HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0096.000 2002-2004 Ham' Kim tr
Dixie Kaetsu
Mauagiug Director
• ~ Peler T. Young
' • Deputy Meuaging Director
'.5
v, ~ -
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupmi Streit, Room 2I5 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808)961-8211 • Fpx (808)961-6553
kONA: 75-5706 Kuakiui IIighway, Sui[e 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96~f40 '
(80R)329-5226 • Fas (808)326-5663
December 31, 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:
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
/ Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017)
? Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20)
Applicants: Walter and Susan Welton
Tax Map Key: 7-5-01 O;Portion of 52 and Portion of 65
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-018)
Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Residential and Agricultural (RA-]a)
Applicant: Daniel Decker
Tax Map Key: 8-2-003:031
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-010)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-020)
Request: A-Sa to RS-15
Applicant: Dennis Young
Tax Map Key: 7-3-10:29
Initiator: County Council
Proposed Bill No. 265 Amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)
of the Hawaii Count~Code Relating to 9ren +'orridor Overlay istri +
As required by Chapter 4, Sea 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.
Si ere
Harry
Mayor File No.
Ref. To:
L041902 ~ ~ ~
Enclosures ,Q+ I ~S Ref. Date~P~` ~ 7603
ce: Planning Department
AtYMM
~1.~ ~
Harry Kim ~ "
nra,~.
Aa•
ilk Oi ~M~M'
County of Hawaii
PLANNING COMMISSION
10l Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043
~ ; ~ (308) 961-8288 Pax (803) 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:
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-0] 7)
Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20)
Applicants: Walter and Susan Welton
Tax Map Kev 7-5-O10 Portion of 052 and Portion of 065
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on December 5,.2002, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bills to change the district classification
from Agricu]tural to Urban and a Change of Zone changing the district classification from
Agricultura] (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20) for approximately 10.02 acres of ]and.
The property is located adjacent to Kealoha and Kona Heights Subdivisions, at the north end of
Melelina Street, approximately 1/2 mile east (mauka) of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway
Extension, Hienaloli 2nd-4th, North Kona, Hawaii.
The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending
favorable consideration of the requests:
State Land Use Boundary Amendment
The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the
Urban District will not be violative of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, the County
General Plan and the Hawaii State Plan. According to the Land Use Commission Rules,
one of the standards for considering an azea for urban reclassification states that "In
determining urban growth for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land
contiguous with existing urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
contiguous land, and particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county
general plans." The subject property does conform to this standard as it is situated
adjacent to existing Urban-designated lands. These lands include: Gomes Family
Limited Partnership (west), Kealoha Subdivision Increment 2 (south and west,
respectively), and Kona Heights Subdivision and Kailua View Estates (south and west).
These developments have effectively established this section of North Kona as a
residential community.
The reclassification action would conform to the following goals, objectives
and/or policies articulated in the Hawaii State Plan:
a. Greater opportunities for Hawaii's people to secure reasonably priced,
safe, sanitary, livable homes located in suitable environments that
satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and
individuals.
b. The orderly development of residential areas sensitive to community
needs and other land uses.
c. Effectively accommodate the housing needs of Hawaii's people.
d. Increase homeownership and rental opportunities and choices in terms of
quality, location, cost, densities, style and size of housing.
e. Promote design and location of housing developments taking into account
the physical setting accessibility to public facilities and services, and
other concerns of existing communities and surrounding areas.
The Urban District request would be consistent with the goals and polices of the
Housing Element of the Hawaii County General Plan by creating additional residential
housing opportunities for the residents of this island.
The Urban District request also conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern
Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates this area for Urban Expansion. The
Urban Expansion Area allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density,
industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements maybe desirable, but
where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. This
request is to allow aloes-density residential subdivision. Low Density Urban
development is defined as residential uses at a density of four units per acre, and certain
neighborhood commercial uses are permitted within this designation. The LUPAG Map
component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals, policies,
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
standards and courses of action. It is also a graphic depiction of the physical relationship
between the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and ?on-
urban form for areas within the County. The area under consideration is consistent with
the urban form established for this section of the North Kona District as depicted on the
LUPAG Map.
The Kona Regional Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission in 1984,
recommends the area for residential units at a density of four units per acre. The
applicants' proposal fora 17-lot single-family residential subdivision on 10.02 acres of
land amounts to a density of roughly two (2) units per acre. It is adjacent to Kealoha
Subdivision, and Kona Heights and Kailua View Estates Subdivisions. The proposed
reclassification is for a similar Urban land use designation that these subdivisions
currently retain. Thus, the requested boundary amendment would be in the direction of
fulfilling the recommendation of the Kona Regional Plan to provide for lo~v density
residential uses within this section of North Kona.
Furthermore, an Urban classification would complement the existing residential
land use patterns of the surrounding properties, which include The Pines and Kealoha,
Kailua View Estates, Kona Heights, and Aloha Kona Subdivisions.
The property is situated within close proximity to the employment center of
Kailua-Kona. The subject reclassification is for land located approximately 2 miles from
the urban retail/employment center ofKailua-Kona, and thereby conforms with the Land
Use Commission Rules which encourages urban developments in close proximity to
existing developments and in close proximity to existing services and facilities.
The property is or will be provided with all utilities and services, which are
essential to accommodate urban development. The applicants propose to construct a
17-lot subdivision, with lots no smaller than 20,000 square feet. Proposed access to the
project site will be via the existing Melelina Street in the Kealoha Subdivision. Melelina
Street connects with Nani Kailua Drive which connects to the Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway extension. A condition of the accompanying change of zone application will
require that the applicants extend Melelina Street to the northern boundary of the project
site and construct the road to County dedicable standards in order to ensure roadway
connections to adjoining parcels. This would help to maintain options for future roadway
connections that maybe needed to promote traffic flow as urban uses in the area continue
to expand.
Water to the project site is available via the existing 6-inch waterline in Melelina
Street. A condition of the accompanying change of zone application will ensure that
sufficient water commitments are secured for each of the 17 new lots within the proposed
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
subdivision. Wastewater generated by the proposed use will be disposed of via
individual wastewater treatment systems approved by the State Department of Health.
Police services are available from the County's Police Station at Kealakehe,
approximately three miles from the project site. Fire and emergency services are
available from the station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway, approximately two miles from the site.
Electricity and telephone services are currently available to the project area.
Native Hawaiian traditional or cultural practices will not be affected or impaired
by the proposed project. Archaeological inventory has been done, and the applicant is
working with the State Historic Preservation Division to obtain an approved
Archaeological Mitigation Plan. A condition of the accompanying change of zone
application will ensure that approved archaeological mitigation measures be implemented
prior to submittal of plans for subdivision and land alteration activities.
There are no known rare or endangered flora or fauna present on the property.
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 majority of the
property as Zone "X" with a portion of the property adjoining the Hienaloli Drainage
Way as "AE," in the northeast comer of proposed Lot 4. All proposed subdivision
improvements will be in the area designated "X" which is 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. It is recommended by the Department of Public
Works -Engineering Division that the applicants prepare a more detailed flood study of
the bend in the Hienaloli Drainage Way located partially within the subject property. The
study would evaluate the need for additional flood protection improvements. With these
mitigative measures, reclassification does meet with the standard which states that the
lands included within the urban district shall be those with satisfactory topography
and drainage and reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami and unstable soil
conditions and other adverse environmental effects."
The property is not in agricultural use, and its reclassification to Urban will not be
detrimental to the agricultural inventory in the County of Hawaii. While the subject
property is within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's Agricultural-Sa zoned
district and was historically used for pasture, it is not currently being used for active
agricultural purposes. The State of Hawaii's Agricultural Lands of Importance to the
State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map does not classify the subject property in any category.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the soils in the area
is "D" or Poor. The project site has been previously grubbed and utilized for pasture.
Therefore, the reclassification of this 10.02-acre area from the Agricultural to the
Urban designation would not be detrimental to the agricultural land inventory in the
County of Hawaii. From a land use perspective, in-filling urban development within this
particular area of North Kona which has already been extensively developed for low
density urban uses, would help to alleviate the conversion of more productive agricultural
lands located within areas of North Kona that aze more appropriate for agricultural uses.
Based on the above, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to
the Urban District complements the State Land Use District Regulations and is supportive
of the State of Hawaii Plan.
Chanae of Zone
In order to consider an azea 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 the evaluations and
decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the
County, and ultimately, on the future development of the whole island.
The proposed request would be consistent with the following goals and policies of
the General Plan:
Housing Element
• Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of
Hawaii.
• Attain adiversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of
the County.
• Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices.
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
• 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 cornerstone of the County's housing programs and activities shall continue to
be the encouragement and expansion of appropriate home ownership
opportunities for our residents.
The applicants recognize the constant demand for housing in the region. The
applicants seek to provide lots for the construction of homes in an area where housing is
needed and would be compatible with surrounding uses. The area is designated for
"Urban Expansion" on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)
Map.
The proposed change of zone request would be consistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. The Land Use Element provides the primary basis for
direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended
to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of
the County. The Land Use Element also sets forth goals, policies, and standards to guide
the location and density, and building intensities of land uses in particular areas. Through
these goals, policies, and standards, the land use element seeks to accommodate growth
without congestion; to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use.
commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture, and open space; and to coordinate
these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The goals, policies and
standards of the Land Use Element are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County
in the best interest of the island's residents. These state the following:
Land Use Element
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix 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.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 7
• Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected
needs of neighborhood, community, region and County.
• Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation,
district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent
zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need.
The proposed request would also complement the following, goals and policies of
the Single Family Residential Element:
Single-Family Residential Element
• To maximize choices ofsingle-family residential lots and/or housing for residents
of the County.
• To ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned
areas.
• To provide single-family residential areas conveniently located to public and
private services, shopping, other community activities, and convenient access to
employment centers.
• The County shall designate and allocate single-family residential zoned lands at
varying densities for future use in accordance with the needs of the communities
and the stated goals, policies and standards.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map is the graphical
representation of the goals and policies of the General Plan and indicates the general
location of various land uses in relation to each other. The area proposed for rezoning is
designated Urban Expansion on the LUPAG Map. The Urban Expansion area allows for
a mix of High Density, Medium Density, Low Density, Industrial, and/or Open
designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where specific
settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. The requested change
of zone maybe approved provided that the applicable goals, policies, and standards of the
General Plan are met. The proposed development would meet the General Plan's Low
Density Urban designation, which is characterized by single family residences with
ancillary community and public uses, and convenience type commercial uses. Upon
securing a State Land Use District Boundary Amendment (Agriculture to Urban) and the
Change of Zone (Agriculture-5 acre to Single Family Residential-20,000 square feet) the
applicants propose to subdivide the property into 17single-family residential lots.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 8
Therefore, the proposed request is determined to be consistent with the Urban Expansion
development as depicted on the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
The Kona Regional Plan designates this area for residential uses (RES-4). This
designation includes residential uses of up to 4 units per acre. The requested Change of
Zone complies with these criteria with a unit density of approximately 2 units per acre.
Given the previously mentioned facts, the proposed Change of Zone is consistent
with the long range planning documents of the County, i.e. the General Plan and the
Kona Regional Plan, which designate this area for urban expansion and residential uses.
The Agricultural Lands of Importance for the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map
shows the subject property as unclassified, and the Land Study Bureau classifies the
subject property as "D" or "Poor" for agricultural productivity. The subject property has
been in pasture use. It is anticipated that removal of these lands from agricultural
designation and their placement in urban use would not be detrimental to the agricultural
inventory in the County of Hawaii.
Haun and Associates conducted an archaeological inventory for a prior
subdivision (SUB 7434) that included the subject property. The survey identified 22 sites
with 134 component features. The survey report assessed all 22 sites as significant for
their information content. Of these 22 sites, 17 were assessed solely for information
content with no further work or preservation recommended. The five remaining sites
retained the potential to yield information important for understanding prehistoric and
early historic land use and were recommended for data recovery. The applicants are
currently working with the State Historic Preservation Division to obtain approval of a
revised Archaeological Mitigation Plan. A condition of this Change of Zone request will
require that all archaeological mitigation measures required by an approved
Archaeological Mitigation Plan be fully implemented by the applicants prior to the
submittal of plans for subdivision review and/or any land alteration activities within the
project site.
Flora and fauna are primarily composed of kiawe, koa haole, natal redtop, lantana,
guinea grass, and Bermuda grass. The site has been grubbed and formerly used for
pasturing animals. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated to floral or
faunal resources.
Access to the project site would be from Melelina Street in the Kealoha
Subdivision that connects to Aloha Kona Drive in the Kona Heights Subdivision. Kona
Heights Subdivision roads connect to Nani Kailua Drive in the Kailua View Estates
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 9
Subdivision, and Nani Kailua Drive is the main access to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway
extension. All of these roads are 50-foot wide, County maintained road rights-of--way.
The internal roads for the applicants' proposed subdivision aze cunently planned to be
private, including Melelina Street which is shown on the applicants' plans as ending in a
cul-de-sac within the proposed futwe subdivision. The County is concerned that
incremental rezoning such as this for Lots 4 & 5 of SUB7434 and the recent Change of
Zone by the Gomes Family Limited Partnership of Lot I in SUB 7434 will adversely
impact the County's ability to establish an integrated and comprehensive traffic network
within this section of North Kona, particularly where Nani Kailua Drive meets Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway extension. As recommended by the Department of Public Works,
a condition of this Change of Zone request will require the applicants to extend Melelina
Street to the northern boundary of the project site and to build the extension to County
dedicable standazds with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. In this way, future options are
maintained for roadway networks that may be needed as urbanization continues
throughout this Urban Expansion area. The applicants did not respond favorably to this
recommendation stating that "Community response to this proposal has beer: to oppose
connecting this project area to other properties to limit the increase in traj~c in this area
to the proposed 17lots and not allow other parcels to gain access through this m•ea,"
This is counter-productive to the County's goal ofpraviding inter-connections between
subdivisions to distribute traffic throughout an area instead of channeling all traffic to one
single access point. It also provides for options to area residents should emergency
evacuations be necessary. The goal is to provide options for access, not to close-off
subdivisions and isolate them from one another.
The Planning Commission recommends approval with serious concerns regarding
the need for further roadway development to relieve increasing traffic congestion along
Aloha Kona Drive and Nani Kailua Drive, and their connectivity to Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway extension.
The Department of Water Supply has confirmed that water can be made available
from an existing 6-inch waterline in Melelina Street. A condition of this favorable
recommendation will ensure that sufficient water commitments are secured for each of
the 17 new lots within the proposed subdivision.
Should the County Council approve the applicants' request for a State Land Use
Urban Distrlet and the request for a Single Family Residential (RS-20) zoned district, the
applicants would normally be allowed to apply for an 'Ghana Dwelling Permit, which
would allow the construction of a second dwelling unit as a separate or attached unit on
each of the 17 lots. Although, the Planning Director supports this rezoning request to
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 10
allow fora 17-lot subdivision with one home on each lot, the potential to allow thirty-
four (34) homes may contribute to a cumulative burden on the existing infrastructure
(roads, water, etc.), which cannot be supported. The applicants also propose restrictive
covenants to prohibit 'Ghana dwellings "to preserve the single-family residential
ambience of the area." The Planning Director recommends that a condition be included
to prohibit a second dwelling unit and condominium property regimes on the individual
lots created in the proposed 17-lot subdivision.
The AE Zone floodway affects the subject property along the northeast corner of
proposed Lot 4 where there is a bend in the major watercourse known as Hienaloli
Drainage Way. The applicants state that "all proposed subdivision improvements will be
in the `X' area." Based on recommendations made by the Department of Public Works -
Engineering Division, the Planning Director recommends that the applicants prepare a
more detailed flood study of the Hienaloli watercourse bend in the vicinity of the project
site to evaluate the need for additional flood protection improvements. The Planning
Director recommends that a condition be included to require restrictive covenants in the
deeds of all the proposed lots that will prohibit the construction of a single family
dwelling and its related improvements within areas designated as a "100-year flood
plain" by the Department of Public Works or designated "AE" by Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM), whichever is deemed more appropriate by the Department of Public
Works.
Other portions of the property fall within Zone X. Areas in the Zone X are
determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. All on-site drainage improvements
will be designed and implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Department of
Public Works and the State Department of Health.
Based on the above findings, approval of this Change of Zone request from
Agricultural-Sacre (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential - 20,000 square feet (RS-20)
would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the public.
For your favorable consideration, amendments to the State Land Use Boundaries Map H-7 for
the County of Hawaii and Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map, of the County Zoning Code
are transmitted.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 11
We are enclosing a copy of the staff background and transcript for your information.
Sincerely, r
'Geraldine M. Giffin, Chairman
Planning Commission
Lwelton02pc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Gregory R. Mooers
Walter and Susan Welton
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
West Hawaii Office
Department of Land & Natural Resources
Brian Minaai, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu
State Department of Health
County Housing Agency
County Fire Department
~ Welton COZ and SLlJdlc-1125/02
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
WALTER AND SUSAN WELTON
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (SLU No. 02-007)
CHANGE OF ZONE (REZ No. 02-017)
Walter and Susan Welton have submitted an application for a State Land Use Boundary
Amendment from Agricultural to Urban District, and a Change of Zone by changing the district
classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20) for approximately
10.02 acres of land. The property is located adjacent to Kealoha and Kona Heights Subdivisions,
at the north end of Melelina Street, approximately 'h mile east (mauka) of the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway Extension, Hienaloli 2"a - 4`h North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-10:
Portions of 52 and 65.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Land Ownership: Walter and Susan Welton are the fee owners of Lot 4 (Portion of 52
and 65) which is 8.971 acres in size, and CL&D One, LLC is the fee owner of Lot 5
(Portion of 52 and 65) which is 6.063 acres in size. '
2. Previous Subdivision: Lots 4 and 5, which are the subject of the present application,
were created in a previous subdivision action (SUB 7434) approved in January 2002 in
which approximately 51 (Ffty-one) acres were divided into 6 lots ranging from 14.533
acres to 5.386 acres.
3. Change of Zone and State Land Use Boundary Amendment in Same~Subdivision: In
September 2002 the Planning Commission approved the Change of Zone (A-Sato RS-20)
and State Land Use Boundary Amendment (Agricultural to Urban District) request of the
Gomes Family Limited Partnership for 9.746 acres, Lot 1 created by SUB ?434 on TMK:
7-5-10: Portion of 65. (See Exhibit A -Map of Subject Property and Surrounding
Zoning and Land Uses). The applicant intends to subdivide Lot 1 into I S single family
residential lots.
,~~~+rj`J~ PC
1 ~
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
4. Request: The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from
Agricultural to Urban District, and a Change of Zone by changing the district
classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Singie Family Residential (RS-20) for
approximately 10.02 acres.
5. Objective: The applicant would subdivide the property into 17 single family residential
parcels each consisting of at least 20,000 square feet. Furthermore, as part of the
subdivision the applicant plans to underground all utilities and develop covenants that
would prohibit ' Ohana dwellings.
6. Support Information: The applicant has submitted the following in support of their
request. (See Exhibit B -State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone
Applications)
STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
7. SLU: Agriculture
8. Zoning: Agriculture - 5 acres (A-Sa)
9. General Plan: Urban Expansion -Allows for a mix of high density, medium density ,
low density, industrial and/or open designations where new settlements maybe desirable,
but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined.
10. Kona Regional Plan: RES-4 -this designation encourages residential uses up to a
maximum density of 4 units per acre.
l 1. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan: The property is outside the study area of the
Keahole to Kailua Development Plan.
12. Master Plan for Kailua-Kona: The property is outside the study azea of the Master
Plan for Kailua Kona.
13. Special Management Area: The property is not situated within the Special Management
Area.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
14. Subject Property: The 10.02 -acre subject property is roughly trapezoidal in shape and
comprises a portion of Lots 4 and 5 which were created in a previous subdivision action
approved in January 2002. In that subdivision action (SUB 7434), Lot 4 became 8.971
acres and Lot 5 became 6.063 acres. See Exhibit D of the State Land Use Boundary
2
Amendment and Change of Zone Applications for the project's site plan. The
proposed project is south and adjacent to the bend in the Hienaloli Drainage Way,
adjacent and northeast of Kealoha Subdivision, Increment 2, and north and adjacent to
the Kona Heights and Kailua View Estates subdivisions.
15. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Several developed residential subdivisions are
immediately south and west of the subject property. They include: Kealoha Subdivision
Increment 2 (RS-15), Kona Heights (A-Sa, average lot size 8,000 ft?), Kailua View
Estates (RS-15), Aloha Kona (A-Sa, average lot size 7,500 ft.z), and The Pines (RM-4
and CN-20). Property immediately to the east and north is zoned A-Sa and A-1 a. See
Exhibit A -Map of Subject Property and Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses.
