Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0018.000 2002-2004Harry Kim Mayor Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Peter T. Young L"ry Managing Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 • (808) 961-82( i_s;-Faxd808),961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakmi Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)329-5226 • Fax (808)326-5663 November 18, 2002 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Initiator: Planning Director Amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8 Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code — Kaumana & Ponahawai Initiator: Planning Director Amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8 Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai `i County Code — Waiakea Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-013) Applicant: Sunstone Realty Partners X, LLC Request: RS -10 to RM -4 Tax Map Key: 7-5-18:8 Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-011) Applicant: Maurice Thomas Request: RS -20 to CV -20 Tax Map Key? 1-9-4712ortion of 14 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sin ely, try Kim ayor L101802may Enclosures cc: Planning Department B; 11 J Comm. No. File No. Ref. To: Ref. Date NOV 9. 7 %002 Harry Kim Mayor County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 •Fax (808) 961-8742 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-013) Applicant: Sunstone Realty Partners X, LLC Request: RS -10 to RM -4 Tax Map Key: 7-5-18:8 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on October 17, 2002, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification for approximately 18.946 acres of land from Single Family Residential (RS -10) to Multiple Family Residential (RM -4). The property is bordered by Alii Drive and Walua R6ad, north of Lunapule Road and just east of Wai`aha Bay, Wai`aha I", North Kona, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the 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 be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The proposed request for a change of zone from a Single Family Residential (RS -10) to a Multiple Family Residential -4,000 square feet per unit (RM -4) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the Housing and Land Use (Multiple Residential) Elements of the General Plan. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 HOUSING • Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. • Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice. • Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people. • Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock. • Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals. • Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background and income. LAND USE — GENERAL • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. • Zone urban- and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. • Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning 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. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 LAND USE — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL • To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical, social and economic needs of the islands residents. • Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. • Areas shall be located in such a manner that traffic generated by high density development will not be required to travel through areas of lesser density en route to principal community facilities. • Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools, employment centers, and other services. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. • Recreational areas and/or recreational facilities shall be considered in multiple residential development. 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 requested zone change from a Single Family Residential (RS -10) to a Multiple Family Residential (RM -4) zoned district conforms to the LUPAG Map, which designates the property as Medium Density Urban. The Medium Density Urban classification allows for village and neighborhood commercial uses and residential and related functions not to exceed a density of 35 units per acre. This request is to allow an urban development, a planned multiple -family residential complex with a density of approximately 10 units per acre. The area under consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this section of the North Kona District as depicted on the LUPAG Map. This change of zone will facilitate the development of a framework of a concentration of urban activities occurring in an orderly manner commensurate with the provision of necessary infrastructure. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 The requested change of zone is also generally consistent with regional and community planning documents that prescribe the County's land use policies for this portion of North Kona. The Kona Regional Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission in 1984, recommends the project area for residential development at a density of 10 units per acre. The applicant's request will provide for a residential density not to exceed 10 units per acre. Thus, the requested boundary amendment would be in the direction of fulfilling the recommendation of the Kona Regional Plan to provide for medium -density residential uses within this section of North Kona. The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, adopted by County Council Resolution in 1996, recommends the project site for high-density residential uses with maximum unit densities of 20 -units per acre, or twice the unit density as being requested by the applicant. Therefore, a favorable recommendation of this change of zone would be in the direction of fulfilling the recommendations of The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. The subject property is situated within the project area identified as the Kailua Village Special District. On August 27, 2002, the Kailua Village Design Commission voted to recommend the denial of denial recommendations were based on concerns regarding the density of the project, the need for increased yard setbacks from Alii Drive and additional open space throughout the project site, and consistency with the requirements of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes regarding the Special Management Area. Other concerns raised during the public hearing included: a: potential significant impact upon traffic along Ali'i Drive and Walua Road; consistency with The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona; especially as it relates to the use of greenbelts and open spaces; c: continuation of "cookie cutter" design similar to other developments along this section of Ali'i Drive; d: anticipated impacts upon Waiaha Bay significant without known mitigation measures to be provided by applicant; overall density of project deemed too high. Traffic impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the recommendation of the traffic impact analysis report and the Department of Public Works and will be discussed in greater detail below. Overall density is consistent with existing County land use policies and plans. Direct impacts of the project upon Waiaha Bay are anticipated to be minimal due to the project location on the mauka side of Ali'i Drive. Appropriate Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 construction practices and improvements to contain runoff, sedimentation and erosion will be implemented in accordance with applicable governmental requirements. Secondary impacts due to increased user demands placed upon the recreational resources of Waiaha Bay are likely. The applicant is providing a parking area and restrooms adjacent to the sewer pump station for users of Waiaha Bay. These amenities alone will provide much in the way of relief for users of Waiaha Bay by finally providing an appropriate parking area for vehicles instead of parking along the shoulders of Ali'i Drive and restroom facilities in lieu of alternatives. While the proposed development will generate additional user demands upon Waiaha Bay, these additional demands are offset by the provision of public parking and restrooms that will benefit all recreational users of Waiaha Bay and not only the residents of the proposed Ali'i Cove project. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to work with the Planning Department to provide these public improvements at the time of certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development. The requested change of zone will not create a significant adverse impact upon the natural, historic and cultural resources of the area. The project site is situated within the County's Single Family Residential (RS -10) zoned district and is designated by the State of Hawaii's Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map as existing urban development. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the soils in the area is "E" or Very Poor. The project site has been previously graded and utilized for past cattle ranching activities and the harvesting of kiawe wood. Therefore, the rezoning of this 18.946 -acre area from an RS -10 to a RM -4 zoning designation will not be detrimental to agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawai'i. From a land use perspective, it is a more feasible alternative to infill urban development within this particular area of North Kona. In doing so, it would tend to alleviate the conversion of more productive agricultural lands in more appropriate locations within the North Kona area for Urban types of uses. A biological reconnaissance of the project site was conducted in May 2002 by Ron Terry, Ph.D. and Patrick Hart, Ph.D., The study concludes that "No rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife habitats. The history of continuous disturbance coupled with the lowland context indicates that the property has little value in terms of conserving native species. No impact on native species or habitat is expected to result from human activity on the site." An Archaeological inventory survey of the project site was conducted by Rechtman Consulting in March 2000. During the survey, 27 sites were recorded within the project site, although the high degree of past ground disturbance on the property have impacted many of the archaeological sites and completely erased others. These sites Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 6 consist of temporary and permanent habitations sites, ranch and boundary walls, agricultural features, a heiau and two burials. Four (4) of these sites, including the burials and heiau, are recommended for preservation. An additional eight (8) sites are recommended for data recovery, with the remaining fifteen (15) sites not recommended for any additional work. This favorable recommendation will require the applicant to prepare a preservation and treatment plan for the approval by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division. While surface archaeological features may no longer be present, a condition of this favorable recommendation will also require the applicant to stop work should any unidentified archaeological features or sites be identified; only to resume upon clearance by the Planning Director. According to the applicant, "No valued cultural, historical or natural resources existing on the subject property and no gathering is taking place. 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 those rights. " A Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed project was conducted by the Applicant. According to the study, "The project developer is committed to j"ulfilling the Kailua-Kona Village Design goals and objectives. These goals are focused on preserving the 'Kona Way of Life' and maintaining the continued role of Kailua Village as a tourist destination and retailing center. The objectives call for emphasis on natural features, such as shoreline, bay and trees, improvement of pedestrian experience, and diversity and interest of building types. In terms of visual design, Ali'i Cove's emphasis on moderate -density, moderate -height layout, the prominence of landscaping, and the provision of public restrooms and showers are all in harmony with the Kailua-Kona Village Design goals and objectives. " The study concluded that the proposed development will have little, if any adverse impact upon the following viewplanes: a: views from Ali'i Drive looking mauka through project site; views from Ali'i Drive and Walua Road looking makai towards ocean; c: views of coastline from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. The study concluded that "The proposed multi family project will have no effect on views from Ah'i Drive to the coastline. However, the structures will be somewhat visible from Ali'i Drive looking mauka, and landscaping is recommended. Existing residences and businesses on Lunapule and Walua Roads will have their views of the kiawe scrubland replaced by views of the structures, but little or no interference with shoreline views is expected As there is essentially no view corridor from Queen Kaahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 7 because of topography, vegetation, and existing structures, little or no visual impact to views of the shoreline from the highway is expected." Concerns expressed by the Kailua Village Design Commission revolved around the project's consistency with The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, especially as it relates to the use of greenbelts and open spaces. They also discouraged the continuation of a "cookie cutter" design similar to other developments along this section of Alii Drive. The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona does recommend incorporating mauka-makai view corridors on vacant lands to be developed. It is recommended that as part of the submittal of plans for plan approval review, the applicant shall provide a written discussion of how the project compliments the various design guidelines contained with The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, including a mauka-makai viewplane corridor through the project site. There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by rezoning of the project site to a RM -4 zoned district upon public utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been identified and assessed and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated within this favorable recommendation. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, school improvements, police and fire protection. Primary access to the project area is provided by Ali'i Drive and Walua Road, both of which are County -maintained roadways with pavement widths of 20 feet within 50 -foot wide right-of-way. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Ali'i Cove Condominiums was prepared by Phillip Rowell and Associates dated October 7, 2002. According to the study, "there is no change in the LOS [level of service] of any movement at the study intersections as a result of project generated traffic. However, the westbound approach of Lunapule Road onto Alii Drive operates at an unacceptable LOS for existing conditions. Delays will continue to increase as result of traffic generated by project south ofLunapule Road. Improvements to mitigate the LOS F should therefore be identified and assessed." The study recommends that the westbound approach along Lunapule Road onto Ah'i Drive be improved with separate left and right turn lanes and that this intersection be modified as an all -way STOP sign controlled intersection. Since a warrant for all -way STOP sign is the same as warrants for a traffic signal, a traffic signal warrant study was conducted. This study concluded that the warrants for a traffic signal at the Ali'i Drive-Lunapule Road intersection have been satisfied. However, although traffic signals at this intersection are warranted, the TIAR recommends that such signals not be installed since the construction of Ali'i Highway and the Lako Street Makai Extension will reduce traffic at the Alii Drive-Lunapule Road intersection to levels below warrants for traffic signals. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 8 As recommended by the Department of Public Works, the applicant did consider a mauka-makai collector through the project site to provide for some traffic relief along the narrow Lunapule Road. The applicant's TIAR concluded that a mauka-makai collector through the project site would not significantly affect the level of service along Lunapule Road and would require a full intersection at its intersection with Ali'i Drive. The project's access mauka-makai access road will be made available for use during times of evacuation. However, data remains inconclusive as to whether a mauka-makai collector through the project site is not warranted. Lunapule Road is narrow and operates at a poor level of service. The Department of Public Works recommends that a mauka-makai collector be provided to relieve traffic congestion along Lunapule Road. This recommendation will require that the project access road from Ali'i Drive to Walua Road serve as that public mauka-makai collector. This favorable recommendation will require the applicant to provide for mitigative measures as required by the TIAR to minimize adverse impacts to traffic that will be caused by the proposed 200 -unit residential development. As recommended by the Department of Public Works, the applicant will be required to improve that portion of Ali'i Drive fronting the subject property with various improvements such as street widening, street lighting, appropriate signage, drainage and markings. Along its frontage with Walua Road, recommended improvements consistent with a collector street shall be provided including the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Water to support the proposed condominium project will be made available from the County's water system through an 8 -inch waterline located along Ali'i Drive with the provision of some additional on-site and off-site improvements and the payment of the appropriate water commitment fee. A condition of this favorable recommendation will require the applicant to provide for all recommended improvements to the County's water system necessary to support the water needs of the proposed development. Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be disposed of within the County's existing sewer treatment system fronting the project site along Ali'i Drive. Wastewater will be transported by the County's system to its Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant located just south of Honokohau Harbor Police services are provided by the County of Hawai'i from its Kealakehe substation. Fire protection is also provided by the County of Hawaii from its Kailua- Kona and Keauhou stations. Emergency medical and paramedical services are also provided by the Hawai'i County Fire Department. The nearest available public health facility is the Kona Community Hospital located 10 miles away at Kealakekua. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 9 Electricity and telephone services are or will be made available to the project site. As recommended by the Department of Environmental Management, a condition of approval of this change of zone request will require the applicant to prepare and secure approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for the proposed condominium development. The property has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the property as Zone X, area outside of the 500 -year flood plain. Any improvements to the property must comply with Chapter 27 of the County Code relating to Flood Hazard Control. As recommended by the Department of Public Works, a condition of this favorable recommendation will require the applicant to prepare a drainage study for the project. Furthermore, the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona identifies a proposed storm sewer alignment through the project site. Again, a condition of this favorable recommendation will include a requirement that the applicant consult with the Department of Public Works regarding the location of the proposed storm sewer. The Civil Defense Agency has noted that they cannot support this project due to its location within the "tsunami zone" and the impact this project will have upon Ali'i Drive and Walua Road during times of emergency. The Planning Department is not aware of a "tsunami zone" as may be designated by any governmental agency. As previously mentioned, the subject property is situated within Zone X, an area situated beyond coastal flooding. This favorable recommendation will require the applicant to make the project's mauka-makai access driveway available to the general public during emergency evacuations. This project also has access to Walua Road, so evacuation of this proposed development will not dump traffic upon Ali'i Drive but instead direct traffic onto Walua Road, then onto Kuakini Highway in a direction leading away from coastal areas. While the proposed project itself will generate additional traffic along area roadways, an additional mauka- makai emergency access route through the project site will provide an additional measure of safety during times of emergency. Although the applicant has stated that the majority of potential buyers of these proposed multiple family residential units will utilize these units as retirement homes, vacation homes or homes for dual -income families with no children. Therefore, the anticipated impact of the proposed development upon educational facilities will be minimal and will not require governmental assistance or improvements. Proper planning requires that adequate public facilities be provided to support a proposed development and all its potential impacts. While the applicant's assessment is that most potential buyers of the proposed residential units are families that do not have school -aged children residing with them or are not permanent residents, those are broad assumptions that BSunstoneREZSMAdsa.doc — 09/03/02 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-013) SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 02-004) Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC has submitted applications for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS -10) to Multiple Family Residential (RM -4) for approximately 18.946 acres of land, and for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit for the establishment of a 200 -unit multiple family residential development and related recreational improvements. The property is bordered by Ali'i Drive and Walua Road, north of Lunapule Road and just east of Wai'aha Bay, Wai'aha V, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-18: 8. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Land Ownership: C & D Partners, Nam Kona Aina LLC, General Partner, is the fee owner of the subject property. The landowner has provided written authorization to the applicant's representative, Gregory R. Mooers, to apply for the subject applications. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Request: The applicant is proposed the development of a 200 -unit multiple family residential project consisting of approximately 37 two and three story townhouse structures. Each townhouse will accommodate 4 or 6 residential units with the following additional improvements: a: Recreational facilities such as swimming pool, pedestrian walkways, outdoor barbeques, and open spaces. b: parking and restroom facilities for general public use will be provided in the vicinity of the existing Waiaha sewer pump station complex on Alii Drive. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the following in support of the request: (See Exhibit A - Change of Zone and Special Management Area Use Permit Application for Applicant: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC dated June 25, 2002 previously transmitted to the Planning Commission) STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 4. State Land Use Commission Designation: Urban. 5. Hawaii State Plan Consistency: Economy, Population, Physical Environment, Land and Air Quality, Water, Facility Systems for Solid and Liquid Waste, Transportation, Socio -Cultural Advancement (Housing) objectives and policies. 6. General Plan Consistency: Economic, Housing, Environmental Quality, Flood Control and Drainage, Public Utilities, Transportation, Land Use and Residential Elements' goals, policies and courses of action for North Kona. 7. General Plan and LUPAG Map: The General Plan document identifies this portion of North Kona for Medium Density Urban uses. Areas designated Medium Density Urban are described as "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential uses and related functions (3 -story commercial; residential up to 35 units per acre)." The requested change of zone, if approved, will be consistent with the General Plan LUPAG Map designation for this section of North Kona. 8. Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission in 1984, recommends the area for residential uses with a density of 10 units per acre (RES -10). The requested change of zone to RM -4 will be consistent with recommended residential density expressed by the Kona Regional Plan. 9. The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona: Adopted by County Council resolution in 1996, the Master Plan for Kailua Kona identifies the project site for High Density Residential uses with maximum residential unit densities of 20 units per acre, or twice the density as that being requested by the Applicant. Note that the plan recommends a drainage system be aligned toward the project site, affected its northern portion, that is part of the County's Pua'a drainage system. The plan also recommends that the project site accommodate open spaces or a park. 10. Kailua Village Design Commission: The Kailua Village Design Commission, at its August 27, 2002 meeting, voted to issue to the Planning Commission recommendations of denial of the Applicant's Change of Zone and SMA Use Permit applications. The -2- Commission's denial recommendations were based on concerns regarding the density of the project, the need for increased yard setbacks from Alii Drive and additional open space throughout the project site, and consistency with the requirements of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes regarding the Special Management Area. Other concerns raised during the public hearing included a: potential significant impact upon traffic along Alii Drive and Walua Road; b: consistency with The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona; especially as it relates to the use of greenbelts and open spaces; c: continuation of "cookie cutter" design similar to other developments along this section of Alii Drive; d: anticipated impacts upon Waiaha Bay significant without known mitigation measures to be provided by applicant; e: overall density of project deemed too high. 11. CountyZoning: Single Family Residential — 10,000 square feet (RS -10). 12. SMA: The subject property is situated within the County's Special Management Area (SMA). The applicant has filed a Special Management Area Use Permit application concurrently with the Change of Zone application. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 13. Subject Property: The subject property and project site, consisting of 18.946 acres, is situated along the mauka side of Alii Drive almost directly across from Waiaha Bay. The project site is roughly triangular in shape and is bordered by Alii Drive on the makai side and Walua Road on the mauka side. The project site is presently vacant of any uses, although it has been extensively graded in the past for cattle ranching activities and the harvesting of kiawe wood. The project site maintains a relatively gentle slope with an elevation of 12 feet above sea level at its makai boundary with Alii Drive to approximately 100 feet above sea level as its border with Walua Road for a roughly 8.5% grade. The project site is located at least 75 feet from the nearest shoreline. 14. U.S.D.A. Soil Type: Soils within the project site consists of the Punaluu series. This type of soil is characterized by rapid permeability, slow runoff and slight erosion hazard. This type of soil is typically used for pasture. -3- 15. ALISH Map: Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) has classified a portion of the subject property as "Existing Urban Development" with the remainder not classified. 16. Land Study Bureau: Soils within the property are classified as "E" or Very Poor. 17. FIRM: Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. 18. Lava Flow Hazard: The U.S. Geological Service Lava Flow Hazard Maps show the area of the subject property, as is all of the Kona area, to be within Lava Flow Hazard Zone 4, which indicates that less than 15 percent of the land in this zone has been covered with lava in the last 750 years and that there has been 5 percent lava coverage in the past 200 years. 19. Earthquake: The County of Hawaii Building Code identifies the entire island of Hawaii in Earthquake Zone 4 and contains certain structural requirements to address the relative seismic hazard. Earthquakes associated with volcanic events, primarily underground magmatic movement within Hualalai, have been reported. Based on historic data, earthquakes having a Richter Scale magnitude 6.4 occur in the area of the subject property on the average of once every 62 years. 20. FlorallFaunal Resources: A biological reconnaissance of the project site was conducted in May 2002 by Ron Terry, Ph.D. and Patrick Hart, Ph.D.. The study concludes that "No rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the US. Fish and Wildlife Service are present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife habitats. The history of continuous disturbance coupled with the lowland context indicates that the property has little value in terms of conserving native species. No impact on native species or habitat is expected to result.from human activity on the site." 21. Historic and Archaeological Resources: An Archaeological inventory survey of the project site was conducted by Rechtman Consulting in March 2000. During the survey, 27 sites were recorded within the project site, although the high degree of past ground disturbance on the property have impacted many of the archaeological sites and completely erased others. These sites consist of temporary and permanent habitations sites, ranch and boundary walls, agricultural features, a heiau and two burials. Four (4) of these sites, including the burials and heiau, are recommended for preservation. An additional eight (8) sites are recommended for data recovery, with the remaining fifteen (15) sites not recommended for any additional work. The applicant states that a preservation and treatment plan will be developed for approval by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division. 22. Cultural Resources: According to the Applicant, "No valued cultural, historical or natural resources existing on the subject property and no gathering is taking place. 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 those rights. " 23. Visual Resources: A Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed project was conducted by the Applicant. According to the study, "The project developer is committed to fulfilling the Kailua-Kona Village Design goals and objectives. These goals are focused on preserving the 'Kona Way of Life' and maintaining the continued role of Kailua Village as a tourist destination and retailing center. The objectives call for emphasis on natural features, such as shoreline, bay and trees, improvement ofpedestrian experience, and diversity and interest of building types. In terms of visual design, Alii Cove's emphasis on moderate -density, moderate -height layout, the prominence of landscaping, and the provision of public restrooms and showers are all in harmony with the Kailua- Kona Village Design goals and objectives. " The study concluded that the proposed development will have little, if any adverse impact upon the following viewplanes: a: views from Alii Drive looking mauka through project site; b: views from Alii Drive and Walua Road looking makai towards ocean; c: views of coastline from Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The study concluded that "The proposed multi -family project will have no effect on views from Ali'i Drive to the coastline. However, the structures will be somewhat visible from Ali'i Drive looking mauka, and landscaping is recommended Existing residences and businesses on Lunapule and Walua Roads will have their views of the kiawe scrubland -5- replaced by views of the structures, but little or no interference with shoreline views is expected. As there is essentially no view corridor from Queen Kaahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures because of topography, vegetation, and existing structures, little or no visual impact to views of the shoreline from the highway is expected." 24. Recreational Resources: The Applicant anticipates that the proposed project will not have any adverse impacts upon recreational resources due to its location on the mauka side of Alii Drive. The Applicant indicates that the construction of parking stalls and restroom facilities within the project site will enhance the recreational resources in the immediate area. 25. Air and Noise Quality: Air quality in the area of the project site is most affected by emissions from natural and vehicular sources. Volcanic haze is the dominant form of natural emissions, while windblown dust may also contribute to air pollution. The existing noise generated in the area is coming primarily from the vehicular traffic on Alii Drive and Walua Road. The principal source of both short-term air and noise quality impacts associated with the proposed improvements is expected during construction, especially during grubbing and grading activities. These impacts can be mitigated through the utilization of best management practices. Given the limited nature of the improvements, no significant long-term air and noise quality impacts are anticipated. 26. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The project site is situated between some major transportation corridors such as Alii Drive, Walua Road and Lunapule Road. Along these major roadways are lands zoned for a range of urban uses such as Commercial (CV), Residential (RD and RM), and Resort (V). PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES 27. Access: Access to the project site will be provided by both Alii Drive and Walua Road, both of which are County -maintained roadways with pavement widths of 20 feet within 50 -foot wide rights-of-way. An proposed interior private access roadway will connect both Alii Drive and Walua Road to give its residents choice of access. A traffic impact assessment of the proposed project was prepared in April 2002 by Julian Ng, Incorporated. The assessment concluded that the proposed project will have a minor impact upon traffic conditions in the area. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 5% in the peak hours in the immediate area. Conditions at the project access will be within an acceptable range. The Applicant has indicated that it is preparing a traffic impact analysis report to further assess any potential traffic impacts. 28. Schools: Schools within the North Kona District that may be affected by the project include Konawaena and Kealakehe High Schools, Kealakekua and Kona Intermediate Schools and Kahakai and Kealakehe Elementary School. The Applicant has indicated that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact upon school facilities. Note that the Department of Education disagrees with the Applicant's assessment. Please refer to comments provided by the State Department of Transportation and the Applicant's response in the Agencies' Comments section of this report. 29. Parks and Recreation: Existing recreational opportunities within the immediate area of the project site include coastal recreational opportunities at Waiaha Bay and other coastal locations. County park facilities in the area include Pahoehoe Beach, White Sands, and Kahalu'u Beach Parks. Kailua Park provides a gymnasium, swimming pool, soccer and baseball fields, tennis courts, meeting facilities, restrooms, park offices, and a bike track. State parks in the region include the Old Kona Airport Recreational Area and Kealakekua Bay State Historical Park. Note that The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona recommends that open space or a park be accommodated within the project site. 30. Water: An 8 -inch water line located along Alii Drive will be able to support the potable water needs of the proposed 200 -unit residential development. 31. Wastewater: Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be disposed of within the County's existing sewer treatment system fronting the project site along Alii Drive. Wastewater will be transported by the County's system to its Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant located just south of Honokohau Harbor. 32. Police/Fire/Medical: Police services are provided by the County of Hawaii from its Kealakehe substation. Fire protection is also provided by the County of Hawaii from its -7- Kailua-Kona and Keauhou stations. Emergency medical and paramedical services are also provided by the Hawaii County Fire Department. The nearest available public health facility is the Kona Community Hospital located 10 miles away at Kealakekua. 33. Electrical/Telephone: Electrical service is available to the property from Hawaii Electric Light Co. Inc., and telephone service is available from Verizon Hawaii. 34. Other essential utilities and services are or will be made available to the property. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 35. Department of Transportation: (August 13, 2002 memo) "The proposed action will not impact our State transportation facilities." 36. Department of Education: (August 7, 2002 letter) "The Department of Education (DOE) has reviewed the Change of Zone Application and Special Management Area Use Permit Application from Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, for a 200 -unit multi -family residential project on 18.946 acres in Waiahua V, North Kona, south of Kailua. Contrary to the response stated in the Application for Change of Zone, the proposed project will impact the schools that will serve the residents of the 200 -unit project and will require `governmental assistance and/or improvements.' DOE requests that the county include as a condition of rezoning, the following standard fair -share language: The Applicant shall contribute to the development, funding, and/or construction of school facilities, on a fair -share basis, as determined by and to the satisfaction of the Department of Education. Terms of the contribution shall be agreed upon in writing by the Applicant and the Department of Education prior to applicant applying for county building permits. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these applications. Should you have any questions, please call Ms. Heidi Meeker of the Facilities and Support Services Branch at 733-4862." 37. State Department of Health: See Exhibit B - July 29, 2002 memorandum 38. State Commission on Water Resource Management: (August 5, 2002 memo) "In general, the C WRM strongly promotes the efficient use of our water resources through conservation measures and use of alternative non -potable water resources whenever available, feasible, and there are no harmful effects to the ecosystem. Also, the CWRM encourages the protection of water recharge areas, which are important for the maintenance of streams and the replenishment of aquifers. We recommend coordination with the county government to incorporate this project into the county's Water Use and Development Plan. A Well Construction Permit and/or a Pump Installation Permit from the Commission would be required before ground water is developed as a source of supply for the project." 39. Police Department: (July 31, 2002 Memo): "Due to the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic utilizing Alii Drive we suggest that a left turn lane be required for south bound traffic at the proposed entry/exit to this project. The left turn lane will allow for better traffic flow and will eliminate south bound drives from passing on the right to get around traffic turning left onto the project. Further, with the Alii Drive extension and other developments underway, there is a likelihood vehicular traffic on Alii Drive will be increasing." 40. Applicant's Response to Police Department comments: (August 12, 2002 letter) "Your staff has faxed me the Police Department's comments on the applications identified above and asked that I respond. The applicant recognizes that traffic concerns from the proposed development need to be addressed. We have retained this study with the Department of Public Works to determine what appropriate mitigation measures might be. Should you or your staff require additional information or have any questions, please contact me directly. Thank you for your prompt review of these applications." 41. Department of Public Works: Refer to Exhibit C — August 29, 2002 memorandum 42. Department of Environmental Management -Solid Waste: (August 2, 2002 memo) "Provide this division with a complete SWMP addressing the minimization of waste delivered to the West Hawaii Landfill. The plan should cover everything from grading/grubbing waste through construction waste and final occupancy refuse and including reuse/recycling. No refuse from this project shall be disposed of at any transfer stations. All refuse shall be taken to the West Hawaii Landfill." 43. Fire Department: See Exhibit D — July 18, 2002 memorandum 44. Department of Parks and Recreation: (August 15, 2002 memorandum) "The applicant is proposing to construct restroom facilities and parking stalls to facilitate the public's use of Waiaha Bay. Is public access to Waiaha Bay available'? The site plan (Exhibit F) proposes future beach improvement. What type of improvements are proposed? The value of the proposed `public' recreation -related improvements should be established so that a determination can be made whether recreation -related community benefit exactions are being met. It is assumed that exactions would be applicable based on the increased density gained. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input." 45. Office of Housing and Community Development: (July 16, 2002 memo) "Affordable housing conditions, pursuant to Chapter 11, Housing, of the Hawaii County Code, are applicable to the Change of Zone request." 46. Civil Defense Agency: (July 19, 2002 memo) "This agency cannot recommend approval for such a large development in a tsunami zone. During emergencies, this development would put additional strain on Walua Road and already congested Ali'i Drive." 