 50: Site 3 05 72, Feature 10 Plan View Map.... . .................................... ...... ........ ............ 74 Figure 51: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 11 Looking North (25 cm scale) ......................... 75 Figure 52: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 11 Looking Southeast (25 cm scale) .................. 76 Figure 53: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 30572 Preservation Buffers and Pedestrian Access (Hilo Quad, SSRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS)................................................................................... 79 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Inventory of Land Commission Award Claims in Ponahawai Ahupua`a..................... 11 Table 2: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Studies Near the Project Area ........................... 24 Table 3: Inventory of Site 30572 Features., .................................................................................. 30 III INTRODUCTION PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION At the request of Edmund C. Olson Trust If, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) has prepared this Burial Treatment Plan (BTP) for an unregistered graveyard Site 450-10-35-30572 located on a portion of a 18.57 -acre parcel [TMK: (3)-2-6- 008:026] in Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a, Hilo, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The graveyard is significant under Criteria d and e, as outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-284-6(b), and will be preserved in place in accordance with the preservation measures detailed in this plan. The property owner's mailing address is 46 `AmauUlU Road IIilo, III 96720. The project area is bounded to the north and west by woods and agricultural fields, to the east by Wainaku Street, and to the south by `Amauulu Street. Developments surrounding the property include Dodo Mortuary property located along the northeast corner of the project area, Clem Akina Park and a residential neighborhood located along the southeast corner of the project area. An agricultural study facility is located along the southwest corner of the property. The project area lands have been used for sugarcane and other agriculture since the mid -1800s. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is situated on level to moderately sloping land between 120 feet (37 m) to 220 feet (67 m) above mean sea level (amsl). The project area substrate is a Mauna Kea flow that is older than 10,000 years (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil in the project area is Hilo silty clay loam (HoC, and HoD series) .(Sato 1973:42) originating from deeply weathered Pahala ash deposited in the Pleistocene epoch. The land is well suited for mechanical agriculture. Rainfall in the project area is high, ranging between 130 and 200 inches per year. Natural drainage in the area runs from west to east. The majority of project area ground surface is level to slightly rolling mowed grass. Plant communities in the project are dominated by grass and ornamental trees. The grass is mowed and the trees include African tulip (Spathodea campanulata), Moluccan albizia (Falcataria moluccana), bamboo (Bambusa sp.), monkeypod (Samanea saman), and palm varieties (Starr Environmental 2013)_ The majority of the project area has been bulldozed, beginning in the early 1900s for agricultural purposes, and more recently to remove brush and trees. .I'm- -E Isy:,'•—F. 7E<'• >, F. :90'"�e^E wC ,q•o 1�.ra' SIJ 2: """ E. 1 f HAWAII : t nR 7 : T y � ., . ~`� � .�. I as � ��� '�N� ��� � s- .✓� r a y T ;584 70-4q i6•---E- i,jg:..,o�E z(yT-:, .,.E :5�•a-.E :71 a :a ,, .;...E :55:0,..,E .6T.::-,E .)9h;.,.E .4 S'.c:n f. �Cip>.;...E z,n-•..... Figure 1: 5,500 K -Series Map of Hawaii Showing Location of Site #30572 (National Geographic Topo!, 2003. Data. Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 2 Figure 2: 7.54knute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 30572 and Stratigraphic Trenches (Hilo Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). CULTURAL AND t1JS'i`O.R.1CAL BACKGROUND INITIAL SETTLEMENT Many archaeologists believe that Hawaii Island was first settled around A.D. 1,000 by people sailing from the Marquesas (Athens et al. 2014; Dye 2011; Kahn et al. 2014; Kirch 2011; Kirch and McCoy 2007; McCoy 2005 and 2007; Mulrooney et al. 2011; Reith et al. 2011; Wilmshurst et al. 2011a and 2011b). An article published in the Journal of Archaeological Science reviewing radiocarbon dates recovered at archaeological sites on the Island of Hawaii suggests that, by relying on only carbon samples from short-lived plant remains, the most reliable dates point to initial Polynesian colonization of Hawaii Island occurring between A.D. 1220 and 1261 (Rieth et al. 2011:2747). Initial settlement of Hawaii Island is believed to have occurred along the wetter and more fertile windward (ko `olau) shores where conditions were optimal for marine and terrestrial exploitation (Maly and Maly 2006:7). This exploitation involved inshore and pelagic fishing, gathering shellfish from the shore, horticulture and animal husbandry, and the utilization of natural terrestrial flora and fauna (Kirch 1985; Kirch and Kelly 1975; Maly and Maly 2006; Pearson et al. 1971). The pattern of early windward settlement is thought to have consisted of widely spaced, permanent home bases that gradually expanded to form a nearly continuous zone of permanent settlement along the windward coasts as local populations grew. The rich marine resources of Hilo Bay and the gently sloping forests of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea provided abundant resources. Fresh water was available from the Wailoa and Wailuku rivers and smaller streams such as Waiakea, Waiolama, P5k1hae, and `Alenaio. Waiakea Stream flows south of the present study area. Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a is bounded on the south by the Wailuku River and `Awehi Stream, and by Pukthae Stream to the north (Figure 3). Several small streams, including `Awehi and Ka`aua streams, cross Pu`u`eo. Waipilopilo Gulch, a seasonal drainage, is located along the north boundary of the project area. 4 L t { rti=+.. 4--- I;P j t PROM TAREA` I Figure 3: Portion of South H ito District Map Showing Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a and Location of Project Area (Lyons 1879 5 Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a is translated as victory hill (Thrum 1922:669). Wailuku is translated as destructive waters (Pukui et al. 1974:225) and Pukihae is translated as "inspiration conch" (Thrum 1922:668). `Awehi refers to a form of decoration (Thrum 1922:628) and Waipilopilo is translated as "foul smelling water." PRE -CONTACT TO EARLY CONTACT ERA HILO The moku (district size land unit) of Hilo was one of the earliest known traditional sociopolitical land divisions of Hawaii Island. The earliest account of Hilo appears in `Umi-a-Liloa's (1600-1620) conquest of the Island of Hawaii, which establishes Hilo as a royal center by the sixteenth century. In the account, `Umi-a-Liloa began his conquest of the Island of Hawaii by defeating chief Kulukulu`a, who lived in Waiakea, and the other chiefs of Hilo (Kamakau 1992:16-17). `Umi-a-Liloa's second son, Keawe-nui-a- `Umi, ruled Hamakua, Hilo, and Puna from his residence at Hilo (Kamakau 1992: 34). It was from Hilo that he waged war on the Kona chiefs and unified the island. Keawe-nui- a-`Umi's descendants single handedly continued rule for many generations from Hilo. After the death of Keawe-nui-a-`Umi the kingdom was divided into three parts and was established under waning chiefs; Hilo was ruled by Kumalae-nui-pu'awa-lau and his son Makua (Kamakau 1992: 45). It was during the period of time that Kamehameha I was born (circa 1736-1819). Kalani`6pu`u's grandson, Keoua Kuahu'ula and nephew Kamehameha vied for control over the six chiefdoms constituting the island kingdom and Keoua conquered Hilo chief Keawe-mau-hili and harvested the benefits for a short time only to be killed by Kamehameha late in 1791. Kamehameha's son Liholiho was born in Hilo in November 1797 (Kamakau 1992:22). Waiakea was inherited by Liholiho (Kamehameha 11) after Kamehameha's death. The 71i kupono of Pi`opi`o and its royal fishpond were given to his favorite wife, Ka`ahumanu (Figure 4). Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a, bounded to the north by Kalalau Ahupua`a, by Pi`ihonua Ahupua'a to the south, and cutoff from the mountain region of Mauna Kea by Pi'ihonua and Alae Ahupua`a at roughly 2,500 fl ams], was given to King Kamehameha I's Queen Consort Kalakua Kaheihaeimalie (circa 1778-1842). Kaheihaeimalie was a member of the Maui ah'i (nobility) whose father, Ke'eaumoku Papa'iahiahi, was governor of Maui and whose siblings included Queen Ka`ahumanu, Governor John Adams Kuakini, Governor George Cox Kahekili Ke`eaumoku II, and Lydia Namahana Pi`ia. Col UINIA U,—,— NOV U KALALA(i HILO BAY �_ U. J 0 'ILI of P1,0131,0 40 WA14KEA 2 3 SCALE k.m Figure 4: Map Showing Pi'opi'o and the Project Area Location (adapted from Kelly et al. 1981). Kaheihaeim,51ie was first married to King Kamehameha I's brother, Prince Kala'imamahu, before divorcing and marrying Kamehameha I. Her daughter Karndnialu (circa 1802-1824) married Liholiho and became Queen Consort when he became King Kamehameha H. Kaheihaeimalie later married Maui Governor Ulumdheihei Hoapili and became known as Hoapill Wahine. She became governor of Maw' (1840-1842) after her husband's death. KaheihaeimAlie was a member of Kamehameha I's party that met with George Vancouver during his 1794 expedition to Hawaii. 7 Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a was held by Kaheihaeimalie until her death in 1842, though charge of the land was given to her then brother-in-law High Chief Ho`olulu Hoapili (1794-1844). After Kaheihaeimalie's death in 1842, the land passed to her daughter Ka`ahumanu Ill. The land was passed to Ka`ahumaiiu IlI's son William Charles Lunalilo (1835-1874) when she died in 1845 (Kelly et al. 1981:47). It seems likely that Ho`olulu Hoapili remained in charge of Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a until his death. Ho`olulu Hoapili's daughter, Kino`ole-o-liliha (1825-1855, also known as Liliha Kino`ole), inherited large tracts of land in Hilo and `Ola`a from her father. She was made High Chiefess of Hilo by King Kamehameha III (reigned 1825-1854). Kino`ole married Benjamin Pitman (1815-1888), the son of American businessman Benjamin Cox Pitman, in 1837. Pitman would come to own several businesses in the Hilo area, including coffee and sugarcane farms, and act as magistrate. TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS, SUBSISTENCE, AND LAND -USE Historical accounts and archaeological/cultural studies pertaining to the project area region (Bingham 1969; Bird 1974; Ellis 1963; Handy and Handy 1972; Kelly et al. 1981; McEldowney 1979) provide a wealth of information concerning traditional residence patterns, land -use, and subsistence horticulture of the area. It is widely held that these historical accounts of residence patterns, land -use, and subsistence horticulture indicative of traditional practices developed long before contact with Europeans (McEldowney 1979). These are synthesized below in order to explain the types of cultural resources possibly located within the current project area. Early accounts of Hilo portray it as divided into several distinct environmental regions. From the coast to a distance of five or six miles, scattered subsistence agriculture was evident, followed by a region of tall fern and bracken, flanked at higher elevations by a forest region between 10 and 20 miles wide, beyond which was an expanse of grass and lava (Ellis 1963:403). The American Missionary C.S. Stewart wrote, "the first four miles of the country is open and uneven, and beautifully sprinkled with clumps, groves, and single trees of the bread -fruit, pandanus, and candle tree (Stewart 1970:361-363). The majority of Hilo's inhabitants (in 1825) lived within this coastal region (Ellis 1963: 253) (Figure 5). PROJECT AREA �! 4t 't rww i , 7 j`� rr.rrr r � �. 4t 3 s • # it s { it p�yA g i • A. Ij ! 4, dill 6 O Figure 5: Portion of Hilo Bay Depth Chart Showing Location of Homes and Gardens at Hilo Bay (Malden 1825). M Taro, plantains, bananas, coconuts, sweet potatoes, gourds, and breadfruit were grown individually or in small garden plots. Fish, pig, dog, and birds were also raised and captured for consumption. The present study area is situated within the upper agricultural zone (50-1,500 ft amsl) consisting of "scattered huts" amidst "garden plots" created through "shifting agriculture" (McEldowney 1979:18-19). Taro, bananas, sugarcane, breadfruit, and sweet potatoes were grown in the upland gardens. Wood, such as `dhi `a and koa for house construction, canoe building, and fires was obtained from this upland agricultural zone, and from the dense forests above (Ellis 1963:236). Sandalwood from the uplands would later become a valuable trade item. Birds were caught in the upland agricultural zone for food and for their ornamental feathers. Hala for thatching was also known to be plentiful along the lava flows of eastern Waiakea (Ellis 63). THE MAHELE AND LAND COMMISSION AWARDS With the Mahele of 1848 and the two Acts of 1850, authorizing the sale of land in fee simple to resident aliens and the award of kuleana lands to native tenants, land tenure in Hawaii arrived at a significant turning point (Chinen 1961:13). Large areas of Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a were Crown Lands during the Mahele. In the following years, 13 small Land Commission Awards (LCA) were awarded within Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a (Table 1 and Figure 6). All the awards were small and were just inland of Hilo Bay. The smallest was 0.56 acres, the largest was 8.86 (for four separate lots), and the average award was 2.945 acres. Benjamin Pitman's land grants, LG 23 and LG 185 are along the west end of the Land Commission awards. 10 Table 1: Inventory of Land Commission Award Claims in Ponahawai Ahupua`a. LCA No. Claimant Ili `Apana Acreage 1B Wahine Ho`oke`o, Kahalauoulu, Nalomalu 2 1.09 1 C Mary Waimalino, Kaioio 2 5.68 4598 Halakai Ha`alo`u 2 1.81 4659 Papa 3 5.78 4696 Laauohala Waipilopilo 1 5.88 4786 Nalona (wahine) I 2.86 4809 Lo, Moses 4 8.86 4989B Kaili Kaneaa, Kinailoa 1 0.57 5021 Kupihe 2 1.48 5145 Kauhiahiwa Keamoali`i, Makaolanakila 2 0.59 5159 Kapuupuu I 0.8 8069 Haalou 1 2.31 8629/2228 Kaapa 1 0.57 If 1"� ;dw'��Vr'� LG \ ����. '.�: .� Z �.•.!-r IL ` Ler rim, °`'^v` rt` � �.+` 3oh''+u;•. ''fit tti ■ ` � L.1.r SA P:. SS �J t�,r.."t+s.a PROJECrAREA + AMAUULU Jae M,It tis.�ld,•+3a of � �" �/ Figure 6: Portion of Hilo Map Showing Location of Pu`u`eo Land Commission Awards and Project Area (Baldwin 1891). C[ CHANGING RESIDENTIAL AND LAND -USE PATTERNS ' Between 1845 and 1865 traditional land -use and residential patterns underwent a change. In particular, the regular use of Hilo Bay by foreign commercial and whaling vessels, the establishment of businesses to supply sailing vessels, the establishment of Christian missions in the Hilo area, the introduction of the sandalwood trade, the legalization of private land ownership, the introduction of cattle ranching, and the introduction of sugar cane cultivation ali brought about changes in traditional settlement patterns and long-established land -use patterns (Kelly et al. 1981). Hilo became the center of population and settlements in outlying regions declined or disappeared. The introduction of private land ownership and the development of sugarcane agriculture were arguably the most powerful drivers of socioeconomic and land -use change in Hawaii, and had the largest combined effect on the development of Hilo town and the surrounding lands. By 1898, the sugar industry had become the leading industry of the Hawaiian Islands (Kelly et al. 1981:117). At that time, the majority of capital and labor investments in Hawaii were devoted to the production and export of sugar. Sugar was the major export of Hawaii and provided income for more people living in Hawaii than any other industry. Prior to contact with the European world, Hawaiians grew several varieties of sugarcane in their fields, often as wind breaks along the edges of their taro and sweet potato gardens (Handy et al. 1972:186). The sugarcane stalks were eaten without much preparation. The establishment of sugarcane agriculture, the milling of cane, and the production of raw sugar and molasses for export lead to the consolidation of smaller arable plots, that once formed the basis of family subsistence gardens, into large mono - crop sugar plantations controlled (owned or leased) by foreign investment firms (agents) and large land owners. The plantation system led to the development of wage labor and, infrastructure improvements within Hilo town. The latter included the construction of roads, railroads, wharves, piers, flumes, and commercial buildings. 13 COFFEE, SUGAR AND HISTORIC TO MODERN LAND -USE Solomon P. Kaleioholani (born in Waiakea, 1845) testified during the Water Rights Case No. 2248 hearing in 1915 that Vancouver brought coffee in 1794 and gave it to the father of Queen Ka`ahumanu (cited in Maly and Maly 2003:39). It was cultivated in Hawaii very soon after its arrival: Sugarcane was indigenous to Hawaii. Captain Cook found sugarcane (Saccharum offzcinamm) growing in Hawaii at the time of his arrival in 1778 (Beaglehole 1967:479). He noted that the cane was of large size and good quality. According to Hawaiians, sugarcane (kn) grew wild and quite well in the valleys and lowlands. It was not refined but was eaten as a food crop and was used as an offering, especially to the shark god Mano (Rolph 1917:166). Several sugarcane varieties, either indigenous or brought by early Polynesians, were known to the Hawaiians, including Ualalehu, Ualalehu inaoli (native), Honuaula, Laukena (Laukona), Kea (Kokea), Papa, and Ohua (Wilfong 1883). When Benjamin Cox Pitman and his son Benjamin Pitman opened the first store in Hilo, near the mouth of the Wailuku River in 1837, it was in an area planted in coffee (Kelly et al. 1981:49). Governor Kuakini established a sugar plantation and mill in Ponahawai by 1839 (Kelly et al. 1981:49). The sugarcane fields were located between the Hala`i Hill and Kilauea Avenue. The mill was powered by water from the Wailuku River. The early sugar mills and plantations were owned, managed and/or operated by Chinese (Kelly et al. 1981:82). Much of the early sugar growing wage labor was provided by Hawaiians who were paid in dyed cotton cloth. The sugarcane was planted using an `o o (digging stick) and cut cane was carted to the mill, sometimes pulled by oxen. Raw sugar and molasses produced at the mill were packed in kegs for shipping. By 1843, Benjamin Pitman and Stephen Reynolds were growing coffee and sugar on leased land in Pi`ihonua, Ponahawai, and Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a (Kelly et al. 1981:85). At that time, ten acres of Pitman's farm in Pu`u`eo was planted in coffee. In 1850, Pitman purchased 354 acres of land (Land Grant 252) in central Ponahawai Ahupua`a for the price of $531.30. In 1859, Pitman purchased 367 acres in Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a that became part of his `Amauulu sugar plantation and mill (Figure 7). By that time, Pitman had switched to primarily growing sugarcane at lower altitudes and some coffee upland 14 zr i� � - ^f�/' �, `ori' - - .• - C. ..... _ Y ' 1+ y PR104, CTAPEA 3 = PL } \ c, : r les -�" f. \ ''••rn/' '\.` -_ � _ .ter . � / P -•-.. . Figure 7: Portion of `Arnauulu Sugar Plantation Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Mill and Project Area (Monsarrat 1880). 15 The 'Amauulu Mill and plantation was owned by Pitman, and was leased to Chinese managers who operated the mill. A number of mill and sugarcane processing structures are depicted below'Amauulu Road and a small plantation camp is depicted in early Historic era maps (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). Pitman sold his stores and farm land to Thomas Spencer and returned to Massachusetts in 1860. Spencer took over the mill operations in 1867. Spencer purchased additional Crown Lands in 1870, extending his plantation to the coast. Spencer's property was purchased by the Hilo Sugar Company in. 1884. The Hilo Sugar Company was established by Claus Spreckels and William Irwin in 1880. They also purchased the Wainaku Plantation. `AmauulU cane was no longer milled at the local mill, but was milled at the Wainaku Mill. During the first half of the 20a' century, the Hilo Sugar Company constructed cottages and houses for workers, overseers, and a bookkeeper at what known as 'AmaUUIu Camp (Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10). The worker cottages had four rooms with cement floors and the primary camps had piped water (Hilo Sugar Company 1913:4, 1915:5). Bath houses and wash houses were constructed with wood -burning boilers and furnaces providing hot water to stationary cement tubs or fitros heated from below. A clubhouse for the under -overseers was constructed in 1915 complete with pool table and furniture (Hilo Sugar Company 1916:5). A tennis court was built in 1916 at 'Amauulu. In 1917, Hilo Sugar Company began adding kitchens to the cottages, or built new cottages with kitchens. In 1924, the main flume through the lower part of the 'Amauulu section from the mill to the Wailuku River was rebuilt (see Figures 8, 9, and 10). The flume transported all of the cane from the 'Amauulu, Kaumana, and Pi'ihonua sections. The flume was constructed with creosoted posts and had a v -shaped flume troughl.5 inches by 16 inches with 1.25 inch by 14 inch sideboards (Hilo Sugar Company 1925:6). In 1925, the Hilo Sugar Company built a sewer system, remodeled houses, added kitchens to older cottages, and built a dispensary at `Amauulu (Hilo Sugar Company 1926:6-7). In 1931, a recreation hall was built at `Amauulu for workers and their children (Hilo Sugar Company 1931:7). In 1940, oil burning water heaters were installed at the camp, due to the high cost of fire wood (fElo Sugar Company 1941:6). 16 Figure 8: Portion of 15 -Minute Series USGS 'ropographic Map Showing Location of 'Amauulu Camp, Flume, and Project Area (USGS 1917, Hilo Quad). 17 Y Figure 9: Portion of 15 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Carp, Flume, and Project Area (USGS 1932). 18 Figure 10: Portion of 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of `Amauulu Camp, Flume, and Project Area (USGS 1963, Hilo Quad). 19 During World War I1, the Hilo Sugar Company's labor force, numbering eight hundred plus employees at the start of the war, began to dwindle as people joined the war effort. Over a five year period, the labor pool dropped to 60% of its original number. Following WWII, falling sugar prices and rising wages kept employee numbers low. Hilo Sugar Company struggled to remain profitable by growing and producing sugar with improved techniques and fewer workers. On December 3I, 1947, the Hilo Sugar Company merged with a newly formed subsidiary, the San Francisco based Hilo Sugar Plantation Company. Over the following two years wages fell as the company struggled to become profitable. Sugarcane growing at the `Amauulu section ended in 1993. `Amauulu Camp, the camp recreation hall, flume, sugarcane fields, and plantation roads are visible in an aerial photograph from 1.965 (Figure 11) and are depicted in a modern plantation map (Figure 12). A fenced graveyard is depicted in the southeast corner of the plantation map. Also depicted are the stable and corral in the vicinity of the old `Amauulu mill southwest of the current project area. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOGICAL STUDIES AT THE PROJECT AREA Nineteen archaeological and historical studies were conducted in the area near or at the current project area (Figure 13 and Table 2). Thrum (1907 and 1908), Hudson (1932), and Stokes and Dye (1991) represent early archaeological efforts to document site distribution pertinent to the greater Hilo area. Hudson notes there were already no archaeological sites remaining u1 the city of Hilo by the early 1930s (Hudson 1932:236), All three authors note the dismantling of well-known heiau in the Hilo area (Thrum 1908:240, Hudson 1932:236, Stokes and Dye 1991:152). The vast majority of studies did not encounter archaeological sites. This is not surprising since much of the area within Hilo town has been developed. It is likely that most archaeological remains have been disturbed and obscured by construction activities associated with modern development. Seven of the 14 recent archaeological studies documented archaeological sites (see Table 2). Goodfellow (199 1) documented a single site (Site 15415) near the mouth of the Wailuku River consisting of pre -Contact era to early post -Contact era hearths and Historic era refuse. 20 Of 1 aw O Al u n nyn ❑� t ❑ u �, ,Fn u� CJs /-iC3 il r o o i. n Ei —cT o -ri1 ' Z J a f❑�j Ll Cl 131 `,,y^ n ci Loi all' Y A MA VR! t U ROAD r • - clap ❑- � --z�o��-- --- ��% - ❑ ° KEYch dd �r 1 : ; 16 - PROJECT AREA TT. - CEMETERY TN 0 10 100 150 200 meters Figure 12: Portion of Modern Survey Map Showing Location of the Cemetery within the Project Area. 22 =.b.... i✓o- 1--1Y—u- ornlrz u3tY3 lopograpnic map Showing Location of Project Area Shaded Yellow and Previous Archaeological Studies (National Geographic Topo!, 2003, USGS Hilo Quadrangle). 23 Table 2: Inventory of Previous Archaeological Studies Near the Project Area. Study Reference Study Type Location Results Thrum Recorded Heiau Hawaii Island List and 1907 and 1908 description of heiau in Hilo area Hudson Archaeological East Hawaii Island Detailed 1932 Study of Known description of Sites various sites in the Hilo area McEldowney Archaeological and Hilo Bay area Environmental 1979 Literature Review zone and land —use study Kelly, Nakamura, Historical Study Hilo Bay area History of Hilo and Barr6re 1981 Bay area Kelly & Athens Cultural Resources Wailoa River No Archaeological 1982 Reconnaissance Sites at Wailoa River Rosendah11988 Archaeological Four Locations in No Archaeological Reconnaissance Hilo, One Just North Sites Survey of Current Project Goodfellow 1991 AIS PUVeo Ahupua`a Site 15415 pre - Contact era hearths Jensen 1991 AIS Ponahawai Ahupua`a Site 14946, an early historic house and sugar cane site. Site 14947, the Hilo Boarding School and Old Mission Ditch Stokes and Dye Study of known Hawaii Island List and 1991 heiaat description of heiau of Hawaii Island Kennedy 1992 AIS Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a Historic buildings, earthen terraces, 24 Study Reference Study Type Location - Results wooden flume remains, and possible burial rock mound Wickler & Ward Archaeological `Alenaio Stream Historic Artifacts 1992 Investigation Only, No Sites Walker & Archaeological Hilo Judicial Complex Five Historic Sites Rosendahl1996 Assessment Haun & Henry AIS Ponahawai Ahupua`a Two sugarcane era 2004 sites Rosendahl 2004 Archaeological Hilo Judicial Complex No Archaeological Assessment Sites Clark & Rechtman Section 106 Mohouli Street One Historic Era 2006 Rock Mound Rechtman 2009 Archaeological Hilo Bay Front to No Archaeological Assessment Reed's Bay Sites Wilkinson & Archaeological Field Hilo High School No Archaeological Hammatt 2009 Inspection Sites O'Hare et al. 2013 Archaeological Field Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a No Archaeological Inspection Sites Escott 2015 AIS Ponahawai Ahupua`a Pu`u I-Ionu and four sugarcane era sites PAI ;ensen (1991), Haun and Henry 2004, and Escott (2015) documented two Historic era ditches used to bring water to Hilo and seven Historic era sugarcane agricultural =eatures in Ponahawai Ahupua`a. Walker and Rosendahl (1996) recorded five historic sugarcane sites, including Waiakea Sugar Plantation field features and remains from the old Hilo Sugar Company mill. Pre -Contact era artifacts were recovered from one feature, indicating a pre -Contact component_ Clark and Rechtman (2006) also recorded a single sugarcane era rock mound in Hilo town. Kennedy (1992) conducted and AIS study on a large portion of Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a (see Figure 13), including the present project area. The AIS documented a single possible burial rock mound (Site #18074) in Pu`u`eo Ahupua`a, south of the current project area (Figure 14). The AIS report also states that local residents told Kennedy that there was a Historic era cemetery located somewhere along the eastern boundary of the project area. A pedestrian search was made for the cemetery but it was not located. DRAT, IN'T'ERVIEWS SCS conducted oral interviews for the graveyard (Site 930572) as part of an archaeological inventory survey study (Escott and Escott 2016 draft). Interviews were conducted with lifelong Hilo residents Donald Medeiros, Richard Sakai, and Troy Keolanui. Donald Medeiros grew up in the neighborhood across Wainaku Street from the project area. He recounted that as a boy in the early 1950s Clem Akina Park was just an open field where kids would play. There were no facilities there like there is now. There were no buildings and no bathrooms. When Donald was still young he got a bull calf that had just been weaned. He pastured the bull calf on the grassy hill between Clem Akina Park and the graveyard. The county worker that mowed the grass at Clem Akina Park approved of the arrangement as it made his job a little easier. The bull calf was chained to an axle fixed in the ground and Donald would check on the bull calf and water it every day. As time passed, the bull grew stronger and began pulling the axle out of the ground and dragging it around by its chain. There was one day that the bull dragged the chain and axle through the graveyard. Donald said that the chain must have wrapped around some of the headstones and either knocked them over or broke them off at ground level. 26 Figure 14: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Map Showing Location of Current Project Area, Kennedy (1992) AIS Project Area, and Site # 18074 (Adapted from Kennedy 1992:14). 27 ^+ Y ?'� �- �� ''moi �•'�-- � � -��-+�.�?) .. ,'� �-....,, � .�.'`� y �4'9 ! "D' 84 ./ � Ybz„.'4p'iY^u�"•t �q a � '�'af '�� .4�,,. — �. .�1t'./� KFa +y;.�J,+� .'gam \ ���✓� gm '`�►-`\.I ., ".. 4..Jlt � • 4. yyr P.,�"4�P ra��� `° �j�µt5%%��'rT.f v. �� �''.}t�'��1.��`d!:•• L� as �+. `¢i S"�� �.. t"',�.�9'F 0", .._ j Figure 14: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Map Showing Location of Current Project Area, Kennedy (1992) AIS Project Area, and Site # 18074 (Adapted from Kennedy 1992:14). 27 Donald couldn't remember how many graves were in the graveyard, but it seemed to him to cover a fairly large area. He said that the graveyard wasn't fenced off back in the 1950s when he pastured his bull below it. When asked if any family members ever visited the graves at the graveyard in the 1950s, he replied, "If any, was real scarce." Mr. Sakai ism' his mid 70s and has lived in Hilo his entire life. He recounted that his paternal grandmother was buried at the graveyard at `Amauulu. He remembered the large monkeypod tree that was there when he visited as a child. Mr. Sakai also remembered that his father and older brother exhumed his grandmother's remains and moved them to Homelani Cemetery. He couldn't recall exactly when that transpired, but he was still a young boy. He also couldn't recall which families had members buried there or if anyone else was visiting the graves when his grandmother's grave was there. Troy Keolanui grew up in the residential neighborhood near the project area. He had heard that there were graves in the woods near where the graveyard was located, but he never saw them. The trees and brush in that area was pretty thick, so they never went there. RESULTS OF THE ARCRAE®LGY INVENTORY SURVEY STUDY A single archaeological site (Site #50-10-35-30572) consisting of eleven features total were recorded during an AIS study (Escott and Escott 2016) conducted at the project area (Figure 15). Site 30572 is a Historic era to Modem era graveyard located in the southeast corner of the project. The graveyard is shown on a modern survey map (see Figure 12). There were no remains of the wooden flume that once crossed the project area. The majority of the project area is mowed agricultural fields. The constant modem use of the area for commercial crops has required regular brush and tree removal, as well as constant mowing. The fields have also been grubbed and graded in sections to improve drainage. A modem concrete box culvert was identified along the single dirt road that crosses the project area east/west. There were no remains of structures, other features, or artifacts in the area of `Amauulu camp, along the southwest corner of the project area. The graveyard Site 30572 containing ten burial features marked by cement borders, capstones, and headstones was the only site identified within the project area. 28 S h FE -3 TI 3" d; ��ih.P s "{ )� StrrlFgt'a�ic Trmeh �.;F' r��� P z r j 8:027 T IM 8027, K 1 -PROJECTAREA � -TMK BOUNDARY k i • SITF. 30572 BOUNDARY x r ¢ o -FEATURE 4 9 - FEATURE NUMBER r0 2B 40 60 80 Figure 15: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 30572 and Stratigraphic Trenches (Hilo Quad, SSRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 29 SITE 30572: POST -CONTACT GRAVEYARD FORM Stone and cement grave markers FUNCTION: Burial area .AGE: Historic era to modern era DIMENSIONS: Length: 90.0 m (NW/SE); width: 60.00 m CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Ceramic and bottle glass fragments EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572 is a Historic to modern era community graveyard situated along the eastern (makai) border of parcel [TMK: (3) 2-6-008: 026] (see Figure 15)_ The site is roughly rectangular and encompasses 1.0 -acre. Site 30572 contains eleven features (see Figure 15 and Table 3), including stone and cement grave markers and headstones, all of which exhibit some level of disturbance. Ten of the features within Site 30572 likely contain, or are associated with in-situ burials from the Historic to modem era. Feature 1, a graveyard monument/marker, might have been used as the base for a sign, and most likely does not mark a burial. Two of the headstones indicate that people of Hawaiian ancestry are buried there. 'fable 3: Inventory of Site 30572 Features. FE# Form Dimensions (m) Age Function Condition 1 Concrete graveyard marker Base 0.56 x 0.46 x 0.06 Upper Section 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.80 Historic Marker Fair 2 Grave 1.60 x 0.18 x 0.38 Historic Burial Poor 3 Grave with granite headstone 47.00 x 25.00 x 50.00 1920 Burial Fair to Good 4 Grave 3.09 x 2.40 x 0.00 Historic Burial Fair 5 Grave 1.80 x 0.88 x 0.37 Historic Burial Fair 6 Grave marker/ headstone 7.00 x 3.00 x 0.25 Historic Burial Poor 7 Grave marker/ headstone 3.00 x 2.30 x 0.30 Historic Burial Poor 8 Grave 6.50 x 5.00 x 0.29 1894 Burial Poor 9 Grave marker West 1.60 x .30 x 0.17 East 1.20 x .20 x 0.17 Historic Burial Poor 10 Grave marker remains 4.00 x 1.60 x 0.05 Historic Burial Poor 11 Grave marker Historic Burial Poor M There are dates present on three headstones. One headstone is dated 1894 and two are dated 1920. There is one intact headstone which is no longer legible due to weathering, and portions of others which have no identifiable information. The original orientation of some headstones is unclear due to ground disturbance. Headstones in areas that have been dramatically disturbed could not be definitively associated with a specific burial location. In some cases, the headstones are so disturbed that they form a debris field up to three or four meters in diameter. In such cases, the original location of the burials is unlaiown. It is likely that the individuals interred here were residents of the `Amatl►zhl Camp or associated with the Hilo Sugar Plantation. It is apparent from oral interviews with people familiar with the graveyard, that its existence may not have been known by the general public, although the families of people who were buried there were aware of the location. Site 30572 has been heavily altered by land clearing activities and is in poor condition. Site 30572, Feature 1: Monument/Marker FORM: Concrete monument FUNCTION: Graveyard marker AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Base length: 0.56 m (E/W); width: 0.46 in; height: 0.06 in Upper section length: 0.45 in; width: 0.45; height: 0.80 in CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 1 is a graveyard monurnent/marker located in the northwestern portion of the site (see Figure 15). Feature 1 is within a stand of large bamboo. The monument is concrete and has two components, the base and the upper section (Figure 16 through Figure 18). The two components were formed separately; the upper section was placed on the top of the base. The feature is made of concrete with gravel size waterworn rock, mechanically crushed rock, and sand inclusions (Figure 19). Feature 1 has a weathered appearance. There is a two inch metal galvanized pipe cast into the top center of the upper section (Figure 20). The pipe has rusted off and is even with the top of the concrete upper section. 31 f TrV I'71 In - 9— N — 1391 7— 4 6 — DISPLAM) %10*411 NI ENT i— a i?1 181 3 NIONUNIEN'rmsE 29 ID A f 0 1 t 3 4 S 0 20 40 60 C+1 KEY 1f11 - CNJ ABOVE GROUND SURF ®_ SMODIRFCTIOI Figure 16: Site 30572, Feature 1 Plan View Map. 32 4 Figure 17: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Looking North (25 cm scale). 33 Figure 19: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Upper Section Showing Concrete Inclusions. 35 Figure 20: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 1 Upper Section Showing Pipe. Oli It is possible that Feature 1 is a burial marker, although its appearance is more like that of a boundary marker or sign post indicating a boundary or an access point to the graveyard. At present, the upper portion no longer rests on the base, and has toppled over on its side. There is a mechanical scar visible on the upper portion of the feature. A thick bamboo grove, consisting of both living and dead bamboo surrounds the Feature 1 monument. The feature, as well as the parcel in general, has been altered by land clearing activities. Although the monument shows signs of degradation, and has toppled over, it is in fair condition and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 2: Grave FORM: Smooth mortar and concrete border, with partial slab headstone FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DI1dENSIONS: Length: 1.60 m (N/S); Width: 0.18 m- Height: 0.38 in CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Ceramic and bottle glass fragments EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 2 is a burial feature located approximately 10.0 m east of Feature 1 (see Figure 15). Feature 2 is within a stand of large bamboo. The exposed remnant portions of Feature 2 form a low concrete border set into the ground surface, likely along the eastern edge of a grave (Figure 21). The interior of the grave is level soil. The concrete border at Feature 2 is similar to that used in the construction of nearby burial features. The exposed portion of the border is approximately 1.60 m in length and 0.10 m (4 inches) wide. It is constricted of concrete with a smooth mortar finish along the uppermost edge (Figure 22). The concrete has waterworn rock, mechanically crushed rock, and sand inclusions. There is a broken fragment of a slab headstone on the ground surface near the exposed cement and concrete border. There are no identifiable markings on the headstone fragment. 