16. FIRM: The majority of the property is in Zone X, outside of the 500-yeaz flood plain.
Approximately 8,000 s.f. of the northeastern tip of proposed Lot 4 lies in the AE Flood
Zone that corresponds to the one-hundred-year floodplain where a bend in the Hienaloli
Drainage Way is located. Any development within the floodplain will be subject to the
requirements of Chapter 27 -Flood Controi, of the Hawaii County Code. The applicant
states that "all proposed subdivision improvements will be in the `X' azea."
17. ALISH: Unclassified
18. Soil Survey: Soils in the area are composed of Punalu~u extremely rocky peat (rPYD)
which is characterized by rapid permeability, slow runoff and slight erosion hazazd on
6 - 20 percent slopes. This soil type is typically used for pasture.
19. Land Study Bureau: The Land Study Bureau overall master productivity rating for
agricultural use of the area is D -Poor.
20. Historic Sites: An archeological inventory survey and mitigation plan was completed for
the subject property by Haun and Associates as part of the previous subdivision process
(SUB 7434). See Exhibit B -State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of
Zone Applications for a copy of this survey and mitigation plan. The survey identified 22
sites with 134 component features. The survey report assessed a1122 sites as significant
for information content. Of these 22 sites, 17 were assessed solely for information
content with no further work or preservation recommended. The five remaining sites
retained the potential to yield infonnation important for understanding prehistoric and
early historic land use and were recommended for data recovery. None of these five sites
3
are located on the properties that are subject of this proposed change of zone and land use
classification. The applicant will comply with all provisions of the mitigation plan as
approved by the Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation
Division.
21. Cultural Resources: In the past the property has been grubbed and used Fur pasturing
animals. Thus the applicant believes that there are no valued cultural, historical or
natural resources on the subject property. Similarly the applicant is not aware of any
active traditional and customary native gathering that is taking place on the property.
Therefore the proposed action should not affect any traditional, Hawaiian gathering
rights.
22. Flora and Fauna: The natural vegetation consists of kiawe, koa haole, natal redtop,
lantana, guinea grass, and bermuda grass.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
23. Access: The proposed access point to the subject property is from Melelina Street which
connects to Nani Kailua Drive which connects to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway
extension. Melelina Street is a 50-foot wide County road right of way with an
approximately 36-foot wide paved surface with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
24. Water: Water can be made available to the site from an existing County water system in
the Kona Heights Subdivision.
25. Wastewater: There is no municipal wastewater system available in the area.
Wastewater will be treated in individual wastewater systems approved by the Department
of Health.
26. Utilities: Underground utilities will be provided from the area's existing inti•astructure.
AGENCY COMMENTS (Starting with the most recent)
27. Department of Water:
See attached Exhibit C -Memorandum dated November 20, 2002
28. Department of Public Works -Engineering Division:
See attached Exhibit D -Memorandum dated November 5, 2002.
29. Kona Soil and Water Conservation District:
See attached Exhibit E -Letter dated October 17, 2002.
4
30. Fire Department:
See attached Exhibit F -Memorandum dated October 8, 2002
31. Land Use Commission:
See attached Exhibit G -Letter dated October 7, 2002.
32. Police Department (Memorandum dated October 1, 2002):
"Staff has reviewed the above-referenced application and does not feel it will have any
specific impact on traffic or police services."
33. DLNR-Land Division (Engineering Branch):
See attached Exhibit H -Memorandum dated September 30, 2002.
34. Department of Health:
See attached Exhibit I -Memorandum dated September 25, 2002.
AGENCIES WITH NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS
~partment of Water Supply and DLNR -Divisions of State Pazks, Forestry and Wildlife,
Hawaii District Land Office, Aquatic Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management
and Na Ala Hele.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS
35. See attached Exhibit J -Letter dated October 16, 2002.
36. See attached Exhibit K -Letter dated November 20, 2002.
AGENCIES WITH NO RESPONSE
Real Property Tax, Department of Transportation (Honolulu & Hilo), Department of
Environmental Management and Department of Agriculture.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
37. No public comments regarding the subject application were received by the Planning
Department.
5
~9~ ~'d
0 0 00 " 'o
NaN v ~
_ R M y
d. G~~ L C N v i. m fn qyj y
~'i 7 1n •d d ~ A A W
O Vl G 'V LL r O ~ N L M 'O
0. r N S n O ~p ~i ~t¢ I~ b
.O ti p ~i ~ t .r
d
v',Hadm Q z Y eF-~ ~
a
.Q
N
au
a
b
b
7
i
L
7
b
C
eu
w
.0 0
D
a
U] L
~ C ~O Q.I
W M
h ~ ~ ~
L ~ ~ ~
ti ~i
xaH ro ~
~ ~
i
a
ro
~ m
.n
en i cC
•y o ~
d
~ o
T ~ ~
O b ~
wL~aL°,M ~ m
s. ~ a ¢
v ~ N o r
~ x
C7 p;~t~ VUi 2
v tY
ro
a
e ~N•°-°~
a' Ez'oe
H1dON h oU7
v m 'o ~ v~
C > e Vj r
O ~ N d Q lQ+ F.~Yr.
!n Vi ~ S ~C L e+
A C N H ~ ar .7 f"i
C A ~
O ~ V+
x2
r~~~
~~'y~
Q Q a F
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION
(15 ACRES OR LESS) ~R~Z HUG 13
- COUNTY OF HAWAII A~111 3 p
PLANNING DEPARTME~I'~,un„~,~
CLU;^,~jY C~~~~~!.M
ANT
(Type or legibly print the requested information)
PETITIONER: Walter and Susan Welton
PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: TE: 8/8/02
ADDRESS: 73-351 Hoene S[reet, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
PETITIONER'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Owner/Developer
TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 329-1373 (Welton) (Res.) (Fax)
LANDOWNER(S): Falter and Susan Welton and CL One LL Dan Bolton - Mana in Member)
LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): • 8/8/02
( ay by letter)
ADDRESS: Walter and Susan~eltnn
75-351 Hoene Street
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-10:portion 52 & portion 65
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
ZONING: Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) SIZE OF PROPERTY: 10.020 acres
CURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Agricultural
REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Urban
AGENT: Gregory R. Mooers
ADDRESS: Mooers Enternrises_LLC
P.O. Box 1101
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: Walter Welton
(See Instructions on Reverse Side)
EXHIBIT ?3
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
COUNTY OF HAWAII "'~~2 FjUG 13
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ali 11 30
(Type or legibly print the requested informatt~dr~NNING C-pn~TM~NT
(:OUNTY 0'F H,~~NAII
APPLICANT: Walter and Susan Welton
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: TE: 8/8/02
ADDRESS: 75-35LHoene Street
Kailua-Kona Hawaii 96740
LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Owner/Developer
LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
PHONE:(Bus.) 329-1373 (Res.) (Fax)
LANDOWNER(S): Walter and Susan Welton and CL D On ,LLC Dan Bolto - Mana in Member
LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): ATE: 8/8/02
(May be by letter)
LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 73-351 Hoene tree[, Kadua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
REQUEST: Agncultural 5-acre (A-Sa) TO Residential 20,000 s.f. (RS-20)
(Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning)
TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-10:52 portion & 65 portion
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 10.020 acres
AGENT: Gregory R. Mooers
ADDRESS: Mooers Ente ricer. i i
P.O. Box 1 ] 0 ]
Kamuela, Hawaii 96743
TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 885-6839 (Res.) 885-7126 (pax) 885-1574
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
ORIGINAL: Mooers Enterprises, LLC COPIES: Walter Welton
(See Instructions on Reverse Side)
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? Yes
if yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to
question 3.
a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to
subdivide? 10.020
b. Into what lot sizes? RS-20
c. if your request is approved, approximately how long
after the date of approval do you expect to submit
your subdivision plans to the Planning Department
for preliminary approval? ],no,
d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created
lots? No
if yes, please answer the following questions:
on how many of those lots?
At what approximate price range? House
Lots
Total
Approximately how long, after approval of
the subdivision, would the first house be
available for occupancy?
If you intend to subdivide, please submit a
preliminary schematic subdivision plan together
with your change of zone application form.
2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area,
do you intend to:
a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm
plans?
b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative
plans?
c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has n4 plans?
d. Keep it?
e. other (please state)
f. If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate
on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also,
include in your answer approximately how soon after
approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the
subject land to another party.
3. Do xouthink that your request and your further plans
for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes
How?
The proposed action will create I7 residential lots in this highly desirable area of North Kona.
Q. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes
If so, what kind?
There is presently one house under construction on the proposed Lot 1. The balance of the
property is vacant.
what do you intend to do with those buildings if your
request is approved?
-2-
5. Is the subject land currently being used for any
agricultural activity? No
If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on
how many square feet or acres of land per product.
6. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or
drainage problem on the subject area? No
If so, please describe the problem.
7. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area
needs improvement? No
If so, what kind?
Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume
or load? Yes
e. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements
do you feel will be needed in the subject area when
developed?
yes N9
a. Schools X
b. Roads R
c. Sewer X
d. Drainage X
e, police Protection X
-3-
Yes jyp
f. Fire Protection X
g. Recreational Facilities X
h. Public Utilities X
t. other
For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of
improvements and/or assistance are needed.
G/~~d~s~~~~~~;~C~/ Si9naturee~l~.C/U~IX~
Address: 75-351 Hoene Street, Kailua-Kona, Hi
Telephone : 329-1373
Date: 818/0 L
6337A/SOA -4-
P.D. 5/84
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General Information 1
B. Subject Request/Proposed Development 2
II. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
A. State Land Use Classification 3
B. Hawaii County General Plan Policies and Objectives 3
C. General Plan Designation 6
D. County Zoning Code 7
E. Community Development Plan 7
F. Special Management Area 7
G. Chapter 205 A: Coastal Zone Management Act 7
H. Mountain Access 8
III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical Characteristics/Environmental Setting:
A. Description of Property and Surrounding Area 8
B. Parcel Dimensions 8
C. Elevation 8
D. Annual Rainfall 8
E. Slope 8
F. Site Condition and Use 8
G. Lava Hazazd Zone 9
H. Distance ..from Ocean 9
I. ALISH ............................................................................9
J. U.S.D.A. Soil Survey Report 9
K. Land Study Bureau's Overall Productivity Rating 9
L. FIRM 9
M. Drainage 9
i
Historic Resources 10
Cultural Resources 10
Natural Resources (Flora-Fauna) ]0
Social-Economic Characteristics 10
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning 11
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
A. Access 12
B. Traffic .............................................................................12
C. Roadway Designs ................................................................12
D. Utilities 12
E. Water ..............................................................................12
F. Wastewater 13
G. Police Services 13
H. Fire Services 13
I. Schools 13
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
A. Relationship between short term uses of environment and maintenance and
enhancement of long term productivity 13
B. Mitigative measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or reduce impact... 13
C. Alternatives to the proposed deve]opment 13
D. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that
would be involved if the proposed action is implemented 14
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Archaeological Mitigation Plan
B. Site Photographs
C. Regional Location Maps
D. Site Plans
ii
BACKGROUND
AND
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT:
AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN
CHANGE OF ZONE:
AGRICULTURAL 5-ACRE TO RESIDENTIAL 20,000 S.F.
Tax Map Key: (3) 7-5-10:52 portion, 65 portion
Hienaloli 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii
Applicant: Walter and Susan Welton
The applicants, Walter and Susan Welton, are seeking a State Land Use Boundary
Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acre
(A-Sa) to Residentia120,000 square foot (RS-20) fora 10.020 acre parcel located at
Hienaloli 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (3) 7-5-10:52 portion & 65 portion.
These requests are made to allow the subsequent subdivision of the property into 17
residential lots with related improvements.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL INFORMATION:
The subject property is Lot 4 & 5 of a recent consolidation-resubdivision action (SUB
2000-0066) that received Final Approval (No. 7434) on July 10, 2001. Walter and Susan
Welton are the fee owners of Lot 4 and CL&D One, LLC is the fee owner of Lot 5. All
of Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 5 aze the subject of these applications.
1
B. SUBJECT REQUEST/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
•1. The applicants are proposing to redistrict a 10.020 acre property from the agricultural
district to the urban district and change the zone from Agricultural 5-acre (A-Sa) to
Residentia120,000 s.f. (RS-20) to allow the subdivision of the property into 17
residential lots in conformance with the new zoning designation.
2. The site is presently vacant and unused, except for the on-going construction of a
single-family dwelling on the proposed Lot 1 (please see the site plan in the exhibits).
This site has been used periodically to pasture livestock. The property has previously
been graded to facilitate its use for pasturing animals and to accommodate the single-
family residence which started construction in June of 2002. Expected completion is
December 2002.
3. The 10.020 acre lot is a roughly trapezoidal shaped lot located between Aloha Kona
Drive and the Kona Heights Subdivision on the south, the Hienaloli drainage way to
the north, vacant land to the east and vacant land to the west. Please see the location
map and rezoning exhibit in the exhibits.
4. The Nani Kailua Drive signalized intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway is
approximately 3,000 feet south of the subject property. Nani Kailua Drive provides
access to the Kailua View Estates, and the Kona Heights subdivisions.
5. Access to the proposed subdivision is proposed to be from Nani Kailua Drive and
Melelina Street. These are both County owned and maintained roadways. Melelina
Street has 36 feet of pavement with curb gutters and sidewalks. Please see the site
photographs. Also see the change of zone exhibit for the regional roadway alignment.
6. The interior roadway is intended to be privately owned with a 50' right-of--way and
20' of asphalt paving. There will be 6' gravel shoulders with 6' paved swales. Dry
wells will be installed as. required by the Department of Public Works (DPW).
Roadways will be connected to adjoining properties as determined by the Planning
Department in consultation with the Department of Public Works. Roadways
connected to adjoining parcels will be constructed to meet the requirements of DPW.
7. Underground utilities will be provided to each of the proposed 17 lots from the area's
existing infrastructure.
2
8. Infrastructure construction on the first lots will begin immediately after all
governmental approvals aze secured.
9. There will be restrictive covenants developed for the subdivision that will prohibit
ohana dwellings to preserve the single-family residential ambience of the area.
II. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS:
A. STATE LAND USE DESIGNATION:
The State Land Use District Classification of the subject parcel is Agricultural.
One component of this request is to re-district the Agricultural propert}~ to the
Urban District. It should be noted that since 1985, pursuant to State law, the
Counties aze allowed to process amendments to the district classification if the
land area is less than 15 acres. In this case the subject pazcel consists of 10.020
acres.
B. GOALS/POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE GENERAL PLAN:
ECONOMIC
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.
• 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 shall strive for full employment.
3
LAND USE
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
• 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.
• Promote and encourage the rehabilitation and use of urban and rural azeas
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.
• The County shall develop, in cooperation with community residents,
community development or regional plans for al] of the districts or
combinations of districts and shall periodically review and amend these
documents as necessary or as mandated.
STANDARDS
• 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.
4
• Zoning may be recommended on an incremental basis depending upon
construction schedule, development of supporting services and facilities, and
other pertinent factors bearing upon the performance of the petitioner.
(5) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Through careful examination and analysis of the present situation, the
following goals, policies, and standazds aze set forth to guide the orderly
development of single-family residential areas in the interest of the residents of
the County of Hawaii.
GOALS
• To maximize choices of single-family residential lots and/or housing
for residents of the County,
• To ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family
residential zoned azeas.
• To provide single-family residential azeas conveniently located to
public and private services, shopping, other community activities and
convenient access to employment centers.
• The County shall encourage and coordinate with the State in providing
fee simple and leasehold single-family residential lots to the residents
through State and/or County Housing Programs.
• The County shall incorporate reasonable flexibility in codes and
ordinances to achieve a diversity of socio- economic housing mix and
to permit aesthetic balance between single-family residential structures
and open spaces.
• The County shall designate and allocate single-family residential zoned
lands at varying densities for future use in accordance with the needs
of the communities and the stated goals, policies, and standards.
5
HOUSING
GOALS
• 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 vaziety 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 vaziety 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 cornerstone of the County's housing programs and activities shall
continue to be the encouragement and expansion of appropriate home
ownership opportunities for our residents.
POLICIES
• The County shall encourage a volume of construction and
rehabilitation of housing sufficient to meet growth needs and correct
existing deficiencies.
6
C. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
- The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General
Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the
coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction
of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map
establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The
subject property is designated as Urban Expansion Area. The Urban Expansion
Areas allow for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial
and/or open designations in azeas where new settlements may be desirable, but
where specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined.
The applications to create glow-density residential project aze consistent with the
urban form depicted on the LUPAG Map for this azea of North Kona.
D. COUNTY ZONING CODE:
The original zoning for this pazcels was Unplanned, but upon the approval of the
new zoning code on December 7, 1996, al] Unplanned zone property was re-
designated as Agricultural 5-acre (A-Sa). One component of this request is to
change the zone of the property to Residentia120,000 s.f. (RS-20).
E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The Kona Regional Plan, adopted in April 1984 by the Planning Commission
designates the subject area as Residential -four units per acre (RES-4). The
proposed residential development is consistent with the Kona Regional Plan.
F. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA:
The subject property is not located within the County's Special Management Area
(SMA), and as such does not require a SMA permit.
7
G. CHAPTER 205A: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT:
- The subject property is located over one mile from the shoreline surrounded by a
regional roadway system and residential subdivisions. The proposed use of the
subject property will not negatively impact recreational resources, visual resources
to or from the shoreline, including access to and along the shoreline or coastal
ecosystems. Therefore no scenic or open space resources to the shoreline coastal
view plane or coastal ecosystem will be negatively impacted by the proposed action.
H. MOUNTAIN ACCESS:
The subject property is surrounded by the regional roadway system and residential
subdivisions. The property is not used for access to the mountains or any mountain
feature, therefore no public access to these areas will be impacted by the proposed
action.
III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
P/rysica[ Characteristics/Environmental Setting:
A. The 10.020 acre lot is a roughly trapezoidal shaped lot located between Aloha Kona
Drive and the Kona Heights Subdivision on the south, the Hienaloli drainageway to
the north, vacant land to the east and vacant land to the west. Please see the location
map and rezoning exhibit in the exhibits.
B. The property's westem boundary is approximately 320 feet in length, the eastern
boundary is approximately 800 feet and the distance between these two boundaries is
approximately 1,100 feet.
C. The subject property's elevation is between 500 feet along the makai or western
boundary to about 640 feet on the top of the property at its eastern boundary.
D. Annual rainfall for the area is between 40 to 50 inches according to An Inventory of
Basic Water Resources Data: Island of Hawaii, published by the Department of Land
and Natural Resources.
8
E. The site slopes from its eastern (mauka) boundary down to the western (makai)
- boundary at a grade between 6 and 18%.
F. Other than the single-family home under construction, the site is presently vacant and
has been previously used for pasturing animals.
G. The U. S. Geological Survey has categorized the island into nine zones of
comparative hazard rates from lava flows, with Zone ]being the highest and Zone 9,
the lowest severity of hazazd. The U. S. Geological Survey designates the subject
property as Lava Hazazd Zone 4; about 5% of this area has been covered by lava
since ] 800 and less than 15% of this area has been covered by lava in the last 750
years. This area covers all of Hualalai, where the frequency of eruptions is lower than
on Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Flows typically cover large azeas.
H. The site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the ocean at Oneo Bay.
I. The State Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State
of Hawaii (ALISH) has no classification for this property.
J. The U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survev Renort classifies
the soil type as 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 VII'S,
non-irrigated, which are typified as having severe limitations and being unsuitable for
cultivation.
K. The Land Study Bureau's overall master productivity rating system classifies the soil
as Class "E" or Very Poor for agricultural use.
L. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the majority of the property is in Zone "X", an azea outside the
500-year flood plain. There is a portion (approximately 8,OOOs.£) of proposed lot 4
adjoining the Hienaloli drainage way that is in zone shaded "X" and "AE". These
shaded "X" and "AE" zones are demarcated on the site plan in the exhibits.
9
M. All proposed subdivision improvements will be in the "X" azea. The applicants will
- abide by al] applicable County guidelines for run-off generated by the development.
Any improvements must comply with Chapter 27 of the County Code relating to
Flood Hazard Control.
Historic Resources:
An archaeological inventory survey and mitigation plan have been prepazed for the
area by Haun and Associates as part of the previous subdivision process. Please see
the exhibits for a copy of this plan. The survey identified 22 sites with 134
component features. The survey report assessed all 22 sites as significant for
information content. Of these 22 sites, 17 were assessed solely for information
content with no further work or preservation recommended. The five remaining sites
retained the potential to yield information important for understanding prehistoric and
early historic land use and were recommended for data recovery. None of these five
sites are located on the subject property for this proposed change of zone and
subdivision. The applicant will comply with all provisions of the mitigation plan as
approved by the Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation
Division (DLNR-SHPD).
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.