47. Applicant's Response to Civil Defense, Office of Housing and Community Development, and Fire Department comments: See Exhibit E - Letter to Planning Director dated July 26, 2002 48. Applicant's Response to Department of Health comments: (August 5, 2002 memo) "Your staff has faxed me comments from the Department of Health on the applications identified above and asked that I respond. -10- Prior to construction the applicant will contact all appropriate Federal and State agencies to comply with pertinent regulations, including those pertaining to water quality, underground injection, wastewater and noise. Should you or your staff require additional information or have any questions, please contact me directly. Thank you for your prompt review of these applications." 49. Applicant's Response to Department of Education comments: See Exhibit F - Letter to Planning Director dated August 23, 2002 50. Applicant's Response to Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Land and Natural Resources comments: See Exhibit G — Letter to Planning Director dated August 26, 2002 AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 51. Department of Water Supply, Real Property Tax Office PUBLIC COMMENTS 52. Petition for Standing in Contested Case Hearing properly filed by Aoao Kona Pacific Inc. See Exhibit H — Petition for Standing in Contested Case Hearing -11- MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC P.O. Box 1101 KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION Single -Family Residential 10,000 s.E (RS -10) to Multiple -Family Residential 4,000 s.f. (RM -4) SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION Establishment of a 200 unit Multiple -Family Residential Development and Related Recreational Improvements APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC Tax Map Key: (3) 7-5-18:08 Waiaha 1st, North Kona Island and State of Hawau Prepared by: Gregory R. Mooers June 25, 2002 EXHIBIT PHONE; (808) 8858839 A FAX: (808) 885-1574 EMAIL'GMOOERS@ArrGLOSALNET CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, Mr. Curt D. DeWeese, Managing Member APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: ---° DATE: Pauahi Tower, Suite 1250 Hawaii 96813 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Developer LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: PHONE:(Bus.) (808) 523-9881 (Res.) LANDOWNER(S): C,9-, D Partners, Nam Kona Aina LLC, General Partner (Fax) (808)524-6803 LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): See letter of authorization DATE: (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: P.O. Box 898, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 REQUEST: Residential 10,000 s.f. (RS -10) TO Multiple Family 4,000 s.f. (RM -4) (Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning) TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-18:08 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ali'i Drive SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 18.946 acres AGENT: GreRory R. Mooers Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 885-6839 (Res.) 885-7126 (Fax) 885-1574 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Mooers Enterprises, LLC COPIES: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC (See Instructions on Reverse Side) I June 4, 2002 C & D Partners P. O. Box 898 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 Mr. Gregory R. Mooers i Mooers Enterprises, LLC P. O. Box 1101 Kamuela, HI 96743 Re: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC TMK: 7-5-18:08 Waiaha I", North Kona, Hawaii Dear Mr. Mooers, This letter is to authorize you, as an agent for Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, to act on behalf of the landowner, C & D Partners, Nani Kona Aina, LLC, general partner in applications for a change of zone and Special Management Area Use Permit, and all necessary submittals related to these applications, to allow the development of a 200 unit multiple -family residential project on our property identified above. Sincerely, 1 i Damel B. olton j Nani Kona Aina, LLC, General Partner Managing Member T, M ATTACHMENT Residential Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? No if yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to quesfion 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? C. if your request is approved, approximately how logg after the date of approval do you expect to subr,.__ your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? 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 W 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. The property will be developed as a 200 unit multi -family project as soon as all regulatory approvals are secured. Yes 3. Do You think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? The proposed change of zone will allow the development of 200 multiple -family residential units in this highly desirable area of North Kona. 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? 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? If so, please describe the problem. No No •.e 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 8. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? _ yes N—Q a. Schools X b. Roads X C. Sewer X d. Drainage X e. police Protection X -3- E 6337A/50A P.D. 5/84 Yes Mk. f. Fire Protection X g Recreational Facilities X h, Public Utilities X 1. other For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Signature: Address: 1001 Bishop, Suite 1250, Honolulu HI Telephone: (808)523-9881 Date: -4- C`J SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, Curt D. DeWeese, Managing Member ` APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: ADDRESS: 1001 Bishop Street LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Developer LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: Curt D. DeWeese, Managing Member PHONE:(Bus.) (808) 523-9881 (Res.) LANDOWNER(S): C & D Partners, Nani Kona Aina LLC, General Partner (Fax) (808)524-6803 LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): See letter of authorization DATE: (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S)ADDRESS: B & D Partners, Nani Kona Aina LLC, General Partner P.O. Box Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 REQUEST: The applicant seeks to develop a 200 unit multiple family residential project in 37 two and three story buildings on a 18.946 acre site with related recreational amenities and associated landscaping. TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-18:08 ZONING: RS -10, application for RM4 SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S): 18.946 acres is pending. AGENT: Gregory R. Mooers ADDRESS: Mooers Fnte rices — — P.O. Box 11 Hawaii 96743 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 885-6839 (Res.) 885-7126 (Fax) 885-1574 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Mooers Enterprises, LLC COPIES: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC; TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L INTRODUCTION A. General Information............................................................ 2 B. Proposed Development and Statement of Objectives ...................... 2 i II. CONFORMITY WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS AND POLICIES A. State Land Use Classification ............................................. 3 B. Hawaii County General Plan ................................................ 3 C. Kona Regional Plan ......................................................... 13 D. Master plan for Kailua-Kona................................................ 13 E. County Zoning Code ........................................................ 14 F. Special Management Area .................................................. 14 III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Description of Property and Surrounding Area ............................. 14 B. Topography...................................................................... 15 C. U.S.D.A. Soil Type.............................................................. 16 D. Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating .................................. 16 E. ALISH.............................................................................16 F. Flora/Fauna Resources..........................................................16 — G. Archaeological Resources......................................................16 H. Valued Cultural Resources..................................................... 17 I. FIRM..............................................................................17 J. Recreational and Visual Resources .......................................... 17 K. Circulation....................................................................... 18 L. Utilities............................................................................18 M. Protective Services.............................................................. 19 i IV. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ANALYSIS A. Proposed Action in Relation to Chapter 205A .............................. 19 B. Special Management Area Guidelines ...................................... 23 V. EXHIBITS A. Botanical Survey B. Archaeological Assessment r C. Visual Impact Assessment D. Traffic Impact E. Regional Location Maps F. Site Plan G. Elevations ii i BACKGROUND AND COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION REQUEST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -10) TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -4) SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A 200 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC TMK: (3) 7-5-18:08 I. INTRODUCTION: The applicant is seeking change of zone from the existing single-family residential 10,000 s.f. (RS -10) to Multiple -Family Residential 4,000 s.f. (RM -4) and a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of a two hundred unit condominium project and related recreational amenities on an approximately 18.946 acre parcel located at Waiaha 1st, North Kona, Hawaii, identified as Tax Map Key (3) 7-5- 18:08. This parcel is situated on the east (mauka) side of Ali'i Drive just east of Waiaha Bay. It fronts on Alii Drive and Walua Road. As part of this project the applicant is also proposing to construct restroom facilities and parking stalls for the public to facilitate the public's use of Waiaha Bay. The applicant understands that with the concurrent processing of these two applications the decision on the Special Management Area Use Permit will be made by the Hawaii County Planning Commission in advance of the Hawaii County Council's review and determination on the change of zone request. The applicant understands that if the Commission gives a favorable response to the Special Management Area Use Permit, that permit is fully contingent on the change of zone being granted by the Hawaii County Council. A. GENERAL INFORMATION Am The Applicant is the developer Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company who has been active in Hawaii Island real estate development for the last seventeen years. Curtis D. DeWeese is the managing member. The fee owner of the property is B & D Partners, Nani Kona Aina LLC, general partner. B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES: The applicant, Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, is proposing to develop 200 Multiple Family Residential units consisting of approximately 37 low -profile, two and three-story townhouse structures ranging between 4-plexes and 6-plexes. The development will include the minimum required off-street parking stalls, and will be in compliance with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code, Fair Housing Act and ADA requirements. Also proposed in the development plan will be vaned landscaping per Zoning Code requirements and including some or all of the following recreational amenities such as a swimming pool, pedestrian walkways, outdoor barbecues and open spaces. The design and color scheme for the proposed structures will be consistent with the design goals and objectives of the Kailua Village Design Plan to blend in with the character of the immediate surrounding area. Parking and restroom facilities for the public in support of the public's use of Waiaha Bay are also being proposed as part of this project. Please see the exhibits for site plan and elevation for these improvements. The development of this Multiple Family Residential project will be done in 4 or 5 phases taking approximately four years to complete. The development will cost approximately $22 million dollars. II. CONFORMITY WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS AND POLICIES: A. STATE LAND USE COMMISSION: The Property is situated within the State Land Use Commission "Urban" zone district. The proposed project is consistent with the "Urban" designation regulations. B. HAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: The Hawaii County General Plan contains goals, policies and courses of actions as well as a Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. On the current LUPAG map that depicts the long-term land uses for the island, the project area is designated as "Medium Density." This designation is described as, "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3 -story commercial; residential -up to 35 units per acre)" The proposed project is consistent with the Hawaii County General Plan LUPAG map. The proposed project is also consistent with the Plan's goals, policies, and recommended courses of actions. Major elements of the General Plan as they relate to the proposed project are as follows: 1. Economic Element: GOALS Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. 3 The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. POLICIES { The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. The County of Hawaii shall encourage the development of a visitor industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversification of its economy by strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors. The County shall strive for full employment. The County shall identify and encourage primary industries that are consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. The County shall promote a distinctive identity for the island of Hawaii to enable government, business and travel industries to promote the County of Hawaii as an entity separate and unique within the State of Hawaii. 4 STANDARDS The island of Hawaii should be developed into a unique scientific and cultural model. The island should become a model of living where economic gains are in balance with social and physical amenities. Development should be reviewed on the basis of total impact on the residents of the County, not orily in terms of immediate short run economic benefits. An economic goal of the County of Hawaii is to "strive for diversity and stability in its economic system." Another is to "Provide an economic environment, which allows new, rI expanded, or improved economic opportunities that is compatible with the County's r' natural and social environment." The proposed project will create temporary construction jobs for local residents and indirectly affect the economy through construction industry purchases from local suppliers. A multiplier effect takes place when these employees spend their income for food, housing, and other living expenses in the retail sector of the economy. Such activities are in keeping with the overall economic development of the island. 2. Housine Element GOALS Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. Attain a diversity of socioeconomic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice. POLICIES GOAL Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people. Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock. Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals. Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background, and income. The County shall encourage a volume of construction and rehabilitation of housing sufficient to meet growth needs and correct existing deficiencies. The proposed 200 unit Multiple Family Residential development will also compliment the following Housing Element, Courses of Action in the North Kona District. Since the lands in this district are sloped, the County shall encourage the use of cluster and planned unit developments which can take advantage of the topography. Aid and encourage the development of a wide variety of housing for this area to attain a diversity of socioeconomic housing mix. 3. Environmental Quality Element: Maintain and, if feasible, improve the existing environmental quality of the island. POLICIES The County of Hawaii shall take positive action to further maintain the quality of the environment for residents both in the present and in the future. Minimum controls are established by the Federal and State governments; through its powers the County shall reinforce and strengthen established standards where it is necessary, principally by initiating, recommending, and adopting ordinances pertaining to the control of pollutants which affect the environment. STANDARDS Pollution shall be prevented, abated, and controlled at levels which will protect and preserve the public health and well-being, through the enforcement of appropriate Federal, State and County standards. Federal and State environmental regulations shall be adhered to. An environmental quality policy of the Hawaii County General Plan is to maintain the quality of the environment for present and future residents. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. It will not diminish the valuable natural resources of the region. The proposed 200 unit Multiple Family Residential development would be compatible with the existing multiple family residential developments in the immediate and surrounding area. Mitigative measures would be employed to protect environmentally and culturally sensitive areas. 4. Historical Sites Element GOALS Protect and enhance the sites, buildings and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawaii. Access to significant historic sites, buildings and objects of public interest should be made available. POLICIES Agencies and organizations, either public or private, pursuing knowledge about historic sites should keep the public appraised of projects. The County of Hawaii shall require both public and private developers of land to provide a historical survey prior to the clearing or development of land when there are indications that the land under consideration has historical significance. Public access to significant historic sites and objects shall be acquired. The County of Hawaii shall encourage the restoration of significant sites on private lands. Signs explaining historic sites, buildings and objects shall be in keeping with the character of the area or the cultural aspects of the feature. This site was surveyed by Dr. Robert Rechtman of Rechtman Consulting, and an Archaeological Inventory Survey was prepared at the direction of State Historic 8 Preservation Division (SHPD). SHPD has approved the Inventory Survey, the significance evaluation and the proposed treatment of the sites. The high degree of ground disturbance on the property as a result of the sewer easement, the water easement, past bulldozing, cattle ranching, kiawe cutting and rock harvesting has impacted the site. Twenty-seven archaeological sites were identified and evaluated based on accepted criteria. Sixteen of the sites require no further work, seven of the sites will be data recovered and the final four sites will be preserved. A preservation and treatment plan will be developed and approved by SHPD. Please see the Inventory Survey in the exhibits for a more thorough discussion of the sites and their significance. 5. Flood Control and Drainage Element: GOALS Conserve scenic and natural resources. Protect human life. Prevent damage to man-made improvements. Control pollution. Prevent damage from inundation. Reduce surface water and sediment runoff. 0 POLICIES All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Department of Public Works. It is the responsibility of both the government and the private sector to maintain and improve existing drainage systems and to construct new drainage facilities. Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 27, "Flood Control," of the Hawaii County Code. Applicable standards and regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 10, "Erosion and Sedimentation Control," of the Hawaii County Code. Some of the Flood Control and Drainage goals of the Hawaii County General Plan are to preserve scenic and natural resources, prevent damage to man-made improvements, and reduce surface water and sediment runoff. The project site is not in an area subject to flooding (Zone X) according to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. 6. Natural Beauty Element: GOALS Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beautv, including the quality of coastal scenic resources. 10 Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed. Maximize opportunities for present and future generations to appreciate and enjoy natural and scenic beauty. POLICIES Increase public pedestrian access opportunities to scenic places and vistas. I The scenic and natural beauty of Hawaii is recognized as an irreplaceable asset, which needs to be protected. A goal of the Hawaii County General Plan is to preserve the quality of coastal scenic resources and to protect scenic vistas and view planes from being obstructed. The Property is not listed in the County of Hawaii General Plan as an example of Natural Beauty in the North Kona District, and the proposed development will not adversely affect views to and along the shoreline due to the low-rise nature of the development and existence of other structures present and proposed along the coastline makai of Alii Drive. Please see the visual impact analysis in the exhibits for a more thorough discussion of visual impacts. 7. Natural Resources and Shorelines Element: GOALS Protect and conserve the natural resources of the County of Hawaii from undue exploitation, encroachment and damage. Provide opportunities for the public to fulfill recreational, economic, and educational needs without despoiling or endangering natural resources. 11 Protect and promote the prudent use of Hawaii's unique, fragile, and significant environmental and natural resources. Ensure that alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, except crops, and construction of structures cause minimum adverse effect to water resources, and scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake. POLICIES The County of Hawaii should require users of natural resources to conduct their activities in a manner that avoids or minimizes adverse effects on the environment Encourage the use of native plants for screening and landscaping. A primary goal of the Hawaii County General Plan section on Natural Resources and Shorelines is to "protect and conserve the natural resources of the County of Hawaii from undue exploitation, encroachment and damage." Alterations to the existing landforms should cause minimal adverse impact to the water resources, scenic and recreational amenities. It is the policy of the Hawaii County General Plan to protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures. It is also the General Plan's policy to encourage the protection of unique habitats, wildlife species, and important agricultural lands. The Property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in any adverse impact on the shoreline resources. As described above, the visual and scenic resources of the area will also be preserved. 8. Public Utilities Element: The required utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, and telephone, will be provided by the applicant in compliance with County standards. 12 9. Land Use Element Through the careful analysis and examination of past and present situations, the following goals, policies, and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. GOALS Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. POLICIES Promote and encourage the rehabilitation and use of urban and ]rural areas which are serviced by basic community facilities and utilities. Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. C. KONA REGIONAL PLAN: The Kona Regional Plan Land Use Concept Map designates the subject area as RES -10 The Kona Regional Plan defines RES -10 as Residential -10 units per acre. The proposed 200 unit Multiple Family Residential development density is similar with this designated density level. D. MASTER PLAN FOR KAILUA-KONA: This master plan prepared by R.M. Towill in 1994 and adopted by the County Council as a resolution in 1996, identifies this area as High Density Residential with densities up to 13 20 units/acre. The proposed project is approximately one-half of the density this designation allows. E. COUNTY ZONING: The current zoning designation for the property is Single Family Residential 10,000 s.f. (RS -10). Under the existing RS -10 zoning, a maximum density of 83 single-family units is allowable (825,287.76 s.f. /10,000 s.f. = 82.53 units). The applicant is submitting a request for a change of zone at this time to Multiple -Family Residential 4,000 s.f. (RM - 4). Under the proposed zoning the allowable density is (825,287.76/ 4,000 s.f. = 206 units.) The applicant, will submit plans conforming to the requirements of this zone district, such as Minimum Yard Setbacks, Maximum Allowable Height, Minimum Off Street Parking, and the conditions of approval of the SMA permit. E. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA: The Property is located within the Special Management Area (SMA). In this area all property below Kuakini Highway is considered within the SMA. III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING I� A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA The project site is a 18.946 -acre property fronting on Ali'i Drive across from Waiaha Bay at Waiaha 1 st, North Kona. The vacant property is roughly triangular in shape located between Lunapule Road, Walua Road and Alii Drive. Please see the vicinity maps in the exhibits. The property currently is vacant and unused. It has been substantially graded in the past for cattle ranching and the cutting of kiawe wood. 14 The property is bounded on the east by Walua Road and property being developed under the present CV -10 zoning. The property to the north is zoned CV -10, RM -1 and RM -4 and is used for commercial operations and multi -family residential units. To the west is Ali'i Drive across Alii Drive property zoned Resort (V-.75) and RS -10. The land to the south of the subject property fronting on Lunapule Road is zoned CV -10 and RD -7.5 and used for commercial and residential purposes. The property is gently undulating with elevations ranging from 12 to 100 feet above sea level. 1. Existing Uses: The Property is presently vacant and unused. There are residential structures to the west along Ali'i Drive, south along Lunapule Road and to the north of Walua Road. There are commercial uses south of the subject property along Lunapule Road and North along Ali'i Drive. 2. Existing Zoning: The parcels to the north are zoned CV -10, RM -1 and RM -4. To the east the parcels are zoned CV -10, the south along Lunapule Road the parcels are zoned CV -10 and RD -7.5. To the west across Ali'i Drive the zoning is V-.75 and RS -10.. B. TOPOGRAPHY: The Property is relatively level and since extensive grading has occurred on the property, a minimum of additional grading would be conducted to prepare the property for the proposed development. The property is roughly triangular in shape and slopes gently upward from its frontage about 12 feet above sea level to approximately 100 feet at the rear of the lot along Walua Road. 15 C. U.S.D.A. SOIL TYPE: The surface soil in the Property is of the Punaluu soil series. It is Punaluu extremely rocky peat. This soil type is characterized by rapid permeability, slow runoff and slight erosion hazard. In a representative profile, the surface layer is black peat about four (4) inches thick. It is underlain by pahoehoe lava bedrock. This soil type is typically used for pasture. The Soil Conservation Service categorize this soil type as a Capability subclass VIPS, non -irrigated, which are typified as having severe limitations and being unsuitable for cultivation. D. LAND STUDY BUREAU'S PRODUCTIVITY RATING: "E" or "Very Poor". E. ALISH: A portion of the property is classified as "Existing Urban Development", the balance of the property is not classified by the ALISH map. F. FLORA/FAUNA RESOURCES: A biological reconnaissance of the site was conducted in May of 2002 by Ron Terry, Ph.D. and Patrick Hart, Ph.D. Please see the exhibits for a copy of this reconnaissance. They concluded "No rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife habitats. The history of continuous disturbance coupled with the lowland context indicates that the property has little value in terms of conserving native species. No impact on native species or habitat is expected to result from human activity on the site." G. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: This site was surveyed by Dr. Robert Rechtman of Rechtman Consulting, and an archaeological Inventory Survey was prepared at the direction of State Historic 16 Preservation Division (SHPD). SHPD has approved the Inventory Survey, the evaluation of the significance and the proposed treatment of the sites. A The high degree of ground disturbance on the property as a result of the sewer easement, the water easement, past bulldozing, cattle ranching, kiawe cutting and rock harvesting has impacted the site. Twenty-seven archaeological sites were identified and evaluated based on accepted criteria. Sixteen of the sites require no further work, seven of the sites will be data recovered and the final four sites will be preserved. A preservation and treatment plan will be developed and approved by SHPD. Please see the Inventory Survey in the exhibits for a thorough discussion of the sites and their significance and SHPD's approval letter. H. VALUED CULTURAL RESOURCES: No valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist on the subject property and no gathering is taking place. 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 those rights. x H. FIRM: The Property is located within Zone X, or outside of the 500 year flood plain. 61 J. RECREATIONAL AND VISUAL RESOURCES: The Property does not abut the shoreline and is located mauka of Ali'i Drive. Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely impact any recreational or visual resources to the shoreline and coastal ecosystems. Because of the proximity to Waiaha Bay, a visual impact analysis was prepared. A copy of this analysis is in the exhibits. There are presently residential units along Alii Drive and the vacant property is zoned for resort uses. 17 I As part of this project the applicant is proposing to construct restroom facilities and parking stalls for the public to facilitate the public's use of Waiaha Bay. This will enhance the recreational resources in the immediate area. K. CIRCULATION: 1. Existing roadway: Access will be from Ali'i Drive and Walua Road, County maintained roadways with 20 foot wide pavement and right-of-way width of 50 feet. There is a proposed internal connection through the project that will allow the project's residents access to either of these two roadways from the project. Please see the site plan in the exhibits. 2. Projected traffic and anticipated impacts: The applicant had Julian Ng, Transportation Engineering Consultant, examine traffic and anticipated impacts. A copy of his report is in the exhibits. He concludes: "The proposed project would have a minor impact to traffic conditions in the area. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 5% in the peak hours in the immediate area; the proportionate increase will be less closer to Kailua-Kona as non - project traffic increases. Conditions at the site driveways would be within acceptable range. The potential increase in traffic caused by the project is significantly less than the threshold suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers." L. UTILITIES: 1. Water: Water service is available from an existing 8 -inch waterline on Ali'i Drive. 2. Wastewater: The applicant proposes to hook up to the County's new wastewater treatment facility at Kealakehe via the existing sewer line in Ali'i Drive, fronting the Property. 18 3. Electricity and telephone: Hawaii Electric Light Company and Verizon Hawaii provide electricity and telephone services to the area. M. PROTECTIVE SERVICES: Police protection is provided from its Kealakehe station. Fire Protection is provided from the Kailua-Kona and Captain Cook stations. Emergency medical and paramedical services are also provided by the Hawaii County Fire Department. Kona Hospital at Kealakekua is located approximately ten (10) miles from the project site and is managed by the State of Hawaii. IV. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ANALYSIS: The Property is located within the Special Management Area of the County of Hawaii. The Property ranges from 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline, mauka of Ali'i Drive. A. PROPOSED ACTION IN RELATION TO THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 205A-2, HRS. 1. Recreational and Visual Resources: The proposed multiple family residential development on the Property is on the mauka side of Alii Drive. It is separate from the coast by existing residential, recreational and open space uses. It is not tied directly with the recreational resources of the coastal areas. As part of this project the applicant is proposing to construct restroom facilities and parking stalls for the public to facilitate the public's use of Waiaha Bay. This will enhance the recreational resources in the immediate area. 19 Furthermore, the view planes to and along the shoreline towards the Property will not be adversely impacted as the lands along the shoreline in this area are developed with Multiple Family Residential developments and single family residences. The visual analysis done by Ron Terry, Ph.D., which is included in the exhibits, concludes: "The proposed multi -family project will have no effect on views from Ali'i Drive to the coastline. However, the structures will be somewhat visible from Alii Drive looking mauka, and landscaping is recommended. Existing residences and businesses on Lunapule and Walua Roads will have their views of the kiawe scrubland replaced by views of the structures, but little or no interference with shoreline views is expected. As there is essentially no view corridor from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures because of topography, vegetation, and existing structures, little or no visual impact to views of the shoreline from the highway is expected." 2. Historic Resources: This site was surveyed by Dr. Robert Rechtman and Matthew Clark of Rechtman Consulting, and an archaeological assessment survey was prepared at the direction of State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). SHPD has approved the Inventory Survey, the significance evaluation and the proposed treatment of the sites. The high degree of ground disturbance on the property as a result of the sewer easement, the water easement, past bulldozing, cattle ranching, kiawe cutting and rock harvesting has impacted the site. Twenty-seven archaeological sites were identified and evaluated based on accepted criteria. Sixteen of the sites require no further work, seven of the sites will be data recovered and the final four sites will be preserved. A preservation and treatment plan will be developed and approved by SHPD. Please see the Inventory Survey in the exhibits for a more thorough discussion of the sites and their significance. 20 3. Scenic and Open Space Resources: The proposed development is similar in character to the surrounding area and is not likely to result in any substantial adverse impact on the surrounding environment. The height of the structures will be substantially lower than other condominium projects in the immediate area. Please refer to the visual impact analysis report in the exhibits. This project will be fully landscaped to soften the impact of the structures and to blend them into an attractive residential complex. The applicant has received an award for their landscaping efforts at another project, Alii Lani Townhomes, in Kona from the Kona Outdoor Circle. Please see the exhibits for a copy of this award. 4. Coastal Ecosystems: It is expected that the inland location of the project site will not result in any impact on the biological or economic aspects of the coastal ecosystem. The project site is not situated over any major natural drainage system or water feature that would flow into the nearby coastal system. Please see the Flora and Fauna Report in the exhibits for a discussion of the botanical resources. 5. Economic Uses: The proposed development is not a coastal dependent development. The proposed development are private improvements that will be important to the State's economy as the project is in a suitable location with the proper Multiple Family Residential zoning if that application is approved. 6. Coastal Hazards: The project site is located mauka of Alii Drive. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the U.S. Corps. of Engineers delineate the Property in Zone X. The proposed development would not create an increase in coastal flooding under normal rainfall conditions, and on-site drainage systems will be developed to adequately dispose of project generated surface runoff. 21 Managing Development: The applicant will notify the surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property as required by the Zoning Code and Planning Commission Rule No. 9 (Special Management Area) public hearing notification requirements. The applicant is required to serve a First Notice to the surrounding property owners of the proposed development at the time the Special Management Area Use Permit Application is submitted to the Planning Director. The First Notice informs the surrounding property owners the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of the Applicant's request in the Special Management Area Use Permit Application. The public participation process also includes the Contested Case Hearing process. As such, the public's participation begins as soon as the Application is submitted to the Planning Department. The public is able to submit their comments, provide information to the Planning Director, prior to the scheduling of the Special Management Area Use Permit Application for a public hearing. This initial and the subsequent public hearing process improves the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards. 8. Public Participation: The County of Hawaii Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the Applicant's SMA Use Permit Application. At the public hearing, the public is free to participate in this open hearing forum and to provide their comments to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission public hearing and if required, the Contested Case Process provides the vehicle for stimulating public awareness, education of this process and more importantly participation in the coastal management decision making. 9. Beach Protection: The property is located on the mauka side of Ali'i Drive. Therefore, the proposed multiple family residential development will not affect any public beaches nor adversely affect public use and recreation of the shoreline in this area. 22 I] 10. Marine Resources: The Property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive. Therefore, there will be no impact on the State's ocean resources. B. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA GUIDELINES: The proposed multiple family residential development is consistent with the County of Hawaii Special Management Area (SMA) guidelines pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 205A-26 as amended. 