37 t TN BOTTLE CLASS CONCRE'I CONCRETE PORTION HEADSTC f}].�POTTERI' VV CHARD �4E)0 0 l`tV✓J V �@ OTH MORTORCc nn__ V SMOOTH MORTAR 141 CONCRETE n, 13ASAI:r ROC; 61 IQ 26 30 CAI KEV El- HEIGHT ABOVE SURFACE IN cm ®- BAMBOO Figure 21: Site 30572, Feature 2 Pian View Map. 38 d Ceramic and bottle glass fragments were observed on the ground surface nearby. The location of the remaining portions of the concrete border or the number of individuals associated with Feature 2 could not be determined. A thick bamboo grove, consisting of both living and fallen bamboo, is present within close proximity to the burial feature and throughout the surrounding area. Feature 2, as well as the parcel in general, has been altered by land clearing activities, and is in poor condition. The feature is a burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 3: Grave FORM: Granite Headstone FUNCTION: Burial AGE: 1920 DIMENSIONS: Length: 0.47 m (N/S)-1 Width: 0.25 m; Height: 0.50 m CONDITION: Fair to good SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 3 is a headstone located roughly 10.0 meters east of Feature 2 (see Figure 15). The feature consists of a polished granite headstone fixed to a granite base under the headstone (Figure 23 and Figure 24). The headstone is engraved with the following inscription: GOD IS LOVE MARY WAAHIA 1870-1920 The headstone is facing east, and does not rest evenly on the ground surface. The base of the headstone is attached to a concrete footing that protrudes from the ground on one side. A water wom basalt cobble has been placed behind the headstone, presumably to stabilize it. Feature 3 appears to have been disturbed and has a slightly weathered appearance. M Feature 2 is within the eastern edge of a thick bamboo grove. Although the headstone has been altered by weathering and land clearing activities, it is in fair to good condition. Feature 3 is a burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. TN152 fel W'AT E: R WORM �.{ � �, MONUMENT BASE _......_ COBBLE (53 1611 J12 141 Q li} 21) 3() CCI KEY El- HEIGHTABOVE SURFACE IN cm Figure 23: Site 30572 Plan View Map. 41 Figure 24: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 3 Looking Southwest. 42 Site 34572, Feature 4: Grave FORM: Concrete boundary FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 3.09 m (E/W); Width: 2.40 m; Height: 0.00 m CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 4 is a burial feature located approximately 20.0 meters southwest of Feature 3, to the west of a large monkeypod tree (see Figure 15). The feature consists of a low rectangular concrete border (4 inches wide) set into the ground, likely marking the outer edges of a grave (Figure 25, Figure 26, and Figure 27). Feature 4 is 3.09 m long (E/W) by 2.40 m wide and is level with the ground surface. The dimensions suggest that the grave is large enough to accommodate more than one individual, although there is no evidence or information to confirm the number of individuals interred at Feature 4. The border is concrete with mechanically crushed rock and sand inclusions. There are remnant traces of smooth cement mortar along the top of the concrete border. The grave is situated within close proximity to a large monkeypod tree to the east, and is to the south of a thick bamboo grove. The concrete border has been altered by weathering and is in poor condition. Feature 4 is a burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 5: Grave FORM: Mortar and concrete capstone FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 1.80 m (E/W); Width: 0.88 m; Height: 0.37 m CONDITION: Fair SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Concrete and bottle glass fragments EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 5 is a concrete capstone located approximately 10.0 meters southeast of Feature 4, to the south of a large monkeypod tree (see Figure 15). The capstone is 1.80 m long (E/W) by 0.88 m wide and is 0.37 m in maximum height (Figure 28, Figure 29, and Figure 30). The surface of the capstone is 43 applied smooth mortar, although it has deteriorated, with concrete visible beneath the mortar layer. a W 110RTA R IS AT GROIL AD SURFACE LEVEL 0 _ 20 40 61) Ctii KEN' ®- Stiloo'HI NIORTAR ®- LEN EL kREA Figure 25: Site 30572, Feature 4 Plan View Map. 44 Figure 26: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 4 Looking Fast. 45 Figure 28: Site 30572, Feature 5 Plan View Map. 47 NIONKEY POD TREE 1'REE STRUNIP 751 161 1`5) NIONU,NIENTmay. � BASALT SLABz ROCK 1141 1371 k:t t Q x n `j 11 20 40 60 cit KEN BROKEN CLASS HOUrLE - BROKEN ROME UITH CONCRETE (#l- HEIGHUAHOVE SURFACE UN cm Figure 28: Site 30572, Feature 5 Plan View Map. 47 � �' t Figure 30: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 5 Looking Northwest (25 cm scale). MM The capstone bares no information to indicate the identity of the interred There are a few small pieces of basalt rock cemented to one another at the east base of the capstone (Figure 31). This may have served as a footing for a headstone, although there is no headstone present at this time. Fragments of concrete, bottle glass, and waterwom stones were identified on the ground surface at the southwest corner of Feature 5 (Figure 32). The capstone has been altered by weathering and land clearing activities, and is in fair condition. Feature 4 is a burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 6: Grave Marker/Headstone FORM: Smooth mortar and concrete debris, with slab headstone FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 7.00 m (E/W); Width: 3.00 m; Height: 0.25 m CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Bottle glass fragments, water wom stones EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 6 is the remains of a grave marker located roughly 18.0 meters southeast of Feature 5, southeast of a large monkeypod tree (see Figure 15). Feature 5 is situated on a gentle eastward slope. The feature appears to have been altered by land clearing activities. Feature 5 is a concentrated debris field of concrete, mortar, and a small number of bottle glass fragments scattered over a 7.0 m long (E/W) by 3.0 m wide area (Figure 33 and Figure 34). The concrete and mortar debris resembles the material used to create borders around other burials in the graveyard (see Feature 4). The concrete has mechanically crushed rock, waterwom rock, and sand inclusions. There is a weathered slab headstone on the ground surface at the southwest corner of the feature (Figure 35). It is engraved with the following inscription: JUANITA MONTANIA BORN SEPT 22 1920 DIED ON THE SAMEDAY 01 Figure 31: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 5 Showing Basalt Rock along the East Side, Looking Northwest (25 cm scale). 51 Figure 32: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 5 Showing Concrete and Bottle Glass at Southwest Corner of Capstone, Looking- Northwest ookingNorthwest (25 cm scale). 52 TIN 11 FAVI IN DISTU R HE 1) 0 A A A A A A A 1121 MOM UORFRING I tIISTURBED 11FAVILY fFAVILN DISTURBED 128 171 y IIIA 4-11FAVIIADISTURDED A A A A A 0 100 1 CA) Lo -j- CIASSROVILE FO -1- CONCRE TE FRAGNIENT Ftj �, - CNI ABM E GR((ND SURFACE FA -1- SLOVE R-01 - MATER W%RN RASAWI Figure 33: Site 30572, Feature 6 Plan View Map, 53 � � � »:���z � � . �� � � -:�� « . \ � a . � i . � 2� � - i/� � � � ��� � � >� � \�� \\ y .� . � ©\ ©�� �� . .! ^'� ` � = - � j \� � . `^�^ . w ��� � � � °.. .: �\ \ .»w.� .� y. �~ � . _/\ \�\2 \\\ <« ® ?:d Figure 35: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 6 Headstone Looking Northeast (L� cm scale). 55 The precise location of the burial is difficult to determine due to the degree of Bound disturbance. Feature 6 has been altered by weathering and land clearing acnvities, and ism' poor condition. The feature is.a possible burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 7: Grave Marker/Headstone FORM: Smooth mortar and concrete debris, with slab headstone FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DDAENSIONS: Length: 4.50 m (E/W); Width: 2.50 m; Height: 0.45 in CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Bottle glass fragments, water worn stones EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 7 is the remains of a burial located on a gently eastward slope 5.5 meters southeast of Feature 6 (see Figure 15). The feature appears to have been altered by land clearing activities. Feature 7 is a concentrated debris field of concrete, mortar, and a small number of bottle glass fragments scattered over a 4.0 m long (E/W) by 2.5 in wide area (Figure 36 and Figure 37). The concrete and mortar debris resembles the material used to create borders around other burials in the graveyard (see Feature 4). There is a weathered slab headstone on the ground surface at the southeast comer of the feature (Figure 38). The headstone writing is eroded and is no longer present. The precise location of the actual burial is difficult to determine due to the degree of disturbance in the area. Feature 7 has been altered by weathering and land clearing activities, and is in poor condition. The feature is a possible burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. TV ♦ O`" IIEAN"ILL DISTURBED 0 IIn1 SMOOTH EIORTtR o (BCDti �A 451 o d o � t (ONCRE rE iF "�. �. 00 D[SfURB.ED V. P 4 / 'r I= 0 N 411 611 CAI GLASS HO'r*I,I.F on ('O\C'RETF FRAGNIEN I �- SLOPE DIRECHON - WVITR %% ILRN B %SA1,1 Figure 36: Site 30572, Feature 7 Plan View Map, 57 1 1261"..191 1, s1 . '� a O 400 L d�j 1431 DISTURBED Q WWi/A� 101 (� Figure 37: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 7 Looking Northeast (2:) cm scaic). 58 Figure 38: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 7 Headstone Looking Northeast (25 cm scale). 59 Site 30572. Feature 8: Grave FORM: Cement grave with headstone FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic - DIMENSIONS: Length: 6.50 in (E/W); Width: 5.00 in; Height: 0.29 in CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Bottle glass fragments, water wom stones EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 8 is a burial feature located on a gentle eastward slope approximately 12.0 meters east of Feature 7 (see Figure 15). Feature 8 is a concrete grave, two headstones, wrought iron fence, and rock border measuring 6.50 in (E/W) by 5.00 in wide and has a maximum height of 0.29 in (Figure 39, Figure 40, and Figure 41). The grave is level with the surrounding ground surface and is constructed of concrete with waterworn stones and sand inclusions (Figure 42). There is a marble headstone on the ground surface at the east of the concrete grave (Figure 43). The broken base of the headstone is set in the ground to the east of the grave where it was mounted. It is engraved with the following inscription: MRS. HAKAU AKAI Bom 1849 Died 1894 Aged 45 Years Rest in peace Remnants of a mortared cement headstone were identified along the north side of the grave to the north (Figure 44). The cement and mortar are both white and the cement has fine sand inclusions. There is a cross and two Chinese or Japanese kanji characters impressed into the smooth mortar face of the headstone (Figure .45). There is a rock border set into a concrete footing located along the east (makai) and south edges of the grave (see Figure 39). The border is constructed of waterworn cobbles set one to two courses high and three to four courses wide into the concrete footing. A portion of what might have been a rock border along the north side of the grave has been pushed by land clearing activities to a point below (east) the grave (see Figure 40 and Figure 41). There are three lengths of damaged wrought iron fence on the M ground surface along the east and the south sides of the grave. The wrought iron fence likely enclosed the north, south, and east sides of the grave_ N HEADSTONE I' - HEADSTONE \--I ENT 1, M,11 MODER1 Z 61 GROUND SURF'ACY O la 11 h1 1 WROUGHT IRON GATE SHORT WALL WITH WATER WARN BASALT U 1291 131 DISPLACED 11AL1. Q 0 50 100 150 ('t1 KFY ®- GLASS BOTTLE 91- CONCRETE FR-AG11EN'T El- CM ABOVE GROUND SURFACE F�- SLOPE DIRECTION - WATER WARN BASALT WROUGHT IRON GATE Figure 39: Site 30572, Feature 8 Plan View Map. 61 Figure 40: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Looking North (25 cm scale). 62 vital, k A•-�sJ. i r I Figure 43: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Marble Headstone Looking North. 65 Figure 44: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Cement Headstone (Reconstructed). Figure 45: Photograph of Site 30572, Feature 8 Cement Headstone (Reconstructed) Showing Cross and Characters. 67 Feature 8 has been altered by weathering and land clearing activities, and is in poor condition. The feature is a burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 9: Grave Marker FORM: Concrete border FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 1.60 in (N/S); Width: 0.30 m; Height: 0.17 in CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: None EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 9 is the remains of a burial feature located on a gentle southeasterly slope approximately 11.0 in southeast of Feature 7 (see Figure 15). Feature 9 is a four inch concrete border roughly level with the ground surface resembling other borders marking burials in the graveyard (see Feature 4)_ There are intact segments of the border along the eastern and western edges of the feature (Figure 46 and Figure 47). The eastern segment of the border is approximately 1. 60 m long and the western segment is approximately 1.20 m long. Both are constructed of concrete with mechanically crush rock and sand inclusions and both have a sand and mortar finish. The feature has been impacted by weathering and what appears to be land clearing activities. There is a palm tree growing in the southeast corner of the feature. Concrete fragments that might be associated with this feature extend approximately 5.0 in to the north and south. The location of any remaining portions of this burial feature, its orientation, or the number of individuals associated could not be determined. Feature 9 appears to have been impacted by land clearing activities and is in poor condition. The feature is a burial and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. a d 4 TN a Q a8 a a a � a a br' 7' ♦ 181 c:RntwtictfF�c#. 117.51 .4 X17 1101 171 1.#.1 t:1.11 I 1 H 14 GRUI �D SI NF l( i. LEVEL \N 11 It 1171 GRU# ND St RF %UE 17 U 0 20 40 641 6-0�� CM KEY U- CON'C'RETE F#11-- CAi ABOVE GROUND SURFACE ©-SLOPE DIRECTION' ®- SMOOTH MORTAR Figure 46: Site 30572, Feature 9 Plan View Map. C.Z': Site 30572, Feature 10: Grave Marker FORM: Concrete Border FUNCTION: Possible Burial AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 4.00 in (E/W); Width: 1.60 in; Height: 0.05 in CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Ceramic fragments, water worn stone EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 10 is the possible remnants of a burial feature located on a gentle southerly slope roughly 10.0 meters west of Feature 9 (see Figure 15). Feature 10 is a scatter of concrete, mortar, ceramic sherds, bottle glass fragments, waterworn rock, and a metal fence post roughly 4.0 in long (E/W) by 1.6 in wide that might be associated with one or more disturbed burial markers (Figure 48 and Figure 49). The concrete and mortar fragments resemble the material used in the construction of nearby graves. The fence post might be part of a fence that once bordered the graveyard. Feature 10 is likely the results of past land clearing activities. Feature 10 is associated with the graveyard grave markers and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. Site 30572, Feature 11: Grave Marker Remains FORM: Concrete FUNCTION: Burial AGE: Historic DIMENSIONS: Length: 3.20 in (N/S); Width: 2.30 m; Height: 0.44 in CONDITION: Poor SURFACE ARTIFACTS: Bottle glass and ceramic fragments, water worn stone EXCAVATION: None DESCRIPTION: Site 30572, Feature 11 is the remnants of a burial feature located on a gentle southerly slope roughly 27.0 meters northwest of Feature 8 (see Figure 15). Feature 11 is the remains of a concrete border and ceramic cup sherds roughly 3.2 in long (N/S) by 2.3 in wide that marks a burial (Figures 50, 51, and 52). There is waterworn pebbles and cobbles set into the top of the concrete border. Feature 11 has been disturbed by modem land clearing activities. Feature 11 is a grave associated with the graveyard and will be preserved in accordance with this burial treatment plan. 71 V,BOTTi.E GLASS . y i POTTERY„ SHARD DETERIORATED POTTERY MF At.FEtiCE POST FRAG r LIMITS OF DOZING Y If r 0 20 4(1 60 80 cm TO GULCH KEY _ ta- SLOPE TY ®- WATER WORN STOVE (#) - HEIGIITABOVEGROUNDSURFACE ®- SMOOTH MOTAR Figure 48: Site 30572, Feature 10 Plan View Map. 72 tv. Imo" { y►f I � �b R� ` �� .i �' a+[ _ °AMA' � `R r\ _' • r t *f 1, �'+F � ,'b�`r+ „.� �Y k t Irk 3��?i: !I• 4-01 r 9Y �.� Fl '' „K^' .. �� � S as• : fir. t �t d' � � x ..R+.^y'w�-' s 'li ( � r .. J : �,Ati: _ - `'; •� _ o- i . f `' r 60, 41 4` �..;a,-'1•� 4 'k `fi`r , , ` � � w .. J)y�I !< 4 BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN SEARCH FOR LINEAL AND CULTURAL DESCENDANTS Rules governing the search for lineal and cultural descendants in the burial treatment process (HAR §13-300-33(b)(1) call for three things: (A) Research of relevant land conveyance documents including identification of land commission awardees located at or near the burial site; (B) An inquiry to any person who may have knowledge of families possibly affiliated with the Native Hawaiian remains; (C) Publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the burial site is located and a newspaper of statewide circulation for a minimum of three days, including Sunday and Wednesday. Research of Relevant Land Conveyance and Historical Documents The graveyard is not located within any Land Commission Awards. A title map of Pu`u`eo compiled by Baldwin in 1891 (see Figure 6) shows the lands where the graveyard is located was owned by Pitman as portions of Land Grant 185. Pitman sold his stores and farm land to Thomas Spencer and returned to Massachusetts in 1860. Spencer took over the mill operations in 1867. Spencer's property was purchased by the Hilo Sugar Company in 1884. The graveyard was likely used during this time. Publication of Notice in Newspaper Notice that the burial treatment process is being conducted for the graveyard was published in November 2017 in the Hawaii Tribune Herald (Hawai`i Island), the Honolulu Star Advertiser (O`ahu Island), and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Ka Wai Ola newspaper. The public notice and affidavits of the publication can be found in Appendix A at the back of this report The public notices generated two responses from individuals asking about the graveyard. Neither of the two respondents knew of additional information regarding the graveyard and neither asked to consult on burial preservation treatments. 77 PRESERVATION TREATMENTS This Burial Treatment Plan recommends preservation in place for the burials located at Site #30572. The burials will be protected by the preservation treatments listed below (Figure 53). Interim Preservation Buffers During any construction using heavy equipment at the subject property, orange construction fencing will be placed at a distance of 30.0 feet from the perimeter of the burial features at Site #30572. The construction fencing will be inspected by a qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of construction. The fencing is currently installed around the perimeter of Site #30572. The fencing will protect the burial features from construction activities and equipment. No heavy equipment will be allowed within the buffer. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during any ground disturbing construction in the vicinity of the burial sites. Long -Term Preservation Measures 4* A permanent preservation buffer will be established at a distance of 20.0 feet from the perimeter of the burial features at Site #30572. The buffer will consist of shallow - rooted native plants, such as ti. A no -build easement will be observed at 10.0 feet beyond the permanent preservation buffer. Access Access is available from Wainaku Street (see Figure 53). The access easement will be a footpath from Wainaku Street to the graveyard. The property owner is responsible for ensuring the access easement is usable for pedestrian travel, and is responsible for keeping the access easement clear and open. Access will be permitted seven days a week, one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Access can be arranged by calling the property owner. Parking is available along Wainaku Street. Bureau of Conveyances Subsequent to final approval by SHPD of this Burial Treatment Plan, a metes and bounds description of the burial preservation site shall be recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances in conformance with HAR §13-300-38(g). 78 Figure 53: 7.5 -Minute Series USGS Topographic Map Showing Location of Site 30572 Preservation Buffers and Pedestrian Access (Hilo Quad, ESRI, 2013. Data Sources: National Geographic Society, USGS). 79 Maintenance The landowner is responsible for maintaining cleanliness and appropriate vegetation on his portion of the burial site. The Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) will be notified if any harm is done to the burial sites. s0 REFERENCES CITED Athens, J., T. Reith, and T. Dye 2014 A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model -based age estimate for the colonization ofHawai`i. American Antiquity, 79(4):144-55. Baldwin, E. D. 1891 Hilo Town and Vicinity. Map and Survey by E. D. Baldwin. Puueo Section from Monsarrat's Wainaku Map, 1891. Registered Map # 1561. Hawaii State Archives, Honolulu. Beaglehole, J.C., (Ed.) 1967 The Journals of Captain James Cook on his Voyages of Discovery. Vol. III: the Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery, 1776-1780, Part 1. Published for the Hakluyt Society. University Press, Cambridge. Bingham, M. 1969 A Residence of Twenty-one Years in the Sandwich Islands_ Hartford, CT. Bird, 1. 1974 Six months in the Sandwich Islands. Charles E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, VT. Chinen, J.J. 1961 Original Land Title in Hawaii. Published privately in Honolulu, Hawaii. Clark, M., and R. Rechtman 2006 Request for SHPO Concurrence with a Determination of No historic Properties Affected Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy act and in Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Hospice of Hilo Property, [TWK (3) 2-4-001:024 (por.), Waiakea Ahupua `a, South Hilo district, Island of Hawai `i. Rechtman Consulting, LLC. Cordy, R. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Dye, T. 2011 A model -based age estimate for Polynesian colonization of Hawaii. Archaeology in Oceania, 46:130-38. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu. 81 Escott, G. 2015 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the 163 Acre Wailani Project in Ponahawai Ahupua `a, South Hilo District, Hawaii Island, Hawai `i, [7MK.• (3) 2-3-044:0191. SCS report prepared for Dr. Peter and Wendy Matsuura, Hilo_ Escott, G., and S. Escott 2016 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for 39.68 Acres in Pu `u `eo Ahupua `a, Hilo, ,South Hilo District, Hawai `i Island, Hawaii, [TMK.- (3) 2-6-008:026 and 027]. SCS report prepared for the Edmund C. Olson Trust III, Hilo. ESRI 2013 Arc GIS Explorer. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Ca Goodfellow, S.T. 1991 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Noelani Gardens Project, (7mK.- 3-2-6-002:001, 002). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Hilo, Hawaii. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Imagery. Google Earth. Mountain View, Ca. Handy, E.S.C., E.G. Handy, and M.K. Pukui 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Bulletin 223. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Haun, A., and D. Henry 2004 Archaeologicallnventory Survey 7MK. 2-3-49:62 and 7MK.- 2-3-037.001 Land of Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island of Flawai `i. Haun & Associates report, Kea`au. Hilo Sugar Company 1912-1947 Detailed Annual Report of the Manager and Treasurer of the Hilo Sugar Company Report. Hawaiian Gazette Company, Honolulu (1912-1919). Advertiser Publishing Company, Honolulu (1919- 1947). Hilo Sugar Plantation Company 1948-1955 Hilo Sugar Plantation Company Annual Report_ No publisher listed. Hudson, A.E. 1932 The Archaeology of East Hawai `i. MS., Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Jensen, P.M. 82 1992 Archaeological Inventory .Survey, Komohana Golf Course, Lands of Ponahawai and Punahoa 1-2, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK•3-2-344:09). Prepared for KTA Consulting Group c/o The Keith Companies -Hawaii I6 Shipman Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Kamakau, S.M. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Kahn, J., Rieth, P. Kirch, J. Athens, and G. Murakami 2014 Re -dating of the Kuli`ou`ou rockshelter, Oahu, Hawaii: Location of the first radiocarbon date from the Pacific Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 123(l):67-90. Kelly, M., and S. Athens 1982 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damag Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawai` i. In Archaeological and Historic Studies for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawai 'i, by M. Kelly, B. Nakamura, and D. Barr6re 1981. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and Dorothy Barr6re 1981 Hilo Bay: A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawaii, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kennedy, Joseph 1992 Archaeological Inventory Final Report for TMK.-2-6-08:26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39, and TMK. 2-6-29:09, 10, 11, 12, 14, and15; Located at Puueo on the Island of Hawaii. Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii, Inc., Hale`iwa, Hawaii. Kirch, P. V. 1985 Feather Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 2011 When did the Polynesians settle Hawaii? A re -view of 150 years of scholarly inquiry and a tentative answer. Hawaiian Archaeology, 12:3-26. Kirch, P. V. and M. Kelly (eds.) 1975 Prehistory and Ecology in a Windward Hawaiian Valley: Halawa Valley, Molokai. Pacific Anthropological Records, 24. Kirch, P.V. and M_ McCoy 2007 Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of re -dating the Halawa dune site (MO -Al -3), Molokai Island. Journal ofthe Polynesian Society, 116:385-406. E191 Kuykenddall, R.S. 1966 The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume IT 1854-1874, Twenty Critical Years. University of Hawai` i Press. Lyons, C.J. 1897 South Hilo. Working Sheet for Government Survey. Registered Map #0570. Hawaii State Archives, Honolulu. Malden, C.R. 1825 Chart of Hilo Bay. In A Chronological History, Land and Water Ilse in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawaii, by M. Kelly, B. Nakamura, and D. Barr6re 1981. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Maly, K and O. Maly 2003 He Wahi Mo'olelo No Ponahawai A Me Punohao Ma Hilo (A Collection of Traditions and Historical Accounts for Ponahawai and Punahoa, District of Hilo, Island of Hawaii) [TMX 2-3-044:019; 2-3-049:053; 2-3- 037:001]. Kumu Pono Associates report prepared for Kimura International, Honolulu. 2006 He Wahi Mo `olelo No Pu `u Wa'awa `a A Me Ndpu'u O NA Kona, A Collection of Cultural and Historical Accounts of Pu `u Wa `awa `a and the Ndpu'u Region, District of Kona, on the Island of Hawai `i. Kumu Pono Associates, LLC. Hilo. McCoy, M. 2005 The development of the Kalaupapa field system, Koloka` i Island, Hawai` i. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116:339-58. 2007 Revised late Holocene culture history for Molokai Island, Hawaii. Radiocarbon, 49(3):1273-1322. McEldowney, H. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawaii, Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean. Mulrooney, M, S. Bickler, M. Allen, and T. Ladefoged 2011 High -precision dating of colonization and settlement in East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:EI92-E194. National Geographic, Topo! 2003 Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, Hawaii. National Geographic Holdings, Inc. Washington, D.C. 84 O'Hare, C., D. Shideler, and H. Hammatt 2013 Final Archaeological Field Inspection and Literature Review with Substantial Testing for the Stream Bank Bluff Protection and Stabilization, Second Slope Scarp at the Riverside Apartments, Pu `u eo Ahupua `a, South Hilo District, Hawaii Island, TMK (3) 2-6-003:009. Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. report prepared for Kimura International, Inc. Kailua, Hawaii. Pearson, R.J., P.V. Kirch, and M. Pietrusewsky 1971 An Early Prehistoric Site at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 6:204-234. Pukui, M.K., S.H. Elbert, and E.T. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rechtman, R. 2009 Archaeological Assessment Survey for the Proposed Hilo Bayfront Trails Project, South Hilo District, Pi `ihonua, Punahoa, Ponahawai, Kukuau, and Waidkea Ahupua `a, Island of Hawai 'i. Rechtman Consulting, LLC. Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst 2011 The 13th Century Polynesian Colonization of Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2740-2749. Rolph, G.M. 1917 Something About Sugar: It's History, Growth, Manufacture and Distribution. John J. Newbegin, San Francisco. Rosendahl, M. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance SurveyforEIS, Hilo Judiciary Complex .Sites, Hilo, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawai `i. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 2004 Archaeological Assessment and Monitoring Plan, Hilo Judiciary Complex - Kaiko'o Mall Site, Land of Waidkea, South Hilo District, Island oj' Hawai `i (TMK (3) 2-2-015:0761. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R Paeth, R Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Starr Environmental 2013 Botanical and Faunal Surveys in the State of Hawaii. Makawao. www.starrenvironmental.com. 85 Stewart, C. 1828 Journal of a Residency in the Sandwich Islands, During the Years 1823, 1824, and 1825. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Stokes, J.F.G., and T. Dye 1991 Hieau of the Island of Hawai `i; A Historic Survey ofNative Hawaiian Temple Sites. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Thrum, T. 1907 "Heiau and heiau sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii Almanac and Annual 1908. 1908 Hawaii Almanac and Annual 1909, Honolulu: [n.p]. 1922 Hawaiian Place Names. In, A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language (orig. published in1865), by Lorrin Andrews, pp. 625-674. Revised by Henry Parker, 1922, Honolulu. Board of Commissioners of Public Archives of the Territory of Hawaii, Honolulu. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1965 Aerial Photograph of USGS Hilo Quadrangle Region. 1965 Series aerial photograph No. 5503, photographed 16 January, 1965. University of Hawaii at Manoa Library, MAGIS Aerial Photograph Collection. University of Hawai` i, Manoa. U.S. Geological Survey 1917 15 Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS. Print, Washington, DC. URL: http:;/geonames.usgs.gov/pls/topomapsl. 1932 15 Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http:llgeonames.usgs.gov/pis/topomaps/. 1963 7.5 -Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.govlplsltopomapsl. 2013 7.5 -Minute Series Topographic Hilo Quadrangle Map. USGS Print, Washington, DC. URL: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/topomaps/. Walker, A., and P. Rosendahl 1996 Archaeological Assessment Study Hilo Judiciary Complex Project. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. M Wickler, S., and J. Ward 1992 Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations for Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, Hilo, Hawai `i Island. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. report prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu. Wilfong G.W. 1883 Varieties of cane. Planters Month. 2:116-117. Wilianson, S., A. Mitchell, and H. Hammatt 2009 Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Kea `au-Pdhoa Road Widening Project, Kea `au Ahupua `a to Waiakahiula Ahupua `a, Puna District, Hawai `i Island TMK. (3) 1-5 (various plats and parcels); 1-6 (various plats and parcels). Cultural surveys Hawaii, Inc., Kailua. Wilmhurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011 a High -precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:1815-20. 2011 b Reply to Mulrrooney et al.: Accepting lower precision radiocarbon dates results in longer colonization chronologies for East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:E 195. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris 1994 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 87 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICES AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF } BURIAL NOTICE - PLRTEO AHUPIIA'A. SOt1TM HILO. HAWArI ISLAND } } } } } } STATE OF HAWAII a )SS. City and (:oun(y of Honolulu I Doc. Date: OCT - 5 2016 f Pageg: 1 Notary Name: Patricia K- Hem Htat ktacwCircllft t�ctA Affidavit of Doc. Description., K Publication ;. QP. NOT.i4Y' = : PUBLIC = 4cev OCT 5 2616 commwo Nc ry S19Mat Odra WA67 .gar tt ita lt`` Lisa Kaukani being duly swam, deposes and says that she is a clerk, duty authorized to execute this affidavit of Oahu Publications. Inc. oublisha of The Honolulu Star -Advertiser, Mid Week, The Garden Island, West Hawaii Today, and Hawaii Tribune -Herald, that said newspapers we ncwspapea of general circulation in the State of Hawaii, and that the attached notice is true notice as was published in the aforementioned newspapers as follows: Honolulu Star -Advertiser 0 tunes on: MidWeek 0 times on: The Garden Island 0 times on: Hawaii Tribune -Herald 5 times on: 09/25, 09/28, 09129, 10102, I0d0512016 West Hawaii Today 0 times on: Other Publications: 0 times on: FAA W= -W E0 umrua Jk, 50+Ai sora, KAHarI InAn ( ted I— WIN 1.1—bm ¢x 1r.B r Mugs rot d Mogen ea caRntdr M_` -AM TML M 2 &OCILIM a :W daakb 1a.57 -me P)�d emSa d (x+aal !lea NGa PA Ad � d Amann 1Wd !a ftv. xkw% . 571.A rb Rsrt4 aa�d d Nradl 9..311 an brab/ nwmad to alae K.r,•ven raKa, 5-1 sass SpedtiR state 1Q,laae nena,3dea OiwM (AIP➢j, 13081 133 IN% 40 ftl t a WM, wk A"- Bai2o x 6h_a tsar, I M-Ih c CoWAW 9x. MU) 739 DSA N as iss X. -A a lolls of as b—h Ave agb'+, nerdoern -n "'­e' ste) 4r w too., ) W+ ,. W"'* N I%- ileal. rrzG ler d N Kaci 9 et as -Am A — h umd— ON INS, C.'w- BE ne ripft i E&aw e. aim Tna W. MV—,a intro !male b r'aa m PeryO.4, 6 a .darn sed a pw 7wWN A srm9.s>se ado IdmKtkd d,tstsdsc7 end wL ore "_4 d 0e Kaaan Had ardor' C;xed orad Sin ar bausled qNn ft od rayoel Nam " W) ails d a:l as&e orad AWm' o+t<miaa, is M a • k®actkeW f arta dwtd nom tM Un iu da s i salt sk N a%d desad 5w aw0ns Wild b IN raam J.Pua im." 011 ti e. Normae amsiw as Wit (MMIN12 s/A VK M 10/2. IB/s/10) And that affiant i -not y to or inapyr a .11 e/dyin�t�hl�aMvc entitled matter. LLsa Kalkani Subscribed to and ' Tbefae the + ceacl Patricia R 4cNaxaryPu cot Judicial Cireuit, Sutc of f tawaii My a Ad n 0000916012 SP.NO Hawaii Tribune Herald Public Notice Affidavit. 2 A�Asnun/rr ` QPAa�OIA K. RF�SR JJ NOTARY PUBLIC - Cern I'.o ''t tl •, !!lots`'` L N. ' 1585 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF f BURIAL NGI ICE - PUVTO MUMMA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAM ISI AM) } { f f } f STATEOFHAWAII } ) SS. City and County of H000alu I Doe. Date: OCT - 5 2016 0 Pages: t Notary Name: Pabicia K. Reese rhh Adcw0rcUIt DOC. Description: Affidavit Of�- ktlHutrrq Publication • s- State of Ilawaii, and that the attached notice is true noairt as was published in the NOTARY aforementionedrs as follows: 11C'"�°� _� Puss - OCT - 5 2016 - c, „ ro ons 1b467 . - .e. • ... • r_rsa MUFAIIh Ming auty iw'OM GgWA:s and says that she is a elult, duly audwtized to VNX 40ME � 1'xM s) mkk sem IM saWul Isu" execute this affidavit of Oahu Publicstiorss, Inc. publisher of The Honolulu u thins ski rdewdem mss . - u Md. u. —Am Star -Advertiser, Mid Week, The Garden Island, Wet Hawaii Today, and Ilatvaii ;m.. WW Mt P zama.Rr, m a> h I&$! •' ►b aaa+a Tribuh>alteratd, that said re arc newspapers newspapers of general circulation in the d IbAM) Caw Aka vsx and -1 O'amv m R d . %VW M WX No ami ftw d k dt RUA - lousy -*"o r wre State of Ilawaii, and that the attached notice is true noairt as was published in the fto" • ado sae. si-w %xr Wk N--dw Mon aforementionedrs as follows: 11C'"�°� teas) 133.I%K 40 1o'N-Ia S2 -k ft W -W MM a atlas - ukcm C—e.A'nasi. I.. isaa:"OR% 10 sm Iss Trak stns 1 Honolulu Star -Advertiser 5 times on: d 1w kis 1a» i!r 6id— ` - ­q AM I*whub Lk aeoan,. rsa Ar. e+>r t N N es b r WIN III 't Me G lila am C", S Th, t # maw° L Main bw IL aslzs, �l2s, ,toot, iorosrzots% Midweek 0 limes on: mr'M m-'aatw Ana asnaa ",aa 11"WI itj Saw w -w C—. ,a sry Al w ads ntnnY a taq w) *' t %. w— sea raw 0asa�Mdt r SMIt ranuY 6—A" 41ad ax:va ciwn 'rx tw. r "4r 11-"L1e, x osnlhMsns The Garden Island 0 times on I— rr. amus I, v. — I, Lees tw wa.. H—ft mom ff.b-L ,WWO 9lTe, RM. 1,21, ta12' for' last Ilawaii Tribtme-Herald 0 times on: West Hawaii Today 0 times on: Other Publications: 0 times on: ��11k11e1n-rq Andthat af0ant is ty to or in any way into - in the above entitled nutter. s�<rW K, R rr-- •"• �� 4 'NOTARY F ' PUBLIC - Hsu Kaukani Sub=ibed to before �!'� LICJ me thi of _�. R-0. 20 �OFFatricia 0! ludicial Circuit, State ofHawaii S.?:� hly Issioe, 2 Ad a 0000916009 SPNO LN Honolulu Star -Advertiser Public Notice Affidavit. 3 BURML NCMCE – PUU'EO .AR-UPUA'A, SOUM HILD, R-kWAI'l LSIANED All persons having, information con- cerning a Historic era to Modem era cemetery present within T-M—K (3) 2-& 008-026, an approximately 18 -57 -acre parcel mauka of (behind) Clem Akina Park- and west of 'Arnanulu Road in PuVeo Ahupua'a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai'i, Hakvai'i, are hereby requested to contact Herbert Poepoee, Burial Sites Specialist, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), (808) 933-7650. 