Natural Resources (Flora-Fauna):
The natural vegetation consists of kiawe, koa haole, natal redtop, Lantana,
guineagrass, and bermudagrass. As previously mentioned, the site has been grubbed
and formerly used for pasturing animals.
10
Social-Economic Characteristics:
- A. Social settlement pattern for tl:e area: The population of Kona has grown steadily
since 1965 as a result of the expanding visitor industry in West Hawaii, which has a
large and growing share of the visitors to the island and consequently the de facto
population is larger than the census might indicate. At any given time, up to one-
fourth of those present in Kona are visitors. The ethnic composition of the North and
South Kona Districts at the time of the 1990 U.S. Census was as follows: Caucasian:
54.6 Hawaiian: 18.6 Japanese: 13.6%; Filipino: 8.3%; Other: 5.3%. This
distribution illustrates a multicultural community with no distinct minority groups,
although the Caucasian population is an expanding majority (Source: 1J.S. Census
Data: Table 6, :1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics,"
1990 CP-1-13)
B. Economic resources of the area: This area is a residential community. The site is
surrounded by residential subdivisions of various densities. These subdivisions
include The Pines, Aloha Kona Subdivision, Kailua View Estates, Kealoha
Subdivision, and Kona Heights Subdivision.
C. Land Values: According to Realtors in this area, residential lots in this immediate
area sell for $100,000 to $120,000. Lots with houses sell for $250,00 to $350,000.
Surrounding Lands:
Land Use/Zoning:
The property to the north, south and west are in the urban district and zoned RS-7.5,
CG-20, RS-15, RS-20 and. RM-2 by the County. There are single-family residences
and a number of vacant residential sized lots within The Pines, Aloha Kona
Subdivision, Kailua View Estates, Kealoha Subdivision, and Kona Heights
Subdivision. These subdivisions are situated within the State Land Use Urban
District and are primarily zoned residential by the County. The property immediately
adjacent to the east is in the Agricultural district and zoned A-Sa by the County. The
11
Hienaloli drainage way, zoned A-Sa, is adjacent to the subject property on its northern
- boundary.
There have been change of zone applications to residential uses approved in this
immediate azea, including the Kealoha Subdivison. In 1985, the State and Use
Commission approved a request by the Planning Director for a State Land Use
Boundary Amendment for Kona Heights and Aloha Kona subdivisions from the
Agricultural to the Urban District. The Director initiated these requests to allow the
State Land Use classification to conform to the existing residential use and chazacter
of these subdivisions. It would also allow the State, County and private sector to
realistically plan for this azea.
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
A. The proposed access point to the subject property is from Melelina Street which
connects to Nani Kailua Drive which connects to the Queen Kaahumanu highway
extension. These streets have a 50' right-of--way with asphalt paving.
B. Traffic from this project should be accommodated by the existing roadway
infrastructure. The traffic generated by the proposed 17 units, falls far below 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) peak direction trips to or from the site during the adjacent
roadways' peak hours or the development's peak hour" (f-om Traffic Access and
Impact Studies for Site Development, A Recommended Practice, 1991).
C. The interior roadway is intended to be a 50' right-of--way with 20' of asphalt paving.
There will be 6' gravel shoulders and 6' wide paved swales. Dry wells, will be
installed as required by the Department of Public Works. Any interior roadways that
connect to adjoining parcels will be constructed in accordance with requirements from
the Department of Public Works.
D. Underground utilities will be provided to each of the proposed 171ots from the area's
existing infrastructure.
12
E. Water can be made available to the site from the existing mauka-makai system in the
- present Kona Heights subdivision.
F. As there is no municipal system in this azea, sewage will be disposed of via individual
wastewater treatment systems approved by the State Department of Health.
G. The nearest police station is located at Kealakehe, approximately three miles from the
project site.
H. There is a fire station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway, less than 2 miles from the site.
I. The nearest public schools are located in Kealakehe, approximately three miles from
the subject property.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
A. Relationship between local short term uses of environment and maintenance and
enhancement of long term productivity: In terms of the relationship between short-
term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, no short-term exploitation of resources that would entail negative long-
term consequences has been identified for the proposed action.
B. Mitigative measures proposed to avoid, minimize, rectify or reduce impact: All
construction on the site will comply with all governmental regulatory controls to
mitigate noise and dust during the construction period. All structures and
infrastructure improvements constructed will comply with all federal, state and county
requirements. All important cultural, historical and natural resources will be treated
in accordance with agency requirements.
C. Alternatives to the proposed development: One alternative to the proposed action
would be to leave the entire parcel vacant and undeveloped. This would not allow the
development of 17 lots for residential purposes in this heavily urbanized and desirable
area of North Kona. It would also not increase the real property tax base as the
proposed action would.
13
D. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be
involved ij proposed action is implemented: The construction of 17 additional
residential units would involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
negligible quantities of natural resources. The conditions applied to this request
would help insure the protection of the natural and cultural resources on the property.
There are presently no such conditions placed on the property.
Given the conformance with all established State and County goals, policies and
plans; the physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area; the present
zoning and uses of the surrounding area; the minimal impact on public facilities and
services; the minimal impact on the environment; the applicants request a favorable
consideration of these boundary amendment and change of zone applications.
14
~ ~ R F`dt: t A~ i c - a r.~. s."~i ~ - -
' -
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
THE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT AND
~
CHANGE OF ZONE
r
;
' ~
' F3!'
A. Archaeological Mrtigahon Plan ~ ~ , ~ ,
~
B. .Site Photographs , } 1 r
1 ~ ~ ~ rX # n ~ fi,, a k1 A4^r d ~ n%'~' n
WY t.;.
' C. Regional Location Maps ~ t , ~ ~ _
i u ! * M
Y.
l
D. Site Plans ~ a ~ ~ f
' f. r
4~~
j - o d.{ ~ i ~ 1 t . ~ s.. _ e spar ~
I ~ - 6 nab _ g .
ip t~ t
:
r wti , ~~vf`k T t5W
~ fir +'~yrr a r+~tr
5 g~~~y 4
v
i - - i~ e ~ 4 tY~ ~ ~ i!
_ _ e~,q}~~y _.'~r Y rka-.' `yam $~,~.~{r,
- _ ~ "R'~'N~ e ~R R ~ i' ~r all.
fp '
- ~ F' v) 6 S. e-F c
1 k~~' t4 ~ - ~"A _
4 v `1ra - p b ~f
+1 ~ ~E ~5'~j '
} ~
~ a
` { %t:-~'; 'gym "-0"%.*s~~~ y'°,_
L _ _ ~ fit ~.Ar'~~ i~q .~s..~-.
' T~+~4' iy r.`^~i.~~~~ ~c
1~ ~',h t ~ ~~v~.
Ys ~ fi~ {
7r
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~Hr - x ~e,wri a -
~ - - ~ a :.~F ~
~a 1
~ {1~ t rw$ t A ) tiTK _ .
~ E ; r x3
daN M panb y~~i~
- ar r ez M~ ~ E` i ~ ~ ~ 1
1 I'
,~w ~ , ~Fr ~
ai r ~ ~
' J
h _ ~ , ~ S~iC ~ tY'
1 ~ ' l
Sk rh .x
t
k A~~'~ry ~ ~ Y 7a
r
r
r~ ~ ka'
~ AA.
Ay ,rz ,~-q i
fi N ~ ~ ~
-~{~x~ S
~ ~ 'f~ A iv
fi
y
k^ h ~ t. ,.fit x ' ,
r. d
a 'art, ~
i<" ~ y ; r3 a E~ xa
ass ~ °~iz~r~r~~ ~ilrr~ ~r.~ r x~<'a4r .
t ' is ~ '9~' 'fit
e! "i
i
~ _ or ~ d µyr3 j ~
v r Y :v'. ~ ~{v ~7 vl it~ v ~ ~ ~I'' a ~44 ti ~V V~
2 t V r ' .r
r ~ + §
p' sf 3 't „ 5
A i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~qt r}
Iy~J~
' - i'.! + ~ 0~ hQ ~ t btu{ h'
J~~ . '~4ii f4~ x j .kx rp x,
I f ~u~
~ a t>,
f ~
~ a-.
i
3 K.~A R, s
kip 4 f F~f ^:A ~ ~ nt
j r
r
s
. t~
'
Archaeologica - i i an
r - ~ ~ 4 'vx i a. t+T'~ sC;Flw Fr r ~.,,y€y~
- y. .'a5'~J tiF }t t ~~iri•
r ~ k~~ ~ yC #y~<
m g rv ~
r +~`w=.
r ~t<+y„t i 2 J* ! °Ma~w~ Pty.
is"~
at" ~ za iw X93: a .»~~,.~~s~, sy3`'
f r k~ ey, ~
~ }}x ~ ~``i~ y'a1' r i l y sriF ,
v x 4~j' ++P y F',q,2. ~
4.
_ .,kS. hb':q 'Y~~~~_
^ } e.
r_~~
~ . 'y 1 ~ ~:I
5 ~
e' g, 3[ £ a~
+at ~n 'W ~ ruyti• r yr,
~Y^
'S ri ~ yv
i
I r t {n 1y' p~~ P
R.'I 'T J {P4 4r
~7p?-0gt '!t 1~ y_ @ ~
yrt
_ a 5 v,~xi ~uiaf... ~s
r Yi ~r~~-
C, I~ yRS r C- R
' l i h Y' Sj, ...~'y~ a.
i k 3 ~ "a N'. ~i~:.
c c
Report 110-091001
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN
LAND OF HIENALOLI 2-5
NORTH KONA DISTRICT
ISLAND OF HAWAII
{TMK: 3-7.5-10:52, 65, 66)
By;
Alan E. Hatut, Ph.D.
and
Jack D. Henry, B.S.
Prepared for:
Bolton, Inc.
P.O. Box 898
Kailas-IGnaa, Hawaii
September 200 i
Haan 8~ Associates
Archaeological, Cuhural and historical Reso.uce Management Services
IiCT2 1 Box 4730, Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Phone: 982- i?SS Fnx: 982-6343
INTRODUCTION
This archaeological mitigation plea consists of a data recovery plan for one site
(Site 22946) and a preservation plan for Eotu sites (Sites 22949, 22951, 22952, and
22958). The plan was prepared by Haun & Associates at the request of Bolton, tnc. The
sites are boated within a c. 51-acre parcel in the Lands of Hicnaloli 2-5, North Kona Dis-
trict, Island of Hawaii, (TMK: 3-7-5-10:52, 65, 66; Figure IJ. The data recovery and
presen~ation plans aze discussed separately below.
The parcel was previotuly surveyed by Haun and Henry (2001). The survey iden-
tified 22 sites with 134 component feattars (x'igrves 2a and 26). The sites include 20 sin-
gJc feature sites and two corapkxes of features. The feanues identified during the survey
were classified into ten formal feature categories (2001:16). These consist of modified
outcrops (n=45), terraces (n=34), mounds (n=27), wal]s (n=13), ~Erra'iwi (n='7), enclosures
(n=3), platform (rt-2), loading chute (tr=1), railroad bed (n=1), and artifact scatter (n=1).
The 134 festures were assigned to six functional categories. These categories consist of
agriculptre (n=111), livestock comrol (n=15), temporary habitation (n=5), perrnartent
habitation (n=1), transportation (n=1), and foundation (n=I).
The survey report (Haan and Henry 2001) assessed all 22 sites as assessed as sig-
nificant for information content. Of these 22 sites, 17 were assessed solely for infarma-
tion content with no further work or preservation recommended (Sites 5086, 72 ] 4, 22947,
22948, 22950, 22953-22957, and 22959-22965). The five remttiaing sites retained the
potential to yield information importarrt for understanding prehistoric and early historic
land use, and were recommended for data recovery (Sites 22946, 22949, 22951, 22952,
and 22958). The land owner decided to preserve four of these five sites ('Sites 22949,
22951, 22953, and 22958) leaving only one site to be subjected to data recovery (Site
22946}.
DATA RECOVERY
The objective of this data recovery plan is to mitigate impacts to Site 22946 in ac-
cordance with data recovery requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Re-
sources-State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPDj, as contained xithin Hawaii
AdminisL*ative Rules; Title 13. DLNR, Subtitle 13, SHPD Rules, Chapter 278 (DLtvR
1998}.
Si[e 22946 is a complex of 111 features interpreted as elements of the Kona Field
System The distribution of these features is presented in Figures 7a and 2b. The features
consist of modified outcrops (n=45), mounds fn~2?), terraces (n~32) and itua'iwi ('n=?).
These feantres aze crudely constructed of piled basalt cobbles and boulders, with no =rti-
facts or food remains present. T'he mounds and modified outcrops wnsist of piles of
stones that were Likely cleazed from nearby planting areas. The ten•aces were constructed
to retain soils area on the sides of sbpes fur planting. The lolQ'iui are gearing features
that also functioned to delineate agricultural fields.
1
C C
.
5
i - _ -
_ ~ J _
O l ~ , 'S. ,
• ~ i ~ ,
7
~ _ V Ij ~ .1.....~.
1 ' ~ - ~y
o - • ~ - - - ~.z.
c -
~
,
l G i.
l' (
Y
i _ ~
- ~
= , ,
' h` '
/.s .
' \YY~ 'II I
``~~:T p ~ . ~ ~ I0.
2
$ o
~ ~
19 , ' ~
1 ~
! ~
i I
j !fi'i ~
~ ~ I
a ~ d
N~ '
i ~ ~
~ $
~ S ,
/ ~
0 ~
.
~ ~ ~
,
i ~ ~Q 9
~
~ S
~ k f
~ ~
f
~ 4 P
a. ° •
i
a
~ ~ .
d~~
_e~
1 Y r ~ I ~ I C
1 ~ 666 , 1
P
r C~ ~ ~
~ §
~ C ~ ~ 16
~ y
~ ~ Q~ ~ y
~ ~ ~ i
~ R i
~ :
~ •s
~ ~ P o o
a I ~ ~ i
i i ~
i
J _ ` ~
! u,
~ o cV
~ ~ ~
~'I ~ Its'
3
c c
~ ~ i
~ ~ ;
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
p i~ 1
Sy7 1 Rr ~ ~
i
1
1
1
tee.. I
1 ~ ~ ;
~
~ ~ 1
1
~ ' 1
~ ~ 1
1
i
'S
i ~
~d
a ~ ~
~ ~
1 ~
p• ' ~i
1 '
b ~ , __J ~
' _
a
a ~ e 1~ A ~
1 ri. ~
~ T ~ ~ ~ S ~ jj g
$m
I ~
~ ~
t } $ R a
B~Ta
~
N
~ $ - ~ ~
a
~ C
As stated, Site 22946 includes several kua'iwi used m ddureate agricultural fields.
These feattrres (Features 43-45, 51, 54, 87, 90} ate located in the kola zone of the Kona
Field System below 440 R elevation. The absence of these feattues in the inland portion
of the project azea is probably the result of modern disturbance that was evident in much
ofthc area above 520 ft elevation. Four kua'iwi (Features 43-45, and SI) are situated paz-
allel to each other between 390 ft and 435 ft elevation. The intervening area between the
kua'iwi is not subdivided into stnallet plots with retraces, or walls, as is commonly the
case at higher elevations. This may be an indication that the associated fields were iess
intensively cultivated.
A number of the terraces at the site retain substantial soil deposits suggesting that
the terraces have been in place for a long period of time. The 32 terraces at the sift retain
soil deposits ranging from 0.35 to 1.4'm; however nine retraces (Features 18, 30, 33, 35,
37, 48, 66, 68, and 71) have retaining walls on the downslopc side that are 1.0 m in
height or greater.
Strazigraphic data and radiocarbon samples from the terrace deposits and the
kua'iwi have the potential to yield chronological information on the development of his-
toric agricultural in the azea. Specific rasearch questions to be addressed by the data
recovery efforts at the terraces and kua'iwi are as follows:
1. When x•ere the terraces and kuo'iwi constructed?
2. What is the duration of terrace and kna'ixd use?
3. 1s there evidence for ore-terrace and kua'iwi use of the area and what is the age of
such use?
Data recovery excavations consisting of mechanical xctiotring of selected ter-
races and kua'iwi will be used to obtain stratigraphic data and radiocarbon dating san-,plea.
Three of the seven kuo `iwi, and Your of the nine terraces with retaining walls greater than
i.0 rn in height, • ill be sectioned using a backhoe.
The trench waL stratigraphy will be documented graphically with line-drawn sec-
tions, described using stattdazd USDA Soil Survey descriptions and Morsel] colors, and
photoeraohed. The stratigraphy will be analyzed to identify strata associated with the ter-
race and kvn';wi, and pre-terrace and pre-kna'iwi deposits. Sample collection will focus
on obtaining charcoal for radiocazbon dating from the exposed trench walls, or by screec-
ing strata fill. Jdeally, samples will be obtained from multiple strata in each trcr:ch to
pernit dating ?hc pre-terrace and pre-kua'iwi deposits and strata spanning the use of these
feahues..4 representa;ive sample of any artifacts or food remains visible in the trench
walls will be collected.
Laboratory analysis will consist of evaluating charcoal samples for datin¢. Sam-
ple selection from agriculttual features will emphasize single fragments of charcoal to
minin,i~e contamination by fragments of varying ages. Fragments representing intact sec-
s
C
tionc of small tree and shrub stems will be used if available to minimize infra-saatple
variation in wood age. All trocovered artifacts and food remains will be analyzed.
Charcoal samples will be submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. foz radiocazbon dating.
The samples from the sift will be processed using the Accelerator Mass Specvometry
(AMS) technique to obtain high precision dates from small samples. Stable isotope ratios
(C13/12) will also be determined. A maximum of eight samples will be submitted for
Al`IS dating.
A final report on the data recovery work w%1 be prepared end submitted for
DLNR-SHPD review and acceptance. The report will, at a minimum, contain all elements
required in DLNR-SHPD Rules Chapter 13-278-4. The report will be submitted within
two to three months after completion of fieldwork.
All recovered materials will be temporarily curated at the Hattn & Associates of-
fice. Following completion and acceptance of the data recovery teport, the materials will
be submitted to DLNR-SHPD for permanent curatioa
if human remains are encountered during data recovery investigations, then the
remains will be treated following the procedures outlined in Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) Chapter 6E-43. Work in the area ofthe discovery will be halted, the remains stabi-
lized if necessary, and DLNR-SHPD contacted for guidance.
PRESERVATION PLAN
This plan was prepared in accordance with the DLNR-SHPD rules for site preser-
vation (DLNR-SHPD 1998, Chapter 277). The selected form ofprescrvazion is avoidance
and protection (conservation). This preservation plan is for Sites _2949, 22951, 22952,
and 22958. The plan describes the sites to be preserved, buffer zones, and measures for
short and long-term preservation.
Site Identification
Site 22949
Site 22949 is a li-shaped enclosure located in the southwestern portion of the pro-
ject area at c. 280 ft elevation The enclosure is open along the western side, and is 6.3 m
long by 4.6 m wide (Figure 3). The interior of the enclosure contains a brown silt loam
sot with marine shell present. A test tutu was excavated in the interior of the enclosure.
The excavation revealed two sot! deposits overlying bedrock. Both deposits contained
cultural remains including mazine shell, sea urchin fragments, fish bone and charcoal.
Site 22949 was interpreted as a temporary habitation by Haan and Henry, based on its
fortral tyye and lack of substantial construction (2001:28). The presence of the stratified
ctltttral deposits identi5ed in Tli-Z indicated a recttrent utilization of the site.
Site 22951
Site 22951 is a large tetzace situated on a low knoll is the northwestern portion of
the project area st 295 ft elevation. The site has nvcrai dimensions of 22.6 m tong and
6
M
O
v
N
O
v
I
M
O
O
v ~
A
h
v
N
O
e
O
v
H N
r. _ ~ ~ ~
h v
u
v
4 ~
o ~ ~
i
07
d
N m
a
c
~ ~ I N
~ N
~
N I !ri
North ~ ~ o
w
7
< <
13.7 m wide (Figure The surface is a level soil area that is 19.8 m long by 10.2 m
wide with scattered marine shill present. There is a lower tier at the western end of the
terrace that is 0.35m lower than the main terrace. A desk soil deposit with marine shell is
presrnt in this azea. A test unit was excavated into the surface of the lower tier by Haun
and Henry (2001). The excavation ofthis unit revealed a single cultural deposit over bed-
rock, that contained marine shell, volcanic glass, a basah flake, sea urchin, fish bone attd
waterworn coral The site was interpreted as a temporary habitation structure based on its
formal type and tact: of substantial construction (Haun and Henry 2001:30).