1. Chapter 205A-26, HRS, Section I states that "All development in the special management area shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions set by the Authority in order to ensure:" (a) Adequate access, by dedication or other means, to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is provided to the extent consistent with sound conservation principles; Applicants Response: The Property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The Property is not connected to any coastline areas that would require access to any beaches, recreation areas or natural reserves. As part of this project a pedestrian walkway will be developed on the northern boundary of the project site to allow pedestrian access from Walua Road to Alii Drive. Please see the site plan in the exhibits. (b) Adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves are reserved; 23 Applicants Response: The Property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The Properly is not connected to any coastline areas that would require access over or through this property to any beaches, recreation areas or natural reserves. As part of this project a pedestrian walkway will be developed on the northern boundary of the project site to allow pedestrian access from Walua Road to Alii Drive. Please see the site plan in the exhibits. The applicant also proposes to construct public parking stalls and restroom facilities to enhance the public's use of Waiaha Bay. (c) Provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treatment, disposition, and management which will minimize adverse effects upon Special Management Area resources; Applicants Response: The proposed multiple family residential development's solid waste will be disposed of at the County's solid waster Transfer stations at Kealakehe and the County's Landfill in South Kohala. The proposed multiple family residential development's wastewater will be managed by the existing sewer line that delivers the wastewater to the County's Wastewater Treatment Facility at Kealakehe. These methods of handling the solid and liquid waste for the development will minimize any adverse effect upon the Special Management Area resources. (d) Alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, except crops, and construction of structures shall cause minimum adverse effect to water resources and scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, wind damage, storm surge, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake; 24 Applicants Response: The proposed multiple family residential development will physically alter and change the existing land form minimally. However, the proposed 37 low -profile, two to three- story townhouse structures ranging between 4-plex and 6-plex will require little alteration of the existing landform which was previously extensively graded. The development will include the minimum required off-street parking stalls, and will be in compliance with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code, Fair Housing Act and ADA requirements. Also proposed in the development plan will be vaned landscaping per Zoning Code requirements and including some or all of the following recreational amenities such as a swimming pool, pedestrian walkway, outdoor barbecues, and open spaces. The color scheme for the proposed structures will be of earth tone colors to blend in with the character of the immediate surrounding area. The proposed multiple family residential development on the Property is approximately 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline and on 1 the mauka side of Alii Drive. It is separate from the coast by existing residential and recreational uses, open space uses and Alii Drive. It is not tied directly with the recreational resources of the coastal areas. Furthermore, the view planes to and along the shoreline towards the Property will not be adversely impacted as the lands along the shoreline in this area are developed with single family residences. The proposed development will also conform to the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Electrical Codes. Based on these requirements, the proposed development shall cause minimum or no adverse effect to water resources and scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, wind damage, storm surge, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake. 2. Chapter 205A-26 HRS Section 2 states that "No development shall be approved unless the Authority or the Director has first found:" (A) The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. Such adverse 041 effect shall include, but not be limited to, the potential cumulative impact of individual developments, each one of which taken in itself might not have a substantial adverse effect and the elimination of planning options; Applicants Response: The project is consistent with the public policies of the County of Hawaii, including the Hawaii County General Plan, Kona Regional Plan, Masterplan for Kailua-Kona and objectives and policies as provided by Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Construction of the multiple family development will not interfere with any existing or 0 planned public accesses to the shoreline, and in fact these accesses will be enhanced by the project. Provisions will be made in accordance with State and County rules and regulations for solid and liquid waste treatment and disposition. Vegetation will be removed and replaced with grass and other landscape plants which are common to the area. Water resources and scenic and recreational amenities will not be adversely impacted. (1.) ALTERNATIVES: No action: The "No Action" alternative would result in the non -implementation of the proposed Multiple Family Residential development. The site would be left intact and no alteration to the site and no impacts on surrounding properties would result. There would be no multiple family residential for the community and no business operation and income for the project owner and people who would inhabit these residential projects. Further, there will be no additional tax revenues (from property taxes and excise taxes) to the County and State governments. The estimated increase in real property taxes resulting from the proposed action is $385,000 annually. Alternative use: The project site is proposed to be zoned in the County's Multiple Family Residential (RM -4) zone district. Under this zoning district, the proposed multiple family residential 26 units are permitted uses. Other uses within this zone district may be a possible alternatives for the project site, however, the applicant's alternative is the most viable and would continue the residential land use pattern established in the area. Alternative site: The proposed site is the most suitable in Kona for the proposed multiple family residential development. Its location, its topography and it surrounding residential character, will allow flexibility in design of the proposed project. 41 (2.) UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigative measures to minimize project impacts will be taken as necessary. These measures would include preserving existing mature vegetation where possible, immediate landscaping of bare areas to minimize erosion, and employing noise and emission abatement measures during construction. a. Construction related impacts: During construction, the proposed multiple family residential development will require minimal grading as the site is cleared. This operation would result in potential dust and erosion/sedimentation impacts. Heavy earthmoving equipment will also generate noise. In anticipation of these impacts, mitigative measures are planned as part of the construction work. Project generated dust will be mitigated by frequent water sprinkling and installation of dust control screens, when necessary. These measures are subject to the requirements of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division of the County of Hawaii. Soil erosion would be confined to the property, because the site has hard, well drained lava bedrock and existing vegetation provides stability to whatever soil exists. Care will be taken during construction to limit potential erosion of newly placed topsoil. Landscaping will be accelerated to protect bare ground exposed to precipitation and runoff. Noise mitigation measures would involve limiting construction to normal working hours and employing mufflers or other noise reduction devices on all gasoline and diesel powered equipment. 27 b. Impacts on archaeological sites: This site was surveyed by Dr. Robert Rechtman of Rechtman Consulting, and an archaeological Inventory Survey was prepared at the direction of State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). SHPD has approved the Inventory Survey, the evaluation of the significance and the proposed treatment of the sites. The high degree of ground disturbance on the property as a result of the sewer easement, the water easement, past bulldozing, cattle ranching, kiawe cutting and rock harvesting has impacted the site. Twenty-seven archaeological sites were identified and evaluated based on accepted criteria. Sixteen of the sites require no further work, seven of the sites will be data recovered and the final four sites will be preserved. A preservation and treatment plan will be developed and approved by SHPD. Please see the Inventory Survey in the exhibits for a thorough discussion of the sites and their significance (3.) IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES: The proposed multiple family residential development will commit the land to long term residential use. Landscape and building materials, energy, water, and other utility services will be committed to the development of the project. Private funds will be expended, and labor will be utilized during the project construction period. Based on the above assessment, the proposed multiple family residential development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest. (B) The development is consistent with the objectives, policies and Special Management Area guidelines of this chapter and any guidelines enacted by the legislature; and 28 Applicants Response: Based on the above assessment, the proposed multiple family residential development is consistent with the objectives and policies as provided by Chapter 205A-2 & 205A-26, HRS, and the Special Management Area guidelines as contained herein; (C) The development is consistent with the County General Plan and zoning. Such a finding of consistency does not preclude concurrent processing when a general plan or zoning amendment may also be required Applicants Response: Based on the above assessment, the proposed multiple family residential development is consistent with the State Land Use Regulations, the County General Plan and proposed zoning. 3. Chapter 205A-26, HRS, Section 3 states that "The Authority shall seek to minimize, where reasonable:" (A) Dredging, filling or otherwise altering any bay, estuary, salt marsh, river mouth, slough, or lagoon; Applicants Response: The proposed development is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive approximately 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The proposed development will not involve dredging or filling of any natural water features, otherwise altering any bay, estuary, salt marsh, river mouth, slough, or lagoon. (B) Any development which would reduce the size of any beach or other area usable for public recreation; 9 Applicants Response: The Property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The proposed development will not reduce the size of any beach or other recreational area used for public recreation. (C) Any development which would reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches, portions of rivers and streams within the Special Management Area and the mean high tide line where there is no beach; Applicants Response: The Property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The proposed development will not reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches, portions of rivers and stream within the Special Management Area. As part of this project a pedestrian walkway will be developed on the northern boundary of the project site to allow pedestrian access from Walua Road to Alii Drive. Please see the site plan in the exhibits. The applicant also proposes to construct public parking stalls and restroom facilities to enhance the public's use of Waiaha Bay. (D) Any development which would substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from the State highway nearest the coast; and Applicants Response: The conclusion of the visual impact analysis states: "'Be proposed multi -family project will have no effect on views from Alii Drive to the coastline. However, the structures will be somewhat visible from Alii Drive looking mauka, and landscaping is recommended. Existing residences and businesses on Lunapule and Walua Roads will have their views of the kiawe scrubland replaced by views of the structures, but little or no interference with shoreline views is expected. As there is essentially no view corridor We from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures because of topography, vegetation, and existing structures, little or no visual impact to views of the shoreline from the highway is expected." (E) Any development which would adversely affect water quality, existing areas of open water free of visible structures, existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds, wildlife habitats, or potential or existing agricultural uses of land. AA]21)licants Response: The Multiple Family Residential development will not adversely affect water quality, existing areas of open water free of visible structures, existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds, wildlife habitats, or potential or existing agricultural uses of land. The Property being on the mauka side of Aiii Drive will be taking its water from the County's waterline to be constructed to the Property. There are no existing areas of open water free of visible structures, existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds, wildlife habitats, or potential or existing agricultural uses of land. Therefore, the proposed multiple family residential project will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect on the Special Management Area's resources. Based on the above evidence, the Applicant requests approval of this request for a Special Management Area Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 31 EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST AND SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION A. Botanical Survey B. Archaeological Assessment with SHPD Approval Letter C. Visual Impact Assessment D. Traffic Impact Assessment E. Location Maps F. Site Plan G. Elevations H. Kona Outdoor Circle Award EXHIBIT A Botanical Survey FLORA AND FAUNA RECONNAISSANCE TMK 7-5-18:08 By Ron Terry, Ph.D. and Patrick Hart, Ph.D. Geometrician Associates, LLC May 2002 Introduction This report describes the results of a biological reconnaissance of an18.946-acre property 1 on Alii Drive in Kailua-Kona that is planned for development. Purpose and Methodology The objectives of the survey were to 1) describe the vegetation; 2) list all species encountered; 3) identify threatened or endangered species; and 4) assess the value of the vegetation for native vertebrate habitat. The area was surveyed on foot by P. Hart and R. Terry in May of 2002. All portions of the proposed project area were surveyed. Species were identified in the field and, as necessary, collected and keyed out in the laboratory. Special attention was given to the possible presence of any federally (USFWS 2000) listed endangered plant or animal species. Results The original vegetation of the general area was probably Coastal Dry/Mesic Forest, per Gagne and Cuddihy (1990), consisting of an open canopy forest of with various trees, shrubs, herbs, vines and ferns. The general landscape of the Kailua-Kona area has been radically altered by centuries of settlements, over a century of grazing, and particularly by the development of the hotels, condominiums, resort homes and associated infrastructure and commercial activity since 1960. The vegetation has also been fundamentally altered owing to disturbance by fire and ungulate grazing and browsing, resulting in infestation by alien plant species to the point that in many locations native species are few to none. The aliens kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala) long ago became dominant in the coastal dry forest. On this property, as is typical of the region, the vegetation on the site is completely artificial. In fact, only one common indigenous plant, 'uhaloa (Waltheria indica), was found on the property. All plant species found during the survey are listed in Table 1. N Table 1 Plant Species Observed on Site Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Form Status Abutilon grandifolium Malvaceae Hairy abutilon Herb A Acacia farnesiana Fabaceae Klu Shrub A As stasis gangetica Acanthaceae Chinese violet Herb A Chamaecrista nictitans Fabaceae Partridge pea Herb A Clusia rosea Clusiaceae Autograph tree Tree A Coccinea grandis Cucurbitatceae lvv gourd Vine A Commelina diffusa Commelinaceae Honohono Herb A Cryptostegia grandiflora Ascle iadaceae Rubber vine Vine A Desmanthus vir atus Fabaceae Slender mimosa Shrub A Ficus ben'amina Moraceae Weephig fig Tree A Indi ofera suffruticosa Fabaceae Indio Shrub A Ipomoea triloba Convolwlaceae Little bell Vine A Jatropha curcas Eu horbiaceae Physic nut Tree A Leucaenaleucocephala Fabaceae Haole koa Tree A Malvastrum coromandelianum Malvaceae False mallow Herb A Panicum maximum Poaceae Guinea grass Grass A Pormlaca oleracea Pormlacaceae Pig weed Herb A Proso is pallida Fabaceae Kiawe Tree A Senna occidentalis Fabaceae Coffee senna Tree A Sida fallax Malvaceae Ilima Shrub I Stach heta'amaicensis Verbenaceae Jamaica vervain Herb A Waltheria indica Sterculiaceae IJhaloa Herb I * A = alien, E = endemic, I = indigenous No native fauna were observed. The alien bird species noted during the survey included Yellow -Billed Cardinal (Paroaria capitata), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and a number of other alien species (Table 2). It is quite possible that certain native forest birds, seabirds or migratory birds could utilize or fly over the site, but it is unlikely that any with threatened or endangered status would find the site suitable habitat or be affected by activities that occur on the parcel. The two Hawaiian raptors, the Hawaiian Hawk or'Io (Buteo solitarius), and the Hawaiian owl or Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), possibly make some use of the area. Although the Hawaiian Hawk is an endangered species, the subject property is not considered to be part of its essential habitat. No hawk nests were observed, and they are unlikely to be found in kiawe trees. Table 2. List of bird species detected on project site. Scientific Name Common Name Acridotheres tristis Common Myna Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Padda oryzivora Java Sparrow Paroaria capitata Yellow -billed Cardinal Stre to elia chinensis S otted dove were alien species. The only native Hawaiian land mammal, the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), may also be present in the area, as it is present in undetermined numbers in many areas on the island of Hawaii. Observation took place in daylight, and therefore the lack of bat observations does not signify an actual absence of bats. As with the hawk, the project area would not be expected to represent essential habitat for this species, but Hawaiian Hoary Bats have been known to roost in kiawe trees. Introduced mammals that would be expected to occur on the property include mongooses (Herpestes auropunctatus), feral cats (Fells catus), rats (Rattus spp.) and mice (Mus musculus domesticus). During the survey, only mongooses were actually observed on the property. Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems: Impacts and Mitigation Measures No rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife habitats. The history of continuous disturbance coupled with the lowland context indicates that the property has little value in terms of conserving native species. No impact on native species or habitat is expected to result from human activity on the site. Literature Cited Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai 'i. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Threatened and endangered plants in Hawaii. Washington: GPO. EXHIBIT B Archaeological Assessment with SHPD Approval Letter BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII Bob Rechtman 808 966-7636 P.1 4' STATE OF HAWAII GILBERT S. OOLOMAAOARAN, CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAIVJ WEWA BUILDING, ROOM 555 W1 KAMOKAA BOULEVARD KAPDLEI. HAWAII I0707 June 12, 2002 Mr. Robert Rechtman Reclrtman Consulting Iy HC 1 Box 4149 Kea'au, Hawai'i 96749 Dear Dr. Rechtman: DEPUTIES ERIC T HIRANO LINNEL NISHIOKA AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING ANO OCEAN RECREATION COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND W ROUFE H67ORIC PRESERVATION STATE PARIES LOG NO: 30092 ✓ DOC NO: 0206RC22 SUBJECT: Review of Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey Report — Bolton Wai'aha, North Kona, Hawaii TMX: Q-7-5-18: 8 This letter is a follow-up to our early June letter (Log: 30,014; Doc: 0206RC01). We had accepted this report with the understanding that minor revisions were submitted and that our proposal to have 21,988 undergo archaeological data recovery was accepted. These revisions have been made and data recovery of 21,988 has been added to.the mitigation commitment. The report is now complete, We now agree with your mitigation proposals. Eight sites are to undergo archaeological data recovery (2 permanent habitations, 3 temporary habitations, 2 special purpose structures which might be kapa making or drying platforms, and site 21,988). Also, 4 sites are to be preserved — 2 burials (15,507; 22,063), a permanent habitation (15,524), and the heiau (21,994). Again, the Hawaii Island Burial Council needs to approve the proposal to preserve the burials. The next step in the historic preservation review process would be the submittal of detailed plans/scopes of work for the data recovery and preservation work. We will await their submittal. Aloha, N WedgRKDAdministrator State Historic Preservation Division Attachment c. Planning Department, County of Hawaii Public Works Department, County of Hawaii DLNR Burials Program RC:amk An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-5-18:08 Wai`aha 1 st Ahupua`a North Kona District Island of Hawaii RC -0001 PREPARED BY: Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D. PREPARED FOR: Mr. Dan Bolton Nani Kona Aina, LLC P.O. Box 898 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 April 2000 (revised April 2002) RECHTMAN CONSULTING HC 1 Box 4149 • Kea'au, Hawail 96749 phone: (808) 966.7636 • FAX (800)406-2665 e-mail rechtmanconsult@aol.com ` An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-5-18:08 Wai`aha 1 st Ahupua`a North Kona District Island of Hawaii . �s"n R ECNTN�AN'4[0NSU LTI NG N J61 Contents Listof Figures ............................................................................................................. Listof Tables............................................................................................................... INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... BACKGROUND........................................................................................................ PhysicalSetting..................................................................................................... CulturalContext..................................................................................................... Prior Archaeological Studies and Project Expectations .......................................... FIELDWORK AND ANALYSIS............................................................................... Field and Laboratory Procedures........................................................................... Site Descriptions, Test Excavations, and Functional Interpretations .................... SUMMARY................................................................................................................ SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .... Significant Sites Recommended For No Further Work ......................................... Significant Sites Recommended For Data Recovery ............................................ Significant Sites Recommended For Preservation ................................................ REFERENCES CITED............................................................ APPENDIX A: Radiocarbon Results ....................................... Figures .................... .................... 1 .................... ] .................... 1 ........ .I.......... 4 .................... 6 .................... 8 .................... 8 .................... 8 .................. 37 .................. 38 ................. 39 ................. 40 ................. 41 ....................... 43 ....................... 46 1. Portion of "Kailua, HI" 1996 USGS topographic map showing study parcel ....................................... 2 2. Portion of TMK showing subject property and adjacent parcels........................................................... 3 3. Portion of Hawaii Territory Survey Map (ca. 1885).............................................................................. 6 4. Previously recorded sites (from Head et al. 1994; boundary mismapped in original) .......................... 7 5. Site Locations......................................................................................................................................... 9 6. Site 15507 plan view (from Walker et al. 1996)................................................................................... 10 7. Site 15517 plan view (from Head et al. 1994)...................................................................................... 13 S. Site 15518 plan view (from Head et al. 1994; property line mismapped in original) ......................... 14 9. Site 15519 plan view (from Head et al. 1994; property line mismapped in original) ......................... 15 10. Unit 6 east profile................................................................................................................................. 16 11. Site 21988 view to southeast................................................................................................................ 18 12. Site 21988 plan view............................................................................................................................. 19 13. Site 21991 plan view............................................................................................................................. 20 14. Unit 1 west profile................................................................................................................................ 21 15. Site 21992 plan view............................................................................................................................. 23 16. Site 21994 plan view............................................................................................................................. 24 17. Site 21996 plan view............................................................................................................................. 25 18. Site 21996 view of northern perimeter of Feature A............................................................................ 23 19. Site 22063 plan view............................................................................................................................. 27 20. Unit 3 west profile................................................................................................................................ 28 21. Unit 2 plan view.................................................................................................................................... 28 11 22. Site 22067 plan view............................................................................................................................. 30 23. Site 22067 platform view to west......................................................................................................... 31 24. Unit 5 south wall profile....................................................................................................................... 31 25. Site 22068 platform view to north........................................................................................................ 33 26. Site 22068 plan view and cross-section................................................................................................ 33 27. Unit 7 northeast profile......................................................................................................................... 34 28. Site 22069 plan view............................................................................................................................. 35 ! 29. Unit 4 post -excavation view................................................................................................................. 36 30. Site 22070 plan view............................................................................................................................. 36 iii Tables Table 1. Sites previously recorded on the study property ............................................. ...................................... 7 Table 2. Cultural material recovered from Site 15521..................................................................................... 17 Table 3. Cultural material recovered from Site 21991..................................................................................... 21 Table 4. Cultural material recovered from Site 22067..................................................................................... 29 Table 5. Cultural material recovered from Site 22068 Test Unit 7................................................................... 32 Table 6. Site significance and treatment recommendations............................................................................. 38 iii RC -0001 INTRODUCTION At the request of Mr. Greg Mooers of GRM Enterprises LLC, on behalf of his client Mr. Dan Bolton of Nani Kona Aina, LLC, Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey of a roughly 19 -acre parcel along Ali'i Drive in Wai'aha 1st Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (Figure 1). This survey was undertaken in accordance with draft Hawai'i Administrative Rules 13§13--284, dated 10/15/98, and was performed in compliance with the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as contained in draft Hawai'i Administrative Rules 13§13- 276. Compliance with the above standards is sufficient for meeting the initial historic preservation review process requirements of both the Department of Land and Natural Resources—State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR—SHPD) and the County of Hawai'i Planning Department. This report contains background information outlining the project area's physical and cultural contexts, a presentation of previous archaeological work in the area and current survey expectations based on that previous work, an explanation of the project methods, detailed descriptions of the archaeological resources ��,♦ encountered, interpretation and evaluation of those resources, and lastly, treatment recommendations for all of the documented sites. BACKGROUND To generate expectations regarding the nature of the historic properties that might exist on the study parcel, and to provide an appropriate background to assess any resources that are encountered, specific as well as general physical and cultural contexts are presented along with prior archaeological studies relevant to the project area. Physical Setting The current study area is bounded on the east by a stone wall along Walua Road; on the north by a stone wall along the Wai'aha Ist/Pua'a 3rd boundary; on the south by a stone wall on the Wai'aha Ist/Wai'aha 2nd boundary and a stone wall along the north and east sides of TMK:7-5-18:03 (a kuleana lot, LCAw. 7241-B); and on the west by a stone wall along Alii Drive, the north and east boundaries of the county sewage pump station, the eastern boundary of TMK:7-5-18:75, and the eastern and southern boundary of TMK:7-5-18:10 (a kuleana lot, LCAw. 6699:2) (Figure 2). Terrain in the project area is gently undulating and elevation ranges from 40 to 60 feet above sea level. Two soils characterize the project area, Wai'aha extremely stony silt loam and Punalu'u extremely rocky peat (Sato et al. 1973). Both are well -drained, thin organic soils over bedrock. The underlying bedrock is pahoehoe dating to more than 5,000 years B.P. (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Despite the seemingly consistent semi -arid condition of this area, seasonality is evident. Throughout the Hawaiian Islands, the warmer and drier summer months, traditionally referenced as kau, extend from May to September, and the wetter, cooler months (ho'oilo) extend from October to April (Handy and Handy 1972). The temperatures in the Kona area are generally consistent with this seasonal pattern, ranging between 62-80 degrees in winter and 68-86 degrees in summer (Schilt 1984). However, the typical rainfall pattern differs considerably from that seen elsewhere; in all elevations along the Kona coast, rainfall during kau is typically greater than that during ho'oilo (Schilt 1984). Two historically introduced species, kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and koa haole (Leucaena glauca) dominate the vegetation within the project area. A variety of grasses, vines, weeds, and shrubs are also present. Prior impacts within the project area can be described as substantial. Mechanical earth moving is evident throughout the parcel, and kiawe cutting and stone gathering are actively pursued. Both of the latter activities were observed during the current fieldwork. RC -0001 Figure 1. Portion of "Kailua, HI" 1996 USGS topographic map showing study parcel. F- • m • b �. A. d 7 S aq i „r I Study Area t \ � � 1 1 ♦ Y Y o • �° 200 J O Figure 1. Portion of "Kailua, HI" 1996 USGS topographic map showing study parcel. Tm CIWALi. r7QI t 6 RC -0001 sy v ••p ^`fie '10' ill+rs. i I.IJ.<a H �• r 7% • �'r f i�aaro'.q.� M..H Ywa s � Ib •`�r •rz— n �e C W A I 0 0 f Q 4. L. A Kb4 IIFFJ' , • 19 `` � Y Subject Property ,o •b \ O� a/ Ilf M i cFY_ CIWALi. r7QI t 6 RC -0001 sf ". L X.,• . [i:T r � � I--� n • ^r yam• h/ M .f l i .I9f •!;10�=9111f ;i1Gf y'/ Y Q. .r 1 Figure 2. Portion of TMK showing subject property and adjacent parcels. 3 sy v ••p ^`fie '10' ill+rs. i I.IJ.<a H �• r 7% • �'r f i�aaro'.q.� M..H Ywa s � Ib •`�r •rz— n �e C W A L T' sf ". L X.,• . [i:T r � � I--� n • ^r yam• h/ M .f l i .I9f •!;10�=9111f ;i1Gf y'/ Y Q. .r 1 Figure 2. Portion of TMK showing subject property and adjacent parcels. 3 sy I•<I•<'�i. ••p * C � C W A Q 4. L. A 19 `` =.• Subject Property ,o •b \ O� fans ✓,w cFY_ Z f aw sf ". L X.,• . [i:T r � � I--� n • ^r yam• h/ M .f l i .I9f •!;10�=9111f ;i1Gf y'/ Y Q. .r 1 Figure 2. Portion of TMK showing subject property and adjacent parcels. 3 RC -0001 Cultural Context The project area is in the coastal edge of the Kona Field System (Cordy 1995, Newman 1970, Schilt 1984). This area extends north at least to Kau Ahupua'a and south to Honaunau, west from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy 1995). A large portion of this area is designated in the Hawai'i SIHP (State Inventory of Historic Places) as Site 50-10-37-6601 and has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The basic characteristics and elevationally delimited zones within this agricultural/residential system as presented in Newman (1970) have been confirmed and elaborated on by ethnohistorical investigations (Kelly 1983). The current study parcel is in the kula zone. This is the area from sea level to 150 meters elevation. Annual rainfall in the kula zone is 75 to 125 centimeters. This lower elevation zone is traditionally associated with habitation and the cultivation of sweet potatoes, paper mulberry, and gourds. Agricultural features, such as clearing mounds, planting mounds, planting depressions, modified outcrops, and planting terraces, are common throughout much of this zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980, Hanunatt and Folk 1980, Haun et al. 1998, Schilt 1984). Dwellings were scattered throughout the agricultural portion of the kula, but they are commonly concentrated along the shoreline (Cordy 1981, Hammatt 1980). The shoreline zone, extending inland approximately 200 meters, was used primarily for permanent habitation and other non- agricultural activities, such as canoe storage, ceremonial and burial practices, recreation, and fishing -related activity. Ma'o (or Nalupo'o) Heiau (SIH? 3834) [no longer extant] was recorded along the sandy beach shoreline of Wai'aha Ahupua'a (Stokes and Dye 1991). Royal and high chiefly centers were also situated within the shoreline of the kula. These complexes included dwellings for chiefs and their entourage, places of refuge, and other structures. Several large and densely populated royal centers were located along the shoreline between Kailua and Honaunau (Cordy 1995, Tomonari-Tuggle 1993). A variety of non-residential features are present in the kula near royal centers, including small agricultural plots, and formal and informal burial features (Cordy 1995, Han et al. 1986, Schilt 1984, Tainter 1973, Tomanari-Tuggle 1993). Nineteenth century habitation features built on stone platforms were present in the kula (Hammatt and Meeker 1979, Schilt 1984). Stone platforms with clearly defined internal divisions are present (O'Hare and Wolforth 1998) and probably reflect a change in residential plans from a complex of multiple, separate, single -function structures (men's sleeping, women's sleeping, cooking) to a single structure with multiple rooms and functions (entire family's quarters and cooking) (Ladefoged 1991). Burial features with historic - era artifacts and architecture (i.e., mortar and corrugated tin) are present in the lower elevations. These are frequently isolated structures, but burial also occurred within residential platforms during the Historic Period (O'Hare and Wolforth 1998). During the early nineteenth century, following the breaking of the traditional eating kapu by Liholiho, Ka'ahumanu, and Keopuolani, which was a symbolic gesture that helped lead to the demise of the entire Hawaiian religion system, the older places of worship (heiau) no longer held their significance. Many such places were dismantled, and the stones used for other building projects such as the Kuakini Wall, which lies approximately Yx mile inland of the current project area. The Missionary William Ellis visited the vicinity of the current project area in 1823 and described the following: Leaving Kairua [Kailua], we passed through the villages thickly scattered along the shore to the southward. The country around looked unusually green and cheerful, owing to the frequent rain, which for some months past have fallen on this side of the island. Even the barren lava, over which we traveled, seemed to veil its sterility beneath frequent tufts of tall waving grass, or spreading shrubs and flowers. RC -0001 The side of the hills, laid out for a considerable extent in gardens and fields, and generally cultivated with potatoes, and other vegetables, were beautiful. The number of heiaus, and depositories of the dead, which we passed, convinced us that this part of the island must formerly have been populous. The latter were built with fragments of lava, laid up evenly on the outside, generally about eight feet long, from four to six broad, and about four feet high. Some appeared very ancient, other had evidently been standing but a few years. (1963[1823]:72-73). The religious, socioeconomic, and demographic changes that took place in the period between 1790 and the 1840s, promoted the establishment of a Euro -American style of land ownership, and the Great Mahele was the vehicle for determining ownership of the native land. During this period (1848-1899), the Mahele defined the land interests of the King (Kamehameha III), the high-ranking chiefs, and the low - ranking chiefs (the konohiki). The chiefs and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive awards for lands provided to them by Kamehameha III. They were also required to provide commutations to the government in order to receive royal patents on their awards. The lands were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land could be surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land Commission and speeded the transfers (Chinn 1961:13). During this process all lands were placed in one of three categories: Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne), Government Lands, and Konohiki Lands. All three types of land were subject to the rights of the native tenants. Commoners could make claims for land, and if substantiated, they would 'rl receive awards referred to as kuleana, from the Land Commission. During this period, other land grants were also made to individuals directly from Kingdom. In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established in the Kingdom of Hawaii to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua'a that had been awarded as a part of the Mahele. Subsequently, in 1874, the Commission of Boundaries was authorized to certify the boundaries for lands brought before them. The primary informants for the boundary descriptions were old native residents of the lands, many of whom had also been claimants for kuleana during the Mahele. The information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885. The testimonies were generally given in Hawaiian and simultaneously transcribed in English. In 1823 and 1824, Queen Ka`ahumanu granted Rev. Thurston and Rev. Bishop the right to establish missions and schools in Wai`aha. Later, during the Mahele the majority Wai`aha 1st was awarded to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (LCAw. 387). There were no kuleana awards made within the project area. Wai`aha is generally considered to have been a place of high -status residences and ceremonial complexes, and Queen Emma lived in the ahupua'a in her later years. Her house and other landmarks are shown on an early (1880s) Hawaii Territory Survey map (Figure 3). Population declined and settlements became smaller in the Kona area during the Tentorial Period (1900-1959). Coastal occupation was concentrated in the small villages of Kailua and Keauhou, with permanent residences with gardens and animal pens scattered along the shoreline. Upland habitation was associated with agricultural and ranching pursuits. More walls were added to the kula as cattle pastures expanded into the lower elevations during this period. In 1927, Manuel Gomes acquired the Wai`aha ahupua'a, along with the Kahului ahupua'a, from the failed Kona Sugar Company (O'Hare and Wolforth 1997). The land became part of the Gomes Ranch and was actively used for cattle grazing and stockading until the 1960s. Many of the stone walls seen in the study area today are a legacy of the Gomes Ranch. 5 RC -0001 rr ' �'. l.. , r ���.��/'. I � .Vf �--• � .viae i CMS✓ r GQYI� 31.'` ^^ 'ik r ,.•1-�- .{L'.'J^?��I_ - r JJ, Mxre� ... �• •1�•nev �.;.. Qn r .. '__ •vre a, fs5 A A irr' r y-. ies,c�L. �•-'..r ff"cU L j. �/Krrvi ear �g Loraj=ie Fimfre 4. Portion of Hawaii Territory Survev Map (ca. 1885) Prior Archaeological Studies and Project Expectations Although no major archaeological surveys have been conducted in Wai`aha 1st Ahupua`a. a significant amount of work has been conducted in adjacent land divisions (see Head et al. 1994 and Haun et al. 1998 for a thorough overview). The findings of the prior investigations allow for a comprehensive portrayal of past land use and settlement patterns for the area. The coastal kula areas of greater Kailua-Kona contain numerous late prehistoric and early historic residential sites. Many of these were associated with the more privileged members of Hawaiian society. Also known to exist in this region are heiau and burial features. Such sites are known from both historic records and archaeological investigation. In fact, within coastal Wai`aha (makai of the current study area) was Ma`o Heiau (Pukui et al. 1974, Thrum 1909), a heiau kdlua ua built to control rain. Wai`aha may indeed derive its name ("gathering water") from theassociationwith this heiau (Pukui et al. 1974:219). Burial sites both within habitation features and in dedicated burial features are not uncommon in the area (O'Hare and Wolfortb 1997, Walker et al. 1996). Also common in this area are small agricultural features, most often associated with the residential sites. Historic Period sites, frequently related to cattle ranching, also left their mark on the landscape; stone walls and cattle enclosures are found consistently along the area mauka of present day Alii Drive (former ala loa). A small portion of the current study area had been investigated during a 1991 inventory survey associated with a county sewer project (Head et al. 1994). Three sites (SIHP 15507, 15508, and 15509) were recorded along the northern property boundary in a sewer easement area, three sites (SIHP 15522, 15523, and 15526) were recorded within the parcel used for the sewage pumping station, one site (SIHP 15524) was recorded spanning the property line partially on the pump station parcel and partially on the study parcel, and six sites (SHIP 15517, 15518, 15519, 15520, 15521, and 15525) were recorded on the current parcel—outside of the current boundary of the county sewage pump station (Figure 4, Table 1). All ten of the sites previously recorded on the current study parcel were assessed as part of the former study (Head et al. 1994), and reassessed as part of the present study. One of these sites (SIHP 15507) was subject to data recovery and one (SIHP 15524) was preserved in place when the sewer pump station was built. A draft data recovery report (Walker et al. 1996) was prepared, but never approved by DLNR-SHPD. 0 Ii RC -0001 15512 15510 15525 1551 15521 15520" i `J Q *15522 15518 l i •P tl �� l� 16623 .