40 Po'okela Street, Hila. Hawaii 96720 or Glenn Escott, Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., (808) 938- 0968, PO Box- 155 Kea'a% I-11. Tkee of the burials have Ieeible headstones with the names Mary WaaMa Kepoo, Juanita Montania, and Hak -au. A-k-ai. Treannent of the burials at the cemetery -%%-M occur in accordance %Nith HRS, Chapter 6E. The applicant, Edmund C. Olson Trust H, proposes to preserve the burials in place for perpetuity, in accordance with a plan prepared in consultation with identified descendants and with the approval of the Hawai'i Island Burial Council and SHPD. All interested parties should respond within thirty (30) days of this notice and provide information to SHPD adequately detwnstrating. lineal des -cent from the Native Hawaiian remains, or cultural descent from ancestors buried in the same ahupua'a in vouch the Native Hawaiian remains are buried. Ka Waft Ola Newspaper Public Notice, November 2016. Mae SldneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Qm n • Planning • variance • Zoning Telephone: (808) 969-1522 - Fax: (808) 969-7996 017 SEP 11 X11 I FS 2J • Subdivision • Land Use Permits E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net • Environmental Reports PLANNING DEFART�i1ENT ,OUNTY OF HAWAII - September 11, 2017 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yee: Subject: State Land Use and Rezoning Applications (Addendum) Applicant — Edmund C. Olson Trust II Pu'ueo, South Hilo, Hawai i, TMK: 2-6-008: 026 & 207 This is to follow up on my letter of August 18, 2017 and an email communication with Mr. Christian Kay of your staff, dated September 5, 2017 regarding the subject matter. The proposed project calls for the subdivision of 39.68 contiguous acres of land into 49 habitable lots. Of these, there would be 19 residential -agricultural lots ranging between 1 to 2 acres and 30 single-family residential lots each with a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Also proposed are 2 additional non -habitable lots. One of those lots, consisting of 1.7+/ - acres, would be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park. Another lot which currently has an historic era (late 1800s through 1940s) cemetery and consisting of 2+/- acres would be set aside and preserved. The project site affects two (2) contiguous parcels that are within the State Land Use ("SLU") Agricultural district with multiple County zoning designations - Agricultural (A - 20a) and,Open (0). As such, to effectuate this proposed project, multiple actions would be required. As such, your request for clarity is totally understandable. In that regard, please note the following: 1. The project area consists of two (2) contiguous lots of record — TMK: 2-6-008: 026 and 027 — with a combined area of 39.68 acres. Parcel 26 consists of 18.57 acres, and Parcel 27, 21.11 acres. 2.. The entire 39.68 acre area is situated within the SLU Agricultural district. Parcel 26 consists of 18.57 acres and has two (2) County zoning designations. A 2.128 acre portion is zoned Open, while the balance (16.442 acres) is zoned A - 20a. Parcel 27 is zoned A -20a. Planning Dept. 113910 Exhibit 3 Mr. Michael Yee, Director September 11, 2017 Page 2 3. Thus, to effectuate this project, the requests involve the following actions: a. SLU reclassification of 14.97 acres of the 18.57 acre of Parcel 26 into the SLU Urban district. The metes and bounds description of this 14.97 acre area is identified and attached as Exhibit A. b. Rezoning of this 14.97 acres from A -20a and Open into RS -10. The metes and bounds description of the 2.128 acre Open zone area and a 12.842 acre area (which represents the balance of the 14.97 acre area) are identified and attached as Exhibit B. c. Rezoning of a24.70 acre area (which includes all 21.11 acres of Parcel 27 and a 3.6 acre portion of Parcel 26) from A -20a to FA -1a. This area will still remain within the SLU Agricultural district. The metes and bounds description of this 24.70 acre area is identified and attached as Exhibit C. Further, while pertinent excerpts of the draft Archaeological Inventory Survey, please find attached the entire document for your use and appropriate action. An electronic version will also be provided via email. Finally, attached is a corrected site plan which will be inserted by this office in the twenty (20) documents already on file with your office. We trust that everything is in order for your acceptance and processing of this application. If not or if there are questions relating to this matter, please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, V\-� V - SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosures Copy — Edmund C. Olson Trust H w/ enclosures ��. � � o n � n .. t� � o v N � V NC y 2 O N SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 Cell: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sidfuke@hawaliantel.net January 28, 2019 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 ?!j119 p • Planning • Variance • Zoning C'19 i��A� !_ !� •Subdivision•LandUsePermits • Environmental Reports Dear Mr. Yee: _ Subject: State Land Use and Rezoning Applications Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust II TMK 2-6-008: 026 & 027 (SLU 17-000049 and REZ 17-000223) This is to follow up my email exchange, beginning October 29, 2019 with Mr. Jeff Darrow regarding the subject matter. In sum, the request was held in abeyance by your office because of the State Historic Preservation Division's ("SHPD") decision not to complete its review of a revised Archaeological Inventory Survey ("AIS") prepared for the site by Scientific Consultant Services, dated February 2017. (Please note that an initial draft was prepared for SHPD's review, dated July 2016). It is our understanding that SHPD wanted to have an alleged violation affecting the cemetery on the subject site addressed first. A Burial Treatment Plan ("BTP") of the cemetery. is already completed. However, it cannot be submitted until the AIS is accepted. Based on iscussions between the archaeologist and SHPD, since the cemetery already exists, it would appear that instead of a BTP, a Preservation Plan may be more appropriate. That will be determined subsequent to the AIS process. Please note that the matter of the alleged violation was discussed, addressed, and successfully resolved between the applicant's attorney, Mr. Paul Alston, and the State Board of Land and Natural Resources over six (6) months ago. To date, Mr. Alston has yet to receive a letter from the BLNR which could be shared with your office. Notwithstanding the absence of this letter from the BLNR, SHPD has exceeded its required review period and the statutory provision of the Zoning Code for a hearing before the Planning Commission has already been exhausted. Further, as noted in your email of January 12, 2019, based on your discussion with Sean Naleimaile of the SHPD's Hawaii District Office, the subject applications can "move forward." Finally, we would hope that in its review of the applications, the DLNR (which includes SHPD, Land Division, and other divisions) would be able comment on the matter of the AIS and resolution of the alleged violation. Planning Dept. 122890 Exhibit Mr. Michael Yee, Director January 28, 2019 Page 2 Given the above, we respectfully and formally request that you continue with the processing of these applications and, as noted in my email of January 10 2019, schedule this matter for the Windward Planning Commission's agenda of April 4, 2019. . Should you have questions on this matter or these applications, please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very much. SincVrely, �w�U j SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Edmund C. Olson Trust H via email Mr. Paul Alston, Esq. via email William P. Kenoi Mayor Randall Kurohara Managing Director March 22, 2016 CERTIFIED MAIL of ciwm t DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224 (808)961-8321 • Fax(808)961-8630 www.co.hawail.hims Edmund C. Olson Trust -No. 2 26-238 Hawaii Belt Road Hilo, HI 96720-2119 SUBJECT: GRUBBING VIOLATION Location: Puueo, South Hilo, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 2-6-08: 026 Warren H. W. Lee Director Brandon A. K. Gonzalez Deputy Director Our attention has been called to grubbing work recently performed on the subject property. A search of our records shows that neither a grubbing nor grading permit was issued for this work. You are directed to submit a completed copy of the enclosed grubbing permit application within forty-five (45) days of the above date. Three (3) sets of grubbing plans, showing the limits of grubbing, shall accompany the application as required by Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County Code. The plans shall also include property lines, location of any structures, drainage patterns, and any required erosion and sedimentation control. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Kelly Gomes, P.E. of our Engineering Division at (808) 961-8327. /r D i BEN E. IS II, Division Chief Engineering Division KG Enclosure Planning Dept. Exhibit DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII of,,nd and cc a9 Za y late DEFlws �` October 18, 2016 Warren H.W. Lee, Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, HI 96720 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD, STE 555 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 Duane Kanuha, Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Sirs: SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON WARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RF tiOURCtS CO\L,USSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGE..III'h i KEKOA KALUHIWA FRCS r DLPUfY JEFFREY T. PETERSO\ DEPUTY DW:CfOR • WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCFS CM,MUSSIDN ON WATER RESOURCE AtANAGFWN7r CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMI:':rf ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE I PSTORIC PRFSERVAT(ON KAHOOL\WE ESL\ND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE. PARKS IN REPLY REFER TO: LOG NO: 2016.00907 DOC NO: 1605SN13 Archaeology SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review — Request for Historic Properties Determination County of Hawaii After -the -Fact Grubbing Permit for the Olson Trust Pu`ueo Ahupua`a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii TMK: (3) 2-6-008:026, 027, 028, 029, and 031 Thank you for the opportunity to review this application that was received by our office on April 11, 2016. According to the application, approximately 60 acres of the 119.06 acres of the combined subject parcels will be grubbed to remove albizia trees and tall grasses in preparation for sweet potato cultivation. This is an after -the - fact review as portions of the project area have already been grubbed, resulting in a grubbing permit violation assessed by the County of Hawai'i. A review of SHPD records indicate that these parcels have not been subject to an adequate archeological inventory survey (AIS). The project area is within an area that has been historically used for agricultural purposes. Until recently the project area was under a NRCS conservation plan. Our records further indicate that the historic Amaulu Camp (Site 50-10-35-07443) is within parcel 028 and a portion of parcel 026 is within the boundaries of the Historic Pu'ueo District (Site 50-10-35-07442). In early March, the County of Hawai'i, Department of Public Works (DPW) received a complaint about unpermitted grubbing occurring on the property, and DPW staff, Mr. Conrad Alicuben, conducted a site visit and notified the property owner of the permit violation. It was brought to SHPD's attention on March 2, 2016 that a cemetery had been discovered on parcel 026 and that it had reportedly been damaged sometime in the past by livestock running through it. SHPD's Hawaii Island Archaeologist Sean Naleimaile conducted a site visit on April 27, 2016, to assess the condition of the cemetery. Mr. Naleimaile assessed that some of the damage to portions of the cemetery may have occurred through the means explained to our office by the land owner's representative Mr. John Cross, but that much of the disturbance and resulting damage appears to have been caused by the operation of large machines within the cemetery. Further, that some damage had occurred through the removal of large trees. Google Earth 2015 aerial photos show a canopy of trees present in the area of the cemetery, many of which have since been removed. Planning Dept. Exhibit County of Hawaii October 18, 2016 Page 2 In a letter dated April 12, 2016, Mr. John Cross acknowledged his knowledge of the historic cemetery and stated that no activity was proposed for that area. Mr. Cross explained that the landowner had contracted Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) to conduct an archaeological inventory survey (AIS), and that no ground disturbing (grubbing) work would occur within the cemetery area. In consultation with SHPD, the AIS being conducted by SCS (Glenn Scott) of the cemetery area and immediate vicinity is to include documentation of the spatial extent of the cemetery, an assessment of the current condition of the cemetery, and appropriate mitigation recommendations for addressing the recent damage, for both interim and long-term preservation. Mr. Naleimaile (SHPD) conducted a second site visit on April 28, 2016, which included Archaeologist Glenn Escott (SCS Hawaii Island Operations Manager), and John Cross (landowner's representative), and Troy Keolanui (land manager for Olson Trust). During this site visit, Mr. Cross confirmed that a large vehicle had been within the area of the cemetery; but that once the operator saw the headstones he ceased work in the area. Large excavated areas were observed at several locations which Mr. Cross attributed to bottle collectors. Mr. Cross provided maps indicating where additional grubbing would occur. On April 29, 2016, a revised grubbing plan was submitted to SHPD that indicated areas around the cemetery area would not be used and that no grubbing or other ground disturbing work would be conducted in this portion of parcel 026. ' On May 3, 2016, Mr. Naleimaile (SHPD) opened an investigation of possible HRS 5 6E-1l(c) violations in coordination with Officer Edwin Shishido of the Department of Land and Natural Resources' Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE). The two conducted a site visit together to document the condition of the cemetery. Although Mr. Cross indicated in consultation with Mr. Naleimaile that the Amaulu Camp and the cemetery area were outside the current proposedrub bbing project area, SHPD was notified by archaeologist Glenn Escott on September 9, 2016 that grubbing work on September 7, 2016, had resulted in damaging a previously unrecorded grave marker. It was SHPD's understanding that the stop work order issued by the County of Hawaii was still in effect and that no additional grubbing was supposed to take place until the County approved the after -the -fact grubbing permit. As such, Mr. Naleimaile confirmed with DPW Engineer Mr. Kelly Gomes that no permit had been issued for any additional work on the parcel and that the additional grubbing was in violation of the County's stop work order for the parcel, The recent clearing occurred in an area not designated for additional grubbing work. On September 12, 2016, Mr. Naleimaile (SHPD) conducted a third site visit with DOCARE Officer Edwin Shishido to assess the most recent unpermitted work that occurred in this area. During the site visit, Mr. John Cross arrived on site and explained that the work in the recently impacted area was approved by the landowner, Mr. Ed Olson. It was confirmed during this site visit that a previously. undocumented grave site was impacted by the clearing. On a fourth site visit on September 16, 2016, which included Mr. Naleimaile, Dr. Susan A. Lebo (SHPD Archaeology Branch Chief), Glenn Escott and Suzan Escott (SCS Archaeologists), Alexandra Kosik (SHPD Architectural Historian) and Officer Shishido (DOCARE), the recent disturbance was clearly visible and efforts were made to document the recent damage as well as to further document the previous damage with the assistance of Ms. Kosik. Prior to issuance of the after -the -fact grubbing permit, SHPD requests completion of the following: Amaulu Came (Site 7443) Area No further work until: (1). A 10 -ft. interim protection buffer will be established around Site 7443 in consultation with SHPD using maps available to Mr. Cross that clearly defines the former extent'of the camp; (2) SHPD verifies that an orange mesh construction fence has been installed along the 10 -ft. buffer around Amaulu Camp (Site 7443); (3) A preservation plan has been reviewed and accepted by SHPD; and (4) The preserve has been recorded on a plat map with the Bureau of Conveyances. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII DATE v� 17 0z October 3017 TO: Michael Yee, Planning Director. r/ FROM: De • artment f Public Works, ngineering Division SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 17-000223) Request: Open and A -20a to RS -10 for 14.95 acres of land and A -20a to FA -1a for 24.73 acres of land Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 TMK: 2-6-008:026 and 027 We have reviewed the subject request forwarded by your memo dated October 2, 2017 and provide the following: The subject parcels are in an area designated as Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 500 -year floodplain. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. Amauulu Road is under private ownership fronting the subject parcels. The Zoning Map (Ordinance No. 187) classifies it as a collector with a proposed right-of-way width of 60 feet. Wainaku Street is classified as a secondary arterial with an existing right-of-way of approximately 57 feet width. Access to Wainaku Street shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. We recommend the applicant provide improvements to parcel 026's entire Wainaku Street frontage consisting of, but not limited to, driveway and sidewalk rehabilitation meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the approval of the Department of Public Works. Install streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. Planning stns may be referred to Robyn Matsumoto at 961-8924. 114682 Exhibit a County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII 345 KEKUANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808)961-8050 • FAX (808) 961-8657 October 25, 2017 .D V C-) 0 TO: Mr. Michael Yee, Director zZ Planning Department Q G rTi 3 FROM: Keith K. Okamoto, Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 17-000049) �Z W Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 17-000223) Applicant - Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 Request: Open and A -20a to RS -10 A -20a to FA -1a Tax Map Key 2-6-008:026 and 027 We have reviewed the subject application and have the following comments and conditions. Water can be made available from an existing 10 -inch waterline along Wainaku Avenue fronting Parcel 26 in accordance with the Department's existing water availability conditions, which are subject to change without notice. Please note that the Department can only allow service to one (1) lot that is partially or completely out of the Department's existing pressure zone. As currently configured, there may be two lots that are both partially out of the pressure zone and, therefore, the lot layout will need to adjust. For the applicant's information, all lots situated below the 200 -foot elevation are within the Department's existing pressure zone. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Department's Rules and Regulations, a copy of which is being forwarded to the applicant, a water commitment may be issued. Based on the 49 additional units requested in the proposed 51 -lot development, the required water commitment deposit is $7,350.00. Remittance by the applicant of the deposit is requested as soon as possible so that a water commitment may be formally issued. The commitment will be in writing with specific conditions and effective dates stated. Please keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water commitment. In other words, unless a water commitment is officially effected, water availability is subject to change without notice, depending on the water situation. For the applicant's information, final subdivision approval will be subject to compliance with the following requirements: Construct necessary water system improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to: a. water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak -flow and fire -flow conditions; minimum diameter of mains shall be 6 inches from Wainaku Avenue extending along the new roadway and into each cul-de-sac, Planning Dept. Water, Our91,fost (Precioussource ... �a `WaiA pane ... 114624 Exh bit The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. Mr. Michael Yee, Director Page 2 October 25, 2017 b. service laterals that will accommodate 5/8 -inch sized meters to each lot, c. fire hydrants spaced no more than 600 feet apart and within 300 feet of the driveway or access for each lot. On dead-end streets, the last fire hydrant shall be located at one-half the distance from the last house, or unit, fronting the property line, or to the driveway or access for the property, and d. subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development, the applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department's affected water system facilities, should they be necessary. Submit construction plans and design calculations prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval. 2. Remit the prevailing facilities charge, which is subject to change, as shown below: FACILITIES CHARGE(FC): One (1) first service for Parcel 026 $ 1,190.00 One (1) first service for Parcel 027 $ 1,190.00 49 additional units @ $5,500.00/unit $ 269,500.00 Total FC $ 271,880.00 This is due and payable upon completion of the installation of the required water system improvements and prior to final subdivision approval being granted. For your information, water commitment deposits are credited towards the final facilities charge requirement for the development. Note that the amount of water commitment deposit may exceed the prevailing facilities charge amount; for example, when requests for time extensions continue and are approved. Until the development is finally completed, these are separate and unrelated items. In the event that water commitment deposits exceed the facilities charge, no refunds are applicable. Submit the appropriate documents, properly prepared and executed, to convey the water system improvements and necessary easements to the Water Board of the County of Hawaii prior to final subdivision approval being granted. A registered land surveyor shall stamp and certify the metes and bounds description within the conveyance documents. However, prior to water meter services being granted to the development, or any lots within, the conveyance documents shall be accepted by the Water Board. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 256. Sincerely yours, Keith K. Okamoto, P.E. Manager -Chief Engineer RQ:dfg copy — Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 (w/copy of Rule 5 of the Rules and Regulations) Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant Harry Kim Mayor Wilfred Nt. Okabe Managing Director �<. Of William A. Kucharski Director GxxiY of Hand` i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekoanao'a Street, Suite 41 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 cohdem@co.hawaii.hi.us httoWwww hawaiicounty cov/environmental-manaaemenV MEMORANDUM Diane A. Noda Deputy Director Date October a0,2017 To MICHAEL YEE, Planning Director From WILLIAM A. KUCHARSKI, Director Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 17-000223) Request: Open and A -20a to RS -10 for 14.95 acres of land andA-20a to FA -la for 24.73 acres of land Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 Tax Map Key: 2-6-008:026 & 027 The Wastewater Division has reviewed the subject application and offers the following recommendations (please note Solid Waste Division comments will be submitted separately): WASTEWATER COMMENTS: (Contact Wastewater Division for details.) '10r10/2017 ( ) No comments ( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of theHawai'i County Code. ( ) Require Council Resolution to approve sewer extension in accordance with Section 21-26.1 of the Hawaii County Code. Complete Sewer Extension Application. (X) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code. (X) Check or line out as applicable:[ ] ity a by the rpt" eter- of the Dep r + t Management <«nir-eet fFes";, [ X ] applicant shall conduct a sewer study in accordance with the then applicable wastewater system design standards prior to approval to connect to the County sewer system. Applicant shall provide such sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require, which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. Contact Wastewater Division Chief for details. ( X ) Other: Refer Attachment A herein. WK:mt County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Planning Dept. Exhibit Attachment A SLU 17-000049 REZ 17-000223 TMK 2-6-008:026 & 027 Comments to Section V11 -C, Wastewater 1. The first statement that there is no County wastewater system in the area should be revised to indicate that there is currently no County wastewater system on the affected parcels. As indicated in the application, existing County Sewer lines are located within 300 lineal feet of the affected parcels. 2. As indicated above, a sewer study will be required to be conducted prior to approval to connect to the County sewer system. The WWD notes the following: a. As per HAR §11-62-24(b) if a County does not have wastewater treatment works design standards, then the Design Standards of the City and County of Honolulu shall be used. b. As per §11-62-24-03 Treatment Works means any treatment unit and its associated collection system and disposal system. c. Volume 1, Wastewater Collection Systems, was revised by the City and County of Honolulu in July 2017. Any existing sewer study would need to be updated to conform to the current Design Standards. 3. In the event that the developer chooses to conned to the existing privately owned sewer line on Lehua Street as described in the application, the County would not accept ownership of the line and the line would remain privately owned with responsibility for operation and maintenance of the line to remain the responsibility of the owners. 4. As both parcels TMK 2-6-008:026 & 027 abut Amau'ulu Road, reference to securing an easement over an intervening parcel is not understood. 5. As the existing 6 -inch sewer system in Amau'ulu Road is not in conformance with current Design Standards, the existing sewer line would need to be upgraded to meet current Design Standards prior to connection to the County Sewer System. County of Hawai' i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Public Works to assure there is adequate sight distance and safe vehicular movements from the existing and proposed accesses. Given the width of Wainaku Avenue, the sight distance of the proposed access and limited number of vehicular movements, the Applicant does not believe that a dedicated left -turn lane is necessary for this project. B. Water There is a 10 -inch County water line fronting Wainaku Avenue. This line will be used and extended into the proposed subdivision. The system will be designed and constructed in a manner meeting with the requirements of the Department of Water Supply, which may include some pressure -related improvements to address the mauka most lots. C. Wastewater There is no County wastewater system in this area. During the course of its review of the originally planned 29 lot subdivision, the Wastewater Division of the Department of Environmental Management "(DEM") commented that the project is accessible to a County sewer line via Amau'ulu Road. In subsequent discussions with the DEM, it was leamed that the Section 23-85(a) of the County Subdivision Code requires the connection to an existing sewer line if a proposed subdivision is situated three hundred (300) lineal feet of an existing line. That is the case here. As such, the Applicant intends to construct a sewer line within the project area and extend a line to the existing line at either Kauila Street or Lehua Street which intersects on the makai side with Wainaku Street. There is an 8 -inch line at Kauila Street and a private line along Lehua Street. Those lines intersect with a 10 -inch line along Pu'ueo Street. The other option would be to secure an easement over an intervening parcel and connect to a 6 -inch line along Amau'ulu Street which then widens to an 8 -inch at Ohai Street, The Applicant understands that there may be a need to not only extend a line to one of those existing lines and possibly even upgrade the existing line. This is no different than having to connect and possibly upgrade an existing County water line. Further, the Applicant will seek reimbursement in accordance with Section 21-28 of the County Code. 15 0 a 0 071 O N O N 7 �T t DO Q 0 N i Harry Kim tea'"'' ''•'ws Mayor Countp of'WaWat`t HAWAII FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Suite 2501 • Hilo, Hawai`l %720 (808) 932-2900 • Fax (808) 932-2928 October 13, 2017 TO: MICHAEL YEE, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DARREN J. ROSARIO, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 17-000223) Request: A -20a to FA -1 for 24.73 acres of land Applicant: Edmund C. Olson trust No. 2 Tax Map Key: 2-6-008:026 & 027 Darien J. Rosario Fire Chief ' Renwick J. Victorino Deputy Fire Chief In regards to the above-mentioned State Land Use Boundary Amendment application, the following shall be in accordance: NFPA 1. UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 2006 EDITION Note: Hawaii State Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association 2006 version, with County of Hawaii amendments. County amendments are identified with a preceding "C—''of the reference code. Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply 18.1 General. Fire department access and water supplies shall comply with this chapter. For occupancies of an especially hazardous nature, or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or areas where there is an inadequate fire flow, or inadequate fire hydrant spacing, and the AHJ may require additional safeguards including, but not limited to, additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved. 18.1.1 Plans. 18.1.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. �PW4ji Planning Dept Exhibit Hauwi'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. 1143Dy Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 2 18.1.1.2 Fire Hydrant Systems. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. C— 18.1.1.2.1 Fire Hydrant use and Restrictions. No unauthorized person shall use or operate any Fire hydrant unless such person first secures permission or a permit from the owner or representative of the department, or company that owns or governs that water supply or system. Exception: Fire Department personnel conducting firefighting operations, hydrant testing, and/or maintenance, and the flushing and acceptance of hydrants witnessed by Fire Prevention Bureau personnel. 18.2 Fire Department Access. 18.2.1 Fire department access and fire department access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Section 18.2. 18.2.2* Access to Structures or Areas. 18.2.2.1 Access Box(es). The AHJ shall have the authority to require an access box(es) to be installed in an accessible location where access to or within a structure or area is difficult because of security. 18.2.2.2 Access to Gated Subdivisions or Developments. The AHJ shall have the authority to require fire department access be provided to gated subdivisions or developments through the use of an approved device or system. 18.2.2.3 Access Maintenance. The owner or occupant of a structure or area, with required fire department access as specified in 18.2.2.1 or 18.2.2.2, shall notify the AHJ when the access is modified in a manner that could prevent fire department access. 18.2.3 Fire Department Access Roads. (*may be referred as FDAR) 18.2.3.1 Required Access. 18.2.3.1.1 Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated. 18.2.3.1.2 Fire Department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes, parking lots lanes, or a combination thereof. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 3 18.2.3.1.3* When not more than two one- and two-family dwellings or private garages, carports, sheds, agricultural buildings, and detached buildings or structures 4002 (37 m2) or less are present, the requirements of 18.2.3.1 through 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be modified by the AHJ. 18.2.3.1.4 When fire department access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar'conditions, the AHJ shall be authorized to require additional fire protection features. 18.2.3.2 Access to Building. 18.2.3.2.1 A fire department access road shall extend to within in 50 ft (15 m) of at least one exterior door that can be opened from the outside that provides access to the interior of the building. Exception: 1 and 2 single-family dwellings. 18.2.3.2.1.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 131), or NFPA 13R, the distance in 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be increased to 300 feet. 18.2.3.2.2 Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft (46 m) from fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 18.2.3.2.2.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 131), or NFPA 13R, the distance in 18.2.3.2.2 shall be permitted to be increased to 450 ft (137 m). 18.2.3.3 Multiple Access Roads. More than one fire department access road shall be provided when it is determined by the AHJ that access by a single road could be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. 18.2.3.4 Specifications. 18.2.3.4.1 Dimensions. C— 18.2.3.4.1.1 FDAR shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20ft with an approved tum around area if the FDAR exceeds 150 feet. Exception: FDAR for one and two family dwellings shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 15 feet, with an area of not less than 20 feet wide within 150 feet of the structure being protected. An approved turn around area shall be provided if the FDAR exceeds 250 feet. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 4 C— 18.2.3.4.1.2 FDAR shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less then 13ft 6 in. C— 18.2.3.4.1.2.1 Vertical clearances may be increased or reduced by the AHJ, provided such increase or reduction does not impair access by the fire apparatus, and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating such approved changes. 18.2.3.4.1.2.2 Vertical clearances shall be increased when vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to accommodate fire apparatus. C— 18.2.3.4.2 Surface. Fire department access roads and bridges shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads (25 Tons) of the fire apparatus. Such FDAR and shall be comprised of an all-weather driving surface. 18.2.3.4.3 Turning Radius. C— 18.2.3.4.3.1 Fire department access roads shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet, and a minimum outside turning radius of 60 feet. 18.2.3.4.3.2 Turns in fire department access road shall maintain the minimum road width. 18.2.3.4.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft (46 m) in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around. 18.2.3.4.5 Bridges. 18.2.3.4.5.1 When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire department access road, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with county requirements. 18.2.3.4.5.2 The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 18.2.3.4.5.3 Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges where required by the AHJ. 18.2.3.4.6 Grade. C— 18.2.3.4.6.1The maximum gradient of a Fire department access road shall not exceed 12 percent for unpaved surfaces and 15 percent for paved surfaces. In areas of the FDAR where a Fire apparatus would connect to a Fire hydrant or Fire Department Connection, the maximum gradient of such area(s) shall not exceed 10 percent. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 5 18.2.3.4.6.2* The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft (0.3 m drop in 6 m) or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ. 18.2.3.4.6.3 Fire department access roads connecting to roadways shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 ft (0.61 m) beyond each edge of the fire lane. 18.2.3.4.7 Traffic Calming Devices. The design and use of traffic calming devices shall be approved the AHJ. 18.2.3.5 Marking of Fire Apparatus Access Road. 18.2.3.5.1 Where required by the AHJ, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained to identify fire department access roads or to prohibit the obstruction thereof of both. 18.2.3.5.2 A marked fire apparatus access road shall also be known as a fire lane. 18.2.4* Obstruction and Control of Fire Department Access Road. 18.2.4.1 General. 18.2.4.1.1 The required width of a fire department access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles. 18.2.4.1.2 Minimum required widths and clearances established under 18.2.3.4 shall be maintained at all times. 18.2.4.1.3* Facilities and structures shall be maintained in a manner that does not impair or impede accessibility for fire department operations. 18.2.4.1.4 Entrances to fire departments access roads that have been closed with gates and barriers in accordance with 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. 18.2.4.2 Closure of Accessways. 18.2.4.2.1 The AHJ shall be authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates or other approved barricades across roads, trails, or other accessways not including public streets, alleys, or highways. 18.2.4.2.2 Where required, gates and barricades shall be secured in an approved manner. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 6 18.2.4.2.3 Roads, trails, and other access ways that have been closed and obstructed in the manner prescribed by 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized by the owner and the AHJ. 18.2.4.2.4 Public officers acting within their scope of duty shall be permitted to access restricted property identified in 18.2.4.2.1. 