Site 22952
Site 22952 is a complex of three features located in the westem portion of the pro-
ject area at elevations ranging from 330 ft to 340 ft. The site contains a tetrsce (Feature
A), as encloswe (Feature B), and a surface attd subsurface scatter of artifacts and food
rentaios (Feattre C; Figure
The Feature A terrace is oval-shaped and is 4.8 m long by 2.8 m wide. The sur-
face is level and paved with small cobbles and pebbles. Recent kukui nut shells were ob-
served on the surface. Haun and Henry (2001) excavated a test unit into the surface ofthe
terrace. The excavation revealed an architectural layer atwve a soil deposit overlying bed-
rock. The azchitectural layer consisted of tightly packed subangular cobbles and pebbles
with recent ku/wi nut shells. The deposit cultural remains consisting of marine shell, wa-
terworn coral and charcoal
The Feature B enclosure is a roughly 1J-shaped and is located 17.5 m southwest of
Feature A. It is open at the soutthern end and is 8.4 m long by 7.2 to 8.8 m wide. The inte-
rior strrF-ace consists of a dark soil deposit with no cultural remains present. Haun and
Henry (2001) excavated a test unit in the center of the feature at the northern end. The
excavation encountered two deposits overlying bedrock. The upper deposi[ contained ma-
rine shell, volcanic glass, sea urchin and w'aterwom coral No crilttual remains were pre-
sent in the lower deposit.
Feature C consists of a surface and ubsurface scatter of prehistoric artifacts and
food retrains located to the south ofFeature A series of25 shovel tests were excavated
in this area by Haun and Henry (2001). These shovel test each evidenced s single sih
loam deposit over bedrock. Nine of the shovel tests encounteed cultural materials (ma-
rine shell, volcaztic glass flakes, sea urchin, waterworn coral) indicating a subsurface ex-
tent of 27.0 m long and 5.0 to 12.5 m wide with an overal area of c.255 sq m site 22952
was assigned a temporary habitation function by Haun and Henry (2001:30).
Site 22958
Site 2:;958 is a large, three tiered platform located in the eastern portion of the
protect area at c. 685 ft elevation The platform measures 8.9 m long by 5.0 m wide with
the sides of the platform comprised of stacked cobbles and small boulders (Figure \o
cultural remains were observed on the surface of the site. The bwer tier and tnir3d'e tiers
have crudely paved surfaces. The upper tier, located oa the eastern side of the piatform is
.~eil•paczd and represents the tnost level potion of the site. A test unit into the upper tier
8
~
N Ov
Ov
N
O ~
..rte
O
v
r-.
~ Ov
O
v
~Y/
.O
d'
O ~
O ~
O
~i y
..r . ~ \
O
I ~
~ ~ ~
i u A
¦ 6 'a
- ~ ~
~ ~ N
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
cn ~
~ ~ r I
9
~ C
0 3 ? Mn
~d
~
fliO ~YL•
R~f~a
N~q ~
TQ-S
h H
O
•
~Y1/fl•
7bv7b!
Rd1
°
flat ha as o 11 IbR Rad
• •
0
ha /
f!a ~ Ra I
o \ e .p
I
i
hd) Ra R.i1
oR~ ° • e
ha0 Rd
e • tl~•C
rau srm R-7 hJ~
o • • o
i
i
~ j
errs
Q.IT hi h• • 9ho.d ti• •m w~i imds
i h~ • • O
° ar_u ~
o /ayW T•It~maalhvl~
(o.3j•g,~(~pllpmine
i hn as areD
o e
I
I
Figure S. Site 22952 Plan Msp
1G
~ v, ~
`o ° ~
o ~ ~
v,
~ o
0
v,
~a
0
r-.
N
O
v
F
o
i ~
h
O
v ~7
C E''
.-i
a ~
E 33
y n
9
~ a
~
~
N
d
~
~iorth N ,a
0 0
o
_ 7 ~ 'ti..
]l
( C
revealing an architectural layer above a soil deposit overlying bedrock. No cultural re-
mains were present in the architectural layer, although volcanic glass, a perforated two
piece bone fishhook point fragment, and two square metal nails were recovered from the
soil deposit.
Hazen and IIcnry interpreted the site as a pemranent habitation structuue based oa
its size and forma] construction (2001:40). The presence of the &sbhook point, the vol-
canic glass, and the historic sgtrarc nails indicate that this site may have been occupied
during the early historic period. Alternatively, the platform may have been constivcted
and occupied prehistorically and re-urilized historically. The presence of the square nails
indicates that a wooden structure ]tkely existed on the platform
Preservation Site Buffers
A buffer zAne of 5 m (16.5 to 16 m (52.5 ft) will be established azotmd the pe-
rimeter of the fora preservation sites. The buffer zones will not be breached during de-
velopment of the parcel and no constnretion or land altering activity will occur within the
buffer nines.
Short-Term Preservation
Short-term preservation will consist of the following general protective measures:
1. The sites will be plotted accurately on grading pL~ns and construction plans prior
to the initiation of any grading; grubbing, and/or censwction activities;
2. Buffer zones as described above, shall be identified and marked around site pe-
rimeters. The buffer zone boundaries will be delineated with orange plastic frnc-
ing. An archaeologist wr11 verify that the fencing is correctly in-place prior to any
land alteration. The verification will be documented in a letter to DLI\'R-SftPD; and
3. Construction supervisors wiU be explicitly notified as to the nature and location of
the sites, the significance of the buffer zone, and the meaning of the buffer zone
markings.
Long-Term Preservation
Long-term preservation of the sites will also include the preservation buffers as
described above. No future co¢strtrction or Iand modification activities, other thar. u±ain-
tenance, will occur within the preservation zone. Litter removal, as necessary, will be the
responsibility of the owner. Metes and bounds descriptions of the preservation sites and
buffer zones will be recorded in the proparty deeds} and the location of the sites will be
plated on subdivision plat snaps.
]2
_ References
DLNR (DepartmcN of Land and Natural Resources)
1998 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Deperuuent of Land and Natural Re-
sources, Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservntion Division Rules.
Haun, A., and D. Henry
2001 Archaeological laventory Survey, TMK: 7-5-10:52, 63, 66, Lands of Hienaloli 2-
S, North Kona Dlstriet, Island of Hawaii. Haun & Associates Project 024-050201
prepared for Bohon. Inc.
1~
t y,4 : IC. arp`
1
[PXINNN wTErwro ( 4; rwn OMtlYAYMMR. CIIMAKON
ooveweR os wwM .oNO Or w.o ro..rww RF7DIIIIS6
' mWa~N or vATY atoN[cT wNMaon
I, 1 oESUn[s
JANR E RAY16C
liINQ NI[NiOKA
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES AeuAnc RECeuRC[s
[OlnNe ANO OCFN/ RECREATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DN6K]N COMMIt91p1 OM WATER RESOU11cE
KaklhNw[ fillellq, Room 556 NMiAGFMUiT
[Ot Krnek4 Oeobinld CONBEHVATON MID R[60UROE5
REF:HP-AMK wol.r,N.,..: as'ro7 eNPOIEe[u[RT
CONV[TMICp
e IOIIgTIN MIO WAG1R
~Lr ~ ~ t)001' NI[TOIIK: PA[[ERVATION
L C LAID
RATt ?MRt
Dr. Alan Naun LOG NO' 2B11a
Haun & Associates DOC NO' 0108RC38
HCR 1 box 4730
Keaau, Hawaii 96749
Dear Dr Haun:
Stl13JECT Review of Archaeological Inventory Survey ReporT
Hiena/oli, Norill Kona, Hawat7
TMK: 7-5.10: 52. 65, B6
This letter reviews this repoR which was received by staff May 24, 2001 (Haun & Henry
2001. Archaeological Inventory Survey.:TMK• 7-5-10' S2, 65, 66, Hienafoli 2-5.... Haun
& Associates ms.).
The background section of the report acceptably summahzes the ahupua'a settlement
pattern and the likely site patterning in the project area -pre-European and early 180Gs
fields witn possible scattered tempo2ry and permanent houses and late 18006-19006
ranching features.
The survey appears to have acceptably covemd the project area, finding 22 sites. The
bulk of these sites are inch walls. Pre-European/eaNy 18006 iiefds are scattered
through the project area and Pumped under one site number (22,946) and four pr~-
European/early 18006 habitations were found. The sites are acceptably described. The
inrenr rerativns cf the four pre-European/early 18006 habitations need some clarification -
although we agree they are habitations. Please see the attachment for minor revisions
that are needed.
We agree with the srgnifrcance evaluations for the sites, all are signifrcant for their
information content (cnterion D of the Hawaii`Register of Historic Praces)
We also agree with the mitigation recommendations. Seventeen (17) of the sites (the
ranch e2 wails and leatuies) have had an adequate and reasonable amount of them
significant information recorded/recovered in the survey. Thus, thay need no further
mingahon orprotectron The remamrng 5~siies (the pre-European/early 18006 6e/ds and
habitations) are recommended far archaeological defa recovery, and we agree. These
are not excellent examples of their types, and do nor meat prLSer?a*iun
z f ~
Please send the minor revisions requested in the attachment. Once these 'are
acceptab/e, we wiN accept the report.
In the meantime, the historic preservation review process can continue. The next step in the
process For this project waald be the submittal of an arohaeologica! data recovery plan for
review by cur office.
if you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ross Cardy, our Branch Chief for
Archaeology at 692-8025.
A ha,
~~~'~I%(.C r't~~'~iL-~'-
G1LaERT COLOMA-AGARAN
State Historic Preservation.Olficer
Attachment
c. Planning Department, County of Hawaii
RC: amk
3 C
ATTACHMENT
MINOR NEEDED REVISIONS
HIENALOLt SURVEY
HAUN 8 ASSOCIATES
1. Theis is an inconsistency in the count of permanenj vs. temporary habitations in the
report. Table 2 lists 2 temporary habitations and 2 permanent habitations. Fage 45
(pare 3) implies 2 temporary habitations and 3 permanent habitations (a terrace and 2
solitary platfomts). The Summary at fhe front (p. ii) says the permanent habitations
are a terrace and 1 solitary platform). Added to Phis problem is that site 22,951 is one
oI the listed permanent habitations (the terrace), but your site description on page 30
concludes that it is• a tsmporery~-habitation -thus there would be 3 temporary
habitations and 1 permanent habitation. Please resolve and send replacement
pages.
2. For the sites that you interpret under the site descriptions as temporary habitations
(sites 22,949; 22,951; and 22,952), you indicate that Insubstantial consiruclfon is the
major archaeological trait thai toads to this interpretation -which is fine. However;
you need to specify what these insubstantla/ traits are.
3. P. 40, site 22,958. The site description describes this as a tiered platform. What is
the area of each tier? Each tier would seem likely to iequire a match to the
permanent habitation model of area size, rather than overa/! size of the platform - or
do you think a single house is likely !o have been built over all the tiers? In other
words, might fhe structure built here actually have been relatively sma;l? Would this
affect a permanent vs. temporary interpretation? P/ease Garify.
x a~$
F3
~ 44 ~q~
' S ~ S S ty~.yy Y1`
~ {vn ~I ~ F ~A _ ,~~kL T
' _ ~ 0. j _ ? g~ _5~..tv'. T
4~,p d~~ ~ f3}
? ~7 ~ ri o b e
~ .eo- .k A xf ~ R2- x 1a~'i 4
+ ye~d
1
EXHIB T=~ ,
~ ~ v
a~ " ~
Site Ph"o ~ ~
ogra s ° a k
1 _ D°. ~ Sw. GY U' t y B~
_ _ J Xe 4y~ p'Y'"d '6
~ R
a,xf~
~ § r'~ - SY : D 'fi ~ r
~ . 4(
c. ~t ~ ~i h 7 G..~i y v'S ~ "d
-y b ~ m4,~'k ail s' #
4 ~r4 '1?+'Ra ~
- ~ h'~s ~ x~'4, - ry¢°#~ 7v> ,'ii A ~aD
. .i4 t~, ~r ~ ~
l ";4ti i
~~pni t ~7Pk'} L ai(.rf
fir: ~
~ s*+
, x
1 v i ca
~e a
,~,.7
t
` ~s M~.f~
` r ~y +3 ~ ro i ~ r fit.j~ eye S
afi
e~ 6 x b t
Y r
3 ~ ~ 'I~
Si4 ~ ~ „aS¢~ as F' `:ix
4d ~'A',;V3'4
y ie
v ~ l;' S
a-k ~ 't
.i ~f ~ ~ si .
+
~'Y ~ k
n
la tiY ~Y~ ~qi zfJ a, T._t } fi
' x: x .'iH ip
EXHIBIT "B"
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
3~. a
_-e..-_ .7,~...~.-.~_
-uz:
From Melelina Street looking west over the subject property.
f ~
h '
=xs.;.. ~
f~ I 71
:,*t.
.,:.r
View from subject property looking south at Melelina Street.
EXHIBIT "B"
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
yM
' aF q
From Melelina Street looking at single-family home on proposed Lot 1
_,y}~
II± - sno
' f ~ ~5
.m
>
-
Melelina Street profile showing curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
n _ ~ ;k ~~'v~. aY<P~: Y ~ .;,J #va'x',3wf'grr~gm~R"AY'.".
F 7a%t ~ C
A ;
t
~ i
~ # 1. ~ 3 ~ ~
a a
I fdt+ ~ ~fta ~ ~h~ a~ ~ 7~
try ~ 'x'-~t > ~ x f ~
3 #a " y '
a
~F ~ v ~ ~ w ~ 7 A3i~'-R r<
.n v r= . ~ e~"µ~ ~ ~ ,R F
z .r
~EXHIB T~~~ ; ~ ~
Regional oca ions aps ~ ,
. . ~ 0 ~ir'~M ~ ~ 'f Y~g ~ kMe ~ k y2.'Gfkl"1~
y SMN
. y~r a 6~'r i7x k
'~L` 2~ {r ~ y x dj
~ - =~°(3' '151 S5."~ -h~~ti
.
4MY by ~ 4 3 ~ \ 3a
tt 5,,.. vT ~ va
a N t I
r ~
a '
g ~
"eX' ~ ~ S A, f - r
. _ ..x ~~,n k ~ ~ ~ Udt r rc Y'''
fi' ~.~~s'F to _
c '
A f !~e~ e.~ b t~1a Vr iw b i
al~~~ ~ Kt w#~`~ ~j ~ r y x y,
' - C 36" a:. _ '`lr•'~~,La F rt f 'a~
i `
' ! ~ m~~ ~ ~ y, f_
f i - f '
-~4 i Y~ f~ ~t M1$JCr } H tY nTp
t ^t
~ "4 S d ~'~s.~'e°r~~i~~ air ~ ..R'
~ ri, 3s,~ err' t ~ u t ~
1 - ~ ~ F P~ijA~
s ~ Ek~ s r, . ~ t
~~~,yy k6 `
W ~ Tw ~ Y yE
-.i~P i i ~ ~ _
cy ? ~ i~,._ ! S
~~X rtiA ~ ~ ~ A ~ 1
` L 3
l~ ~ 4r~.+r' ~ y~yy d a~ A s
~ ~ a # d
~ b
.P3L p ~ g ~ P°
~4' . ~{r3 sw ~ y
u \ 1 tl~Fln ~ = Q~ v~AT !t 1 °„In°W I
/ 4
I
N \v o ~ A ~ 1/ ~
' \
~ p ) I r "f°
o qC ~ Z T ~ ` Z - f ot~.
iC
1 ®c rUx i `w I B n~~
~ ! ~I _
~I I i ~ ~ I ~ t
: ~ ` 41I ~ I g ~ -
x 0 ° Q Ix~
~ ~~ai ~ .N :i; t E - ~ f
~ 7 ~ S I
EP i z r 1 ~
q ^ ' f
a j ~i~" yk{(ii''
} ~ o I~ +
Z , I;Et : 2 ~ Rdp ~ Cp . t ~ r; a l~~~ll~~'•I!~t~
~rx eiU.: si`x F+z p ~ o ~ i l " ° t -.2 ~ ~~Il~l~~~i'I~j
t _ ! C~ ns
~Fi,' W 7 f~ IA ~'i i ~ v
~j. 33~ _ ~i i I j I
x ~ FI :
E° a °Qp p" ~ dE I 4t ~ ~
;I e', id~~~Ee ~~If 1 Q f i I S
ITia'.c ate' ~ d r~ 0 " a' s ~ ' n'
a • J xE p
e 2 i~ ~ ~e. p!) 4
I E ~ ~ , o t t
I ~ ~ a 4 ~f n,
U ! FuKirJ G ~I W~/l
~ r~ ~ Eli _ ~ p~,qT ~o~ r,° V
d I ti ~ i
e
r1 ° p
/ v~ ~ 0.
ra"m-e~'.av
...c.d w-.n s
a
F „
~ ~ ~ ~ 31811...._ fee 0 4 ~
~ io I :xaauc 'ni n-c-ir - as-faa~ 'iu 'nemeu
G to • ~
~a
_ _ Q,
lA~ ~e1 ~c~c4`
%A
o' 4 Id ~ ~ ~
~G~°4` 'd y ~ U
O 87.r1 Melelina
h
plLilepa p1~a Y1 ~ W
p~ 3
e~i spy o
~~4 uwep~ ~
r
~ ~ lea ~
uw ~ yl Kalcalin
c a `cos4~ alukai Pl
~ 3 ~ 4~~~~` ~ 4~
4
~ Welo
3 ~ $
a
c
~W ona ~ o a
oaf] ~7~ ~
~ e
0 0. ` _ 4s ~y
a a~ ~
ip, Id
y ~d ~ 4
~'~b
y1 doh Q
1a~s4, Kci` 4 ~ ro~
` l~~a°4 iii
e4~ 4i
0
~v~4`
~ ~ o t~/~
vo
z ~
' ~ ' ~Y~ rr r pr
s'
i~ ~r~, '
?s ,
t "1A0 rF J§1 6
y ~
~ zt
Y ~ 1
yt3 y
,~t~ fi SA I.Y.' *4~ .1 ~ l
a t~.S ,Y k
~e y }Fu ~f 'y . y l : T Yv`~
w 4f ti5 ~k ~ {5 tlb
J i
ei
+ r p~ i ~y ~ ~
Y Y
j + z
* ~
~ .M ~ Y
eke Sc~Y~ J-~;, z
~ r, Y n -,'W ~c ~d.
_ µy~ 1 5 ~ i~`2 i
. )Vim.
1 .
r` t~~EXHIB T
r ~ 13 f
il ~ ~ t G.
C~ • P „ X _ ft
1
_ ~q. y~"`'" I ~
iP Y
k 'r"i' y i
~ P~ ~ ~ ~ y t
'Ft rc55~~~~ -*d"~ - *s _ i
i T+ ~ i f
f _ +
~ ' +t
1 j~''
e..
=s. .
M-
- is mike, +~"i k
P
~y-+ 'dry. m
t , I d
a ~*~.,p i sr
~ ~ ~ i~ ~~a ~ xl
i
~ e .4 i~.
~ x
U
. ~ {
i ~ ~a
~ ~
Y
~ h~Y Y
{ ky( M~.
r ~
d`
~ ~ n; i~..
„f.~ J,~
k
i~
Ilyw~ 6
q
~+A ~ ~ ~ 3 I
5 It ~S $ .
$ j 5J ! ~
~ 1~ ll ~5
~ ~ ~
a
i~ s a .I~s9gj ~.a3
e.,.SI ~~yy
~ s~ 3~ i~~g~~~~
aga u~$°~ g
~p JaiC~JB
I tt J 4,
e~
i~5 ~
I I I
r
I+ ~ I
r \ ~ i I
;h
~ ~ ~ ~ Wad I.
_
~
~.l I
` M 50 3Se
~j °.Z 1 I i
Ejt
~ 5i
i~ 5 ~~p
,
7 \ ~ 1~ i Ie 'I ~y. x ~ f4
_ $ d i eI
1 ~ ~ 5i
i ~ °s; iern°'
Rg 9 pse I ~ 5 II
~xsa
A i i.• 5
`
si t~ 5 i ' O i
~i ~ t-!
i x
, e
y ~ ~ _
~yy„ ~ ; v, i I I i
E: ~s x ~ _ I ~L'liy5
1 6~
PROPOSED
LOT 1
HOUSE
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
0 30 fi0
SCALE: 1 = 30
11/21!2002 13:36 1808961°S57 DE~~ OF WATER SUPPL" PAGE 02
•f NH[~r ,
~~i
t; ~ DEPAF2TMENT OF WAT)kR SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII
9A6 KEKUANADA SrREEi, SURE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720
rc
Mlnw•~t~ TELEPHONE(60B)96t•8050 FA%(80E)981-8657
November 20, 2002
TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department •
FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager
SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARX AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 02-007)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN
CAANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION I(REZ 02-017)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL (A-SA) TO SINGLE FAMILY (RS-20)
APPLICANT -FALTER AND SUSAN WELTON
TAX MAP KEV 7-5-O10:PORTION OF OS2 AND PORTiONOF 65, LOTS 4 AND 5
We have reviewed the subject State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone applications and have
the following comments.