� ' 1 15509 75�' 1`528 Q15524t � F 15508 1 s 30 L ,.► t A ',p Figure 4. Previously recorded sites (from Head et al. 1994; boundary mismapped in original). Table 1. Sites previously recorded on the study property. 15507 Outcrop/blister Temp. Hab.Burial Precontact Data recovered/preserved 15508 Wall Boundary Historic Mostly intact 15509 Modified outcrop Temp. Hab./Cerem Precontact Destroyed 15517 Enclosure Perm. Hab. PrecontactlHistoric Mostly intact 15518 Terrace Agricultural Precontact/Historic Mostly intact 15519 Alignment Trail Precontact/Historic Mostly intact 15520 Wall Animal Husbandry Precontact/Historic Mostly intact 15521 Lava blister Temp. Hab. Precontact/Historic Filled with modem rubbish 15524 Terrace Perm. Hab./Cerem Precontact/Historic Preserved as is 15525 Lava blister Agricultural Unknown Intact "Data in table are derived from Head et al. (1994) and Walker et al. (1996); functional and temporal interpretations are not necessarily accurate. Based on the Head et al. (1994) survey, the Walker et al. (1996) data recovery, and the background information presented above, a set of field expectations can be generated. Head et al. (1994) documented the presence of household agricultural sites, permanent and temporary habitation sites (one with a possible household shrine), historic ranching walls, and possible burial features. All of these fit the pattern for the coastal portions of the Kona. Walker et al. (1996) and other work (O'Hare and Wolforth 1998) in nearby ahupua'a, have encountered burials during subsurface testing of features, in both habitation and other contexts. During the current fieldwork it is expected that both temporary and permanent habitation features Will be encountered that date from the Precontact and early Historic Periods, and that burials might be present at these sites. The permanent habitation sites are expected to be close to Ali'i Drive. Small household garden features may be present near the permanent habitations. Such agricultural features would likely be stone mounds and small enclosures. The former presence of a coastal heiau in Wai'aha, associated with rainmaking and thus agricultural productivity, may indicate the existence of other such features within the current study area. Any such heiau would thus be large community used sites. The project area was part of a failed sugarcane plantation and later became the Gomes Ranch, These Historic Period activities likely resulted in the disturbance of some of the earlier features and the ranching activities should be visible on the landscape in the form of core -filled walls and enclosures. RC -0001 FIELDWORK AND ANALYSIS Between March 14-23, 2000, Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D. with the assistance of Julianne Toenjes, BA carried out the fieldwork for the current project. Field and Laboratory Procedures Fieldwork included on -foot survey of the entire parcel and test excavations at selected features. Survey transects were oriented parallel to Ali'i Drive and the surveyors maintained a 10 -meter spacing interval. Features identified during the survey were flagged and plotted on a field map. These features were later precisely located using a total station and placed on a large scale engineering map of the project area (Figure 5). All of the features were measured, described, and photographed. Seven 1 x 1 meter test pits and one .5 x .5 meter test pit were excavated at seven sites. These excavation units were dug following natural strata. Where natural layers could not be determined, excavation followed 10 -centimeter arbitrary levels. All excavated material was passed through ''/-inch screening in an attempt to recover cultural material. Excavation units were dug until bedrock was encountered or until buried human remains were discovered. In the latter case (2 instances) all of the material recovered from the unit was replaced and the feature restored to its pre -excavation condition. Excavation record forms were maintained for each test unit and photographs were taken (except for the units containing burials). Upon completion of the units, prior to backfilling, stratigraphic information was recorded and profiles drawn. Artifacts recovered from the screening process were cleaned, weighed, counted, and described. Faunal remains were tabulated and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Where applicable, the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) were determined. Charcoal was recovered from only one unit in a quantity sufficient for radiocarbon analysis; this sample was sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. for age determination (Appendix A). Site Descriptions, Test Excavations, and Functional Interpretations Ten sites have been previously recorded in the project area (see Figure 4) and nineteen additional sites were documented during the current survey. Descriptions of the previously recorded sites are extracted from Head et al. (1994), Walker et al. (1996), and updated based on the current fieldwork. Site descriptions for all twenty-nine sites are presented below. Eight test units (Units 1-8) were dug at seven sites (Site 15521, Site 21991, Site 21996, Site 22063, Site 22067, Site 22068, and Site 22069) during the current investigation. In each case, the units were excavated to recover material to assist with functional interpretation and temporal placement of the sites. The temporal and functional associations assigned to the sites that were previously recorded on the study property are reassessed where possible (several of the sites are no longer extant). For all of the sites (previously and newly recorded) identified as habitation, function and definition are based on the model presented by Cordy (1981) and elaborated on by Cordy et al. (1991). The criteria used in assigning a temporary verses a permanent nature for a site is area measured in square meters (temporary<20square meters; permanent>20 and <70 square meters), substantiveness of construction, and association of varied size features (Cordy et al. 1991:529). Additionally, the quantity and variety of cultural material in deposit is used as an indicator for assessing the degree of regular or continuous habitation. This last indicator is a subjective measure of the quantity of faunal remains and charcoal present in the surface soil and as revealed by subsurface testing. As a result of the proposed data recovery of habitation sites in the current project area, an attempt will be made to volumetrically quantify the recovered faunal remains and charcoal to develop a model for future interpretation. For interpreting the possible heiau sites in the project area, the model developed by Ladefoged et al. (1987) for sites located in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park is used. This model presents a six level hierarchy based on overall size, internal complexity, and any available ethnohistoric information. Level 1 heiau range in size from 900-1700 square meters and are considered to be chiefly sites, Level 2 range in size from 122-135 square meters and are considered to be public temples used by the local community, Level 3 sites are about 70 square meters and could include women's heiau, Levels 4 includes fishing shrines that range in size from 18-52 square meters, Level 5 are field shrines averaging about 8 square meters, and Level 6 are single upright ala stones presumed to have religious significance. 1 1 Sewer Easement Site 15508 S T' Site 21995 Q q y4 Site 15507 "1 Water Easement tQ Site220 1 � 1 Site 15520 ` Site 22066 �� N rive 11 \y Site 22065 Its 21989 1 Site 22067 Site 15518 1 V' Site 15619 Site 22069 � Site 15517 11 Site 15524 T Sit 21995 Site 22071 � SItel7 519 Q � Site 22064 Sewage Pump *' p Station 1 Site 15525 OB F Site 21996 1 "*Xta Site 22070 11tk Site 15520 Site 22063 1 1 s� Site 21994 Q e LCAw. 6699'2 to Luma'awe 1 1 - Site 21992 1 Site 21991 � Site 21993 1 Site 21988 Site 2 9S9 1�O� 1 Site 21990 Site 22072 moo 1 t �Wds came y► LCAw. 7241-B to Kalama Figure 5. Site Locations. I RC -0001 i RC -0001 Previously Recorded Sites S1HP Site 15507 Head et al. (1994:A1) originally recorded this site as a temporary habitation complex of three features, two modified outcrops (Features A and C) and a terrace (Feature B). Subsequent data recovery (Walker et al. 1996) was focused on Feature A. Three 1 x 1 meter units were excavated on the outcrop (Figure 6). One of those units (EU -2) revealed the presence of a concealed cave. Within the cave was a platform that was also excavated (EU4). Human skeletal remains were discovered in the constructed platform. Excavation was terminated and the cave entrance concealed once again. Currently, the partially concealed entrance to the blister cave is all that remains on the surface. The sewer easement area was totally graded to within 1 meter of the opening. No long term preservation planning was carried out with respect to this site. The only record of the site is that contained in the PHRI report (Head et al. 1994:A1): r 61TE 15608 (WALL) 817E 15507. Fee. A-1 4i. 11 C4M1NCi �-� � OFWIMO tO Ck/E FESFlm h��E11EEY ll Fs 11 AFFEM EFCR[FIDMff YbfJIWFGV�. Rl.l-1 ,,,Dam Yiv.' \ 1 l EMIKf x `o a Eoi �'�ri`(.4�: �'`'''' �! r I,E. -, 8e`ts'� �d; L" -7 l(j ; � %,• -4fF EYLLDOiEA FAD.fDEfdOIX ❑El.<MFIW SIMTDV-ll qy FOOma FI[N 04Q" Fieure 6. Site 15507 Feature A clan view (from Walker et al. 1996) Site No.: State 15507 PHRI: 937-1 SITE TYPE: Complex (3 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Very Gentle sloping pahoehoe flows with probable lava tube blisters and caves. Exposed outcrops are common in the area. VEGETATION: Kiawe, koali, lantana, grasses. Vegetation is generally dense. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Late prehistoric/early historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Multiple DESCRIPTION: The site complex consists of two modified outcrops (Features A and C), and a terrace (Feature B). 10 RC -0001 FEATURE A: Modified Outcrop FUNCTION: Temporary Habitation DIMENSIONS: 8.60 m by 5.40 in by 1.10 m DESCRIPTION: The feature consists of a bedrock outcrop exposed on the south. On the southern slope, many small- to medium-sized pieces of basalt have been placed to form a rough, paved slope. At the south and southwest edge of this paving, at least three large pieces have weathered out (at least one upright looks in place) from a "face". The modified outcrop is constructed of weathered pahoehoe basalt with large cracks. The paving consists of smaller natural blocks placed at the foot of the upper level and spilling downslope. The historic wall (Site 15508) is immediately north of Feature A and runs mauka/makai across the top of the outcrop. Feature B (center) is located c. 8.0 m at 1400. The portable remains at the feature includes a very rusted steel beer can and a recent screw-top bottle. Feature A is unaltered and is in fair condition. FEATURE B: Terrace FUNCTION: Temporary habitation DIMENSIONS: 15.00 m by 11.00 m by 0.43 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Feature B is c. 18.0 m at 950 from Power Pole #15 on Alii Drive. There is a deposit of silty organic clay up to c. 0.20 m deep scattered throughout the feature. Feature consists of two rough alignments and two "groupings" of stones, and a general scatter of natural pahoehoe basalt medium cobbles. The terrace is altered and is in poor condition. Found within the terrace, along the north and west walls, are two small groupings of stones (c. 1.0 m �diameter each) on to two courses high. FEATURE C: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Temporary habitation DIMENSIONS: 15.00 m by 13.00 m by 0.50 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This outcrop is exposed along the east and southeast sides. It consists of cracked and weathered pahoehoe basalt sliding downslope. There is an area (c. 0.4 m by 0.4 m) on the southeast comer, between the top of the outcrop and the southeast side, that appears paved. Two pieces of waterworn coral and a single small waterworn basalt cobble was found at the feature. The feature is partially altered by slumpage and downslope movement and is in poor condition. Feature B is located 13 m at 3590. rj At the time of data recovery, Walker et al. (1996:24) added "Feature C was inadvertently destroyed by bulldozing, and Feature B was minimally impacted." As stated, presently only the lava blister at Feature A remains of the site. Although the size of the features as presented by Head et al (1994) are relatively large, the lack of substantial construction indicates that the interpretation as temporary habitation is accurate. SIHP Site 15508 This site is a core -filled wall that runs along the north boundary of the project area and extends for an unknown distance in a mauka direction. Head et al. (1994) interpreted this site to be a historic cattle wall. The wall is in fairly good condition and measures 90 centimeters in width with a maximum height of 1.4 meters. The wall appears to be coincident with the ahupua'a boundary of Wai`aha 1 st/Puaa 3rd. Head et al. (1994) recommended no further work for this site. That recommendation was approved by DLNR—SHPD. SIHP Site 15509 This site was originally recorded by PHRI (Head et al. 1994:A-2) in the area of the sewer easement along the northern edge of the parcel. It was a complex of five habitation/agricultural features that, based on the discovery of a single small piece of branch coral, may also have had ceremonial significance. Site 15509 was recommended for data recovery/preservation as a result of the inventory survey. Apparently, the county was unable to avoid this site during their construction, so it was destroyed. At present, the area of 11 RC -0001 this site has been completely graded and nothing remains. At what point the sewer easement area was graded is unclear, but it was not done by the current landowner. Walker et al. (1996) did not address this site. The only record of this site is contained in the Head et al. (1994:A-2) description. Site No.: State 15509 PHRI: 937-3 SITE TYPE: Complex (5 Features) TOPOGRAPHY: Gentle sloping pahoehoe lava flows covered by soil. Numerous bedrock outcrops in the area. VEGETATION: Kiawe, grasses, lantana. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Late prehistoric/early historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Multiple DESCRIPTION: The site complex consists of a rock alignment (Feature A), two modified outcrops (Features B and E), a paved terrace (Feature C), and a rock alignment with an upright 1 (Feature D). FEATURE A: Alignment FUNCTION: Temporary Habitation DIMENSIONS: 17.00 in by 3.50 in by 0.27 in DESCRIPTION: This is a rock alignment of about eight small to medium pahoehoe boulders. The alignment runs cross slope; it is c. 11.6 in at 2000 from the site tag at Feature B, and c. 10.4 in at 240 from the southern concrete driveway post makai of Walua Road. The alignment is altered and in poor condition. Upslope of the alignment are silt deposits c. 0.17-0.20 in deep. No portable remains were observed at this feature. FEATURE B: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 2.30 in by 1.50 in by 0.30 in DESCRIPTION: There are medium to large boulders on the makai side of the outcrop, on the western end, where the bedrock has weathered away. There is a short alignment of boulders on If the north end, and the southern portion has paving. This outcrop is c. 11.60 in at 200 from Feature A. The outcrop is unaltered and is in fair condition. The makai end of Feature B ties in with Feature C. FEATURE C: Paved area FUNCTION: Temporary habitation/possible ceremonial DIMENSIONS: 9.40 in by 2.90 in by 0.35 in DESCRIPTION: This is a linear paved terrace beginning at the makai end of Feature B, modified outcrop, and running makai to the upper end of Feature D, a rock alignment with uprights. The paving consists of medium basalt cobbles to small basalt boulders. The terrace is located c. 5.0 in at 770 from Feature B site tag. The terrace is unaltered and in good condition. a small piece of branch coral was found at the mauka end of the feature, near Feature B. FEATURE D: Alignment w/upright FUNCTION: Temporary habitation/possible ceremonial DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 1.10 in by 0.60 in DESCRIPTION: This feature is composed of 13 or more small to medium basalt boulders. It is c. 11.80 in at 250o from the site tag at Feature B. The alignment runs 620 to 2420 and is one to two courses high. There is a short paved area (c. 0.65 in dia.) south of the feature; this area may be an extension of Feature C. An upright rock near the mauka end appears waterwom. Feature D is unaltered and in good condition. There is a deposit of c. 0.2 in of medium brown silt between the rocks. No portable remains were observed. 12 RC -0001 FEATURE E: Modified outcrop FUNCTION: Agriculture DIMENSIONS: 5.80 in by 4.50 in by 0.62 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: Subangular pahoehoe cobbles c. 0.05-0.25 m in diameter are piled on a natural outcrop surrounded by soil. The outcrop is on a western trending slope. Site 15508, a wall, is present about 11 m away, to the north and to the east, Feature E is c. 14.0 m due west of the road and c. 3.0 m south-southeast of Feature A. The outcrop is unaltered and in poor condition. Cypraeidae, waterwom rock, and a piece of coral were noted at the feature. No cultural deposit was observed. SIHP Site 15517 Originally described as a late prehistoric/early historic permanent habitation enclosure (Head et al. 1994), this site (Figure 7) is located about 20 meters inland from Alii Drive just north of the sewage pump station (see Figure 4). PHRI excavated a single test unit at the site and recovered basalt and volcanic glass flakes, and faunal material. One radiocarbon sample was processed from this site, and the resultant date was A.D. 1640-1950. This site was recommended for data recovery with some level of preservation with interpretation (Head et al. 1994:56). As the site turned out to be not on the sewage pump station parcel, no further work was conducted. Except for some minor wall collapse this enclosure appears to be as recorded by Head et al. (1994). Their interpretation as a permanent habitation site seems valid. Although the size (280 square meters) of the enclosure is larger than that of permanent habitations defined by the Cordy ' t model, it seems logical to assume that it may have contained one or more freestanding residential structures. The quantity of habitation debris present of the ground surface and the variety of cultural material recovered from the deposit (Head et al. 1994) (also see discussion in Clark 1987) coupled with the substantive structure and proximity to the shore also indicate the permanent nature of this habitation site. 13 W RC -0001 SIHP Site 15518 Head et al. (1994:A-9) recorded this site as a complex of two terrace features measuring 18.5 meters by 11 meters (Figure 8). The site was assigned an agricultural function. Examination of the site during the current investigation led to a different interpretation. Both features are terraces built around a Pehoehoe outcrop and have marine shell and waterworn coral on their surface. The western edge of Feature A is faced. Site 15518 is interpreted as a temporary habitation (Cordy et al. 1991) based on terrace size (the useable surface area of Feature B is roughly 20 square meters and any house structure would have certainly been less than that) and lack of substantial stone construction (most of the terrace edging is loose single course construction and the faced portion of Feature A is only three courses at its highest). It seems likely that a structure made of perishable materials once stood on Feature B, and that Feature A served as a work area for domestically related activities. l� Off+ Fea. A a v Fos. a lEMIaVE IYUD AIIr Ra roT REOOaOER v chi f� GtLb rACIU"LL 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 8. Site 15518 plan view (from Head et al. 1994; property line mismapped in original) SIHP Site 15519 Head et al. (1994:A-10) recorded this site as a trail (Figure 9) that is about 4 meters wide and supported by a wall on its downslope side. Again, as a result of the current investigation a different interpretation is offered: This site is not a trail, but rather simply a wall, a portion of which is actually part of Site 15520 (see below). The portion of the site that will retain the SIHP 15519 designation is 25 meters long and extends in a southwesterly direction from Site 15520. Where intact, the wall appears to be of stacked construction between 75 and 80 centimeters wide and a maximum of 70 centimeters tall. This site is interpreted as a ranching -era wall. 14 RC -0001 CS). •'+nip '� 4 � tet_` ti 0 � e O , 4p' J+ r a s +s s O 1 ■ � POM aegis WALL 'igure 9. Site 15519 plan view (from Head et al. 1994; property line mismapped SIHP Site 15520 This site is a wall running a total of 280 meters through the project area (see Figure 5). Portions of this wall are intact while others are nearly completely destroyed. The maximum intact section was recorded as 1.2 meters tall and 1.3 meters wide. Head et al. (1994:A-10) correctly associated this site with Site 15519 despite their faulty interpretation of the previous site, and appropriately described it as a wall. Other wall sites (described below) are tied to this site and together formed a set of cattle control features likely associated with the former use of the property as part of the Gomes Ranch. 15 RC -0001 SIHP Site 15521 This site is a small lava blister originally recorded by Head at al. (1994:A-10) as a lava tube cave. When originally recorded the blister opening had a three -course high neatly stacked wall around two-thirds of its perimeter and the site was described as being unaltered. Presently, the stacking is gone and the site is strewn with rubbish. On the northeast side of the blister opening is a filled in crack in the pahoehoe. The cobble and small boulder fill form a level area roughly 1.5 meters square. The previous investigators observed kukui nut fragments and marine shell on the floor of the cave. This site is interpreted as a pre - Contact temporary habitation. During the current investigation a .5 x .5 meter unit (Unit 6) was excavated in the cobble and small boulder fill immediately adjacent to the blister opening. An excavation unit was not placed inside the blister proper because of the tremendous quantity of modem rubbish and the likelihood the blister is being used as a toilet by the homeless that have been camped in the area. The rock fill (Layer I) extended to a depth of 40 centimeters where it rested on large fragments of bedrock, forming a ceiling -like structure for the blister. A 30 -centimeter, partially open space (Layer II) was encountered below the rock fill. Below this was a 20 - centimeter -thick cultural soil deposit (Layer III) on top of 10 centimeters of sterile soil (Layer IV) covering bedrock (Figure 10). Cultural material was present only in Layer III (Table 2). In addition to a small amount of faunal remains, one artifact, a basalt adze fragment, was recovered. 0 cm 10 cm 20 cm 30 cm 40 cm 50 cm 60 cm 70 cm 80 cm 90 cm 100 cm I - Cobbles II - Cave Interior I I II - Cultural Silt IV - Sterile Soil I - Architectural Layer; Weathered Pahoehoe Cobbles 0 10 20 II -Former Cave Interior III - 10 YR 3/2; Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Silt (Cultural Layer) W IV - 10 YR 4/4; Dark Yellowish Brown (Sterile Layer) Sr ie in centimete Fivure 10. I1nit C east nrnfle 16 RC -0001 Table 2. Cultural material recovered from Site 15521. _Acc. # Unit # Depth (cm.) Material Species/Type NISP MNI Weight (g) 6 6 70-90 Shell Cypraea 24 4 65.3 7 6 70-90 Shell Cellana 3 3 10.5 8 6 70-90 Shell Echinoidea 7 2 0.8 9 6 70-90 Shell Conus 5 4 14.9 10 6 70-90 Shell Nerita 4 4 1.9 11 6 70-90 Shell Unidentified 3 — 2.5 12 6 70-90 Bone Med. mammal 2 — 14.2 13 6 70-90 Basalt Adze frag. 1 — 115.9 SIHP Site 15524 Head et al. (1994) recorded this site as a permanent habitation terrace measuring 9.4 meters by 8.6 meters. A "possible ceremonial" interpretation was also asserted, without explanation, but perhaps because a single piece of branch coral was found. The terrace was built up on the downslope side with small cobbles to a height of 38 centimeters. Numerous pieces of coral and marine shell were scattered about and a basalt adze fragment was present. Site 15524 sits on the boundary of the current property and the sewage pump station (see Figure 5). When the sewage pump station was constructed this site was preserved in place. No new data were recovered from this permanent habitation site to alter the existing DLNR-SHPD approved functional interpretation, significance evaluation, or treatment. The Head et al. (1994:A-12) description of i the site is as follows: y Site No.: State 15524 PHRI: 937-18 SITE TYPE: Terrace TOPOGRAPHY: Gentle sloping pahoehoe flow with outcrops. VEGETATION: Large kiawe (c. 0.6 in across) growing in terrace; dense guinea grass and other exotics. CONDITION: Fair INTEGRITY: Unaltered PROBABLE AGE: Late prehistoric/early historic FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Permanent habitation -possible ceremonial DIMENSIONS: 9.40 in by 8.60 in by 0.38 m (approx.) DESCRIPTION: This terrace is paved with small basalt boulders, a number of which appear waterworn, and is somewhat faced on the makai side. The terrace slopes to the south or _ southeast. Numerous pieces of waterworn coral, including one piece of branch coral, were found at the site. Also present were small, waterworn basalt cobbles (some partial), a single medium basalt boulder with six deep erosional chambers which may have been used for brine evaporation, and c. 0.25-0.30 m of decomposing humus between rocks. Site 15517 is located c. 25.0 in at 420 from this site. SIHP Site 15525 This site was originally described as a collapsed and filled lava blister with a possible lava tube extending an unknown distance (Head et al. 1994:A-12). The previous investigators excavated a .5 x 1 meter test unit within the blister. No cultural material was encountered, and an agricultural function was assigned to the site. The site was reexamined during the current investigation and found to be simply a naturally collapsed lava blister. A short tube-like structure does extend from the blister, but for only about 3 meters. No cultural material was observed within the blister or the short tube and no soil was present in the tube. This site is currently interpreted to be a natural feature rather than a cultural site. 17 N I RC -0001 Newly Identified Sites SIHP Site 21988 This site is a rectangular enclosure measuring 11 meters by 7.3 meters located in the southwest comer of the project area (see Figure 5). It is constructed of large pahoehoe boulders forming the edges of the core - filled walls, with smaller cobbles used as wall fill. Most of the west wall has collapsed and there is a 1 - meter opening in the middle of the east wall (Figures 11 and 12). Wall width is a fairly uniform 80 centimeters, and height ranges up to 1.4 meters. The interior of the enclosure is dark brown sandy loam. No cultural material was observed within the enclosure or immediately surrounding it. Because of the lack of habitation debris, the height and thickness of the walls, and their core -filled construction, this site is tentatively interpreted as a cattle enclosure associated with the historic ranching that occulted on the property. It is too small to have been a Historic Period house lot, besides there was not a kuleana LCAw. recorded for this specific location. However, DLNR-SHPD believes that the possibility exists that this site could be a Historic Period house. Figure 11. Site 21988 view to southeast. An older site tag was found at the site, labeled "PHRI 1416-3." A search of the DLNR—SHPD records failed to locate a report from PHRI on their project number 1416. PHRI was contacted about the project and explained that their project 1416 was an informal survey of the property done several years ago and only a client circulated letter report was generated. Apparently, they did observe other sites on the property, but did not do any formal recording or reporting. That work was done prior to the substantial grading that has since been carried out (no other PHRI site tags were observed during the present survey). SIHP Site 21989 Site 21989 is a wall that borders the property along Ali`i incorporating boulders and cobbles. Width ranges from 75 to 1.3 meters, with many sections of the wall collapsed. ranching wall. 18 Drive (see Figure 5). It is a core -filled wall centimeters to 1.1 meters and height ranges up This wall is interpreted as a Historic Period RC -0001 1.3) Collapse N True (0.8) Ot Opening Collapse °� Q Collapse 2off} /Zta (1.4) wVo (1.1) (0.$) 0 .5 1 Collapse I __1 Scale in meters Figure 12. Site 21988 plan view a SIHP Site 21990 This site is a wall forming the southwest comer property boundary and is more properly described as a site belonging to the adjacent property. It is the kuleana house lot wall for LCAw. 7241-B to Kalama (see Figure 5). It is of core -filled construction roughly 1 meter thick and 1.2 meters high. SIHP Site 21991 This site comprises two features, a mound (Feature A) and a paved terrace (Feature B) connected by a line of boulders (Figure 13). Feature A is constructed of piled 'a'd boulders and cobbles and is roughly rectangular, 4 meters by 3.5 meters. The top of the mound is 1.5 meters above the surrounding ground surface. On top of the mound is a 1.5 -meter square configuration of cobbles, one rock wide and a single course high. Two large marine shells (Cardita sp.) and a piece of waterwom coral were observed on the surface of the mound. Feature B is a paved terrace, 4.5 meters by 3 meters, built up to 70 centimeters above the ground surface on its southwestern end. The southern side of the terrace is faced and the central portion is paved. The northern side of the feature has been bulldozed. An alignment of boulders extends from Feature A to Feature B, and a small quantity of marine shell is present on the surface between the features. 19 / Feature A a RC -0001 Figure 13. Site 21991 plan view. 20 0 1 2 W Scale in meters a RC -0001 A 1 x I meter test unit (Unit 1) was excavated into Feature A in the area of the square configuration. Two distinct architectural layers were encountered; a roughly 30 -centimeter thick layer of uniformly sized rock (15-10 centimeter diameter) that fortes the square configuration (Layer 0), above a 45-55 centimeter thick layer of loosely packed cobbles (Layer I). Below this is a 30 -centimeter thick layer of large boulders with light brown silt (Layer II), a 5 -centimeter thick ashy layer (Layer 1II) containing faunal remains, charcoal, and other organic debris. This layer appears to be an accumulation point for materials that filter down from above, and was the only layer that contained cultural material; marine shell and fish bone was recovered (Table 3). A single charcoal sample was also recovered from this layer and submitted for radiocarbon analysis and yielded a date of 160±60 B.P. (A.D. 1645-1955 at 2 sigma calibrated results; see Appendix A). Beneath Layer III was yellowish brown culturally sterile silt (Layer IV) on top of bedrock (Figure 14). 7 cm Unit # Depth (cm) �10 cm Species/Type NISP MN/ Weight (g) 0 20 cm 110-115 Bone 30 cm 4 1 — 40 cm 2 1 50 cm Shell I 60 cm 1 2.4 70 cm 1 110-115 80 cm Echinoidea 10 2 1.5 4 90 cm 110-115 II 100 ren 2 1 110M 5 III 20 cm Shell Unidentified. 130 cm — IV 40 crn 150 an Un- excavated 0 - Recently Constructed Layer 0 10 20 1- Loosely Packed Cobbles II -10 YR 3/2; Very Dark Brown Silty Sand, Bedrock S.1e ,n cenUmeumelers III - 2.5 YR 4/1; Dark Gray Ashy Charcoal IV - 10 YR 4/4; Dark Yellowish Brown Silt (Stedle) Figure 14. Unit 1 west profile. Table 3. Cultural material recovered from Site 21991. Ace. # Unit # Depth (cm) Material Species/Type NISP MN/ Weight (g) 1 1 110-115 Bone Fish 4 1 0.5 2 1 110-115 Shell Cypraea sp. 3 1 2.4 3 1 110-115 Shell Echinoidea 10 2 1.5 4 1 110-115 Shell Cellana sp. 2 1 0.1 5 1 110-115 Shell Unidentified. 4 — 7.6 21 Based on the criteria presented in the interpretive model for defining habitation sites (Cordy 1981; Cordy et al. 1991), and the single radiocarbon date, Site 21991 is interpreted as a late prehistoric temporary habitation site that was modified (square configuration on top of Feature A) in the recent past. The criteria used for this interpretation is the presence of dietary remains (indicating habitation) and the size of the features (14 square meters and 13.5 square meters, respectively, indicating temporary). SIHP Site 11992 Two features define this site: a modified outcrop and a circular enclosure (Figure 15). Feature A, the modified outcrop, is a roughly 5 meter by 2 meter area of piled cobbles against bedrock. A bulldozer cut has impacted the western side of the feature. A machine cut cow rib was observed at the feature. Feature B is a roughly 4 -meter diameter enclosure on bedrock. The core -filled enclosure wall ranges in thickness from 70 centimeters to 1 meter and is 75 centimeters high on the downslope side and 30 centimeters high on the upslope side. A large kiawe tree is growing in the center of the enclosure. No habitation debris was observed at either of these features and the enclosure has no entrance. The height of the enclosure wall precludes its interpretation as an animal pen. It is more likely that both features were used during the early Historic Period (1820-1860, based on the core -filled construction) as agricultural features. Perhaps Feature A was used as a planting mound and Feature B as a planting enclosure to protect against pigs and livestock. SIHP Site 21993 Site 21993 is a wall that runs along the southern property boundary, the Wai`aha lst/Wai`aha 2nd border. This wall extends from the southeastern comer of Site 22071 to the southeast property corner. The makai 84 meters of the wall has been cemented and rebuilt in recent times; the mauka 206 meters retains its original core -filled construction. This mauka section averages 70 centimeters wide and 90 centimeters high. This site is interpreted as a Historic Period boundary/ranch wall. SIHP Site 11994 This site is a large internally complex platform interpreted as a heiau. This interpretation is based its size being greater than 200 square meters. Using the Ladefoged et al. (1987) model, the size of this heiau (Level 2) suggests that it was a public temple used by the local community. Perhaps this site was used in the same way as the ethnohistorically known Mab Heiau, which once stood a few hundred meters to the west. Ma`o Heiau is known for its association with rain making (Stokes and Dye 199 1) The area surrounding the extant portions of this site has been bulldozed. What remains is a rectangular platform that measures roughly 20 meters by 10 meters. The northern 9 meters of the platform are badly disturbed and difficult to formally describe. The western edge of this area is formed by a stacked and faced wall ranging from 50 to 70 centimeters above the ground surface. The southern portion of the site is more intact, consisting of a bordered platform 11 meters by 10 meters. This construction has a 1.5 -meter wall along its western face and is elevated between 40 and 80 centimeters around the rest of its periphery. On the platform are an 80 -centimeter circular depression, three elevated paved areas, and three depressed soil areas (Figure 16). A stacked stone wall extends from the southeast comer of the platform up slope to the Feature D terrace at Site 22063. SIHP Site 21995 Site 21995 is a core -filled wall that runs along the Walua Road property boundary (see Figure 5). This site is collapsed and disturbed along most of it length. Its construction is similar to that of Site 21989 and 21993, and it likely function in the same way, as a property boundary/cattle wall. SIHP Site 21996 Site 21996 is a remnant of a larger site that has been extensively bulldozed located in the center of the project area (see Figure 5). What remains is a highly disturbed 4 meters by 6 meter area of pavement (Feature B) (see Figure 5) and a low multi -tiered platform (Feature A) (Figure 17). The platform is 10 meters by 5 meters and is paved with pahoehoe and coral cobbles. The platform perimeter is defined with pahoehoe boulders as are the three tiers. The northern edge of the platform is marked with stacked boulders 1.1 meters above the ground surface (Figure 18). These boulders have been disturbed by bulldozer activity and may be part of the wall (SIHP Site 22064) that exists adjacent to the platform. The smallest and lowest tier (Tier I) is to the south and measures 2 meters by 1.5 meters. Tier 2 is 15 centimeters higher than Tier 1, is 5 meters long and ranges from 3 meters to 5 meters wide, and has the roughest paving. Tier 3 is 20 centimeters higher than Tier 2 and measures 3.5 meters by 5 meters. To the west of this upper tier was another walled pavement that has been mostly bulldozed away. 22 d '�� �' �, � ! f7T+ < cw a ., _ � `-Pr v i l �� F�3. �. A� t' �".�@3;•ffGG' '+� ems- v <� a �` jt ik' � ��`. 1x4 °� ' �� � 'tni ��+s � ...1 �� _�.��i� *'R tb� � y_i.ars� nr. - l�gi•`i rr.�'"-t � .., -•�sc+ y,tp � - F�. x�`:.1 y .,�� I �i'�- � p. '��/[ N-..>�� .ami'_• 1:� d � T •� �.. � , r� � :: ii � -' s_rV;^ t�+"e *ay � ♦ 4 yrs�.�<� '..%i ` � •�7Qf�'14-?' °-�'_�.,r .. j^� � � r ; Y .n - i '4, K Y � f/ �+• ��':�. ���� ,`�� � i/— . ���ir� y ��\�—lAi ��.� �' +/.!fin A RC -0001 t0 �l Rubble CP �° 0 c° o 10 N T I.. 0 1 z I Scale in Meters Figure 16. Site 21994 plan view. To Site 22063 1. � .�••..vi�.y. � .•�F. •mss• ��'•l�I •.� Via•,..,.• ►.��, •. •� . .. 40101 a-, bib Dozer Cut 24 '4111 woo off lei Depression U. S�f•v"i ��N::: �:•:'••�� ''v �i'FWSo0' I • err<•'• •••j Si Xo : r� • Ifaf ,:: ..' .r_.y • •• Soil Area `til. �•„•.i,�'�y� }7�toy 1...�Yi •a�1� •1l! ✓ Figure 16. Site 21994 plan view. To Site 22063 1. � .�••..vi�.y. � .•�F. •mss• ��'•l�I •.� Via•,..,.• ►.��, •. •� . .. 40101 a-, bib Dozer Cut 24 A I x 1 meter test unit (Unit 4) was excavated at the northeast comer of Tier 3. A single 20 centimeter thick layer of cobbles was recorded on top of bedrock. No cultural material was encountered, nor were any observed on the surface of this site suggesting a function other than habitation. Although slightly larger this feature is not unlike ones recorded elsewhere in the coastal kula of Kona (Rechtman and Dougherty 2000, Henry et al. 1999) that have been interpreted as specialized activity sites associated with the preparation of agricultural products (i.e., drying platforms, tapa beating platforms). The characteristics of this site that are similar to these other sites are very slightly elevated tiers separated by larger stones and roughly paved surfaces. Data recovery excavations (Rechtman and Clark in prep) at one such site (SIHP Site 22426) in nearby Kahului Ahupua`a, at a similar location in the coastal Wit, revealed the presence of wooden tapa beaters cached below the platform surface. Further data recovery at Site 21996 will shed light on the function and temporality of this feature. SIHP Site 22063 This site is a complex of nine features occupying an area of roughly 46 meters by 36 meters toward the southeastern portion of the study property (see Figure 5 and Figure 19). The site has been partially disturbed by bulldozing and by the establishment of a homeless encampment. The dozing has impacted some of the features, and the inhabitants of the encampment have rearranged stones to create modem features and sleeping areas. Despite these disturbances, the site remains a culturally significant place as buried human remains were encountered in two of the features (A and C). Feature A is a roughly rectangular mound, 3 meters by 5 meters, built up to between 30 and 45 centimeters above the ground surface. The mound is faced and roughly paved. Feature B is a level terrace 9 meters by 7 meters. The western and northern edges are elevated 40 centimeters with stacked pahoehoe boulders to create the level area. Feature C is a 2.5 -meter square platform on a paved terrace (Feature D). The platform is 70 centimeters above the terrace and is built of stacked and faced pdhoehoe boulders. The surface of the platform is paved with small cobbles. Feature D is a badly disturbed paved 2 -meter wide terrace that once extended continuously for 32 meters; it has been broken into three sections separated by bulldozer cuts. The downslope terrace edge is formed with stacked pahoehoe boulders to heights ranging from 40 centimeters to 1.2 meters above the ground surface. At about the center of the terrace a remnant of a stacked stone wall extends in a makai direction to Site 21994. Feature E is a midden concentration measuring 25 meters by 10 meters directly upslope from Feature D. Feature F is a level terrace area containing soil and midden. This terrace, formed against a bedrock outcrop, is 8 meters by 4 meters and is built up 25 centimeters on the down slope side. Feature G is an L- shaped paved terrace 3 meters northwest of Feature F. Each arm of Feature G is roughly 4 meters long and the paving extends from the edge of the terrace back one meter. Feature H is a large pavement elevated 20 to 65 centimeters above the surrounding ground surface; its overall dimensions are 7 meters by 4 meters. There is a 60 -centimeter round depression in the northern potion of the pavement. Feature I is a terrace built against a bedrock outcrop. This feature measures 10 meters by 5 meters including the bedrock. The down slope face of the terrace is stacked pahoehoe 60 centimeters high. The area between the terrace edge and the bedrock outcrop is filled with cobble to create a level surface. Feature J is a rectangular platform directly above the Feature F terrace. This platform is 5 meters by 7 meters and elevated 50 centimeters above the surrounding surface. There is a bulldozer cut immediately northwest of the feature. On the paved level surface of this feature is a seemingly modem clover -shaped construction of rocks one course high. Two 1 x 1 meter test units were excavated at this site, one in Feature A (Unit 2) and one in Feature C (Unit 1). Human remains were encountered in both of the excavation units. In Feature A, at 30 centimeters below the surface, large rectangular capstones were encountered; below these, at a depth of 65 centimeters below the surface the remains of a wooden coffin were encountered, within 10 centimeters the skull of an adult human was discovered (Figure 20). At that point the excavation was terminated, the unit refilled and the feature reconstructed to its pre -excavation condition. In Feature C, at a depth of 60 centimeters below the northeast corner of the unit a single large capstone was encountered. Directly below this stone were the articulated remains of a dog and a juvenile human (Figure 21). Once the human remains were identified the capstone was replaced, the unit was refilled, and the feature was reconstructed to its pre -excavation condition. Although habitation debris (marine shell, kukui nut fragments, fishbone) was recovered from screening the upper levels of the units, none of the material was collected. Rather, the material was replaced in the excavation units prior to backfilling. 