18.2.4.2.5 Locks, gates, doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags, or seals that have been installed by the fire department or by its order or under its control shall not be removed, unlocked, destroyed, tampered with, or otherwise vandalized in any manner. 18.3 Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants 18.3.1* A water supply approved by the county, capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are hereafter constructed, or moved into or within the county. When any portion of the facility or building is in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a water supply on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on- site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided when required by the AHJ. For on-site fire hydrant requirements see section 18.3.3. EXCEPTIONS: 1. • When facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of section 18.3.1 may be modified by the AHJ. 2. When water supply requirements cannot be installed due to topography or other conditions, the AHJ may require additional fire protection as specified in section 18.3.2 as amended in the code. 3. When there are not more than two dwellings, or two private garage, carports, sheds and agricultural. Occupancies, the requirements of section 18.3.1 may be modified by AHJ. 18.3.2* Where no adequate or reliable water distribution system exists, approved reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, fire department tanker shuttles, or other approved systems capable of providing the required fire flow shall be permitted. 18.3.3* The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on a fire apparatus access road on the site of the premises or both, in accordance with the appropriate county water requirements. 18.3.4 Fire Hydrants and connections to other approved water supplies shall be accessible to the fire department. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 7 18.3.5 Private water supply systems shall be tested and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25 or county requirements as determined by the AHJ. 18.3.6 Where required by the AHJ, fire hydrants subject to vehicular damage shall be protected unless located within a public right of way. 18.3.7 The AHJ shall be notified whenever any fire hydrant is placed out of service or returned to service. Owners of private property required to have hydrants shall maintain hydrant records of approval, testing, and maintenance, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. Records shall be made available for review by the AHJ upon request. C— 18.3.8 Minimum water supply for buildings that do not meet the minimum County water standards: Buildings up to 2000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 3,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings 2001- 3000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 6,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings, 3001- 6000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 12,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings, greater than 6000 square feet, shall meet the minimum County water and fire flow requirements. Multiple story buildings shall multiply the square feet by the amount of stories when determining the minimum water supply. Commercial buildings requiring a minimum fire flow of 2000gpm per the Department of Water standards shall double the minimum water supply reserved for firefighting. Fire Department Connections (FDC) to alternative water supplies shall comply with 18.3.8 (1)- (6) of this code. NOTE In that water catchment systems are being used as a means of wafer supply for firefghting'such;systems shall meet the following' -requirements: 1) In that a single water tank is used for both domestic and firefighting water, the water for domestic use shall not be capable of being drawn from the water reserved for firefighting; Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 8 2) Minimum pipe diameter sizes from the water supply to the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be as follows: a) 4" for C900 PVC pipe; b) 4" for C906 PE pipe; c) 3" for ductile Iron; d) 3' for galvanized steel. 3) The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall: a) be made of galvanized steel; b) have a gated valve with 2-1/2 inch, National Standard Thread male fitting and cap; c) be located between 8 ft and 16 ft from the Fire department access. The location shall be approved by the AHJ; d) not be located less than 24 inches, and no higher than 36 inches from finish grade, as measured from the center of the FDC orifice; e) be secure and capable of withstanding drafting operations. Engineered stamped plans may be required; fl not be located more than 150 feet of the most remote part, but not less than 20 feet, of the structure being protected; g) also comply with section 13.1.3 and 18.2.3.4.6.1 of this code. 4) Commercial buildings requiring a fire flow of 2000gpm shall be provided with a second FDC. Each FDC shall be independent of each other, with each FDC being capable of flowing 500gpm by engineered design standards. The second FDC shall be located in an area approved by the AHJ with the idea of multiple Fire apparatus'conducting drafting operations at once, in mind. 5) Inspection and maintenance shall be in accordance to NFPA 25. 6) The owner or lessee of the property shall be responsible for maintaining the water level, quality, and appurtenances of the system. EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 18.3.8: 1) Agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and shade houses with no combustible or equipment storage. 2) Buildings less than 800 square feet in size that meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 9 3) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and detached garages 800 to 2000 square feet in size, and meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection maybe increased to 1000 feet. 4) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, and storage sheds greater than 2000square feet, but less than 3000 square feet and meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to 500 feet. 5) For buildings with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the minimum water supply required may be modified. If there are any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau at (808) 932-2911. DARREN J. ROSARIO Fire Chief KV:ds i II DAVID Y. IGE h r `9 GOVERNOR OF HAWAII , c` tend and 0 Fes•.=. STATE Or HAWAII 'flweofHs++aDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 9, 2017 MEMORANDUM SUZANNE U. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON NATER RUSOURCE MANAGE\IFNT T - / DLNR Agencies: _Div. of Aquatic Resources _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X W: Engineering Division 1 r X Div. of Forestry & Wildlife Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management _Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands X Land Division — Hawaii District X Historic Preservation _FROM U ' Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator SUBJECT: Applications for (1) State Land Use Boundary Amendment (Agriculture to Urban) (SLU 17-000049); and (2) County Rezoning (from A -20a to FA -1 a and RS -10) (REZ 17-000223) LOCATION: Puueo, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; TMKs: (3) 2-67008: 026 & 027 APPLICANT: Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above -referenced subject matter. We would appreciate your comments by October 27, 2017. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Darlene Nakamura at 587-0417. Thank you. Attachments ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. ( �/) Comments are attached. Signed: Print Name: A'h_,dy S. Chang, Chief Engineer Date: 1 o(Ivf 17 cc: Central Files Planning Dept. Exhibit 10 F+ -3 Ch C'7 F-� z 0 Ch ILM En DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING DIVISION LD/Russell Y. Tsuji Ref: Applications for (1) State Land Use Boundary Amendment (Agriculture to Urban) (SLU 17-000049); and (2) County Rezoning (from A -20a to FA -la and RS -10) (REZ 17-000223), Puueo, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; TMKs: (3) 2-6-008: 026 & 027 COMMENTS The rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR), are in effect when development falls within a designated Flood Hazard. The owner of the project property and/or their representative is responsible to research the Flood Hazard Zone designation for the project. Flood Hazard "Lone designations can be found using the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), which can be accessed through the Flood Hazard Assessment Tool (FHAT) (http://gis.hawaiinfip.org/FHAT). Be advised that 44CFR reflects the minimum standards as set forth by the NFIP. Local community flood ordinances may take precedence over the NFIP standards as local designations prove to be more restrictive. If there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances, please contact the applicable County NFIP Coordinators below: o Oahu: City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting (808) 768-8098. o Hawaii Island: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works (808) 961-8327. o Maui/Molokai/Lanai County of Maui, Department of Planning (808) 270-7253. o Kauai: County of Kauai, Department of Public Works (808) 241-4846. Signed: "ARTY S. VILVANG, CHIEF ENGINEER Date: l°/«'f 11 OF DAVID Y. IGE 9 r�\��1��/P` 9 SUZANNE 0. CASE .=A?IOR OFMAWM GMAIRPER5011 WLLIAM D. BALFOUR, JR. h e Z KAMANA BEAMER, PH.D. MICHAEL G. BUCK r .�? NEILJ.J. HANNAHS PAUL J. MEYER VIRGINIA PRESSLER, M.D. P JEFFREY 7E .STATE OF HAWAII T. ECTO oEPTR P.E. ARS DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT P O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 27, 2017 REF: RFD.4694,8 TO: Mr. Russell Tsuji, Administrator Land Division FROM: Jeffrey T. Pearson, P.E., Deputy Director Commission on Water Resource Management SUBJECT: Applications for (1) State Land Use Boundary Amendment (Agriculture to Urban) (SLU 17-000049); and (2) County Rezoning (from A -20a to FA -1a and RS -10) (REZ 17-000223) FILE NO.: RFD.4694.8 TMK NO.: (3) 2-6-008: 026 & 027 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. The Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) is the agency responsible for administering the State Water Code (Code). Under the Code, all waters of the State are held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of the State, therefore all water use is subject to legally protected water rights. CWRM strongly promotes the efficient use of Hawaii's water resources through conservation measures and appropriate resource management. For more information, please refer to the State Water Code, Chapter 174C, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapters 13-167 to 13-171. These documents are available via the Internet at http•//dlnr.hawaii.gov/cwrm. Our comments related to water resources are checked off below. n1. We recommend coordination with the county to incorporate this project into the county's Water Use and Development Plan. Please contact the respective Planning Department and/or Department of Water Supply for further information. El 2. 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. El 3. We recommend coordination with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) to incorporate the reclassification of agricultural zoned land and the redistribution of agricultural resources into the State's Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan (AWUDP). Please contact the HDOA for more information. X❑ 4. We recommend that water efficient fixtures be installed and water efficient practices implemented throughout the development to reduce the increased demand on the area's freshwater resources. Reducing the water usage of a home or building may earn credit towards Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. More information on LEED certification is available at http://www.usgbc.org/leed, A listing of fixtures certified by the EAP as having high water efficiency can be found at http://www.epa.gov/watersense. X] 5. We recommend the use of best management practices (BMP) for stormwater management to minimize the impact of the project to the existing area's hydrology while maintaining on-site infiltration and preventing polluted runoff from storm events. Stormwater management BMPs may earn credit toward LEED certification. More information on stormwater BMPs can be found at http://plan n ing. hawaii.g ovlczm/initiatives/low-impact-development/ X❑ 6. We recommend the use of alternative water sources, wherever practicable. F] 7. We recommend participating in the Hawaii Green Business Program, that assists and recognizes businesses that strive to operate in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. The program description can be found online at http://energy.hawaii.gov/green-business-program. XO 8. We recommend adopting landscape irrigation conservation best management practices endorsed by the Landscape Industry Council of Hawaii. These practices can be found online at Planning Dept® Exhibit Mr. Russell Tsuji Page 2 October 27, 2017 htip://www.hawaiiscape.com/wp-contentluploads/2013/04/LlCH_i rrigation_Conservation_BMPs.pdf. 9. There may be the potential for ground or surface water degradation/contamination and recommend that approvals for this project be conditioned upon a review by the State Department of Health and the developer's acceptance of any resulting requirements related to water quality. El10 The proposed water supply source for the project is located in a designated water management area, and a Water Use Permit is required prior to use of water. The Water Use Permit may be conditioned on the requirement ,to use dual line water supply systems for new industrial and commercial developments. 11 A Well Construction Permit(s) is (are) are required before the commencement of any well construction work. 12 A Pump Installation Permit(s) is (are) required before ground water is developed as a source of supply for the project. 13 There is (are) well(s) located on or adjacent to this project. If wells are not planned to be used and will be affected by any new construction, they must be properly abandoned and sealed. A permit for well abandonment must be obtained. 14 Ground -water withdrawals from this project may affect streamflows, which may require an instream flow t standard amendment. 15 A Stream Channel Alteration Permit(s) is (are) required before any alteration can be made to the bed and/or banks of a steam channel. 16 A Stream Diversion Works Permit(s) is (are) required before any stream diversion works is constructed or altered. 17 A Petition to Amend the Interim Instream Flow Standard is required for any new or expanded diversion(s) of surface water. 18 The planned source of water for this project has not been identified in this report. Therefore, we cannot determine what permits or petitions are required from our office, or whether there are potential impacts to water resources. X❑ OTHER; Potable water supply is proposed to be serviced through the county municipal system. Projected potable demands, and the calculations used to derive the estimates, should be described. Non - potable water needs to support the agricultural component of the project should also be described, along with the proposed source of water to meet the non -potable needs. If a well(s) or stream diversion will be used, permits and other approvals from the Commission may be required. If you have any questions, please contact Lenore Ohye of the Commission. -staff at 587-0216. i w DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO. HAWAII 96721-0916 VIRGINIA PRESSLER, M.D. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH MEMORANDUM N t7 Oz v C Z --i DATE: October 13, 2017 z- 7- �� F.-. s TO: Mr. Michael Yee C 3 Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Eric Honda z District Envilental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU-17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (rez-17-000223) Request: Open and A -20z to RAS_10 for 14.95 acres of land and A -20a to FA -la for 24.73 acres of land Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 TMK: 2-6-008:026 & 027 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 at Ph. 933-0401. .Public Water Systems: The Department of Health's Safe Drinking Water Branch authority on drinking water quality is based on the definition of a "public water system." Federal and state regulations define a public water system as a system that serves 25 or more individuals at least 60 days per year or has at least 15 service connections. All public water system owners and operators are required to comply with Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-20 (HAR 1I- 20), and titled "Rules Relating to Public Water Systems". All public water systems are regulated by the Department of Health and shall be in compliance with the Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 20. Recommend the subdivision lots be connected to an existing public water system. Concerns on water quality for lead, copper, algae and microbiological and chemical contaminations in private water systems have identified the need for self monitoring. The Department of Health does not support the use of these private rain catchment systems for drinking purposes since the quality may not meet potable water standards. All new public water systems are required to demonstrate and meet minimum capacity requirements prior to their establishment, per HAR 11-20-29.5, titled "Capacity Demonstration Planning Dept 114404 Exhibit /2-- V " 4 JJ Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 2 of 6 and Evaluation." This requirement involves demonstration that the system will have satisfactory technical, managerial and financial capacity to enable the system to comply with safe drinking water standards and requirements. Projects that propose development of new sources of potable water serving or proposed to serve a public water system must comply with the terms of HAR 11-20-29. This section requires that all new public water system sources be approved by the Director of Health .(Director) prior to its use. Such approval is based primarily upon the submission of a satisfactory engineering report which addresses the requirements specified in HAR 11-20-29. The engineering report must identify all potential sources of contamination and evaluate alternative control measures which could be implemented to reduce or eliminate the potential for contamination, including treatment of the water source. In addition, water quality analyses for all regulated contaminants, performed by a laboratory certified by the State Laboratories Division of the State of Hawaii, must be submitted as part of the report to demonstrate compliance with all drinking water standards. Additional parameters may be required by the Director for this submittal or additional tests required upon his or her review of the information submitted. All sources of public water system sources must undergo a source water assessment which will delineate a source water protection area. This process is preliminary to the creation of a source water protection plan for that source and activities which will take place to protect the source of drinking water. Projects proposing to develop new public water systems or proposing substantial modifications to existing public water systems must receive construction plans approval by the Director prior to construction of the proposed system or modification in accordance with HAR 11-20-30, titled "New and Modified Public Water Systems". These projects include treatment, storage and distribution systems of public water systems. The approval authority for projects owned and operated by a County Board or Department of Water or Water Supply has been delegated to them. All public water systems must be operated by certified distribution system and water treatment plant operators as defined by HAR 11-25 titled, "Rules Pertaining to Certification of Public Water System Operators". All projects which propose the use of dual water systems or the use of a non -potable water system in proximity to an existing potable water system to meet irrigation or other needs must be carefully design and operate these systems to prevent the cross -connection of these systems and prevent the possibility of backflow of water from the non -potable system to the potable system. The two (2) systems must be clearly labeled and physically separated by air gaps or reduced pressure principle backflow prevention devices to avoid contaminating the potable water supply. In addition backflow devices must be tested periodically to assure their proper operation. Further, all non -potable spigots and irrigated areas should be clearly labeled with warning signs to prevent the inadvertent consumption on non -potable water. Compliance with HAR Chapter 11-21, titled Cross -Connection and Backflow Control is also required. w Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 3 of 6 All projects which propose the establishment of a potentially contaminating activity (as identified in the Hawaii Source Water Assessment Plan) within the source water protection area of an existing source of water for a public water supply should address this potential and activities that will be implemented to prevent or reduce the potential for contamination of the drinking water source. For further information concerning the application of capacity, new source approval, operator certification, source water assessment, backflow/cross-connection prevention or other public water system programs, please contact the SDWB at 586-4258. The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of the subject document on October 4, 2017. The CWB has reviewed the limited information contained in the subject document and offers the following comments: Permit Issuance Any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the State's: 1) Antidegradation policy, which requires that the existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses of the receiving State water be maintained and protected; 2) Designated uses, as determined by the classification of the receiving State waters; and 3) Water quality criteria [Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-54], * A Section 401 Water quality Certification (WQC) is required if your project/activity: - Requires a federal permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or Statutory exemption; and - May result in a discharge into State waters. The term "discharge" is defined in Clean Water Act, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6). Examples of "discharge" include, but are not limited to, allowing the following pollutants to enter State waters from the surface or in -water: solid waste, rock/sand/dirt, heat, sewage, construction debris, any underwater work, chemicals, fugitive dust/spray/paint, agricultural wastes, biological materials, industrial wastes, concrete/sealant/epoxy, and washing/cleaning effluent. Determine if your project/activity requires a federal permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or statutory exemption by contacting the appropriate federal agencies (e.g. Department of the Army (DA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Pacific Ocean Division Honolulu District Office (POH) Tel: 808-835-4303; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tel: 415-947-8021; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tel: 866-208-3372; U.S. Coast Guard Office of Bridge Programs Tel: 202-372-1511). To request a Section 401 WQC, you must complete and submit the Section 401 WQC application. This application is available on the e -Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/epermit/. Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page.4 of 6 Please see HAR, chapter 11-54 for the State' Water Quality Standards and for more information on the Section 401 WQC. HAR, Chapter 11-54 is available on the CWB website at: http://health.hawaii.vov/cwb/. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage is required for: -Storm water associated with construction activities for land, disturbances of one (1) acre or more. Land disturbance includes, but is not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, demolition, uprooting of vegetation, equipment staging, and storage areas. -Storm water associated with industrial activities for facilities with Standard Industrial Classification Codes regulated in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i) through (ix) and (xi). -Storm water and certain non -storm water from a small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. -Discharges of water pollutants into State surface waters. Examples of these discharges include, but are not limited to, cooling water, hydrotesting waters, dewatering effluent, and process wastewater. -Discharges from the application of pesticides (including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and various other substances to control pest) to State waters. An application for an NPDES individual permit must be submitted at least 180 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge or start of construction activities. To request and NPDES individual permit, you must complete and submit the NPDES individual permit application. This application is available on the e -Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/epemiit/. A Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under a specific NPDES general permit must be submitted at least 30 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge or start of construction activities. To request NPDES general permit coverage, you must complete and submit the NOI. The NOI is available on the e -Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-ciptid.doh.hawaii.gov/epermit/. Please see HAR, Chapter 11-55 for more information on the NPDES individual permit and NPDES general permits. The specific NPDES general permits located in HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendices B through M. HAR, Chapter 11-55 and HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendices B through M are available on the CWB website at: http://health.haNvaii.gov/cwb/. • According to State law, all discharges related to the project construction or operation activities, whether or not NPDES permit coverage and/or Section 401 .41� w Michael Yee. October 13, 2017 Page 5 of 6 WQC are required, must comply with the State's Water Quality Standards. Monitoring • Effluent discharge and/or receiving water monitoring may be required as conditions of Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and NPDES General and Individual permits. Enforcement • Noncompliance with water quality requirements contained in HAR, Chapter 11-54 and/or permitting requirements specified in HAR, Chapter 11-55 maybe subject to penalties of $25,000 per day per violation. • Violations of Hawaii Revised Statutes 342D and 342E may elicit administrative, civil and criminal penalties for such violations. Polluted Runoff Control • Manage projects identified in watershed -based plans that reduce polluted runoff and educate the public about nonpoint source pollution. Projects are selected through an annual request for proposals. Funding is provided by the EPA through the Clean Water Act. For more information on projects and funding opportunities, please visit: www.hawaii.00v/doh/pollutedrunoffcontrol. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Joanne Seto, Supervisor of the Engineering Section, CWB, at (808) 586-4309. Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter l 1-46, "Community Noise Control." 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. 2. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. 3. 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. Lands formerly used for sugarcane production are now being developed into communities where residential homes, schools and commercial businesses are being constructed. Chemicals associated with the sugarcane industry persist in soil today and may be a threat to public health and the environment. Elevated arsenic levels were discovered in soil at former sugarcane Michael Yee October 13, 2017 Page 6 of 6 production areas on the islands. The HEER Office has identified former sugarcane production areas for assessment throughout the state and plans to work with property owners to conduct environmental assessments to identify and address elevated soil arsenic levels prior to finalizing development plans for the properties. We recommend that you review all of the Standard Comments on our website: http://hawaii.aov/health/environniental/env-planninQ/landuse/landuse html. Any comments specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to. The same website also features a Healthy Community Design Smart Growth Checklist (Checklist) created by Built Environment Working Group (BEWG) of the Hawaii State Department of Health. The BEWG recommends that state and county planning departments, developers, planners, engineers and other interested parties apply the healthy built environment principles in the Checklist whenever they plan or review new developments or redevelopments projects. We also ask you to share this list with others to increase community awareness on healthy community design. DAViD Y. IGE{DANIEL E. OROI]ENF - �. Executive -Office; Governor LUIS P.SALAVERIA LAND USE COMMISSION - Director Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. MARY ALICE EVANS State of Hawal ] - Deputy Director _. ..:.. , . October 9, 2017 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department - .,- ._ 0 :• County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 D ry Hilo, Hawaii 96729 D m t� — Z W r Subject: State Land Use District Boundary Amendment (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change ofZone Application (REZ 17-000223) Request: Open and A -20a to RS -10 for 14.95 acres of land and A -20a to FA -1a for 24.73 acres of land Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 Pu'u'eo, South Hilo, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 2-6-008: 026 & 027 We are in receipt of your memorandum dated October 2, 2017, transmitting the subject applications. We have since reviewed the applications and confirm that the 39.68 -acre subject site, consisting of two contiguous parcels, is designated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. As the County Environmental Report (CER) correctly states, the subject site comprised a portion of the Petition Area that was urbanized by the Land Use Commission (LUC) pursuant to Docket No. A92 -680/C. Brewer Properties, Inc., for a master -planned community consisting of up to a maximum of 1,000 residential units, a neighborhood commercial center, a park, and a school site. Upon motion by the successor landowners, David Earl Greer and Doris Rochelle Greer (collectively the "Greers"), the LUC by Order filed on September 20, 2000, reverted the Petition Area, including the subject site, to the State Land Use Agricultural District and authorized the Greers to vacate and release the conditions recorded against the property. The Greers had planned to use the Petition Area for the planting and harvesting of tropical fruit trees. 235 SOUTH BERETANIA STREET d SUITE. 406 d HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 d TEL: (808) 587-3822 d FAX: (808) 587-3827 EMAIL: dbedt.luc.web@hawaii.gov MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 nning Dept. f 4366 iibit /3 Mr. Michael Yee, Director October 9, 2017 Page 2 We understand that the Applicant, the Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2, subsequently acquired the former Petition Area and now has plans to consolidate and resubdivide the subject site into 49 lots consisting of 19 residential -agricultural lots ranging in size from 1+ -acre to 2+ -acres and 30 single-family residential lots with a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. We further understand that the 19 residential -agricultural lots would remain in the State Land Use Agricultural District, while the 30 single- family residental lots occupying an area of approximately 14.95 acres are proposed to be reclassified to the State Land Use Urban District.' In addition, a 1.7+ -acre lot will be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of Clem Akina Park, and a 2+ -acre lot with a historic era cemetery will be set aside and preserved. The Applicant should clarify its plans for the remaining approximately 249 acres of the former Petition Area. Based on our review of the project description, we believe that the Applicant is deliberately engaging in parcelization so as to circumvent the comprehensive review of the project by the LUC. The delineation of the 14.95 -acre single-family residential lots to just under the 15 -acre statutory threshold for consideration of district boundary amendments by the LUC disregards the potential impacts of the development on areas of statewide concern, including but not limited to the transportation infrastructure and valued cultural and historical resources. For example, the CER states that access to the development will be from Wainaku Avenue, a County road, and a new access from that roadway will be constructed by the Applicant. The CER also states that "...the AM/PM peak hour traffic should be less than 50 movements. As such, it is maintained that a traffic impact analysis report is not necessary for this project." We question whether such a conclusion can be reached and whether no State roadways will be affected without a properly vetted analysis. The CER further acknowledges that "[i]t is not known whether the subject or immediate surrounding area was used in the recent past for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians," but concludes that it is unlikely that the site would be used for traditional and customary gathering today given that "[t]he Applicant has not observed any native Hawaiians on the Site or adjoining properties gathering plants." As there has been no formal Cultural Impact Assessment prepared for the project, we believe that the CER's conclusion is without basis and does not comply with the ' We note that the area proposed to be urbanized is also identified as 14.97 acres elsewhere in the submittal. For purposes of this letter, we have used the acreage specified in the transmittal memorandum. Mr. Michael Yee, Director October 9, 2017 Page 3 Hawai'i Supreme Court decision in Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina v. Land Use Com'n, State of Hawaii, 94 Hawaii 31, 7 P.3d 1068 (Hawai'i 2000) The CER also fails to include a discussion on other areas that may be of State interest, such as civil defense and drainage, infrastructure and the impact the project may have on such facilities in the area and whether any mitigation measures are warranted. As they represent more than 50 percent of the project, consideration should also be given to include the proposed 19 residential -agricultural lots as part of the proposed district boundary amendment. This would allow regulatory agencies to comprehensively review the development as an integrated whole rather than on a segmented basis. As there is very little discussion in the CER regarding the agricultural activities that will be undertaken by the owners of these lots, we question the legitimacy of the 19 lots to have viable farms and diversified agricultural activities conducted on them in a manner consistent with HRS chapter 205. As you know, agricultural activities in the State Land Use Agricultural District must be actively and primarily pursued. If the Applicant remains intent on excluding the residential -agricultural lots from the district boundary application, we believe that a formal agricultural assessment of them should be conducted before any decision is made on the application. Such an. assessment should comprehensively describe, among other things, the type of agricultural crops that may be actively and primarily cultivated on the lots as well as any improvements that may be required, particularly since the Greers themselves did not use this area intensively for agricultural purposes but instead elected to keep it in its current fallow state or to use it for cattle grazing. We have no further comments to offer at this time. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please call our office at 587-3822. Sincerely, Daniel E. Orodenker Executive Officer SidneyFuke, Punning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Cell: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sidfuKe@hawaiiantel.net November 7, 2017 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yee: Subject: State Land Use and Rezoning Applications Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust II • Planning • Variance - Zoning • Subdivision • Land Use Permits • Environmental Reports Thank you for providing me with a copy of agency comments to date regarding the subject applications. In response to said comments, please note the following; a. We concur with the County Police Department comments that the project is not anticipated to generate "any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns." b. The requirements of the County Fire Department relative to fire protective services will be addressed and implemented in conjunction with the subdivision of the property. These include any required access, fire hydrants, pressure, and the like. c. The Department of Water Supply noted that County water can be made available for the proposed development. The applicant understands that the subdivision layout may have to be adjusted to accommodate the Department's pressure zone requirement. This will be done in conjunction with the subdivision process. Likewise, the Department's standard requirement of payment of water commitment fee and making the necessary on and off-site water infrastructure improvements will also be adhered to. d. While the Solid Waste Division of the Department of Environmental Management had no comments on the request, the Wastewater Division offered several observations. In that regard, the applicant understands and so acknowledged in its Planning and Environmental Report that a sewer line will be extended. This is in accordance with Section 23-85(a) of the Subdivision Code which requires connection to an existing sewer line and making appropriate upgrades if the proposed A subdivision falls within three hundred (300 lineal feet of an existing line. Such is the case here. Planning Dept. 114795 Exhibit 1� Mr. Michael Yee, Director November 7, 2017 Page 2 As with other required subdivision infrastructures — such as water line or roadway systems — technical and detailed studies would still need to be prepared and approved by the appropriate agencies prior to and/or in conjunction with the subdivision process. Likewise, the technical sewer study will be done then and submitted for the review and approval of the DEM. Relative to the other comments noted: 1. The applicant's report noting that there is no wastewater system in this "area" is technically incorrect, as there is a system within 300 feet of the subject property. The point was that there was no line fronting the subject property, and I apologize for this misunderstanding. 