Water can be made available from an existing G-inch waterline in Mclelina Street, which stubs out to the subjeea
parcel. Current water availability conditions, which are subject to change, for this area of the North Kona water
system are such that one unit of water is available for each of the 15 additional lots.
Pursuant to the Department's "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy," a copy of which is being forwarded to the
applicant, a water commitment may be issued. Based on the 15 additional lots that arc requested in the proposed
change of zone application, the required water commitment deposit is $2,250.00.
Remittance of $2,250.00 from the applicant is requested, as soon as possible, so that a water commitment may
be formally issued. The commitment will be in writing with specific conditions and effective dates stated.
Please keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water commitment. In other words, unless a water
commitment is officially effected, water availability is subject to change depending nn the water situation.
Upon the issuance of a formal water commitment, we shall submit our comments and rcquirernents for tentative
Subdivision approval.
For the applicant's information, should the subject change of zone be approved and a subdivision application
executed, final approval will be subject to the following requirements:
1. Construct necessary improvements, which shall include, but not be limited [n. the following:
a. water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-hour flow
and fire-Flow conditions (minimum diameter of mains shall be G inches);
b. service laterals that will accommodate a 5/S-inch meter to each lot, (please note that the existing
service laterals to lots 4 and 5 may have to be relocated depending on the final subdivision layout);
and ~
(/(/atc~r ~ri)xc~~ proc~rn.:sd...
EXHIBIT C
11/21/2002 13:36 1808961^'57 DEPT OF WATER SUPPL" PAGE 03
Nlr. Cfiristopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 2
November 20, 2002
c. fire hydrants spaced not more the 600 feet apart. '
Suhmit constrvction plans prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Hawaii.
2, Remit the prevailing facilities charge balance and capital assessment fee, which are subject to change,
of $72,750.00. The determination of this amount is shown below. This is due and payable upon
completion of the construction oFthe water system improvements and prior to final subdivision
approval being granted. ,
Facilities Charge
Services to Lots 4 and 5, previously paid $ 0.00
15 additional services at $4,350.00 each ±6 25. 50.OQ
Subtotsl $65.250.00
Capital Assessment Fee '
I S additional services in North Kana at $500.00 each 7,500_00
Total (Subject to Change) $72,750.00
3. Submit the appropriate documents, properly prepared and executed, to convey the water system
improvements and necessary easements m the Water Board of the Gounty of Hawaii. A registered land
surveyor shall stamp and certify the metes and bounds description within the conveyance documents.
Conveyance of the improvements and easements are required prior to water services being granted. ,
4. Comply with all other applicable politics and requirements of the Department's Rules and Regulations.
Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which time availability will be
subject to change in accordance with prevailing water system conditions, policies, and Rules and
Regulations.
Should there be any questions, plcave call our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 1.
Sin rely yours,
Mi t Pavao, P.E. ,
Ma ager
BCMaco
copy - (w/snc,) Mr. Walter and Ms. Susan Welton
(w/o enc.) Mr. Gregory R. Movers
• ANNING DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOI...S County Of Hawaii
COUNTY OF HAWAII ,-5.5706 Kuakini Hwy. #109
HILO, HAWAII Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
REIr;~~'w:: f;SV 0 6 ZOOZ
DATE: November 5, 2002
Memorandum
TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department
FROM Galen Kuba, Division Chief
Engineering Division
SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017 )
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU02-007)
Applicant: Walter and Susan Welton
Location: Hienaloli , N.Kona, HI
TMK: 3 / 7-5-010:052 and por. 65
We reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows:
DRAINAGE
1. 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 dnrnrells 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.
4. Flood Zone "AE", affects the subject parcel as designated by the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) panel 713 D, dated May 16, 1994 and revised by LOMR issued
May 26, 1995. Any development within the flood plain will be subject to the
requirements of Chapter 27 -Flood Control, of the Hawaii County Code.
5. The development lies partially within and below a bend in the Hienaloli
Drainageway, a major watercourse. We recommend that the applicant prepare a
more detailed flood study of the watercourse bend to evaluate the need for _
additional flood protection improvements.
EXHIBIT O
Memorandum to PD
November 5, 2002
Page 2 of 2
€ARTHWORK
1. All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment
Control, of the Hawaii County Code.
2. The applicant shall comply with Chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Department of Health, which requires an NPDES permit for
certain construction activity.
ROADWAYS
1. Melelina Street, serving the subject property, is a County road. It has an
approximate 36-tt. wide pavement with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements within a 50 foot right-of-way.
2. According to the Subdivision Code, a culdesac shall serve a maximum of 18 lots.
Roadway connections to adjoining parcels should be provided for meeting with the
approval of DPW. These roadways should constructed to dedicable standards
and be dedicated to the County upon final construction approval or be open to
public traffic. This would include an extension of Melelina Street to the northern
property line. The applicant should construct any connecting roadways to County
dedicable standards. Because the existing Melelina Street has curbs, gutters and
sidewalks, DPW recommends they also be provided for the dedicable roadways.
3. All roadways within the proposed development shall follow the guidelines
incorporated in the Hawaii Statewide Uniform Design Manual for Streets and
Highways or AASHTO.
TRAFFIC
1. Streetlights and other traffic control devices shall be installed as required by the
Department of Public Works Traffic Division. The developer shall be responsible
for the design, purchase and installation of all such devices.
2. Although this application by itself does not warrant a traffic study, we are
concerned about incremental re-zoning and the impact to the traffic network. Fair
share impact fees should be directed to providing an alternative corridor such as
extension of Hienaloli-Kahului Road or channelization improvements to the
intersection of Nani Kailua Street and Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
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 _
i
A
i ~ i i
A A
' P.O. Box 2262 - Kealakekua, HI 96750 - (808) 322-2484 / FAJC.(806) 322-3735
N -o
C~ o
c -
c
N
October 17, 2002
r-, ~
d Q ^ N41~II~X ISLAn°5 -il
V Chris Yuen
Planning Department r.
Is~en° a r;
`°°"Tr """"I'~' 25 Aupuni Street SRI -C
M1ona 5. 6 N. L. °isltltl
Hilo, Hawaii 96720 z
Deaz Chris Yuen,
%''f he Kona Soil and water Conservation District reviewed the following applications
% Jl- re ~rding the following change of zone. REZ 02-017
CH GE OF ZONE APPLICATION
i
N~ 1.) Z. 02-017. TMK-7-5-010: Por. 052, 065. Welton, Walter and Susan. The
rthern portion of these pazcels are within the Hienaloli Drainageway as shown on
} , K°;, i~ th North Kona Flood plain management study area. According to the 1984 North
Ko a Flood plain management study azea document, an estimate of the 100yr. and
°P'°'" 500 storm events can a roach 3600cfs and S 100cfs res ectivel Extreme care
`c°°k ~ Y • PP P Y•
- ael°,e shoal be observed when grading in this azea.
Nm!°~-°; Hasrodc nl
uc:K N~ /
Sincerely yours,
William E. Cowell, Chairman
Kona Soil and Water Conservation District
cc: Kiran Emler C.E.
WC/ls
EXHIBIT ~ -
~ ~a.
J•~1 ar u^W
• ~ Darryl J. Oliveira
Harry Kim Fo-e eh;e~
MaYar f1 ,
~i1T ~ ~j1 2'J ,;~~ol,~y` Desmond K.Wery
Deputy Fire Chie/'
FIRE DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
(806)961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296
October 8, 2002
TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 02-007)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-017)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20)
APPLICANTS: WALTER AND SUSAN WELTON
TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-010:PORTION OF 052 AND PORTION OF 065
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."
ARR L OLIVEIRA
Fire Chief
RK:Ik
plt COG
1 . y~
c '1a
x <
~REO~
EXHIBIT F
a
, ;
4lgg~
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO k" ANTHONY J.H. CHING
GOVERNOR { ffi E%ECOTIVE OFFlCER
jif.' q A~ 11 22 STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM
~;l C,(~!~IIR',i; ~-=i': ~/',~~idND USE COMMISSION
- P.O. Box 2359
(iv~~:l~l I
Honolulu, HI 96804-2359
Telephone: 808-587-3822
Fax: 808-587-3827
October 7, 2002
Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director
Plannuig Department, County of Hawaii
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Subject: State Lazid Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007)
Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017)
Agricultural (A-5a) to Single Family Residential (RS-20)
Walter and Susan Welton
TMK No: 7-5-10: portion of 52 and portion of 65
W e have reviewed the subject applications forwarded by your memorandum dated
September 18, 2002, az~d confirm that the 10.020-acre project site, as represented on the tax map, is
generally located within the boundary of the State Land Use Agricultural District.
According to our records, the project site appears to be located adjacent to County Docket
No. SLU91-4/Mazyl Development, Inc, which was previously approved for residential uses. However,
we are unable to confirm the ]ocation of the project site since the metes and bounds contained on its
rezoning map are illegible. Clarification should be provided to the County of Hawaii as to whether the
project site is intended to be contiguous with the Maryl Development parcel.
Given the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity, the State Land Use Coimnission defers to
the judgment of the County of Hawaii regarding other matters in the applications. We have no further
comments to offer at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject applications. Please feel free to contact Bert
Saruwatari of my office at 587-3522, should you require clarification or any further assistance.
Sincerely,
r
ANTHONY J. H. G EXHIBIT C~ ~ ~ /
Executive Officer
l ,°-~~~4
4~~• 199 T
b%. ~:2tiI
' i / ADUATIC RESOURCES
BOATING aN0 OCEAN RECREATIGN
~,d' CONSERVATION ANO
RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT
STATE O F HAWAII CONVEYANCES
FORESTRY pN0 WILDUfE
_ HISTORIC PRESERVATION
~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION
LAND DIVISION STATE PARKS
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
P.O. 80% 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96009
September 20, 2002
LD/NAV L-1917
Ref.• REZ 02-017.CMT Suspense Date: 10/4/02
MEMORANDUM-
TO: XXX Division of Aquatic Resources (Distributed Doc)
**XXX Division of Forestry & Wildlife
**XXX Na Ala Hele Trails
XXX Division of State Parks (Distributed Doc)
Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation
**XXX Commission on Water Resource Management
Land Division Branches;
XX Planning and Technical Services
~j
XXX Engineering Branch (Distributed Doc)
XXX Hawaii District Land Office (Di/}stribut/ed Doc)
FROM: ierdre S. Mamiya, Administrator //Z~~%v"~~~--~
and Division (i
r.'t~
ru
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017) cr..
Request: Agricultural (A-5a) to Single Family Residential Lc
State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 02-007 I'.--!
Request Agricultural to Urban
Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department
Applicants: Walter and Susan. Welton
TMK: 31°/ 7-5-010: 052 and Portion of 065 z
ITT
Please review the subject document (application) and submit your;;
comment (if any) on Division letterhead signed and dated within the time y,
requested above. Should you need more time to review the subject matter,
please contact Nick Vaccaro at ext.: 7-0438.
**NOTE: One (1) copy of the document is available £or review in the Land
Division Office, room 220. Sign out slips are available at the
counter for those who wish to review the document for a 24-hour period.
If this office does not receive your comments on or before the
suspense date, we will assume there are no comments.
( ) We have no comments. ~ Comments attached.
Signed: g~•
Date: N'~J
EXHIBIT K
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND DNISION
ENGINEERING BRANCH
LD/NAV
Ref.: REZ 02-017.CMT
COMMENTS
We confirm that the project site is located in Zones X (Shaded and Not shaded) and AE. Zone X
(Shaded) is an area of 500-year flood; azea of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot
or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and aeeas protected by levees form the 100-yeaz flood.
Zone X (Not shaded) is an azea determined to be outside the 500-yeaz flood plain. Zone AE is an
area where base flood elevations are determined.
The project must comply with rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) and all applicable County Flood Ordinances. If there are questions regarding the NFIP,
please contact the State Coordinator, Mr. Sterling Yong, of the Deparhnent of Land and Natural
Resources at 587-0248
Also, please revise page 9 of the document, Item L, reference to Federal Emergency Management
Agency instead of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Eric Yuasa of the Planning Section at 587-0229.
Signed: L~l~'~lvwv /rl ' ~'!~~'UV[dv -
ANDREW M. MONDEN, CHIEF ENGINEER
Date: 34 02-
N:\W LD\MAKAI\SUZIE\III\ W alterW eltonHawaii 127.D O C
4 D o i y, '
\r \9OD
BENJAMIN J. CAVETANO e • - ~ ~ ~ BRUCE S. ANDERSON, Ph.O.. M.P.H.
GOVERNOR j OIRELiOR OF HEALTH
S r
.4.e.m,. ~.,.09
„~2 ~r„r y P~1 1 2'i
STATE OF HAWAII '
DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH p'~~vNNiPIG ~
i`,_II'i =~'i::ENf
~ '',mil
P.0. BOX Bib ~~~J I~ ~ ~J, .
HILO, HAWAll96121-0916 Ji~i•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 25, 2002
TO: Christopher J. Yuen
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
FROM: Aaron A. Ueno
District Environmental Health Program Chief
SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017)
Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20)
Applicants: Walter and Susan Welton
Tax Map Key: 7-5-O10:Portion of 052 and Porition of 065
The subject lot(s) are located in aNon-Critical Wastewater Disposal Area where
cesspools are allowed under the current rules. More than one cesspool is allowed
provided 10,000 sq. ft. per cesspool is available. Each cesspool can dispose of 1,000
gallons per day of wastewater.
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.
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."
EXHIBI'~ _ e;~,:;~r
Christopher J. Yuen
Page 2
September 25, 2002
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:
a. 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
e. 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.
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.
Christopher J. Yuen
Page 3
September 25, 2002
b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or
air must be equipped with mufflers.
c. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to
construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued
with the permit.
Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Deparhnent of Health at
933-091'7.
W ORD: SLU02-007REZ02-017.mi
MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC
P.O. Box 1 1 O 1
KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743
October 16, 2002 ':~f~2 G' T 17 fl~ 9 50
P~:~,r~r.~ir!c ~)~~~~.~Tr,r,~~~
COUNi~T GF Nf;`,V,AII
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007)
Chauge of Zone Application (REZ 02-017)
Applicant: Walter and Susan Welton
Taa Map Key (3) 7-5-O10:portion of 052 & 065
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Your staff has faxed me copies of comments on the applications identified above and asked that I respond.
Land Use Commission:
The subject property is adjacent to the Maryl property that was the subject of SLU 91-4.
Fire Department:
The applicants will comply with these requirements.
Department of Health:
The applicants will comply with all regulations related to wastewater, dust control, underground injection,
noise and the federal requirements related to discharge into navigable waters.
Should you or your staff have any questions, or if additional information is required, please contact me at
885-6839. Thank you for your prompt attention to these applications.
Sincerely,
~
Greg Mooers
President
GRM/JY
copy: Fire Department
Department of Health
Land Use Commission
A ~ n' ...,1 L
PHONE: (808) 885-6839 EXHIBIT ~
FAX: (808) 885.1574
EMAIL: GMOOERS@AITGLOBAL.NEr
NOV-22-2002 FRI 09:45 AM P. 01/O1
MOOERS ENTERPRISl~S, LLC:
P.O. Box 1 [ O 1
KAtdUEtA, !'1nW/Ul 96743 ,
November 20, 2002 '02 NOU 21 PN12:50
RECEIVED
coumr of )uwalt
vumm~e
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii -
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: State Land Use Boundary Amendmwt Application (SLU 02-007)
Change of Zooc Appllcation (REZ 02-017)
Applicant: Walter and Susan Welton
Taz Map Key (3) 7-5-O10:portioo of 052 & 065
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Your staffhas faxed me copies of the Department of Public Works' comments on the applications identified ,
above and asked that I respond.
Arainage and Earthwork:
The applicants will comply with all regulations and rcqutrcmems of the Federal, State and County government
agencies as related to drainage and earthwork.
Roadways and Traffic:
The applicant disagrees that the roadways should be connected to adjoining parcels. Community response to
this proposal has be~c;n to oppose connecting this project area to other properties to limit the increase in traffic in
this arcs to the proposed 17 lots and not allow other parcels to gain access through this area. This proposal is
consistt;m with the recent change of zone ordiaznce (REZ 02A6) west of thr~ nrpnnser) nrpiect site.
The applicant agrees that the impact related fees collected from this project should be drrected into the
unmedi~tte arm to improve Melelina Street and related intersections and roadways.
Should you or your staff have any questions, or if additional information is required, please wntact me at 885-
6839. Thank you for your prompt attention to these applications.
Since ely, ,y~,~
Gregory R. Moons
President
GRM/jy ~ c
i.I±rw ~'~ti~. ~
copy; pepartment of Public Works _
PttoNe: (BOB) 865.6839
FwX: (605) 665.1574 E X H ~ B I
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
December 5, 2002
A regularly advertised public hearing on WALTER AND SUSAN WELTON (SLU 02-007/
REZ 02-017) was called to order at 9:57 a.m. in the Outrigger Waikoloa Beach, Lehua Ballroom,
69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, with Chairperson Geraldine
Giffin presiding.
PRESENT: Geraldine M. Giffin ABSENT & EXCUSED: Hannah Springer
Earl Fujikawa
Fred Galdones
Florence Kubota
Jeffrey McCall
Aurelio C. Mina, Jr.
Francis Smith
Grant Togashi
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner
Daryn Arai, Staff Planner
Debbie Chang, Staff Planner
Esther lmamura, Staff Planner
Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner
Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works
Bnzce McClure representing Department of Water Supply
And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: WALTER AND SUSAN WELTON (SLU 02-007/REZ 02-017) -Applications
for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone
by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential
(RS-20) for approximately 10.020 acres of land. The property is located adjacent to Kealoha and
Kona Heights subdivision, at the north end of Melelina Street, approximately''/z mile east
(mauka) of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway Extension, Hienaloli 2„a-4`h North Kona, Hawaii,
TMK: 7-5-10:Portions of 52 and 65.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, we're on Agenda Item No. 2. The Applicants are Walter
and Susan Welton, SLU 02-007 and REZ 02-017. These are applications for a State Land Use
Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone by changing the district
classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20) for approximately
10,020 acres of land. And, Commissioners, I might want to remind you that this morning you
just received both recommendations.
CHANG: Madam Chair and Members of the Commission, I'd like to
GIFFIN: Good morning, Debbie.
CHANG: Good morning. I'd like to orient you to the location ofthe subject
property, and I'll be using both of these maps because this one is more of a close-up and is
somewhat limited, so as needed, I'll be referring to that one, also.
The property is located up here in the area of these orange dots, and the Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway is this bold black line. The property is mauka of it. Hualalai Road is shown as this
black line, Kuakini Highway here, and the ocean.
The property is actually lot, the subject property is actually Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 5 of a
subdivision that was approved in January of this yeaz for the Gomes Limited Family Partnership.
And that subdivision encompassed 51 acres that extend from the Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway
in this area and beyond this map. Unfortunately, both maps do not show the resulting lot lines of
the six lots, but again, the subdivision encompasses this area here and up to the Hiena]oli-
Kahului Road, and the subject properties are in this area here.
You'll note that the surrounding zoning, first of all, the Henry Street area would be here where
the Border's and Wal-Mart area is, and the Malulani Planned Unit Development, which is
RS-7.5. The lands in between Malulani Gardens and the subject property is zoned Agriculture-5
acres, is currently vacant but is noted as an area for Urban Expansion in the General Plan. This
area here is the Kealoha Subdivision, which is directly west of the subject properties, and that is
RS-15. The Kona Heights Subdivision is directly south of the subject properties. If's zoned
Agriculture-5 acres, but the average lot size in this area is 8,000 square feet. Then right adjacent
and south is the Kailua View Estates, zoned RS-I5, and this road here, Nani Kailua, is heavily
used by the subdivisions in this area because it is the only real access to Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway if you live in this area. Makai of Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway is the planned unit
development of The Pines, and that isMulti-Family Residential-4 zoning and a small area of
Commercial zoning. And this here is the Aloha Kona Subdivision, which is Agriculture-5 acres,
but the average lot size there is about 7,500 square feet.
And this map shows more closely the roads network which Melelina Street, which is a little off
the map, leads directly into the proposed subdivision area. And Kakalina Street is another direct
access that has been retained by the County and actually goes through Kealoha Subdivision up
here.
We'd like to apologize to you for the late submittal of the Recommendation Report and the
conditions. It was held up, the time delay was due to concerns that were brought to our attention
quite late by the State Historic Preservation Division; and so it took us some time to clarify the
sites that are on actually the much lazger piece, the 51-acre piece. Because the State Historic
2
Preservation had full maps and infonnation but it pertained to the 51 acres of the Gomes
Subdivision, and they did not have the information on where the parcel boundaries were
resulting from the Gomes Subdivision that divided the area into six lots. I want you to note that
Condition M is a condition that State Historic Preservation Division feels is protective of the
sites, and so we included Condition M as a result of the discussions that we had.