26 G III lilt: Bedrock Test Unit . •G to ••i •.7. j:\Jyp: • � Dozerell M 1111 (120) 4( Midden Scatter 601) •'� ,,• • f'•• •s' �Ci:� III 21994 (50) IL }: _ Hit == 1115M •': • r'0' ) t Dozer Cut .'i v: •'•::. . �: :••$ w Figure 19. Site 22063 plan view. 27 RC -0001 I 0 cm 10 cm 20 cm 30 cm 40 cm 50 cm 60 cm 70 cm 80 cm 90 cm 100 cm I - Architectural Layer; Weathered Pahoehoe Cobbles II - 10 YR 3/2; Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Silt, Capstones III - Decomposing Coffin Wood IV - 10 YR 3/2; Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Silt Figure 20. Unit 3 west profile Depth of 60 centimeters below datum Juvenile F Legs and Figure 21. Unit 2 plan view. Brown Silt (10YR 3/2) 28 0 10 20 1 1 Scale in centimeters Unit Datum Ntrue 0 10 20 1 1 Scale in cm. RC -0001 RC -0001 Site 22063 is interpreted as a late pre-Contact/early Historic permanent habitation complex that was also used for burial. It is likely that other burials exist at the site in the unexcavated platforms and terraces. This site also seems to be associated with the heiau (Site 21994) that is 38 meters down slope and connected by a stone wall at Feature D. SIHP Site 11064 This site is a collapsed and disturbed wall extending in 106 meters makai from Site 21995 at Walua Road (see Figure 5). The wall then turns 90 degrees to the south and runs for 10 meters and terminates near Site 21996. The wall may have extended further, but the area has been heavily bulldozed. Where intact, the wall is of similar dimensions and construction (core -filled) to the other walls recorded on the property. This site is interpreted as a former ranch wall. SIHP Site 22065 Site 22065 contains two features; both are small, mounded piles of boulders and cobbles on bedrock on a slope extending makai below Walua Road (see Figure 5). Feature A, the easternmost, is 1.3 meters in diameter; Feature B is 1.6 meters in diameter. Both are 20 centimeters tall and are interpreted as agricultural clearing/planting mounds. SIHP Site 22066 Site 22066 is a 38 -meter long wall remnant extending between Site 15520 and Site 21995. The most intact portion of this wall is at it junction with Site 15520 where the two sites are integrated. Only base stones remain over most of its length. Together with Site 15520 and Site 21995, this wall would have formed a rectangular cattle enclosure. SIHP Site 12067 Constructed above a declivity in the bedrock on an exposure of bedrock that is level with the surrounding ground surface, Site 22067 is a 2.5 meter by 4.5 meter platform, located 10 meters west of Site 15521 (see Figure 5). The perimeter of the feature is defined by large boulder and the surface is level and paved with small cobbles (Figure 22). The northeastern face of the platform is built up to a maximum height of 1.3 meters to create a level platform surface (Figure 23). The platform appears to have an internal division as marked by a line of large boulders level with the paved surface (see Figure 22). A 1 x 1 meter unit (unit 5) was excavated in the center of the platform. Three stratigraphic layers were encountered above bedrock. Layer I was 15-20 centimeters thick and consisted of small (4-5 centimeter) cobbles. These cobbles were placed directly on loosely packed boulders with light brown silty soil intermixed (Layer II). Below Layer 1I, Layer III was yellowish brown silt on top of an undulating bedrock surface (Figure 24). Cultural material was recovered from Layers I and II; Layer III was sterile. Table 4 lists the recovered remains. Based on feature location (in the vicinity of habitation sites) and construction details (rough paving and a surface that is segregated into section by the placement of larger stones, similar to but smaller than Site 21996, and similar to SIHP Site 22426 (Rechtman and Clark in prep)), this site is interpreted as a special activity feature, perhaps a work area associated with the temporary habitation site SIHP Site 15521. Table 4. Cultural material recovered from Site 22067. Acc. # Unit # Layer Depth (cm.) Material Species/Type NISP MNI Weight (g.) 14 5 I 0-20 Shell Cypraea sp. 8 3 45.7 15 5 I 0-20 Shell Echinoidea 1 1 0.5 16 5 II 20-30 Basalt Abrader 1 — 371.3 17 5 II 20-30 Shell Cypraea sp. 69 5 82.6 18 5 II 20-30 Shell Conus sp. 7 6 4.1 19 5 II 20-30 Shell Nerita sp. 13 13 4.0 20 5 II 20-30 Shell Echinoidea 1 1 0.3 21 5 II 20-30 Shell Drupa sp. 6 4 8.5 22 5 II 20-30 Shell Isogn. sp. 6 3 1.0 23 5 II 20-30 Shell Unidentified 8 — 7.5 24 5 II 20-30 Vol. glass Flake 1 — 1.1 25 5 II 20-30 Basalt Flake 1 — 1.2 29 0 .5 Scale m meters Figure 22. Site 22067 plan view. rtz9Eli IZin RC -0001 SIHP Site 22068 Site 22068 is a small platform built against a pahoehoe outcrop in the northeastern portion of the project area (see Figure 5). The platform measures 2.5 meters by 5 meters; it is level with the bedrock outcrop and 50-60 centimeters above the ground surface on the south side (Figures 25 and 26). The unpaved surface of the feature gently slopes to the southwest. The area around the feature has been extensively bulldozed, and given the quantity of rock rubble in the area, it is probable that other associated features once existed. A 1 x 1 meter test unit (Unit 7) was excavated at the southeast end of the platform. Three stratigraphic layers were encountered (Figure 27). Layer I is an architectural layer of small cobbles approximately 20 centimeters thick on top of fragmented bedrock and light brown silt (Layer II). Layer II (the fragmented bedrock and silt) extended from the base of Layer I to a thickness of 30-50 centimeters, but the only cultural material recovered from this layer was from 10-20 centimeters below Layer I (Table 5). Given the area of the platform (12.5 meters) this site is a temporary habitation feature (Cordy 1981; Cordy et at, 1991). The recovery of cultural material from the test excavation also supports this interpretation. Table 5. Cultural material recovered from Site 22068 Test Unit 7. Acc. # Layer Depth (cm.) • Material Species/Type NISP MNI Weight (g.) 26 II 50-60 Basalt Abrader 1 — 65.3 27 II 50-60 Shell Cypraea 4 2 59.8 28 II 50-60 Organic Kukui nut 7 2 6.2 29 II 50-60 Basalt Abrader 1 — 115.9 -Depth below datum ,see Figure 27 for relationship of depth to platform surface, which is some places is 40 centimeters below datum. SIHP Site 22069 This site consists of a single irregularly shaped platform, and the area surrounding the feature has been extensively bulldozed (Figure 28). The platform is between 50 and 70 centimeters above the surrounding ground surface. It is level and paved with small cobbles. The perimeter of the platform is faced and a large waterworn basalt boulder is present along the southwestem face (not an upright). The overall dimensions are 4 meters by 6 meters. A light scatter of marine shell (cowry and opihi) was observed along the southwestem side of the platform in an area that was not bulldozed. A I x 1 meter excavation unit (Unit 4) was placed at the southwest comer of the platform, near the waterworn boulder. No cultural material was recovered from this test unit and the strata consisted of a single architectural layer on top of bedrock (Figure 29). No soil was present. Based on area (24 square meters) the habitation model (Cordy 1981; Cordy et al. 1991) suggests that this feature is a permanent habitation site. If there were any associated features, the extensive bulldozing around this site would have eliminated them. There are scattered rocks and boulders throughout the immediate area, which suggests other structures once existed. SIHP Site 22070 Site 22070 is a badly disturbed low platform or terrace separated from Site 21994 by a bulldozed roadway (Figure 30). This site may have once been a contiguous part of the heiau site. The area of the site is 12 meters by 7 meters and is currently an amorphous accumulation of boulders and cobbles. Pieces of waterworn coral are also present within the rock areas. The present condition of the site (heavily impacted by bulldozing) precludes a detailed description as its original form has been severely altered. The site may have functioned as a habitation and may have been associated with Site 21994. SIHP Site 22071 This site is a wall 68.5 meters long oriented in a mauka/makai direction in the north central portion of the project area. Most of this wall is collapsed, but intact portion exhibit core filling. The wall averaged 70 centimeters wide with an unknown height. At present the tallest portion of the wall is only 65 centimeters. This site is parallel to the mauka/makai portion of Site 15520 and to Site 22066. Together these walls likely formed a series of fenced grazing/holding areas that were used on the Gomes Ranch. 32 `�,�i, Ii; 1]" 1f<;f iy,•s Yr � k..f. �l,•t a a4. / �- r , r- � -1'. �'(�ut., �•��}G*y, tart �. �! rA.'t `4..F (^tft: tl �,�!"�y,,f 2.t ''�y:'r. ..� \ �y%^�+�'� � v,:�,c ,•I _,.s- _ t- :�r�; rix � �}..�.... �, ,�r t CC PPyy 4� .tl,�`� I' .. �..• }1 r f L`� ���, �t fit �_-, v `3 0 cm 10 cm 20 cm 30 cm 40 cm 50 cm 60 cm 70 cm 80 cm 90 cm 100 cm I - Architectural Layer, Weathered Pahoehoe Cobbles II - 10 YR 3/2; Very Dark Grayish Brown Silt, Fractured Bedrock (Cultural) III - 10 YR 4/4; Dark Yellowish Brown Silt (Sterile) Figure 27. Unit 7 northeast profile. 34 Datum Plane 0 10 20 Scale in centimeters tczowimn Felled Tree Dozed Area ���•• -14 'A Ul15 i �MI 1�) I �► �•tt► �Qt. Irl ir�`� �. 1� • �' tri!i%r�����:��►�A��� Dozed Area 0 .5 1 N True Lei / Scale in meters Figure 28. Site 22069 plan view. 35 rME44111 4 sir �� � a _ � � � -r'i4' 'i � _ � �r v ,,F ��• i. r* i ` i�� � l �•}' ! is � i } � •. � " ^.i !R r 4 Y `m- Iq �. - 19� 'V _ A ✓/ `ate �Dq�y mad �ij�, i 3�II�➢bll SIHP Site 22072 This site is a walled enclosure measuring 15 meters by 23 meters in the southwestern comer of the property. It is constructed against the mauka wall of LCAw. 7241-B (see Figure 5). This enclosure has a 1 - meter wide fenced opening on its southern side. The walls are core -filled and range in thickness from 75 to 90 centimeters. The tallest intact portion is 1.4 meters above the ground surface. This enclosure is clearly a cattle enclosure and may have been temporally and functionally related to Site 21988. SUMMARY The range of site types recorded on the study property meets the expectations generated from previous research and documentary sources. Of the twenty-nine sites recorded on the parcel, twenty-eight are extant. One of these twenty-eight is not considered to be a cultural site (SIHP 15525), thus only twenty-seven archaeological sites are on the property. Temporal assignments for the sites are based on feature construction attributes and excavation data recorded or recovered during this study. For the habitation sites (both temporary and permanent) if items of European manufacture were not observed or recovered then the site is considered to date from the Precontact Period. Core -filled walls are considered to be of Historic Period construction. A single radiocarbon sample was obtained from one of the temporary habitation sites (SIHP 21991). The resultant date (A.D. 1645-1955) combined with the lack of Historic Period items at the site seems to indicate a Precontact context for the site. A total of eleven sites likely date to the Precontact Period; one of these is an agricultural site (SIHP 22065), four are temporary habitation sites (SIHP 15518, 15521, 21991, and 22068), three are permanent habitation sites (SIHP 15517, 15524, and 22069), two are special purpose sites (SIHP 21996 and 22067), and one is a habitation/burial site (SIHP 15507). Three sites (SIHP 21994, 22070, and 22063) seem to date from the late Precontact/early Historic Period, and all may have been associated with one another. At least two of these three latter sites also seem to have religious importance; two sets of human remains (one in a wooden coffin) were discovered at one of these (SIHP 22063). Thirteen of the twenty-seven sites date to the Historic Period. Except for SIHP 21990 and 21992, all of these sites are walls or enclosures likely associated with cattle ranching during the early and middle twentieth century. These walls and enclosures marked grazing and stockading areas of the Gomes Ranch, which was established after 1927. Site 21992 is an agricultural site with a small core -fill walled enclosure and SIHP 21990 represents kuleana lot boundary walls associated with LCAw. 7241-13, adjacent to and south of the study parcel. The distribution pattern for the Precontact sites seems to indicate that residences were close to the former ala loa, with agricultural features set further mauka (see Figure 5). The two special purpose sites (SIHP 21996 and 22067; perhaps work or agricultural processing areas) are situated mauka of the residences and makai of the agricultural features (SIHP 21992 and 22065). The permanent habitations (SIHP 15517, 15524, and 22069) tend to be single structure sites, while the temporary habitations are complexes of multiple small features. This pattern shifts through time; the late Precontact/early Historic permanent habitation site (SIHP 22063) is a multi -feature site. The sites interpreted to be late Precontact/early Historic form a complex toward the center of the project area, and include what appears to be a public heiau (perhaps associated with rainmaking). The high degree of ground disturbance on the property (as a result of the sewer easement, the water easement, past bulldozing, cattle ranching, kiawe cutting, and rock harvesting) has impacted many of the sites and completely erased others. These disturbances have also destroyed potential associations between sites, effectively limiting the depth of interpretation based on inventory level work, which might otherwise have been possible. However, what does archaeologically remain on the property retains sufficient integrity to facilitate the evaluation of site significance and appropriate treatment. 37 RC -0001 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The previously recorded and newly encountered sites are assessed for their significance based on criteria established and promoted by the DLNR–SHPD and contained in the draft Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-284-6, dated 1998. These significance evaluations should be considered as preliminary until DLNR–SHPD provides concurrence. For resources to be considered significant they must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: A. Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; D. Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; E. Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity. The significance and recommended treatment for the twenty-seven extant sites is discussed below and is presented in Table 6. All are considered significant under Criterion D and three are considered additional significant under Criterion E. Of the three latter sites two contain burials and one is a heiau. Table 6. Site significance and treatment recommendations. Site No. Function Temporal Association Significance Treatment 15507 Temp. habitation burial Precontact D, E Preservation 15508 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 15517 Permanent habitation Precontact D Data Recovery 15518 Temporary habitation Precontact D Data Recovery — 15519 Wall Historic D No further work 15520 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 15521 Temporary habitation Precontact D No further work 15524 Permanent habitation Precontact D Preservation 21988 Corral enclosure? Historic D Data Recovery 21989 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 21990 Boundary wall Historic D No further work 21991 Temporary habitation Precontact D Data recovery 21992 Agricultural Historic D No further work 21993 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 21994 Heiau Precontact/Historic D, E Preservation 21995 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 21996 Special purpose Precontact D Data recovery 22063 Perm. habitation/Burial Precontact/Historic D, E Preservation 22064 Ranch wall Historic D No further work continued on nest page 38 RC -0001 Table 6. Continued. Site No. Function Temporal Association Significance Treatment 22065 Agricultural Precontact D No further work 22066 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 22067 Special purpose Precontact D Data recovery 22068 Temporary habitation Precontact D Data recovery 22069 Permanent habitation Precontact D Data recovery 22070 Habitation? Precontact/Historic? D No further work 22071 Ranch wall Historic D No further work 22072 Corral enclosure Historic D No further work Significant Sites Recommended For No Further Work Upon approval of this report, sites that fall into this category can be dismantled or otherwise destroyed with no further historic preservation consideration. SIHP 15508 This site was determined "no longer significant" and the approved treatment was no further work (Head et al. (1994). I concur with the no further work recommendation, but consider the site significant under Criterion D. SIHP 15519 During the previous study this site was identified as a trail and assessed as significant under Criteria D and E. As a result of the present study, Site 15519 was reclassified as a wall remnant and reassessed as significant only under Criterion D. No further work is the recommended treatment. SIHP 15510 This historic wall is significant under Criterion D and no further work is recommended to mitigate impacts to it. The data collected during the current study sufficiently documented this site. SIHP 15511 This temporary habitation blister cave is evaluated as significant under Criterion D, and has been heavily inundated with modern rubbish and human excrement. A portion of this site was excavated during the current study and no further work is the recommended treatment. SIHP 11989 This wall is a significant feature under Criterion D as it relates to early twentieth century ranching practices. The information recorded from this site has sufficiently mitigated any potential impact that may be caused by the development of the parcel. SIHP 11990 This wall is considered significant under Criterion D as a historic marker of the Mahele. No further work is recommended; however, as this wall is part of the adjoining property this wall will remain in place. SIHP 11991 This small agricultural site is considered significant under Criterion D. The amount of disturbance to this site from Idawe growth and bulldozing is substantial, and no further work is recommended. LM RC -0001 SIHP 11993 This wall is a significant feature under Criterion D as it relates to early twentieth century ranching practices. The information recorded from this site has sufficiently mitigated any potential impact that may be caused by the development of the parcel. SIHP 11995 This wall is a significant feature under Criterion D as it relates to early twentieth century ranching practices. The information recorded from this site has sufficiently mitigated any potential impact that may be caused by the development of the parcel. SIHP 12064 This remnant wall is significant under Criterion D as part of the network of historic ranching walls on the property. No further work is recommended to mitigate impacts as the data collected during the current study sufficiently documents this site. SIHP 22065 The two small clearing/planting mounds making up this agricultural site are considered significant under Criterion D. This site has yielded sufficient information and no further work is recommended. SIHP 12066 This remnant wall is significant under Criterion D as part of the network of historic ranching walls on the property. No further work is recommended to mitigate impacts as the data collected during the current study sufficiently documents this highly disturbed Historic Period site. SIHP 22070 This remnant of a habitation feature is significant under Criterion D, but has been so altered that data recovery would not provide the quality of information that can be provided by the excavation of other habitation sites on the property. Therefore, no further work is recommended. SIHP 22071 This historic wall is significant under Criterion D and no further work is recommended to mitigate impacts to it. The data collected during the current study sufficiently documented this site. SIHP 12072 — The historic animal enclosure is significant under Criterion D as a part of the early twentieth century land use of the property. No further work is recommended for this site; however, the land owner has expressed an interest in possibly keeping the feature for its historical interest value. Significant Sites Recommended For Data Recovery Upon approval of this report, sites in this category should be protected until data recovery investigations are completed. SIHP 15517 This habitation enclosure was previously determined significant under Criterion D and approved for data recovery (Head et al. 1994). I concur with this previous determination. 40 RC -0001 SIHP 15518 Site 15518 was previously determined significant under Criterion D and approved for data recovery (Head et al. 1994). I concur with this previous determination. SIHP 21988 This Historic Period site is significant under Criterion D; it is likely that it was a cattle enclosure, however the remote possibility exists that it was a house. Limited data recovery is recommended to clarify site function. SIHP 21991 This habitation complex is considered significant under Criterion D, and further data recovery is I recommended to augment the radiocarbon data obtained during the testing. Also, data recovery excavations could shed light on the functional relationship between the two formally different yet spatially related features. SIHP 21996 This site is considered significant under Criterion D as a possible agricultural processing feature. As a result of the test excavations, this multi -tiered platform/pavement yielded very little information with respect to function and temporality; therefore, data recovery is recommended. SIHP 22067 This special purpose platform may have been an activity area associated with the temporary habitation site SIHP 15521 and is considered significant under Criterion D. This site is recommended for data recovery, as its precise function remains unclear. SIHP 22068 This platform is probably the only feature that remains of a larger habitation site; the other features having been bulldozed away. It is considered significant under Criterion D and data recovery is the recommended treatment for this site. SIHP 22069 This site is considered significant under Criterion D as a potential Precontact permanent habitation feature. This large habitation platform yielded very little information with respect to specific function and temporality as a result of the test excavations. Therefore, data recovery is recommended. Significant Sites Recommended For Preservation Upon approval of this report, sites in this category should be protected indefinitely, and perpetual easements established to ensure their long-term preservation. SIHP 15507 All that remains of this site is the lava blister that contains the human burial. This site is significant for its archaeological information (Criterion D) and for the traditional cultural value assigned to sites with burials (Criterion E). Preservation in place is the recommended treatment. Additionally, a search for lineal and cultural descendants should be undertaken and a burial treatment plan should be written in consultation with the Hawaii Island Burial Council. 41 RC -0001 SIHP 15524 Head et al. (1994) called this site significant under Criteria C, D, and E and recommended a combination of data recovery and preservation with interpretation. This site straddles the boundary of the subject property and the county sewage pump station parcel. When the pump station was constructed, a jog in the northern fence was made and the site was left as is. I suggest that this site is only significant under Criterion D, but concur with the existing preservation "as is" treatment. This site should continue to be avoided in future construction. SIHP 11994 This heiau site is evaluated as significant under Criterion D for the research potential that this site holds; and Criterion E for the traditional cultural significance ascribed to such sites by the native Hawaiian community. This religious structure should be preserved as a stabilized ruin with interpretation. A preservation and interpretation plan should be written in consultation with members of the local community, and DLNR—SHPD. SIHP 22063 Site 22063 contains a least two features with buried human remains and is evaluated as significant under Criteria D and E. Criterion D for its scientific value and Criterion E for the traditional cultural significance native Hawaiians assign to burial sites. The remaining seven features are clearly associated with the two known burial features and as such, the entire site should be preserved without interpretation. A search for lineal and cultural descendants should be undertaken and a burial treatment plan written in consultation with the Hawaii Island Burial Council. 42 RC -0001 REFERENCES CITED Chinen, J 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Honolulu: privately published. Clark, J. 1987 Waimea-Kawaihae, A Leeward Hawaii Settlement System. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois. Cordy, R. 1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. New York: Academic Press. 1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. State Historic Preservation Division, DLNR, State of Hawaii. Prepared for the Planning Department, County of Hawaii. Cordy, R., J. Tainter, R. Renger, and R. Hitchcock 1991 An Ahupua'a Study: the 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupua'a, North Kona, Hawaii. Publications in Anthropology No. 58. USDOL National Park Service. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee... [18231 Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Co. Hammatt, H. 1980 Archaeological Surface Survey of a 178 Acre Parcel in Na Ahupua`a, Kaumalumalu, Pahoehoe, Kona, Hawaii Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report 14-203 II. Prepared for Farms and Ranches, Inc. Hammatt, H., and S. Clark 1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre Parcel in Na Ahupua`a Pahoehoe, La`aloa and Kapala`aea, Kona, Hawai'i. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii Report 14-152 III. Prepared for Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc. Hammatt, H., and W. Folk 1980 Archaeological Survey and Excavations of Coastal Sites, Ouli, Kohala, Hawaii Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report 14-185 11. Prepared for Mauna Kea Properties, Inc. Hammatt, H. and V. Meeker 1979 Archaeological Excavations and Heiau Stabilization at Kahalu`u, Kona, Hawaii Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii Report 14-172 (II). Prepared for Gerald Park, Urban Planner. Handy, E. S. C., and E. G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 223. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. (with M. K. Pukui) 43 RC -0001 Haim, A., J. Henry, J. Jimenex, M. Kirkendall, K. Maly, and T. Wolforth 1998 Alii Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I — Archaeological Intensive Survey, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, vol. 1, Summary. PHRI Report 1320-052798. Submitted to the County of Hawai'i c/o R. M. Towill Corporation. Head, J., S. Goodfellow, and P. Rosendahl 1994 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Alii Drive Sewer Project, Lands of Puaa 2nd and 3rd, and Waiaha 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:7-5- 18:7,8). PHRI Report 937-070194. Prepared for Mr. Edward Harada, M & E Pacific, Inc. Henry, J., T. Wolforth, and R. Rechtman 1999 Inventory Survey of Ho'omalu on Ali'i Subdivision. PHRI Report 1828. Prepared for Nohona Partners, Inc, Hilo. Kelly, M. 1983 N6 Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona. A History of Land Use in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Report Series 83-2. Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, State of Hawai'i. Ladefoged, T. 1991 Hawaiian Architectural Transformations during the Early Historic Era. Asian Perspectives 30(1):55-70. Ladefoged, T., G. Somers, and M. Lane-Hamasaki 1987 A Settlement Pattern Analysis of a Portion of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Western Archeological and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology No. 44. USDOI, National Park Service:Tucson. Newman, T. 1970 Report on Reconnaissance at Old Kona Airport. Letter. Historic Sites Section, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i. O'Hare, C., and T. Wolforth 1997 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Gomes Property Parcel, Land of Hahalui 1 st, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 3-7-5-19:5, 38, 40). PHRI Report 1807-10197. Submitted to Towne Development of Hawai'i, Inc. Pukui, M. K., S. Elbert, and E. Mookini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Rechtman, R., and M. Clark In prep Data Recovery Investigation at Sites 22426 and 22427 (TMK: 3-7-5-19:44), Kahului 2"d Ahupua'a, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC - 0038. Prepared for SunStone Realty Partners, Inc., Honolulu. Rechtman, R., and D. Dougherty 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-5-19:44, 45), Kahului 2"d Ahupua'a, North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. Rechtman Consulting Report RC -0027. Prepared for SunStone Realty Partners, Inc., Honolulu. Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawai'i Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 44 RC -0001 Schilt, A. 1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii. An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, State of Hawai'i. Stokes, J., and T. Dye 1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawai'i. A Historic Survey of Native Hawaiian Temple Sites. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Tainter, J. y 1973 The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii. ® Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11:91-105. Thrum, T. 1909 Hawaiian Annual and Almanac for 1909. Honolulu: Thos. G. Thrum. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. 1993 Draft Report, the Archaeology of the 'Ohi'a Preserve: An Inventory Survey of Surface Structures. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII). Submitted to Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Honolulu. Walker, A., P. Rosendahl, with J. Head 1996 Ah'i Drive Sewer Project Mitigation Program — Phase II Archaeological Data Recovery. Lands of Pua'a 2nd and 3rd, and Wai'aha 1st and 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK:7-5-18:7,8). PHRI Report 1556-020796. Prepared I for Mr. Harold Sugiyama, Chief, Wastewater Division, Hawai'i County, Department of Public Works. Wolfe, E., and J. Morris 1996 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 45 APPENDIX A RADIOCARBON RESULTS V RC -0001 '31 CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS (Variables: C13/C12=-23.2:1ab. mult=l) Laboratory number: Beta -142484 Conventional radiocarbon age: 160+60 BP 2 Sigma calibrated result: Cal AD 1645 to 1955 (Cal BP 305 to 5) (95% probability) Intercept data +.a Intercepts of radiocarbon age with calibration curve: 1 Sigma calibrated results: (68% probability) 160x60 SP 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 O -50 1 Cal AD 1680 (Cal BP 270) and Cal AD 1745 (Cal BP 205) and Cal AD 1805 (Cal BP 145) and Cal AD 1935 (Cal BP 15) and Cal AD 1945 (Cal BP 5) Cal AD 1660 to 1705 (Cal BP 290 to 245) and Cal AD 1715 to 1885 (Cal BP 235 to 65) and Cal AD 1910 to 1950 (Cal BP 40 to 0) Charred material l:al qU References: Database used 1NTC'AL9b Calibration Database Editorial arratenr St -iv,,,, M., v der Plrchl. H., 1998, Radlacarbm 40(3), pzn-ziii IN TCA L98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Starter, M., at at., 1998, Radiocarbon 40(3), p1041-1083 Mathematics A Simptijed AOproach to Calibrating C14 Dates To lm a. A. S.. Vogel, .1. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(7). p317-311 Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory 4985 SW. Nth C-1. M.om i, hi.rlda 33155 - 7,1: (305)667-5167 -Yat: (305)663-0964 -4-Mail: bma(u)radlu cwrbm.cam ER K i EXHIBIT C Visual Impact Assessment Visual Impact Assessment Alii Cove Project (TMK 7-5-18:08) Alii Drive, Kailua-Kona Introduction This analysis was developed to accompan} an application for a Special Management Area permit for the proposed development of a multi -family condominium complex. The purpose is to describe the impacts that the project will have on the visual resources in the area and propose mitigation to minimize adverse impacts. To accomplish these objectives. the following steps have been undertaken: • Photographic depiction of the project area and environs. including views of the existing area from key vantage points: • Review of the Special Management Area's policies for scenic resources, including scenic views and resources listed as important in the Hawaii County General Plan. as well as other scenic views. and their relationship to the site and proposed project. with map depiction of key view planes: • Discussion of elements of proposed project that could impact scenery and viewplanes: • Mauka-makai profiles that include the existing topography and buildings along with proposed structures along key view corridors: and • Analysis that integrates the above and makes conclusions about the total visual impact. including proposed mitigation measures. if appropriate. Map figures referenced in this report are contained in Appendix 1. and photographic figures are contained in Appendix 2. Property Location and Existing Appearance The propertl is depicted in Map Figures 1 and 2. It is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive approximately one-half mile south of downtown Kailua-Kona (Photo Figure 1). The distance to the shoreline at Waiaha Bay from the makai frontage of the property varies from about 75 to 500 feet. Other properties with structures are interposed between the property and the shoreline. and views of the shoreline from the property are thus indirect (Photo Figures 2, 3 and 4). The surf site known as Honl's (Photo Figure 5) is not directly adjacent to the property. as there are several other properties fronting the mauka side of Alii Drive directly across from Honl's. The property slopes sharply upward from Ali i Drive. levels off to more moderate slopes. but slopes steeply again towards the mauka border. Elevation ranges from about 12 to 98 feet above sea level. Much of Walua Road (see Map Figures I and 2 and Photo Figure 6) is perched 5-10 feet above the property's mauka border. From here. the land continues to slope steeply upward to Kuakini Highway (Photo Figure 7). Scenic Resources and Viewplanes in Project Area At present. the scenic values of the general area are derived from onshore and offshore views of the ocean and shoreline. Chapter _'OSA. Hawaii Revised Statutes. expresses the intent of the States Coastal Zone Management program to protect. preserve. and where desirable. restore or improve the quality of scenic and open space resources. The guidelines contained in Rule 9 of the Hawaii County Planning Commission Rules (wfiich governs County regulated development in the Special Management Area or SMA) seek to minimize development that would "substantial) interfere with or detract from the line of site toward the sea from the State Highway nearest the coast or from other scenic areas identified in the General Plan." The discussion below focuses on identification and evaluation of scenic resources in the contest of these regulations and guidelines. The Hawai' i County General Plan identifies areas of natural beauty and important viewplanes for various places in Hawaii Count%. Although no scenic dews are identified in the coastal Waiaha area. views of the shoreline from motorists going mauka or makai on Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in "various" locations in the Kailua-Kona to Keauhou area are noted as important in the General Plan. In Waiaha_ Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is about 3.000-4.500 feet mauka of the shoreline (see Map Figure 1). Existing development and vegetation along with topography result in very intermittent views of the shoreline from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Photo Figures 8-12 show the Kailua-Kona shoreline observed from four points on the 2.5 mile stretch of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway south of Palani Road that offer views of the coastal area. The (� photos illustrate the fact that the shoreline itself is not visible. except for the Kukailimoku Point shoreline west of the Kailua Pier. A combination of structures and dense tree cover obscure the lava shoreline. It is also worth noting how landscaping on developed parcels and kiawe scrub on undeveloped parcels overtop the roof lines of most structures less than three stories in height. Aside from areas mentioned in the General Plan. several other outstanding viewplanes are present in the project area. First are the views of the ocean from Ali' i Drive. particular) at Honl's (see Photo Figure 5). It is important to note that the properh is confined to the mauka side of Alii Drive. and does not front Honl's (see Map Figure 1). where a Hawaii Count% sewage pump station occupies the mauka side of Alii Drive. The important view -planes in the area are mapped on Map Figure 3. Proposed Project Sunstone Realty Partners is proposing to develop Alii Cove. 200 Multiple Family Residential units comprised of approximately 37 low -profile. two and three-story townhouse structures ranging between four-plexes and six-plexes. Sample elevation views of the proposed building types are shown in Map Figure 4. Also proposed in the development plan will be varied landscaping_ per Zoning Code requirements. and recreational amenities such as a swimming pool. pedestrian walkways. outdoor barbecues and open spaces. Public parking and restroom facilities in support of the public's use of Waiaha Bay and Honl's surf site are also being Alii Core 67sual Impact Assessment Page proposed as part of this project. The color scheme for the proposed structures will be of earth tones designed to blend in with the character of the immediateh surrounding area. The project developer is committed to fulfilling the Kailua-Kona Village Design goals and objectives. These goals are focused on preserving the "Kona Way of Life" and maintaining the continued role of Kailua Village as a tourist destination and retailing center. The objectives call for emphasis on natural features. such as shoreline. bay and trees. improvement of the pedestrian experience. and diversity and interest of building rapes. In terms of visual design. Alii Coves emphasis on moderate -density. moderate -height layout. the prominence of landscaping. and the provision of public restrooms and showers are all in harmom with the Kailua-Kona Village Design goals and objectives. According to the project developer. grading plans will call for cut and fill to be roughl balanced. Topographically high areas will be cut and lower areas filled to create level building pads in the areas indicated on Map Figure 5. The roof lines of the highest structures would be at about 32 feet above grade. or about �0 to I'_� feet above sea level. depending on the location within the property. This compares to roof lines that are between 10 and 60 feet above grade (--0 to 160 feet above sea le),el) in surrounding land. most of which contains development. Accordingh. the project will basically infill a moderate -density. moderate -height development in a neighborhood of resort. residential and commercial uses that span the range of heights and densities Mauka-Makai Profiles Through Project Site Map Figures 6a & b are two profiles that illustrate the position and height of the ground surface and proposed structures along two lines extending between Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway (intersecting Kuakini Highway) and the ocean. The locations of the profiles are illustrated on a USGS topographic map (Map Figure 7). Profile I begins near the northwest boundary of the property and heads northeast along the on}c corridor towards Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway that does not contain substantial development. Profile 2 is oriented more or less east -to -west alone an axis that starts at the intersection of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and extends west to Honl's surf site. Property elevations are derived from detailed I -foot survey topography: USGS maps with 40 -foot contour intervals are used for other areas. The purpose of the profiles is to illustrate the elevations of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highwa} and certain structures in order to determine direct lines of sight. It is important to note that for ease of interpretation. these profiles incorporate significant vertical exaggeration. Slopes are not as steep and structures are not as tall and narrow in reality as they appear on the profile. Sight lines. however. are not distorted by vertical exaggeration. Even considering topography alone. discounting existing structures and trees. the proposed structures would protrude only marginally - if at all - into the sight line from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the sea. As both photographs taken from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway (see Photo Figures 8-12) and the profiles illustrate. topography essentially blocks views of the shoreline. Furthermore. existing structures and a dense scrubland of 25 -40 -foot tall kiawe (as Ah 'i Core Visual Impact .4ssessment Page 3 well as other wild and planted trees) are present on both the mauka and makai sides of the propem. There is essentially no view corridor from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in W aiaha to the shoreline directly below. Impact of Project on Scenic Resources and Viewplanes and Proposed Mitigation Summary The proposed multi -family project will have no effect on views from Alii Drive to the coastline. However. the structures will be somewhat visible from Alii Drive looking mauka_ and landscaping is recommended. Existing residences and businesses on Lunapule and Walua Roads will have their views of the kiawe scrubland replaced by views of the structures. but little or no interference with shoreline views is expected. As there is essentially no view corridor from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures because of topography. vegetation. and existing structures. little or no visual impact to views of the shoreline from the highway is expected. Ali 'i Cove Visual Impact Assessment Page 4 1 iew from Alii Drive mauka. The current views of an intermittent kiawe scrubland (see Photo Figure 1) will be replaced by a landscape of buildings and plantings. Considering the not particularly scenic character of the existing land. as well as the surrounding resort context. which is similar to the proposed project. there would be little if any scenic impact. Landscaping incorporating lavered masses of attractive trees and shrubs is recommended in order to break up the planes of the structure and insert a natural, harmonious element in keeping ix ith Itailua-Lona Pillage Design goals and objectives. 