2. As noted above, a sewer study will be done prior to and/or in conjunction with the subdivision process. This is typical for other infrastructure as well and such study will be used to assess — in addition to a connection - what, if any, other upgrades may be necessary to the system. 3. Should the sewer study determine that connecting to an existing privately owned sewer line is more prudent, the applicant understands that the County will neither accept its maintenance nor operational responsibility. This would be no different than an approved private road. 4. There is an existing sewer line along Amau ulu Road. However, the line does not extend to either one of the subject properties. Hence, if that becomes the route of choice, the applicant must seek an easement over the property that fronts the line. 5. And yes, the applicant understands that the 6 -inch line in Amau ulu Road would have to be upgraded if the project chooses to take that route. e. Relative to the State Department of Health, the project will be connected to the County Department of Water Supply's system not be using a water catchment system. Accordingly, the Safe Drinking Water Branch's concern will be addressed. The appropriate NPDES permit will be required to address the drainage system and storm water concerns. The contractor will be advised to adhere to the State's "Community Noise Control" requirements. Mr. Michael Yee, Director November 7, 2017 Page 3 Finally, it was noted that due to the site's former sugar cane use, there is always the potential of chemical contamination of the soil. Although the applicant does not believe there is that kind of a risk for these properties, it could expand the scope of its soils study to include such an evaluation in conjunction with its soils study to assess ground conditions of the roadways and associated infrastructure. This will be done prior to submittal of construction plans for the proposed subdivision. f. The State Land Use Commission (LUC) raised a number of issues. These issues and our specific responses in italics follow. Use of the 249 acres of the former Petition Area. It should be noted that the applicant has a longstanding commitment to agriculture. Its activities include macadamia nut along the Hamakua coast and Ka'u, coffee in Ka'u and Hilo; and a variety of truck crop and tropical fruit trees in Hilo. A significant portion of the 249 acres is now being planted in sweet potato. The applicant intends to continue with the agricultural activities on all of those properties. 2. "P(p)arcelization so as to circumvent the comprehensive review of the project by the LUC." The applicant disagrees with this statement. For one, this area was formerly designated Urban by the LUC At that time, the LUC reviewed a more intensive urban project against the standards for urbanization and deemed the State Land Use Urban district to be appropriate. It was only at the former owner's request (as opposed to being initiated by the LUC or County) was it reclassified into the Agricultural district. During this time, there have been no significant amendments to the SLU Urban or Agricultural standards that should alter the former conclusion that an Urban district is not appropriate. Further, the County General Plan relative to requested area also has not changed. The County, in its wisdom, continues to believe that the requested area is suitable for urban type of uses. The applicant initially sought a Family Agricultural l -acre (FA -1a) zone of the properties to create twenty seven (27)1 + acre family -agricultural lots. In addition to providing family -agricultural lots, this was also done to provide a land use transition to the mauka properties, which are zoned Agriculture (A -20a) and used agriculturally by the applicant as noted above. However, because of the County General Plan Low Density Urban designation and the belief that this area is ripe for "infill ", the Planning Department encouraged the applicant to revise its plan to create smaller lots. Mr. Michael Yee, Director November 7, 2017 Page 4 The applicant subsequently withdrew its application and resubmitted the current one. While, in accordance to the General Plan, the entire 39+ acres could have been developed into smaller lots, the applicant still wanted to create some larger family -agricultural lots on the mauka end to provide some measure of buffer and transition between the agricultural uses mauka of the subject site and the proposed smaller lots on the makai side. Thus, the project morphed into the current design, resulting in approximately fourteen (14) acres being proposed for smaller lots. Finally, it should be emphasized that L UC does not have a monopoly in being able to review land use requests comprehensively. The County also has that capacity as well. It will review the request against the LUC standards for Urban in addition to the County General Plan and other applicable regulations. 3. Disregarding potential impacts of statewide concerns. Again, the applicant disagrees with this comment. For one, it is our understanding that a copy of the application is forwarded to a number of state agencies — such as the departments of Transportation; Land and Natural Resources, including Historic Preservation Division; Health; Agriculture; the LUC; and the like. Thus, those agencies have an opportunity to weigh in on the application. ' Relative to Lafftcthe directly impacted streets are all County (Wainaku Street and Amau'ulu Road) owned and maintained. The State Highway is located multiple streets away. Further, the County Zoning Code has its own standards regarding the need for a traffic impact analysis report. In this case, the threshold is when the perceived AM/PMpeak hours would exceed fifty (50) movements. This forty nine (49) lot project should not reach that threshold. The LUC noted the absence and the possible need of a Cultural Impact Assessment. One was not prepared for several reasons. For one, the site was formerly used for sugar cane. In that regard, it would be very unlikely that the site was "used in the recent past for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians. " The applicant also acknowledged in its application — which the L UC failed to mention — that "In the event legitimate gathering claims are made by native Hawaiians, the Applicant intends to respect and honor such claims and provide the needed access within the Site. " Additionally, an Archaeological Inventory Survey Report was prepared for the subject site. The report identified only one (1) archaeological site, which was an Mr. Michael Yee, Director November 7, 2017 Page 5 historic era cemetery. This cemetery will be preserved in accordance with a Preservation Plan.. Further, the report extensively covered the historical and cultural context of the subject site. It also included an oral interview. Both are components of a Cultural Impact Assessment. Collectively, then, the applicant submits that the cultural impact aspects of the proposed development have been addressed.. Civil Defense and drainage infrastructure concerns are not peculiar to the State. They are also of concern to the County. Please note that the State Department of Health provided its comments and the need for permits like NPDES to address drainage issues. Further, at this level of the land use entitlement process, it is premature to develop speck drainage mitigation systems, except to note that the conventional means such as drywells will be utilized. Those systems will be subject to the review and approval of the County Department of Public Works as well as the State Department of Health in conjunction with the NPDESprocess. Like traffic, the County Zoning Code's concurrency provision also discusses Civil Defense. In this case, there already is a siren proximate to this area, particularly as this is already part of an urban community. 4. "L(1)egitimacy of the 19 lots to have viable farms and diversified agricultural activities" The State Land Use Law has already deemed one -acre sized lots acceptable for agricultural uses within the State Land Use Agricultural district. Had it not, the Law would have established a larger acreage. Thus, to summarily suggest that the proposed 1 -acre lots are illegitimate would be contrary to the Law. The applicant is aware that those lots must be used in a manner consistent with the agricultural provisions of the Law. In similar situations where State Land Use Agricultural properties are rezoned by the County, conditions are attached to provide notices of these restrictions and assure compliance with the Law. The applicant anticipates similar provisions would be imposed. In sum, the applicant does not agree with the suggestion that not having the LUC review this application leaves the State out of the reviewing and, in certain, situations, approval loop. The State has ample reviewing opportunity and, in many instances, still must review/approve certain construction plans. Mr. Michael Yee, Directors November 7, 2017 Page 6 Additionally, the applicant does not agree with the suggestion that without LUC review, a comprehensive evaluation of the project's impact cannot. occur. Itis maintained that the County also has the capacity to provide such a thorough and responsible evaluation. I trust that the foregoing adequately addressed agency comments to date. If not or if there are more, please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very -much. Sincerely, r� SIDNEY . FU Planning Consultant Copy — Edmund C. Olson Trust II via email Kay, Christian 17 PM ? 1 R Subject: FW: COR -16-106341 - RE: Parcel 2-6-O02-4. A'-Affected'�bjN6' f�'pment of Parcels 26, 27 and 31. �UPi f `i 0;- HANWA,)I From: John Cross [mailto:iohn@olsontrust.coml Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:53 AM To: Kay, Christian<Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Fwd: Parcel 2-6-008-024 As Affected by Development of Parcels 26, 27 and 31. Christian, I checked with our attorney and he said it was OIC to send this email to you. My response to Mr. Inouye is in red. At this moment, I have not been instructed to respond to him formally. Christian, I think you know me and my knowledge of the lands. I have a reasoned and well grounded answer to Mr. Inouye. Unfortunately his aggressive posture is not making my boss and his attorney very happy. He(inouye) has set the stage for opposition rather than cooperation. Please share with Darren. John C. From: Warren Inouye <Warrenc)warreninou e�> Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:39 AM Subject: RE: Parcel 2-6-008-024 As Affected by Development of Parcels 26, 27 and 31. To: John Cross <Johnaolsontrust.com> Cc: "hilobrokers@ygmail.com" <hilobrokersagnail.com>, "sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net" <sidfuke@,hawaiiantel.net>, "planning ccihawaiicounty gov" <planning@hawaiicounty.gov> Dear John The Olson Trust is presently seeking entitlements to rezone and create a subdivision on TMK Parcels 2-6-008-026 and 027. 1 represent the owners of Parcel 024. The Olson Trust also owns Parcel 031. Mr. Inouye represents himself and a few of the various owners, I do not think he represents "all" of the owners. I do not agree with you that Parcel 24 is affected only by Parcel 31, and not by the development of Parcels 26 and 27. Here are the reasons the owner of Parcel 24 has a right to review and approve the development of Parcels 26 and 27: 0 The Sales Listing for Parcels 26 and 27 requires that Parcels 26 and 27 must be developed in conjunction with each other: the listing requires that Parcels 26 and 27 be purchased together. No comment Planning �� Exhibit /, 12484 0 The reason that Parcels 26 and 27 must be purchased together, is that (a) the open space requirements for the development of Parcel 27 will probably be satisfied with land on Parcel 26, and (b) access to Parcel 27 is intended to come across Parcel 26, which is to become a park. The Owners of Parcel 24 do not want to deal with the owners of Parcel 27 to provide continuing access. Dealing with the County or the City or a Park/Landscape District for access is not something we want to do. Access to Parcel 24, Mr. Inouyes partial ownership, if and when granted will come across parcel 031, it will not cross parcels 026, 027, or the County Park. 0 The roads drawn on the proposed subdivision map for Parcels 26 and 27 do not match up to the existing access roads which serve Parcel 24. This is evidence of a purposeful attempt to relocate and diminish or eliminate our access roads. The proposed subdivision map plots approximate location of the 60' wide access roads to the various lots, the current existing sugarcane road system as depicted on the Tax Maps are not adequate for use as the primary 60' wide paved roads being planned. There was no purposeful attempt to eliminate any access to parcel 024 since there was none to begin with. Parcel 024 DOES NOT have any recorded or unrecorded access rights across parcels 026 and 027. 0 Easements of access for the benefit of Parcel 24 presently come across Parcels 26, Parcel 27 and Parcel 31. The Olson Trust had both constructive and actual notice of the easements at the time it purchased the Greer Estate and therefore took subject to the access easements for Parcel 24. The Olson Trust received actual notice of the easements because the access roads for Parcel 24 are clearly visible. Constructive notice was received in two ways. First, the access easements are actually drawn on the Tax Map of the the Department of Finance,'Property Assessment Division, which is a public record, and second, the title insurance policy obtained by the Olson Trust at the time it acquired the Greer Estate expressly acknowledged the existence of the access easements and showed them as exceptions to coverage. On top of all this, the Hawaiian doctrine of "kaleana"requires that Parcel 24 have access in perpetuity. Again, there are no recorded easements in favor of parcel 024 across any of Olson's lands including parcel 031'. The sugarcane road system are clearly visible both on the Tax Maps as well as in the field, they exist and are used daily by the Trust and its tenants. That being said, parcel 024 does not have the right to use those roads. The exception within the Title Reports of our parcels 026, 027 show nothing in favor of parcel 024, the Title Report for parcel 031 does call out an exception of possible access rights to parcel 024, LCA 4659. The exception indicates that TG recognizes that 024 has NO recorded access across 031, but that if one were granted it would affect our parcel 031. The issue of Kuleana rights is discussed below. 0 Utility services and roads for Parcel 24 will probably have to come across Parcel 26. Therefore, we have a great interest in capacity and alignment of the utility improvements and the road improvements. Your drawings of the Proposed Subdivision on Parcel 27 do not show the existence or the re -alignment of roads on Parcel 26, which are roads providing access to our Parcel 24. Again, Parcel 024 has no access or utility easements across parcels 026 and 027. Our plans to rezone and possibility develop these two parcels do not affect any access or utilities to parcel 024. 0 The access to Parcel 24 is now by way of easements across Parcels 26, 27 and 31. We cannot allow Parcel 24 to become landlocked by inadvertently giving up any common law rights or recorded easement rights. No easements are inplace that benfit parcel 024. The only parcel that could allow access to parcel 024 is our parcel 031. The various owners of parcel 024 are landlocked, they are not giving up any rights to recorded easements because there are none. Kuleana easement rights afforded to owners of a landlocked parcel do exist as State Law, however, it doesn't mean that the easement is granted without consideration to the burdened land owner. The owners of 2 parcel 024 need to negotiate a fair exchange of an easement access across our parcel 031 in favor of their 024. Olsor Trust will not deny this parcel has an access right, but Olson Trust needs to be fairly compensated for granting of this easement. In a letter sent to the Olson Trust on June 21, 2016 1 proposed a very straight forward and generous way of resolving the access issues. I even attached to that letter the document by which these issues were all addressed and resolved when the agreement was signed by the parties and recorded. I have attached the letter and the agreement to this email. However, the Olson Trust has failed to respond to us in any manner, but seems to be moving forward without regard to our rights and without regard to working this matter out amicably. We can work this out amicably, it is unfortunate that Mr. Inouye has taken a very aggressive and hostile tact with Olson Trust. It does not foster an "amicable" settlement. We have had preliminary discussions with persons who want to purchase Parcel 24 for the development of high density condominiums or senior care facilities. If existing access is taken away, the value of Parcel 24 will drop dramatically and so we cannot allow our access to Parcel 24 to be endangered. I wonder how much Mr.lnouye and the other various owners would sell their land for now, Olson Trust is an interested buyer. I am sending a copy of this email and'its attachments to the County of Hawaii. I will not be able to attend a public hearing on the proposed subdivision/zoning changes because of the time, distance and expense involved, but I want the County to know that I, for myself and for all the owners of the Property, object to the proposed subdivision. I would appreciate it if a Planner would call me to discuss this matter, and advise me on how to formally enter an objection to the proposed subdivision without actually attending the planning commission hearing in person. Warren Inouye 2212 Dupont Drive, Suite D Irvine, CA 92612 949-757-0757 949-757-0759 (FAX) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER: THANK YOU. Dear Christian I appreciate the time you spent with me on the phone today. I explained to you my reasons for objecting to the rezoning of Olson Parcels 26 and 27: there is no accommodation for an access easement to Parcel 24, which presently comes across Parcels 26 and 27. A few weeks ago I tried to propose an easy resolution to this problem by proposing a swap which involves (a) a quitclaim of easements by the owners of Parcel 24 across Parcels 26 and 27, in exchange for (b) the Olson Trust's grant of an access easement for Parcel 24 across the flag of Parcel 31 to Wainaku Street. The Olson Trust has been surprisingly silent about this win-win proposal. I have attached a copy of my letter to the Olson Trust, and a copy of the agreement which I proposed to the Olson Trust which accomplishes the easement swaps involved. On behalf of myself and the others whom I represent, I formally object to the rezoning of Parcels 26 and 27 by the County unless the rezoning is conditioned upon the easement swap described above. The access easement for Parcel 24 would be a recorded access easement/utility easement across Parcel 31 through the flag of Parcel 31 to Wainaku Street. Will you please be certain that our objections are made an official part of the record of the public hearing. Warren Inouye 2212 Dupont Drive, Suite D Irvine, CA 92612 949-757-0757 949-757-0759 (FAX) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:52 PM To: Warren@warreninouye.com Subject: RE: COR -16-106341 - RE: Parcel 2-6-008-024 As Affected by Development of Parcels 26, 27 and 31. Mr. Inouye, Thank you for your email. I tried to call you this afternoon, -but was met with an abbreviated opportunity to leave you a message when I was interrupted by beeps and tones from your voicemail. Anyway, if you wish to contact me about this property and the proposed change of zone request, please do so using my contact info below my signature. Daryn Daryn Arai Planning Program Manager County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 4 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov °Howai'i County is on equol opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye[mailto:Warren@warreninouye.comj Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:40 AM To: John Cross <john@olsontrust.com> Cc: hilobrokers@gmail.com; sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net; Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: COR -16-106341- RE: Parcel 2-6-008-024 As Affected by Development of Parcels 26, 27 and 31. Dear John The Olson Trust is presently seeking entitlements to rezone and create a subdivision on TMK Parcels 2-6-008-026 and 027. 1 represent the owners of Parcel 024. The Olson Trust also owns Parcel 031. I do not agree with you that Parcel 24 is affected only by Parcel 31, and not by the development of Parcels 26 and 27. Here are the reasons the owner of Parcel 24 has a right to review and approve the development of Parcels 26 and 27: 0 The Sales Listing for Parcels 26 and 27 requires that Parcels 26 and 27 must be developed in conjunction with each other: the listing requires that Parcels 26 and 27 be purchased together. .0 The reason that Parcels 26 and 27 must be purchased together is that (a) the open space requirements for the development of Parcel 27 will probably be satisfied with land on Parcel 26, and (b) access to Parcel 27 is intended to come across Parcel 26, which is to become a park. The Owners of Parcel 24 do not want to deal with the owners of Parcel 27 to provide continuing access. Dealing with the County or the City or a Park/Landscape District for access is not something we want to do. 0 The roads drawn on the proposed subdivision map for Parcels 26 and 27 do not match up to the existing access roads which serve Parcel 24. This is evidence of a purposeful attempt to relocate and diminish or eliminate our access roads. 0 Easements of access for the benefit of Parcel 24 presently come across Parcels 26, Parcel 27 and Parcel 31. The Olson Trust had both constructive and actual notice of the easements at the time it purchased the Greer Estate and therefore took subject to the access easements for Parcel 24. The Olson Trust received actual notice of the easements because the access roads for Parcel 24 are clearly visible. Constructive notice was received in two ways. First, the access easements are actually drawn on the Tax Map of the the Department of Finance, Property Assessment Division, which is a public record, and second, the title insurance policy obtained by the Olson Trust at the time it acquired the Greer Estate expressly acknowledged the existence of the access easements and showed them as exceptions to coverage. On top of all this, the Hawaiian doctrine of "kaleana"requires that Parcel 24 have access in perpetuity. 0 Utility services and roads for Parcel 24 will probably have to come across Parcel 26. Therefore, we have a great interest in capacity and alignment of the utility improvements and the road improvements. Your drawings of the Proposed Subdivision on Parcel 27 do not show the existence or the re -alignment of roads on Parcel 26, which are roads providing access to our Parcel 24. 0 The access to Parcel 24 is now by way of easements across Parcels 26, 27 and 31. We cannot allow Parcel 24 to become landlocked by inadvertently giving up any common law rights or recorded easement rights. In a letter sent to the Olson Trust on June 21, 2016 1 proposed a very straight forward and generous way of resolving the access issues. I even attached to that letter the document by which these issues were all addressed and resolved when 5. the agreement was signed by the parties and recorded. I have attached the letter and the agreement to this email. However, the Olson Trust has failed to respond to us in any manner, but seems to be moving forward without regard to our rights and without regard to working this matter out amicably. We have had preliminary discussions with persons who want to purchase Parcel 24 for the development of high density condominiums or senior care facilities. If existing access is taken away, the value of Parcel 24 will drop dramatically and so we cannot allow our access to Parcel 24 to be endangered. I am sending a copy of this email and its attachments to the County of Hawaii. I will not be able to attend a public hearing on the proposed subdivision/zoning changes because of the time, distance and expense involved, but I want the County to know that I, for myself and for all the owners of the Property, object to the proposed subdivision. I would appreciate it if a Planner would call me to discuss this matter, and advise me on how to formally enter an objection to the proposed subdivision without actually attending the planning commission hearing in person. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 2212 Dupont Drive, Suite D Irvine, CA 92612 949-757-0757 949-757-0759 ( FAX) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: John Cross (mailto:iohn@olsontrust.comj Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:26 AM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Subject: Parcel 2-6-008-024 Dear Mr. Inouye, My name is John C. Cross and I am the Land Manager fro the Edmund C. Olson trust No. 2. Kelly Moran has forwarded your earlier communication onto Mr. Olson and me about the access concerns you have for the Undivided Interest parcel you hold a share of. I apologize for not responding to you earlier, but please be assured we are taking your request under advisement. We have passed it up to our attorney,. Paul Alston, for his review. With several of us traveling to and from the mainland and the holiday weekend we have not yet conferred on an appropriate response to your request. We will get back to you shortly. That being said I would like to state that our plans for parcels 26 and 27 should not affect the land you hold an interest in whatsoever. Parcel 24 is completed bounded by our parcel 31, any actions between our lands will affect 031 not 026 and 027. Sincerely, John C. Cross Land Manager Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 Warren S. ho;_ ve A 31rofessional Corporation 2212 DuponU Mve, Ste. 1) IT -Vine, CA 92612 949-757-0757 949-757-0759 (LAX) �varrcni�c��•arrenitlou.ye.cotll June 16. 2016 By Finad FPO To hilobl_ol:ers!rc?gmail.com allcl Then by UPS to the hollowing: Mr. Kelly Moran f filo Brokers, Ltd. 400 1-fualaui Street Suite 296 Milo. 111 96720 L'".dnituld C. 0Is011 TRIM No. 2 20238 HOW Belt Road (filo. f - If 96720-21 19 AT_.IN: Director of Real kstate. Dispositions RI.:: Claim of Access Easement Across TN/fK Parcels 26, 27 and 31 Dear kir. Moran. and ladies and Gelltlelllell o['tile Olson Trull 1 •dill an attorney and I represent myself and others m In have an interest in ]AW MCI No. 24. which is located in and among the We identified IWIK Parcels which are o\.vnccf by the Mon Trust in Hilo. Ile purpose OF this letter is to (a) make a written notice and demand upon the Tlstin ']'rust and its agents regarding the Access Easement and Parcel 24. and (h) unir a mutually benenck! soWUon whWh will resolve the present tie Facto adversarial condition. NOTICE AND DEMAND Ile O"nets of T ivlK Parcel 24 enjoy till easement OI in -res, and egress (the"Access I".asetile llt ") across 114K hamds 26; 27 and 3 1, all of Which are m•Vned by file olsoil 1hism Parcels 26 and 27 are presently listed for sale. Ile Access I'.asement arises Out of ancInt pi-CSCI'IlltlVe l'f�(h1S Of Use of SUgyar cane haul roads, Many ol'which roads are still clearly visible oil Google Wfaps. and are clearly Visible from a personal, onsite inspection of the subject pl'OperticS giVill" actual and not simply constructive notice. The Access Easement also arises Out Of'publlc records which depict the Access Hasenlent giving clear constructive notice. In particular the Tax Nfall of' the Department of Finance. Property Assessment Division clearly On" the Access Easement. By Doth constructive and acLUal notfe& AC 01Soll f ruSt Is Well Mare of the existence of the Access Easement. Further, under llawaii law (exenlplitied by rulings of the Hawk Supreme ('ourt). Parcel 24 is protected by the concept of kaleana, milich gives rights ofaccess to properties that might otherwise be landlocked. On top of this all, f and also aware that the. Owner'S Policy of Title insurance issued to the Olson .fl-uSt at the We of me Olson Trust's acquisition ofTNIK Parcels 26, 27 and 31 put the Olson "crust on notice that the Access Easement existed. and was an exception to We lllS uence coverage. [-he undersigned hereby danalids that the Olson 'Dust am! Its agents disclose to all parties who may acquire any right, title or Interest in ! MK Parcels 26. 27 and 3.1 that Parcel 24 enjoys the :\ccess i.ascnlcnt. Further, the undersigned hereby demands that all persons acquiring any dght, title or interest in 'l MK Parcels 26, 27 and 31 ackllowted`_ge tho rights of Be undersigned and others "to are the owilms of Parcel 24. The undcrsi,� IICd demands ttlat any development or use of the three T�IMK Parcels shall he in a rll,lllrlcr <<. IMI preserves Lhe Access f-aScIlICllt in PerpetuRt ' for the benefit of Parccl ?-f and in ownein. The undersigned and other onviiers of Parcel 24 hewhy assert the ilgis to review and approve an) development plans for the lhl'Ce. I iVIK Parcels Owned by the I rUst to deteniline II such develollnlent plaits will iilterlol-C with the LOU and ClIj01'lllellt Of the Access kasement. At the moment. I will not send a copy ol'this letter to the County of I Waii and the City of Hilo asserting our right la review and approve development plans. fff am not able to resolve this issue pmngdy in the manner described below, I will notify both the City and County. PIZOPOSAL TO 1ZESOLVE Al)VEIZSAIUAL SITUATION 011001.151y, our Notice and Denwrid puts the owners of Parcel 24 and the Olson Trust (and its successors and assigns in the three ` iMK Parcels) squarely at odds. We cannot allow ally person to Lae the three TMK Parcels owned by the Olson 'I rtlSt in any' manner Which does not recognize and protect out- Access Easement. ``Ve arc prepared to file an action Or declaratory repel or all in rem action to have the Court declare and Why the existence of the Access Easement. And, as mmitioned above, we v ill make our case to the City and the County. The Access Easement has a substantial negative effect Upon the value of "I OK Parcels 2, 27 and 31. Development plans for such parcels cannot move safely 601'Ward unless and until the nature and location of the Access Flasement is clarified. We must, however, protect the value of Parcel 24. Without access, the value of Parcel 24 is ne0 huible. I have a proposal to resolve this aclversarial relationship. I propose that the o1•vllers of Parcel 24 quitclaim the vvanderino and indefinite Access Lasement it presently enjoys ilt excham,e Cor all Access I'_asement and Utility Easement located In a "Direct RO1-1LC' between Parcel 74 and the narrow strip of land between the Dodo Morluar)' (wflich is TN4K Parcel 25) and the Wainaku-Lyman Property (which is TMK Parcel 23). That narrow strip of load is a part of TMIl Parcel 3 1. There are obvious benefits to both parties to such an exchange. Such advantages are so obvloLlS that I will not tale the tittle to discuss theta except to say the obvious: the signing and recordation of the attached itlst•ument should he a bic, help and L(.00(l news to )"01-11- marknilg of the three T\/IK Parcels. I have taken the liberty o1-- prepal•ing the attached InSt•Unleilt whlCh WOUld be recorded to effect the reciprocal gUltclaim and grant which I have described. F ti•Llst you Can appreciate that nl_y intent is to resolve our adversarial relationship in a manner which is a great benefit to both parties. In that attitude. of cooperation, I request that you contact ale to finalize and execute the atlachecl C10CLI111C11L T hallks. Very truly };)urs WL11rcn ]nouvc I'.I1closure: Grallt Of Access ].-,LiSeillellI alld Utility Hasement and QUitclallll 01 I"\15ting Fasument. \vith 1?xhibits "A" and "B'" cc: Owners of Parcel 24, by US MAI 1, with cnClosure Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: Warren Inouye 2212 Dupont Drive Suite D Irvine, CA 92612 TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-026-0000; TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-027-0000; TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-031-0000; and TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-024-0000 GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND QUITCLAIM OF EXISTING EASEMENT 1. Trust Properties/Olson Trust. The Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 (the "Olson Trust") is the owner of those two parcels of undeveloped real property which are laiown as TMK Parcel 3- 2-6-008-026-0000 (referred to herein as "Parcel 26"), TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-026-0000 (referred to herein as "Parcel 27") and TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-031-0000 (referred to herein as Parcel 31"). Parcel 26, Parcel 27 and Parcel 31 are collectively referred to herein as the "Trust Properties." The Trust Properties are located within the City of Hilo, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. As used herein the tern "Olson Trust" includes all the successors and assigns of the Olson Trust which own or acquire,any right, title or interest ill and to the Trust Properties 2. Owners Property/Owners. The "Owners" are those persons who own any right, title or interest in and to that 'parcel of undeveloped real property which is known as TMK Parcel 3-2-6- 008-024-0000 (referred to as the "Owners Property" or "Parcel 24"). The Owners include (a) Warren Inouye, an individual, (b) Warren Inouye, as Trustee of the Hilo Property Trust and those persons who are beneficiaries of the Hilo Property Trust, (c) Marilyn Carlsmith and Robert Carlsmith, sister and brother, (d) Hank Correa, an individual, (c) Eileen Delima, an individual, and (d) all other persons having any right, title or interest in and to Parcel 24. Grant of Access Easement and Utilities Easement. 3.1 Grant of Easements. In exchange for the Owners' quitclaim of all right, title and interest in and to the "Existing Easement" (as defined below) across the Trust Properties, the Olson Trust hereby grants to the Owners an (a) easement of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the Hilo Property (the "Access Easement") together with the right to constrict related improvements thereon and the right to temporarily pass onto the Trust Properties for purposes of maintaining, replacing and repairing the Access Easement and any improvements located thereon, and (b) a separate utility easement for all public utilities reasonably necessary for the development of Parcel 24, including electrical power, sewer, irrigation, potable water, natural gas, cable and other utilities and services (the "Utilities Easement"). The centerline of the Access Easement and the Utilities Easement is shown on a simple schematic drawing which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A;" the physical area of the Access Easement and Utilities Easement shall be a strip of land located on the most direct route from the south east corner of the Owners Property through the narrow separation between TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-025-0000 (the "Mortuary Parcel") and TMK Parcel 3-2-6-008-023-0000 (the "Wainaku-Lyman Property") to Wainaku Street (the "Direct Route"). 3.2 Compliance with Development Requirements. The Olson Trust agrees that the Access Easement and the Utilities Easement granted herein may be used by the Owners of Parcel 24 to comply with all requirements regarding the location, width, design, and other constriction and design specifications ,imposed by the various land planning agencies of the City of Hilo, the County of Hawaii and other land planning agencies having jurisdiction over the development of Parcel 24 (such agencies are collectively referred to as the "Planning Agencies"). 3.2.1 At Least 20 Feet Wide. The parties agree the Direct Route shall be at least twenty (20) feet wide, and may be wider if required by the Planning Agencies. ID 3.2.2 Location. The parties also agree that the actual location of the Direct Route and the location of the easements may be altered if the Planning Agencies order that it be moved from its location shown on Exhibit "A" to address topographic, environmental, or geophysical concerns. 3.2.3 Other Requirements. The final location and design of both the Access Easeinent and Utility Easement shall satisfy all access and utility requirements of the Planning Agencies, such as width, materials and strength, sidewalks, curb and gutter, sight angles, elevation changes and all other matters. Further, the parties agree that the Access Easement and Utility Easement shall be well-designed, aesthetically appealing, and cost effective, as determined by the Owners in their reasonable and good faith discretion. If the Owners of Parcel 24 begin the construction of improvements for the Access Easement or the Utility Easement before development of the Trust Property occurs, the Olson Trust may relocate and redesign the Access Easement and the Utility Easement and associated improvements to complement the street design and location of the Trust Property, at the sole cost and expense of the Olson Trust. Ingress and egress to Parcel 24 and utility services to Parcel 24 shall be provided by the Olson Trust without interruption at any time that occupancy of a dwelling unit on Parcel 24 is allowed. 3. 3) Perpetuity/Runs With the Land. The Access Easement and the Utility Easement are granted in perpetuity and shall run for the benefit of the Owners and their successors, assigns, and heirs in Parcel 24, and shall burden the Trust Property and all the successors and assigns of the Olson Trust in and to the Trust Property. 3.4 Construction Costs. 3.4.1 Parcel 24 Developed First. The various access and utility improvements for the development of land are collectively referred to herein as "Access and Utility Improvements." The actual costs and expenses incurred in the constriction and maintenance of Access and Utility Improvements for Parcel 24 shall be borne by the Owners, but only if the construction and maintenance of Access and Utility Improvements for Parcel 24 are completed prior to the constriction of Access and Utility Improvements for any part of the Trust Property which are located on or near the "Direct Route" (as defined below). Upon completion of the Access and Utility Improvements for Parcel 24, the Olson Trust shall reimburse to the Owners one half (1/2) of the costs and expenses of construction of the Access and Utility Improvements within thirty (30) days of the Olson Trust's receipt of an invoice for such costs and expenses. 