And another condition I want to call attention to, well, let me back up and say that our Planning
Director has recommended approval, subject to these conditions. And Condition C is requiring
the Melelina Street to be continued, and that's that street here, to be continued all the way to the
northern boundary of the subject properties in order to maintain future options for
interconnectiveness and the flow of traffic, because of this situation of reliance upon this one
road in Nani Kailua.
So with that, I complete my introduction and I'm ready for questions.
GIFFIN: Thank you. You've done a great job. Commissioners, any questions of
Debbie? Mr. Fujikawa.
FUJIKAWA: Yeah, Debbie, on this subdivision that they're going to do, how many lots
are they looking at total?
CHANG: They are proposing 17.
FUJIKAWA: Seventeen. And a few months ago, we had a hearing on the further bottom
section of that area where I believe it was nine lots or something of that nature here.
CHANG: That was the Gomes family.
FUJIKAWA: And the community of the Kailua View and Aloha had stressed their
opinion about the traffic on Nani Kailua Drive. And I believe the question came up with the
County as to can they provide afour-way stop sign because of the added volume of traffic. Did
you hear anything about the County? Are they going to support their issue?
CHANG: I'm not aware of that, and perhaps Ki might know better. This four-way
stop area would be where?
FUJIKAWA: Along Nani Kailua Drive, that's including that street that people would be
coming out from, Melelani.
CHANG: There's Kakalina.
FUJIKAWA: Kakalina, yeah, all along there.
GIFFIN: Ki, are you going to answer that question?
3
EMLER: Commissioner Fujikawa had a question about whether or not the County
was pursuing afour-way stop on Nani Kailua. The answer to that, to my understanding, would
be no, we're not pursuing that at the present time.
FUJIKAWA: Is the County taking account that there will be 17 more lots added to up
there times two, so there's two more cars per house, and I guess the people along Nani Kailua
Drive, they weren't asking much, but I know of their traffic problem there. People think that's a
raceway, and how can we address their issue? Can the County do more study on it?
EMLER: I know at one time there was a proposal to do roundabout on at least one
of the intersections there. There are several, you know, options for slowing down traffic. Four-
way stops is not one that our Traffic Division would like to use as a traffic calming device. I'm
you know, I think the traffic circle was one of the ideas, and at the present time, the County is
not pursuing that.
FUJIKAWA: I have a question with the Director.
GIFFIN: Mr. Fujikawa.
FUJIKAWA: Yeah, Chris Yuen, can we have the County Council look into that matter if
they could help the public, on the four-way stops?
YUEN: I think the public should contact the Council directly.
FUJIKAWA: Okay.
GIFFIN: I think so, too.
YUEN: The Council Members are pretty responsive to public input so and every
letter that goes to the Council gets put on the agenda for some kind of action.
FUJIKAWA: Okay. Thank you.
EMLER: May I I'd like to retract the statement that there is nothing being done
about the roundabout. I think there maybe something in the works, but I don't know what the
status of it is, and I'd have to check.
FUJIKAWA: Thank you.
EMLER: I know there was a proposal to put one in on that street, a roundabout or
traffic circle of some kind.
GIFFIN: Mrs. Kubota.
FUJIKAWA: Very good.
4
KUBOTA: Madam Chair, thank you. Whiie we have Ki up there, I have a question
about the roadways. According to the DPW memo, there were several connecting roads that
they recommended. And according to the proposed Condition C, it speaks to one of the concerns
that the DPW raised about Melelina Street being extended to the northern boundary. How
what about the other connecting roads that DPW was recornmending and about the fact that the
Applicant's representative said they disagreed with the connector roads and also the disagreement
by the neighborhood that these roads should be connected? Has that been brought to resolve?
EMLER: Well, the County or Department of Public Works, as a general policy,
recommends connectivity between the road systems so that you're not concentrating all of the
traffic in the one roadway. We are trying to preserve options for future connections of
developments so that's just the general policy we have.
KUBOTA: So you are satisfied with the one road being extended, the Melelina Road
being extended as a connector road?
EMLER: No, I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. We would also recommend
Kakalina to be extended. We had recommended that Kawena Street be extended, as well.
GIFFIN: So the three?
EMLER: Yes.
KUBOTA: Then I go back to
CHANG: Debbie.
KUBOTA: Debbie, excuse me. Condition C doesn't speak to that, the other roads
being extended, it just speaks to Melelina.
CHANG: Well, that's because the subject property is not located near to, is not
located in the area of Kakalina or Kawena Street here. It is only accessed by the Melelina Street.
And if at some point in the future the lot that is here comes in for rezoning, similarly, that would
then bring the opportunity
KUBOTA: Thank you.
CHANG: For Kakalina.
KUBOTA: That explains it. Thank you.
GALDONES: Madam Chair?
GIFFIN: Mr. Galdones.
5
GALDONES: Does the pending General Plan addresses the stress that we are placing on
the traffic on Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway?
GIFFIN: Mr. Yuen, maybe you can answer that question.
YUEN: I would say in a broad way because the General Plan, we also have a
facilities map with that, that includes alternate road corridors. The County is actively, we are
pursuing the Ali'i Pazkway, which would alleviate the first phase is in the southern area and
would alleviate some traffic problems from Keauhou roughly to the, almost to Royal Poinciana,
and then the second phase would cover this azea and pazallel. That still leaves, that's still to the
south of Queen Ka'ahumanu in this area.
As far as State projects, the State is going to, the State has a first phase widening of Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway from Palani going north, and then the second phase is a widening, you
know, in this southern area, going south from Palani. So that's what's on the horizon.
GALDONES: Madam Chair? Mr. Yuen, I'm sure that all went through a public hearing
process. To your knowledge, is the community out in Kona comfortable with that plan to
alleviate the traffic problem in light of all of these proposals or applicants coming before the
Planning Commission that we are approving, which is adding more stress to the traffic?
YUEN: Well, the short answer is I'm sure that it's, that they're not. I have to say I
attended I give this, I'm going to say something I've said in a couple of talks to people. I
attended a session where there was a chief planning aide to the National Association of
Governors that gave a talk about transportation, highways and the like. And his big message
was, and he says he goes all over the country, looks at everybody's traffic conditions, he says
once you get traffic congestion, you'll never get rid of it. And no matter how many roads you
build, you will never get rid of it. You will only maybe bazely keep your head above water.
The problem is that there's a certain number of people. This project, this application to create
20,000 square foot lots does not cause people to move to Kona. It provides a place for people to
move into who are people are moving to Kona, and there are lots for people to move to. If you
don't, if you look at the growth strategy in the General Plan, it's, the areas that are designated for
future urbanization are in the immediate area of Kailua-Kona from, basically from Keauhou to
Keahole rather than moving, rather than having people move south of Keauhou into South Kona,
which is a even greater traffic problem, let's put it that way. You have to make some
accommodation for people that are if you don't have places for people to move to, first of all,
you will raise the the stew is with the map. Nobody is deciding to move to Kona because this
subdivision is going to open up. In that sense, it's a little different than something like Hokulia, a
second home type subdivision, where people are being attracted to come to the area, to move into
the area, to move to that subdivision from distant places. It's being actively marketed on the
mainland for that purpose. Or it's different than if you open up a resort, for example, a hotel, and
then you have more visitors come in, you have workers who will move to the area, and it
generates growth that way. This is actually, what this does is it provides a place for people that
aze otherwise planning to move, and they'll find someplace to move to in Kona.
6
So if you're trying to put it in the context of what the Department is recommending to the
Commission, we have recommended For example, what we look at is infill projects in the
urban area of Kona and to encourage people, if they're going to move to Kona, to move to the
areas that aze actually Although there are problems with the roads in the central part of Kona,
they don't, it's better than having them drive from 20 or 30 miles away and cause traffic over 20
or 30 miles of road to get to where they're going. Because there is a commuting pattern where
people are commuting either into the Kailua-Keauhou area for their jobs or to the resorts north
for their jobs.
So the Department is recommending this as a building out of that core area, this particular
application. Give another example, the Sunstone application, 200 units near Kailua that we
recommended approving change of zone from Residential, from Single Family Residential to
Multi-Family Residential. That's with that same philosophy that we aze providing places for
people to move to that is closer to the job centers in the central part of Kona.
I know this is a long answer, but it's to, there is a, you were right to ask about how the General
Plan relates to this. We're not going to solve though the transportation problems by saying don't
build a 15-lot subdivision in a particular location. And so I wanted to start by answering that
something is being done on the build the highway side, that's not going to solve the problem in
itself in a growing area where people are moving into. But the overall growth strategy is to try to
have people in the residential areas closer to the employment areas. The same thing we would
like to see more residential areas in Waikoloa Village, for example, which are closer to the work
areas so that people don't have to commute long distances. Because if you once you have that
long distance commute, then people are using 30 or 40 miles of roadway to get on their regulaz
commute rather than six or eight miles of roadway.
GIFFIN: Any other questions, Commissioners, of Debbie or the Planning Director?
Mrs. Kubota.
KUBOTA: I have one of Debbie. Debbie, can you point out to me, for me the
Hienaloli-Kahului Road intersection or whatever that is?
CHANG: Yes, that is not shown on this map, but it's just on the very end over here
shown, and it goes a little off the map.
KUBOTA: And it connects to, comes down to where? To
CHANG: I believe it connects to Hualalai Road. Am I correct?
EMLER: Yes.
CHANG: And this yes, these maps are difficult to follow.
KUBOTA: And what about this Nani Kailua Street and Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway
that they speak of
7
CHANG: Okay.
KUBOTA: DPW speaks of.
CHANG: This is the Nani Kailua Drive here, and there is a stoplight, major stoplight
intersection here where it exits out onto Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway.
KUBOTA: Is the channelization does the channelization need improvement there at
that intersection? Could that help the situation up above, smoother flow?
CHANG: I think that's something perhaps Ki is better equipped to answer. I'm being
told that your Exhibit A, which has this drawing, clearly shows the Hienaloli-Kahului
EMLER: Mrs.
KUBOTA: The reason I guess the reason I'm asking these questions is that DPW
raises possible alternatives in the interim period, I guess, before the master change in traffic flow
is worked on by the County. And I was just wondering if we couldn't do bits and pieces to
alleviate the oncoming demand for traffic, a better traffic flow by looking at these intersections,
or connector roads, or channelization that the DPW is talking about. Have I mean what is in
the works at this point?
GIFFIN: Ki?
EMLER: Well, I think the Planning Director addressed the major concern, which is
to improve the arterial which serves this subdivision. That would be up to the State Department
of Transportation to follow through with their plans to
KUBOTA: Right, I understand that.
EMLER: Widen Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway.
KUBOTA: That's a perennial problem we've been wrestling with for a number of
years. Now absent that, absent that move from the State Traffic Department, isn't there
something we can do locally? I mean it's from your own Department that these
recommendations come, and I'm just wondering what we are doing about it ourselves.
EMLER: One of the issues I did bring up is that we should be looking at
altematives; and one of those was that I suggested we look at the extension ofHienaloli-Kahului
Road. I believe that's one of the proposed comdors that's being worked on in our corridor study,
Keahole to Honaunau. And I also brought up the issue of possibly looking at the, improving the
intersection at Nani Kailua and Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway in that it's not channelized with left
turn, dedicated left turn lanes which could be a future improvement if it's warranted.
KUBOTA: My question is they sound like very sound altematives. My question is
where are we and what's the priority of our County to act upon it? Where are we with this
8
suggestion? Can is it realistic? Is it something that we can look forward to in the future?
Because in lieu of a traffic study for, as Mr. Yuen said, these kinds of little pockets that aze
cropping up, certainly we get more and more demands for better flow of traffic. And if this is
one way of handling it, I would think that it would be at the top priority of our County so that we
can alleviate some of these traffic concerns that our neighbors have in these areas.
EMLER: I think what you are asking for is how does the County prioritize projects
in a capital improvements project sense. Those projects are proposed by the Department of
Public Works or other entities to the County Council and they allot money to those projects on a
CIP list. So it's somewhat done administratively but it's also political, as well, so you have the
two entities involved.
KUBOTA: So your answer to me is that nothing is in the books right now?
EMLER: If you're asking specifically about the intersection at Nani Kailua and
Queen Ka~ahumanu Highway for channelization, Iwould say no.
KUBOTA: Thank you.
EMLER: Okay.
GIFFIN: Any other questions of Ki or Debbie, Commissioners? Debbie, I have a
question or two. First of all on Page 3 of your Background Report, under Item No. l5, this is just
really small, I don't understand why we have that, you know, on the third line under Item No. 15,
you have 8,000 feet square.
CHANG: Oh, that I put that in there because although the for those subdivisions
that are still zoned Agriculture-5 acres, I wanted to make sure that the Commissioners
understood that even though it is zoned Agriculture-5 acres, these are actually small
GIFFIN: Right.
CHANG: Lots
GIFFIN: Right.
CHANG: In the subdivisions all along here, the green area.
GIFFIN: Oh, okay, and that's why
CHANG: And Aloha Kona.
GIFFIN: That's there.
CHANG: Yeah.
9
GIFFIN: Okay. And getting back to No?
YUEN: No, I'm just shaking my head. If it's still zoned Agriculture-5 acres.
GIFFIN: Right.
YUEN: It's being anarea
GIFFIN: Well, when she said that in the beginning, I was kind of surprised, but
anyway. Then going down to Item 20 on Page 3.
CHANG: Yes.
GIFFIN: After your discussion with the Department of Land and Natural Resource
Historic Preservation, which delayed the recommendation, as you said earlier, what you said here
is true then, right? On the subject property, there are no sites, and that what they wanted was just
some sort of safety because the boundaries were not clear and they were not clear as to where
this subject property is being proposed versus the bigger subdivision where those sites are, am I
correct?
CHANG: Because there isn't anything in writing from the State Historic
Preservation and because this has come together only very recently
GIFFIN: Yes. Yes.
CHANG: And because there is a revised mitigation plan still in the works that has
not been approved yet
GIFFIN: For the other subdivision?
CHANG: For the other
GIFFIN: Of which
CHANG: Lands
GIFFIN: This is
CHANG: Within this 51-acre area, I can only say that to the best of our knowledge
there are no sites on the Lot 4 and the portion of Lot 5 that are slated for data recovery or
preservation.
GIFFIN: Okay.
CHANG: And this is why the Condition C
10
GIFFIN: Yes.
CHANG: Excuse me, the Condition
GIFFIN: M.
CHANG: Miswritten the way it is
GIFFIN: Okay.
CHANG: To be absolutely safe on making sure that there is an approved mitigation
plan in place and any sites that may or may not be on these subject properties would be shown
clearly before any land alteration or any plan for subdivision is submitted.
GIFFIN: So it's a safety kind of thing?
CHANG: Yeah.
GIFFIN: Okay. Then my question also goes back to the conditions, specifically
Condition C as it's being proposed. In light of what the Applicant said, and I think Mrs. Kubota
touched on this earlier in Exhibit K, the Applicant's representative says that community response
to this proposal has been to oppose connecting this project area to other properties regard
because of traffic. So when Condition C was inserted, was that with input from the community
or were you depending on them to come today to provide testimony?
CHANG: We didn't receive testimony from the public prior
GIFFIN: Okay.
CHANG: That expressed say opposition, other than the indication in the letter from
the Applicant.
GIFFIN: Okay.
CHANG: But it is included there because it is considered by the County to be
important.
GIFFIN: Oh, I don't doubt that. I just wondered if there had been some community
input.
CHANG: No.
GIFFIN: Okay.
CHANG: Not yet.
11
GIFFIN: I know that there are four people who have signed up to give public
testimony, and I trust that some of them will bespeaking to this and that they have copies of this
condition. Yes?
CHANG: I don't think the members of the public do have a
GIFFIN: Do we have extra copies?
CHANG: I'm sure we do.
GIFFIN: Okay. Good. Good. And then if there are members of the public who are
here today, you know, like part of the people who have signed up, who need copies, as long as
we have extra copies for them to peruse before they testify Commissioners, any other
questions of Debbie, or Mr. Yuen, or Ki? Okay, hearing none, will the Applicant and the
Applicant's representative please come forward. Sorry for the delay. We sure are pondering this,
aren't we? Will you raise your hand please, your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
MOOERS: I do.
GIFFIN: Greg, your name and resident address.
MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers. My address is P.O. Box 1101, Kamuela
96743.
GIFFIN: Thank you. You, along with us, probably just received a copy of the two
recommendations this morning.
MOOERS: That's correct.
GIFFIN: But you did have a copy of the Background Report?
MOOERS: Yes.
GIFFIN: Okay. Is there anything you'd like to add that has not already been hashed
out or even if it has, just giving your input?
MOOERS: Yeah, a couple things I'd like to clarify.
GIFFIN: Okay.
MOOERS: And maybe explain. First of all, the issue of the archaeology [think is
important.
GIFFIN: Yes.
12
MOOERS: The inventory survey that was prepared for this property was prepared for
the entire parcel that consisted of six lots.
GIFFIN: Right.
MOOERS: There was an approved mitigation plan that identified certain sites to be
preserved and certain sites to be data recovered. Subsequent to that, that was approved.
Subsequent to that, an amended plan was submitted, and the confusion arose as to where these
sites were in relation to the six lots. And we have since met with the Staff of the Planning
Department and with the Staff of Historic Preservation Division to clarify where the sites are that
would be data recovered and would be preserved. And we agree with the proposed condition
that would require us essentially to create six mitigation plans, one for each lot. So it would be
very clear that there are no sites on this property. So we apologize for any confusion this caused
but we think that's a fair condition, and we will comply with that.
GIFFIN: Okay.
MOOERS: The second is the issue of traffic, and I'm sure that's why people are
interested in this project and why they're here today. First, just in general, I would like to echo
the sentiments of the Director in that really the purpose of the General Plan is to focus growth,
and that we do try to focus urban development in existing urban areas to avoid urban sprawl.
The, so in that regard, then, Commissioner Galdones brought up the question about the General
Plan. It would be consistent with the General Plan, and I think this is something we need to
encourage.
As far as the specific conditions or suggestions made by the Department of Public Works in
order to address the concerns, there has been considerable conversation between the Applicant,
myself, and the Councilman for that district, Councilman Tyler. As you recall, in the previous
change of zone for the Gomes Family Trust, there was a condition placed on the Applicant by the
Commission, had been recommended by the Department of Public Works, by the Planning
Department, approved by the Commission, that essentially said interconnect everything for that
15 lots. The community, and at that time this was something that was worked on by Councilman
Tyler and then Councilwoman Pisicchio to address those concerns from the community. Their
response was they did not want to see interconnectivity to lots mauka and makai because what
they were concerned is that on these lateral streets, Kawena, Kakalina, and Melelina, is that they
would somehow channel all of the traffic within say the entire Gomes property down through
Kawena Street or down through Melelina Street. So the recommendation by the time we finally
got to the Council and at the final reading was don't connect anything except Kawena Street, and
do not stub Kawena Street to the north. All right? My discussions with Councilman Tyler has
indicated that in his regional roadway planning that he has been doing, and I'm not quite sure
under which agency's auspices, Ki, that is, but I understand there is a regional roadway traffic
workshop being conducted, in his vision, Kakalina Street would be the street that would be
connected north eventually to Malulani Gardens and then over to Palani Road.
The thing that really exacerbates this discussion is that the property immediately to the north of
the Gomes property, the entire piece, is the Hienaloli drainage way, which is a State owned
13
parcel. So that while you look at a flat map like this and it appears that perhaps what's going to
happen is a continuation of residential development to the north, that it's going to continue to
funnel in and out of Nani Kailua. The reality is that that drainage way is not going to be
developed. And, in fact, because of the volume of water that can flow through that drainage
way, the viability of roadways across it really becomes questionable. So, in other words, how
many bridges are you going to build to cross the Hienaloli drainage way? And I think that's what
Councilman Tyler and Pisicchio were trying to address, is which street are we looking at to be
connected to the north? Hienaloli-Kahului Road certainly appears to be one. Then the
discussions I've had with the Councilman Tyler indicated Kakalina Street.
Now the Applicant does not have a problem with the recommendation that is being made here
that we connect Melelina. But to be honest, what happens when we get to the Council, I don't
know, because clearly they have a different view of how this is going to work. And as I said, in
the, on the last change of zone, it went full cycle from connect to everything to connect to
nothing. And I think the concerns that most people have, of course, is that they don't want, you
know, additional traffic, you know, coming by their house. The problem we have is that these
roads, particularly Kawena, Kakalina, and Melelina Streets are properties, were roads that were
stubbed out into this property, and were designed and developed to provide access to those
properties. In any regard, I just wanted to emphasize that we have spent a great deal of time
working on this issue with the Councilmen.
I have received eight to ten phone calls from residents in the area, some who were willing to
identify who they are, others who were not. Their concerns were how many lots? You know,
are there going to be any ohana units or second dwellings? Where's the traffic going to go? Are
you going to connect? And those who would comment when I questioned them were unanimous
in saying that they did not want interconnectivity to parcels further north, or excuse me, further
mauka or makai. But I'm sure there is mixed feelings on that issue, and at some point at the
Council it will probably be resolved again.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Mooers? Mr. Fujikawa.
FUJIKAWA: Hey, Greg, you mentioned the upper road someday will tie in.
MOOERS: That's my understanding, is that
FUJIKAWA: Into Malulani Garden?
MOOERS: No, that would be above Malulani Gardens.
FUJIKAWA: [t would be above, right?
MOOERS: Yeah. Now you're talking the upper road, are you talking about Hienaloli?
FUJIKAWA: Yeah. Well, the reason why I'm asking is Malulani Gardens is a closed
community, has a gate, and we can't tie in there. I don't know
14
MOOERS: I think Malulani Gardens is far more makai of Kahului
FUJIKAWA: Okay, now
MOOERS: Hienaloli-Kahului Road.
FUJIKAWA: That particular road we're talking about up there, I'm familiar with that
area, wasn't that some kind of easement type of roadway? It wasn't classified as a road, was it?
MOOERS: That's correct. Well, none of these are. I mean in order for there to be
interconnectivity, the land ownership is going to have to be acquired. And I know the impact
fees that are being paid by the various projects, you know, are supposed to be allocated to
solutions of impacts in that immediate area. But in order for any of those roads to be connected,
somebody is going to have to acquire rights of way across those various land parcels because
there is no direct ownership in there; and I'm not aware of any alignments that have been
established.
FUJIKAWA: I was told that that area is all County owned.
MOOERS: No. I believe the State owns all the property to the north, the Hienaloli
drainage area; and then there's a parcel that's for sale; and then I think we run into another parcel
that's owned by three people that are also marketing that; and then eventually you end up over, I
think Kanuha family has some land. And then you get over into the, and that's above Malulani
Gardens; and then you get over to the developed areas along Palani Road.
FUJIKAWA: So, in other words, you're telling me
MOOERS: So there's several ownerships.
FUJIKAWA: It's going to come out on Palani Road?
MOOERS: I'm sorry, what?
FUJIKAWA: It's going to come out to Palani Road?
MOOERS: I probably should not be answering regional roadway questions because
I'm not an engineer for the County. That, my understanding was, is that in this plan that
Councilman Tyler was talking about that that was one of the things they were looking to; but I
don't believe there's any right-of--way that has been acquired. The County certainly doesn't own
aright-of--way across there. But for any of these roads to be interconnected, that would need to
be done.
FUJIKAWA: Okay. Thank you.
15
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of Mr. Mooers? Hearing none, Greg,
why don't you just stay there. There are five people who have signed up to testify, and I see five
vacant seats.
CHANG: Excuse me, Madam
GIFFIN: I'm sorry.
CHANG: Chair. I believe Daryn wanted to address that. I
ARAI: You can
CHANG: Okay. I need to point out that there are two conditions that have been
inadvertently omitted
GIFFIN: Oh.
CHANG: From the conditions of approval that you have a copy of These are
standard conditions that we would want to add. One has to do with the affordable housing
policy.
GIFFIN: So what number would you what letter would you insert?
ARAI: Is it okay if you allow us to use our discretion on the best place to put it
in
GIFFIN: Sure.
ARAI: But just knowing that we want to include?
GIFFIN: Sure.
ARAI: And there was one more condition.
CHANG: And then the other condition pertains to the Applicant making a fair share
contribution to mitigate potential regional impacts.
GIFFIN: I must have been confused on another agenda item where that was in,
but_. So you have fair share.
CHANG: Yes.
GIFFIN: The first
CHANG: And then the other one is to ensure that the goals and policies of the
housing element of the General Plan are implemented. It calls for the Applicant complying with
16
the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1 of the Hawaii County Code relating to affordable
housing policy.
GIFFIN: Okay. Greg, you got those?
MOOERS: Yeah, those are standard conditions, and the Applicant has no problem
with those.
GIFFIN: Okay. Debbie, anything else before I call the public testifiers up?
CHANG: I believe that's it, thank you.
GIFFIN: Okay. Joanne Scribner, Jerry Jernigan, sorry.
JERNIGAN: Jernigan, ma'am.
GIFFIN: Okay.
JERNIGAN: Do we all take the seat at the same
GIFFIN: Yes, please come forward. Alex Thropp.
THROPP: Thropp, here.
GIFFIN: Thropp, please come forward. David Kish and George Collins. And if
you'll all raise your right hand. 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. Starting with you, ma'am, your name and resident address,
and you may begin your testimony.
SCRIBNER: Good morning, Madam Chair
GIFFIN: Good morning.
SCRIBNER: Commissioners. My name is Joanne Scribner. I live at 75-345 Melelina
Street, or Place, excuse me, Kailua-Kona.
And I'm a bit confused about the condition of the Melelina Street, whether that is going to be
made a part of the County road which will they have sidewalks, and be paved and go into a
cul-de-sac at the end of, into this project. And as far as a cul-de-sac, that would be the end of
that road; and in my thinking, that would not further be extended at any time. That, from the
maps, it shows that this is going to be a cul-de-sac into this new project. And so they were, you
17
were talking about perhaps Melelina also being an extended road at some point. And I don't
know if someone can address that and answer my question and help me with this.
GIFFIN: Debbie, did you want to answer that since that really is pertinent to
Condition C?
CHANG: Yes. The map that you're looking at is the Applicant's proposal, which
would be to end Melelina Street in a cul-de-sac in the future subdivision. The County, on the
other hand, is recommending something different. We're recommending that Melelina Street
instead be built to County dedicable standards and also go all the way to the northern boundary
of the property rather than ending in a cul-de-sac.
SCRIBNER: And is that the condition that this is going to be approved with?
CHANG: Well, we don't know. We're in the process of discussing it still.
SCRIBNER: Okay.
CHANG: But that is what the meaning of Condition C is, that the County is
recommending continuation all the way to the northern boundary so that there will be future
connectivity possible.
GIFFfN: Ms. Scribner, Mr. Mooers would like to also add.
MOOERS: I was just going to ask, I'd be interested as to what you would prefer, if
you would prefer a cul-de-sac or if you would prefer it stubbed out to the north.
SCRIBNER: Well, 1 think that, would it be a private road if it was a cul-de-sac?
MOOERS: It'll be a it's going to be a public road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk,
regardless of whether it's a cul-de-sac or it's stubbed out to the north. The question just is would
you prefer to have it stubbed to the north for connectivity or would you prefer to see it a cul-de-
sac that would preclude that?
SCRIBNER: I'd prefer to see it as a cul-de-sac. But it would be dedicated to the
County, is that right?
CHANG: Yes.
MOOERS: Yes.
SCRIBNER: I'd prefer a cul-de-sac.
GIFFIN: Is there anything else you wanted to add in your public testimony, ma'am?
18
SCRIBNER: Yes. I did want to say that in discussing the traffic problems on Nani
Kailua and also on the highway, and Mr. Yuen's discussion about the fact that it's going to be for
people that already live here, these residences, the area that I live in, there are six homes, part of
the Aloha Kona, I'm sorry,
PUBLIC: Kealoha.
SCRIBNER: Yeah, Kealoha, thank you. And all six parties came here from the
mainland and bought homes in that subdivision. So I wouldn't state that as an exact that it is
going to be just for people that live here, that there probably will be people that come in from the
mainland, will bring new cars, new residents, new people to this area.
GIFFIN: Mr. Yuen.
YUEN: I said that a development like this accommodates people who are planning
to move to Kona anyway, it doesn't attract the people, it doesn't bring people to Kona in itself. It
provides a place for the roughly I think the population of Kona increased from about 5,000 in
1970 to about, North Kona, to about 28,000 in the year 2000. Virtually all of those people
moved to Kona from someplace else, typically the mainland. This is a trend that the planning
authorities of the County have no practical way of stopping. So given that, we have to have a
plan for where the people will go. It's not, and I understand and expect that many of these lots
will eventually be occupied and sold by people who move from the mainland in the year, you
know, between 2002 and 2012, just as many of the lots in the adjoining areas that have been
developed are occupied by people who moved to Kona between 1992 and 2002.
SCRIBNER: Okay. The other question I wanted to ask was about the four-way stop
sign or the roundabouts. Someone had said who we could write letters to about that. Could
somebody Cell me once again? I wasn't able to write it down.
GIFFIN: Debbie, that would be City Council, right, so that would be Mr. Tyler.
CHANG: I believe so, yes. Councilman Tyler.
SCRIBNER: Tyler. Thank you very much. Thank you.
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Sir, your name and resident address, please.
JERNIGAN: Jerry Jernigan, 75-5771 Kaila Place, and that residence is just off of Aloha
Kona.
Madam Chairman and Commissioners, I want to compliment you on your concern for traffic. I,
too, am concerned about the traffic, the growth, what's available and what's in planning for the
infrastructure to keep up with it.
I see a lot of vacant land, some of it has been referred to as drainage area. But leaving out the
drainage area, encompassing that entire area, there are only about three highways going up and
19
down the mountain from the Queen's Highway, and those have to bear a lot of traffic. I see over
the past 20 years of looking at traffic and growth in Kona, which has been tremendous, I've never
seen the future planning. And I'm wondering if an overlay of this of whatever future planning
for highways wouldn't do well; and I'm concerned about the traffic created by piggyback
subdivisions, which this is only one. And I'm certainly not against growth, I have, when done
properly. There's going to be more and more of it. This is not a today's fight. This is a fight that
has been going on. This has been a hearing for how many years, folks, three or four years, at
least; and hopefully it won't go away today until we get an infrastructure that will take care of
these things. I don't see an answer in this and certainly not an answer to our concerns of traffic
conditions which are horrendous to get in and out of these subdivisions. So that's my concern
here. I'm opposed to this until the infrastructure is in place or certainly more definite than just a
talk-about situation of what we're going to do in the future. And thank you.
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Hearing
none, thank you, sir. Sir, your name and residence address.
THROPP: Excuse me. My name is Alex Thropp, and I'm at 75-5792 Lopeka Place.
And I am, the part where I live is missing from that map, so I brought a miniature one here. And
I live at the last cul-de-sac at the top of Aloha Kona Drive; that's Lopeka Place. And I have my
house here in green.
And in my cul-de-sac, there are 10 homes and two vacant lots, so there's a possible 12. And I've
lived there 10 years; we bought the home in '92. And I used to live on Kakalina and Nani
Kailua, that we leased a house. I lived there for a year before that, before we bought up higher.
So I think that there's a misunderstanding of how these neighborhoods are set up because and
I'm here today to talk about that. And I have a few points I'm going to make and be succinct, like
the note said.
So Nani Kailua, the Kailua View Estates was built first. And Nani Kailua Drive is the access all
the way to the top, and it dead-ends at Hienaloli Road, where there's a plant nursery there, I
mean, on the mauka side, and it dead-ends right into the plant nursery. And so that division was
done first. And all of the cul-de-sacs and all of the streets like Kakalina feed into Nani Kailua
and then down to the Queen K Highway and then out.
And then several years later, the Kona Heights Subdivision, where I actually live, was built,
which is When they built that, they built Aloha Kona Drive from the bottom. There's an
access road called Welo, W-e-1-o, and it's the First left turn off of Nani Kailua once you enter the
Nani Kailua Road going up the hill. And Aloha Kona Drive, everyone that I know on my side in
Kona Heights, and of course I live at the top, we go all the way down Aloha Kona Drive to the
bottom. And there's a road called Welo, which is one-half a block right there, and then we turn,
and we dump out onto Nani Kailua, and then to the traffic light.
So these two neighborhoods, these two parallel roads, are access roads for these cul-de-sacs that
were designed really kind of excellent because there are family homes, single family homes, and
there's many children, and it's a great. That's one of the reasons why we bought there, because of
the least amount of traffic because of the way this was designed. Whoever designed it did an
20
excellent job because you can see by this cul-de-sac map here, they are just like fingers on your
hand. The main street goes up and then the little cul-de-sacs go off to the side. So you don't
have anybody interfering with cross traffic, only Aloha Kona Drive, which is the artery in the
center of both of these Well, Nani Kailua separates the two neighborhoods. And then Aloha
Kona was designed to dump out of our, of the newer area. So the way these were designed on a
lineaz, up the mountain, same like Palani, I mean up by the airport, the road that goes up above
the airport, all of the houses are built with the roads coming into the main road and to come out,
the Palisades thing, Palisades Estates.
So that, I'm concerned about the traffic. And what this gentleman said earlier, I wrote down in
red. In my cul-de-sac, where I can see, I know all my neighbors, I see them all every day leaving
for work. Most of the people that live in this neighborhood, the husband and wife both work
fulltime because the houses are expensive. And in my situation, that's true. And in red ink, I
wrote here the number of vehicles that are used in my cul-de-sac. And there aze 10 homes in my
cul-de-sac, and I can see directly across the street. I have a two-story house so I can see my
whole area, with 15 houses. And I have 40 cars and five motorcycles, and they use these every
day; and that's in my little world in this top, the last cul-de-sac. So what he said about the 17
homes you multiply by two, I'll give you the two. Because most of these in my area, I have
three; the guy across the street, he's four; the guy on the corner, he's four; across the street from
me is three; we have three. And these are not cazs up on blocks or people working on them.
GIFFIN: Right.
THROPE: These are used, commuter vehicles. Because as everyone knows, there's
no public transportation to go to work. So all of these people, the husband and wives and
everybody, they all take off between seven and eight in the morning. It's like a mass exodus, and
they're all going out to work.
And the point that I wanted to make here is right here in orange is Nani Kailua Drive, and this is
the top and this is Would you mind holding that? And the proposed cut-in, this Melelina, is
extremely dangerous because of the vertical drop of this little inset onto the top there, where it
shows, where they want to continue it on up through there by the red dots.
GIFFIN: Yes.
THROPE: That little area there, the vertical drop there is the steepest road in the
whole neighborhood. So it's a blind hill. So I drove up it yesterday, I drove down it this
morning. I went up just on a little piece and it says end County road. You just go half a block.
There's four houses there, two on each side. The houses on the comer of Melelina and Aloha
Kona, the two houses there on the north side have five-foot retaining walls at the comer. So the
stop sign is there. So when you're coming down the hill, the proposed route, when you're
coming down that blind hill, you come over the hill and the car is almost vertical; it's so steep.
And then the stop sign is right there at Aloha Kona Drive. So most of the people, the
construction workers that are up there, come down and don't even stop at the stop sign. They
just cruise right through and I've almost hit several. And I've been there 10 years, and I've just in
21
the last year I've almost had broadsided at least two or three of these construction workers just
coming down and just cruising across, because I'm coming down from the top using the artery.
The second point about Melelina, not to mention that that's a blind hill, going up, you cannot see
where you're going. They have a gas tanker truck on the top there on the right, just past where
the road ends, the County road ends, where they fill the machinery with, and they have a fuel
tanker truck there. You cannot see the tanker truck until you reach the apex of the hill. You
can't even see it, and it's not even 50 feet from where once you reach the top. You can't even see
this massive truck there because the hill is so steep; and when you're going up, you can't see it.
On the down side, if they were allowed to use Melelina as an access Melelina, I put in green
dots here, these are the school bus stops. They have to pass four of them. This is the elementary
school at 7:00, this is my daughter's here at 7:30, and these two are Holualoa late stops, 7:15. So
if this traffic that's coming down Melelina across Aloha Kona, say they wanted to use Nani
Kailua, they'd have to pass young children standing. And there are no curbs on Melelina past the
middle of the block. It's a flat paved, and the water tanks are here. So it's a very traveled outlet
there right now, without these 17 homes. So they have-, these green dots, every morning, they're
going to have to pass at least 60 children, young children, with no curbs. So that's my second
point.
And I think it's, the intersection actually is the probably the most dangerous one because of the
rock walls, the steepness. And when you come off the top there and the stop sign, the car, your
car is almost vertical. There's a vertical drop there. I'm not an engineer; but anybody that's here
understands vertical drop, it is huge. It's even more so than Nani Kailua and Aloha Kona Drive,
which are very steep. And we have the triathletes come up there and practice. It's so steep, the
main roads. So that's a point I wanted to make.
And I came today to talk about my neighborhood and how this will affect the extra traffic. I
don't see, I don't think that this is the right outlet, Melelina.
GIFFIN: So if I understand you correctly, Mr. Thropp, you're in opposition to
Condition C?
THROPP: I'm in opposition. I don't have those papers.
GIFFIN: Oh.
THROPP: I'm in opposition to the Melelina access for these 17 homes. 1 think that, I
have no objection to them building the new homes.
GIFFIN: Sure.
THROPP: But I think it's their responsibility to find their own artery access down to
Queen K, that's my point that I'm here today. Because I don't think that it's fair to, like this
gentleman is saying, to add on laterally another neighborhood without their own road where they
made Kailua View Estates, they made Nani Kailua, and then they made Kona Heights, made
22
Aloha Kona Drive. So, and then there's a, and then these 17 homes are on the other side; and
they're accessing our neighborhood to get out and to get in. So I think that the impact of the
extra traffic is extremely dangerous to this, not to mention in the middle of Melelina where the
school bus stop is, the first one.
There's also a blind hill where they come over the top. It's adouble-blind. So I think it's an
extremely poor choice. And I think that it's a extremely dangerous intersection with those five-
foot rock walls where they must stop before they proceed to go anywhere.
GIFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Thropp. Mrs. Kubota.
KUBOTA: Madam Chair, may 1 ask Ki a question?
GIFFIN: Sure.
KUBOTA: Ki, when the DPW approves any new extension or expansion or of a
street, do they take into consideration what Mr. Thropp's, Thropp
THROPP: Thropp is right.
KUBOTA: Thropp's
THROPP: Yeah.
KUBOTA: Speaking of as to danger and steepness?
EMLER: Yes, we do check the we require the design engineer to provide
adequate sight distances at all the intersections and also have policies about max requiring that
they not exceed a maximum grade on dedicable subdivision roads.
KUBOTA: So, in essence, what Mr. Thropp has been talking about will be alleviated
in teens of danger and blindness?
EMLER: Well, what Mr. Thropp is refemng to is an existing intersection. So the
County doesn't have any plans to alter that.
KUBOTA: I thought he was talking
EMLER: It's an existing approved County road.
KUBOTA: It is now a County road
EMLER: Yes, it is.
KUBOTA: Is it not?
23
EMLER: Yes.
KUBOTA: How is it that that was allowed if what you're saying is true? I mean if it's
very dangerous or, either that, or what Mr. Thropp is describing is not as serious as he's
describing it, if the County okayed the road to begin with. I mean which is which?
EMLER: Okay. Well, I think Mr. Thropp is basically describing the intersection at
Melelina and Aloha Kona as being the one that he considers to be
THROPP: On the north side.
EMLER: Hazardous, on the north side.
THROPE: The little piece.
EMLER: And he's saying that there are rock walls that might somehow restrict sight
distance. Of course, any driver needs to take reasonable care when approaching an intersection,
especially if there are rock walls built on private property just bordering on the County road. We
have restrictions on how high you can build a rock wall, you know, ordinances for streets and
sidewalks which restrict the height of rock walls within the radius of the return, curb return. And
that helps somewhat. But in a case ofnarrowerright-of--ways, of course you're going to have
less distance between the travelled way and where you stop at a stop sign. If this is a narrow
road, that could be a problem. I believe it's a 50-foot right-of--way at Aloha Kona. So there
should be adequate sight distance to be able to at least creep forward somewhat to be able to see
properly in both directions; and there should be adequate sight distance there. But reasonable
care needs to betaken.
As far as the grade approaching Aloha Kona, it's a downhill grade. And, of course, there could
be situations like in a wet, slippery pavement condition where someone might slide a little bit if
they're not taking care on the approach to the intersection. Other than that, that shouldn't be a
problem, you know, again, taking reasonable care at the approach. Any other issues?
KUBOTA: No. No, I'm satisfied. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other
FUJIKAWA: I have.
GIFFIN: Comments or questions? Mr. Fujikawa.
FUJIKAWA: For your infonnation.
GIFFIN: Mr. Thropp?
FUJIKAWA: Yeah. The Aloha Subdivision, Kona Subdivision was put up first. The
Aloha Kona Drive was there first. So if you look at the foot of the drive that goes to the Queen
24
K Highway, there's a metal rail. That used to be the entry of it. Taiyo Fudosan had developed
Nani Kailua Street, the subdivision of Kailua View. And at one time, between Kailua View and
Aloha Kona, there was a barricade between all the roads so you couldn't drive through. It was
just, we moved about 14 years ago.
THROPP: Okay. So you're saying that my neighborhood is the older neighborhood?
FUJIKAWA: That's right.
THROPP: Okay. Well, that's not what the realtor told us, so that's what I'm going on.
The phone lines, the telephone lines are buried on our side; and the other side is up so that we
were told that
FUJIKAWA: Because the developer for Kailua View, they want to spend the money.
THROPP: Okay. I would like to say something in rebuttal of what this gentleman
just said. I disagree with the steepness of this piece of Melelani. I disagree with the height of
these rock walls, with the viewing up the hill or down the hill at the stop sign.
GIFFIN: Okay.
THROPP: And I just want to go on record as saying I think if you went there and saw
it, this flat map doesn't do any justice to the steepness and blindness of this road.
GIFFIN: Okay. Thank you. Sir, your name and resident address.
COLLINS: George Collins. I have no objection to this new subdivision. We've got
millions of them here in Kona going on. I think most of the people here are addressing traffic
problems.
GIFFIN: Yeah.
COLLINS: Mine is the integrity of the people we let loose to build our subdivisions
and houses. I noticed in something I read from Mr. Mooers that Kakalina was not being used.
Well, it's being used on a regulaz basis and has for the last yeaz by either Weltons or Gomes.
They go down the end of Kakalina, have moved the fence, and their equipment goes in and out
of there at least a couple of times a week.
I probably wouldn't be here today except I ran into a little disagreement with a large D-9 that was
in there being driven by a small haole boy. It was creating a great dust storm that went into our
house, all our lanai. I had to close my house. So I decided to walk down there, because it's only
about 150 feet from my lot to Kakalina. I'm in East Kakalina, that's on the mauka side. And
there was a bulldozer there, and the man that had been making the dust, and I said, "Who hired
you so I can call them you're making too much dust." And he says, "No speak in English."
Well, this is wrong, he's a haole buggar. And then at the same time, there was a guy doing
survey work there without any it wasn't Wes Thomas or anybody like that. They were doing
25
some survey work. And I said, "Who hired you to do this survey work?" They were obviously
not surveying Welton's property, they were doing Gomes', I guess, at the time. And he says, "It's
none of your business." So I decided that I'd go do something about it. And I called my friendly
policeman and there were two cops who were there in ten minutes and they stopped the bulldozer
from making dust, so hurray for the Police Department. But I don't think we should, when these
subdivisions are built, have to call them to have them stop dropping rocks through our roof and
making big dust storms. There should be water trucks there.
And this is a simple request. And I don't know if you people can put teeth in your
recommendations for subdivisions or not, but I don't know how many more holes we're going to
have through roofs by people that don't know how to use dynamite or dust storms by people that
don't know how to water down dry ground. And that's all I have to say.
GIFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Collins. Mr. Yuen, do you want to respond to that in
terms of maybe directing Mr. Collins where he should go for his concerns?
YUEN: I believe the dust is a Department of Health requirement. If this recurs,
the agency that's supposed to monitor this is the State Department of Health; and they are
supposed to have dust control at construction sites.
COLLINS: Department of Health?
YUEN: That's right.
GIFFIN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Sir?
KISH: My name is David Kish. I live at 75-360 Aloha Kona Drive, Kailua-Kona.
I'd like to reiterate the traffic situation that other people have talked about today, but maybe in a
slightly different context.
First of all, I think there are three subdivisions you should be looking at here, not just the one
we're talking about today. The existing subdivision, the Kealoha Subdivision, has several homes
in there now and probably lots for about 20 homes. And it's north of the Aloha Kona
Subdivision and makai of the property we're talking about today.
The Gomes property that we heard about today being rezoned and subdivided some 50 acres, I
read in the newspaper that there are 15 homes planned in there. Although that seems like a small
number of homes for that size property but it's And I heard today a different figure so I don't
know what the exact figure is there.
26
The Welton property is talked about for 17 homes. So in total, there's somewhere in the area of
50 homes, 52 homes that I suppose would be in this, in these three new subdivisions, the only
one of which, the Kealoha one, is partially built out now.
All of that traffic comes up Nani Kailua right now and into the existing Kealoha Subdivision. I
believe it goes in through Kakalina Street. In each of the three subdivisions that I just
mentioned, there will be private streets, cheap skinny streets, not big public streets. And what
that means is that most people who live in those subdivisions will be going through the County
streets to enter and exit.
Mr. Thropp talked about Melelina as being a dangerous intersection. And I live about a block
from that and I agree with him, it is a very dangerous intersection. It's not too dangerous now
because there aren't any houses up there. But when these 17 houses get built up there and the
traffic comes down to Aloha Kona and either continues on Melelina down to Nani Kailua or
takes aright-hand turn onto a very steep stretch of Aloha Kona, it is going to very dangerous.
And I'd encourage Ki to go up there and take a look at it.
So I think if you look at the three subdivisions together, Kealoha, the Gomes Subdivision, and
the Welton Subdivision, you ought to be looking at internal street planning provisions within
those three subdivisions going east and west, not just north and south. But I think those three
ought to be connected. And there ought to be some public roadways in there so individuals who
live in there can go east and west through those subdivisions and not always cut back over to
Aloha Kona or the Nani Kailua Subdivision. And what that would mean would be that the three
streets that are eventually planned to cut through, Kawena Street, Kakalina Street, and Melelina,
would each take a small share of the traffic, instead of a major portion of the traffic. So the
traffic on Melelina with the 17 new homes would probably be reduced if Kakalina cut through
now and a public street was built east-west rather than relying just on the private streets, or if the
developer was required to make the private streets wide enough for regular east-west traffic.
The second point I want to raise is just reminding the Planning Commission of additional
developments in the area that will affect and do affect traffic on the Queen K Highway right at
Nani Kailua. There currently is being built a Lowe's Home Improvement Center less than a mile
away from there that will generate probably in the range of 4,000 to 5,000 trips a day along the
Queen K Highway right past the Nani Kailua intersection.
GIFFIN: Will it be below or will it be right on Queen K?
KISCHE: Ifll the Lowe's Home Improvement Center?
GIFFIN: Yes.
KISCHE: It's on the corner, it's on Queen K just north of the Mauna Lani
Subdivision and just south of Palani Road, south of Henry Street, I'm sorry. And how that was
ever approved for that location is absolutely beyond me. It should not be there. That's not a
proper urban use of that land. It should be somewhere else if it was approved. But apparently it
27
is approved, it's being built. And I don't know what their traffic counts are but they will be
substantial, and I would guess they're in the 4,000 to 5,000 range a day.
Now you can say that a lot of people who will be shopping there already live in the area and they
already travel on that highway. That's probably true for 50 percent of them. But it will draw
traffic from more traffic from South Kona, more traffic from other subdivisions in the area.
And I think the traffic increase at the intersection of Nani Kailua and Queen K will be substantial
when that Lowe's opens.
Secondly, just south of there, they're doing Palani Estates, 261 units that are being built that are
under construction now, a good project of affordable homes. But if you look at two vehicles per
household, that's another 520 vehicles in the area that will access both north-south on Queen K
Highway and, again, a lot of that traffic coming past the intersection at Nani Kailua.
The third development in that area is the Hualalai Village project; and that will be, I think,
170 units that's being built very close by. Again, a lot of that will generate traffic on the Queen
K Highway and pass the intersection of Nani Kailua.
So the effect of the one residential development we're talking about today is 17 units. You
know, in the larger scheme of things, it is not substantial. But when you look at it in the context
of the other two subdivisions that are in that area and the other commercial projects and other
residential projects that are within a mile or two, the traffic effect on the comer of Nani Kailua
and Queen K Highway will be very, very significant. Now there's a stoplight there now. It has a
turn arrow that's in operation sometimes during the day and sometimes not. If you have the
arrow operate more, it's going to tie up the traffic going north-south. If you have it operate less,
it's going to make turning into Nani Kailua to get either into the existing subdivisions or the new
subdivisions almost impossible.
The third point that hasn't been raised today, and I think it should be from a larger planning
perspective, is the need for sewers in that area. Once you start developing, or once you develop
the three new subdivisions we're talking about today The Pualani Subdivision south of there is
being required to hook into a sewer system. If there are additional subdivisions north of the
subdivision we're talking about today, I can't imagine continued growth in that area without some
kind of effective wastewater program implemented, a sewer program by the County. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? VVe appreciate
your comments. Commissioners, any other comments, questions of the Staff? Mr. Mooers,
comments?
MOOERS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go back through maybe some
of the
GIFFIN: Yes.
28
MOOERS: Comments and respond. I think Ms. Scribner's concerns were addressed.
It will be curb, gutter, and sidewalk, County dedicated road. The question remains as to whether
or not it will be a cul-de-sac or whether it will be stubbed out to the north.
GIFFIN: Right.
MOOERS: And that's the issue that will be decided, I guess, recommended here and
eventually decided by the Council.
Mr. Jernigan's questions about additional access points on Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, as you
understand, that is a State highway; and they have identified this as a limited access highway. I
know in the immediate, excuse me, in the immediate past, Councilwoman Pisicchio had a
meeting with Department of Transportation particularly related to the development in this area to
see where they anticipated additional mauka-makai connectors. And DOT does not have a
master plan but recognized the fact that the property between Palani Road and Hienaloli drainage
area is probably going to be developed into residential and/or commercial type uses, and that
there would need to be additional mauka-makai connectors at that point.
In the discussions with the Department of Transportation, they would not support another
mauka-makai connector. In fact, that's why they closed Aloha Kona Drive at the bottom, is that
they did not want additional access points onto the Queen Ka'ahumanu Extension. They do want
to funnel them into intersections such as the signalized intersection of Nani Kailua Drive.
Mr. Thropp spoke to the intersection of Melelina and Aloha Kona. I would point out that in the
application there are color photographs of that intersection. It also depicts the rock walls that he
talks about. It is a steep road. I would not characterize my vehicle as being nearly vertical at the
intersection, and I would ]et you look at the picture and make your own determination. It is a
County dedicated highway, and whatever the Applicant has to construct would certainly need to
meet County standard, not only in width, in curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but also in grade. But
there are the four photographs, and maybe Staff could explain to me one time. I try to go to the
expense of putting color photographs in the application. Unfortunately
GIFFIN: They're black and white.
MOOERS: The people that make the decision never get the color photographs, so
perhaps I should submit additional application booklets so that, you know, you do have the
benefit of the color photographs. Because I think in some cases it's beneficial to be able to look
at the photographs of the roadway sections or of the site.
As far as Mr. Collins' statement about the people doing work off Kakalina, I'm not apprised of
who that might be and I certainly would not support their rude behavior toward him or anybody
else. But there are Department of Health regulations that are applied to any project, and those do
include, you know, watering, and dust control, and to control fugitive dust. I think the
application, excuse me, the conditions always address that, that that has to be complied with.
29
Mr. Kish has brought up some very interesting points about development in the area, and I agree.
And I would certainly stipulate to the fact that I agree that everything probably, and I think the
Director has indicated that this is the area that's going to be developed, and there will be far more
projects, and that area will be fully developed, and there will be additional traffic, and there will
be additional roadways.
But I believe this is where we do want the urban growth to occur, is in the urban portion of Kona.
And I would agree with all the State and County plans. Everything from, you know, Keauhou
and north to Ke~lrole, it's going to be an urban core. And so I think the question really becomes-
As we have listened today about the desirability, we have some people who say we would prefer
cul-de-sacs. And even Mr. Thropp concedes that he likes living on roads that have cul-de-sacs to
the side rather than roads that are stubbed out to adjoining property owners. And at the same
time, Mr. Kish is saying no, we should have more interconnectivity. And I think it's obviously a
matter for dispute. And I think it's important that the regional roadway system is developed and
that there is a certain amount of interconnectivity, at the same time, enough cul-de-sacs that
provide people an opportunity to live in what they consider to be a safe environment where their
children can play in the streets and ride bikes and not feel like they're going to get broadsided.
And I think that's the real challenge of not only Public Works but ultimately the County Council,
is to decide where that interconnectivity should occur and where it should not. I have no other
comments, Madam Chair.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Greg Mooers? Hearing none, any
questions of the Staff and/or comments on the recommendation? Mr. Galdones.
GALDONES: Madam Chair, thanks. I am not of a mind to stop this project from moving
forward. But as a Commissioner, as a Planning Commissioner, I have some concerns that we
continue to approve developments that will result in adding more stress to the traffic problem;
and the stress of the, and the traffic probably eventually will correlate to how the community is
going to act to it. Because those who have traveled the Queen K during busy hours know what
kind of problem that they are faced with. So I don't know what we can do to have the parties,
whoever are responsible for it, to expedite the plans that Mr. Yuen had spoke about. So that if
there is a need for more developments, let's provide it to them, but yet, on the other hand, to take
care of the other mitigating problem as a result of the approvals that has come forth to the
Commission.
GIFFIN: Mr. Yuen.
YUEN: Yeah, if I could just say one more thing. I should have mentioned a
current study that, and I think Ki had mentioned that the Department did hire a consultant to do
planning for transportation corridors from Keahole to Honaunau with the idea of working toward
the kinds of things that the members of the public and yourself are talking about today. Where
instead of us debating these things as each subdivision of 15 or 20 lots comes forward, what is
the bigger picture, and, you know, what is the long range solution? But just and the same
but some of the same issues do it's not easy, because some of the same issues do come up in
the bigger picture. Because if we talk about having another route that's parallel to the Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway, for example, but mauka of it, that means going through existing
30
subdivisions that, people aze not going to want to see it, the people in those subdivisions are not
going to want to see that happen. Yet that may be a necessary solution to alleviate the
congestion. But it is something that we aze working on. I do think though that it isn't something
that we solve And, unfortunately, the Commission looks at the applications one by one and the
Commission heazs from the public that also is concerned about the bigger picture, and we can't
solve it on the level of each application.
GIFFIN: And I think those comments are well taken. Just as I know all of us here
on the Commission level sincerely appreciate your time and your input this morning, and that we
respect your comments because you live there, I just wanted to remind you that whatever action
is taken today, at this level, is a recommendation to the County Council. And that is another
level where public input is very much valued. And so, as we stated earlier, that's another
important step for you people to be proactive at.
Having said that, Commissioners, any comments? There is some wording that our Corporation
Counsel has written up that I'd like you people to listen to and consider. Mr. Torigoe.
TORIGOE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is just a possible addition to the
recommendation regarding the rezoning request, which would simply say Perhaps after the
paragraph on Page 5, the large paragraph regarding traffic, we could add another comment that
would simply add to your recommendation, that the Commission recommends approval with
serious concems about the need for further roadway development to relieve increasing traffic
congestion along Aloha Kona Drive, Nani Kailua Drive, and their connections with Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway. Something that, you know, just to express to the Council that you do
have very serious concerns about these matters and, hopefully, they will take that up.
GIFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. And Commissioners, with your indulgence, if
we can have a motion this morning and your recommendation to include the suggested wording
from Mr. Torigoe. Comments on that? Do I hear a motion? Mrs. Kubota.
KUBOTA: Just a minute.
GIFFIN: Okay. And just for your information, the State Land Use Boundary
Amendment first.
KUBOTA: Yes. Madam Chair, I move that we send a favorable recommendation for
the State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU No. 02-007) to the County Council,
along with the findings and recommendations from the Planning Director.
FUJIKAWA: I second.
GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by
Commissioner Fujikawa that we send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use
Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007), along with the Background Report and the
Recommendation of the Department. Discussion? Hearing none, Debbie?
31
CHANG: Excuse me, who seconded?
GIFFIN: Mr. Fujikawa.
CHANG: Thank you. Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Galdones?
GALDONES: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Mina?
MINA: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Smith?
SMITH: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI: Aye.
CHANG: Chairwoman Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
CHANG: The motion passes with eight ayes.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Mrs. Kubota, it is on Page 5.
KUBOTA: Yes.
GIFFIN: That Mr. Torigoe's
KUBOTA: Yes, I got it.
32
GIFFIN: Added verbiage.
KUBOTA: Specifically where on Page 5?
GIFFIN: You don't need to
KUBOTA: Okay.
GIFFIN: It's in Page 5 of the Recommendation.
KUBOTA: All right.
GIFFIN: For the change of zone.
KUBOTA: Okay. Madam Chair?
GIFFIN: Ma'am?
KUBOTA: I move the Change of Zone Application (REZ No. 02-017) be forwarded
to the County Council with a favorable recommendation from this Commission, along with the
Findings and Recommendations of the Planning Director, as well as a change by addition on
Page 5 of our Recommendation, where it's suggested by Corp. Counsel Torigoe relating to our,
the Commission's concern over the use and the increase in traffic, as well as a couple of
additions.
GIFFIN: Yes.
KUBOTA: Amendments to our conditions by addition of two standard conditions that
were inadvertently omitted, one having to do with affordable housing and the other one having to
do with fair share contributions by the Applicant.
GIFFIN: Correct.
KUBOTA: I think that was it. And the renumbering will be left at the discretion of
our Staff.
FUJIKAWA: I second that.
GIFFIN: Correct It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by
Commissioner Fujikawa that the Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017) be given a favorable
recommendation to the County Council, along with the Background Report and the
Recommendation, and on Page 5, the added concern regarding traffic that Mr. Torigoe
suggested, and the addition of the two standard conditions that were inadvertently omitted.
Discussion? Debbie?
CHANG: Commissioner Kubota?
33
KUBOTA: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Galdones?
GALDONES: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Mina?
MINA: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Smith?
SMITH: Aye.
CHANG: Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI: Aye.
CHANG: And Chairwoman Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
CHANG: Madam Chair, the motion passes with eight ayes.
GIFFIN: Thank you. You will be informed in writing of today's actions. And, once
again, I'd like to thank the members of the public for your input.
MOOERS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I make one request?
GIFFIN: Yes.
MOOERS: It's probably more to the Director, I guess, than anybody else.
Condition K is a standazd condition that appears in almost every change of zone now, basically
restricting the development of CPRs and ohanas or second dwellings. If we could come up with
standazd language Every time I process a subdivision related to this, it takes a considerable
amount of time to process the language through Corp. Counsel, back to the Applicant, it gets
executed, then it goes back to the Corp. Counsel again to be reviewed. If we could come up with
34
a standard form it would sure seem like it would save your Staff and Corporation Counsel a
whole lot of time and really expedite the process for everybody. And I think so many of them
have been done already that [know that the attorney I use basically uses the same form, but
every time it has got to get reviewed again by Corp. Counsel.
YUEN: That's a very good suggestion. We have changed the way this is worded,
the way we're recommending the wording though in the last six months; and unfortunately the
last time the Council didn't use the wording that I like for this.
MOOERS: But if we could come up with a standard CC&R, I think it would be
helpful.
GIFFIN: Mrs. Kubota.
KUBOTA: I wanted to talk to the public testifiers before they left. Oh, too late.
JERNIGAN: I'm here. I'm here.
KUBOTA: Are you here? I just wanted to encourage, thank them for appearing and
encourage them to continue their pursuit in putting the pressure on your Council people so that
your problems can be worked at rather than just at this level. Because your efforts have a lot of
power behind it, you're the public. So please continue to solicit your Council people and have
them keep thinking about the dire necessity for bringing the transportation problem to fore,
because otherwise it just gets left, you know, gets lost in the cracks. And I know this seems like
an insurmountable problem, but as we continue to approve developments, you can't imagine the
kind of responsibility we feel on this end of the table. Because we're adding to the problem, and
yet we can't stop the progress from going forward; we can't put a moratorium on everything. So
please, in your efforts, don't just talk to us, talk to your Council people, write letters, coalesce
and get to them; and maybe it'll bring some fruition, something to fruition. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Mr. Fujikawa.
FUJIKAWA: Yeah, I would like to add it to her comments. Also consider writing letters
to your House of Representative and also State Senator to help us get into more of the tie-in to
the highway. We do need access to the highway. So they could probably help us on that, too.
Thank you.
JERNIGAN: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Sir?
JERNIGAN: May I add something to that? Thank you very much. I'm sure that a lot of
us will take your advice and have taken, practiced this, of contacting the powers that be. But by
the same token, your input is very important, also. And you talked about a moratorium, someone
mentioned a moratorium on approvals, but something along that line also would be very helpful,
too. How far do you really plan to go and how far should you go before something is done with
35
the other departments in getting on some traffic The access to the Queen's Highway is not, in
my view, is not the answer. More, I think, widening the Queen's Highway than building other
lateral streets is the answer. [t takes money. And if the people can't develop their property, we
can get a lot more help from the people to speak up and pressure the Commissioners. Thank
you.
FUJIKAWA: This is why I say writing to the State Senator and your House of Rep to
help us widen the highway. Those are the issues that they have to work with us, for us.
JERNIGAN: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Thank you.
The discussion ended at 11:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shazon M. Nomura, Secretary
Planning Commission
36