'i Views of Ocean from Ali Drive and properties along Alii Drive and surrounding streets. Because of the position of the buildings on the mauka side of Ali' i Drive. with no residences or other structures immediately mauka_ there is no potential to obscure such views for motorists. bicyclists and pedestrians on Ali'i Drive. Similarly. no existing Alii Drive residence's views of the ocean will be interfered with by the project. Some 'y businesses and residences on Lunapule Road (which currently have yen limited views across the propem due to the kiawe vegetation) and Walua Road will have views of the proposed structures on the property. However. the proposed grading plan and low height of the proposed structures (33 feet) will minimize any loss of views for these properties. Hews of the coastline from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. As illustrated in the profiles in Map Figures 6a & b. even considering topography alone. discounting existing structures and trees. the proposed structures would protrude only marginalh or not at all into the sight line from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to the sea. In reality. existing structures and vegetation form a dense barrier that results in essentially no view corridor from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures. Little or no visual impact for this viewplane is expected. Summary The proposed multi -family project will have no effect on views from Alii Drive to the coastline. However. the structures will be somewhat visible from Alii Drive looking mauka_ and landscaping is recommended. Existing residences and businesses on Lunapule and Walua Roads will have their views of the kiawe scrubland replaced by views of the structures. but little or no interference with shoreline views is expected. As there is essentially no view corridor from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in Waiaha to the shoreline directly below the proposed structures because of topography. vegetation. and existing structures. little or no visual impact to views of the shoreline from the highway is expected. Ali 'i Cove Visual Impact Assessment Page 4 i Appendix I Map Figures 1175 "74 I' 290 000 FEET 073 Oneo 8�' Kdae Blocks � I Hon]' 156000' 1470000 FEET 1000 0 I= Feet Ir GT1 I I f 10° 17 WMIL5 0 i 179 "ILS UIM GM AND 1908 MAQiETIC NORTH DECLQIATION AT CENTER OF SHEET Map Figure 1 Project Location C. WT � .Water Yater: 7 Tanks Tank.{• '� 1� OD I I C1 p F. i ' 6 d vi \ 1 I O i +I C i I lk 13 CL 1�1 1 K I :c - m u • a \ 1 C L) - ° 2 a Lo 7 5r 111, Y i �j l asi l i � • . r Psi P �• .. p �� ,% L' # f• Y«y Y , f 1,�' gni! c x]s a ,n.. rwc Mb .i#F •�Y: #c 97 r:F" � �- �, r��:. =�],".,y�j,,,�#�l1[�,#f##,�F t {rL f .•�• ii ������ ��. i ># ...�. • ..., liN• ,.p-W�i\1. LL �... U I t\]� .�. 1:1r \ O l :l�4S'2WS-Lf -ZOOZ-LOOZ' IH ileM H ml a75 tcR 774 1290000 FEET 20 cy Oneo Bc v a� F L 137'301 156°00 t 470000 FEET 15' taco o ias Feet '97 t _ M+v 1 GN I 10' 0°59' 179 MLS 17 MILS i VTM G® AND 1998 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLWAMN AT CENTER OF SHEET Map Figure 3 Viewplanes ►int � �F � -1� �\ `.46 W .Waler Wa 9 Tanks ThmW 88 0 0 C C - � v � _ L O N qtr CD co O ItT M N r 0 L O � O bA N a c� lu 2 � r C m z C� 3 c C: m E L Cti CSS Y c CD / m Ci O N � COD O 00 C* M N r E-1 P. O O N 0 O N m F Map Figure 7 Profile Locations v\Y� SO 74 Laniake '� em Oneo BcKalm •' •.�� 290001 Paakai,\ �•~ • FEET .. • ~ �� a . Wdier locks# o \ $:�00 `: Tanks J Hillu Pa '73 r.• r }.• ' �� •rte ���� '�\ �\ � 37'30' 156000' 1 470 000 FEET '87 egg 10m 0 1066 . MN Feet ' GN 1 � I 1 10° 0- 178 M115 17 NILS UTM GRID AND 1998 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET Map Figure 7 Profile Locations Appendix 2 Photographic Figures \'11 j \ J E _ Ve,W• L� \'11 j \ J E 9r4r TI RR'1: Y •.. $, f ���''i{[�rS >; �.i�� �'�'aY ,t _ :�:+4?�i2f✓.�'Y 4X"h..v_ _.i ,ft 3 �\y`.. t �, $fix\�f'd"� � ihiJ��i i)Y�P4�rld'.��'$.4l S�R�vY.iJ.r ..l��f u��r +��5l1 ...�1. ��c ''. < �: .. s wy _.` — � ..v �__�� I EXHIBIT D Traffic Impact Assessment h Julian Ng, Incorporated Transportation Eneineerine Consultant P. O. Box 816 phone: (808) 236-4325 Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744-0816 fax: (808) 235-8869 email: jngpe@lava.net April 29, 2002 Mr. Greg Mooers Mooers Enterprises, LLC P. O. Box 1101 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 y� Subject: Traffic Impact of Proposed Alii Cove Condominiums project TMK: (3) 7-5-18: 08 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii Dear Mr. Mooers: We have reviewed the project information that you have provided, applied trip generation factors from a commonly used reference to the uses proposed on the site, and performed capacity analyses to evaluate the proposed project's impact to traffic. We have concluded that the project impact to traffic will be small and the roadway system will adequately serve traffic generated by the proposed project. Existing Conditions The project site is a 20 -acre parcel located within the triangle formed by Alii Drive, Lunapule Street, and Walua Road south of Kailua-Kona on the island of Hawaii. A traffic count taken at the intersection of Alii Drive and Hualalai Road, located 0.7 mile to the north of the project site, showed a two-way volume of approximately 14,000 vehicles per day on Alii Drive south of the intersection in October 1998. Counts taken on Alii Drive near Holualoa Bay, approximately 2 miles to the south of the project site, showed two-way volumes of 7,600 vehicles per day in October 1998 and 7,700 vehicles per day in May 2000. Table 1 summarizes the count data. Table 1 Traffic Count Data Source: State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highway Planning Branch South of Hualalai Road Near Holualoa Bay Alii Drive southbound northbound southbound northbound October 1998 (24 hours) 6,921 7,127 3,760 3,811 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM 260 535 214 224 4:30 PM — 5:30 PM 584 521 329 335 May 2000 (24 hours) -- 3,803 3,851 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM -- 265 210 3:30 PM — 4:30 PM -- 302 328 Source: State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highway Planning Branch Julian Ng, Incorporated Mr. Greg Mooers April 29, 2002 Page 2 of 4 Existing two-way traffic volumes on Alii Drive near the project site are estimated to be 12,000 vehicles per day, 700 vehicles per hour in the morning peak hour, and 1,000 vehicles per hour in the afternoon peak hour. Existing traffic on Walua Road fronting the project site is estimated to be 15% of the volume on Alii Drive. Both streets are two-way streets with a single lane for traffic in each direction. The count data indicates a small (1%) increase in traffic volume in two years. Project Effect on Traffic The proposed project will construct 200 residential dwelling units. The units will be located in 4 -unit and 6 -unit buildings; an internal roadway system will connect parking areas on the site with Alii Drive and with Walua Road. The internal roadway directs traffic from 84 dwelling units toward Walua Road and traffic from 92 units toward Alii Drive; traffic from 24 units could easily use either driveway and have been assumed to use the driveway at Alii Drive. The highest impact, therefore, would be due to 116 units. Trip generation factors from the widely -used Trip Generation report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were applied to estimate the traffic entering and leaving the project site, with results shown in Table 2. Table 2 Site Traffic Generation Number Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Site Land Use of Units In or Out Enter Exit Enter Exit Residential Condominium (total) 200 586 15 73 72 36 via Walua Road driveway 84 246 6 31 30 15 via Alii Drive driveway 116 340 9 42 42 21 The traffic generated by the proposed project would be distributed to the north and south on Walua Road and Alii Drive. Even if all of the project traffic were directed to a single driveway, the maximum impact of the proposed project would be less than 75 vehicles per hour in one direction at any location. This volume is less the the guideline suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers that "a traffic access/impact study be conducted whenever a proposed development will generate 100 or more added (new) trips to or from the site during the adjacent roadways' peak hours or the development's peak hour." (from Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development, A Recommended Practice, 1991). Furthermore, if traffic were distributed as expected to Walua Road and to Alii Drive (and using estimated distributions of 60% to/from the north), the added traffic would be less than 45 vehicles per hour in the peak direction at any location. Turning movements at the two site driveways were computed using the estimates discussed above. Each driveway connection was evaluated with the procedure for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. In this procedure, the main street volumes at the intersection are used to compute capacities for the side street (in this case, Julian Ng, Incorporated Mr. Greg Mooers April 29, 2002 Page 3 of 4 driveway) movements that stop or yield before using the intersection (controlled movements). Delays to the controlled movements are computed and a "Level of Service" for each controlled movement is determined. The Levels of Service range from "A" representing minimal delay and very good conditions to "F" representing very long delays and congested conditions. Level of Service D is considered acceptable in urban situations. The turning movements at each driveway are shown below. ��51 1 �a\UaRoaa k1 Kuaµm�tkQ sem' North S- 13t51�, + N� O o� Project Site ' o0 N LO C\1 «Kailua-Kona Z (5) [201 Alii Drive (5) [251 J (465)[4751 (235)[5251 W+ Keauhou » The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses show that conditions at the project driveways will be acceptable. Table 3 summarizes the levels of service from the analysis. Table 3 Site Access Levels of Service Driveway to: Peak Hour Left tum into site Shared lane exiting site Alii Drive Walua Road AM PM AM PM A B A A B C A A The project impact to peak hour traffic volume would be less than 5% of existing traffic volumes in the immediate area. Julian Ng, Incorporated Mr. Greg Mooers April 29, 2002 Page 4 of 4 F' Conclusion The proposed project would have a minor impact to traffic conditions in the area. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 5% in the peak hours in the immediate area; the proportionate increase will be less closer to Kailua-Kona as non -project traffic increases. Conditions at the site driveways would be within acceptable range. The potential increase in traffic caused by the project is significantly less than the threshold suggested by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Should you have any questions, please contact me at phone (808) 236-4325. Sincerely, JULIAN NG, INCORPORATED r Julian Ng, P.E., P.T.O.E. President ALUCOVETALDOC 4r r i EXHIBIT E Location Maps RC -0001 • • J b b • C� gpp Q.CL O d lip. // ^ G) 4 � �� �_ F I• U IO\ y .. � Study Area i &0.—KIN, � m � Y O 100 I4OF o� ° m �' GGEP '. � m � `` �� . • • 3• PG\YAG e t Figure 1. Portion of"Kailua, HI" 1996 USGS topographic map showing study parcel. e.WA r. M �t r•' � O 1 RC -0001 ,660f Le V. A,. w •O a x ] J 1 � • 1. Y n . e.WA r. M �t r•' � O 1 RC -0001 i * } `s 4 e� 1 Subject Property IS S.G Ai. ,660f Le i * } `s 4 e� 1 Subject Property IS S.G Ai. I (l \ef.ejEri.e�({`•moi' �'} �.'Q I!! _' .j y' "`y fin:+. �/!r%I ' V • U / IN Figure 2. Portion of TMK showing subject property and adjacent parcels. V. w I (l \ef.ejEri.e�({`•moi' �'} �.'Q I!! _' .j y' "`y fin:+. �/!r%I ' V • U / IN Figure 2. Portion of TMK showing subject property and adjacent parcels. 0 EXHIBIT F Site Plan m 7 ( ■ %56 � of \ \ | � / m¥� A®§)@Bb]/—/!G} . ( ■ %56 � of \ \ E | � . E 6 EXHIBIT G Elevations I zO LO-vO ".!.'m iY m Q rI- Jul uw uyvi Li I d_ __S nw•m mnaw+w ur •nmxr tru an uo w�.uo mm.i�wa.m.v r Q yr= 20-[0-90 3�O�IIIV fUO1JIAiJ X11 i Owl vw uy.: c4!ji LO-Lo-90 3A07) IT fOo1nA0J ti Q 0 PT I EXHIBIT H Kona Outdoor Circle Award v II n 1-1 I 1° VIP :'�,-�� �'��_ .} ��r gt`-:�'•rii �� �—,`,i"�`� 4�o 1Jr•,}�� ¢a�� ,}t} �eM j{' •„ ��Tj •t+5 ��tt�'�-Yit�e:)-t�• V�i> ��C T O C77 ION I :.' W ^ "`: . � Al. E ap u.r�}� �''Y�.r �yy -SM � .N rim•' RE Ov N9 4Pn ,908 • Vi BENJAMIN J. CAVETANO " •:�", GOVERNOR tt Toy STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PO. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721 0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 29, 2002 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Aaron Ueno District Environmental Health Program Chief BRUCE S. ANDERSON, Ph.D., M_PH. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH j;J! 30 PIl 12 25 ''.'„� Lim#: SUBJECT: Applicant: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-013) Request: RS -10 to RM -4 Special Management Area Use Permit Application (SMA 02-004) Request: 200 -unit multiple family residential project And related recreational improvements Waiaha I", North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-018:008 The applicant should contact the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to identify whether a Federal permit (including a Department of Army (DA) permit) is required for this project. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required for "Any applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters...,"' pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Act (commonly known as the "Clean Water Act (CWA)") If the project involves the following activities with discharges into State waters, an NPDES general permit is required for each activity: EXHIBIT Christopher J. Yuen July 29, 2002 Page 2 Discharge of storm water runoff associated with construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavation that result in the disturbance of equal to or greater than five (5) acres of total land area; b. Construction dewatering effluent; C. Non -contact cooling water; d. Hydrotesting water; and C. Treated contaminated groundwater from underground storage tank remedial activity. The application for NPDES general permit coverage should be submitted to the Director at least 30 days prior to the discharge to State waters. If there is any type of process wastewater discharge from the facility into State waters, the applicant may be required to apply for an Individual NPDES permit. The application for an Individual NPDES permit should be submitted to the Director at least 180 days prior to the discharge of process wastewater to State waters. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact the Engineering Section of the Clean Water Branch in Honolulu at (808) 586-4309. Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm run- offs from the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control." Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control." a. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. Christopher J. Yuen July 29, 2002 Page 3 C. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at 933-0917. The applicant would need to meet the requirements of our Department of Health Air Pollution Rules, Chapter 60. 1, Title 11, State of Hawaii for fugitive dust control. If there is need to discuss these requirements, please contact our Clean Air Branch staff Ph. 933-0401. WORD: REZ02-013 SMA02-004.mi DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII DATE: August 29, 2002 W41_041irf I 1 l TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief. Engineering Division SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-013 ) SMA Use Permit Application (SMA 02-004) Applicant: Sunstone Realty Partners Location: Waiaha 15`, N. Kona, HI TMK: 3 / 7-5-018:008 We have reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows: DRAINAGE All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. 2. The applicant shall be informed that if they include drywells in the subject development, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit may be required from the Department of Health, State of Hawaii. 3. A drainage study shall be prepared, and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW. The Master Plan for Kailua- Kona, adopted by Council Resolution 371-96, proposes a storm sewer project through the subject property. The applicant shall address those recommended improvements and provide for conveyance or mitigation of the design discharge if required by the DPW. EARTHWORK All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment EXHIBIT G Memorandum to PD August 29, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Control, of the Hawaii County Code. The applicant shall comply with chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Department of Health, which requires an NPDES permit for certain construction activity. TRAFFIC We reviewed the applicants Traffic Impact Assessment dated April 29, 2002. We recommend that a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), prepared by a licensed professional engineer, be provided given the increasing volume of traffic on Alii Drive. The applicants TZAR should : Use current traffic counts for this location on Alii Drive and Walua Road. Quantify the capacity of Alii Drive to service the increased density for buildout of existing area zoning entitlements and the proposed project. What parameters are being used to arrive at the conclusion that the "roadway system will adequately serve the traffic generated by the proposed project'? The Statewide Long Range Land Transportation Plan identifies Alii Drive as an 'over capacity link". 3. Address the impact of the proposed development on the primary affected intersections at Walua Road /Alii Drive, Walua Road /Kuakini Highway, Walua Road/Lunapule and Lunapule/Alii Drive. We recommend the applicant provide a two way left turn lane on the Alii Drive frontage or exclusive left turn lane at the Alii Drive entry. We base our recommendation on various guidelines, increasing traffic volume and estimated turning movements. Standard warrants for left turn lanes do not consider delays caused by pedestrian traffic. This should be considered on Alii Drive where pedestrians and vehicular traffic co -exist during peak hours. We favor both entries for more efficient trip distribution, provided that delays caused by left turning movements on Alii Drive are mitigated or found to be negligible. Eliminating the entry on AN Drive would force more of the subject project traffic to and from Alii Drive on to already deficient facilities (see Mauka Makai Connectors . ROADWAYS Mauka Makai Connectors -The nonconforming alignment of Walua Road to Alii Drive causes lane encroachment for all but compact passenger cars making the northbound right turn from Alii Drive. Lunapule Road is narrow (30 foot right-of- way) and congested with many driveways. Consideration should be given to the impact on these and the need for additional mauka-makai connectors from Alii Drive particularly for emergency evacuation purposes. The interior development roadway should be provided to serve that purpose. If feasible, the proposed pedestrian way should also be designed to serve as an emergency vehicular Memorandum to PD August 29, 2002 Page 3 of 3 evacuation route. County roads Alii Drive and Walua Road, fronting the subject property are classified as collector streets on the County's General Plan and should be widened to 60 feet accordingly. Both streets should be improved to separate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Alii Drive has an approximate 20 -ft. wide pavement with paved shoulders, within an approximate 50 -ft. right-of-way. The applicant should provide full collector street improvements to the entire frontage along Alii Drive consisting of, but not limited to, street widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, street lights, signs, markings and any relocation of utilities; meeting with the approval of the DPW. The applicant shall construct and dedicate all improvements to the County. (Alternate consistent with existing conditions: In the interests of pedestrian and bicyclist safety, the applicant should provide a paved shoulder on AN Drive extending to the right-of-way property line barrier curbs, pavement transitions, streetlights, signs and markings, drainage improvements, and relocation of utilities may be required.) Walua Road has an approximate 20 -ft. wide pavement with paved shoulders, within an approximate 40 to 50 -ft. right-of-way. Walua Road fronting the subject property has a non -conforming width and curves. The applicant should provide full collector street improvements to the entire frontage along Walua Road consisting of, but not limited to, street widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, street lights, signs, markings and any relocation of utilities; meeting with the approval of the DPW. The applicant shall construct and dedicate all improvements to the County. 3. We support the provision of off street parking for the surf break at Waiaha Bay. 4. Access from Alii Drive and Walua Road shall meet with the approval of the DPW and conform to Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks, of the Hawaii County Code. The applicant should provide minimum of 40 feet of vehicle storage and a turnaround area, out of the County right of way, approaching any gated vehicle access from a County road, meeting with the approval of the DPW. Entry sight distance shall meet the requirements of the Hawaii Statewide Uniform Design Manual or AASHTO Standards. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Kiran Emler of our Kona Engineering Division office at 327-3530. KE copy: ENG-HILO/KONA PLNG-KONA `o N`r or pq a Harry Kim Maror rt OU11tp of 7r-abidt, t FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8297 • Fax (808)961-8296 July 18, 2002 Darryl J. Oliveira Fire Chief Desmond K. Wery Deputy Fire Chief TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-013) REQUEST: RS -10 TO RM -4 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 02-004) REQUEST: 200 -UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND RELATED RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-018:008, WAIAHA 1ST, NORTH KONA, HAWAII Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads "Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Page 2 July 18, 2002 "2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). "3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M July 18, 2002Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire -fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vortical ciaarnnnp of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief." (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Page 3 July 18, 2002 "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. "(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15%) "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301: "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207." DARRYL OLIVEIRA Fire Chief RK:lk JUL-30-2002 TUE 12:59 PM P. 02 MOOERS IENTF.RPRISES, LLC P.O. Box 1 10 1 KAMu ELA, HAWAII 96743 Mr. Christwphcr Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-013) REQUEST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. (RS -10) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -4) SMA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 02-004) APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A 200 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TMK: (3) 7-5-18:08 Dear Mr. Yuen Your staff has faxed me comments on the applications identified above and asked that I respond. Civil Defense: The subject property is not located within a tsunami zone (VE), it is located within the FIRM zone "X". The proposed project will actually add another mauka-makai connector through the subject property that in times of a natural disaster could be used as an additional route for traffic off of Alii Drive. Office of Housing and Community Development: The applicant understands that affordable housing requirements will apply to this project and will work with the Office of Housing and Community Development and the Housing Agency to insure compliance with this condition. Fire Department: The applicant will comply with the Uniform Fire Code as represented by the Fire Chief. Should you or your staff require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me directly. Thank you for your prompt review of these applications. Since ely, Grego Mooers President GPMly PHONE: (808) 885-6839 FAx: (808) 885-1574 EXHIBIT EMAIL: GMOOERSPATTGI,OBAL. NET E MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC P.O. BOX 1 101 FL -,1`1 ;IiJU DF i=F`MF- T August 23, 2002 COUN l Y JF H/ k,:,`Nl En Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-013) SMA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 02-004) APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A 200 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TMK: (3) 7-5-18:08 Dear Mr. Yuen: Your staff has faxed me comments from the Department of Education on the applications identified above and asked that I respond. The applicant strongly disagrees with the assumptions made by Mr. Minami. The applicant has developed similar condominium projects on Alii Drive with a nearly identical housing product. These units are almost exclusively purchased by senior citizens, by those using them as vacation homes and dual income families with no children. An examination of the recreational amenities offered and the projects' codes, covenants and restrictions clearly shows that these projects are designed as adult residential communities. Alii Lam, a 367 unit project in Kona, yields only a handful of students. The applicant believes the representations made in the application, that "the project will not require governmental assistance or improvements to schools", is an accurate assessment of the impacts of this project. the applicant strenuously objects to the concept of the County applying a condition that would require the applicant to negotiate and satisfy the Department of Education prior to proceeding with the development of this project. The applicant also disagrees that the proposed language is "standard fair -share language" as this language does not normally appear in County change of zone ordinances. Should you or your staff require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me directly Thank you for your prompt review of these applications. Sincerely, Grego P rs President copy: Department of Education EXHIBIT PHONE: (808) 885-6839 FAX: (808) 885-1574 EMAIL: GMOOERS@ATTGLO BAL. NET AUG -29-2002 THU 05:10 PM August 26, 2002 Mr, Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 P. 01 MOOERS (ENTERPRISES, LLC P.O. Box 1101 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII AL Re: CIiANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-013) REQUEST: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -10) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM4) SMA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 02-004) APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OFA 200 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TMK: (3) 7-5-18:08 Dear Mr. Yuen: Your staff has faxed me comments on the applications identified above and asked that 1 respond. Department of Parks and Recreation: The public has prescriptive easement rights to the beach at Waiaha Bay and the SMA for the property fronting Waiaha Bay also requires public access be provided. The proposed improvements on the makai side of Alii Drive were to be trash receptacles. We understand that the County does not own any land on the makai side of Alii Drive and therefore these improvements will not be constructed. Department of Land and Natural Resources: The applicant is coordinating the delivery of potable water with the Department of 'Water Supply. The applicant does not intend to construct a well as a source of ground water for this project. Should you or your staff require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me directly. Thank you for your prompt review of these applications. Sin �cerely, g O' r'84? gc y Mooers President GRMJy copy: Parks and Recreation Department of Land and Natural Resources PHONE: (808) 685-6839 FAX: (BOB) 885-1574 E X H I B I T EMAIL.: GMOOERSUATTGLOSAL. NET 0 Harry Min Mgvm August 29, 2002 Aoao Kona Pacific, Inc. 75-5865 Walua- Road Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Gentlemen: County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Applicant: Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-013) Request: RS -10 to RM -4 Special Management Area Use Permit Application (SMA 02-004) Request: 200 -unit multiple family residential project and related recreational improvements Christopher J. Ynen Do eoor Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Dire,/or This is to acknowledge receipt of your Petition for Standing in Contested Case Hearing and the $100.00 filing fee on August 28, 2002. A copy of the Petition will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review. As you are aware, the contested case hearing for this application is scheduled to take place on Friday, September 6, 2002 at 9.00 a. m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort, Kahaluu Ballroom III, 78-6740 Alii Drive, North Kona. Your presence is required at this hearing, as well as at any subsequent hearings, should the Planning Commission grant you standing in the contested case proceedings. Enclosed is a copy of Planning Commission Rule 4 which clarifies the procedures for a contested case. Should you have any questions, please call Esther Imamura of Susan Gagorik at 961-8288. Sincerely, dHRISTOPHER J. YUEN Planning Department xc: Mr. Gregory Mooers Planning Department - Kona EXHIBIT H 4 P' J "-. W. r`;iL. f'i i ry _,' j,, ; 1 PETITION FOR STANDING IN CONTESTED CASE HE�,RIN� n 14() (Page 1 of t) CE 17 T J AUG 2 u 2002 NAME: A©Aa I'on (� PaC, Fc C, 7 n C ADDRESS: h5-58(067 K-c�iL-4 40nA � 1. STATUS OF PETITIONER A. Is your interest in this matter clearly distinguishable from that of the general public? Yes X No _ If the answer is "yes", please explain: / ItF� n Dn/ C.0 tt-, f... (.cLc,-Ae o it 1 ,) (%,o Sc,J { � If the answer is "no" please explain how the proposed action will nevertheless cause you actual or threatened injury: B. Are you a government agency whose jurisdiction includes the land involved in the subject request? Yes _ No I If the answer is "yes", please explain the nature of the agency's jurisdiction: C. Do you lawfully reside on or have some property interest in the land involved in the subject request? Yes _ No Y- If the answer is "yes", please explain: APPENDIX A PETITION FOR STANDING IN CONTESTED CASE HEARING (Page 2 of 2) D. Are You a Person Or Persons descended from native Hawaiians Who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, who Practiced those rights which were customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, or religious Purposes? Yes NO ' If the answer is "Yes", please submit any geneological evidence and historical evidence showing the exercise of those rights to support the statement. PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE STATE OF HAWAII ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII) '2oad- On thiso28 day of(��_ 19_ before me personally appeared _fkcto me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. Nota;7 Public, State Of Hawaii My commission expires: 11 - -I - ZOn 3 APPENDIX A August 28, 2002 Ms. Geraldine Giffin, Chairperson Planning Commission, County of Hawaii Re: SMA Use Permit Application (02-004) Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC Dear Ms. Giffin and members of the Commission, Kona Pacific is a condominium complex of some 125 units. Kona Pacific is situated just north of the subject property on Walua Road and across from Tres Hombres Restaurant. The AOAO Kona Pacific, Inc. Board of Directors wishes to go on record as opposing the proposed Special Management Area Use Permit Application (02-004) and the change of zoning from RS -10 to RM -4 on parcel TMK 7-5-018:008. Specifically the AOAO Kona Pacific, Inc. Board of Directors is requesting that the Hawaii County Planning Commission deny the SMA request. The primary basis for our position is the effect on the traffic on Walua Road and Alii Drive and the growing problem of safety on both of those roads. As you know from the proposal, the project would access both Alii Drive and Walua Road. As you are aware, Walua Road is extremely narrow in the section between Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway. Because of the growing population in the area and because of the number of projects in the area or on line in the area, it is becoming very dangerous to enter or leave the Kona Pacific Condominium Complex. The owners in the adjoining Kona Mansions and the Mailia Kai project probably feel the same way. Here are some specifics to support our request: 1. Kona Pacific residents include elderly people and some physically disabled. With the increasing traffic, and with cars being parked along the roadsides, (either legally or illegally), these residents no longer feel that they can go downtown safely on foot, by wheelchair, or by adapted motor equipment. Kuakini Highway is no alternative because the traffic is worse there, and because of the speed of the vehicles. Thus those individuals with special needs are becoming trapped in their residential units. 2. With the current zoning, if the property were developed, traffic onto the surface streets would increase, but not as dramatically as the potential of 200 condominium units and the associated maintenance and service vehicles. It has been estimated that the traffic from the project would increase by around 300 percent, should the request be granted. 3. Walua Road is an entrance to downtown along Alii Drive. It is also an exit from Alii Drive to Kuakini Highway and thus the southern part of the community. Projects recently built have and those approved will contribute additional vehicular traffic to the road infrastructure along Alii Drive and Walua Road. For example, the proposed project on Alii Drive at the old miniature golf course, (near the Royal Kona Resort), which if developed, would add 48 timeshare, condominium, or vacation rental units and 6500 feet of commercial space. There is also an approved project just south of the subject parcel that will contribute 16 more units when it is built out. Commercial lots currently being developed on Walua Road at Kuakini, and the various projects south of Lunapule Street have contributed or will contribute hundreds of vehicles to the streets. 4. The proposed middle road, when completed, will allow traffic feeding onto it an access to the waterfront and the town center along Alii Drive by turning north onto Walua Road and then entering Alii Drive. 5. The growing popularity of the Coconut Grove shopping, dining, and sports complex as well as Huggo's and the Royal Kona Resort have increased the amount of parking on AN Drive. The parking backs up to Walua Road, and creates a further hazard to pedestrian or small motorized vehicle traffic along Alii Drive. 6. Walua Road is used as a detour when the downtown portion of Alii Drive is closed for a special activity, such as a parade, a festival, or other event. This again increases the possibility of accident, injury and/or death to individuals in a vehicle or on foot using Walua Road or Alii Drive. 7. If the property were allowed to be developed as a condominium complex there would be approximately 200 owners. Should the next step be taken, and in some cases it is just a matter of paperwork, the project could be converted to a Time-share. In this event there would be 51 or so owners for each unit and not just one. It is the opinion of the board of directors that this would materially add to the traffic congestion on both Ali'i Drive and Walua Road. In summary, we believe that the community will be well served by denying the SMA Permit. Thank you for your continued effort to maintain the special nature of Kailua Kona, and the ambiance that attracts so many visitors to our small community. Sincerely, Thomas P. Davies, President At the request of the Board of Directors AOAO Kona Pacific, Inc. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17, 2002 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC (REZ 02-013/SMA 02-004) was called to order at 3:00 p.m. in the. in the State Building, Conference Rooms A, B and C, 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai `i, with Chairperson Geraldine Giffin presiding. PRESENT: Geraldine M. Giffin Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Grant Togashi ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Earl Fujikawa Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Roy Takemoto, Deputy Planning Director Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner Esther Imamura, Staff Planner And approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC (REZ 02-013/ SMA 02-004) - Applications for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS -10) to Multiple Family Residential (RM -4) for approximately 18.946 acres of land, and for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit for the establishment of a 200 -unit multiple family residential development and related recreational improvements. The property is bordered by Alii Drive and Walua Road, north of Lunapule Road and just east of Wai`aha Bay, Wai`aha 1st, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-18:8. GIFFIN: Good afternoon. I'd like to call the meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission back to order. Commissioners, we're on Agenda Item No. 7. The Applicant is Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC, REZ 02-013, also, the SMA 02-004. This is a continued hearing on the applications for Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS -10) to Multiple Family Residential (RM -4) for approximately 18.946 acres of land and for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit for the establishment of a 200 -unit multiple family residential development and related recreational improvements. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you very much. Let me briefly remind the Commissioners where this project site is situated. This is Kailua Village on the map thereof, and in this area is Kadua Bay. This is the Kaahumanu Highway heading south, and this white line here is the Kualdni Highway. The project site is this yellow -colored area here consisting ofjust under 19 acres on lands designated single-family residential 10,000 -square feet. The Applicant's proposal is to, for a change of zone to allow it to go to an RM or Multiple Family Zone District with a 4,000 square foot per unit density as well as an SMA Permit to allow the development within the Special Management Area. The SMA area does run along the makai side of Kuakini Highway. And this is the site plan of the project site, Alii Drive on the bottom, Walua Road on the side. Again, there are roughly 37 individual units that will contain either four- or six-plexes for a total of 200 units that have been proposed by the Applicant. What you see down here in the middle is the County's Waiaha Pump Station. Also, part of this Applicant's proposal is to provide for public parking and restroom facilities for the many users who access Waiaha Bay looking directly across the subject property. The Commissioners may recall the initial hearing on this was held on September 6"'. At that time, we did provide the Commissioners with a background report but did not provide a recommendation. That is because of a pending request at that time for a contested case hearing. That request for a contested case has since been withdrawn. However, and that's what necessitated the continuance of the September hearing until today, with the hopes that the Director will be able to afford a recommendation for the Commissioners' consideration. Unfortunately, I must advise you that we have not yet prepared a recommendation report. There continues to be some outstanding issues regarding traffic, primarily traffic, that must first be resolved before the Director will be comfortable in developing a recommendation for this particular, for the two applications. So, at this point, we ask that the Commission defer this, the two applications to the Commission's November 1" hearing in Kona. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Daryn? Commissioner Togashi? TOGASHI: May I ask, with regard to the unresolved traffic issues, are these the same issues that are elaborated on by Mr. Kuba in this October 17`h letter? ARAI: You are correct. Sorry, I failed to highlight that. GIFFIN: Daryn, perhaps you can go over those specifically so we know exactly what is being discussed right now and is, apparently, holding up the recommendation. ARAI: Well, I could generalize it; but not being a traffic engineer, I'm not sure if I'll do a good job. fs this something you think I could defer to Public Works' representative? GIFFIN: Do we have somebody here from Public Works? ARAI: Yes, Kiran Emler. GIFFIN: Sure. EMLER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. And you wanted, the question was, or the issue was you would like me to elaborate on the issues that are still outstanding regarding the traffic study, the TIAR that was submitted. We have some questions about the counts that were used; and there are adjacent intersections that were depicted on the figures in the traffic study that appear to be, have quite a bit of disparity. And that's Item 8, indicated on my memo October, excuse me, Galen Kuba, the memo from Galen Kuba dated October 17`h that you have before you. Disparity was significant. And two intersections on Alii Drive within the same area right in the vicinity of the project had counts of through traffic bearing 200 vehicles in one hour between the two intersections; and we thought that was unusual and we asked the traffic engineer to address that issue. We suspected that the counts were taken on separate times for the two intersections and -. GIFFIN: Excuse me, Ki, so you're saying that there's a disparity of 200 cars? EMLER: Right. That was what was brought to our attention to it. GIFFIN: Okay. And then? EMLER: So we are making an issue of that. On the traffic study we want that addressed. We're not ready to accept the traffic study under that condition. GIFFIN: The TIAR? EMLER: Yeah. GIFFIN: Okay. Because of this? EMLER: Yeah. Well, it's one of the items. GIFFIN: Okay. What else? EMLER: The next item, Item 10. There is a five -acre commercially -zoned property on the other side of Walua Road from this project. Across the street from Walua Road, a five -acre parcel there that is being developed for, it's already zoned for Village Commercial. And that parcel, the traffic, potential traffic from that parcel is not being considered in the traffic study. We had some difference where we had some discussion about the trip generation rates that were used. The original analysis done by Julian Ing with the original application used a trip generation rate from the, a nationally recognized -manual; and this traffic engineer determined trip generation rates based on another project, similar project on Alii Drive that was developed by the same developer. And we took issue with that because we were concerned about the sample that was taken for generating or for determining what this trip generation rate would be. There was only a one -day sample taken; and so we were concerned that they replaced the national -recognized trip rate with something taken with a one -day sample. That was the issue. They've agreed to take another sample to compare, so -. Then there were some items -. By the way, these items that I'm responding to were items that were brought up from the review by our Traffic Division and, so, I'm representing them here. The traffic engineer needed to recheck calculations on the study from issues that were brought up by our Traffic Division. GIFFIN: What kind of calculations were they, Kiran? EMLER: I think they were the overall background, plus project trip figures that were used at the intersections -. GIFFIN: I'm sorry, could you please repeat that? EMLER: The overall figures for, the overall figures for vehicle movements at the intersections based on the projected traffic, plus the traffic generated by the development. There was also an issue with the amount of delay on one of the movements, the movement that was finding a high degree of delay at Lunapule Street and Alii Drive. Okay, so, on the memo it basically says that provided those issues don't come up with any other conclusions than the original study, we would agree, we would concur with the study's findings other than the issues that are presented I through 6. And Item 1, if you want to go through these one at a time here, the first one says that we do concur that no left turn lane would be necessary on Walua Road. By the way, we didn't ask for the left -tum lane. It was a comment, though, it was made by our Traffic Division to provide that; but we've since concurred that there would be no level of service reduction on Walua Road for the left turns; and we are not, we're not asking for the left -turn lane there. We are, however, asking that they check the visibility of vehicles that are stopped to turn left there because of the winding nature of the road. A left -tum lane can sometimes mitigate that situation; and, so, if they're not able to provide that sight distance, we would still be in favor of the left -turn lane. GIFFIN: Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI: I guess before you go through a point -by -point elaboration of these points here, I was wondering, is it rather common to have a number of disparities in portioning of methodology? Seems like there are quite a number of disparities or 11 questioning regarding the TIAR. And I was just wondering, is this rather common? Because I don't quite recall seeing maybe a memo to this effect where it really points out not, you know, minor discrepancies but really questioning the significant parts of the methodology and assumptions used. Is this rather common or you don't see this too often? EMLER: I think -. TOGASHI: You don't see this too often, yeah -? I mean as far as, you know, public -? EMLER: You're asking if I see it often? TOGASHI: Right. As far as Public Works analysis of a, you know, a TIAR. EMLER: I've seen it -. TOGASHI: Worse? Worse than this? EMLER: Yes. TOGASHI: So this is, is this, I guess, maybe a very negative analysis, or is this just like, you know, they're just like minor discrepancies that -? EMLER: No, I think what we're trying to do is work through the issues and got kind of caught off -guard by the traffic study coming in late, at a late time; and we haven't been able to work through all the issues yet. And so rather than just by-passing the issues, we need to address them. That's why I think Planning Department is reluctant to come up with the recommendation. TOGASHI: Because they're relying upon your recommendations to proceed on their recommendation? EMLER: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay. Go ahead and continue, Ki. EMLER: Okay. Item 2. We concurred that the traffic study, provided though the issues above were addressed, we concurred with the traffic study that the level of service would not be reduced by this outbound left tum to the project from Alii Drive. We are questioning whether the study accounts for the presence of pedestrian activity, joggers and so forth, on Alii Drive which could cause delays to left turning traffic. And so we were asking them to address that issue. One of the mitigating issues that were addressed by the study or proposed by the study to that issue was to eliminate left turns into the project on Alii Drive, have it be right -in only. We were not in favor of eliminating the left turns at that project driveway because it would divert traffic to other intersections. GIFFIN: So, Ki, excuse me, when you say other intersections you're speaking off of Walua? EMLER: Off of Alii Drive, we're on Alii Drive now. GIFFIN: No. If, if-. EMLER: Okay. GIFFIN: If you are against the recommendation for left turns from Alii, you said, because that would put something -. EMLER: It would divert traffic to Walua Road -. GIFFIN: That's what I'm asking. EMLER: The left turns at Walua Road. There's no protective left turn on Alii Drive at Walua Road; and, so, we would just be diverting the left turns to that location. GIFFIN: Right, right. To Walua? EMLER: Correct. GIFFIN: And that's bad? EMLER: Well, it could be bad for service on Alii Drive, to maintain a flow of traffic on Alii Drive. GIFFIN: Because, conceivably, if am going on Alii Drive and I want to get into the project, I would turn left at Walua instead, if there is no left turn from Alii. Correct? EMLER: That's what I would assume. GIFFIN: Or I would come around? EMLER: We could assume that or we could divert that. Lunapule, if you miss Walua Road, and -. GIFFIN: And that's bad? 1 EMLER: Well, it creates more delay at those intersections rather than spreading out the load and being able to pick up gaps at a more, more evenly spaced gaps in traffic. GIFFIN: I hear what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree, but go on. EMLER: Okay. We stated that our priority was to maintain steady traffic flow; and for that reason we're in favor of a two-way left-turn lane on Alii Drive. Also, excuse me, I should have said that if we were going to divert traffic to those other intersections by eliminating a left turn, then they should put that in the study, so that we could see what the impact was. Okay. Item 3 is, on our original comments to the Planning Department, we discussed the issue of a mauka-makai road; and we asked that the traffic study address that issue. And as you'll see on No. 4, they found that Lunapule has a deficiency in the left-tum movement onto Alii Drive, and that was somewhat expected. But the issue is that formerly this project was an RS-10 zoned property; and it probably would have had to have a mauka-makai road, connector road through and dedicated to the County of Hawaii. But now since it has been changed to a multiple-family condominium project with gated entries, that opportunity is lost to the community. So we thought it should be addressed. And the traffic study stated that the proposed Lako Street would help relieve traffic on Lunapule Road, and we disputed that. Because that street is a mile-and-a-hal south; and, actually, there's another connector street north of that, which is Royal Poinciana. And we also, because that phase of the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway, which is Alii Highway is, the construction plans are, I believe, finished; but that phase is going to be done second. The first phase is going to be from Lako Street to Keauhou. So that north phase is what I stated here, was at least three years from construction. That would be optimistic. And then on No. 4, we went on to state the problems that we found in the traffic study on Lunapule Road, and the issues that were, the mitigation issues that were made or the mitigation proposals that were made. One of the mitigation measures was to put in a right-turn lane. And the study did state that even with the left turn, I mean, the exclusive right-tum lane, if it were put in, the left turns would still remain at a Level of Service F. We ask that the study include what the change in delay would be, so that we would know what the benefit would be of putting in that right-turn lane improvement. We also stated the Lunapule Road is only 30 feet wide at that intersection; and so they would have to acquire property in order to make that improvement, they or the County would. 7 Their suggested mitigation included a four, an all -way stop. And input from our Traffic Division, they stated that signalization would be the preferred mitigation because of, well, I should say that, let me take that back for the record, they stated that an all -way stop was an interim measure if the intersection warranted traffic signals. They stated that they would need to check the warrants before they would support that type of mitigation, and I don't want to be on the record of stating we're supporting that mitigation at this point. So -. I just stated that the Applicant should be required to provide mitigation for the deficiencies because they're increasing the delay on that left tum by the increase in traffic on Alii Drive generated by the project. And, also, because they're foreclosing an opportunity to relieve Lunapule Road with another mauka-makai roadway. Okay. Item 5, we requested in our comments to the Planning Department for the application that the study also include Walua Road and Kuakini Highway, and that was omitted from the study. GIFFIN: Why would you do Kuakini? EMLER: Because it's a major intersection that would be impacted by the development, for traffic coming from the Kuakini-Queen Kaahumanu Highway area. GIFFIN: To go down Walua? EMLER: Yes. Those are the issues on the traffic study. GIFFIN: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Ki regarding his report of areas that they are concerned about? Ki, if this is to be resolved with, who did you say? EMLER: The traffic engineer? GIFFIN: Yeah. How long is that going to take for the traffic engineer to be able to say with authority that his or her concerns are mitigated? EMLER: I think it would be for them to say when they can come up with, or when they can produce the revised traffic study and then -. Are you asking if, you're asking for a time period when we can state that we are in agreement, or -? GIFFIN: When you're pan, so that we can continue and resolve this agenda item. During our Administrative Matters today, Alice stated that she rescheduled this hearing as a continuance for, and this was if we were not able to resolve things today, to November I", our November I" Kona meeting to be safe, that it was on the agenda, you know, agenda on time. Is that realistic? ARAI: Madam Chair -? MOOERS: We could address that when we're allowed to speak. GIFFIN: Okay. I have one more question. Commissioners, at any time if you have questions, please feel free to barge in. KUBOTA: Okay. GIFFIN: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Yeah, Ki, you know, on your No. 4, Item No. 4, the last sentence, part of the last sentence, when you say "forecloses on the immediate opportunity to relieve Lunapule," how -. Well, you explained that had there been individual homes, they would have had to have that road there; and now because they are multi -united, the developers are not bound to have that road ready. Is that what you said? EMLER: Not unless a condition is made to make it open to the public as a dedicable road. KUBOTA: So, in essence, what you're saying, okay, what you're saying is that an opportunity was lost? EMLER: Correct. KUBOTA: Opportunity will be lost if we changed to multiple zoning, versus, versus -? EMLER: I would say that's correct, yes, unless it were made a condition under this zoning, and then -. GIFFIN: Wouldn't it be contra-indicated, though, I mean, if it's a gated community to have a public road going mauka-makai? EMLER: Well, that's the developer's proposal. GIFFIN: To what? EMLER: To have a gated community. GIFFIN: Oh, yeah. EMLER: And we're just saying that's an opportunity lost to have another connection. 9 GIFFIN: Okay. But it's not as if we don't have any other options, right? They are other mauka-makai roads and we have spoken of them, right? EMLER: 'There can be, yes. GIFFIN: Okay. KUBOTA: Okay. So it's just an opportunity lost is what you're trying to say here. Okay. GIFFIN: Yeah, like a lament. KUBOTA: Okay. And I have another one. Going back to No. 2, you say our priority is to maintain a steady flow of traffic flow. And you talk about the left turn into the project site would, wait now, diverting the left turn, potential left turn into the site to other intersections would not necessarily provide for a steady flow of traffic. How do you figure that? The number of cars, five cars are going to go north or south, south, they're going to go south, yeah, they're going to go south. If five of them have to make left turns into the project site, whether we use Walua Road, Lunapule, or through the main beat, would that make a difference in the traffic flow? EMLER: I'm not sure. That's why I asked the traffic study to address it. I know that it would divert turns to those other intersections and possibly cause more delay at those intersections GIFFIN: In your estimation, which is safer, turning into the project or turning left at known intersections? EMLER: I think the safety factor is equivalent. GIFFIN: So all you're saying then is that it could cause additional tie-ups at those other intersections. But safety, in terms of safety, it would be the same? EMLER: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay. I have one other question, Ki. Mrs. Kubota, are you through? KUBOTA: Done for now. GIFFIN: Okay. You mentioned the five -acre condominium project that was on Walua Road, which is opposite this project, right, that you said they did not take into account when they were doing the TIAR? EMLER: Right. 10 GIFFIN: Correct? Daryn, maybe you can refresh my memory. Did they come in for a change of -zone or was it already, did they do what it was zoned for? ARAI: The property is already zoned so, off the top of -. GIFFIN: So they did come before us? ARAL My recollection is no. In fact, I know it's currently being subdivided. Now, what happened was, my understanding is they're just going to subdivide and sell the lots with no improvements upon them. When those individual Lots then are developed, then we've already warned them that those individual lots would have to come in for a Special Management Area Use Permit; and based on valuation, most likely they'll come before you. But to date, no, you haven't seen them. GIFFIN: So just for an SMA, the traffic would not be something that we would raise, right? ARAI: Normally not unless there's some coastal resource nexus. GIFFIN: The only reason I'm asking is, did we require of that owner or that developer any kind of traffic impositions? ARAI: To my knowledge, no, because it's, well, that can be said with many projects in this area. For example, if the Applicant were to develop this property into an RS -10 zoned district, you know, all he would be required to do is come in for an SMA -. GIFFIN: Right. ARAI: But because he's asking for a higher density than what currently exists, therefore, I think we have every opportunity to look at potential increased impacts. GIFFIN: Oh, I'm not saying we don't have the right. ARAI: I understand GIFFIN: I just wondered whether or not the same measurement was used for that other development; and I now understand why it has not surfaced yet. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions of Ki? Hearing none, Daryn, did you have anything else you wanted to add? ARAI: Sure. I just wanted to let the Commissioners know that, you know, we did make great efforts to try to resolve some of the issues. I mean, we were meeting up to 2:30 this afternoon trying to resolve issues. So I think -. We do have, the Applicant and the County does have an understanding. And I think there's light at the end of the tunnel, but we just need time to get there. GIFFIN: And the November I" is realistic? ARAL Well, you know, the November I" hearing was being scheduled at the request of the Applicant with the clear understanding that we need findings of no significant adverse impacts to traffic in the area before we can develop a recommendation. So the burden is on the Applicant, not us, to make sure they get things done in time to make the November 1" hearing. If they can't make it, then we'll just defer it again to the December hearing. So, the burden is on them. GIFFIN: Okay. You'll be here so we can refer more questions to you? ARAI: Sure. GIFFIN: Thank you, Ki. Commissioners, did you have any more questions of Ki at the moment? We can always call him back, that's not a problem but -. KUBOTA: He's going to be here, right? GIFFIN: Right. You're not going to leave, right? EMLER: Right. GIFFIN: Okay. That's good, Ki. Thank you. I'd like to call the Applicant and the Applicant's representatives to please come forward. And there's one more chair at the end. And will you three please raise your right hands? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Greg, starting with you, your name and residence address? MOOERS: Greg Mooers, P.O. Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743. GIFFIN: Thank you. ROWELL: My name is Phillip Rowell, principal, Rowell & Associates, 47-273 Hui Iwa Street, Kaneohe. GIFFIN: Thank you. I guess we have a lot of questions for you. Sir? DEWEESE: Curtis Deweese, Managing Member of Sunstone Realty Partners, Honolulu, Hawaii. 12 GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Greg? MOOERS: I'd like to make just a couple of general comments. I'm not a traffic engineer, which is why Mr. Rowell is here today. But just in responding to Mr. Togashi's comments and also looking at the applicant's, or the questions, it appears that there's a real question about methodology. I think the question about methodology as one is speaking, there really is no one in the County of Hawaii who is a traffic engineer, who's able to understand exactly why these things are done the way they're done. The questions arise out of, really, the question as to why numbers are used, why calculations are made, and Mr. Rowell has responded to each of these statements; and, in fact, we did have a meeting just prior to this to try to address these. I think it'll be an unfair characterization to cast a cloud over the quality of the work done. I think Mr. Rowell's resume and his experience is such that that should not be questioned. The question really becomes, is making sure that the Department of Public Works understands what he has done and why he has done it. And that's, I think, the purpose for the questions and that's why we made the effort. For the record, we did meet 15 days ago. We brought Mr. Rowell to Kona to meet with Daryn and Ki. Unfortunately, Daryn was on jury duty so we met with Ki and we met with Norren Kato of the County Planning Department in Kona. At that time we reviewed the results of these and tried to ask the questions. Most of these questions did arise from a review by the Traffic Division in Hilo who, unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity to meet with and who was not present at the meeting in Kona. It's unfortunate that that didn't happen because I think we could have solved a great number of those at that time. I think, and I'll let Mr. Rowell address each of the questions that Ki raised earlier. But I think that a majority of these questions have been answered. And we're in a position now, they want certain things corroborated, explained why they were done, and to put that in writing; and I think we're quite prepared to do that. For the record, we did not request the deferral to the first of November. That was suggested by the Planning Department because of their inability or their unwillingness to provide a recommendation today. Obviously, our preference would be to move along. Procedurally, the Commission will make a determination on the SMA, of which traffic is not an issue. They will make a recommendation to the Council on the Change of Zone. And our hope was that we would be close enough today that the Commission would feel comfortable enough to grant the SMA and to make a positive recommendation in general terms to the Council that would be, would require, you know, mitigation of all traffic measures, in acceptance by the Department of Public Works. So that was our goal and remains our goal. And that's why Mr. Rowell was here since early, not early this morning, but since mid-morning. So that's our attempt. And I'll let Mr. Rowell address the specific questions. But I did want to talk about the, just the, kind of the general overall nature so it did not appear that this was a slip -shod study or something. I think we've been working very 13 diligently trying to, you know, to provide this, because the request for the Traffic Impact Analysis Report was not made early on. Part of the application, we had done a traffic assessment. At that time, the conclusion of that traffic engineer was that the Traffic Impact Analysis Report was not warranted. But given comments of various agencies through the process, it became apparent to me and I passed that along to the Applicant, Mr. Deweese, that I felt that traffic was a major issue and that people were not satisfied with the letter report that had been done previously. And so at that time we initiated the Impact Analysis Report. We did the further Impact Analysis Report until school started because we were advised by a traffic engineer that if we did not, we'd be getting artificially low numbers; and so we waited till school started to do the counts. And I do apologize that we didn't get the numbers in earlier, but it probably would not have been fair to the County if we'd done the counts during the summer and used those, you know, lower numbers to project the impacts. So we did as was recommended by our consultant, we waited till school started, we did the traffic counts and we tried to move as expeditiously as we could through the process. And we will continue to do that, work as diligently and as quickly as we can to resolve these issues that Public Works has raised. And if you don't have any questions from me, I'll turn it over to Mr. Rowell. GIFFIN: Hang on one minute. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Mooers? Okay, thank you. ROWELL: Shall we proceed one-by-one? GIFFIN: Please, yeah, No. 1. ROWELL: Okay, excuse me. Item 8 was the question about the disparity about the between traffic counts. The movement we're talking about is the north-bound movements along Alii Drive. We had a disparity of approximately 200 vehicles between the vehicles leaving -. MOOERS: This is Lunapule Road. ROWELL: We had a disparity of about 200 vehicles between the, some of the counts here and some of the counts approaching Walua Road. And part of the disparity is explained by we did the counts of different days. We originally did those counts, the afternoon counts, on Monday afternoon. The counts at Lunapule and Alii, quite frankly, did not look right. So I redid the Lunapule-Alii on Tuesday afternoon; and I did that count personally to make sure it was correct. And I took those counts and I compared them to the counts for that same intersection done approximately two-and-a-half, maybe three years ago for Kona Hawaiian Village; and they were really close. They were like, I have one movement that was 30 or 45 cars difference and the others were even closer than that. So I knew I had a good count. So that told me that the intersection counts that I had up at, approaching Walua from Alii Drive were high. I told Ki that I would recount that intersection to verify both those intersection counts for the next report. 14 However, having said that, I don't think it would make any difference because the intersection of Walua is already calculated out to be Level of Service A. If I reduced the volume by 200 vehicles, it's still going to be Level of Service A. So it's just not going to affect the conclusions of the report relative to that. Item 10. In Chapter 3 of the report, I tried to make a reasonable assumption of what the vacant parcels around the project up and down Alii Drive could develop as. The standard practice is to do an inventory; and if there are projects that are under construction, you obviously consider that traffic. And if there are projects that have already received some type of approval from the County such as a permit, or SMA permit, you include that in the traffic. Cause they're not in the traffic counts that you performed out there at the intersections. So the process that I used and have been using, not just Hawaii but California, and Nevada and every where else, is to start with existing traffic volumes, add a reasonable background growth rate that takes care of all these little projects outside the immediate area, and then look at projects that I can get a handle on as to what they are. I identified four projects that are in the report. Two of them are under construction. The other two had sale signs out in front that said you can build 27 units, or 18 units, or something like this. And for those I did a traffic study for them. I took the number of units, I generated the trips, assign them to their respective ?and plugged them up. The one project I didn't have any information on was what happening was on the other side of Walua Road. GIFFIN: The one he talked about? ROWELL: Okay. I have not seen any information of what that project was defined as, what it could be; and, quite frankly, I would be crystal balling. GIFFIN: Yeah. ROWELL: That's all I can do, was look at it. Now, before this meeting, we sat down and we made some assumptions and, basically, we spent 20 minutes just discussing what could go on that project, parcel. At any rate, I told them that I would, when we do a Final Report, I will make some assumptions that we agreed on and generate some trips from that side, the side to Walua Road, and see how that affects the level of service at, on Alii Drive. So we will -. We don't have any information but we've come to a mutually agreeable wild guess, for lack of a better description. Item 14. The question is the trip generation rates that we used for the estimating of traffic to and from the project. And I don't know if you have a copy of the report but it's on page 15. One of the problems we had when we started looking at this project is exactly what type of units that's going to be in the project - Are they going to be owner -occupied units, are they going to be recreational, are they going to be time shares, or whatever. 15 We, quite frankly, played with, discussed a number of different scenarios on how that would affect the amount of traffic generated. And what we decided to do was since this project was going to be marketed and developed by the same owner as Aliilani down, you know, half -mile down the road, that we would do a trip generation study for that project and have a very good estimate of the amount of traffic that would go in -and -out of the project. That is consistent with criteria provided in the Trip Generation Handbook that's published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It says, quite frankly, clearly, that if you have a similar project in the community that is going to be having the same demographics and the same characteristics, that you're much, you'll have much more reliable results than taking a, some trip generation rates from a national standard, that is weigh (way)?? your (new)???? trip generation rates, from all over the United States, and applying that. The question that Ki raises is probably a very valid one of how many days did you do this survey on. And we did it on one day, primarily because of time constraints. And we agreed that when we redo those counts up at Lunapule, we will also do another count at this driveway and verify those trip generation rates. What I did provide you in Table 5 on that page which I think is very interesting, to me any ways, and like I say this is consistent with trip generation studies I've done on some other islands here, is that pretty close you'll find one peak hour, either a.m. or p.m. that is very close, the other one will be somewhat different. And I compared that to what is for owner -occupied, town homes/condominiums, as provided in this to the transportation engineers. And we were really close in the morning and discrepancies in the afternoon. Again, I don't, my opinion is that it will not make that much difference because even when we apply those different numbers and I did them, somewhere, we're talking about a total difference of less than 20 trips during the afternoon peak hour. So by the time you take 20 trips and you spread it out two different directions at over three intersections, it gets dispersed out. But, anyway, we will verify those rates with the Department. For 22, I cannot answer. That's the parking lot. MOOERS: I offered a response to Item 22 to Public Works. Essentially, that parking lot was negotiated with the community, the Councilman from the district, and members of the Mayor's Office who requested a parking lot opposite Waiaha Bay. That parking lot has no value per se to our project. It doesn't, it's insulated from it. In fact, many of the units are built on County property. But that was a direct result of negotiations with the Mayor, Deputy Managing Director, the Managing Director, the Councilman Tyler, who I think made reference to this, and members of the community. We recognize that there's a problem with the mid -block crosswalk_ But I want to make it clear that that was a political decision that was not made by the Applicant, but was made at the request of the community, and the County Administration, and also the County Councilman from that district. 16 ROWELL: Okay. The items down at the bottom, I guess the question here is the visibility of vehicles turning left along Walua Road into and out of the project; and that's a sight distance issue. It's typically not addressed in the traffic study but it's addressed in the construction plans for the project. We nonnally just simply refer, make sure the civil engineer provides the County with plans that indicate the sight distances and that they meet with the County standards. So that's usually not something that I get into in the traffic study. It's more of a design issue; but it's something that we pass on to someone. Traffic studies found no level of service reduction by southbound left turns to the project from Alii Drive. Does the study account for the presence of pedestrian activities which cause additional delays to left turning movements? Little confusion here, I thought he was talking about the intersection of Alii-Lunapule, but he was talking about left turns into the project. My observations when I did the traffic counts is that the majority of the pedestrian activities is on the makai side. There is pedestrian activity along our side of the project and I, not that many when I did the counts. However, I will agree that when I recount the intersections I will be also do a pedestrian counting, and quantify that the number. The hard part of the question, the answer is will the development of this project create more pedestrian activity along Alii Drive on the project side. And anything there is speculation, to be real honest. I don't, there are so much of a pedestrian activity which, okay, begins north of or south of the project. So there's a lot of through pedestrian activity and to try to quantify the amount of pedestrian activity coming out of this particular project will be difficult; but we'll take a stab and try to discuss that However, having said all that, it takes a pretty significant number of pedestrians to affect the level of service into and out of a driveway. The spreadsheet, we can just put in a number of pedestrians and we can keep adding the number of pedestrians until we see the level of service or the delay change. And it has got to get up there in the order of 50 to 60 pedestrians per hour to even have any impact on the level of service, they're just pedestrians GIFFIN: Excuse me for just one minute ROWELL: Sure. GIFFIN: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: In that regard in the same way that the traffic study was done during the school year, I could imagine those sorts of circumstances when there's a swell. GIFFIN: Yeah. ROWELL: Yeah. 17 SPRINGER: And, so, you know, that just might be a time to look at it, cause that's when we have a congregation of people and much more intense use of that section of the highway than when it is flat. ROWELL: Correct. In the morning, just to let you know, in the mornings we did our counts from 6:30 or 6, I think it was 6:30 to 8:30 so we made sure we picked up all of that activity. I, quite frankly, was surprised that there wasn't more afternoon activity. I counted till 6 in the evening and there was a good bit of, not what I expected to see. So just to let you know that I was really out there. Item 4, we're talking about the impact of other projects, other roadway improvement projects. And in Chapter three of the report, when I start talking about other related projects in the community, I also tried to shed some light on the roadway improvement projects, cause some of them will have an impact on the project. And Lako Street was, obviously, one of those projects that will be coming on line in the near future, hopefully. However, I didn't use it in the calculations. I didn't take any discount on traffic on Lunapule to Lako Street. My point in making this comment was that some of these projects are going to divert traffic from Lunapule; and we simply, you know, there are all kinds of estimates out there. You know, one letter I saw said 15 percent but reality is you really don't know till it goes in. But, at any rate, it's going to go in after our project design here, which is 2005. So it wasn't appropriate take a discount for that. What I'm leading up to is in the recommendation section where we do the warrant analysis. It doesn't make sense to me to build a $300,000 traffic signal that now meets warrants that might not meet the warrants in five years. That's what I'm alluding to in that. And it's really a, in my opinion, it's better to do something that's an interim measure, something that can be easily removed and monitored. And after these roadway improvement projects go on, if the warrants are met on a consistent basis, then you make the effort to do a major improvement. And I think that kind of jumped up to Item 4. Our recommendations were that we provide a separate right -tum lane on Lunapule. That improves the level of service for the right turns only. It does not improve the level of service for left turns. Even by taking out the right turns and putting them into their own lane, the left turns will still be out. So it's really a matter of degree of Level of Service F. And we can provide those, I can provide those calculations fairly easily to show what that change would be. But the bottom line is the left turns will still be "F", regardless. When we were talking about the four-way stops, before we start, one of the warrants, as Ki mentioned is use of the four-way stop as an interim measure for traffic signals. And I think that's exactly what we were heading toward when we looked at that. I did not 18 recommend four-way stops or all -way stop. I simply noted for the record that that is mitigation measure that will improve the level of service in this intersection. It may not be desirable but it will mitigate the impacts and would have some positive, in fact, impacts, in my opinion, of slowing traffic down along Alii Drive adjacent to the project. If the park goes in and the crosswalk goes in, slowing down that traffic would be a positive effect. Five, I agreed 1 would do that intersection. We're adding 17 trips in the morning and 7 trips in the afternoon to that total intersection traffic. And I would be very surprised if it changed the level of service, but we'll go through the exercise for Public Works. Okay, and I can't answer six either. MOOERS: And No. 6 was the fair share contributions which typically are not applied by the Commission, but are applied by the County Council; and, obviously, they can seek to put those improvements any where they choose. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the traffic consultant, Mr. Rowell? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I just want to make sure that I'm using Table 6 correctly. On page 15, should the second row be p.m.? ROWELL: Yes. That was a typo. SPRINGER: Thanks. GIFFIN: Any other comments or questions? Mr. Mooers, in answer to the question regarding the validity of using the owner's previous project further down Alii Drive as, you know, taking it as a place when you can some -. MOOERS: Studies? GIFFIN: Yeah, some studies done. Are the demographics there similar to the demographics that you projected in our last hearing on page 6, where you say, "The demographics of the project," meaning this, "are such that primarily the purchasers of these properties tend to be elderly. They are often second homes, these are not vacation rentals. And there are substantial on-site recreational amenities, pools, health clubs, this sort of thing, so that we don't anticipate that there'll be a great use." MOOERS: I think that was a question about the use of the -. GIFFIN: Beach. MOOERS: Waiaha Bay. I think the demographics, I think it's a very valid point. It's, you know, I guess in reading the comment from Ki about why did we not use 19 this "National Standard" and we came up with this other number to use, Phillip talked about it. But I'd like to elaborate a little bit because this was a problem we had. It's because when we sat down initially to do the traffic study, you know, the ITE, the handbooks, got, has a whole array of multipliers, of trip generation multipliers that you have to look at; and, you know, Phillip can discuss it. But it's, you know, vacation homes, two stories, you know, high rise, low rise, town houses, they're all different. And so we're sitting here saying, well, which one of these numbers do we apply? You know, well, 70 percent is going to be this, 30 percent is going to be this, whatever. And we're saying, well, we're building the same product in the same community, a half -mile down the road; and what Phillip tells us is that that is preferred. The industry standard says that is the preferred method, not an ultimate, but the preferred method to calculate trip generation. If you can find a similar project in the same community, you should use that, that's a better number. And I think that's something, you know, we're talking today, you know. And Ki said, well, you know, you've used one -day count and you're discarding this national standard. We're saying, yeah, but which national standard are we discarding? Which number do we use? I mean, do we take the one that says, well, they're mostly seniors so we come up with bogus number that's low? That's an ITE number. So we try to find the best number we could, which was to go in the same community a half -mile down the road, count that for trip generation and use that here. Cause we had a project, it's essentially the same product, I mean, it's the same units. GIFFIN: Sure sounds valid. Okay. MOOERS: Well, I mean, that was the attempt. I mean, if we were attempting to use a lower number, we could have used an ITE number that was much lower than the number we used. GIFFIN: Sure, sure MOOERS: All right? But that doesn't do us any good because -. And one of the things that I point out is that there will be impact -related fees assigned to this project. I mean, that's a given. If this zoning is approved, there will be impact -related fees. That's right, there's going to be money available for us to do traffic improvements. Now we're going to write a check for the same amount. The question is how is it going to be used? It would certainly benefit us to have it used to benefit our project. So we're not trying to duck any issues here. We're trying to clearly define it. You know, we're of the position that we want to find out what the problems are and fix the problems. The money is already out there so it's not like we're trying to avoid spending the money. We're going to have to spend the money. It's just a question of where do we spend it in the best way that will help the community and help our project so that everything works. So our motivation is really the same as Public Works in this case. We're not at odds. It's a question of trying to establish, you know, protocols, why we're doing it the way we're RM doing it, why we're making the substance we're making, and to come up with something that works. Cause the check, in effect, has been written already. It's just a question of how we're going to spend it. Okay, so, I want to make sure that that's understood so we don't gain anything by avoiding improvements, all right? I mean, if Mr. Rowell's conclusions were there is no impact, we still write the check. Okay? GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions? Greg, in your estimation, since you've dealt with the Council, between, say theoretically, either today or on the first, we act on this application, from that point to when the Council acts on it how long is that usually? MOOERS: Sharon can probably can answer better than me. But my projects, it's usually 6 to 8 weeks between Commission and Council. GIFFIN: Six to eight weeks? MOOERS: Yeah, because it has to go back to staff, they have to write the recommendation up, has to be signed by the Chair, has to get forwarded to the Mayor, the Mayor transmits it to the Council, then the Council has to agendize it. In my experience, is it takes usually 6 to 8 weeks to hit a cycle, shows up on the Planning Committee agenda; and then assuming it goes three straight, it's a one-month process. GIFFIN: So we're talking about December, end of December? MOOERS: Given it's the end of the year, it'll probably get kicked into next year because the agendas at the end of the year tend to get very full. I think, you know, you're looking at the new Council. So you're going to have ceremonial events, you know, that will take place. So I suspect that if it were passed today, you'd probably still be looking at January or -. Certainly, November, I mean, it's going to be some time because just the end of the year tends to be a little more difficult to place things on the agenda. GIFFIN: Judging from the comments that Ki gave us regarding their concerns and listening to the traffic engineer, do you think that that's more than enough time or enough time to solve all of these areas of concern? MOOERS: Well, I mean, our feeling is, is that I think we feel like we've resolved all of the issues already after our meeting. I mean, to be honest, I mean, we don't think there's any real -. There's some political issues that I think the Council is going to have to decide. I mean, if the Council decides they don't want to have a parking lot, then they don't have a parking lot. But as far as the technical issues, I think, you know, Ki has indicated things that he wants to see in the traffic report. And I think Phillip has indicated that he'll put that in the traffic report in the revised edition and that there'll probably have no impact on any of the conclusions. So we feel, you know, very comfortable that we're going to resolve all those technical issues and that there shouldn't be a big issue. I'll let, Phillip, you want to -? 