3.4.2 Olson Properties Developed First/Maximum Density. If Access and Utility Improvements are to be constricted for any part of the Trust Properties as a part of development of the Trust Properties on or near the Direct Route prior to development of Parcel 24 in a manner that the same improvements can reasonably be used to satisfy the Access and Utility Improvement requirements for Parcel 24, the Olson Trust agrees that such improvements shall be designed, located and constructed to satisfy all the development requirements of the Access and Utility Improvements for Parcel 24 at its "Maximum Density" (as defined below) without cost or expense to the Owners of Parcel 24; such Access and Utility Improvements shall be appropriately stubbed out to the boundary of Parcel 24. As built plans shall be delivered to the Owners upon completion. The Parties acknowledge that Parcel 24 is presently zoned as agricultural land, but there is the possibility that the land use designation of Parcel 24 might be increased to a land use designation and density allocation which is similar to surrounding properties. Therefore, for purposes of this Agreement, the tern "Maximum Density" means the highest zoning designation and highest density allocation which is granted to any parcel of land which is located within 1000 yards of Parcel 24. The Parties agree, however, that the Maximum Density of Parcel 24 shall not exceed the density allocation of the highest density allowed on any part of Parcel 26 or Parcel 31. 3.5 Maintenance Costs. 3.5.1 Maintenance Before Occupancy of Parcel 24. After the construction of Access and Utility Improvements by the Olson Trust in the Direct Route and prior to the issuance of the first unconditional occupancy permit for Parcel 24, the Olson Trust shall maintain the Access and Utility Improvements within the Direct Route at its sole cost and expense, and the Owners of Parcel 24 shall not be required to reimburse the Olson Trust for any of such maintenance costs and expenses. 3.5.2 Maintenance After Occupancy of Parcel 24. After the issuance of an unconditional occupancy pen -nit for any dwelling unit on Parcel 24, the Owners of Parcel 24 shall pay a fair share of the "Hard Maintenance Expenses" (as defined below) for the Access and Utility Improvements in the Direct Route equal to the lower of (a) that portion which would otherwise be paid by a single residential living unit on the Olson Properties if Parcel 24 is approved for a single residential dwelling unit, or (b) the same per-unit amount for each dwelling unit constricted on Parcel 24 as is paid for each of the individual dwelling units on the Trust Properties that are similar to the dwelling units on Parcel 24. As used herein, the ten -ii "Hard Maintenance Expenses" includes the actual costs of supplies, materials and labor incurred for the maintenance of the Access and Utility Improvements but only in the area of the Direct Route, and does not include (a) other costs of overhead, such as insurance, home office costs, homeowner association or owner association costs, or other costs incurred by the Olson Trust, and (b) any other costs and expenses which are not directly allocable to the Access and Utility Improvements located in the Direct Route. 4. Quitclaim of Existing Easement. In exchange for the grant of the Access Easement and the Utilities Easement, the Owners hereby quitclaim in favor of the Olson Trust all right, title and interest in and to an unrecorded easement of ingress and egress to and from the Hilo Property in and across and in relation to Parcels 26, 27 and 31, as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and also hereby quitclaim all other rights of ingress, egress and access tinder the laws of the State of Hawaii, including any rights as a "kuleana" under the laws of the State of Hawaii, in and over and in relation to such Parcels. 5. Recordation. This Grant of Access and Utility Easement and Quitclaim Of Existing Easement shall be recorded in the official records of the County of Hawaii when signed by all the Parties. 6. Disputes. In the event of a dispute between the parties, whether or not a law suit shall actually be brought, the prevailing party in such dispute shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees, court costs and expert witness fees incurred to resolve such dispute. 7. Further Cooperation. The parties agree that they shall, in good faith, take such further action or refrain from taking further action, as may be required to give effect to the terms and conditions and intent of this Agreement. Date: Warren Inouye, an individual Date: The Hilo Trust Warren Inouye, as Trustee W Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Marilyn Carlsmith, an individual Robert Carlsmith, an individual Hank Correa, an individual Eileen Delima, an individual The Edward C. Olson Trust.No. 2 By: Print Name: Its: LIST OF EXHIBITS TO GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND QUITCLAIM OF EXISTING EASEMENT Exhibit "A" Schematic Diagram Showing the Location of the Access Easement and and Utility Easement located in the "Direct Route" to be Granted by the Olson Trust in favor of the Owners of Parcel 24 Exhibit "B" Schematic Diagram Showing on the Department of Finance, Property Assessment Division, Tax Map the location of the Existing Easement to be Quitclaimed by the Owners of Parcel 24 Kay, Christian From: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> 7'19 RPR 17 Pr 59 Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:45 AM , To: Cc: Kay, Christian Darrow, Jeff; Sid Fuke01 ' _ , w, i i r w - i '7 Cir t-IE;•J4rti� Subject: RE: Edmud C. Olson Trust SLU 17-49 and REZ 17-223 Hearing Schedule and Update Christian: Thank you for writing. I have the following comments: O The fact that there might be access to my property from Wainaku Street does not change the fact that the planned subdivision is going to wipe out my existing access to Ama'ulu Road. It's as if I had a dollar in both hands, and a thief took the dollar from my left hand with the justification that I still had a dollar left in my right hand. The developer has no right to take my access to Ama'ulu Road without compensation! And, it is clear that I have (a) apparent access, and (b) record access from my property to Ama'ulu Road. Your own tax maps show my record easement in the County's official tax records. The roads leading from Ama'ulu to my property clearly shown in historical pictures of the proposed subdivision property clearly show the apparent access easement. When the developer purchased the subdivision property, his title insurance policy showed our access easement as an encumbrance on the newly acquired property. Ask him for that title policy. He won't give it to me. He purchased the land knowing that we had access across his property. 0 The developer has already tried to deny me access to Wainaku Street. The developer has put a new metal gate across the road next to the Dodo Mortuary which might also provide access to my property. By putting that gate there (entirely without my permission) he has prevented our access to the Property for some time now. And, to add insult to injury, on the gate there is a sign that if anyone desires information about the property beyond the gate, they should call the developer for that information, not me. Such unjust and heavy handed tactics have denied potential purchasers and brokers access to our property and made it impossible to market my property. O We proposed to the developer that he purchase our property for a reasonable price. At his request, we hired a local commercial appraiser and presented the appraisal to the developer through his. lawyer. Even though a purchase at a fair price would have resolved all the problems in an equitable way, the developer, through his attorney, rejected the appraisal and did not even give us the courtesy of a response to the appraisal. The developer assumes he can simply landlock us first, and then force us to sell at a bargain basement price. Christian, I have raised all these objections before and my several emails should be in your files. I hereby request that this email, and others I have written and sent to Sid Fuke and others, be included in the packet which the Planning Commission will review. I would come to the hearing myself if I could afford it, but I deserve to be heard even if I cannot afford to be there. Please don't let the developer run right over the little guy. My grandpa went to Hilo from southern Japan many years ago and worked in the cane fields of Hilo as an indentured servant. Lucky for me, my grandpa managed to buy out his contract and he moved on. But, for me, this whole thing with the developer today seems like a continuation of the nightmare that started so many years ago with my grandpa: a few rich folks get a hold of the local politics, and then they trample on the rights of the little guy to make more and more millions. In this case, the developer could do what is right and simply purchase my property for a fair price, but instead of that he plans to strangle me and eventually take my property for nothing. Planning Deptd Exhibit 22 1 124®83 In their application for a zone change, the developer's -consultants try to act all Hawaiian and use a few local words for seaward and mountain ward. They disingenuously think that a few Hawaiian words will warm them to you and disguise the fact that they are foreigners in Hawaii, and they are still running over the little guy today to make more millions. Warren Inouye Attorney at Law 24561 Dardania Avenue Mission Viejo, CA 92691 warren.@warreninouye.com 714-307-8928 (Mobile) THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISCLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DELETE THIS EMAIL AND ALL COPIES, DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY FURTHER, AND ADVISE MR. INOUYE. THANK YOU. From: Kay, Christian<Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:08 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: Darrow, Jeff <Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov>; Sid Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: Edmud C. Olson Trust SLU 17-49 and REZ 17-223 Hearing Schedule and Update Aloha Mr. Inouye, As you requested, I am writing to notify you that the Windward Planning Commission will entertain the subject State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone applications at its May 2, 2019 hearing (please see attached agenda). In addition, based on additional review, we have the following to offer re: your concerns that the proposed project would extinguish access to TMK: 2-6-008:024 from Wainaku Street: 1. The application incorrectly states that the subject parcels (TMKs: 2-6-008:026 &:027) are bounded to the north by the Pukihae Stream. This appears to have created confusion on the location Parcel 24 is located relative to proposed rezone area. 2. The attached area map shows the location of the subject parcels labeled and outlined in light blue. These parcels are situated to the south of Parcel 24 (labeled and outlined in red). Finally, the Pukihae Stream is located north of Parcel 24 (indicated by the dashed blue line). 3. Based on the preceding and in the absence of any evidence that legal access to Parcel 24 from Wainaku Street passes through the subject parcels, it does not appear that the proposed change of zone or subsequent subdivision of TMKs: 2-6-008:026 &:027 will have any negative impact on access to your property from Wainaku Street. Please let me know if you have any questions. F1 Mahalo, Christian Christian Kay, Planner County of Hawai'i Planning Department Aupuni Center, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8136 Fax: (808) 961-8742 Email: christian.kay@hawaiicounty.gov Kay, Christian ?919 APR 17 PM ? 59 From: Sid Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> ��;Ji_:NT`� L7r HAWAII Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:12 AM To: Kay, Christian Cc: Darrow, Jeff, 'PAUL Alston' Subject: FW: RE: Inouye Property Included in Rezone Territory/Facts Disguised/Terms of Sale Attachments: FW: Inouye Property Included in Rezone Territory/Facts Disguised/Terms of Sale; ,RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Aloha Christian, I am forwarding an email Mr. Alston sent to the since happily retired Daryn Arai. I understand this and the rest of the email will be shared with the Commission and, as you noted, if questions come up on this issue, the staff's position is that disputes of this nature is ultimately a civil matter. Thanks! Sid From: PAUL Alston <paul.alston@dentons.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:54 AM To: Daryn.arai@hawaiicounty.gov Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; Tammy Spaar <tammy@olsontrust.com>; Ed@olsontrust.com; Jeff Clark <jeff@olsontrust.com> Subject: Fwd: RE: Inouye Property Included in Rezone Territory/Facts Disguised/Terms of Sale Dear Mr. Arai: I understand that Warren Inouye is again making claims relating to the subdivision that Sid Fuke is processing for the Olson Trust. Attached is a copy of an email string that reflects (1) Mr. Inouye was told in 2017 that that parcel he owns a portion of (TMK 3-2-6-08-024) is outside the proposed subdivision; (2) his parcel is not in the location he identifies, as clearly shown on the tax map; and (3) as he says in his January 24, 2018 email (below) he does not care whether his land is in the property to be subdivided--hejustwants Mr. Olson to buy his land (which Mr. Olson has declined to do). As Mr. Inouye said in that email, he sees "enough confusion" to last a long time. I would note that in the last 15 months, Mr. Inouye has taken no action to resolve the "confusion," which I submit exists only in his mind and only for the purpose of trying to cause a sale. The tax map shows Mr. Inouye is wrong; all of his objections should be ignored. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, PAUL ALSTON Dentons US LLP 808-722-6000 >>> PAUL Alston 1/24/2018 5:56 PM >>> ' I told you to get an appraisal from a good local appraiser --when you have that in hand, we can talk. »> Warren Inouye <WarrenPwarreninouye.com> 1/24/2018 12:59 PM >>> Planning Dept. 1 , 4 hib�t I d 5 Paul I don't think you are right. The surveyors who created the maps which are included in the zoning application refer to the stream also. There's enough confusion in the documents that it will take a long time to straighten it out. But, that is really beside the point. The point is that the sale of the Property to the Trust makes a great resolution. Whether today or tomorrow, you need to buy my property from me to finish the subdivision of the Greer Estate. I am willing to sell it to you for appraised value. My successor in interest might not be willing to do that knowing that the future of the development of the second half of the Greer Estate is in his hands. The offer I made in my email still stands. I hope to hear from you so we can work this out. Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928. (Mobile) warren@warreninouve.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: PAUL Alston [mailto:PAlston@ahfi.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:45 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: John Bains (godzboybains@att.net) <godzboybains@att.net>; Jeff Pimental (jeffpimmy@comcast.net) <jeffpimmy@comcast.net>; Martin Marrtinez(_f_ayeandrews@gmail.com) <fa_yeandrews@gmail.com>; Marilyn Carlsmith . <mcarismith9@gmail.com>; Marianne Maloney/Dorothy Urquhart(minemol2@gmail.com) <minemo12@gmail.com>; Hank Correa (hank@hankcorrea.com) <hank@hankcorrea.com>; Dawn Forteville/Don Roberts (Dawn.Forteville@leicaus.com) <Dawn".Forteville@leicaus.com>; Sheila Carlson(sheilacarison@sbcgloba1.net) <sheilacarlson@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: Inouye Property Included in Rezone Territory/Facts Disguised/Terms of Sale Mr. Inouye: The parcels being Subdivided are TMK Nos. 3-2-6-08-026 and -027. Look at the map --regardless what the report says, your TMK #-024 is NOT adjacent to, much less embedded in, those parcels. Also, the abandoned plantation road is NOT your legal access (and, in any event, it comes close to, but does not touch, your parcel -024) >>> Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninou, ey com> 1/24/2018 11:14 AM >>> Paul: You are correct that the map on which I drew the location of my property and which I sent to Daryn Arai and to you on Monday is inaccurate. I apologize for the inaccuracy. I have attached the same map but this map has been revised to show the correct position of my property. The corrected position on the map shows that the Pukihae Stream is still north of my Property. I have also attached a Google Earth shot of the area. I penciled in my property and I think that this shot also clearly shows the Pukihae Stream being north of my property. (I found the North Arrow on the Tax Map, and so I am sure that the Pukihae Stream is north of my property.) I also included two of the places in the zoning application where Sidney Fuke says the Pukihae Stream is the north boundary of the property. That must mean that my property is a part of the zone change property. I could make these points to Daryn: O The Trust very clearly knew about me and my property well before the zone change application was submitted. I have emails and correspondence that proves that. i O The Trust wanted to buy my property and tried to do so before the zone change application was submitted. The Trust tried to use a straw man to approach me for that purpose and I have his written offer. Further, I have talked with a broker in Hilo who told me that Mr. Olsen asked him about buying my property early on. O The Trust and Sid Fuke never sent me the zone change application or the corresponding maps, despite several written requests I made for the same. I received the documents from Daryn Arai and not Sid Fuke. Why did Sid not send me the documents? O The application deleted my property as a property that is involved with the zone change even though my property is the donut hole in the donut. How could such a major fact be a sihiple mistake? O Mr. Olsen threatened me personally on the telephone and warned me: "You damn well better not hold up my subdivision." Why was he so aggressive to me personally? I did not appreciate that comment, but I have already let it go personally, but not with respect to the application. O Your response to Daryn Arai of yesterday is evasive. You never deny that the zone change application applies to all lands up to the centerline of the Pukihae Stream. As I told you before, my instincts are the instincts of a developer's attorney. I want to see your subdivision proceed. The best, fastest, fairest way to resolve this matter is for me to sell you the property. You know that I have always wanted to sell you my property—nuts, guts .and feathers—so you can add my territory to your application as soon as possible. I will not contact Daryn Arai with any of the above unless we cannot arrive at an agreement to buy and sell the property before then. I am already in discussions with appraisers about the value. I have given them instructions to appraise the value of the land (a) in its condition today as a spectacular custom homesite, and (b) in its future condition when it will be a part of the zone change/subdivision territory. The appraisers should be able to arrive at a fair price. I will be back to you as soon as I hear from the appraisers. The parts of this email below are my offer to sell you my property on the following terms. If the Trust (or its adequate proxy) do not agree in writing to purchase my property on the following terms by Monday, January 29, at 5:00 p.m. California time (this is just an arbitrary date; you are welcome to name another deadline), I will withdraw this offer. Here are the terms of the sale (which I invite you to tweak if you need to): O Purchase price to be determined by Seller's appraisal. If Buyer objects to Seller's appraisal, Buyer may conduct its own appraisal. If the Seller does not agree with the Seller's appraisal, the Seller will engage a third appraiser, and the sales price shall be the arithmetic average of the two closest appraisals. Each party to bear its own appraisal costs. The 3 appraisal shall assume both that (a) the property is a. custom single family residential homesite, and (b) the property is a part of the zone change/subdivision territory. The purchase price shall be the higher of such two prices. 0 Good faith non-refundable deposit of $50,000.00 shall be paid into Escrow by Seller when a definitive purchase agreement is signed by the parties. This deposit shall be applied to the purchase price at closing. It shall be paid to Seller and shall constitute liquidated damages if the Buyer does not proceed to closing for any reason other than the default of Seller. 0 Balance of purchase price shall be deposited into Escrow five business days prior to the scheduled closing date and shall be paid all in cash to Seller at the close of Escrow. 0 Inouye shall give unilateral instructions to Escrow Holder regarding the disbursement of the sales proceeds (a) first to Inouye as reimbursement of costs and fees, and (b) second to those having an interest in the property. Seller shall cooperate. 0 Escrow to be established at Coast To Coast Escrow in Irvine, California. Escrow to close in 30 days after opening. Escrow costs and other closing costs (except title premiums as described below) to be allocated as is customary in Hawaii County. 0 Title Company to be First American Title, or a title company designated by Buyer. Buyer shall pay the premium for its own title insurance coverage. 0 Any title issues/survey issues/occupancy issues/payment instruction issues will be worked out during the pendency of Escrow. The parties to cooperate fully. Seller shall deliver quitclaim deeds from the persons comprising the Seller. 0 This sale is AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS. Buyer to hold Seller harmless from and indemnify Seller from all liability arising out of the ownership or use of the property, following the close of Escrow. 0 Seller to cooperate with the Buyer's attempts to rezone and subdivide the surrounding property, but only to the extent that Seller's agent, Warren Inouye, deems such cooperation to be reasonable and safe, in his sole and absolute discretion. The agent may condition such cooperation on additional safeguards. 0 At the close of Escrow, Seller shall deliver to the County of Hawaii a letter prepared by Buyer (and reasonably approved by Seller) by which Seller withdraws all objections to the planned zone change and subdivision. 0 The terms of the transaction shall be confidential. Inouye agrees he shall not comment about the property, the Buyer or the purchase and sale transaction with the County of Hawaii without either (a) Buyer's representative being present, or (b) Buyer's prior written approval of any written communications. The parties acknowledge that Inouye shall be required to communicate with all interest holders in the property and therefore such communications are exempt from this covenant of confidentiality. 0 The terms set forth above are the basic terms of the transaction; the parties shall sign a definitive purchase agreement which incorporates all the basic terms agreed to within 48 hours of the parties' agreement to the basic terms. Until the parties agree on the basic terms, either Seller or Buyer may terminate negotiations after Monday, January 29 at any time and for any reason, or for no reason, with no liability for doing so. If either party fails or refuses to sign the definitive agreement purchase and sale agreement when required, that agreement and all other associated agreements, covenants, representations, and warranties no matter how made or communicated (including but not limited to the covenant of confidentiality) shall be null and void from the beginning. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouve.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: PAUL Alston [mailto:PAlston@ahfi.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:13 PM To: Daryn Arai <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov>; Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouve.com> Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; Ed@olsontrust.com; Tammy <tammy@olsontrust.com> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) All: Mr. Inouye is badly confused. The two attachments to this email (1) the parcel he owns (TMK 3-2-6-08-024), and (2) the location of that parcel --which is not in the location he identifies, as clearly shown on the tax map. His parcel is well outside the proposed subdivision. >>> "Arai, Daryn" <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty_gov> 1/23/2018 1:23 PM >>> Mr. Inouye, If by this map (attached) you are claiming ownership interest in portions of the property(ies) affected by this change of zone request, please submit proper documentation immediately to this office to confirm what you have represented. Thank you. Daryn Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty-kov "Howai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye[mailto:Warren@warreninouye.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:37 AM To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com>; Sidney M. Fuke (sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net) <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Daryn I told you in my email dated January 18 that I was confused because Sidney Fuke's narrative description of the boundaries of the subject property and surveys which are a part of the application say that the Pukihae Stream is the northern boundary of the property. I said in my email that I am confused because the Pukihae Stream is to the north of my property. How could the description in Sid's materials be correct? I took a look at some maps today, and I think I know what the problem is: the survey and the description of land being rezoned leave out the fact that my property is right in the middle of the surveyed property! I have attached a copy of a map which appeared in Sid's application. I hand -drew the approximate location of my property on that map. It's the donut hole in the middle of the donut. Please ask Sid to clarify this for us both. I wonder if this is a problem of surveyors relying on the work of others. I noticed that there are survey stamps on the materials included in Sid's application for Blaine Ito, John Weeks and Island Survey (Robert Shirai). Has one surveyor actually done a survey of the property being rezoned? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 140 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren(@warreninouve.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.1F YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Arai, Daryn(mailto:Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:31 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com>; Sidney M. Fuke (sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net) <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Mr. Inouye, Forwarding this email to our Planners who are working on this application to see if they are similarly confused. Daryn Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "HowoPi County is an equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye [mailto:Warren@warreninouve.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:50 AM To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com>; Sidney M. Fuke (sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net) <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Daryn I think I know where my property is, but the descriptions in the application are either wrong or confused. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouVe.com THIS EMAIL.CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Arai, Daryn[mailto:Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:07 AM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com>; Sidney M. Fuke (sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net) <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: FW: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Mr. Inouye, I have forwarded your email to Planning, Program Manager Jeff Darrow for his assessment and response to your questions. To many of your questions, I would also recommend the use of Google Earth or other satellite imaging platforms to help orient yourself. Daryn Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "Howai'i County is on equol opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye [mailto:Warren warreninouye.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:41 PM To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com>; Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Daryn: I forgot to attach marked up pages from the Application which show more details about the comments I made below. Warren Inouye .8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFYTHE SENDER. THANKYOU. From: Warren Inouye Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:23 PM To: 'Arai, Daryn' <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com>; Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Daryn I am glad there was no January 4 meeting before the planning commission as Sidney Fuke thought there was. You confirmed to me on January 2 that there are no calendared at this point.meetings before the County. I have a few thoughts about the development package that Sidney presented dated August 2017. You sent this package to me on January 2. By August of 2017, 1 had communicated or tried to communicate with the Olsen Trust or its representatives at least a couple of times, so the Trust knew of me. I have never seen the materials which you sent me. Here are a few questions. The answer to the following questions might be that the application package has been updated or corrected and so the updated/corrected package will answer my questions. 0 1 am not listed as an owner of property. The Olsen Trust clearly knew I was involved before August, 2017. 0 There is no North Arrow on the maps. Therefore, by the inconsistent use of the word "mauka" I have a hard time trying to figure out which properties the application is discussing. Sometimes Sidney uses the word to mean "east" and sometimes to mean "west." I may have my north mixed up. It would help if there were a North Arrow on the various Exhibits. I think my property is west of the proposed project. Is that correct? 0 Do you or the developer have a map which shows the various landmarks which would identify the property, like the DoDo Mortuary, Wainaku Street, Amauulu Road, the Pukihae Stream and my property? 0 1 am confused when Sidney says the project has the Pukihae Stream on its north boundary. I don't think that is correct. The Pukihae Stream is to the west of my property. Does Sidney mean that the Pukihae Stream is the north boundary of additional property purchased by the Olsen Trust from the Greer Estate? 0 If the Pukihae Stream is the north boundary of the Property, that makes development along its shores very environmentally sensitive, both to the stream and to the nearby ocean. 0 Sidney says the project is one mile from the ocean, and he says it is two miles from the ocean. How far is the project from the ocean? 0 1 can't see on Figure 3 any designation of land by Zoning Class FA -1a. Yet that is what the developer seems to be asking for. I think the application is very unclear about the zoning classifications which are being sought and where the subject lands are. This has a huge affect on my property. 0 1 am commenting on the materials you sent me January 2, 2018. This is the first time I have seen any materials regarding the proposed development. 0 Are there updated or corrected materials? Please advise me of any upcoming hearings. Thanks. Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Arai, Daryn(mailto:Daryn.Arai@hawaiicountV.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 4:37 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; Yee, Michael <Michael.Yee@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ed@olsontrust.com; Tammy <tammy@o lsontrust.com>; Self, Amy <AmV.Self@hawaiicountV.gov>; PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Happy New Year, Mr. Inouye! This communication will be made a part of the record regarding this rezoning application, with its content to be considered by the Planning Director, the Windward Planning Commission and the County Council the application make its way through the process prescribed by our codes and rules. As to your allegation that we have breached our obligations to our rules and procedures, we apologized if we overlooked your specific requests and via this email, we provide the following: 1. Application for a Change of Zone excluding archaeological report due to file size (see pdf attachment) 2. Concept map for the proposed subdivision embedded within the change of zone application. Note that at this early stage, no actual subdivision application has been submitted as the zoning must first be changed by the County Council. 3. No hearing date has been scheduled before the Windward Planning Commission due to additional archaeological review by State Historic Preservation Division. 4. As required by code and our rules, the applicant will be notifying you of the date, time and place of the public hearing on this matter once it has been scheduled before the Windward Planning Commission. Hope this adequately addresses you requests. Daryn Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "Howai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye[mailto:WarrenPwarreninouye.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 12:23 PM To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicountv.gov>; PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com> Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; Yee, Michael <Michael.Yee@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ed@olsontrust.com; Tammy <tammvPolsontrust.com>; Self, Amy <Amy.Self@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Mr. Arai I have tried earnestly to open discussions with the Olsen Trust to sell the Property to it. However, because of delays in schedules and activities on both sides, we have not been able to reach agreement on the whether the Trust will purchase the Property or not. Therefore, I hereby renew my objections to the County's planned approval of the subdivision map for the Trust's new development. The Trust deliberately ignores our concerns about access for our Property to Amauulu Road. The Trust took title to the proposed subdivision subject to (a) actual notice of the roads which give access to our property, (b) constructive notice because our access roads are clearly shown on the Tax Map which is an official record of the County, and (c) constructive notice because of the clear exception from title coverage of our access rights in the title insurance policy received by the Trust when it purchased its property. The Trust has acted throughout this experience in a cavalier and inequitable manner. I have reviewed the file and the documents I prepared and correspondence to the Trust (copies of all of which have been sent to the County) wherein I proposed a resolution to the access issue which did not require financial outlay by the Trust. The Trust has given no response at all to my efforts to peacefully settle this matter in a manner which would not have interfered with the proposed subdivision. Given that lack of good faith effort on the part of the trust, it is not equitable for the County to grant approval of the subdivision map. I have not received proper notice from the county of what is being proposed. I have requested in writing a copy of that notice, and, especially, a copy of the subdivision map and the proposed conditions of approval to the map, but have.not received anything from either the County or the subdivider. This is a breach by the County of your rules and procedures. Please send me the time and place of the public hearing for the proposed approval of the subdivision map. Please send me a copy of the agenda for that meeting of the County. Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS: IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. 10 From: Arai, Daryn[mailto:Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 6:20 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com>; PAUL Alston <PAlston@ahfi.com> Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; Yee, Michael <Michael.Yee@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ed@olsontrust.com; Tammy <tammv@olsontrust.com>; Self, Amy <Amy.Self@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Gentlemen. Please consider whether the County should really be an audience in your sensitive discussions. Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "Howai'i County is on equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye[mailto:Warren@warreninouye.com] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:28 PM To: PAUL Alston <PAiston@ahfi.com>; Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; Yee, Michael <Michael.Yee@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ed@olsontrust.com; Tammy <tammv@olsontrust.com>; Self, Amy <Amy.Self@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Paul Thank you for the copies of the emails. I have the following comments about the same: 0 Email dated October 25. This is an email from Paul Ralston. You argue that the principal of kuleana does not expand access rights over time, and stating that the roads were internal roads built by Hilo Sugar, and closing with an invitation to propose a sales price because "it cannot hurt to ask." I acknowledge receipt of this'email. It is important that you acknowledge the existence of the access roads. 0 Email dated October 28. This is an email from Sid Fuke with the contact information for Paul Ralson. I acknowledge receipt of this email. 0 Email dated October 28. Email from Paul Ralston directing me to talk with him only about the property. I acknowledge receipt of this email. 0 Email dated October 30. This is an email from Paul Ralston stating that the kuleana rights of access have a scope limited to historical access, and are not enlarged by time. In that email, you admit that "All you and your co-owners are entitled to is the historical right of way --be it a walking path, a cart path, or something else." We are prepared to show at trial that members of the families which own the property visited the property several times in automobiles and trucks using the access roads in question. This email ends with an invitation to me to propose a price at which we would sell the property. I do not acknowledge receipt of this email. 11 If I had received the last of your three emails, I may have proposed a purchase and sale of the Property earlier. You, not I, have now disclosed the confidential email I sent to you on dated October 30 which I wanted to keep confidential. It is in the email string of your October 30 email. The confidential email is where I complain to you of the rude and threatening behavior from the Olsen Trust; I took those personal threats very seriously. I thought that the last communication between us was -this confidential email to you dated October 30. With respect to the legal issues involved, you have not refuted any of my claims that the Trust took title to the subdivision property with both actual and constructive knowledge of our access rights. The Trust had actual knowledge of our access rights. I have carefully preserved aerial photographs which were displayed on line on the site that was marketing the property. Those photographs clearly show the roads which lead from Amauulu Road to our property, and into our property. You have admitted the existence of the roads. The roads may have been interior roads that served the sugar plantation, but the issue at trial is whether those roads were also used as ingress and egress to our property. Our people will testify that the roads were used by their parents and by themselves while children to access the property by automobile and truck on many occasions, both for pleasure and for ranching purposes—There are still people living in Hilo and nearby towns who remember going to the property as children in automobiles and trucks on several occasions. With such roads being so visible, the Trust had the legal duty to further inquire who may have had rights of access and what was the nature and scope of those access rights. The Trust could have located the owners of the property with very minor due diligence because our ownership is clearly shown of record in the Official Records of the County. In addition to actual notice, the Trust had clear constructive notice of our access rights. The Tax Map of the County shows the access roads with surprising accuracy. Apparently, someone took the time to survey the location of the access roads so their locations could be depicted with accuracy on the Tax Map, which is a part of the public record. Further, the title insurance policy which was issued to the Trust at the time of its purchase of the subdivision property specifically provided an exception from coverage for the access roads. You have not said a word about constructive notice in any of your three emails. The County has no right to approve the subdivision map. The County only invites a law suit from us for taking valuable real property when it allows the subdivision map to wipe out our access easements. Further, we have not received formal notice of the County's consideration of approving the subdivision map. We do not waive that right. I have not seen the proposed subdivision map or any of the proposed documents. I would appreciate it if you would send me a copy the subdivision map, and if the County will also send me all the required documentation. However, as I related to you in my October 30 email, I do not want to be a dog in the manger. If there is a way to allow the Trust to have its subdivision while not trampling on our rights, I am all in favor of that. But, I will not let the Trust nor the County trample on our rights. I trust these communications will be made a part of the County's hearing minutes for the planned January 4 meeting of the Planning Commission regarding approval of the subdivision map. I will contact you next week to propose a sales price for our property. I would do it today but it will take me a few days to determine the fair market value of the property. And, next week I will prepare and send to you a draft letter of intent for the sale of the property. I still want to resolve our differences before the hearing for your subdivision map. If we can reach a binding agreement, that will solve both our access rights issue and the County's notice issue ahead of the January 4 hearing. I want it to be as clear as possible, that I am not the cause for any delay and the Trust and the County, to paraphrase the Trust's representative, "damn well better not ignore my complaints." 12 Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: PAUL Alston [mailto:PAlston@ahfi.com] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:49 AM To: Daryn Arai <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov>; Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: Sidney Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel:net>; michael.yee@hawaiicounty.gov; Ed@olsontrust.com; Tammy <tammv@olsontrust.com>; Amy Self <Amv.Self@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation RESENDING WITH ATTACHMENTS AND CORRECTION (in bold) Mr. Arai I represent the Olson Trust. (I am mis-iclentified in Mr. Inouye's email as "Mr. Ralson"), Attached are 4 emails sent Mr. Inouye in October (1 sent 3 and one was sent by Mr. Fuke with my contact information). None is rude or threatening; all of my emails point out to Mr. Inouye the flaw in his arguments for access. And, the final email dated October 30 invites him to make an offer to sell for Mr. Olson to evaluate. The email shown below is the first communication I have received since my October 30 request. Obviously, the County should not become a tool for gaining leverage in a private dispute. I urge you to ignore Mr. Inouye's complaints. PAUL ALSTON A.LSSTO 4 HUNT F L(DYD rpt I N G P-aui Alston Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 524-1800 Fax: (808) 524-4591 Direct: (808) 524-1888 Cell: (808) 722-6000 e-mail: PAlston@ahfi.com website: www.ahfi.com 13 NOTICE: The information contained in this email is confidential and may also be attorney-client privileged. This information is intended only for use by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete this email, any attachments and all copies. >>> Warren Inouye <WarrenC@warreninouye.com> 12/14/2017 10:02 AM >>> Mr. Arai: To remind you, the development by the Olsen Trust of its property in Hilo makes no provision for access to our property via Amauulu Road, the main, historical and clearly visible access of our property to Amauulu Road. I have asked Mr. Fuke for a copy of the planned subdivision map, so I can see what, if any provisions for access might be easily adapted that would provide access to our property. But I have received no response from him. I have raised the possibility of selling our property to the Olsen Trust, but one from the Olsen Trust has called to work out any arrangement, except (a) Mr. Olsen who called to threaten that I "better damn well not hold up my subdivision" and (b) Mr. Ralson who also called to repeat that threat. No one has called to address the issue in good faith. I am reminding you that the County's approval of the present subdivision plan will take from us the main access to our property. Such a taking is not allowed by the laws of the State, nor by the laws of decency by which governments protect the small guys form -the big guys. We hereby renew our objection to the planned subdivision and promise an appropriate legal response should the County attempt to allow this project to proceed without addressing our access issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Arai, Daryn[mailto:Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 11:11 AM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation My pleasure. Have a great day! Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 14 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "Howai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye [mailto:Warren@warreninouye.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:35 AM To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Daryn Thanks for the response. From: Arai, Daryn [ma iIto: DarVn.Arai@hawaiicountV.gov_] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 6:16 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Thank you, Mr. Inouye. Both Director and Windward Planning Commission can be contacted via email at planning@hawaiicounty.gov Hmmm, I do not have any email info for Mr. Olson or Mr. Cross. If fact, I thought that Mr. Cross is no longer associated with Mr. Olson. I may be wrong, but that I what I thought I understood. In the end, Mr. Fuke is the representative of Mr. Olson on matters specifically related to this change of zone application, so he can be copied on anything that you send to our office for presentation to the director and/or commission. But also be aware that anything submitted from the public, which includes you, will be transmitted to both the commission and the applicant as part of due process. So whatever is easiest for you. Hope this helps. Daryn Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "Howai'i County is on equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye[mailto:Warren@warreninouye.comj Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:22 PM To: Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty•gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation 15 Daryn: You asked that I communicate directly with "my director" and the "Windward Planning Commission." What is the contact information for those two persons? My emails to Ed Olson and to John Cross, both of the Olsen Trust, bounced back. Do you have email addresses for these persons? Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Arai, Daryn[mailto:Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.Rov] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:05 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> Cc: Sid Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net>; 'Ed Olson' <ed@olsontrust.com>; Yee, Michael <Michael.Yee@hawaiicounty.gov>; Self, Amy <Amy.Self@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Mr. Inouye, Since you have elected to include our office in this email exchange between the applicant, its consultant and yourself, with full disclosure of possible legal action against the county depending on its future actions regarding this change of zone application, I am obligated to inform our Office of the Corporation Counsel, through its Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self, regarding the substance of this email. Also note'that this email is considered public record and will be officially made a part of the record regarding this change of zone application as required by the State's Sunshine Law (Chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes). I hope that both you and the applicant are able to continue your conversations towards a mutually beneficial solution. In the meantime, however, I would also hope that any future communication directed to me or anyone in this office speaks directly to my director or the Windward Planning Commission regarding your position or comment regarding this particular change of zone application as both the Director and Commission are obligated to prepare its respective recommendation regarding this request.. Note that the final decision on this request will be made by the Hawaii County Council. As you requested, you will be provided (via email if acceptable) with copies of communications and reports regarding this application. We have tentatively scheduled this matter before the Windward Planning Commission at its January 4, 2018 meeting in Hilo. You will be provided with the commission's agenda a few weeks ahead of this meeting once it has been prepared. Daryn 16 Daryn Arai Deputy Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo. Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8142 Fax: (808) 961-8742 email: Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov "HowoPi County is an equal opportunity provider and employer" From: Warren Inouye[mailto:Warren@warreninouye.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:15 AM To:'Ed Olson' <ed@olsontrust.com>; Arai, Daryn <Daryn.Arai@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Sid Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Mr. Olson: I have been unable to obtain a clear and satisfying answer from your organization and from your land planner (Sid Fuke) about our access easement to Parcel 2-6-008-024. It appears you intend to move forward with your subdivision plan which will wipe out our primary access from the Property to Wainaku Road. I object. You do not have the right to take this valuable property right from us without proper compensation or without arranging for substitute access. We have tried to begin a conversation about how to mutually resolve the design of your subdivision and our access easement, but there has been no attempt to contact me, and my attempts to contact the Olsen Trust have not been answered. Further, I have not received a notice from the County of public hearings regarding your proposed Wainaku Subdivision. I trust that the County has not deliberately ignored sending me notice of public hearings. A copy of this email is going to Daryn Arai of the County (a) to officially voice my objection to the Wainaku Subdivision and the fact that it will wipe out our access easement to the Property, and (b) to officially request a notice of any public hearings and a copy of all documentation submitted by the Developer for the planned development. I contact Daryn Arai in the past and received assurances that we would be supplied with both, when the time came. We will bring an action against both the Developer and the County if the proposed Wainaku Subdivision is allowed to proceed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouve.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Sid Fuke [mailto:sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:09 AM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouye.com> 17 Cc: 'Ed Olson' <ed@olsontrust.com> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Good morning Warren, At this point in time, there is nothing I can do to address the situation. As a land use planner, I could only recommend to Mr. Olson that he revise his proposed subdivision to reflect at least one access north of his property. He accepted that recommendation. Over and beyond what you are asking or demanding and inasmuch as I am not an attorney, I cannot advise him as to your litigation threat. Note that Mr. Olson is being copied this email. Thus, unless this deals with a land use matter, I am not in a position to carry this matter further. Thank you and good day! Sid From: Warren Inouye[mailto:Warren@warreninouye.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:53 AM To: Sid Fuke Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Sid I have been a real estate lawyer for over thirty years. An easement of ingress and egress in favor of Parcel A would not necessarily appear on the deed by which the owner took title to Parcel B. However, every buyer of property takes title to the property subject to liens, defects and encumbrances which are shown in the public records, or which are apparent because of actual or constructive notice. The existence of easements shown on the Tax Map qualify as actual notice. The roads across Parcel B which lead to Parcel A are actual notice or constructive notice, or both, as to the easements in favor of Parcel A.. The title insurance policy by which the Olsen Trust purchased the Property has specifically excluded from the insurance coverage in favor of the Olsen Trust the affect of the access easements in favor of Parcel A. The Olsen Trust needs to get their attorney involved because it obviously took title to Parcel B subject to our easement of ingress and egress. We have no obligation to give that easement up because of the mere possibility that we might be able to obtain an equally valuable access easement from somewhere else. The seeking of a subdivision map which wipes out our easement shows a clear intent to take that easement from us. We cannot let that happen. If the Olsen Trust can arrange an alternative easement for Parcel A at the sole cost and expense of the Olsen Trust which is equally good as our historic access to Amauulu Road was, we will take it. But, if the Olsen Trust thinks it can take our easement for nothing, it is wrong. Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren(@warreninouve.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. 18 From: Sid Fuke(mailto:sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:14 PM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouve.com> Cc: 'Ed Olson' <ed@olsontrust.com> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation My responses noted below. From. Warren Inouye [mailto:Warren warreninouye.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:41 AM To: Sid Fuke Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Sid I can see the properties involved. Preliminarily, I have several concerns: 0 You refer to an "intervening parcel." 0 1 don't know who the owner of what you call the "intervening parcel." County tax office records would show who the owner is. 0 Are you saying that Parcel 31 is the intervening parcel? Yes. 0 1 don't know how the owner of the intervening parcel feels about my easement. He may also be trying to take my access. Me neither. 0 Even if there is a possibility that in I might be able to arrange an acceptable easement agreement across the intervening parcel, that does not allow the Olsen Trust to simply take my access easement. . 0 The access easement across the planned subdivision is more clearly shown and more clearly documented than a possible easement across the intervening parcel. O For all the reasons I explained in my September 15 email to you, I hereby demand that the Olsen Trust not be allowed to wipe out my access easement across the planned subdivision. As noted earlier, the deed to Mr. Olson's properties does not reflect any such easement. If there were, then, obviously it would have to be honored. If you can demonstrate that there is in fact a deed, please provide that to me and I will share it with Mr. Olson. 0 You have not offered anything except to hint that the Olsen Trust might provide something in the future. This is not good enough. We have to do something here quick, or I will have to bring a law suit to stop development of the Olsen Trust subdivision. I would like the Olsen Trust to simply buy us out so we don't have to worry about getting squashed like a bug by a big developer. Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) 19 warren@warreninouye.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Warren Inouye Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:31 AM To: 'Sid Fuke' <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Subject: RE: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Sid I cannot see the properties which would be involved. Are you certain this is the best map you have? Warren Inouye 8 Whatney, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 714-307-8928 (Mobile) warren@warreninouve.com THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL DISLOSURE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, DO NOT FURTHER DISTRIBUTE; DELETE ALL COPIES; AND PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER. THANK YOU. From: Sid Fukefmailto:sidfuke@hawaiiantel.netl Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:26 AM To: Warren Inouye <Warren@warreninouve.com> Cc: 'Ed Olson' <ed@olsontrust.com> Subject: Wainaku Subdivision - Access Situation Hi Warren, Attached are a map of the proposed subdivision and the tax map. Please look at the tax map. I have circled your parcel (24), Mr. Olson's 2 parcels (26 and 27), and the parcel (31) that separates your parcel from Mr. Olson's. The other map is the Mr. Olson's proposed subdivision map. As noted in my earlier email, he has consented to provide at least one access (location undetermined at this time) at the northern end of his project. However, its location may not necessarily be close to your property; and regardless, you will still have to contend with the owner of intervening parcel for an access easement over his property. Thank you! Sid 20 R01sonTrustS LU.crk.04.22.19 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 17-000049) Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made Without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon .additional information presented at the public hearing. The favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant requests a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban district for approximately 14.95 acres of land. The applicant has submitted a concurrent request for a Change of Zone from Agricultural - 20 acres (A -20a) and Open to Single -Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS -10) for the same area of land. The property is located mauka (west) of Wainaku Street and north of Amau`ulu Road in the vicinity of Clem Akina Park, Pu`u`eo, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-6-008:026 (por.). . The applicant's current proposal is to subdivide the property into thirty (30) single-family residential lots consisting of a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size, one (1) lot, consisting of approximately 1.7 -acres to be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park; and one (1) lot, consisting of approximately 2.11 acres, which is the site of an historic era cemetery to be aside and preserved pursuant to State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) requirements. The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the Urban District for approximately 14.95 acres will not be in violation of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, the County General Plan and the Hawaii State Plan.'Under the Land Use Commission Rules, one of the standards for considering an -1- area for urban reclassification states that, "In determining urban growth for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land contiguous with existing urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-contiguous land, and particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county general plans." The project area conforms to this standard in that lands contiguous to the north, east and south of subject parcel are largely designated Urban and consist of urban type uses including a multi -family residential neighborhood across Wainaku Street to the east and adjacent to the south of the subject property. In addition, the County's Clem Akina Park is located directly adjacent to the east and while the Dodo Mortuary is located directly to the north of the subject parcel. The State Land Use Commission commented that the applicant is deliberately engaging in parcelization by delineating the SLU Boundary Amendment area to 14.95 acres (just under the 15 -acre statutory threshold for consideration of District Boundary Amendments by the LUC) to circumvent comprehensive review of the project. While the Director understands the LUC's concerns, by statute, the County has authority to review and approve SLU boundary amendments under 15 acres. The Planning Department comprehensively reviews such requests against LUC criteria and standards for the requested boundary amendments and will make its recommendation within that framework. Based on the preceding, the Director feels that this favorable recommendation for approval is not inconsistent with HRS or LUC rules. The reclassification action also conforms to the goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use -Single Family Residential Element of the General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map which designates the parcel for future urban growth (Medium Density Urban (MDU) on the lower 2/3rd of the property and Low Density Urban (LDU) for the upper 1/3rd. According to the General Plan, the MDU designation allows for village and neighborhood commercial and single family and multiple family residential and related functions (multiple family residential up to 35 units per acre) and the LDU designation allows for residential, with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre. Based on the preceding, the -2- reclassification of the property from Agricultural to Urban and concurrent Change of Zone from A -20a and Open to RS -10, increasing residential density in the area, would be consistent with those more urban LUPAG designations. The reclassification action would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Hawaii State Plan by providing urban type uses in close proximity to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are already available and converting marginal or non-essential agricultural lands for appropriate urban uses.while maintaining more productive agricultural lands in the agricultural district. The Urban classification conforms to the standard that the development is within reasonable proximity to centers of trading and employment and to basic services such as schools, police and fire protection, transportation systems and water. The current proposed access to the project site is from Wainaku Street, a County - owned and maintained road with which is an existing approximately 20 -24 -foot wide paved roadway within a 57 -foot right -of way. The applicant proposes to construct a new fifty (50) -foot wide road along the northern end of Parcel 26, intersecting to Wainaku Street as the main access way built to County dedicable standards and dedicated to the County. Conditions of approval of the concurrent Change of Zone will require the development of a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) and additional improvements to the roadway facilities as may be required by the County Department of Public Works. According to the Department of Water Supply (DWS), water for the proposed project can be made available from an existing 10 -inch waterline along Wainaku Street fronting Parcel 26. Conditions of the accompanying Change of Zone Ordinance will require the applicant to construct and dedicate improvements- to the County water system necessary to bring County water to all of the habitable lots in the proposed project. County sewer is available in the area and conditions of the accompanying Change of Zone Ordinance will require the applicant to conduct a sewer study, make sewer line improvements and connect as may be required by the County Department of Environmental Management and connect the entire project to a sewer system. All other essential utilities are available to the project site. Police services, fire services and schools are available approximately two (2) miles from the site, in Hilo. -3- Urban Districts shall include lands characterized by "city -like" concentrations of people, structures, streets, urban level of services and other related land uses. This proposed reclassification action does not represent the creation of a new urban concentration, as the surrounding area is already an urban -like environment. There are many residential sized lots adjacent to and makai of the project site, Single - Family Residential (RS) and Multiple -Family (RM) zonings are situated makai and to the south, and there is also a County park, single-family residences, apartments, and retail store less than a thousand feet from the site. As these urban type uses already exist in the immediate area, the urbanization of the project site will not contribute towards scattered urban development and be generally compatible with the surrounding area. There are no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The Federal Emergency Management Agency designates the subject property as Zone "X", which is determined to be an "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard", and it is not known to be prone to flooding. The topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. The property is not located in the tsunami inundation area. While the subject property is located within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's Agricultural (A -20a) zoned district, it has been fallow or used for cattle grazing, until recently when the upper portion of the property was planted in sweet potatoes. The State of Hawaii Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map classifies the majority of the subject property as Prime Agricultural Land with the remainder as Existing Urban Development. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the classifies the upper 2/3 ds of Parcel 26 as "C" or "Fair" soils with the lower 1/3`d as "Existing Urban Development." The U.S.D.A. Soil Survey classifies the soil on the subject property as Hilo Series (HoC and HoD), characterized by moderately deep soil with a moderately fine texture. The runoff is relatively rapid and permeable, with slight to moderate erosion potential. As conditions of approval of the concurrent Change of Zone application, all development -generated runoff shall be in disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared, and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. Any improvements to the subject property must comply with Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code, relating to Floodplain Management. Thus, the reclassification meets the standard which states that the lands included within the urban district, "...shall be those with satisfactory topography and drainage and reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami and unstable soil conditions and other adverse environmental effects." The remainder of Parcel 26 and all of Parcel 27 directly mauka of the subject property will remain in the State Land Use Agricultural district and if approved by the County Council, will be rezoned from A -20a to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la). This FA -la Zoning designation is intended to allow for an orderly land use transition and to act as a buffer between the proposed single-family residential uses makai and the existing, more intensive agricultural uses on lands directly mauka of the project area, which are owned and farmed by the applicant. The Hawaii Right to Farm Act, HRS Chapter 165, was enacted to protect farming operations on land in the State Land Use Agricultural District when adjacent land is reclassified out of the Agricultural District. A condition of approval will require the applicant to notify prospective purchasers, tenants or lessees of the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. The reclassification of this 14.95 -acre area of land from the Agricultural to the Urban State Land Use designation will not be detrimental to the reduction of this area from the agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawaii. Furthermore, an Urban classification would complement the existing and future land use pattern of the surrounding area in view of the urban uses already in existence in close proximity to the subject properties. Based on the preceding, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District complements the State Land Use District Regulations and County General Plan, and is supportive of the Hawaii State Plan. -5- The accompanying draft bill to amend the State Land Use Boundaries Map is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. IN COUNTY OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. STATE OF HAWAII is NWQX83 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAP FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT PU`U`EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008:PORTION OF 026. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. The State Land Use Boundaries Maps for the County of Hawaii are amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Pu`u`eo, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Urban: PORTION OF LOT 2: Beginning at the southwest corner of this parcel of land, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 3,949.99 feet North and 651.62 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: Following along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer for the next five (5) courses, the direct azimuths and distances between points being: 1. 1800 00' 428.18 feet; 2. 1720 27' 300.07 feet; 3. 820 27' 14.00 feet; 4. Thence along a curve to the right, along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,050.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 860 13' 30" 138.26 feet; 5. 900 00' 35.25 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 6. 1800 00' 349.42 feet along Lot 3; Thence along Lot 7 and following along the centerline of the stream and all its windings, for the next three (3) courses, the direct azimuths and distances between points being: 7. 3060 00' 135.00 feet; 8. 2460 00' 150.00 feet; 9. 3230 34' 253.05 feet; 10. 3410 40' 3 8.7 0 feet along Lot 1; J 11. 2620 27' 731.94 feet along Lot 1; 12. 3410 40' 313.19 feet along the west side of Wainaku Street; 13. 940 00' 367.64 feet along Clem Akina Park; 14., 3430 45' 238.10 feet along Clem Akina Park; 15. 420 22' 26.80 feet along Lot 2; 16. 70 59' 30" 27.00 feet along Lot 2; 17.' '000 00' 67.35 feet along Lot 2; 18. 670 48' 64.80 feet along Lot 2; 19. 1010 45' 106.90 feet along Lot 1; 20. 880 57' 164.00 feet along Lot B -1-A; -2- 21. 3510 37' 275.45 feet along Lots B -1-A and A -1-A; 22. 880 39' 20" 396.00 feet along the north side of `Amauulu Road to the point of beginning and containing an area of 14.95 acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. This change in district classification is conditioned upon the following: A. INSERT CONDITIONS SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII -3- AGRICULTURAL U"URBAN AGRICULTURAL URBAN AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL _ t Po Rion of Lot 2 AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN 14.95 ACRES URBAN t GRICUL URBAN RB N URBAN 3,949.99'N AGRICULTURAL 651.62'E URBAN 'HALAT' URBAN URBAN_ AGRICULTURAL - — - ' AGRICULTUCONSERVATION 7URNCONSERVATION RAL — ' Feet 0 670 1,340 2,010 2,680 AMENDMENT TO THE STATE LAND USE - BOUNDARIES MAPS AMENDING THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAP FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT PU'U'EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: TMK: (3) 2-6-008:por. ofO26' COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 22, 2017 EXHIBIT "W' Olson Map 17-197 MsonTrustS LU. c rk.03.21.19 EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 17-000049) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall notify prospective purchasers, tenants, or lessees of all lots that farming operations and practices on adjacent or contiguous land in the State Land Use Agricultural District are protected under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 165, the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. This notice shall be included in any disclosure required for the sale or transfer of all of the proposed lots. B. Any action that would interfere with or restrain farming operations on adjacent or contiguous properties shall be prohibited under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 165, the Hawaii Right to Farm Act; provided the farming operations are conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural and management practices on adjacent or contiguous lands in the Agricultural District. EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 17-000223) AMENDMENT TO CONDITION S (FAIR SHARE) S. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the development 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 Subdivision Approval[. The fair- share eontr-ibutionfh • ly oeated 4] and shall be based on the actual number of [residential u��+� domed] additional residential lots created. 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 combined value of $14,329.89 per [single family reside tia residential lot. The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of [writs] residential lots according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per [single family r -widen„., muni*] residential lot shall be allocated as follows: 1. $6,910.13 per [single f ,.nily residential ] residential lot to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; . 2. $333.35 per [single family residential munit] residential lot to the County to support police facilities; 3. $658.40 per [sin& f.,,.v,ily residential „ *] residential lot to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $288.25 per [single family residential u 41 residential lot to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $6,139.77 per [single f ily residentia4 residential lot 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 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. The fair market value of the land to be dedicated for park expansion as required in Condition R shall be credited against the sum specified in Condition S (1) for park and recreational improvements and facilities. ROlso nTrustREZ.crk.4.22.19 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 17-000223) Upon careful review of the request against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone requests be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting the following Changes of Zone to two (2) contiguous properties (TMK: 2-6-008:026 & 027, hereinafter Parcel 26 and Parcel 27) totaling 39.68 -acres: 1) a Change of Zone from Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) and Open (0) to Single - Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) zoning district for approximately 14.95 acres of land within Parcel 26; and 2) a Change of Zone from Agricultural -20 acre (A -20a) to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -1 a) zoning district for approximately 24.73 acres of land, which includes the remainder of Parcel 26 and the entirety of Parcel 27. The applicant is concurrently requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for a 14.95 -acre portion of Parcel 26. If the requested land use entitlement changes are approved, the applicant's current proposal includes plans to consolidate and resubdivide the 39.68 -acre project site into fifty-one (51) total lots, including: ■ Forty-nine (49) habitable lots consisting of nineteen (19) residential -agricultural lots ranging between 1+ to 2+ acres, and thirty (30) single-family residential lots consisting of a minimum of 10,000 square -feet in size; ■ One (1) lot, consisting of approximately 1.7, acres, which would be conveyed to the County as part of the expansion of the Clem Akina Park in the RS -10 zoned area; and ■ One (1) lot, consisting of approximately 2.11 acres that is the site of an historic era cemetery, which would be set-aside and preserved pursuant to State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) requirements in the RS -10 zoned area. It should be noted that while the applicant is currently proposing a 51 -lot subdivision, the proposed zoning could allow a maximum density of 89 lots via subdivision (excluding land area to be set aside for roads, park expansion and cemetery preserve). The preceding is considered in the Director's analysis and recommendation for the proposed change of 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 also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The change of zone requests from an A -20a and Open to a RS -10 zoning district conforms to applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. The project site consists of two (2) contiguous parcels. Parcel 26 consists of 18.57 acres, while Parcel 27 consists of 21.11 acres. A majority of the site has been cleared and used for sugar cultivation in the past and more recently for cattle grazing and sweet potato cultivation. There is an internal network of farm roadways across the two properties. The topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. An approximately 1.5 -acre cleared and grassed portion of Parcel 26 has been used by the County as part of Clem Akina Park, under lease with the previous landowner. This section of Parcel 26 is currently zoned Open (0). Additionally, there is an historic era (late 1800s to 1940s) cemetery located within a bamboo grove directly above the Park on Parcel 26. The project site is bounded to the north and west by A -20a zoning consisting of agricultural fields, to the east by Wainaku Street, and to the south by Amau`ulu Road. Developments -2- surrounding the property include the Dodo Mortuary property located along the northeast corner of the project area zoned A -3a and A -20a and operating under Use Permits, Clem Akina Park (zoned Open), and residential neighborhoods located along the southeast corner of the project area and across Wainaku Street to the east (zoned RM -1). An agricultural study facility is located along the southwest corner of the property. The RS (Single -Family Residential) zoning district provides for lower or low and medium density residential use, for urban and suburban family life. It applies to areas having adequate facilities to carry out the above stated purpose. 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 14.95 -acre area being rezoned to RS -10 zoning conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map which designates the area for future urban growth - Medium Density Urban (MDU) on the lower 2/3rd' of the Parcel 26 and Low Density Urban (LDU) for the upper 1/3rd. According to the General Plan, the MDU designation allows for village and neighborhood commercial and single family and multiple family residential and related functions (multiple family residential up to 35 units per acre) while the LDU designation allows for residential (with ancillary community and public uses), and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six units per acre. Based on the preceding, proposed RS -10 zoning would effectuate an increase in single-family residential density that would be consistent with the urban LUPAG designations. Although `ohana dwellings are permitted in the County's RS zoned district, a condition will be included to incorporate restrictive covenants in the deed of all lots to prohibit `ohana dwellings on the lots to ensure that the infrastructure of the area is not overwhelmed by the additional residential density. In addition, the proposed RS -10 zoning is consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use -Single Family Residential Element of the General Plan: -3- ■ To maximize choices of single family residential lots and/or housing for residents of the County. ■ Require developers to provide basic infrastructure necessary for development. ■ Areas shall have basic improvements and amenities necessary for immediate use. ■ To provide single-family residential areas conveniently located to public and private services, shopping, other community activities and convenient access to employment centers that takes natural beauty into consideration. The change of zone requests from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) to a Family Agricultural 1 -acre (FA -la) zoning district conforms to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Land Use -Agricultural Element. The FA zoning district is intended for lands within the State Land Use Agricultural District, where public services and infrastructure are appropriate to support the very low density residential needs of a rural community, where a substantial number of parcels are less than five acres in size, and where a mix of uses will not conflict with or be detrimental to existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area. The remainder of Parcel 26 and all of Parcel 27 directly mauka of proposed RS -10 zoning will remain in the State Land Use Agricultural district and will be rezoned from A -20a to Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -la). This FA -la zoning designation is intended to allow for an orderly land use transition and act as a buffer between the proposed single-family residential uses makai and the existing, more intensive agricultural uses on lands directly mauka of the project area, which are owned and farmed by the applicant. The proposed change of zone to FA -1 a will allow for a much higher density than the current A -20a zoning would allow. Moreover, the land is classified as Prime Agricultural Land by the ALISH System and designated as "C" or "Good" under the Land Study Bureau, rating system. These conditions will allow for small scale family agricultural uses in areas of moderate to high agricultural potential and act as a rural transition between the higher -density, urban lands makai and larger lot agricultural lands further mauka. In order to ensure that there is sufficient land area to allow for viable agricultural activity and that the infrastructure of the area is not overwhelmed by the additional residential density, the Planning Director recommends including a condition -4- prohibiting a second dwelling unit and/or a condominium property regime on each subdivided lot. Finally, the proposed FA -la zoning is consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use -Agricultural Element of the General Plan: ■ Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. ■ The compatibility of agricultural and non- agricultural uses should be carefully reviewed and where appropriate, buffers required. ■ Agricultural land shall be used as one form of open space or green belt. All essential utilities and services are available to the site. Current access to the subject parcels is via a driveway to Parcel 26 from Amau`ulu Road, which is under private ownership in the section fronting the subject properties. Thus, the applicant is proposing all access to the project site via the construction of a new, County dedicable standard, fifty (50) -foot wide roadway running mauka-makai along the northern end of Parcel 26, intersecting to Wainaku Street as the main access way and terminating at the mauka property line of parcel 27. The applicant also proposes to build a County dedicable standard, fifty (50) -foot wide cul-de-sac within the proposed RS -10 zoned area between the proposed spine road and terminating prior to reaching Amau`ulu Road. Finally, the applicant proposes to construct two (2), twenty (20) -foot wide private, non- dedicable roads within the proposed FA -1 a zoned area between the proposed spine road and terminating prior to reaching Amau`ulu Road. The applicant proposes to dedicate the primary spine road and proposed cul-de-sac road to the County, while the smaller roads would be kept in private ownership. The Department of Public Works — Engineering Division (DPW), recommends that the applicant provide improvements to Parcel 26's entire Wainaku Street frontage consisting of, but not limited to, driveway and sidewalk rehabilitation meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the approval of the Department of Public Works. Additionally, the applicant shall install streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Department of Public Works -Traffic Division. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. The preceding will be required as conditions of approval. -5- As the applicant or any subsequent developer is not required to develop the proposed subdivision and to promote future roadway connectivity, the Director is recommending a condition requiring at least one (1), 50 -foot roadway connection to each of the following: 1) the southern property boundary at Amau`ulu Road; 2) the northern property boundary mauka of TMK: 2-6-008:010; 3) to the eastern (makai) property boundary at Wainaku Street; and 4) to the western (mauka) property boundary. In addition, the Director is recommending a condition requiring that any road providing connection to adjacent properties/roadways shall be built to County dedicable standards. According to the applicant, the current proposal to develop 49 habitable lots indicates the AM/PM peak hour traffic should be less than 50 movements, therefore no traffic study was prepared for the subject change of zone application. As previously stated, if the requested land use entitlements are granted the applicant or any subsequent developer of the property would not be limited to this proposal. Based on the requested zoning, a maximum of 89 lots could be created through subdivision (excluding land area to be set aside for roads, park expansion and cemetery preserve). As previously mentioned, near term access to the project will be solely from Wainaku Street, creating the possibility for significant impacts on this roadway facility under the maximum development potential. In order to quantify and mitigate those impacts, the Director is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit to and get approval for a TIAR from DPW. The TIAR should incorporate the analysis of the traffic impact of the maximum number of lots that could be created by the resulting zoning designations prior to the subdivision of any portion of the rezoned area. Furthermore, the applicant shall be required to construct transportation system improvements as may be recommended by the TIAR, when required by DPW. County water for the project can be made available from an existing 10 -inch waterline along Wainaku Street fronting Parcel 26. Additionally, the Department of Water Supply (DWS) indicated that (2) lots on the proposed subdivision map may be located partially outside of their pressure zone, requiring readjustment of the subdivision layout. DWS requires the applicant to acquire and maintain valid water commitments for the proposed subdivision as well as remit facilities charge payments and documents -6- conveying the improvements and necessary easements to Water Board of the County of Hawaii. The applicant will also be required to construct water system improvements (including water mains, service laterals, water meters, and fire suppression improvements) to service all of the lots in the proposed subdivision prior to the granting of final subdivision approval: Finally, subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development, the applicant shall be responsible for -the relocation and adjustment of the DWS' affected water system facilities, should they be necessary. The preceding will be added as conditions of approval. The subject properties are accessible to the County sewer. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has indicated that any new lot created via subdivision is required to connect to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 (Sewers) of the County Code. In addition, DEM requires the applicant conduct a sewer study in accordance with the then applicable wastewater system design standards prior to receiving approval to connect to the sewer system. Finally, the applicant shall provide such sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require, which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. DEM further indicated that should the applicant choose to connect to the existing privately -owned sewer line on Lehua Street, the County would not accept ownership of the line and the line would remain privately owned with responsibility for operation and maintenance of the line to remain the responsibility of the owners. Finally, DEM noted that should the applicant choose to connect to the -6 -inch sewer line in Amau`ulu Road, it would need to be upgraded by the applicant to meet current Design Standards prior to connection to the County Sewer System. The preceding will be added as conditions of approval. The applicant proposes to convey approximately 1.7 -acres of land to the County as part of the expansion of the Clean Akina Park, which is situated to directly adjacent to the south and east of Parcel 26. A majority of the area to be conveyed has historically been used as a part of the park under a lease agreement with the previous owner. The Department of Parks and Recreation (P&R) is interested in formalizing the expansion of -7- the park and would be amenable to accepting ownership of the land for that purpose. The area to be dedicated is currently Zoned Open (0) which allows for public park use. While that area is being rezoned to the RS -10, the RS district also permits neighborhood parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and similar neighborhood recreational areas and uses. Based on the preceding, a condition of approval will be added requiring the applicant to subdivide and convey the approximately 1.7 -acres of land for expansion of Clem Akina park as represented by the applicant. Finally, as the land to be dedicated would aid in the expansion of a regional park, the Director feels that the fair market value of the land should be credited against the applicant's fair share contribution. There are no municipal waste collection services in the County. According to the applicant, solid waste will be handled through commercial haulers or the individual homeowners into authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. All other essential utilities are available to the project site. Police and fire services are available approximately 2 miles from the site, in Hilo. There are no severe geological or topographical problems for the property that cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The project site has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified, or which would render the land unusable. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Public Works -Engineering Division, the property is located in Zone "X" or "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard." The topography of the project site slopes between 10 to 15 percent in a west to east direction, with the upper portion of the property at 190 -foot elevation and the lower portion being at the eastern end at the 80 -foot elevation at Wainaku Street. DPW requires that all development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. Additionally, DPW requires a drainage study be prepared for the project and that any resulting drainage system that is recommended from the study be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW. The preceding will be added as a condtion to this ordinance. -8- The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The project site is located approximately 1,435 feet from the nearest coastline and not situated within the Special Management Area and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There are no identified recreational resources or public access to the shoreline or mountain areas, scenic and open space preserves, coastal ecosystems, marine resources or other natural and environmental resources in the area. Thus, the proposed request and use of the property will not adversely impact those resources. It is not anticipated that endangered or threatened candidate species of flora or fauna are located within the subject property as, the project site has been historically used for sugar cane cultivation and more recently grubbed and cleared for cattle grazing and sweet potato cultivation. The 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: A draft Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) of the project site was completed by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc in July 2016 as part of an after -the -fact Grubbing Permit Application required of the applicant in response to a County grubbing violation. The draft AIS identified only one archaeological site (Site #50-10-35-30572), which consisted of a historic era cemetery used from the late 1800s through the 1940s. The AIS found 11 possible headstones in the cemetery indicating that people of Hawaiian, Asian, and other ancestry are interred there. The AIS indicated that the cemetery be "recommended for preservation in place with preservation treatments outlined in a burial treatment plan (BTP) to be prepared for and approved by the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) and the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD)." A revised AIS was submitted to SHPD in February of 2017 and a draft BTP was prepared in February 2017 by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (attached to the application as Appendix B). The draft BTP recommended that the burials be preserved in place. The applicant proposes to accomplish this by creating a ME 2.11 -acre lot to preserve the cemetery along with other interim and long-term preservations measures as recommended by the Burial Treatment Plan. To date SHPD has not finalized review of the draft AIS to determine next steps (e.g. whether a BTP or a Preservation Plan is most appropriate action) or mitigation measures for the cemetery site due to an alleged civil and administrative violation action under HRS 6E-11. This violation action stemmed from an investigation into damage to the cemetery by heavy equipment during the land clearing activities that precipitated the County's grubbing violation. This investigation spanned several site visits and found damage to the cemetery from at least two (2) instances of unpermitted grubbing (including one instance after the County issued a stop work order). The culmination of the investigation was a Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) Enforcement Action letter and associated 6E Violation Report from SHPD to the BLNR dated December 8, 2017. SHPD has indicated that they will not finish review of the draft AIS until the violation has been rectified. Based on the preceding, the Planning Director cannot provide a finding of no impact on historic resources in the area at this time. To ensure that impacts on the historic resource are appropriately identified and mitigated, the Director is recommending a condition requiring the applicant to secure review and approval of the draft AIS and implement interim preservation mitigation measures as may be recommended by SHPD prior to the issuance of any other land alteration permits. Furthermore, the condition will require the implementation of mitigation for the historic area cemetery as directed by SHPD prior to issuance o Final; Subdivision Approval. The valued cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area. As mentioned above, the draft AIS identified one archaeological site consisting of an historic area cemetery, which was assessed as significant under criterion "d" as it is likely to yield information important to history and under criterion "e" as it has important value to Hawaiian people and people of other ethnic backgrounds in the State. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: While it is possible that native plants may be destroyed by ground alteration, there is no evidence that the flora located within the project area are particularly desired or used for cultural practices. -10- Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: As stated by the applicant, no gathering is taking place on the site. Thus, to the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. However, in addition to the AIS condition mentioned above, a condition of approval will be added for the protection of inadvertent finds should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered. Lastly, this recommendation is made with the understanding that the applicant remains responsible for complying with all other applicable governmental requirements in connection with the proposed use, prior to its commencement or establishment upon the subject properties. Additional governmental requirements may include the issuance of building permit, compliance with the Fire Code, installation of improvements required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), among many others. Compliance with all applicable governmental requirements is a condition of this approval; failure to comply with such requirements will be considered a violation that may result in enforcement action by the Planning Department and/or the affected agencies. Based on the preceding findings, the request to rezone the property from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) and Open (0) zoned district to a Single -Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS -10) and Family Agricultural -1 acre (FA -1 a) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that would further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, 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. ( T LAWak oEPi.) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) AND OPEN (0) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL —TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET (RS -10) AND FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — ONE ACRE (FA -la) AT PU`U`EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008:026 AND 2-6-008:027. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Section 25-8-33, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended) is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Pu`u`eo, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Single -Family Residential — 10,000 square feet (RS -10) and Family Agricultural — 1 acre (FA -la): LOT 2A: Beginning at the Northwest corner of this parcel of land, being also the northeast corner of Lot 3A the coordinates of which referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 4,807.30 feet North and 1,224.91 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: 1. 262° 27' 337.41 feet along Lot 1, along the remainder deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 2. 341' 40' 313.19 feet along the west side of Wainaku Street; -1- 3. 94° 00' 367.64 feet along Clem Akina Park, along the remainder of deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 4. 163° 45' 236.77 feet along Lot 3A, along the remainder of deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer to the point of beginning and containing an area of 2.128 Acres. LOT 2B: Beginning at the southwest corner of this parcel of land, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 3,949.99 feet North and 651.62 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from Tele South: 1. 180° 00' 428.18 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 2. 172° 27' 300.07 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 3. 82° 27' 14.00 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 4. Thence along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer, along a curve to the right having a radius of 1;050.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 86° 13' 30" 138.26 feet; 5. 90° 00' 35.25 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 6. 180° 00' 349.42 feet along Lot 3; -2- -3- Thence following along the centerline of the stream and all its windings, for the next three (3) courses, the direct azimuths and distances between points being: 7. 306° 00' 135.00 feet; 8. 246° 00' 150.00 feet; 9. 323° 34' 253.04 feet; 10. 341° 40' 38.70 feet along Lot 1; 11. 262° 27' 394.53 feet along Lot 1; 12. 343° 45' 474.87 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer and Clem Akina Park; 13. 42° 22' 26.80 feet along Lot 2; 14. 7° 59' 30" 27.00 feet along Lot 2; 15. 00° 00' 67.35 feet along Lot 2; 16. 67° 48' 64.80 feet along Lot 2; 17. 101° 45' 106.90 feet along Lot 1; 18. 88° 57' 164.00 feet along Lot B-1; 19. 351* 37' 275.45 feet along Lots B-1 and A-1; 20. 88° 39' 20" 396.00 feet along the north side of `Amauulu Road to the point of beginning and containing an area of 12.82 acres. -3- LOT 3 AND PORTION OF LOT 2: Beginning at the southeast corner of this parcel of land, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 3,949.99 feet North and 651.62 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 88° 39' 20" 766.19 feet along the north side of `Amauulu Road; 2. 167° 18' 30" 152.55 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 3. 87° 11' 30" 307.48 feet along the remainder of a portion of Deed to Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer; 4. 180° 00' 505.07 feet along Lot 4; 5. 173° 10' 535.89 feet along Lot 4; Thence along Lot 7 and following along the centerline of the stream and all its windings, for the next five (5) courses, the direct azimuths and distances between points being: 6. 280° 37' 328.07 feet; 7. 295° 26' 199.00 feet; 8. 233° 08' 142.00 feet; 9. 304° 14' 174.00 feet; 10. 249° 15' 197.00 'feet; 11. 00° 00' 349.92 feet along Lot 2; Thence along the remainder of Deed of Commissioners of Crown Lands to Thomas Spencer for the next five (5) courses, the azimuths and distances between points being: ie 12. 270° 00' 35.25 feet; 13. Thence along a curve to the) left having a radius of 1,050.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 266° 13' 30" 138.26 feet; 14. 262° 27' 14.00 feet; 15. 352° 27' 300.07 feet; 16. 00° 00' 428.18 feet to the point of beginning and containing an area of 24.73 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 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), the County Council finds the following conditions are: (1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be 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 -5- a SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. 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 MtMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Sol A -20a A -20a ---------------- I R5-7.5 5 1 R A -20a 5 15 R -15 A -20a R5-15 R -15 R -15 V-75 RM -1 R -10 RM -1 R -10 RM -1 R -1 RM -1 D A_1 A -20a RM -1 LOT 2A F O) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - A -20a10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS -10) 2.128 ACRES RM -1 5 A -3a A -20a 4,80730'N 1,224.91 E LOT 3 and Portion of LOT 2 AGRICULTURAL - TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL - ONE ACRE (FA -1a) 24.73 ACRES A -20a RS -15 R5-15 RM -1 -1 -1 \ RM -1 J Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAI'I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL -TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) AND OPEN (0) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET (RS -10) AND FAMILY AGRICULTURAL- ONE ACRE (FA -1a) AT PU'U'EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI'I MAP PREPARED BY: TM K: (3) 2-6-008:027 and COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 22, 2017 EXHIBIT "A" Olson Mar): 1395 � 651 62' LOT 2B AGRICULTURAL - TWENTY ACRE4 0. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN�A%L -10,000 SQUARE FEET (RZ-10) I 12.82 ACRES A -20a RS -15 R5-15 RM -1 -1 -1 \ RM -1 J Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAI'I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL -TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) AND OPEN (0) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET (RS -10) AND FAMILY AGRICULTURAL- ONE ACRE (FA -1a) AT PU'U'EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI'I MAP PREPARED BY: TM K: (3) 2-6-008:027 and COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: September 22, 2017 EXHIBIT "A" Olson Mar): 1395 COlsonTnistREL crk.04.08.19 EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 17-000223) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall comply with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. A water commitment deposit shall be paid to the Department of Water Supply within 180 days from the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with Rule 5 of the Department of Water Supply's Rules and Regulations. The applicant is responsible for maintaining valid water commitments to support the proposed use until such time that required water facilities charges are paid in full. C. Prior to issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant shall construct necessary water improvements, which shall include but not be limited to: 1) water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak - flow and fire -flow conditions (minimum diameter of mains shall be six (6) inches, from Wainaku Street extending along the new roadway and into each cul-de-sac); 2) service laterals that will accommodate 5/8 -inch sized meters to each lot; 3) fire hydrants spaced no more than 600 feet apart and within 300 feet of the driveway or access for each lot. On dead-end streets, the last fire hydrant shall be located at one-half the distance from the last house, or unit, fronting the property line, or to the driveway or access for the property; and 4) subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development, the application shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department of Water Supply's affected water system facilities, should they be necessary. D. Final Subdivision Approval shall be secured within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. No variance from the minimum water and road requirements in Hawaii County Code Chapter 23 and 25 shall be granted to subdivide the property. E. Prior to subdivision of any portion of the rezoned area, a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of . Public Works. The TIAR shall incorporate analysis of the traffic impact of the maximum number of lots that could be created by the resulting Zoning designations. The applicants shall implement, when required by the Department of Public Works, at no cost to the County, any transportation system improvements to Wainaku Street that may be deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. F. Access to Wainaku Street and all driveway connections to County Streets shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets of the Hawaii County Code. G. Prior to issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant, its successors or assigns shall provide improvements to the Wainaku Street frontage of TMK (3) 2-6-008:026, consisting of, but not limited to driveway and sidewalk rehabilitation meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the approval of the Department of Public Works, drainage improvements, any required utility relocation, and installation of street lights and traffic controls as required by and meeting the requirements of the Department of Public Works. H. To promote future roadway connectivity, prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant shall construct at least one (1) 50 -foot roadway connection to each of the following,: 1) the southern property boundary at Amau`uhi Road; 2) the northern property boundary west (mauka) of TMK: 2-6-008:010; 3) to the eastern (makai) property boundary at Wainaku Street; and 4) to the western (mauka) property boundary. I. Any road or street within the project area providing connection to adjacent properties or roadways shall be constructed to County dedicable standards and dedicated to the County. J. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study of the project site shall be prepared by professional civil engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii for review and approval by the Department of Public Works, prior to submittal of plans for subdivision review. Drainage improvements, if required, shall be constructed in a -2- manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. K. The applicant shall comply with the Department of Health's Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-55, rules regarding Water Pollution Control, which requires an NPDES permit- for certain construction activities. L. Prior to issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant, successors or assigns shall extend a sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawai' i County Code. M. As required by the Director of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the applicant, its successors, or assigns shall conduct a sewer study prior to connection to a sewer system. The applicant shall provide sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require, which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. N. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all resulting lots shall give notice that the terms of the zoning ordinance prohibit the construction of a second dwelling unit and condominium property regimes on each lot. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. The owners of the property may also impose private covenants restricting the number of dwellings. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the State of Hawaii 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. O. The applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to permissible uses within the State Land Use Agricultural District. P. Prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, the applicant, its successors or assigns shall secure approval of an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation -3- Division (DLNR-SHPD) and implement interim preservation mitigation measures as may be recommended for the rezoned area. Moreover, prior to or as part of the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant shall implement mitigation measures for the historic area cemetery as recommended by the AIS and directed by DLNR-SHPD. Q. In the unlikely event that surface or subsurface historic resources, including human skeletal remains, structural remains (e.g. rock walls, terraces, platforms, etc.), cultural deposits, marine shell concentrations, sand deposits, or sink holes are identified during the demolition and/or construction work, cease work in the immediate vicinity of the find, protect the find from additional disturbance and contact the State Historic Preservation Division at (808) 933-7651. R. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall subdivide and dedicate to the County, for the expansion of Clem Akina Park, not less than 1.69 acres of TMK (3) 2-6-008:026. The configuration and land area of the park expansion shall be determined in consultation with the Department of Parks and Recreation and shall be approved by its Director. The park expansion area shall be clearly identified as such on all plans submitted for subdivision of the subject properties and shall be free of any encumbrances or restrictions, unless specifically agreed to by the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The applicant shall prepare and submit all documents necessary for dedication of the park expansion area in conjunction with Final Subdivision Approval for any portion of the rezoned area. Finally, the park expansion area shall be dedicated to the County within one (1) year of Final Subdivision Approval or prior to the issuance of a building permit for a dwelling unit or accessory structure within the rezoned area whichever occurs first. S. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the development 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 Subdivision Approval. The fair share contribution for each newly created lot shall be based on the actual number M 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 combined value of $14,329.89 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 single family residential unit shall be allocated as follows: 1. $6,910.13 per single family residential unit to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $333.35 per single family residential unit to the County to support police facilities; 3. $658.40 per single family residential unit to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $288.25 per single family residential unit to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $6,139.77 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 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. The fair market value of the land to be dedicated for park expansion as required in Condition R shall be credited against the sum specified in Condition S (1) for park and recreational improvements and facilities. T. 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 -5- approved by the Administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development prior to Final Subdivision Approval. U. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. V. The applicant, its successors and/or assigns shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal codes, laws, rules, regulations and requirements for the proposed development, including the Department of Public Works, Department of Water Supply and Department of Health. W. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 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 Zoning Code. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 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. I on C rn n I D Z 0m 0 T N 0 Z m D r n D O z Z 0 O O O N C.A) n 0 r Z Z N ■ —moi m D 0-0 z n Cn D -- Z 0 in D C rn � � Z cn � Z 70� p o -u 00 - cn Z m 700 m Z F- C O F- D 0 0 m m r- 0 -0 enc) m = m �n D �O�Z 0 -, ---i0 I— C m D 7u DzDO 7 'N m DO r-_= n m n m 7u =T,0 zD� � D D C � (� 0 N Z7 C�0n � Z C rn Z C 7u 70 M _0 D C/7 � D N 77 O o�D rn n 7u 70 D D D -- N n�� n O rx� N 0 °- D -n D m D z�� O � � _ . rn � w ■ 0On Z m Z Drnrn �>0 M -T-1 r-- — N zo 0z rn D C/) -n �;u 0 70 m m 0 D z D � O � o n O C O Cn C O D C � D� �7 N rn O -n D m n 7u m Cn D O N N D 0— z D m 00 m Z ■ T' D 0 D D m Cn Z 0 D c n �;u(/')M M --u UD 00 Z 00 Z> O -< D Dm � rn no rn � M � Z -n 0 D n D O D z rn M rn 0 C CA Z O rp O O O 00�r^crn p m cn m m I < M m H , �pz0 " Z "0 z D D Z rn M .-. m NM � nm < O 0 C -0 x x "v0 = Z -° N O OCA -J - 1 D® D D vQ n yz 76 m M rn Z M r r - O Dn 0 00 -a -� O M 0 O v m Ln m D x rm D cn0 C/ z O E5 � � 0 � 0 OD M r- C/') D M x Q° O� _ � D \o O �v Z D DZ - D n My D rn D vO DSO Z� nDC/) cn %a m Z ZO m 0 -- D"' 0D <_ ■ —moi m D 0-0 z n Cn D -- Z 0 in D C rn � � Z cn � Z 70� p o -u 00 - cn Z m 700 m Z F- C O F- D 0 0 m m r- 0 -0 enc) m = m �n D �O�Z 0 -, ---i0 I— C m D 7u DzDO 7 'N m DO r-_= n m n m 7u =T,0 zD� � D D C � (� 0 N Z7 C�0n � Z C rn Z C 7u 70 M _0 D C/7 � D N 77 O o�D rn n 7u 70 D D D -- N n�� n O rx� N 0 °- D -n D m D z�� O � � _ . rn � w ■ 0On Z m Z Drnrn �>0 M -T-1 r-- — N zo 0z rn D C/) -n �;u 0 70 m m 0 D z D � O � o n O C O Cn C O D C � D� �7 N rn O -n D m n 7u m Cn D O N N D 0— z D m 00 m Z ■ T' D 0 D D m Cn Z 0 D c n �;u(/')M M --u UD 00 Z 00 Z> O -< D Dm � rn no rn � M � Z -n 0 D n D O D z rn M rn 0 C CA �l COUNTY ZONING I PIZ AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Lo 40 -ja, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH f 1 _ x o� !S AA x E "It a IL 46 IWO "0001) 1 Ad O a a Ll — G A A 1 j N i R Q 4 � �g^9 +I�I rn rn C� D rn D O O z G� C D n O D_ Z D C C/) ZJ rn rn m 0 TI C D Z D C c� ;;u rn rn 0 0 Z 0 Z 0 7u n, y 9 r a R