21 ROWELL: No. I'm not going to add anything. MOOERS: Okay. GIFFIN: Okay. Thank you. That's kind of what I wanted to hear. And perhaps it would be good later to get Ki back up here to see if listening to what was presented to us this afternoon, if you still have some concerns; and if there are, what are they. Commissioners, any questions? Mrs. Kubota, I know you have a question. KUBOTA: It's not a question, it's a procedural thing. You know, I feel as though Ki raised some interesting points of concern and Mr. Rowell responded to them. And I feel like Mr. Mooers said that, basically, the technicalities have been resolved, it's just not down on paper or it's just a matter of coming in later. However, the basic things are there for us to munch on and decide whether to go or not to go with this project. And so I'm just wondering, is there a way instead of waiting to agendize it for November, we can get it off of our agenda by passing it or denying it with conditions? GIFFIN: Mr. Torigoe? Just checking on you. TORIGOE: Yeah, I'm still here. That really, I think I would defer it to the Deputy Director if he has got any view as to whether there is a way to condition this as situated. GIFFIN: Okay, okay. Roy? TAKEMOTO: I think, basically, we're close. But we don't have the specific mitigation measures that would be incorporated as specific conditions. GIFFIN: For example? TAKEMOTO: What improvements, if any, need to occur at the various intersections. GIFFIN: What? I'm sorry. TAKEMOTO: What improvements, whether we require an all -way stop at Lunapule or traffic lights, you know, those kind of specifics. Or even whether we restrict a left -tum into the project itself off of Alii. What we do about the midway, mid -block crosswalk. You know, I think it's close. But when you make the decision, the conditions need to be in there and agreed upon by this decision-making body. GIFFIN: Can we? TAKEMOTO: I don't think we have the information or are prepared to do that -. 22 GIFFIN: I understand that we don't have the specific information. But I think Mrs. Kubota's question was can we word conditions, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mrs. Kubota, can we word the conditions in such a way that they can be done? And, I mean, we got a lot of time between when and if this is passed, whether it's today or on the first, and January of '03 to have these things worked out. And that doesn't even affect the SMA. We're just talking about the Change of Zone, correct'? TAKEMOTO: The only thing I can see affecting the SMA is that mid -block -. GIFFIN: Crosswalk? TAKEMOTO: Crosswalk. GIFFIN: Which we have no control over, right? TAKEMOTO: You could require the applicant to bear the burden of blinking lights, whatever you, would be the mitigation measure. GIFFIN: Instead of a crosswalk? TAKEMOTO: It's with the crosswalk. You know, like the hospital? GIFFIN: Oh, yes, yes. And we could do that, right? TAKEMOTO: Uh, huh. GIFFIN: So, I don't -. I still, you know, I, like Mrs. Kubota, I don't see where any of this is huge, so that we cannot move on this agenda item, both applications, with a condition that will take care of these things. TAKEMOTO: How would you word it, to the satisfaction of Public Works? GIFFIN: Yeah, and maybe Public Works can come up with some wording. Daryn? ARAI: I think I can shed some light on this. I mean, I understand exactly where you're coming from. KUBOTA: You do? GIFFIN: You do? ARAI: I mean, I've been around you too long. GIFFIN: The feeling is mutual. 23 ARAI: But I guess, I mean, that is sort of the question that was posed to Public Works. When the Planning Department offers its recommendation to the Commission and the Commission then takes action, one way or the other, it has to be based on findings. The question was, and this was pointed directly to Public Works, based on what we've done today, in the past preceding days trying to hammer out the details and, as I mentioned earlier during my presentation, we're close, there's light at the end of the tunnel. But based on everything we know now, can Public Works offer a formal position that this project, and without any uncertainty, would not have an adverse or significant adverse impact upon traffic. The answer is they cannot offer us that statement, pure and simple. So-. GIFFIN: Is it in part because they don't have a traffic engineer? ARAI: Well, I'm not going in, I'm not going to go there. But, you know, it's, and that, we just need that finding. And -. GIFFIN: Okay. And I don't need to dominate the whole thing. Mr. McCall? MCCALL: I was just going to say, couldn't we just make it, you know, pending either a favorable recommendation by Public Works or pending a recommendation or a finding, pending a finding of no, was it significant impact -? KUBOTA: No traffic impact. MCCALL: Or no traffic impact? KUBOTA: Exactly what I -. MCCALL: And if we just left it at that -. You know, if there is a finding of a traffic impact, then that kicks the whole thing back; and whether it comes back to us or what, you know, seems that would be -. If that's the only thing that we're worrying about, I -. KUBOTA: That's why I keep saying, what exactly? GIFFIN: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: In the same way that we would not release the funds earlier today without being careful about minding our P's and Q's, it seems as though if we took the actions being recommended, we're then placing the burden, we're deferring decision- making responsibility to staff or to another agency. And I'm not comfortable with that. think Mr. Arai speaks well when he says that decision-making should be done with findings; and absent those findings, I would not be comfortable in making a decision today on this matter. 24 KUBOTA: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA: I stand corrected again like with the spending of the geothermal funds. Fm ready to go with it. But I just feel that, you know, these are such a -. Here, again, we're stymied and we're stymieing the developers from going ahead because of these, I don't know what you call them, but because we're bound by rules and regs, I guess. And I guess you are perfectly correct, don't get me wrong, I think you make a good point of, Hannah. But, you know, I feel very frustrated because, okay, we're close. GIFFIN: Mrs. Springer? SPRINGER: I would just say that I feel a little bit more strongly about this matter because it does involve Public Works and the matter of traffic and traffic flow and safety. So I'm glad that I sense a changing of the tide perhaps, although I under -. TOGASHI: No pun intended. GIFFIN: Yeah, was there a pun? Well, then, I guess I go back to my original question. If we do continue this agenda item till the November 151 hearing, and I guess I'm addressing you, Mr. Rowell, can these issues that our Deputy has raised, can they be resolved? ROWELL: You've asking me whether Public Works can make a decision? GIFFIN: Well, no, I'm not asking you that. They have some questions of the Applicant and they're traffic -related, so — ROWELL: I can provide a revised report, I'm not worried, probably within two weeks, approximately two weeks. That's not a problem. I think the problem is that Public Works needs time to review and chew on it. And they can best answer how long it would take them to do that. GIFFIN: Ki, can you give us an estimate on that? ARAI: Just to let you know, two weeks is November Is'. GIFFIN: I know, so maybe we need to talk to Mr. Rowell and make sure that he knows we need it prior to that. ROWELL: Oh, I'm sorry, I was talking to Greg. GIFFIN: If we follow the timeline of continuing this to the November I" hearing, two weeks is November I". So we would need any kind of mitigation regarding 25 at least these three items that the Deputy raised before that and to give Public Works a chance, like you said, to chew. Did you say to chew on it? ROWELL: Yes. GIFFIN: Chew on it. MOOERS: Madam Chair, may I ask, just say something? GIFFIN: Yes. MOOERS Typically, these reports are not done like a confessional deal where you, you know, you make changes, you pass them, and you look at it, and you pass it back; and when you make changes, you pass it, and you pass it back. Typically, there's a meeting, as we had today, in which an understanding has come up with it, what you want to see. You know, typically, for example, you know, Mr. Takemoto raised some questions - Do you want to see a four-way stop at Lunapule and Alii Drive? My understanding today was the answer was "no." So the report would reflect that. The question is, do you want to see a left -turn pocket in or out of the project? My understanding today is that Public Works wants to see a left -turn into the project. So, it's, you know, it's not going to be a case where Mr. Rowell prepares a report and then we say, how does it fly this time? I mean, it should be, we should have a consensus right now about where we're going to go and the write-up will reflect it. There are things that Mr. Rowell needs to recount. There are things that Ki wants to see in the report that, basically, substantiates what we said verbally today. But it really shouldn't be a case of where we submit a report and they have to re -review it. It would be a matter of saying, okay, did you include the things that we agreed on. And, hopefully, the purpose of the meeting we had 15 days ago and the purpose of the meeting this morning was that we could reach a conclusion about what those things should be and that, you know, we're not in disagreement. And I said there may very well be a policy statement in there, for example, that, which Public Works says we don't want to see a mid -block crosswalk, and that gets passed to the Council, and they're going to decide whether or not they want that parking lot up there. You know, but I don't know that that's a traffic engineer decision that he'll make that call. I mean, that's part of the project. And, so, you know, I think the time for review shouldn't be that long, but I'll let Ki answer that. But, typically, it should be whatever he wants to see we should know today or within the next couple days so that the report as prepared has it. GIFFIN: Well, then, it is of value then to have Ki come up and have him tell us exactly, you know, what you want, and if whether or not the Applicant can come tip with things like that. We'll jList have Ki bring up his chair. Bring up that chair, Ki, join the table. 26 For example, Roy was talking about the improvements at the intersections. What do you want? Do you want stop signs, or do you want lights, or, I mean, what is it you folks want? You meaning your department. I'm sorry that you'll have to speak for them, but that's your capacity today. Their recommendation says all stops, right, all stop signs? No? I thought they said that. MOOERS: We said that was one of the mitigation measures possible. We recommended no -. GIFFIN: No stops. MOOERS: No stops. EMLER: We wanted to see what benefit would come from putting in a right - tum lane, if it would be significant and, also, the possibility of -. Excuse me, we're talking about the intersection of Lunapule and Alii Drive? GIFFIN: Right. EMLER: We also wanted to investigate whether sight distance was causing apprehension amongst the drivers making left-hand turns at that intersection. GIFFIN: Lunapule? EMLER: Correct. And perhaps a mitigation might alleviate that, if there's any way to avoid having to stop traffic on Alii Drive. Unless, of course, the community wants the facility to be changed in character from what it is now, then we could see putting in something like an all -way stop or signal. Otherwise, we would probably not prefer to put a stopping mechanism on Alii Drive to favor a minor street intersection, a minor street intersecting with Alii Drive. GIFFIN: So I guess getting back to my original request of you, Ki, in your opinion, would one more meeting with the developer and the Applicant and traffic engineer, would that be enough time for you people to hammer out the differences? EMLER: I believe it would, yes. GIFFIN: So that would be well within the timetable of our next November meeting, right, for your department to come up with any kind of concerns that you would like to have the Applicant address satisfactorily? EMLER: Yes. I think we pretty much have done that on this memorandum -. GIFFIN: Then what is the problem? 27 EMLER: Other than that intersection of Lunapule, I think that's the one outstanding mitigation that remains out there and, also, addressing the intersection of Walua and Kuakini. Whether or not some mitigation might be done there, is a greater benefit rather than Lunapule, we might let Lunapule, keep Lunapule the way it is until, like they said, perhaps, it's relieved by future projects, which ever one would benefit the most. I believe, though, that Walua and Kuakini will be taken care of by a future widening project on Kuakini. I think that is on a long-range plan for widening Kuakini. So some mitigation on Lunapule, if it's possible to do without, along with the community's, in favor of the community would be recommended. Who can represent the community at this meeting perhaps should, you know, provide input to that. Because if we are going to change the character on Alii Drive, shouldn't the community have something to say about it? Who represents the community in that effort? GIFFIN: I think we're going to have that kind of input when it goes to the Council, right? Councilman Tyler is going to be the champion, right? And I've reviewed the minutes of our last hearing and he is strongly in favor of this project, which even surprised Commissioner Kubota. EMLER: Okay, well, I guess the question, to me, is do we need to determine all of the mitigation before it goes on to Council, then? GIFFIN: That's my question. That's exactly my question. Daryn? ARAI: It was never the intent because, it is, the Planning Commission is not the body that's going to determine the acceptability of a TIAR. The whole purpose of this was to make sure that at least some of the findings and recommendations and mitigation measures, as contained within the TIAR, would provide sufficient comfort to Department of Public Works so they can issue a determination of no significant adverse impact -. EMLER: If we were able to do that, I'm sorry. GIFFIN: Go ahead. EMLER: If we were able to do that, would it be necessary for all of these issues to be addressed or can we just make sure that the TIAR is sufficient enough for others, as well as ourselves, to make appropriate input to that process? ARAI: You don't mind if I have a dialogue? GIFFIN: Absolutely not. SAI: 1 guess I also want to make sure because, at the same time, it doesn't mean you shouldn't, you should ignore all mitigating measures. GIFFIN: Oh, I agree M ARAI: Because like Ki said, you can't just defer all your authority to a government agency. For example, he made reference where maybe going three-way on Alii, three-way stop, that could have a significant impact on traffic along Alii Drive; and that is an impact that you must be aware of. So where do you cut it off on the TZAR, I don't know. Like you don't need to know the width of the striping, for example, I don't know, you know, all the details of a TIAR. GIFFIN: Yeah, yeah. ARAI: But I think some of the more substantive improvements, left -turn lanes or something like that, yeah, I think you should know at least those if it's going to provide significant mitigating relief. Some of the other details -. And that's why we defer to engineers, you know. But, again, all I'm asking for, or all the Planning Department is asking for, is to make sure Public Works has a comfort level necessary to issue a finding of no significant adverse impacts. GIFFIN: And? KUBOTA: He can't do that? ARAI: And that's my understanding as of today, he can't -. Well, when did I talk to you? GIFFIN: So, but he seems to have turned the tide, if I interpreted your statements correctly. EMLER: I think I stated that in our meeting this afternoon that, I could say it in those words, I think we have determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the traffic, on the facilities -. ARAI: When was the determination made, after I left? EMLER: Well, yeah, basically, it is. It says that -. GIFFIN: Okay. Well, this is exactly what I was hoping for, Ki. EMLER: It says provided that you address these issues, then we find that, provided there are no changes to the study conclusions after addressing the above, then the following issues are issues of mitigation. ARAI: I see the, oh, I'm sorry. GIFFIN: No, please, Daryn, go right ahead. 29 ARAI: I'm trying to understand this as well. I see the memorandum dated October 17°i in which there's a bolded section toward the bottom of page 1 where it states, "Provided there are no changes to the study conclusions after adjusting the above:' and then it goes into, "We concur -." I'm sorry, my fault but I just didn't consolidate all of these comments to come up with the general conclusion of "no significant." GIFFIN: Daryn, it's okay. Don't worry about it, it's okay. And as I just concurred with our Corporation Counsel, once again, this kind of discussion that we had today is very helpful and very interesting but, really, not for this body. And contrary to what you may have felt earlier, Commissioner Springer, this kind of thing really does not rest with this body. And as long as there is a comfort zone with Ki's department, I don't see any reason why we cannot act on this agenda item. Before I go any further, I'm going to talk to Roy and make sure that there is a comfort level there. And, if so, I do know that you came prepared with the shell, that we can work with and perhaps get some specific wording. KUBOTA: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA: I request a five-minute recess while -. GIFFIN: You may take more than five minutes. Would you like ten? KUBOTA: Ten minutes. GIFFIN: Ten minutes. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 4:25 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 4:55 p.m. GIFFIN: I call the meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission back to order. The Chair recognizes all of the work and consternation that our staff has come through and we appreciate to have at hand two recommendations for the two agenda items and a copy of the proposed ordinance. Commissioners, do you need a chance to review this? Yes or no? KUBOTA: Yes. GIFFIN: Thank you. We will spend five minutes reviewing what was just handed to us. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 4:56 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 5:05 p.m. 30 GIFFIN: Commissioners, the hearing will come back to order. The recommendations that the Department prepared we have before us and I would recommend that we take the SMA recommendation first. Are there any questions about the SMA recommendation that you would like to ask staff? SPRINGER: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Yes, Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Just in both documents, and I realize the short timetable that there was to prepare these for our review, but there are a number of words that I picked up just briefly perusing it that need diacriticals -. GIFFIN: Yes. SPRINGER: And if we could have them prepared for the final report to the County Council, that would be good. GIFFIN: And it would be consistent with how we have forwarded everything. So, yeah. SPRINGER: So the words are Hawaii with -. GIFFIN: Where are you? SPRINGER: It's throughout both documents. I just have a list of the words. GIFFIN: You have a list? Maybe you would like to give Daryn that list. SPRINGER: Okay. It's a short list. GIFFIN: Thank you for your sharing. Is there any other comment? Daryn, you wanted to speak? Please do. ARAI: Okay, speaking on the recommendation for the Special Management Area Use Permit, on page 9, Condition No. 4 at the very top, page 9 -. GIFFIN: Page 9, No. 4? KUBOTA: Yes. ARAI: Right. If you read that condition which speaks of an Archeological Preservation Burial and Treatment Plan, further down in that paragraph, all of a sudden it switches to a final Archeological Data Recovery Plan and Preservation Plan, inconsistent. 31 Basically, that second reference should be identical to the very beginning, which is Archeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan. GIFFIN: Okay. Approved, final archeological -? ARAI: Final, final, right. And that is the only amendment that I have. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of staff or of the Applicant? Hearing none, do 1 hear a motion? KUBOTA: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA: Madam Chair, I move the Special Management Area Use Permit Application, SMA 02-002, be approved by the Planning Commission. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? SMITH: Second. KUBOTA: Along with, excuse me, along with the conditions as forwarded by our Planning Director, Findings of Fact. GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the SMA Use Permit Application 02-004 be approved, along with the recommendations which includes the conditions and, as amended, No. 4, by staff. Discussion? Daryn? ARAI: The call? Okay. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Mina? MINA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Springer? 32 SPRINGER: Yes. ARAI: Commissioner Togashi? TOGASHI: Aye. ARAI: Chairwoman Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion to approve carries with seven aye votes. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, moving right along, then, to the Change of Zone Application and the accompanying ordinance. Daryn, it's okay to take both of them together, right? ARAI: Yes. The ordinance is actually -. KUBOTA: Part of the recommendation. ARAI: Part of the recommendation so, yeah. And -. GIFFIN: Did you have any suggested amendments? ARAI: Yes. Looking, the recommendation is okay. If you could go to the conditions of approval that's attached to the draft bill. And page No. 2 of the conditions of approval, Condition No. E-2. GIFFIN: E? ARAI: E as in Edward 2, it reads off, "Left -turn storage lanes or other appropriate improvements," and so forth, in the very beginning, could you insert, "Two- way left -turn lanes." GIFFIN: Instead of left -turn storage lanes? ARAI: No, no, not instead, just insert. So it'll then read, "Two-way left - tum lanes, left -turn storage lanes or other appropriate improvements...." GIFFIN: Any others? ARAI: Moving on to Condition No. 3 just below, at the very end of this condition where it ends, "Curb, gutter and sidewalk along Walua Road" add a comma, then insert "drainage improvements and necessary relocation of utilities." 33 GIFFIN Say that again, please? ARAI: At the very end of this paragraph or condition, insert comma, "drainage improvements and necessary relocation of utilities." Now, the following Condition, No. 4 -. If I may proceed? GIFFIN: Yes. ARAI: It reads, "The Applicant shall provide all necessary improvements to Lunapule Road at its intersection with Alii Drive and Walua Road," then insert, "Kuakini Highway and Walua Road." GIFFIN: Kuakini and Walua? ARAI: Right. ROWELL: So it will be Alii Drive, Kuakini and Walua Road? ARAI: It's going to be the intersection of Alii Drive and Walua Road, Kuakini Highway and Walua Road, oh, wait, I see. "The Applicant shall provide all necessary improvements to Lunapule Road at its intersections with Alii Drive and Walua Road." GIFFIN: Does Lunapule -? ARAI: Yeah, Alii Drive and Walua. MCCALL: It goes all the way up to Kuakini. GIFFIN: But does it intersect Walua? ARAI: Yes, Lunapule does. KUBOTA: Oh, it does? ARAI: Here's Alii Drive and it goes, Walua is here, and it goes -. KUBOTA: Oh, I see. ARAI: And then Walua then continues on to connect to Kuakini. KUBOTA: I see, okay, okay. ARAI: So, well - 34 KUBOTA: Okay, again? ARAI: Well -. SPRINGER: At its intersections, should be plural. ARAIA: It's only going to be confusing. Will you defer to staff to draft up language that would basically require the Applicant to provide necessary improvements, as required by Public Works, to this intersection here, Alii and Walua, Lunapule and Alii, Lunapule and Walua, and Walua and Kuakini? GIFFIN: Yes, we will. ARAI: That's what I mean. GIFFIN: Okay ARAI: And I want to preface all of these conditions by saying, when structuring the conditions, we know that things haven't been locked in stone yet, so I did write it, we did write it in a way that basically provided a lot of leverage. Sort of like, "in a manner as required by the Department of Public Works." Some of the conditions reads, as determined to be necessary by the Department of Public Works." So there are certain things that are already built in to provide flexibility should Public Works sort of like either back off on a condition or decides to add other things, based on unforeseen events. Going on to page 4, Condition L as in Larry, one, two, three, on the fifth sentence down where it starts off, "The fair share contribution shall be initially based on the representations contained within the change of zone application and may be increased or reduced proportionally if lot counts...." It shouldn't be "lot counts." It's "unit counts," because this is not a subdivision but a multiple -family development. And it keeps on going on, "are adjusted. The fair share contribution for each lot," change that to "unit," "shall be based on a maximum density for each lot," change it again to "unit." And I think that's basically it for the rest of the condition. And that takes care of some of the changes that we are making. Oh, by the way, did I mention that same, "Archeological Preservation and Burial Treatment" change? GIFFIN: Oh, you did not. ARAI: Yeah, I'm sorry. It carries over to the Change of Zone as well. That's Condition L So it -that can be done as well. 35 GIFFIN: So it's going to read, "A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan?" ARAI: Correct. GIFFIN: Daryn, did you have anything more you wanted to add? AR -Al: Given that we're moving through this quickly, I just want to state for the record, Ki had a question about whether or not the Applicant would be required to provide access to both Walua and Alii Drive, as represented. I assured him, yes, even though there's no specific conditions in any of the, in the ordinance. The reason being as this is what has been represented to us as part of this application. Basically, if the scope of the project changes substantially, then we could re -assess it, because the potential impacts would then change and the whole situation will change. There's also a condition in the Change of Zone that that's required, that primary access to the project site off of Walua and Alii shall meet with the approval of Public Works. So it's clearly implied in the conditions that we anticipate access to both roadways. MOOERS: Also, Condition F. ARAI: Yeah, that's implied as well. The Applicant is correct. It's an emergency access road. So I think there's enough, you know, checks and balances to make sure it's done. GIFFIN: Commissioner Togashi? TOGASHI: I was just curious as to the omission of a, I guess, maybe a finalized TIAR approved by the Department of Public Works. From what Mr. Rowell, is it Rowell? GIFFIN: Yes TOGASHI: He had said that, you know, it's still in an unfinished state. And 1 was just wondering if perhaps maybe reference should be made to, a condition should incorporate the, at least a mention of an approved TIAR? ARAI: That was being discussed during the break as to -. I mean, it's your prerogative if you wish to do so. But we felt that it's clear that the revised TIAR is necessary in order for them to even determine what type of improvements are required to all of these intersections and roadways. So if they just don't do it, then we won't be able to tell them what to do and, basically, everything gets hung up. So, your discretion. TOGASHI: Okay, that's fine, that's fine. As long as it's all represented in the transcript so, it will be represented in the transcript so that's fine. 36 And another question I had was with regard to the condition, Condition N. And it makes reference -. GIFFIN: N, Nancy? TOGASHL N for Nancy on page 5 of the conditions -. And it references the Department of Health and Fire Department, which is somewhat different from the SMA which references both the Health and Public Works. I was wondering, is there some reason why the agencies named are different and, one from the other? ARAI: I can't recall the SMA but I know in this particular one, Public Works is being well represented in a lot of the drainage conditions and traffic conditions -. TOGASHI: Right, right. So we just assume, right, right. Okay. ARAI: Right. And the reason why Fire Department was emphasized here is because Fire Department had that lengthy memo, the one that discussed the tum around and all of that? Those things are not really an SMA concern, so I left that one out so -. TOGASHL Right, right. Okay, very well said. Thank you very much. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of Daryn, and/or the Applicant, or of Roy? Mrs. Kubota. KUBOTA: I just wanted to ask the Applicants, the wording in the conditions are okay with you guys? MOOERS: Got a couple of concerns. GIFFIN: Okay. MOOERS: In Condition E-3 - GIFFIN: Hang on. MOOERS: This has to do with the Public Works improvements to Alii Drive and Walua Road, a little concern. The way the statement reads now, it says "shall contain," in the last sentence of Condition E-3, "at a minimum, paved shoulders along the mauka side of Alii Drive and curb, gutter and sidewalks along Walua Road." I would read that to imply curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides of Walua Road. Our concern about a curb, gutter and sidewalk on the makai side of Walua Road is that there's a significant grade change, it drops from Walua Road into the project; and if we built the sidewalk along that road on the makai side, I think we're going to have to put a chain - linked fence up to keep people from falling into the project. And if we do that, then we get into an SMA issue of visual impact from a County highway to the ocean, cause we're 37 now going to be looking through chain-link. And one of the things we discussed was possibly putting curb, gutter, sidewalks on the mauka side of Walua Road, even though that's not our project; but it might be a safer place to walk. We have not done the engineering as yet. And I guess the suggestion I would make is if we could somehow soften that and say maybe instead of "shall contain" is say "may contain at a minimum" and, again, these are improvements that are going to be paid for by impact -related fees. But I would like to have an engineering study done to see what the topo looks like there to see if it's feasible to do that. Obviously, it'll be more beneficial for us to have a sidewalk on our side of the property, you know, our side of the road if it works. We might even come up with something different perhaps. Maybe we could have Public Works agree to having a sidewalk within our project if there's a better pedestrian way; but we haven't done the engineering as yet. And what makes me nervous about the way the condition is written now is it appears there will be curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the road, and I think engineering -wise that may not be possible. We may end up with a product that we don't want, cause I know that we don't want a chain -linked fence all along Walua Road there. And that's my only concern about that condition. GIFFIN: Daryn, do you have any reaction to that; and if you agree, do you have some suggested wording? ARAI: Well, to address the potential, the concern about sidewalks on both sides, just before the word "Walua Road," I put in "one side." So it's almost like -. It'll read like "paved shoulders," I'm sorry, "curb, gutter and sidewalks along one side of Walua Road," I mean -. MOOERS: That would be fine. ARAI: But, at the same time -. I understand the concerns about sidewalks on the makai side due to the cliff, but at the same time we were looking at the mauka side; and the Commissioners may recall, the sidewalk on the mauka side was one consideration for the Kona Pacific condos withdrawing their contested case request. But we also heard from a landowner in the area who had concerns about curb, gutters on his side of the road, he lives on the mauka side, and whether that was going to eat into his property. So, as you can see, some of the practical hurdles that we still have to go through. And that is why I tried to make it as flexible as possible, just because you have to somehow workout all the details. So if you're agreeable to just putting on one side of Walua Road would -. GIFFIN: Along one side -? MOOERS: Yeah, because that says "a minimum." So if it can be done on both sides, it would still allow for that. GIFFIN: Would you like to add that? You're comfortable with one side of Walua Road, "along one side of Walua Road?" 9M ARAI: Iam. MOOERS: Yes, it says "minimum" so - ARAI: Yeah. MOOERS: Yeah. I mean, we if can work it out, obviously, it would be beneficial to our project if we can work it out to have a sidewalk on our side of the street. GIFFIN: Mr. Togashi? TOGASHI: I'd like to offer a comment from Ann Peterson, who's Chair of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee; and she, I guess, the Committee has suggested sidewalks on Walua Road and Alii Drive along the entire project line, meaning the makai side of the -. GIFFIN: Of Walua. TOGASHI: Right. So, anyway, that's another opinion there, too, yeah? GIFFIN: I think that, you know, ideally that would be great; and then if we have a safety factor which would entail putting in a chain -linked fence, that would really be contra-indicated. TOGASHI: But this is the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. GIFFIN: Okay. Ki? EMLER: The cliff issue is something that the developer could address in other ways than a chain -linked fence, so I wouldn't limit the discussion to that. GIFFIN: Okay. Well, we just said along one side. MOOERS: Well, it says it's a minimum so it can be required on both sides. And, like I say, we haven't done the topo on it yet. So we'll have an engineer that may say there may be a possibility for us to have a pedestrian access at the base of the cliff or, actually, you know, that would provide an alternative way. So that's certainly possible. We just, we haven't done a topo yet so we don't know. But I just don't want to get locked into something that says we have to do it on the side of the road, because that may not be the best solution. GIFFIN: Daryn, did you have anything else you wanted to add? ARAI: No. 39 GIFFIN: Greg, was there anything more, following up on Mrs. Kubota's concern that you are not comfortable with? You can even -. MOOERS: I'm not familiar with Condition M. This came up many years ago when I was working in Corporate Development. At that time, the Planning Department usually took the position that they would not put an impact -related fee as far as Department of Education on projects. It becomes a situation where the County is collecting the fees for the State, and it becomes very awkward. And it's just like we don't collect money for State hospitals or any other things that may be impacted; and the assumption at that time was, in fact, that that's what your tax dollars paid for. Now I raise this because I have been doing this for a few years and it's not a condition I'm used to seeing. I just wanted to know what the basis for it was. I know that the comment came from the Department of Education and my response was that this project typically does not. And what I'm nervous about here is that the compliance with this condition is left to the satisfaction of the Department of Education, which I'm extremely uncomfortable with. I would feel far better with meeting with the, you know, approval of the Planning Department upon consultation with the Department of Education. Because what this really can do is hold us hostage to a State agency to have a County agency collecting money for a State function and they get to tell you how much. And I think that's somewhat unprecedented. And, so, we're uncomfortable with Condition M, as written. GIFFIN: Daryn, was there a reason for that? ARAI: The impetus is simply because of comments received from Department of Education who says they disagree, that there is an impact, so they wanted a fair share assessment. I understand the concerns of the Applicant. And I wouldn't have an objection to amending the condition to say, in consultation with, wait, "approval of Planning in consultation with DOE." But I can't speak to, I tried to do some research to see if there were more recent inclusions of this type of conditions in more recent rezonings, but I just ran out of time. I know many years ago it was somewhat standard, until maybe it was questioned. But the fact of the matter here is that one of the findings of, in supporting a change of zone is to address impacts to public facilities, whether State or County. School facilities are public facilities. And if there is an impact, I think it's our responsibility to mitigate. GIFFIN: So can you do some suggested wording that would, that you're comfortable with and that, obviously, then the Applicant might be? ARAI: Well, I think the Applicant recently suggested the, while he is concerned about the condition, he would be more receptive to us being the approving agency with, in consultation with DOE. So to that end if I -. MOOERS: Could I try -? 40 ARAI: Yeah. MOOERS: If we look at Condition M and we, it presently says, "The Applicant shall contribute to the development funding or construction of school facilities on a fair share basis as determined by and to the satisfaction of -. I would prefer that it said, "the Planning Department, in consultation with the Department of Education" and then "contribution shall be agreed upon in writing by the Applicant and the Planning Department prior to the issuance...." GIFFIN: Say that last part again. MOOERS: Replace, in the last sentence, right now says, "It shall be agreed upon in writing by the Applicant and the Department of Education." And I would prefer that that said, "and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits for any portion of the proposed development." I think what that would allow the Applicant to do an analysis of the Alii Lani project and the Kona Sea Ranch, Sea Ridge, project to see what the impacts on schools are. We have, as I say, a similar project in the area. We can do actual counts, we can check with the Department of Education, how many students are really generated out of these projects. It's very low because many of these are second homes, they're older people that have down -sizes, empty nesters. And I think we can get a very accurate count of what the impacts are. And I'd rather make that argument to somebody in the County of Hawaii than to the Department of Education. GIFFIN: Daryn, are you comfortable with that? ARAI: Yes, I am. GIFFIN: Roy, is there anything you want to ask? TAKEMOTO: No. GIFFIN: Greg, is there anything more? MOOERS: No. That's all our comments. Thank you very much. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions, comments? Do I hear a motion? KUBOTA: Madam Chair, I move that we send a favorable recommendation for Change of Zone Application REZ 02-013 to the County Council, along with the conditions as amended by staff. Is that enough -? GIFFIN: Yes. KUBOTA: Or shall I tell you specifically -? GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? 41 SMITH: Second. GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the Change of Zone Application REZ 02-013 receive a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the recommendations and conditions, as amended, E-2, 3 and 4, Condition I, Condition L, Condition M, as stated by staff on the record. Discussion? Mr. Togashi? TOGASHL I guess for reasons of consistency, I'm looking at the conditions that we approved in the SMA; and there's a condition required of, there's a Condition 3 on a drainage study, and it talks about a drainage study, if required. Whereas, on the Change of Zone it's really mandatory, the way I look at it. Should we incorporate language to make it consistent -? GIFFIN: Daryn? TOGASHI: Or is it fine the way it is, the wording fine the way it is? GIFFIN: Daryn? ARAI: I prefer the change of zone conditions that you're asking for now, which is mandatory. Because it was a mandatory recommendation, well, I wouldn't say a mandatory recommendation, that's, but it was a recommendation of Public Works -. GIFFIN: Right. ARAI: So we are seeking it. GIFFIN: So, would, oh, it's kind of hard though to amend - TOGASHL Well, the SMA, then, too late then. ARAI: But I don't think it's necessary. GIFFIN: Okay. TOGASHI: Oh, okay, all right. ARA 1: I mean, because ultimately, the rezoning would require it so it will satisfy the SMA. TOGASHI: Okay. That's fine. GIFFIN: Okay. Mr. Togashi, any other concerns? 42 TOGASHI: No, that's fine. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other discussion? Hearing none, Daryn? ARAI: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Aye. ARAL Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Mina? MINA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Yes. ARAI: Commissioner Togashi: TOGASHI: Aye. ARAI: Chairwoman Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion to send a favorable motion carries with seven aye votes. GIFFIN: You'll be informed in writing as to today's actions. Thank you very much. MOOERS: Thank you. We'd like to, really appreciate the efforts today, not only of the Commissioners but of the staff. And this is certainly an extraordinary situation where you have to write conditions on the spot; and I think everybody showed great deal of willingness and cooperation in coming up with something, I think, that'll be effective. And we do appreciate that. 43 GIFFIN: I know you do. And I think the staff should be commended for its flexibility and its ability to act so quickly, and thank you, especially to Ki. And with that, this agenda item is over. ROWELL: "Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 5:37 p.m. 44 Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary