HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0342.000 2002-2004Hain Knit
1a) 01
'03 AUG 26 AM 10 59
C"O' TNTY OF HAWAII(�('���(�� I-
25 Au uni Street, R„om 215 • Hilo, Ilaaau 96720-4252 ) `ice ,NJA k4/;\^)All
p (308 961-8211 0 )'MI -65_.
KON.A -J-5'06 Ko jkmi Highway„Suite 101 • Kailua-Kona, Haaai'i 96740
(508)329-5226 • Ras(R08) 326-5661
August 19, 2003
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas, LLC
Request: A-3atoFA-la
Tax May Key: 7-3-7:27 and 50
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action is the Planning Commission's letter and enclosures
regarding the above -referenced request.
Since y, ,
kL�
Harry Kim
Mayor
IhualalaiOl may
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
bI /I Itf 7
Comm. No.
Ref. To:
Ref. Date
Dixie Kaetsu
Managing Director
Harry Kim
Mayor
County of Hawaii
PLANNING COMMISSION
WI Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3(k3
(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
Honorable James Y. Arakald, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas. LLC
Request: A -3a to FA -1 a
Tax Map Key: 7-3-7:27 and 50
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on August 1, 2003, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification for
approximately 53+ acres of land from an Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) to a Family Agricultural
1 -acre (FA -la) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of State Highway
190 (Hawaii Belt Road), adjacent to and south of the Kona Hills Estates Subdivision, Kohanaiki,
North Kona, Hawaii.
The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending
favorable consideration of the change of zone:
The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from an Agricultural (A -3a) to a
Family Agricultural (FA -1 a) zoned district for approximately 53.163 acres of land to
subdivide the properties into forty seven (47) one -acre Family Agricultural lots with
related improvements.
From an overall land use perspective, the Planning Director can support the
rezoning of the property to allow its subdivision to one -acre lots rather than three -acre
lots as allowed by the present zoning. The most important factors in this analysis are as
follows:
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
The property is currently designated "Alternate Urban Expansion" on the General
Plan LUPAG map. In the current GP comprehensive review, the Director
proposed an amendment changing this area to "Low Density", because other
developments had already set a land use pattern of low density, predominantly
single-family development. The Planning Commission supported that
amendment.
2. The overall development pattern is clearly that this immediate area is becoming an
area of low-density homesites. Most of the area has already been zoned and
subdivided to low-density residential development. Immediately to the north of
this property is the Kona Hills subdivision, an area of one -acre lots, rezoned in
August 28, 1972. To the east, between this property and the Mamalahoa Highway
are several residential lots that are approximately a half -acre in size and are zoned
RS -20. Immediately to the west is an area zoned RS -15, but not yet subdivided
and developed. Immediately to the south, the property is zoned A -3a, but consists
mostly of non -conforming lots in the 1.5 acre to 2.5 acre range.
The conversion from three acre to one acre lots will not sacrifice important
agricultural resources. Almost all of the property is classified as `B" by the Land
Study Bureau, the lowest rating. (A very small portion in the southeast corner is
classified as "D".) Rainfall is marginal. A primary objection to the rezoning of
agricultural land to smaller lot sizes is that it may fragment the land into parcels
too small to be farmed commercially. This does not apply in this situation:
neither the three acre lots possible under present zoning nor the proposed one acre
lots would appear to be viable units for commercial farming in this area.
4. The property can be supplied with drinking water, and concerns about road access
can be dealt with through conditions of rezoning.
There do not seem to be any natural features or historical sites that significantly
constrain the development of the property.
6. The Zoning Code provides the following description and criteria for the FA
zone: "The FA (Family Agricultural) district provides for a blend of small-
scale agricultural operations associated with residential activities and which
may be characterized by farm estates, small acreage farms, or subsistence
lots. The FA district is intended to be in areas designated as being within the
State land use agricultural district, where public services and infrastructure
are appropriate to support the very low density residential needs of a rural
community and where substantial number of parcels are less than five acres
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Counci I
Page 3
in size, and where a mix of uses will not conflict with or be detrimental to
existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area.
In addition, this district is intended to be primarily comprised of
agricultural lands less than five acres in area, which are not classified as A or B
lands under the land study bureau's master productivity rating, or classified as
prime, unique, or otter important agricultural lands. Provided, that this district
may include lands so classified if the lands are situated within an urban expansion
or other urban designation under the general plan land use pattern allocation guide
(LUPAG) map."
With respect to these criteria, the public services and infrastructure in the
immediate area can, with site-specific improvements to be required of the
applicant, be appropriate to support the very low density residential needs of a
rural community, and a substantial number of existing parcels in the vicinity are
less than five acres in size. Existing agricultural uses in the surrounding area
appear minimal and are occurring in an area that already has many one -acre lots,
so the proposed rezoning should not be detrimental to existing agricultural uses in
the surrounding area
The property does not have any A or B lands, but does include an area that
is classified as "Other Important Agricultural Lands" under the ALISH system.
The Zoning Code does not, however, make soil types a criterion for FA zoning
where the lands in question are in an urban designation in the General Plan
LUPAG maps, as this area is.
The most difficult issue was procedural, rather than an issue of the end result, and
has to do with the interplay between the state land use law and county zoning. H.R.S.
sec. 205-4.5(a)(4) provides that in areas with A and B soils, any dwelling in the
agricultural district must be a "farm dwelling." Although this law by its terms applies
only to A and B soils, the State Land Use Commission, acting within its authority under
sec. 205-5(b), enacted a rule limiting uses in C, D, and E soils to essentially the same as
allowed under A and B soils. Hence, for lots created after June 4, 1976, the effective date
of the "farm dwelling" law, all homes in the State Land Use Agricultural District must be
"farm dwellings." Under state law, a "farm dwelling" is defined as "a single-family
dwelling located on and used in connection with a farm, including clusters of single-
family farm dwellings permitted within agricultural parks developed by the state, or
where agricultural activity provides income to the family occupying the dwelling." If the
subject property were subdivided to three acre lots under current zoning, the homes
would have to be farm dwellings, and if rezoned to one acre, the homes would also have
to be farm dwellings.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
The purpose of the 1976 law, according to the legislative committee reports, was
to prevent "urban type residential communities in the guise of agricultural subdivisions."
It is fairly clear that a "farm dwelling" is supposed to be accessory to some commercial
agricultural activity. A bill was vetoed in 1983 which would have allowed raising crops
for personal consumption to qualify as a "farm dwelling."
Under Rule 13 of the Rules of the Planning Director, the county does not require
any prior showing o f agricultural use for a building permit for the first home on a lot in
the state land use ag district. The applicant is merely given a "Farm Dwelling Notice,"
which informs the applicant that a residential use must be a "farm dwelling", and recites
the definition of a "farm dwelling." The notice is given only to those applicants who are
on lots created after June 4, 1976.
As a technical matter, the state land use law permits subdivision of lots as small as
one acre in the agricultural district, so to that extent, the proposed rezoning is permitted
by the law. It is fairly obvious, however, that given current market conditions, including
the probable cost of the finished lots, the rather poor quality of the land for agricultural
use, and the land uses on other parcels in the area, the result of the current rezoning will
be a subdivision where residential use predominates; commercial agriculture is not likely
to be a significant motive for the purchase of the lots. This creates a problem in that the
expectations of the purchasers will run contrary to the "farm dwelling" law.
In this situation, where the landowner wants to make smaller residentially oriented
lots in the state land use agricultural district, and it is not credible that the homes will be
used in connection with commercial agriculture in any meaningful sense, the Planning
Director has been strongly recommending that applicants seek to reclassify the property
from the agricultural district to the rural or urban district, and obtain RA or RS zoning.
Homes in the rural and urban district do not have to be "farm dwellings." The Planning
Director has also adopted a policy of recommending against rezonings to smaller lot sizes
in when it appears highly probable that the resulting dwellings will not be "farm
dwellings" in any meaningful way, and the applicant does not seek reclassification to
rural or urban, at least when the property is not designated for urban (or rural) uses in the
General Plan. The Director is also considering making this a policy regardless of the
LUPAG designation as a way of dealing with the "farm dwelling" issue in the context of
rezonings in the agricultural district that result in lots that are of an uneconomical size for
farming. The applicant for the subject property was unwilling to seek reclassification
because they could only go for 15 acres on the county level, and did not want to take the
time or expense to seek reclassification of the entire property from the LUC. Ultimately,
the Director decided to make a favorable recommendation, rather than an unfavorable
one, because of the existing three -acre zoning which would create similar issues
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
regarding farm dwellings, and because of the LUPAG classification and the similar
zoning in the immediate area.
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only
through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions
can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the
General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and
decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the
County.
The Change of Zone request from Agricultural (A -3a) to a Family Agricultural
(FA -1a) zoned district will conform to, among others, the Land Use (Single Family
Residential) and Housing elements of the General Plan:
• Rural -style residential -agricultural developments, such as new small-scale rural
communities or extensions of existing rural communities, shall be encouraged in
appropriate locations.
• The County shall review and amend if necessary land use ordinances and codes to
include considerations for rural -style residential subdivisions in appropriate
locations. Standards and criteria for the establishment of these areas shall be
developed.
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 area is designated Urban
Expansion. The Urban Expansion Area allows 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. The County is currently conducting a comprehensive review update of the
General Plan. One of the proposed amendments to the LUPAG Map involves the subject
area, which is proposed to be changed to Low Density Urban to reflect more accurately
the residential -agricultural character of the area.
Should this request be approved, the applicant may normally apply for an
additional farm dwelling, allowing the construction of a second dwelling unit as a
separate unit on lots. Although the Planning Director supports this rezoning request to
allow a forty seven (47) lot subdivision for one home on each lot, the potential to allow
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
additional homes may contribute to a cumulative burden on the existing infrastructure.
Therefore, a condition is included in the change of zone ordinance to prohibit a second
dwelling unit and a Condominium Property Regime on each lot. The condition will add
that restrictive covenants be included in the deeds of all the proposed lots for the
subdivision prohibiting second dwelling units to preserve the residential -agricultural
ambience of the area.
The properties have been previously used for the cultivation of coffee and have
been mechanically cleared on at least one occasion. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the properties as Zone "X", an area
determined to be outside of the 500 -year flood plain. The site slopes from east to west
(mauka to makai) at a grade between 5 and 20 per cent.
The access to the proposed subdivision will be from Mamalahoa Highway, a State
owned and maintained highway. The applicant is proposing that the interior subdivision
roadway be privately owned with a 50' right-of-way and 20' of asphalt paving.
Comments from the Department of Public Works (DPW) requests that the applicant
construct all roadways to County dedicable standards and dedicate them to the County
upon request at no cost to the County.
The Police Department has concerns regarding ingress and egress from the
proposed subdivision onto Mamalahoa Highway. They noted that they responded to a
Change of Zone application submitted by Clifford Kabumoto relative to TMK: 7-3-19:21
and 30. The comments for the Kabumoto application recommended improvements be
constructed at the intersections, meeting both County and State intersection requirements.
The Police Department also stated that "with increased traffic, these intersections should
not be treated as private driveways."
Traffic concerns were expressed by the Department of Public Works relative to
the intersection at the State Highway 190 (Mamalahoa Highway) and the proposed
subdivision road. The applicant is proposing improvements that may include an
acceleration lane, a deceleration lane, a refuge lane and/or a turn pocket on Mamalahoa
Highway. The extent of the improvements will be determined by Department of
Transportation after reviewing the traffic impact analysis. Therefore, a condition of
approval has been included that applicant(s), its successors or assigns shall improve the
intersection at the State Highway 190 (Mamalahoa Highway) and the proposed
subdivision in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and
the State Department of Transportation prior to receipt of Final Subdivision Approval and
that the applicant will prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR).
According to the applicant, water can be made available from the existing system
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Counci I
Page 7
on Mamalahoa Highway. As there is no municipal sewer system in the area, the applicant
would be required to dispose wastewater by individual wastewater systems meeting the
standards and requirements of the State Department of Health. Underground utilities will
be provided to each of the proposed 47 lots from the area's existing infrastructure. The
nearest police station is located in Kealakehe, approximately five (5) miles from the
properties. There is a fire station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway, approximately six (6) miles from the site. The closest public
schools are located in Kealakehe, approximately four (4) miles from the properties.
The subject request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes,
relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The properties are not situated within the
Special Management Area. The site is located approximately 4 miles from the nearest
coastline and therefore, will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There
are no identified recreational resources or public access to the shoreline or mountain
areas, scenic and open space preserves, coastal ecosystems, marine resources or other
natural and environmental resources in the area. An archaeological inventory survey
identified 5 previously unrecorded sites on the property. The survey report assessed 4 of
the 5 sites as significant for information content and no further work or preservation was
recommended. DLNR-SHPD commented that they believe that the archaeological
inventory survey of the two parcels was adequate in terms of survey coverage and that
they concur with the recommended site treatments. Thus, the proposed request and use of
the properties will not adversely impact those resources. Because the properties have
been previously grubbed and used for limited agricultural purposes, it is not anticipated
that endangered or threatened candidate species of flora or fauna are located within the
site, nor has the area been identified as a significant botanical or biological habitat.
Presently, there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights
being practiced on the site, nor existence of known valued cultural, historical or native
resources in the area. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any
adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area.
Based on the above findings, the approval of the Change of Zone request from an
Agricultural (A -3a) to a Family Agricultural (FA -1 a) zoned district would result in an
appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the public.
For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-3, the North Kona Zone Map,
of the County Zoning Code is transmitted.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Counci I
Page 8
We are enclosing a copy of the staff background for your information.
Sincerely,
Fred Galdones, Chairman
Planning Commission
Lhualalaivistaso2PC
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Gregory Mooers
Hualalai Vistas, LLC
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
Planning Department - Kona
Department of Land & Natural Resources
Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu
RHualalai VistasREZ03-013.iwd 07-21-03
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
HUALALAI VISTAS, LLC
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-01
HUALALAI VISTAS, LLC has submitted an application for a Change of Zone by
changing the district classilication from Agricultural (A -3a) to Family Agricultural (FA -la) for
approximately 53.163 acres of land. The properties are located on the makai side of Mamalahoa
Highway, approximately 380 feet north of the Mamalahoa Highway -- Church of God Road
intersection at Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-07: 27 and 50.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
1. Request: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Agricultural (A -3a) to
Family Agricultural (FA -1 a) to subdivide the properties into forty seven (47) one -acre
Family Agricultural lots with related improvements. The applicant, Huaiulai Vistas, LLC
is the landowner ,vith Christopher Clever as the managing member. (See ExhiLit A -
Change of Zone Application)
STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
2. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural.
3. Hawaii State Plan Consistency: Socio -Cultural Advancement (Housing) objectives
and policies.
4. GP Consistency: Land Use and Housing Elements.
5. GP LUPAG Map: Urban Expansion. The County is currently conducting a
comprehensive review update to the General Plan. One of the proposed amendments to
the LUPAG Map involves the subject area, which is proposed to be changed to Low
Density Urban.
6. County Zoning: Agricultural (A -3a).
7. Kona CD Plan: Res/A-2 to A-3.
8. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan: Residential Expansion and Existing 1 -acre
agricultural lots.
9. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies
within the Coastal Zone Management Area. The intent of the Coastal Zone Management
C - 3,/ )L C6. 11 %'-F7_) 1DC
Program is to guide and regulate public and private uses in the coastal zone management
area with respect to recreational resources, historic resources, public access to the
shoreline, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, marine resources,
economic uses, coastal hazards, managing development, public participation, and beach
protection. The properties are located approximately 4 miles from the nearest coastline
and therefore, will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion.
10. Special Management Area (SMA): The Special Management Area is a part of the
Coastal Zone Management Program and regulated by the County. The properties are not
located within the Special Management Area. There are no identified recreational
resources, historic resources, public access to the shoreline or mountain areas, scenic and
open space preserves, coastal ecosystems, marine resources or other natural and
environmental resources in the area.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA
11. Subject Properties: The properties are presently vacant and unused. In the past this
parcel has been identified as Phase III of the Kona Hills Subdivision as it was previously
owned by the developer of the Kona Hills Subdivision (Phases I and II). It is roughly
rectangular in shape and is located approximately 380 feet north of the Mamalahoa
Highway — Church of God Road intersection. Parcel 27 is approximately 5.453 acres,
and parcel 50 is approximately 47.710 acres in size. The properties have been previously
used for the cultivation of coffee and have been mechanically cleared on at least one
occasion.
12. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The property to the north is the Kona Hills
Subdivision, Units I and II, which are zoned A -la and used primarily for residential
purposes with limited agricultural activities. The property to the south is zoned A -3a,
although there are numerous smaller non -conforming lots used for residential purposes.
To the west is Kohanaiki Road and property that is primarily vacant and unused, which is
zoned A -5a. East of the property is Mamalahoa Highway. Across the highway is
property that is zoned A- Ia.
13. ALISH: Unclassified and Other Important Agricultural Lands (northern portion of
parcel 27 and southern portion of parcel 50)
14. Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System: Mostly `B" or "Very
-2-
Poor" and a portion "D" or " Poor".
15. U.S. Soil Survey: Punaluu soil series extremely rocky peat. This soil is characterized by
rapid permeability, slow runoff and slight erosion hazard, and is typically used for
pasture.
16. FIRM: Zone "X", area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain.
17. Flora/Fauna Resources: Dr. Ron Terry conducted an environmental review of the
subject property, which included a botanical survey in January of 2003. His conclusion
was "no rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service appear to be present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife
habitats."
18. Archaeological/Historical Resources: An archaeological inventory survey has been
prepared for the project area by Rechtman Consulting as part of this change of zone
process. The survey identified 5 previously unrecorded sites. The survey report assessed
4 of the 5 sites as significant for information content and no further work or preservation
was recommended. The Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic
Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) submitted a comment stating that they believe that
the archaeological inventory survey of the two parcels was adequate in terms of survey
coverage and that they concur with the recommended site treatments. They add that no
further work will be required at any of the five sites. A condition will be included to
require the notification of the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic
Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) should any archaeological sites be encountered
during the course of development.
19. Cultural Resources: No valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist on the
properties and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian
rights being practiced on the site.
20. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or
mountain areas that traverses the properties.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
21. Access: According to the applicant, access to the proposed subdivision is to be from
Mamalahoa Highway, a State owned and maintained highway. One main road off of
Mamalahoa Highway will service the subdivision. The interior roadway is intended to be
-3-
a 50' right-of-way with 20' of asphalt paving. There will be paved shoulders and swales.
Stub -outs to the property boundary may make access to this road from adjacent and
nearby properties possible, casing the access situation on Mamalahoa Highway.
22. Water: According to the applicant, water can be made available from the existing
system on Mamalahoa Highway.
23. Wastewater: There is no municipal sewer system in the area. Sewage will be disposed
of by individual wastewater systems meeting the standards and requirements of the State
Department of Health.
24. Drainage: No permanent or intermittent streams appear on maps of the parcel. The
Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the area classify the entire parcel and surrounding areas as
Zone X. According to the applicant, they will comply with all drainage mitigation
conditions required by the County.
25. Essential Utilities and Services: According to the applicant, underground utilities will
be provided to each of the proposed 47 lots from the area's existing infrastructure. The
nearest police station is located in Kealakehe, approximately five (5) miles from the
properties. There is a fire station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway, approximately six (6) miles from the site. The closest public
schools are located in Kealakehe, approximately four (4) miles from the properties.
AGENCIES'/ASSOCIATION COMMENTS
26. Police Department (June 10, 2003 Memo):
"After reviewing the rezoning application submitted by Hualalai Vistas, LLC, our staff
has some concerns over the ingress and egress over this proposed subdivision onto
Mamalahoa Highway. It has been noted that we did in fact respond to a Change of Zone
Application submitted by Clifford Kabumoto relative to Tax Map Key 7-3-19:21 and
30."
27. Real Property Tax Office (June 3, 2003 Memo):
"There are no comments at this time; real property taxes are paid through June 30, 2003
for both parcels."
28. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit B - June 19, 2003 Memo)
29. Department of Environmental Management: (See Exhibit C -May 16, 2003 Memo)
30. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division: (See
-4-
Exhibit D — Letter Dated July 2, 2003)
AGENCIES - NO RESPONSES
31. Department of Water Supply, Department of Land and Natural Resources - Land
Division, Department of Transportation, State Land Use Commission and
Department of Agriculture.
AGENCIES - NO COMMENTS
32. Kona Soil and Water Conservation District
APPLICANT'S REPONSE
33. The applicant submitted a response letters to comments from the Department of Public
Works, Department of Environmental Management, Police Department, Fire Department,
Real Property Tax Office, Department of Health, and Department of Land and Natural
Resources -State Historic Preservation Division.
The applicant also sent a letter clarifying their intentions regarding improvements to the
access point of the proposed project onto Mamalahoa Highway. (See Exhibit E —
Letters dated June 30, 2003, July 9, 2003 and July 14, 2003)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
34. The Planning Department has not received any written comments or objections from the
general public or adjacent landowners on the subject applications.
-5-
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
f3 ?,� 27 i�j IQT or legibly print the requested jn�?gnation)18 Pn 1 S�
,1[v;fdlf�'a C)EF�.3-�,AEi�fT L����OO
APPLICA ,g ai Gioia u:6 1.; PUaNNif'lr DFf-'P,0LJDNIT
APPLICA 'S SIGNATURE: L��/�l?�T/ljir �yj pISA` E: 2/7/03
ADDRESS: Chris Clever, Managing Member
73-5577 Kauhola Street, Bay 9
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:
LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
PHONE:• Bus.) 329-5196 (Res.) (Fax) 329-4592
LANDOWNER(S): Hualalai Vistas, LLC
LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): _DATE: 2/7/03
LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: Same as above.
(May be by letter)
REQUEST: Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) TO Family Agricultural I -acre (FA -la)
(Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning)
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-3-7:27 & 50
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: MamalahoaHighway
SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 53.738 acres
AGENT: Gregory R. Mooers
ADDRESS: Mooers Enterprises, LLC
P.O. Boc 1101
Kamuela, Hawaii 96743
TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 885-6839
(Res. 88) 5-7126
(Fax)885-1574
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
ORIGINAL: Gregory R. Mooers COPIES: Chris Clever
EXHIBIT
(See Instructions on Reverse Side) A
ATTACHMENT
Agricultural Rezoning
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAII
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
I 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? 53.#g
b Into what lot sizes? 1+ acres
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? 90 days
d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? some
If yes, please answer the following questions:
On how many of those lots? 3
At what approximate price range? House $250,000
Lot $200,000
Total $450,000
Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision,
would the first house be available for occupancy? 1year
If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic
subdivision plan together with your change of zone application
form. enclosed
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?
h• Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans?
C Sell or lease the Land to someone who has no plans?
d. Keep it?
e.
P. D. 2 5/84
I If you intend to do either a, b, c, please elaborate on the kind
of plans the other party has. Please, also include in your
answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do
you expect to transfer the subject land to another party.
?• Do you think that your request and your further plans for the land
will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes
How?
The proosed change of zone will allow the creation of 47 FA -la lots for development in North Kona.
4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? No
If so, what kind?
What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is
approved?
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.
b. Was your request to allow for the creation of smaller agricultural
lots? Family Ag
If so, did your plan include the following considerations?
a. Commodity to be produced?
What kinds of commodity:
b. Suitability of the proposed lot -size for that commodity?
C. Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in
commercial agricu.lture?
-2-
d. Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential
buyers or leases would put the subject area into some form of
agricultural use?
Please state the proposed type of arrangement.
Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and
present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together
with your request for a change of zone.
If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of
agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. Seeabove
Owners would be able to grow fruit trees and coffee for their own consumption, not commercial
?• To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem
on the subject area? No
If so, please describe the problem.
3• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs
improvements? No
If so, what kind?
Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes
9. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will
be needed in the subject area when developed?
a. Schools
b. Roads
C Sewer
d. Drainage
-3-
Yes No
X
X
X
Yes
¢, Police Protection
f. Fire Protection
g Recreational Facilities
h. Public Utilities
. Other
we,
For those checked "yes", please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements
and/or assistance are needed.
Signature
Address:
Telephone
Date:
r/
73-557 Kauhola St., Bay 9, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
329-5196
2/7/03
-4-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
CHANGE OF ZONE QUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
I. INTRODUCTION
t
A. GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................. 1
B. SUBJECT REQUEST/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............. 2
II. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
A. State Land Use Laws ........................................................ 3
B. Applicable Goals/Policies and Objectives of the General Plan........ 3
C. General Plan Designation................................................... 6
D. County Zoning Code. .......................................... ............. 6
E. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan ....................................... 6
F. Special Management .Area ................................................... 7
G. Chapter 205A: Coastal Zone Management Act ........................... 7
H. Mountain Access.............................................................. 7
III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS & ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical Characteristics and Environmental Setting ........................
7
Historic Resources ........................ _.....................................
9
Cultural Resources.................................................................
9
Natural Resources (Flora -Fauna) ................................................
9
Social -Economic Characteristics ................................. .............
I0
Surrounding Lands.................................................................
10
i
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES
A.
Access.........................................................................
11
B.
Interior Roadways...............................................................
11
C.
Water Service...............................................................
11
D.
Utilities..... _................................................................
11
E.
Wastewater Disposal.........................................................
11
F.
Police Services................................................................
11
G.
Fire Services ... ................................................................
11
H.
Public Recreation...............................................................
11
1.
Schools.........................................................................
11
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
A. Relationship between local short term uses of environment and maintenance
and enhancement of long term productivity: ............................. 12
B. Mitigative measures proposed to avoid, minimize, rectify or reduce
impact: ........... ...... ..................................................... 12
A. Alternatives to the proposed development: ............................ ..... 12
B. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be
involved if the proposed action is implemented ............................. 12
VI. PROPOSED FINDINGS......................................................... 13
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Environmental Review
B. Archaeological Inventory Survey
C. Location/Vicinity Maps
D. Change of Zone Exhibit
E. Site Photographs
F. Department of Water Supply Letter
11
BACKGROUND
AND
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
CHANGE OF ZONE:
AGRICULTURAL 3 -ACRE TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL 1 -ACRE
Tax Map Key: (3) 7-3-7:27 & 50
Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas, LLC
The applicant, Hualalai Vistas, LLC, is seeking a Change of Zone from Agricultural 3 -
acre (A -3a) to Family -Agricultural 1 -acre (FA -la) for a 53.163 acre parcel located at
Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (3) 7-3-7:27 & 50.
This request is made to allow the subsequent subdivision of the property into 47 one -acre
Family Agricultural lots with related improvements.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL INFORMATION:
The subject property is composed of two separate but contiguous Tax Map Keys, 7-3-
7:27 & 50. These parcels are owned in fee by the applicant, Hualalai Vistas, LLC.
Christopher Clever is the managing member.
1
B. SUBJECT REQUEST/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
1. The applicants are proposing to rezone a 53.163 acre parcel from Agricultural 3 -acre
(A-3 a) to Family Agricultural l -acre (FA -1 a) allow the subdivision of the property
into 47 Family Agricultural lots in conformance with the new zoning designation.
2. The site is presently vacant and unused. This site has been used previously for the
cultivation of coffee and has been mechanically cleared on at least one occasion. The
53.163 acre lot is a roughly rectangular shaped lot located between Mamalahoa
Highway to the east, Kohanaiki Road to the west, Kona Hills Subdivision to the north
and residential and agricultural lots to the south. Please see the location map and
rezoning exhibit in the exhibits.
3. In the past this parcel has been identified as Phase III of Kona Hills Subdivision as it
was previously owned by the developer of the Kona Hills Subdivision
4. Access to the proposed subdivision is proposed to be from Mamalahoa Highway, a
State owned and maintained highway. See the change of zone exhibit for the regional
roadway alignment.
5. The interior roadway is intended to be privately owned with a 50' right-of-way and
20' of asphalt paving. There will be paved shoulders and 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.
6. Underground utilities will be provided to each of the proposed 47 lots from the area's
existing infrastructure.
7. Infrastructure construction on the first lots will begin immediately after all
governmental approvals are secured.
8. There will be restrictive covenants developed for the subdivision that will prohibit
ohana dwellings to preserve the single-family residential -agricultural ambience of the
area.
2
II. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS:
A. STATE LAND USE DESIGNATION:
The State Land Use District Classification of the subject parcel is Agricultural.
The proposed use is consistent with this classification.
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.
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.
3
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
to facilities.
• Promote and encourage the rehabilitation and use of urban and rural areas
which are serviced by basic community facilities and utilities.
• Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or
projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County.
�_ • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities
meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social
environment.
• The County shall develop, in cooperation with community residents,
community development or regional plans for all 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.
• 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.
(1) AGRICULTURE
The following goals and policies are intended to address some of the land
related problems of agriculture and are to be consistent with and supportive of the
overall land use element.
4
GOAL
• Identify, protect and maintain important agriculture lands on the
island of Hawaii.
POLICIES
• Agricultural land shall be used as one form of open space or as green
belt.
• The compatibility of agricultural and non-agricultural uses should be
carefully reviewed and where appropriate, buffers required.
• Rural -style residential -agricultural developments, such as new
small-scale rural communities or extensions of existing rural
communities, shall be encouraged in appropriate locations.
• The County shall develop subdivision standards which make a
distinction between agricultural and urban land uses.
(5) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Through careful examination and analysis of the present situation, the
following goals, policies, and standards are 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 areas.
5
• 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 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.
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
i- subject property is designated as Urban Expansion Area. The Urban Expansion
Areas allow for a mix of }ugh 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
application to create a low-density family -agricultural project is consistent with the
urban form depicted on the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
D. COUNTY ZONING CODE:
The zoning for these parcels is Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a). This request is to change
the zone of the property to Family -Agricultural 1 -acre to be consistent with the first
two phases of Kona Hills Subdivision, which is zoned Agricultural 1 -acre (A-1 a).
E. KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The subject property is identified as Residential Expansion and Existing 1 -acre
agricultural lots in the "K to K" Development Plan. The proposed use is consistent
with this plan.
C.
with this 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.
G. CHAPTER 205A: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT:
The subject property is located over four miles 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
Physical Characteristies/Environmental Setting:
A. The 53.163 acre lot is a roughly rectangular shaped lot shaped lot located between
Mamalahoa Highway to the east, Kohanaiki Road to the west, Kona Hills Subdivision
to the north and residential and agricultural lots to the south. Please see the location
map and rezoning exhibit in the exhibits.
B. The property's western boundary is approximately 850 feet in length, the eastern
boundary is approximately 230 feet where it narrows at Mamalahoa Highway and the
distance between these two boundaries is approximately 3,000 feet.
C. The subject property's elevation is between 1,300 feet along the makai or western
boundary to about 1,500 feet on the top of the property at its eastern boundary.
D. Annual rainfall for the area is approximately 40 inches according to An Inventory of
Basic Water Resources Data: Island of Hawaii, published by the Department of Land
and Natural Resources.
E. The site slopes from its eastern (mauka) boundary down to the western (makai)
boundary at a grade between 6 and 20%.
F. The site is presently vacant and has been previously cultivated in coffee.
G. The U. S. Geological Survey has categorized the island into nine zones of
comparative hazard rates from lava flows, with Zone 1 being the highest and Zone 9,
the lowest severity of hazard. Phe U. S. Geological Survey designates the subject
property as Lava Hazard Zone 4; about 5% of this area has been covered by lava
since 1800 and less than 15% of this area has been covered by lava in the last 750
years. This area covers all of f lualalai, where the frequency of eruptions is lower than
on Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Flows typically cover large areas.
H. The site is located approximately 5 miles from the ocean at Keahole Point.
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 Survey Report 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 VIPS,
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 "D" or Poor.
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 area outside the
500 -year flood plain.
M. All proposed subdivision improvements will be in the FIRM "X" area. The
applicants will abide by all applicable County guidelines for run-off generated by the
development. All improvements must comply with Chapter 27 of the County Code
relating to Flood Hazard Control.
Historic Resources:
An archaeological inventory survey has been prepared for the project area by
Rechtman Consulting as part of this change of zone process. Please see the exhibits
for a copy of this plan. The survey identified 5 previously unrecorded sites. The
survey report assessed 4 of the 5 sites as significant for information content. The
other site was not considered significant. The 4 significant sites were assessed solely
for information content with no further work or preservation recommended. The
inventory survey has been forwarded to the Department of Land and Natural
Resources Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) for their review and
approval. The applicant will comply with all provisions of SHPD's determination.
Cultural Resources:
Dr. Rechtman discusses the cultural and historical context of the site in his inventory
survey. 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):
Dr. Ron Terry conducted an environmental review of the subject property, which
included a botanical survey in January of 2003. His conclusion was "No rare,
threatened or endangered species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
appear to be present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife
habitats. " Please see Dr. Terry's review in the exhibits for a plants list and further
9
discussion of the flora and fauna on the project site. As previously mentioned, the
site has been grubbed and formerly used for cultivating coffee.
Social -Economic Characteristics:
A. Social settlement pattern: for the 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 Kalaoa
area at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census was as follows: Caucasian: 49.3 %;
Hawaiian: 10.3 %; Asian: 13.4%; two or more races 25.3%. This distribution
illustrates a multicultural community with no distinct minority groups.
B. Economic resources of the area: The property is within the area identified as urban
expansion in the Hawaii County General Plan and the Keahole to Kailua
Development Plan. The properties surrounding the area have a mixture of uses, with
both residential and agricultural zoning. A number of residences are present in the
immediate area of the property. The first two phases of Kona Hills subdivision are
primary residential in nature with agricultural products being grown primarily for the
homeowners use or consumption.
C. Land Values: According to Realtors in this area, one -acre agricultural lots in this
immediate area sell for $180,000 to $200,000.
Surrounding Lands:
Land Use/Zoning:
The property to the north is Kona Hills Phases I and II which are zoned A -la and used
primarily for residential purposes with limited agricultural activities. The property to
the west is zoned A -5a and is primarily vacant and unused. South of the subject
property the land is zoned A -3a, although there are numerous smaller non -conforming
lots used for residential purposes.
10
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
A. The proposed access point to the subject property is from Mamalahoa Highway
immediately east of the subject property. Sight distance is adequate in both
directions. As part of this application, the applicant is proposing to provide
connections to subdivisions north and south of the subject property and to consolidate
the access to Mamalahoa Highway to the point on the subject property to decrease
direct access points onto the highway and to provide an access with superior sight
distance.
B. The interior roadway is intended to be a 50' right-of-way with 20' of asphalt paving.
There will be paved shoulders and swales. Dry wells, will be installed as required by
the Department of Public Works.
C. Water can be made available to the site from the existing Department of Water
Supply system on Mamalahoa Highway. Please see the exhibits for a letter from the
Department of Water Supply confirming that there are 33 units available from the
Palani Road Booster Pump Improvement project. In addition the DWS poliev is up to
six additional units per lot of record with a change of zone. This would mean there
are 47 units available for the proposed 47 lots.
D. Underground utilities will be provided to each of the proposed 47 lots from the area's
existing infrastructure.
E. As there is no municipal system in this area, sewage will be disposed of via individual
wastewater treatment systems approved by the State Department of Health.
F. The nearest police station is located at Kealakehe, approximately five miles from the
project site.
G. There is a fire station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway, approximately 6 miles from the site. There is a proposed fire station in the
Kalaoa area that will provide service to this site in the future.
H. The nearest recreation facility is the Old Airport park approximately six miles from
the project site.
I. The nearest public schools are located in Kealakehe, approximately four miles from
the subject property.
11
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 develop parcel based on the current A -3a zoning, which would result in
only 18 lots. This would not allow the development of the proposed 47 lots for
agricultural -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.
D. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be
involved if proposed action is implemented: The construction of 47 additional
agricultural lots and homes would involve the irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of only negligible quantifies 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.
12
VII. PROPOSED FINDINGS
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 applicant requests a favorable
consideration of this change of zone application.
13
VII: EXHIBITS
j
Y�
1
EXHIBIT A
Y
Revie
K �
�Invironniental
i
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST FOR TMK 7-3-07.27& 50
KOHANAIKI, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
by Ron Terry, Ph.D.
January 2003
Introduction
This Environmental Review (ER) was developed at the request of Greg Mooers as supporting
material for a Change of Zone application that is being submitted to the Hawaii County
Planning Department. The rezoning applies to an approximately 53.738 -acre property makai of
Mamalahoa Highway near the Kona Hills subdivision. The property is bordered by various
residences, vacant lots, and the Kona Hills subdivision. The applicant is Chris Clever.
The parcel is currently zoned A -3a, is classified in the State Land Use Agricultural District, and
is designated in the currently adopted (1989) Hawaii County General Plan for Urban Expansion
(Low, Medium, and High Density, Industrial and Open). The current draft of the General Plan,
which is in the final stages of a periodic revision, proposes changing the designation of this area
to Low Density Urban. The request would rezone the parcel to County zone to Family
Agriculture A-1 a. After rezoning, current plans call for subdivision into 47 one -acre lots.
Methodology
Methodology included field survey and examination of published records related to the
environmental conditions on the site.
Biological surveys of the property were conducted by Geometrician Associates in September
2000. The primary objective was to determine whether any rare or endangered species, or habitat
for such species, were present on the parcel. A secondary objective was to characterize the flora
and fauna by: 1) compiling a plant species list that would include the most common alien species
and all native species encountered; 2) characterizing the general vegetation types present; and 3)
assessing the quality of habitat for native fauna. A final objective was to identify any other
sensitive environmental conditions or potential impacts. The field survey was conducted by a
two -person field team. All parts of the site were visited and at least 95 percent of the study area
vegetation was examined. Dense vegetation in some areas prevented 100 percent visual survey.
An archaeological inventory survey wars conducted by Rechtman Consulting in August 2002.
The work involved examination of previous archaeological surveys, research in land use history,
predictive modeling, and intensive fieldwork.
Environmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07:27 & 50 Page 1
Records, maps and publications examined included the zoning maps, parcel maps and records,
State Land Use District Maps, and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) maintained at the
Hawaii County Planning and Public Works Departments. Published sources included the Atlas
of Hawai 'i (2nd ed.), the Manual of Flowering Plants of Hawai 'i, the Rainfall Atlas of 'Hawai 'i,
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map Kailua (1:24,000 scale), the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey oflsland ofHawai'i, the USGS publication
Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island ofHawa'ii, and the 1990 U.S. Census of
Population. The References section at the end of this report supplies full references for all
published material.
General Site Description
The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 1,300 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.
Slopes on the property are moderate. Annual rainfall is approximately 40 inches. Soils on the
site are classified as Punalu'u extremely rocky peat, which builds up over pahoehoe soil, and
Kaimu extremely stony peat, which is found on `a`a lava. Both soils are thin layers of peaty soil
over bedrock, and both have rapid permeability, slow runoff, and slight erosion hazard. Both
soils have a capability subclass of VIIs, meaning that there are severe limitations that make them
unsuitable for cultivation and limit their uses largely to pasture and range, woodland or wildlife
(USDA 1973:55).
Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems. Existing Conditions
Based on rainfall and geologic substrate, the area probably supported a Lowland Dry-Mesic
Forest (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990), with 'ohi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha), lama (Diospyros
sandwicensis) and possibly alahe`e (Psydrax odoratum) as dominants. The original vegetation
of the property was probably long ago lost to disturbance because of farming and ranching
activities. The vegetation of the parcel is now almost entirely alien, with a canopy dominated by
the human -introduced Christmas berry tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). However, a handful of
native plant species have apparently become re-established. The principal species found on the
parcel are listed below.
Environmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07.27 & 50 Page 2
HERBS, GRASSES AND VINES
*Cocculus triloba
TREES AND SHRUBS
Pennisetum setaceum
Buddleia asiatica
Butterfly bush
Mangifera indica
Mango
Coffea arabica
Coffee
Psidium cattleianum
Strawberry guava
#Cordyline fruticosa
Ti
Psidium gualava
Common guava
Grevillea robusta
Silk oak
*Psydrax odoratum
Alahe`e
Lantana camara
Lantana
Schinus terebinthifolius
Christmasberry
Leucaena leucocephala Koa haole
Schefflera actinophylla
Octopus tree
#Zingiber zerumbet
Awapuhi ginger
Syzygium cumini
Java plum
HERBS, GRASSES AND VINES
*Cocculus triloba
Huehue
Pennisetum setaceum
Fountain grass
#Dioscorea bulbifera
Bitter yam
*Peperomia leptostachya
`Ala `ala wai nui
Ipomoea indica
Morning glory
Phlebodium aureum
Hare's foot fern
Kalanchoe pinnata
Air plant
*Psilotum nudum
Moa
Momordica charantia
Balsam pear
Rhynchelytrum repens
Natal red top
Oplismenus hirtellus
Basket grass
Stachytarpheta sp.
Blue rat's tail
Panicum maximum
Guinea grass
#Zingiber zerumbet
Awapuhi ginger
* indicates an indigenous or endemic species and # indicates a Polynesian introduction
No systematic faunal survey was conducted, but opportunistic observation took place during the
half-day of vegetation survey, which terminated near sunset. Few mammals or birds were
observed on the site. The alien vegetation on the property provides habitat for alien bird species
such as Japanese White -eye (Zosterops japonica), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and
Melodious Laughing Thrush (Garrulax canorus). Mongooses (Herpestes auropunctatus), feral
cats (Felis catus), rats (Rattus spp.) and mice (Mus musculus domesticus) undoubtedly inhabit or
use the property.
No native fauna was observed on the site. It is quite possible that certain native forest birds,
seabirds or migratory birds could utilize or fly over the site, but it is unlikely that any with
threatened or endangered status would find the site suitable habitat or be affected by activities
that occur on the parcel. The two Hawaiian raptors, the Hawaiian Hawk or `Io (Buteo
solitarius), and the Hawaiian Owl or Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), probably make some
use of the area. Although the Hawaiian Hawk is an endangered species, the subject property
consists of a low forest of alien trees and would not be considered part of its essential habitat.
No hawk nests were observed on the site, although the scale of the survey was not exhaustive
and there may be nests on or very near the property.
The only native Hawaiian land mammal, the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus),
may also be present in the area, as it is present in many areas on the island of Hawaii.
Observation took place in daylight, and therefore the lack of bat observations does not signify an
actual absence of bats. As with the hawk, however, the alien vegetation and disturbed
Environmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07:27 & 50 Page 3
surroundings of the project area would not be expected to represent essential habitat for this
species.
Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No rare, threatened or endangered species as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appear
to be present on the parcel, nor are there unique or valuable wildlife habitats. Only four
native plant species (alahe'e, `ala `ala wai nui, moa, and huehue) were observed. The history of
continuous disturbance coupled with the lowland context indicates that the property has little
value in terms of conserving native species. No impact on native species or habitat is expected
to result from the rezoning or subsequent activities on the site.
Drainage: Existing Conditions
No permanent or intermittent streams appear on maps of the parcel, and no evidence of
watercourses or gullies was present in the reconnaissance. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
the area (no panel printed) classify the entire parcel and surrounding areas as Zone X, which are
identified in the community flood insurance study as areas of moderate or minimal hazard from
the principal source of flood in the area.
Drainage: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The property does not appear prone to flooding or likely to produce large quantities of runoff
onto adjacent areas in its current state. For any property undergoing intensification of use,
flooding can be generated onsite because of an increase in runoff potential from rain falling on
more impermeable surfaces. Mitigation for such impacts may consist of gutters, storm drains,
drywells or other structures to ensure that all runoff is contained onsite. The County of Hawaii
will determine the necessary mitigation as part of the rezoning, subdivision and plan approval
process. The change of zone applicant will comply with all drainage mitigation conditions
required by the County.
Based on expected mitigation measures, no net impact to the applicant's or neighboring property
or any areas downstream would result from the proposed project.
Lava Flow and Earthquake Hazards Existing Conditions
The entire Big Island is subject to geologic hazards, especially lava flows and earthquakes. The
United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies this area, which is on the slopes of the
dormant volcano Hualalai, as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1.
Less than 15 percent of the ground surface within Zone 4 has been covered by lava within the
last 750 years.
The entire island of Hawai'i is in Zone 4 on a scale of ascending risk I to 4 in the Seismic
Probability Rating. Major damage corresponding to a score of 7 or above on the Modified
Mercalli Scale is possible.
Environmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07 27 & 50 Page 4
Lava Flow and Earthquake Hazards: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
No adverse impacts related to geological hazards are expected to result directly or indirectly
from the proposed rezoning. A similar level of lava flow hazard is shared by all properties in the
region. Compliance with the regulations of the Uniform Building Code is required to mitigate
seismic damage.
Air Quality and Noise: Existing Conditions
Air quality in the project area is currently affected mostly by emissions from motor vehicles and
natural sources. Volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide convert into particulate sulfate which
causes a volcanic haze (vog) to blanket the area, a consistent problem in Kona. Motor vehicles
on Mamalahoa Highway and adjacent roads and homes emit CO, nitrogen oxides and
hydrocarbons (an ozone precursor), as well as smaller amounts of other pollutants.
On-site noise is generated by nearby residential and agricultural activities. Noise levels from
Mamalahoa Highway are moderate at the upper portion the site and decrease toward the lower
portion.
Air Quality and Noise: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed rezoning would result in somewhat greater density of residential uses and would
thus generate additional air pollution and noise. Such increases would be negligible in the
context of existing conditions and merit no special mitigation measures. Construction will cause
temporary impacts to air quality and noise, which will be mitigated by proper adherence to
mitigation measures imposed during permits for grading and construction by the County of
Hawaii and the State of Hawaii.
Scenic Resources: Existing Conditions
Existing residential areas and vegetation block the view of much of the parcel from Mamalahoa
Highway. From all other directions, the parcel appears to be a dense forest of Christmasberry
with an occasional, emergent Silk oak. Views from either side of the parcel may include
panoramas of the coastal area from high points where vegetation does not obstruct the horizon.
Directly behind the property is a steep slope, so that neighboring residences are perched
considerably above, and the vegetation of the subject property is below their horizons. No views
specifically cited in the Hawaii County General Plan Support Document are part of the scenery
or viewshed of the property.
Scenic Resources: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed rezoning is unlikely to adversely affect scenic views.
Environmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07:2 7 & 50 Page 5
Socioeconomic. Existing Conditions
The following table presents recent and historic population data for Hawaii County and the
North and South Kona Districts.
Population Growth in Kona, 1970-1990
District/Period
1970
1980
1990
2000
% Growth
North Kona
4,832
13,898
22,284
28,543
488%
South Kona
4,004
5,809
7,658
8,589
114%
Hawaii County
64,468
92,053
120,317
148,677
131%
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census: "1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics," 1990 CP -1-13;
Hawaii County Data Book.
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. At any given time, up to one-fourth of those present in
Kona are visitors.
The combination of expanding resident and visitor populations has increased traffic in all of
West Hawaii. Major roadways in Kona have experienced more than a tripling in average daily
traffic between 1984 and 2001 (Source: State DOT Planning Branch traffic counts).
The ethnic composition of the Kalaoa area (a census unit directly adjacent to Kohanaiki) at the
time of the 2000 U.S. Census of population is presented in the table below.
Environmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07:27 & 50 Page 6
Socioeconomic Data, Kalaoa Area, 2000 U.S. Census
Source: http://factfinder.census.gov/
Socioeconomic: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed rezoning to Family Agriculture A-1 a would lead to an addition of as many 30
more households than would be possible under existing A -3a zoning. Based on an average
household size in the Kalaoa area of 2.83 persons, 80 to 90 additional residents might eventually
occupy the homes. The magnitude of this addition would not be substantial in terms of the
existing or expected growth in Kona. At the time of rezoning and subdivision, various fees and
requirements are usually imposed to account for the additional needs to provide general services
to new residents. In addition, tax revenues generated by new residences increase the tax base
and provide funds for roads, schools, parks and other public facilities.
Neighborhood Character: Existing Conditions and Impacts
The property is within the area identified as Urban Expansion in the Hawaii County General
Plan (both existing and current revision). The properties surrounding the area have a mixture of
uses, with both Residential and Agricultural zoning. A number of residences are present in the
immediate area of the property.
Because adjacent areas have land uses and densities similar to those being proposed through this
rezoning request, there would be little impact to the character of the neighborhood.
F,nvironmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07:27 & 50 Page 7
Kalaoa
Total Population:
5,07
Average Household Size
2.83
Median Age
38.8
ercent Over 65 Years
8.
Percent Under 18
25.5
ercent Housing Vacant
5.5
Percent White
49.3
ercent Asian
13.
Percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
10.3
Percent Two or More Races
25.3
Source: http://factfinder.census.gov/
Socioeconomic: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed rezoning to Family Agriculture A-1 a would lead to an addition of as many 30
more households than would be possible under existing A -3a zoning. Based on an average
household size in the Kalaoa area of 2.83 persons, 80 to 90 additional residents might eventually
occupy the homes. The magnitude of this addition would not be substantial in terms of the
existing or expected growth in Kona. At the time of rezoning and subdivision, various fees and
requirements are usually imposed to account for the additional needs to provide general services
to new residents. In addition, tax revenues generated by new residences increase the tax base
and provide funds for roads, schools, parks and other public facilities.
Neighborhood Character: Existing Conditions and Impacts
The property is within the area identified as Urban Expansion in the Hawaii County General
Plan (both existing and current revision). The properties surrounding the area have a mixture of
uses, with both Residential and Agricultural zoning. A number of residences are present in the
immediate area of the property.
Because adjacent areas have land uses and densities similar to those being proposed through this
rezoning request, there would be little impact to the character of the neighborhood.
F,nvironmental Report, TMKs 7-3-07:27 & 50 Page 7
Agricultural Land. Existing Conditions and Impacts
The agricultural utility of soil in Hawaii has been assessed by the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service and mapped as part of map series Agricultural Lands of Importance to the
State of Hawai 'i (ALISH). A portion of the property is classified as Other Important
Agricultural Land (Source: ALISH maps on file, Hawaii County Planning Department; Hawaii
State Geographic Information System web page). The site has been used for coffee cultivation in
the past.
The soil is only marginally suitable for coffee cultivation, and no significant loss to coffee -belt
agricultural land would occur as a result of the action.
Archaeology and Historic Sites: Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures
An archaeological inventory survey on the property was conducted by Rechtman Consulting and
has been submitted to the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division. As the entire study area
was mechanically cleared to accommodate coffee cultivation, few significant historic sites were
expected. Five previously unrecorded sites were discovered: an historic -era enclosure remnant
(SIHP Site 23628), two stone terraces (SIHP Sites 23629 and 23630 — from the historic and
prehistoric eras), and two sets of historic boundary walls (one set surrounding each parcel) (SIHP
Sites 23631 and 23632). In addition to these sites, an interconnected series of old bulldozed
access roads spanning the entire larger parcel (TMK: 3-7-3-7:50) and a recent bulldozer cut
along the south side of the same parcel were also mapped as far as they could be followed
through the dense brush. Site 23628 was interpreted by the archaeologist as not being
significant; the remaining sites were all interpreted as significant for information content only.
The information has been obtained during the inventory survey, and the archaeologist's
recommendation was that no further work is necessary.
Public Facilities and Services: Existing Conditions
Access to the site is provided by one driveway from Mamalahoa Highway. Sight distance is
adequate both up and down Mamalahoa Highway. Traffic congestion is generally minor except
during peak hours, when left -turns off Mamalahoa Highway cause traffic to back up and queues
develop on side streets.
All necessary utilities are available onsite, including water service via an 8 -inch line adjacent to
the property. Wastewater treatment in this area is through cesspools and septic tanks.
The Kona Fire Station is at the base of Palani Road. The Kona Regional Police Station is in
Kealakehe near Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Both are within about 5 miles. Kona Hospital is
located in Kealakekua, about 13 miles from the site. Kealakehe Elementary, Intermediate, and
High School are also all within five miles of the site.
Environmental Report, TMKv 7-3-07.27 & 50 Page 8
Neighborhood parks are currently few in the area. A regional park with a swimming pool,
ballfields, a gymnasium and other facilities is present at Old Kona Airport. A number of beach
parks serve the North Kona area.
Public Facilities and Services: Impacts and Mitigation Measures
One main road off of Mamalahoa Highway will service the subdivision. Stub -outs to the
property boundary may make access to this road from adjacent and nearby properties possible,
easing the access situation on Mamalahoa Highway. Traffic impacts will be gauged as part of the
review process during rezoning, subdivision and plan approval. The Hawaii State Department
of Transportation is expected to determine what mitigation measures are necessary. Wastewater
treatment will be through individual wastewater treatment systems designed, sited and installed
in accordance with Hawaii State Department of Health regulations (HAR § 11-62). No impacts
or burdens to utility services or other customers would be experienced as a result of the rezoning
and subsequent uses.
The subdivision would create only negligible new demands on public facilities and services, all
of which could be accommodated with existing facilities.
Alternatives
The alternative to rezoning the parcel would be to leave the existing zoning in place. Ic the A -3a
district, one farm residence and additional auxiliary dwellings and structures directly related to
agricultural activities are permitted uses. The most likely outcome would be that the parcels
would be subdivided into 17 parcels, on each of which a single-family home accessory to
agricultural use would be built. This would reduce the potential population increase as well as
the degree of related adverse and beneficial impacts, such as traffic impacts and tax base
increase.
Findings of Environmental Impact and Conclusions
No substantial adverse environmental effects to are to be expected from the rezoning and the
expected subsequent development. Negligible short-term impacts to noise, traffic, scenic values
and dust or sedimentation may occur during construction. Mitigation measures will be necessary
to prevent long-term drainage impacts. These will be developed as part of County -approved
drainage plans, which should produce no net adverse impacts and potentially beneficial drainage
impacts. Mitigation for long-term traffic impacts, if any, will be developed during the rezoning,
subdivision and plan approval review process.
In terms of the relationship between the 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 rezoning. The
construction of homes and infrastructure would involve the irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of only negligible quantities of natural resources.
Environmental Report, TMY_s 7-3-07.27 & 50 Page 9
REFERENCES
Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R.
Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 2 vols.
Honolulu: University of Hawai `i Press.
Giambelucca, T.W., Nullet, M.A., and T.A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas offlawaii.
Honolulu: Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Hawaii County Department of Public Works. 1970. Storm Drainage Standards. Hilo.
Hawaii County Planning Department. 1989. General Plan, County of Hawaii. Hilo.
Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Highways Division. Various years. Traffic
Summary, Island of Hawaii. Honolulu.
Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and .Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Washington:
U.S. GPO.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. 1990 Census of Population, General Population
Characteristics. 1990 CP -1-13. Washington: GPO (portions electronically republished in
Hawaii Data Disc. 1993. CD-ROM. Honolulu: Hawaii State Department of Business,
Economic Development and Tourism.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey oflsland of Hawaii, State of Hawaii.
Washington: U.S.D.A.
Environmental Report, TTWKs 7-3-07:27 & 50 Page 10
Archaeological Inventory Survey of
TMK: 3-7-3-7:27 and 50
Kohanaiki Ahupua`a
North Kona District
Island of Hawai `i
RC -0050
Matthew R. Clark, B.A.
and
Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D.
1Q;7 • r
Mr. Cris Clever
Clever Construction, Inc.
73-5577 Kauhola St. Bay 9
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
November 2002
RECHTMAN CONSULTING
HC 1 Box 4149 - Kea`au, Hawaii 96749
phone: (808) 966.7636 - FAX (800)406-2665
e-mail: rechtmanconsult@aol.com
RC -0050
Archaeological Inventory Survey
of TMK:3-7-3-7:27 and 50
Kohanaiki Ahupua`a
South Kona District
Island of Hawaii
RECHTM:A� q,b NSULTING
RC -0050
Contents
area location..................................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................
1
ProjectArea Description.....................................................................................................................................................
I
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................................
4
Previous Archaeological Research......................................................................................................................................
4
Culture -Historical Context.................................................................................................................................................6
5
AHUPUA`A SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND CURRENT SURVEY EXPECTATIONS ...............................................
9
FIELDWORK....................................................................................................................................................................
10
Methods...........................................................................................................................................................................
10
Findings............................................................................................................................................................................
10
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................
24
REFERENCESCITED.....................................................................................................................................................
26
APPENDIXA..................................................................................................................................................................
29
Figures
IProject
area location..................................................................................................................................................
2
2
Portion of Tax Map Key 3-7-3-07 showing study parcels (27 and 50).....................................................................
3
3
Project area view to south................................................................ .......................................................
.................. 4
4
Previous archaeological studies within Kohanaiki Ahupua`a...................................................................................
5
5
Plan view of project area......................................................................................................................................1.11
6
Typical bulldozed road bes view to northeast . .......... .................................. ...... ........ ..... .......... _....
...... ....... ......... ,.. 12
7
Typical rusted fifty -gallon drum view to cast. .. .......................................... .. .. ...... .. ....... .. .
...... ................. 12
8
Typical modem rock ring view to east....................................................................................................................
13
9
SIHP Site 23628 plan view ... ................................................ ............................ ..................... ........
..... ................... 14
10
SIHP Site 23628 view to north...............................................................................................................................
15
11
SIHP Site 23628 toy horse.....................................................................................................................................
15
12
SIHP Site 23629 view to north. ... .................................................. ........... .......... ...... . . ....... ..
. ... ............... - 16
13
SIHP Site 23629 plan view and profile... ............................................ .............. . .........
. .. ...... ...... 17
14
SIHP Site 23629 TU -1 southwest wall profile........................................................................................................
17
15
SIHP Site 23629 TU -1 view to southwest..............................................................................................................
18
16
SIHP Site 23630 plan view .... ......... ....... ......................................................................................................
....... ... 19
17
SIHP Site 23630 view to east. . .... .......... ............................................ ..................................................
... ........... 19
18
SIHP Site 23631 intersevtion of south and east walls at Highway 190 view to cast ..............................................
20
19
SIHP Site 23631 recent reconstruction for modem landscaping view to east. .... ...........................
....................... 21
20
SIHP Site 23631 east wall along Highway 190 view to south . ....... .................... ... ...................... ............._...........
21
21
SIHP Site 23631 east wall bordering residential lots view to east..........................................................................
22
22
SIHP Site 23632 east wall view to east...................................................................................................................
23
23
SIHP Site 23632 walls lining notch easement view to southeast............................................................................
23
24
SIHP Site 23632 PVC water line in wall at southwest comer view to east............................................................
24
Table
Site significance and treatment recommendations................................................... ....... _........... ........................... 25
RC -0050
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Mr. Chris Clever of Clever Construction, Inc., Rechtman Consulting, LLC conducted an
archaeological inventory survey of TMK: 3-7-3-7:27 and 50 comprising approximately 52 acres located in
Kohanaiki Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (Figure 1). The objective of the survey was to
record the locations of all archaeological sites and features present on the study parcel and to provide
preliminary significance evaluations for any recorded sites. This survey was undertaken in accordance with
the Rules Governing Minimal Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and Reports as contained in
draft Hawai'i Administrative Rules 13§13-284. The current project was undertaken in compliance with
both the historic preservation review process requirements of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources -State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) and the County of Hawai'i Planning
Department.
This report contains background information outlining the project area's physical and cultural contexts,
a presentation of previous archaeological work in the immediate vicinity of the parcel, and current survey
expectations based on that previous work. Also presented is an explanation of the project's methods,
detailed description of the archaeological resources encountered, interpretation and evaluation of those
resources, and treatment recommendations for all of the documented sites.
Project Area Description
The project area consists of two adjoining parcels containing approximately 52 acres located in Kohanaiki
Ahupua'a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i (TMK: 3-7-3-7:27, 50). It is bounded to the east by the
Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 190) and four small residential lots, to the north by the Kona Hills Estates
Subdivision, to the west by a paved homestead road, and to the south by several larger residential parcels
(Figure 2).
The parcels are situated on the western flank of Hualalai volcano at elevations ranging from 1,200 to
1,600 feet above sea level (see Figure 1). The terrain is characterized by sustained 5 to 20 percent slopes of
Kaimanu series extremely rocky peat well -drained thin organic soils overlying 3,000-5,000 year old 'a'a
flows ( Sato e t a 1. 1973 a nd W olfe a nd M orris 1996). Ground surface within the study area is relatively
uniform and appears to have been mechanically cleared at some point in the past. According to local county
council member Mr. Curtis Tvler, both parcels had been cultivated in coffee until relatively recent times.
Perhaps owing to the agricultural land -clearing and subsequent abandonment, a rather homogeneous canopy
of dense Christmas -berry (Schinus terebinthlfolius) covers the entire project area (Figure 3). Other floral
species present include, =ngo (Mangifcra indica), silver oak (Grevilla robusta), ki (Cordyline fruticosa),
h1oko'i (Passiflora spp.), coffee (co. fea arabica), lantana (Lantana camara) and various non-native vines
and grasses.
Figure 1. Project area location.
r figure 1. rumen of t ivitL: s- i- -u i snowing study parcels (L I and 50).
71
RC -0050
Figure 3. Project area view to southwest.
BACKGROUND
To generate set of expectations regarding the nature of archaeological resources that might be encountered
on the study parcel, and to establish an environment within which to assess the significance of any such
resources, previous archaeological studies relative to the project area and a general historical context for the
Kohanaiki Ahupua`a region are presented.
Previous Archaeological Research
No previous archaeological work has been undertaken on the current study parcels. Several studies,
however, have b een c onducted within K ohanaiki A hupua `a at 1 ower a levations ( Figure 4). Much o f this
work is limited. to the coastal region of the ahupua `a, but one study (Barrera 199 1) is located immediately
makai of the current project area.
Archaeological investigations within Kohanaiki Ahupua`a began with John Reinecke's 1930 inventory
of coastal sites in the districts of North and South Kona conducted for the Bishop Museum (Reinecke n.d.).
As a result of his fieldwork, Reinecke recorded six coastal sites within Kohanaiki (SIHP Sites 1902, 1905-
1909). The sites included, permanent and temporary habitation features and one possible heiau or shrine
with associated burials on Wawahiwaa Point (SHIP Site 1909).
No further archaeological work was conducted within the ahupua `a until Ross Cordy's shoreline study
of permanent habitation features conducted as part of his dissertation research in 1975 (Cordy 1978, 1981).
As a result of his study, Cordy recorded 12 permanent habitation sites (including some of Reinecke's sites)
extending from 1/4 to 1/2 mile inland and preformed surface collection with limited subsurface testing at 11
of the sites (O'Hare and Goodfellow 1992).
4
Match line
`• kfyy ` 0 _ _ 1 2MILES
0 2 4 KM.
P
MAlfAULA
7
MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY E
I
1
�� xCHMwva
'
�/
KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY
RC -0050
Match line
0 500 1000
� I
Scale in meters
!!!K-+ Z
0
000
✓ Ros ndahl.,(1985+5).:
,
f. .
D' ham (1986)
Jensen and Rosend'ahl (1988)
PHRI 1990 r�✓`:
O'II -e and Goodfellor�v (1992) so
............,,,,. .................. .............
it
:fir'. « ��
. Q... j .
Figure 4. Previous archaeological studies within Kohanaiki Ahupua`a.
5
1909
RC -0050
As part of the failed Kobana-Iki Resort Development Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted
phased archaeological investigations between 1985 and 1992 at a 470 -acre parcel spanning the entire width
of Kohanaiki Ahupua`a from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to the coast (Rosendahl 1985, Denham 1986,
Jensen and Rosendahl 1988, PHRI 1990, O'Hare and Goodfellow 1992). As a result of this work 108
archaeological sites were recorded. Over half the recorded sites were assigned habitation functions. Other
identified site types included roads/trails, boundary markers, animal pens, p etroglyphs, a nchialine pools,
shrines, and aquaculture sites. Thirty-eight of these sites underwent archaeological data recovery
investigations. The data recovery work indicated that:
...Permanent habitation sites between Puhili and Wawahiwaa Points are concentrated in the
coastal zone, near the shoreline. In the coastal area south of Wawahiwaa Point permanent
habitation sites were near the shoreline and further inland. Temporary habitation sites were
present in all areas of the coastal zone and the barren rockland zones. The radiocarbon date
ranges indicate that sites in the northern coastal zone might have been inhabited as early as
AD 1020. Sites in the southern coastal zone may have been inhabited as early as AD 1370,
and sites in the barren rockland zones may have been inhabited as early as AD 1180. In the
barren rockland zones, use of the sites was terminated before the historic period, and in the
coastal zone most of the sites were not used in the historic period. (O'Hare and Goodfellow
1992: ii)
O'Hare and Goodfellow ( 1992) go on to state that the prehistoric peoples of Kohanaiki exploited all
available food resources in the project area including the offshore, inshore and littoral zones of the ocean
and the anchialine ponds. There was also some evidence of prehistoric agriculture in the southern portions
of the study area.
In 1991, William Barrera, Jr. conducted an archaeological inventory survey and data recovery effod
more proximate to the current project area. Barrera's study included two parcels (TMK: 3-7-3-09:1 and 17)
located within Kohanaiki and K aloko A hupua`a at e levations ranging from 8 00 t o 1 ,100 f eet above s ea
level. As a result of this work Barrera identified 140 archaeological sites located primarily within Kohanaiki
Ahupua `a. He attributes the s carcity o f s ites i n K aloko A hupua`a to "extensive recent land clearing that
occurred there." Sixty-one of the sites were determined to lie within the boundaries of the Kohanaiki
Homesteads, a collection of combined agricultural and residential lots (located to the west and south of the
current project area) that were settled in the late 1800s. The majority of the remaining sites were determined
components of the Kona Field System. These sites consisted primarily of kuaiwi, cross -walls, terraces, and
mounds. Also several permanent and temporary habitations were identified, along with a single small heiau
or men's h ouse. B arrera ( 1992:63) s uggests that human o ccupation o f the p roject area began in the last
quarter of the fifteenth century and continued unabated into the eighteenth century at which point there is a
no residential population for nearly 150 years until the settlement of the Kohanaiki Homesteads.
Culture -Historical Context
The current project area lies within what has been termed the Kona Field System (Cordy 1995; Newman
1970; Schilt 1984). This area oC dry -land agricultural fields extends north from Ho`okena Ahupua'a to at
least Kau Ahupua`a and east Irom the coastline all the way to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy
1995). A large portion of the field system is designated in the Hawai'i State Inventory of Historic Places
(SIHP) as Site 50-10-37-6601 and has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. The basic characteristics of this agriculturalfresidential system as presented in Newman
(1970) have been confirmed and elaborated on by ethnohistorical investigations (Kelly 1983) and
summarized by Cordy (1995). The construct is based on the Hawaiian terms for the major vegetation
zones, which are used to define and segregate space within the region's ahupua'a. These zones are bands
roughly parallel to the coast that mark changes in elevation and rainfall.
RC -0050
The current studyparcel is located within what has been termed the 'apa'a zone. This zone lies
between 300-750 meters (980-2460 feet) above sea level and has an average annual rainfall of 140 to
200 centimeters. Prehistorically, the dry -land cultivation of taro, sweet potato, ti, and sugar cane
dominated this zone. There are, although infrequently recorded, also archaeological indications of
temporary and permanent habitations within the 'apa'a zone (Barrera 1991; Burtchard 1995; Haun et al.
1998; Kaschko and Rosendahl 1987). Early European visitors to Kona recorded sparse habitation at
higher elevations within the fields, especially the use of temporary field houses. Burial and ceremonial
areas are rare in the upper elevations (Kawachi 1989), but not unheard of (Barrera 1991).
Kuaiwi are prominent features of the landscape within the 'apa'a (Cordy 1995; Newman 1970).
These are low, broad, long multifunctional piles of rocks that were by-products of land clearing and rock
removal from the planting areas. Kuaiwi are oriented upslope-downslope with shorter, perpendicular
cross -wall segments connecting them. The cross -walls function as soil traps and retaining features,
creating terrace -like areas to enhance planting. Kuaiwi can also function to move water downslope in a
controlled manner, ensuring optimal distribution of the available mnoff water (personal observation,
Rechtman Consulting on going research in Kahalu`u Ahupua`a). The presence of kuaiwi is indicative of
"formal walled fields," as opposed to the scattered planting mounds and terraces, or "informal fields."
However, the distribution of soils suitable for agriculture determines, in part, the locations of the formal
walled fields, and there is a direct relationship between suitable soils and older lava flows. Consequently,
areas of young lava flow in the 'apa'a do not always have kuaiwi (Burtchard 1995; Hammatt et al. 1987;
Haun et al. 1998).
The archaeological record contributes to an understanding of how the Kona Field System developed
over time. Precisely how the record is interpreted is reflected in the various chronologies proposed for
the system (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995; Haun et al. 1998; Hommon 1986; Kirch 1985; Schilt 1984).
The chronology and terminology outlined by Hann et al. (1998) is used in the present discussion, and the
chronological summary below is abstracted from Rechtman et al. (1999).
The Kona Field System was not brought to Kona as a fully developed system; but rather, it reflects a
developmental adaptation to the area that was concomitant with the evolving sociopolitical structure and
increasing population of the island. The first inhabitants of Hawaii Island probably arrived by at least
A.D. 600, and focused habitation and subsistence activity on the windward side of the island (Burtchard
1995; Kirch 1985; Hommon 1986). To date, there is no archaeological evidence for occupation of the
Kona region during this initial, or Colonization stage of island occupation (A.D. 300 to 600).
There is also little indication that during the subsequent period, Early Expansion (A.D. 600 to 1100),
much activity was taking place in Kona (Burtchard 1995). Through the first half of the Early Expansion
Period, permanent habitation was still concentrated on the windward side of the island. It is likely that
windward residents traveled to the leeward Kona coast for resource extraction purposes (Cordy 1995).
By the latter half of the Early Expansion Period, permanent habitation was beginning in Kona (Cordy
1981; 1995; Schilt 1984). Habitation was concentrated along the shoreline and lowland slopes, and
informal fields were probably :situated in areas with higher rainfall.
Agricultural fields and habitation areas expanded across the slopes and coastal area of Hualalai
during the Late Expansion Period (A.D. 1100 to 1400) (Burtchard 1995; Cordy 1995). The earliest fields
may have been located in the southern portion of the system (Schilt 1984), with new fields expanding
northward over time (Haun et al. 1998).
The development of extensive formal walled fields, sometime during the initial stages of the
Intensification Period (A.D. 1400 to 1600), marks the beginnings of the Kona Field System (Schilt 1984).
The growth of the fields may reflect of the need of prehistoric Hawaiian populations to extract more
subsistence resources from an increasingly limited agricultural base. Radiocarbon data indicates that the
population in Kona increased dramatically during this period (Burtchard 1995; Haun et al. 1998; Schilt
1984).
RC -0050
By the time of the Competition Period (A.D. 1600 to 1800), the environment may have reached its
maximum carrying capacity, resulting in social stress between neighboring groups. The resulting hostility
is reflected archaeologically with the frequent occurrence of refuge caves dating to this period (Schilt
1984). This volatile period was probably accompanied by internal rebellion and territorial annexation
(Hommon 1986; Kirch 1985).
The first historic period of Hawai`is history, termed the Last of the Ruling Chiefs (A.D. 1778-1819),
begins with Captain Cook's arrival in the islands and ends with King Kamehameha`s death in 1819
(Haun et al. 1998). The end of this period also sees the overthrow of the old religion, which took place
when Liholiho, Kamehameha's heir, broke the traditional kapu laws and won a battle against the
supporters of the old religion at Kuanto`o, along the southern coastline of Keauhou. Early historical
accounts emphasize that modem day Kailua Town was a significant political seat and population center
during this period. Settlement and subsistence practices within the Kona Field System continued to
operate much as it had prehistorically through the first few decades of the historic era (Handy and Handy
1972).
The second quarter of the 19th century, the Merchants and Missionaries Period (A.D. 1820-1847),
was a time of profound social change in Hawaii. Kamehameha I died in mid -1819, and a council of
chiefs supported K amehameha's son Liholiho as the successor ( Kelly 1983). Within six months after
Kamehameha's death, Liholiho, Ka`ahumanu, and the Queen mother Keopuolam broke the kapu
prohibiting men and women eating together. This act of "free eating" symbolized the end of the entire
traditional kapu system. Changes in the social and economic patterns then began to affect the lives of the
common people. Liholiho moved his court to Oahu, so the burden of resource procurement for the
chiefly class lessened considerably on the Island of Hawaii. However, some of the work of the
commoners shifted from subsistence agriculture to the production of foods and goods for trade to the
early Western visitors. Introduced crops, such as yams, coffee, melons, Irish potatoes, Indian com,
beans, figs, oranges, guavas, and grapes (Wilkes 1845) were grown specifically for trade with
Westerners. Other commodities, especially sandalwood, were collected to purchase Western goods,
often to the detriment of agricultural pursuits. The arrival of the missionaries to Hawai"i in the 1820s
brought further changes to the social and religious systems of the islands.
The socioeconomic and demographic changes that took place in the period between 1790 and the
1840s, promoted the establishment of a Euro -American style of land ownership, and the Great Mahele
became the vehicle for determining ownership of native lands. During this period, termed the Legacy of
the Great Mahele (1848-18991, land interests of the King (Kamehameha III), the high-ranking chiefs,
and the low -ranking chiefs, the konohiki, were defined. The chiefs and konohiki were required to present
their claims to the Land Commission to receive awards for lands provided to them by Kamehameha II1.
They were also required to provide comnmtations to the government in order to receive royal patents on
their awards. The lands were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries
would prevail until the land could be surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land
Commission and speeded the transfers (Cltinen 1961:13).
During the Mahele all lands were placed in one of three categories: Crown Lands (for the occupant
of the throne), Government Lands, and Konohiki Lands. All three types of land were subject to the rights
of the native tenants therein. In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was
established in the Kingdom of Hawaii to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua'a that had been
awarded as a part of the Mahele. Subsequently, in 1874, the Commissioners of Boundaries was
authorized to certify the boundaries for lands brought before them. The primary informants for the
boundary descriptions were old native residents of the lands, many of which had also been claimants for
kuleana dining the Mahele. The information was collected primarily between A.D. 1873 and 1885. The
testimonies were generally given in Hawaiian and transcribed in English as they occurred.
RC -0050
As a result of the Mdhele, the ahupua'a of Kohanaiki was classified as Government Lands. For this
reason there are no testimonies of native tenants for kuleana lots. Instead, the land was sold in parcels by
the government to raise money (O'Hare and Goodfellow 1992). The current study parcels were sold in
1856 as part of a larger 102 -acre grant (Grant No. 2030) to Kaiakoili (Appendix A).
Information regarding Kaiakoili's use of the land is extremely limited. One interesting note,
however, regarding the land use of Grant 2030 was published in George Bowser's 1880 book, The
Hawaiian Kingdom Statistical and Commercial Directory. Bowser, an early western traveler through the
upland areas of North Kona, lists Kaiakoili as the owner of 600 acres in Kohanaiki Ahupua`a, who had
10 acres of land under coffee cultivation at the time of the publication (O'Hare and Goodfellow 1992).
Bowser also offers a vivid, though obviously business oriented, description of upland Kohanaiki in his
book. He writes:
Presently I reached the r idge o f the mountain, and had a fine v iew o f the surrounding
country. Fronting the sea for many miles in North Kona there is a rich tract of bottom land
which might be turned to good account. Large areas of the mountain land might also be
cultivated for coffee. It is a shame to see so many hundred square [Hiles of country lying
waste for want of enterprise on the part of its owners.
I was astonished to see in this district how bananas, mangoes, oranges, pineapples, in
short, all the fruits belonging to these islands grow in profusion and yield splendid crops
upon the bare lava. Ferns it is not so surprising to see, for they will grow in all sorts of
rocky situations, but the luxuriance of their growth is wonderful. In many places you may
see them growing to a height of five -and -twenty feet. The fems, except thee variety which
yields the pulu, are only food to look at, for if there is an edible fern here, as in New
Zealand, the natives have had too many odrer more tempting fruits of the soil at hand to
think of turning it to account. But the fruits I have just alluded to ought to be worth
something if any one would try to utilize them. The are so fine in quality and grow in such
profusion that I feel sure some enterprising person will yet make a fortune by being the
first to tum them to account.
At Kohanaike (sic), a place about six miles short of my destination, I came upon a store
kept by a Chinaman, who was Hawaiianized his name to Akao. Here the tourist, if he has
no supplies with him, can get anything he wants, in the way of canned fish, milk, crackers,
etc., and if night should overtake him here, a bed can always be had (Bowser 1880:548-
9).
Although the precise locations of Akao's store and the 10 acres of cultivated coffee are unknown, it
is likely that both were in the immediate vicinity of the current project area. It is also likely that Kaiakoili
coffee operation was responsible for much of the aforementioned land clearing on the current study
parcels.
AHUPUA`A SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND
CURRENT SURVEY EXPECTATIONS
Archaeological studies undertaken within the greater North Kona District indicate that initial prehistoric
settlement was concentrated primarily along the coast (Cordy 1981, Cordy et al. 1991). Kohanaiki Ahupua`a
certainly had a significant prehistoric permanent and temporary coastal population beginning as early as AD
1020 (O'Hare and Goodfellow 1992). As coastal populations increased, so did the development of
agricultural fields in the upland areas, reaching their greatest extent in the late 1700s. As the fields
expanded so did native populations in the upland resource areas. By the sixteenth century temporary and
permanent habitations were found at higher elevations within the `apa `a zone (Barrera 1991).
RC -0050
In Historic times, with the shift to a market economy and a western style of land ownership in Hawaii,
populations shifted from the coast to the upland areas. Much of the old style of agriculture was abandoned
in favor of coffee farms and cattle ranches, which have had a significant impact on the Prehistoric
archaeological record.
Based on the available information about the project area (land use records, Mahele records, prior
archaeological studies, and oral information) it is possible, although not very likely (due to mechanical
clearing of the property), that Precontact agricultural features are present. These would be found in areas
that have not been previously grubbed and graded. It is further expected that if such features do exist they
may have been modified to accommodate agricultural reuse of the land during the late nineteenth century
through recent times.
FIELDWORK
Under the supervision of Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D., Matthew R. Clark, B.A., Michael E. Rivera, B.A.,
Dylan S. Amerine, B.A., and T. Austin Hall, B.A. conducted a 100% -coverage pedestrian survey of the
project area along with limited subsurface testing the week of August 19-23, 2002. Although the terrain was
difficult to traverse (covered by dense Christmas -berry) overall ground visibility was adequate for locating
all archaeological resources.
Methods
The survey strategy included a visual inspection of the entire study area. To accomplish this, archaeologists
walked north/south pedestrian transects spaced at 15 -meter intervals across both subject parcels. Observed
archaeological features were marked on a map of the property, cleared of vegetation, recorded in detail, and
photographed. Subsurface testing was carried out - in the form of one meter by one meter test units - at
features requiring further investigation to accurately interpret function. Test units were excavated in
arbitrary 10 -centimeter levels. All excavated soil was passed through 1/4 -inch mesh screen and all cultural
material was collected. Soil descriptions and stratigraphic profiles were prepared for each unit before the
excavated features were reconstructed to their original specifications. Recovered cultural material was
remanded to the laboratory for detailed analysis.
Findings
During the current investigation five previously unrecorded sites were discovered (Figure 5); an enclosure
remnant (SIHP Site 23628), two s tone t erraces ( SIHP S ites 2 3629 a nd 2 3630), a nd two is ets o f h istoric
boundary walls (one set surrounding each parcel) (SIHP Sites 23631 and 23632). In addition to these sites,
an interconnected series of old bulldozed access roads (Figure 6) spanning the entire larger parcel (TMK: 3-
7-3-7:50) and a recent bulldozer cut along the south side of the same parcel were also mapped as far as they
could be followed through the dense brush.
As previously mentioned, the entire study area was mechanically cleared to accommodate coffee
cultivation. Further attesting to modem agricultural pursuits on the parcels is the presence of several rusted
50 -gallon metal drums (perhaps as many a 100) spread over the entire project area (Figure 7). These drums
are typically found in groups and, more often then not, they are located near one of the old bulldozed access
roads.
There is also ample evidence of the most recent agricultural pursuits on the parcels: pakalolo
(Cannabis sativa) cultivation. A number of recently constructed rock rings (perhaps as many as 50)
containing soil mixed with vermiculite and often associated with modem artifacts (i.e. fertilizer bags, rubber
hose, plastic bottles, ect.) were found distributed over both parcels (Figure 8). These rock rings varied
widely in size and shape, but were all certainly of modern construction. At least one was observed to be
currently under cultivation.
10
Figure 5. Plan view of project area.
11
All
'M 1A
I
OVA k, X,
RC -0050
Figure 8. Typical modern rock ring view to east.
SIHP Site 23628
SIHP Site 23628 is a possible historic enclosure remnant located along the eastern edge of an old road cut
running north/south across the property (see Figure 5). The enclosure measures 8.5 meters by 6.5 meters,
but is nearly .completely destroyed, almost to the. point of being unrecognizable. The -north. and west sides of._.
the enclosure are the most linear,. with alignments along each of these edges marking the possible former
location of the walls (Figure 9). Site 23628 may have been bulldozed at some point in the past. The site is
covered b y d ense v egetation, i ncluding c offee ( coffea arabica), ki (Cordyline fruticosa), and Christmas -
berry (Schinus terebinthifolius). Historic debris observed in the vicinity of the site includes corrugated tin
roofing (Figure 10), a black plastic toy horse (Figure 11), a one gallon clear glass jug, a tin funnel, and a
rusted metal container reading "WEEDAZOL."
13
Plastic trxr
horse
b
Cd
O
b
a�
N
O
b
_b
0
Corrugated
tin
roofing
Figure 9. SIHP Site 23628 plan view.
14
RC -0050
OO - Tree stump
A
Jnuv
0 1 2
Scale in meters
(All heights in centimeters)
�JM
Rl:
K 4W
el; �0-
IS
omtm
WIS
St:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
awl
At
AVOW
Al
vp Z" APZ
POM
RC -0050
SIHP Site 23629 .
SIHP Site 23629 is a rectangular terrace (4.5 meters x 1.9 meters) constructed of stacked pahoehoe cobbles
(Figure 12). The terrace stands up to 1.0 meter (477 courses) high along its western edge and is level with
ground surface to the east (Figure 13). A depression, 80 centimeters in- diameter by 30 centimeters deep,
with two ka (Cordyline fruticosa) plants growing from it is centrally located on the terrace 2.0 meters from
E the southern edge. The terrace area to the south of the depression is more substantially constructed then the
area to the north. For this reason, a 1.0 meter x 1.0 meter test unit (TU -1) was centrally placed in the
southern half of SIHP Site 23629.
Excavation of TU -1 revealed a simple two -layer stratigraphic profile (Figure 14). Layer I, the
architectural layer, consisted of small to large sized pahoehoe cobbles continuing to a depth of 54
centimeters below the terrace surface. Layer II consisted of extremely dry, loosely compacted very dark
grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2)1 oamy s ilt w ith r oot i nclusions a nd a pproximately 3 0 p ercent g ravel c ontent.
i Layer II underlies Layer I to a depth of 78 centimeters below the terrace surface. Layer II terminates at
bedrock (Figure 15). No cultural material was recovered from TU -1. Because of its lack of cultural debris
and isolation from any other features, it is suggested that SIHP Site 23629 is a remnant agricultural terrace.
'r Other agricultural features in the area were probably destroyed when the property was cleared.
P figure 11. J1riP Hite 2J(j29 view to north.
16
Ti
(1(
- Grassy ground surface
Natural contour
)epression
05 1
� I
Scale in meters
(All heights in centimeters)
V
(60)
Plan view North profile
Figure 13. SIHP Site 23629 plan view and profile.
RC -0050
Layer I
a -
Layer II
Bedrock
0 10 20 Layer I - Architectural layer consisting of small to large sized pahoehoe cobbles.
Layer II Extremely dry, loosely compacted very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) loamy silt
Scale in centimeters with root inclusions and approximately 30% gravel content.
I I
Figure 14. SIHP Site 23629 TU -1 southwest wall profile.
17
r
Y
k
r'
v
1
9
z
Ti
(1(
- Grassy ground surface
Natural contour
)epression
05 1
� I
Scale in meters
(All heights in centimeters)
V
(60)
Plan view North profile
Figure 13. SIHP Site 23629 plan view and profile.
RC -0050
Layer I
a -
Layer II
Bedrock
0 10 20 Layer I - Architectural layer consisting of small to large sized pahoehoe cobbles.
Layer II Extremely dry, loosely compacted very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) loamy silt
Scale in centimeters with root inclusions and approximately 30% gravel content.
I I
Figure 14. SIHP Site 23629 TU -1 southwest wall profile.
17
i
,1
J
RC -0050
Figure 15. SIHP Site 23629 TU -1 view to southwest.
SIHP Site 23630
SIHP Site 23630 is a terrace of stacked pahoehoe cobbles measuring 10.1 meters (N/S) by 3.6 meters (E/V)
(Figure 16). The south edge of -the terrace is constructed of large cobbles stacked up to 3 courses (40
centimeters) high, with small cobbles creating a level area to the north (Figure 17). The level area stretches
3.6 meters to a raised bedrock outcrop. A fifty -gallon drum is rusting at the east end of the feature. SIHP
Site 23630 may represent a remnant agricultural terrace or, more likely, an improved roadbed related to
historic coffee cultivation on the property. The path of the road could not be followed for any length to the
east or the west of the site. It may be that this road was in place before mechanical clearing took place on
the property.
SIHP Site 23631
SIHP Site 23631 is the collection of core -filled historic rock boundary walls enclosing TMK: 3-7-3-7:
Parcel 50 (see Figure 5). Although collapsed in numerous locations, the walls of SIHP Site 23631 enclose
nearly the entire parcel. Where standing, they measure up to 1 meter high and 80 centimeters wide.
The walls bordering the north and west sides of the parcel were built during a single construction
episode. The north wall runs a meandering course for 796 meters west from the northeast property corner to
the northwest property corner. At this point it turns and runs south for 250 meters across the entire western
edge of the property bordering a paved homestead road. At one location — 10 meters south of the
northwest corner — a ten meter segment of wall has been bulldozed away.
18
.. max. a "£•s Nk^ '. •... h9' : x, `�+.
acti: ,A,i A 'vrc t , $ Y
ACMAI
. . §,�"$. k 1,�" �. 4 --"c: `�4 t 1 x ��egi n ., -u 'F. 'r,axry,t i'•z . t
Ah. tt'S6rxi+ N'S'•4•�.3.r_F. P^-X�....�.r.r., 1 i'fi ]®�... ,K. �^�No$�k� �� ` h -V+. i.v..�
Alf 1 -- ,.x.r� P ,.#2 �A, ... '� _ "<. t . > xiaa.•.z _ ,.1 •''c''��. a.... .,::F
' ��� � :... • �x 'x
,
'+• _•l r Asx a� ��x. , . �� °�' � � a'.: .r�,"�.,�,�,.:,� Y�' t ;� �u�, �w � :. �• � 3. ,. -:
§ .,; $ ar *a� '.ren`+%�s3,�. � ., � �. '"�`� :R�, ..),,� �, � +.� ;� .� �. a.. •? c�a' t<.3Y".
..
`SA
�. �
nXs,. _
40
ya•;4 ..F+„w-.:� tax t;. _ °' �. g {.�'' s;,*,•y, x r a.. 'fs ?rte:.. r.>•:
.� fir.•
'S c .X.➢i i Z `ue Y' d r A i - g".'x:
d.. •.s' 4 -
a.•S ...m .$i i..'d. ..�: SyS :VON
RC -0050
The southern boundary consists of a piecemeal wall that has been put together as walls were built
around homestead lots located to the south of the parcel. Several perpendicular walls run south from the
southern boundary wall marking the boundaries between lots. One of the lots located adjacent to Parcel 50
is TMK:3-7-3-7: Parcel 27 (the second parcel in the study area). The walls surrounding Parcel 27 are
designated as SIHP Site 23632. The south wall does not form a continuous junction (Figure 18) with eastern
wall at the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 190) and is probably of a later construction than the east wall;
which continues along the highway in both directions. There is no wall bordering a residential lot in the
southwest corner of the study area and a section immediately mauka of Parcel 27 has been recently
reconstructed to accommodate modern landscaping (Figure 19).
The e astern wall (Figure 20) follows the mauka edge of the parcel from its southeast corner for 60
meters north at the bottom of a steep embankment along the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 190) before
terminating at a bulldozer cut and driveway. T he r emaining s ection o f t he a astern w all r uns s outh from
northeast corner for 120 meters along the makai edge of four residential parcels (Figure 21). The south end
of the wall dissipates into a bulldozer push pile and modern rubbish dump.
Figure 18. SIHP Site 23631 intersection of south and east walls at
Highway -1-90-view-to-east.. - --- -
20
i
a
RC -0050
P Igure 19. bitnr bite Lj bj 1 recent reconstruction for modern landscaping -view to east
rigure w. blur site Ljbj 1 east wall along Highway 190 view to south.
21
•
RC -0050
Figure 21. SIHP Site 23631 east wall bordering residential lots view to east.
SIHP Site 23632
SIHP Site 23632 consists of the core -filled historic rock boundary walls enclosing TMK: 3-7-3-7: Parcel 27
(see Figure 5). Although collapsed in several sections, the walls of SIHP Site 23632 enclose the entire
parcel and appear to have been built during a single construction episode. Where standing, the walls
measure up to 1. meter high. and_ 80_ centimeters wide. Parallel walls are. present along the north_ and west
edges of the parcel demarcating former easements.
The walls along each side of Parcel 27 measure approximately 150 meters in length. The south wall
abuts a partially paved access road. The east wall boarders a residential lot and partially borders Parcel 50
(Figure 22). The north wall abuts Parcel 50 and the west wall borders the east edge of the Kohanaiki
Homesteads. Both the north and west walls have old or unused easements, evidenced by parallel core -filled
rock walls, for portions of their length.
The north easement consists of two parallel walls 4 meters distant running 54 meter east from the
northwest corner of Parcel 27. The walls are of similar size and construction (Figure 23) and are joined
together by a short wall segment located at their eastern ends. The southern most of the two walls continues
all the way around Parcel 27. Ground surface between the two walls is very rough — not especially suited
for pedestrian access — and strewn with modem (or possibly historic) debris including rusted metal, tires,
and a water trough. No constructed breaks are present in either wall.
The west wall of the western easement is actually located outside (to the west) of the current study area.
The e asement i s m arked b y p arallel w alls, 4 m eters d istant, r unning n orth from t he s outhwest c omer of
Parcel 27 for 102 meters. The walls are of similar size and construction, but the eastern most wall has been
severely impacted by the placement a PVC water line running along it entire length (Figure 24). A short
wall segment connects the walls at their northern ends. No constructed breaks are present in either wall.
22
IP -
I rX
ilk
A WA
k
MV
gg r
AN
b VA R rr. ki m 1.1r. I I MIA t r-kylTm K I x W. I
,AV W
RC -0050
Figure 24. SIHP Site 23632 PVC waterline in wall at southwest corner view to east. ..
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
+ The above-described archaeological resources are assessed for their significance based on criteria_.,__,__. _
established and promoted by the D LNR-SHPD and contained in the draft H awai `i Administrative Rules
13 § 13-284-6, dated 1998. These significance evaluations should be considered as preliminary until DLNR-
SHPD provides concurrence. For resources to be considered significant they must possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the
following criteria:
A Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
B 'Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction;
represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value;
D - Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory
or history;
_ E__ Have an important traditional cultural value. -to the -native Hawaiian people or to
another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural practices
once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with
traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these, associations being important to the
group's history and cultural identity.
24
RC -0050
The significance and recommended treatments for the five recorded sites are discussed below and are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Site signiScance and treatment recommendations.
Site No. Function Temporal Association Egnf tcance Treatment
SIHP 23628 Habitation Enclosure Historic Not Significant No Further Work
SIHP 23629 Agricultural Terrace Precontact/Historic D No Further Work
SIHP 23630 Agricultural Terrace Precontact/Historic D No Further Work
SIHP 23631 Boundary Wall Historic D No Further Work
SIHP 23632 Boundary Wall Historic D No Further Work
The two sets of boundary walls (SIHP Sites 23631 and 23632), one around each study parcel, are
assessed as significant under Criterion 1) as having yielded data relative to the nineteenth century transition
from traditional Hawaiian land tenure practices to a Western system of land ownership. Precisely marking
property boundaries was an important element in the latter system. The data potential of these sites has been
realized and no further work is recommended for these sites.
The two agricultural ten -aces (SIHP Sites 23629 and 23630) may have been part of the Precontact
Kona Field System, but mechanical clearing within the project area has left them without context.
Furthermore, both may have been modified in Historic times, one (SIHP Site 23630) possibly seeing use as
a roadbed. Despite the historic or modem reuse of these sites, they remain ssigmnificant under Criterion D
for the information they have yielded (albeit limited) relative to the changing agricultural patterns in the
'apa'a zone of the Kona Field System. The documentation presented in this report has been adequate to
mitigate any potential impacts to thee,. sites. No further work is recommended.
The possible historic habitation enclosure (SIHP Site 23628) is assessed as not significant under the
draft Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-284-6, dated 1998. The enclosure lacks any architectural
integrity, most likely owing to past bulldozing activities on the property. Furthermore, the cultural debris
associated with the site (i.e. metal, glass, and plastic) is fairly modern in appearance. The documentation
presented in this report has been more than adequate to mitigate any potential impacts to this site. No
further work is recommended.
25
RC -0050
REFERENCES CITED
Barrera, W.
1991 Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii Island: Archaeological Inventory Survey and Data
Recovery. Chiniago Inc. Prepared for Richard M. Sato and Associates, Honolulu.
Bowser, G.
1880 The Hawaiian Kingdom Statistical and Commercial Directory. Honolulu and San
Francisco: George Bowser and Co.
Burtchard, G.
1995 Population and Land Use on the Keauhou Coast, the Mauka Land Inventory Survey,
Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii Island. Part I: Narrative Volume. International
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Prepared for Belt, Collins and Associates and
Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Honolulu.
Chinen, J.
1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Honolulu: privately published.
Cordy, R.
1978 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the
Hawaiian Islands. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at
Manua.
1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the
Hawaiian Islands. New York: Academic Press.
1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. State Historic Preservation Division,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.
J Cordy, R., J. Tainter, R. Ranger, and R. Hitchcock
1991 An Ahupua`a Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupua`a, North Kona,
Island of Hawaii. U S. Department of the Interior, Western Archaeological and
Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology 58.
Dunham, T.
1986 Full Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kohana-Iki Development Project Area, Land
] of Kohana-Iki, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 216-040286. Prepared for
Helber, Hastert, Van Horn & Kimura.
Handy, E. S. C., and E. G. Handy
1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu. (Wish M.K. Pukui)
Hammatt, H., D. Shideler, and D. Borthwick
1987 Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations of a 15 -Acre Parcel, Kealakehe, Kona, Hawaii
(TMK 7-4-17:30). Cultural Surveys Hawaii. Prepared for Mauna Lam Resort, Inc.
Haun, A., J. Henry, J. Jimenez, M. Kirkendall, K. Mally, and T. Wolforth
1998 Alii Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I — Archaeological Intensive Survey,
North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, vol. 1, Summary. PHRI Report 1320-052798.
Submitted to County of Hawaii.
26
RC -0050
Hommon, R.
1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. IN Kirch, P.V. (ed.), Island Societies: Archaeological
Approaches to Evolution and Transformation: 55-88. Cambridge: University Press.
Jensen, P., and P. Rosendahl,
1988 Mitigation Plan for Site Preservation and Data Recovery Excavations, Kohana-Iki Resort,
Land of Kohana-Iki, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 444-070588. Prepared for
Kona Beach Development Venture.
Kaschko, M., and P. Rosendahl
1987 Full Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kealakekua Ranch Makai Land Subdivision,
Land of Kealakekua, South Kona, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-8-2-02:2,33). PHRI Report
244-100186 Prepared for Kealakekua Ranch, Ltd.
Kawachi, C.
1989 An Upland I labitation and Agricultural Complex in North Kona, Hawaii Island. Master's
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii.
Kelly, M.
1983 Na Mala O Kona: Gardens of Kona. A History of Land Use in Kona, Hawaii.
Departmental Report .Series 83-2. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum,
Honolulu. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii.
Kirch, P.
1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Newman, T.
1970 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A.D. 1778. Department of Land
and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks.
O'Hare, C., and S. Goodfellow
1992 Kohana-Iki Resort, Phased Archaeological Mitigation Program, Phase II - Data Recovery,
Land of Kohana-Iki, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-3-09:3). PHRI
Report 874-121391. Prepared for Mr. Keith Kato, c/o Nansay Hawaii, Inc.
PHRI (P.H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.)
1990 Additional Archaeological Inventory Survey: Testing of Potential Burial Features, Kohana-
Iki Resort, Land of Kohana-Iki, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Memorandum
Report 875-100190. Prepared for Nansay Hawaii, Inc.
Rechtman R., J. Henry, and T. Wolforth
1999 Inventory of Ho`omalu on Alii Subdivision, Kaumalumalu and Pahoehoe 1st Ahupua`a,
North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1881. Prepared for Nohona Partners,
Inc., Hilo.
Reinecke, J.
n.d. Survey of Hawaiian Sites, 1929-1930. Manuscript. Department of Anthropology, B.P.
Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
27
RC -0050
Rosendahl, P.
1985 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Kohana-Iki Development Project Area,
Land of Kohana-Iki, North Kona, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-3-09:3,14). PHRI Report
191-082985. Prepared for Helber, Hastert, Van Horn & Kimura.
Schilt, R.
1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii. An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini
Highway Realignment Corridor. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Department of
Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for the Department of
Transportation, State of Hawaii.
Sato, H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr.
1973 Soil Survey at Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Wilkes, C.
1845 Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1838-1842, Under
the Command of C. Wilkes, U.S.N., Volume 4. Philadelphia: Loa and Blanchard.
Wolfe, E. and J. Morris
1996 Geologic Map of the Island of Hawaii. Geologic Investigations Series Map 1-2524-A. U.S.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey
28
I
APPENDIX A
Grant No. 2030 to Kaiakoili
29
RC -0050
i
i
f
f
EXHIBIT C
ocatiol Maps
4
"'Idnit
A
1
1,.
s. .
RC -0050
:j si elf"'- ,K' r.:1:: �• S '<4' ':i':.. ,i."" : "i I .1 i 3 % I
1
• k" • \ f
..s
<d
�., . : s'.-::•. :!.i: . i .'. :.. + • r 1:` :'xx i :Fsica;i� :x:l;'.-"• .
:i
Yi r -• _> h
:L t
g 1 G, ... ) { • # ;;r,"''•r':•�`.y:•:. "f� �� 3; �"' :r;r: �� 2tY�i: 'i;•:� .x+•.,:•,
•i � � - 111111
v _ •i f f
IRE
N
I - `
{
to
/
1 �
i I
;r
N
KY's
•t'
II.. GVT
I'
`=l' F •LA
:
: � • �r\N
I
V~ 1
+ Yy.
.: • r. .Gs......s :�J: .... :s:...,:...::.'G?�.. ? :: ....4� ":^ G x'L�'i: i>4, :� -,y Z...(:.:p j:%-• 1.
>
ii
1
Y f i i
r r
1
i
N�
k t L f
i
F'
�• Y J� l\ t `tel
E -`l
A+
1
',•i
I
C
t( •
t
Oa
:iN.
Oi
T11= A 1;
f1
t
.;.'i 1 f <•♦ .Q y.;:�._.;�......� \"'i trr •:,\ -"� l •' A 1 f ` h' •"� a•i4yi { :4 {. r
uEt
-34
14
AN
00
is �: ,~.. `;. '♦ t Pro ect '.' f A H
area ;4 H =
51 j y/�•• 1 �i •: J,{ rri' i• # ;t■ .�"� vA f- ,CJ�{tE is ••'�" ,.`� t ;'? �'�. ■ -+ ` `.
111111
"\ 1 f", `i •' ��•: ,i' : •.��° S i z t�r('311.�CSi� ° `\ , { 5`t 1
J{ J � � Iii, t ° �: "�\ A •:♦ • `� ,.•�. ,-,�••. •a tri (♦ �.,, �\,}I. r..-••..^'-•+•• ` .
J.
fivt
.,;, 1'\
�•• lf: J 4 v�lr t-
C 1 `' tl':i'fa f) �' t < • i \41 j •• \ ; ` ♦ 1 `'r/
VV
<
ROC
13
IL
1 ;
,
+
,
,
P
: t i
•. i
n_
0 500 1,000 1:i - � . • • '♦ ;� j..:-• /q � 0 •r,�-: �. .. � <
! ... el � r • _ ` �`, ` > ^'ter»~�"�'�•,� \.. )
Scale in meters — _ R.• • ® •. --- * s'—'' y • a
poi -tion oa v S i •, minute series quadrangle Kaiiva, HI 1996
Figure 1. Project area location.
2
. ab....a v — i — 1, / -J-V / OAIU W lll6 J luny PULUC15 \z / ana :)u).
3
SL f
H
j
4
f E
LAW
7 Y r�
3
Y r � ,,,_
44'k !:�
.•
y
lj
T
5
M1Y
i V .
t•
7 s4
4
e;
fly
L
Yow
; f C,� .-
F �41 � _
r � Ila,
An
Mw
r 4
F
1,,
�Fjj}} C4 jy-e`t Iij'
Y RRR���'• W F�,:'1,'.b
JyI
ER G S• Y � �S V ' i
gg
In
n5�
Y
t
5�
#
t ✓"
HrP
i'
Y
yt
M`
i
5
Vill
is
Y m
a• -+ e i
✓ iY e
w
R
kb11
� 111M
iY
Q d'
Vol
w'
E
o-
no
�-
r
n I 4
P:• p
t arJ �Pr tr
1112
SIS 4.i
lx
SL f
H
4
f E
LAW
7 Y r�
•
44'k !:�
rtP 1
y
lj
0 TW
i V .
�5
e;
fly
L
Yow
; f C,� .-
F �41 � _
r � Ila,
An
Mw
r 4
�Fjj}} C4 jy-e`t Iij'
Y RRR���'• W F�,:'1,'.b
JyI
ER G S• Y � �S V ' i
gg
4
f E
7 Y r�
by
$\1pp55
Ip1p qS
LOT
z5yo3'3p'
Q
40
ab
pU• 9029'00' 06T%0P' `
66.67' 09.]6
LOTLO4
1.p Ac 1
oz
l060.77• a
45 ' It
1
ti
ai w
M1 b
LOT 47
1.0 Ac
1
REZONING EXHIBIT
MAP SHOWING
CONSOLIDATION AND RESUBDIVITION
INTO LOTS 1 — 47
At Kohanaiki, North Kona
Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii
X, .
VICINITY MAP
N...5.
TMK: 7-3-07:27 & 50
DATE: 1/27/03
i
a i,��
hs`
�
t
1
}
x,
y
k f �
r,
r
r-•
,i.,
t M'
ro r
is
{ �t
'f
1-
e LIs-'
i
r
i
t
EX& 1 T "E"
S
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
r �.+�eu mm 'ua•mnv au�nnua •'nmm�D 1..J'Wi6V 6.814V H✓H4Y FSH HR6 EJ/H}�H1iH.5 V®�L08.0
--- ---- y.s-- -.:,. It:10s:Una 6 0WOW Q,@flyC€Sa16
I
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII
Mr. Gregory R. Mooers
Mooers Enterprises, LLC
P.O. Box 1101
Kamuela, HI 96743
25 AUPUNI STREET • HILO, HAWAII 96720
TELEPHONE (808) 961-8660 FAX (806) 961-8657
October 2, 2000
WATER AVAILABILITY
TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-007:027,037, AND 050
This is in response to your letter of August 24, 2000.
Please be informed that 112 units of water at 600 gallons per day (gpd) were allotted to the subject
parcels as a result of the owner's participation in the Palani Road Booster Pump Improvement project.
Kona Hills Estate Phase Nos. 1 and 2 Development utilized 72 units, along with 3 units for Huinani
Farms through an existing 6" x 3" MFM -MCT master meter, leaving a balance of 37 units.
However, presently the actual average consumption for Kona Hills Estates and Huinani Farms is 79
equivalent units at 600 gpd leaving a balance of 33 units available for use within these parcels. These
units are subject to the prevailing facilities charge of $3,375.00 per unit, which is subject to change.
Should there be any questions, please call our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8665.
Sincerely yours,
Milton D. Pavao, P.E.
Manager
WA:gms
copy - Kona Hills Community Association
.. Mier 4ing6 pro yreJJ .. ,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HILO, HAWAII
DATE:June 19, 2003
NT
Mem
Memorandum"
TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department
FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief
Engineering Division
SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas
Location: Kohanaiki, N. Kona, HI
TMK: 3 / 7-3-07: 027 and 050
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 drywells in the subject
development, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit may be required from
the Department of Health, State of Hawaii.
3. A drainage study shall be prepared, and the recommended drainage system shall
be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW.
EARTHWORK
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. The Hawaii Belt Highway, fronting the subject property, is under the jurisdiction of
the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). Comments and requirements
concerning this road should be obtained from the HDOT.
't,U ��'.J'IJ .r of D
Hualalai Vistas REZ-03-013
TMK: 7-3-007:027,050
June 19, 2003
p. 2 of 2
2. Vehicular access to the individual lots shall not be from any major collector or
arterial roadways.
Kohanaiki Road, fronting the subject property, is an unimproved government road
of varying width, not presently maintained by the County. It appears to be shown
on the General Plan as a collector street. We defer to the Planning Director
regarding the compliance with the General Plan, required widening of right-of-way
and improvements. If it will not be used as a collector street, then any one or a
combination of a local street, bicycle, pedestrian and emergency route should be
considered.
4. Install street lights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the DPW,
Traffic Division.
5. Roadway connections to adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the
approval of DPW. These roadways should be open to public traffic. The stubbout
to the north should be required to coincide with the road parcel TMK: 7-3-50:37.
Stubbouts to the south should be provided for interconnectivity to consolidate
access to Mamalahoa Highway rather that the culdesacs indicated . The eastern-
most stubbout to the south appears to be too close to the Mamalahoa Highway
intersection. We recommend locating it at the flag pole access to Lot 2 . The main
mauka-makai road should stubbout to the makai boundary as indicated.
4. All roadways within the proposed development shall follow the guidelines
incorporated in the Hawaii Statewide Uniform Design Manual for Streets and
Highways and the requirements of DPW.
The applicant should construct all roadways to County dedicable standards and
dedicate them to the County upon request at no cost to the County.
TRAFFIC
We defer to the DOT regarding Mamalahoa Highway and the requirement of a left turn
lane on that facility. A dedicated right turn lane from the subdivision road to southbound
Mamalahoa Highway should be accommodated with an additional 10 foot right-of-way
width or future road widening setback on the entire frontage of Lot 1.
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
Harry Kim.
Mayor � i,N, ,'i!.��
J
Barbara Bell
Director
611infVi of"'- c1fuM11
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 208 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
(808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086
MEMORANDUM
Date June 4, 2003
To CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Planning Director
From BARBARA BELL, Directo
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas, LLC
Request: A -3a to FA -la
TMK: 7-3-7:27 and 50
We have reviewed the subject application and our comment are attached.
Enclosure
cc: SWD
() ": k:) 3
EX IBIS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
• COUNTY OF HAWAII - 108 RAILROAD AVENUE - HILO, HI 96720
� •_= HILO (808) 961-8379 WADAEA (808) 887-3018 KONA (808) 327-3507
Date:(Gi/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Christopher Yuen, Director
Planning Department c
FROM: 'K, yo!j 4q ,
Solid Wa to Division
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Relating to the subject application for I-IUAI 411 , U(- , this division has
a) NO
and/or
comments
b) THE FOLLOWING clarifications/comments, as indicated:
(�() Commercial operations may not use transfer stations for disposal.
(�() Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be reused to its
fullest extent.
( ) Ample room should be provided for recycling.
() Greenwaste may be disposed of only at the drop sites located at the Kailua and
Hilo Transfer Stations.
Ca�M&I'VIrS --
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
July 2, 2003
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTNI NTPF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
',�AJPTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING, ROOM 555
601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD
KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707
Dr. Bob Rechtman
Rechtman Consulting
HC 1, Box 4149
Kea'au, Hawaii 96749
Dear Dr. Rechtman:
PETER T. YOUNG
CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DAN DAVIDSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - LAND
ERNEST Y.W. LAU
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER
AQUATIC RESOURCES
BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT
ENGINEERING
FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION
LAND
STATE PARKS
LOG NO: 2003.1103
DOC NO: 0307PM04
SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review Draft Report (RC -0050):
"Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-3-7:27 and 50"" (Clark and
Rechtman 2002) Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii Island
TMK: (3) 7-3-7:27,50
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced report, which was
received in our office November 26, 2002. We apologize for our late review and any
inconvenience to you and your client, Mr. Cris Clever.
The information presented in the historical and archaeological background sections of the report
is generally adequate for predicting the kinds of historic properties that might be found during
the survey. The background information is likewise sufficient in terms of providing a context for
understanding and evaluating the significance of sites found in the survey.
We believe that the archaeological inventory survey of the two parcels, which total some 52
acres, was adequate in terms of survey coverage. Five sites were found in the survey. These
include an enclosure remnant (Site 23628), two terraces (Sites 23629 and 23630), and two
boundary walls (Sites 23631 and 23632). The paucity of sites appears directly related to recent
land use practices. According to Mr. Curtis Tyler, the parcels were planted in coffee until fairly
recently. A network of roads and large numbers of 50 -gallon metal drums are testimony to this
recent activity. Evidence of more recent marijuana cultivation was also found. The property is
now heavily overgrown with a rather uniform canopy of Christmas -berry, which according to
your report was not a major survey limitation, however. The five sites have been adequately
mapped and described. The functional interpretations seem reasonable based on the available
evidence.
E�1BIT �''
Dr. Bob Rechtman
We agree with your site significance evaluations. All five sites, except for 23628, have yielded
information important for an understanding of local prehistory or history and are thus significant
under Criterion "d." Site 23628 lacks architectural integrity because of previous disturbance,
and the cultural debris found on the site (metal, glass and plastic) is modern and has no historic
significance.
We concur with your recommended site treatments. No further work will be required at any of
the five sites.
Your report meets with our approval. Would you please send a copy to MaryAnne Maigret for
our Kona office library.
Aloha, �J
P. Holly McEldowney, Acting Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
c. Chris Yuen, County of Hawaii Planning Department
Kai Emler, County of Hawaii Department of Public Works
PM:ak
MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC
P.O. Box 1 101
KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743
1WI ;T
lune 30, 2003 ��03
�.
Mr. Christopher Yuen
Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street. Soite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Request: Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) to Family Agricultural 1 -acre (FA -la)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas, LLC
Tax Map Key (3) 7-3-7:27 and 50
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Your staff has faxed me copies of agencies' comments on the application identified above and
asked that I respond.
Real Property Tax Office:
The applicant concurs that all property taxes have been paid for both parcels.
Department of Environmental Management:
The applicant understands that no commercial waste operations may use the transfer stations,
aggregates and other construction waste should be reused to its fullest extent and that greenwaste
may be disposed of only at the Kailua and Hilo transfer stations.
Police Department:
The applicant shares the Police Department's concern over the ingress and egress from the
proposed subdivision. The applicant will comply with the Department of Transportation's
requirements as related to the intersection with Mamalahoa Highway, a state highway.
Department of Health:
The applicant will comply with all DOH requirements related to underground injection and storm
water runoff.
Fire Department:
The applicant will comply with the provisions of the Fire Code.
PHONE: (808) 85-1 5749 E X 11� 1 B' T
FAX. (808) 885-1574 _"}TC`L■ CI
EMAIL. GMOOERSCaHAWAII.RR.COM
Mr. Chris Yuen
June 30, 2003
Page Two
Department of Public Works:
The applicant shall comply with all regulations related to earthwork and drainage.
The applicant will comply with regulations related to signage, street markings and access to
individual lots.
The applicant will construct the roadway system as approved on the site plan at the time of
Subdivision approval, including providing road stubouts to neighboring properties. The roadway
;,! !1» r,.p ,.f tH, `—d1 , iSion tc tl.:, south is the only roadway the applieaui Wouid tike to be open
for public use. The roadway to the north intersects with the private roadways of the Kona Hills
Subdivision which are private and gated at the entrance from Mamalahoa Highway. As this is
the third phase of the subdivision, the applicant would prefer to also keep the subdivision
roadways in private ownership.
The applicant will work with the Department of Transportation to design and construct an
intersection with Mamalahao I Iighway that will provide a safe ingress and egress for the
proposed subdivision.
If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please contact me at 885-6839.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this application.
Sincerely, D /f- -
Gregory R. Mooers
President
GRM/sp
4kekt umro
Fx
.July 9, 2003
A
Mr. Christopher Yuen
Director, Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
i ilio, iiawali ';6720
Re: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas, LLC
Tax Map Key (3) 7-3-7:27 and 50
Dear Mr. Yuen-
`.
MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC
P.O. Box 1101
KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743
Your staff has asked that I clarify our intentions regarding improvements to the access point of
the proposed project onto Marnalahoa Highway.
This portion of Mamalahoa Highway is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation (DOT). All improvements to this intersection with Mamalahoa Highway will be
reviewed and approved by DO C. These improvements could include an acceleration lane, a
deceleration lane, a refuge lane and/or a turn pocket on Mamalahoa Highway. The extent o f
these improvements will be determined by DOT through negotiations with the applicant's
engineers after reviewing the traffic impact analysis.
7 he applicant will prepare a traffic impact analysis as a condition of approval for the change of
zone, should the annlication be anoroved. Conditionine the chanee of zone with this
requirement, along with all associated improvements is consistent with past practices of the
Department, Commission and County Council.
If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please contact me at 885-6839.
Sincerely,
�� m4�s
GiegoryR. Mooers
President
GRIM/sp
PHONE: (808) 885-6839
FAx: (808) /8�85-1 574
EMAA-: GMOOERSLa HAWAII.RR.COM
MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC
P.O. Box 1 101
KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743
f ..
July 14, 2003
M
Mr. Christopher Yuen
Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo- Hawaii 96720
Re: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-013)
Request: Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) to Family Agricultural 1 -acre (FA-Ia)
Applicant: Hualalai Vistas, LLC
Tax Map Key (3) 7-3-7:27 and 50
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Your staff has faxed me copies of Historic Preservation Division, DI,NR, comments on the
application identified above and asked that I respond.
We are pleased that SHPD has found the archaeological inventory survey to be acceptable and
that they concur with our archaeologist's conclusion that no additional work will be rcqui red.
If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please contact me at 885-6839.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this application.
Sincerely,
Grego Z. Mooers
President
GRM/sp
PHONE: (808) 885-6839
FAX: (808) 885-1574
EMAIL: GMOOERS@HAWAII.RR.COM
Harry Kim
Mayor
June 23, 2003
CCDiIIItp Df'abiai`i
FIRE DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Flawai`i 96720
(808)961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296
TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-013)
APPLICANT: HUALALAI VISTAS, LLC
REQUEST: A -3a TO FA -1a
TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-7:27 AND 50
Darryl J. Oliveira
Fire Chief
Desmond K. Wery
Deputy Fire Chief
Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207:
"Fire Apparatus Access Roads
"Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section.
"(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every
building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story
is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by
an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building.
"EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an
approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may
be modified.
"2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography,
waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may
require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b).
I
a0G t y< D�
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 2
June 23, 2003
"3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M
Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in
the opinion of the chief, fire -fighting or rescue operations would not be
impaired.
"More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the
chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion,
condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access.
"For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109.
"(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the
requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction.
"(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed
vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
"EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided
such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved
signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical
clearance.
"(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this
section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or
widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access.
"(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface
so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities." (20 tons)
"(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be
as approved by the chief." (45 feet)
"(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150
feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of
fire apparatus.
"(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of
the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed
loads of fire apparatus.
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 3
June 23, 2003
"Q) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the
maximum approved by the chief." (15%)
"(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not
be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required
widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all
times.
"(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved
notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to
identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both."
Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301:
"(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire
flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or
portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective
county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief,
on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow.
"Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water
mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow.
"The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply
capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the
respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire
department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207.
hreief
L OLIVEIRA
RK:lk
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII
345 KEKUANAOA STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720
TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • PAr 0!01196 - 657
July 18, 20031 PJT
Aft
TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department
FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 03-013)
APPLICANT — HUALALAI VISTAS, LLC
TAX MAP KEY 7-3-007:027 AND 050
We have reviewed the subject application for the proposed subdivision and have the following
comments.
Water can be made available from an existing 12 -inch waterline along the Mamalahoa Highway
fronting the property in accordance with the Department's existing water availability conditions, which
are subject to change.
Please be informed that an additional 33 units of water are available for the proposed subdivision from
the original Kona Hills Estates water allotment of 112 units, which were acquired through the original
owners participation in the Palani Road Booster Pump Improvement Project. The facilities charge is
paid in full and capital assessment fee is not applicable. The remaining 79 units shall remain with
Kona Hills Estates serviced by a 6- x 3 -inch MFM -MCT master meter.
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 12 additional units
requested in the proposed 47 -lot subdivision development, the required water commitment deposit is
$1,800.00.
Remittance by the applicant of the $1,800.00 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 on the water situation.
For the applicant's information, should the subject change of zone be approved and a subdivision
application executed, approval will be subject to the following requirements:
a 'i K., 4-, J
... !/Dater �ringj 19rocyresa...
Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 2
July 18, 2003
Construct necessary water system improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to:
a. water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak -flow
and fire -flow conditions; minimum diameter of mains shall be 6 inches,
b. service laterals that will accommodate a 5/8 -inch meter to each lot, and
c. fire hydrants spaced no more than 600 feet apart.
Submit construction plans and design calculations prepared by a professional engineer,
architect, or land surveyor, registered in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval.
Remit the prevailing facilities charge and capital assessment fee, which are subject to change,
of $68,380.00 and $6,000.00, respectively, as shown below:
FACILITIES CHARGE (FC):
2 existing lots of record with no service @ $1,190.00/lot $ 2,380.00
12 additional units @ $5,500.00/unit 66,000.00
FC TOTAL $68,380.00
CAPITAL ASSESSMENT FEE:
12 additional units @ $500.00/unit $ 6,000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT $74,380.00
This is due and payable upon completion of the installation of the required water system
improvements and prior to final subdivision approval being granted.
3. Submit the appropriate documents, properly prepared and executed, to convey the water system
improvements and necessary easements to the Water Board of the County of Hawaii prior to
final subdivision approval being granted. A registered land surveyor shall stamp and certify the
metes and bounds description, within the conveyance documents. However, prior to water
meter services being granted to the development, or any lots within, the conveyance documents
shall be accepted by the Water Board.
Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 3
July 18, 2003
Should there be any questions, the applicant may contact Mr. William Atkins of our Water Resources
and Planning Branch at 961-8070.
Sincerely yours,
// ve—�� ---_
Milton D. Pavao, P.E.
Manager
WA:sco
Art.
copy - (w/att.) Hualalai Vistas, LLC
(w/o att.) Mooers Enterprises, LLC
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
August 1, 2003
A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of HUALA LAI VISTAS, LLC
(REZ 03-013) was called to order at 9:08 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort,
Kahaluu Ballroom, 78-6740 Alii Drive, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman
Fred Galdones presiding.
PRESENT: Fred Galdones
Earl Fujikawa
Bill Graham
Florence Kubota
Jeffrey McCall
Aurelio C. Mina, Jr.
Francis Smith
Hannah Springer
Bill Thibadeau
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner
Daryn Arai, Staff Planner
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works
And approximately 35 people from the public in attendance
APPLICANT: HUALALAI VISTAS, LLC (REZ 03-013)
Change of Zone for 53+ acres of land from an Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) to a Family
Agricultural I -acre (FA -1 a) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side
of State Highway 190 (Hawaii Belt Road), adjacent to and south of the Kona Hills
Estates Subdivision, Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-7:27 and 50.
GALDONES: Commissioners, members of the public, we'll be addressing
Agenda Item No. 2. The Applicant is Hualalai Vistas, LLC (REZ 03-013). This is a
Change of Zone for 53+ acres of land from an Agricultural 3 -acre (A -3a) to a Family
Agricultural 1 -acre (FA -1 a) district. Jeff?
DARROW: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, members of the Planning
Commission. May I draw your attention to the location map. The red dot identified on
the location map is the arca in question. Looking at this white line here traveling north to
south, this is Mamalahoa Highway. This way towards the north, this way towards the
south. And, again, the area that we're looking at for this application is identified by a red
dot.
If I may draw your attention to the site map. Again, this is the east side of the property,
Mamalahoa Highway traveling north and south; and then down on the west side of the
property, we have Kohanaiki Road traveling north and south. This application is for
Applicant Hualalai Vistas, LLC. They're requesting a Change of Zone from Ag -3,
Agricultural 3 -acres to Family Agricultural I -acre. It is located on the makai side of
Mamalahoa Highway. This request is to subsequently subdivide the properties into 47
one -acre family agricultural lots. Are there any questions?
GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Jeff?
KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman?
GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Jeff, would you point out some landmarks for me so I can get
myself logistically located?
DARROW: Sure. This area here is Kaloko Mauka. You might be familiar
with that. There has been a lot of activity in that area. We have Church of God Road
located here near the proposed project. This is the Kona Hills Estates Subdivision and
right over in this area we have Kaiminam Drive.
KUBOTA: Okay, I know where I am.
DARROW: Okay. Great.
GALDONES: Commissioners, any further question of Jeff? If none, could we
have the Applicant or his representative step forward? Please 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.
GALDONES: Plcase state your name and your residence address?
MOOERS: My name is Gregory Mooers. My address is P.O. Box 1101,
Kamuela 96743.
GALDONES: Mr. Mooers, have you received a copy of the Background Report
and the Change of Zone application, along with the amended changes of approval?
MOOERS: Yes, I have.
GALDONES: Any comments`?
MOOERS: The Applicant is somewhat concerned about the revision that was
made. The implication seems to be made here that Kohanaiki Road is going to be
improved to a greater extent and be used as part of the regional roadway network. The
Applicant's concern and. frankly. I probably received between 15 and 20 calls from the
community, they were unanimous in their opinion that they did not want to see a
connection to Kohanaiki Road.
I guess my concern would be is if you took at the Background Report or my application,
at the area maps, specifically the tax map that appears, you'll notice that, this would be
Exhibit C, location and vicinity maps. You'll notice the second map, which is a tax map,
the Kohanaiki Road is depicted on the bottom at that property. You'll notice
immediately to the south of the subject property, there are a great many lots. And the
existence of those lots, as far as I'm concerned, would preclude the ability of the County
to widen that road beyond its present situation. And, so, I guess that would be my
concern is that the condo ion seems to imply that that's going to be a roadway that's going
to be used as a part of the regional roadway network. The Applicant does not, never
intended for that to be the case and is not aware that that would be possible. I think that
there'd be members of the public here today that will probably want to testi fy on their
beliefs as far as how that road ought to be, you know, developed.
If the Commission decides that they want us to provide a road widening setback, we can
certainly do that. But 1 just want to make sure that everyone in the public knows that that
was not our intention, because I've made that clear to the people that have spoken to me
that it was not our intention to use Kohanaiki Road as part of the access to and from this
project.
GALDONES: Jeff, the concern that or the objection that was raised by
Mr. Mooers, is there someone that will be able to address why it was amended to that -?
DARROW: Sure. Mr. Chairman, looking at the site map, correction, the
location map, in the current General Plan, we do have Kohaniki Road identified as a
connector road, I'm sorrv, a collector road. In the amended General Plan, proposed
amendment, this is not the case. In the matter of the future road widening setback, we're
not looking at it from a regional network standpoint, we're looking at it from a local
network. The reason for the 20 -foot wide future widening setback is to allow for slope
easement and also for realignment of this road, in the possibility that we can provide
connectivity in the area to other roads that are in this area. We want to be able to look at
the area and provide relief in regards to these lots that are here, for mauka-makai relief as
far as connectivity, as well as north -south relief. So we are not looking -. Because of the
fact that there is a 20 -foot wide setback, it's not, you know, it's not there to become a
collector road and to be a 65 -foot or 60 -foot wide road but just to allow for the issues that
we're going to have when we have to deal with realignment of the road as well as slope
easements.
3
GALDONES: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner
Graham'?
GRAHAM: Greg, when I was thinking about this one when it first came up, the
one concern I had was sort of a long-term regional concern that the Mamalahoa Highway,
even though it probably does not have the traffic issues we have on Queen K right now
because of the slope there and everything, it seems to me it's unlikely to become a better
road in the future. So especially with Saddle Road realignment going through and maybe
there'd be more traffic firom Hilo side wanting to come to Kona, it looks like kind of a
longer tern, doesn't look too good for that road. So I was kind of running in my head
that at some point in the future the County would probably want some other way to deal
with traffic that has been generated from new housing activity. And, so, maybe just the
extra setback kind of gives them a little room to maneuver in the long run, although it's
not any requirement on you that you improve that road. That was my reading of it.
MOOERS: Are you talking about Kohanaiki Road or Mamalahoa highway?
GRAHAM: Well, I was talking about Mamalahoa Highway becoming a
problem in the long term and that the widening of a setback area on Kohanaiki Road
gives the County more flexibility in the long term to try to build other collector roads that
would take some of the stress off that highway.
MOOERS: Yeah. I guess, I'll make my, I'll try to make my position clear.
We're not opposed to providing the 20 feet. I think what I need to make clear is the
representation we've made in our applications and the representations I've made to
people from the community who have spoken to us is that that was not our intent to use
Kohanaiki Road for ingress or egress to the project. Our intention was to build an
intersection on Mamalahoa Highway that will meet with the approval of Department of
Transportation. In all likelihood it'll be a channelized intersection. We've had
conversations with neighboring landowners about providing access over to Church of
God Road and even to the properties to the north, so that some of those substandard
intersections can be closed. And they would be able to use this intersection to try to
improve the safety onto and off of Mamalahoa Highway. If the Commission and
ultimately the Council makes a determination that they would like to have a 2040ot road
widening setback, the Applicant doesn't oppose it. I just have to be consistent in saying
that that was not our intention.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Jeff, but if I'm reading it correctly, the County is not
intending that they use Hualalai Road for their access to this subdivision at all, is it?
DARROW: You mean Kohanaiki Road?
GRAHAM: The Kohanaiki Road, yes.
DARROW: Its more to provide relief to the area in regards to a connectivity,
for this area here to be able to have some relief so that they can have an option. Instead
4
of having to go all the way out to Kona Heavens, go up to Hinalani and then out to
Mamalahoa, there's an area that they can be able to access Mamalahoa Highway and
bring relief in that area.
GRAHAM: That's what I understand, which is no implication that this
particular project needs to make any use of that road at all. Correct?
DARROW: Yeah. If you look at the Condition G, the first, prior to the
revision, we had placed that the roads would be built to, constructed to County-dedi cable
standards and that they would be dedicated to the County. So, from that point, we were
looking at the roads not to be private but to be open.
GALDONES: Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM: Yeah, I understand. But I haven't looked at Condition G carefully
before, which suggest that they should have their mauka-makai road connect to
Kohanaiki Road. So, I guess, that's the issue.
GALDONES: Thank you.
YUEN: I have a question.
GALDONES: Mr. Yuen?
YUEN: We had the Kabumoto rezoning a month ago and there was a
possibility you mentioned of getting that connected to this subdivision road so that, they
could use a better intersection. Looking at this application, though, there's one piece of
property in between theirs. What's that status of, between theirs and the subdivision,
what's the status of that"
MOOERS: X' c believe we've identified the property owner and we've made
numerous attempts to contact that property owner; and we've been unsuccessful. In fact,
I've recently asked Councilman Tyler if he would try to make contact. I'm fearful that
the property owner who's residing, at this point, I think, in Germany, if he gets repeated
calls from a consultant or other private property owners, he might question our motives.
I felt that it would be better if somebody from the County representing, in effect, the
community's interest would contact them and explain what we're trying to do. But we
are still making that attempt to try to contact this landowner to see if we could, in fact,
have a roadway connected. If you'll look at the site plan, we have included a road to the
south, the upper reaches of the project, that was intended to pass through that property
over to Church of God Road. If that were done, then we would have the ability or the
County would have the ability to close that intersection and have the traffic ingress and
egress onto Mamahaloa Highway from this intersection; and that is our intent.
YUEN: Okay. Thank you.
GALDONES: Commissioners, are there any further questions or any further
discussion? If not, there are five individuals from the public who would like to testify.
So, Mr. Mooers, if you could relinquish the chair for them, please? I would like to call -.
We should have enough chairs for those individuals who have signed up. Judith Perino,
Stephen Martin, Frank Goodale, Clint Marantz and Gary Stirling,. Could you please
come forward to the table? Could you all please raise your right hand? Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning
Commission?
TESTIFIERS: 1 do.
GALDONES: Sir, would you like to begin. State your name and your residence
address and you may begin your testimony, Please use the microphone so we can have
you folks recorded? Thank you.
MARANTZ: Good morning. I'm Clint Marantz, owner of the property located
at 73-4464 Kohanaiki Road, here to testify against the request for a change in zoning
from Ag -3 to Ag -1, the property under discussion. In my 82 years of living an active life,
I've come to the realization that there is no such thing as evil people. What needs to be
understood is what motivates good people to do what they do. There's no such thing as
the good guys and the bad guys.
I'd like to discuss my reasons for opposing this zone change. I recently saw a video that
used the apple as an analogy for describing our planet. If the apple was sliced into four
pieces, three pieces would represent the earth's bodies of water. One piece would
represent land. If the remaining piece was sliced in half, again, one piece would
represent the land on earth that is inhospitable for farming. That leaves one-eighth of the
apple representing land that is used to live on and to grow food. Three-quarters of the
remaining one-eighth of the apple would represent soils too poor to produce food or land
covered by city's roads and buildings. The remaining piece, one-fourth of the one-eighth
of the apple represents the portion of the earth whose food can grow. The peel of that
piece represents the thin layer of earth that is used for the production of food. Every year
the U.S. loses over a million acres of farm land and we are rapidly losing land suitable for
growing food. More than 75 percent of American fruit, vegetables and dairy products are
produced on urban -edged fanns that are threatened by sprawling development.
I lived in Honolulu for '3 years and saw what happened to Honolulu, and decided to
move to the Big Island. Here on the Big Island, the future of agriculture is also at risk.
What has motivated us to move in this direction'? Profit. Now, there's nothing wrong in
profit. What has made America as great as it is today is because ofthe profit motive.
But, today, we ask, at what price? Some argue that it helps to pay the taxes needed for
running the government. However, recent study made it clear that the cost of government
to provide community services for residential uses is $1.15 for every dollar of taxes
collected. On the other hand, the cost of services to rural farming areas is 36 cents for
every dollar collected in taxes. Promoting small family farming as a sustainable lifestyle
6
can develop and enhance our community. Therefore, I urge you not to approve the
change of zoning of this property under discussion. Thank you.
GALDONES: I hank you, Mr. Marantz. Commissioners, any questions of
Mr. Marantz? Hearing none, sir
MARTIN: My name is Stephen Martin. I'm a 30 -year resident of Kona and I
have a coffee farm makai of this proposed development. Before I speak, I'd like to have
something clarified. I don't understand what the one -acre family zoning or the one -acre
family ag land is. Is that anew category, I mean, compared to Ag -3? I believe it's public
knowledge that anything less than three acres is not really an ag farm. I don't understand
that classification.
YUEN 'I he main difference between the zoning that's requested and the
zoning now, under the zoning now, you can subdivide to three -acre lots. Under the
zoning requested, you can subdivide to one -acre lots. As far as the term "Family
Agriculture," that was a new tern in the 1996 Zoning Code.
MARTIN: That was a new tern?
YUEN: Y es. So, and the County of Hawaii in the agricultural district, if
the land is, if the landowner wants to rezone it to make lots less than five acres in size,
they have to go to this Family Agriculture term.
MARTIN: But it's not a commercial, considered a commercial ag lot when
it's classified Family Ag. I'm trying to, the Family I-Ags that I see like Kona Hills,
which are pretty much gated, upper end, is that what we're talking about? This is a gated
one -acre affluent subdivision, if I can use that term?
YUEN: I think that's the goal of the subdivider to sell the lots for whatever
they can get for them; and that would probably translate to being an expensive lot. One
of our proposed conditions, though, is that the County could take over the main connector
roads at no charge at some time if the County requested that in the future, as far as the
gating of it.
Maybe, while I have you, can I just ask you what is your tax map key so that we can get
an idea of where you live. Do you know?
MARTIN: I might have that information but I don't have it myself, somebody
else might have it. Tax map key is, we're just directly makai of this project; and I don't
have the tax map key.
I have a couple of objections to this. One is calling it Family Ag. I think that's a
misnomer. I think it's a gated affluent subdivision, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Again, I agree with Clint here that the proper motive is what we're talking about. If I was
a developer, I would be trying to rezone any property I had for the highest density.
However, it is zoned Ag -3 and, as Clint said, we're losing a lot of ag land. Everybody
that's here in Kona knows that we're constantly being urbanized, ag land is being
urbanized. So, I have a problem with doing that. 1 have a small farm, there are small
farms around me, macadamia nut farms, coffee farms, that type of thing and I'd like to
see the area stay the same.
Since the developer bought the property zoned Ag -3, I don't think it's unreasonable to
request that it stays Ag -3. And in between, actually, I think green belts and ag land in
between the gated subdivision is a nice compromise.
But my biggest concern with the subdivision, besides talking about Kohanaiki Road,
which is the access of that, that's a big concern of mine, is the traffic. 1 don't know
where you folks live and sluff but if you use Palani Road, I would request all of you to
use it between 7 and 9 in the morning and 3 and 5 in the afternoon. It's totally
unreasonable. It's unsafe, the intersection at Hinalani. Which would bring another point,
if the developer was to put in a signal there, I would be more susceptive to this. But it is
just a life and death situation as it stands now. And I'd like to show you a couple of
poster boards just to give you a visual, I think, of what I'm talking about as far as traffic
goes, if that's acceptable.
This is not professional graphics here, this is just me sitting home doing this. This is the
existing subdivision, each number represents three acres and with 53 acres you can get 16
3 -acre lots out of this. These two blocks indicate infrastructure roads and that type of
thing. If each one of these three acres has one house, these two lines represent, that's two
cars per house. That's 32 cars that's going to be up on Palani Road. If they have a
second house, an ohana or farm dwelling, then we can add this to it, another 32, which
makes 64 cars. And then these five cars represents service, just cable and that type thing.
So we have a potential of existing now with 70 cars per day going out on Palani Road.
There's another subdivision jList south of Creative Day School. And I believe its, I don't
know how many lots are there and I don't know how big they are:, but it's 15 to I8 lots.
So, again, using the same math, you've got two cars, you got another 30-40 cars there,
add those 30-40 cars. And that subdivision is already in, the roads are in, that has been
approve and stuff. So with this existing and that subdivision, you've got over 100 cars
per day on Palani. And I believe it's public knowledge that Palani is 30 years outdated
from the amount of traffic that's there. So this is the existing subdivision.
If this subdivision is granted here, again, you got 52 acres, forty I -acre lots, and this
represents five acres of infrastructure. One, two, three, four, five lines here is one house.
You figure two cars per house, that's 94 cars; and then with the service vehicles, that's
100 cars per day coming, out of there.
t haven't read the CC&R's of this subdivision so I don't if they permit farm dwellings or
ohana. If they do put a farm dwelling or ohana in Kona, we call those rentals, then that
adds another 100 cars per day. So you have a potential of 200 cars on Palani Road.
8
Now, again, if you drive this road, that is just insane. You can't even make a left-hand
tum off Hinalani now with the existing traffic. If the CC&R's say, like Makalei Estates,
that you can't do an ohana or a farm dwelling, what the standard procedure here is in
affluent houses, the houses are raised up, the renter goes below the house; and on the
plans, it always says rec room or whatever, rec room with a wet bar. You go by there, six
months later and stuff, and it is a mother-in-law unit or rental with a kitchen and a
bathroom.
So now this is kind of Mickey Mouse, I give you that; but you see the kind of numbers
that were talking about. And to be fair with the community who have to drive these
roads every day, and I'm talking about working people that have to be at work on time, it
is an incredible imposition to do that to the community.
So we know that development is not going to stop, we're not trying to stop this
development. We're trying to get a win-win situation for everybody that's not just on
Kohanaiki Road but the community at -large. And it would seem to me that if they stayed
with their present zoning of Ag -3, that would help alleviate the traffic. We're still going
to get a 100 cars no matter what, which is incredible, but that wouldn't be as bad as this
many. It would keep the land in ag land which is what the farmers are asking for, and it
would also be, in my opinion, a step in the right direction for the Planning Commission,
too, for future development. We're not going to get the infrastructure. We keep talking
about infrastructure. It hasn't happened for 30 years and it's not going to happen if the
State's bankrupt. We don't have the money for these roads. So there has to be a
compromise between development and the existing community; and I think just the
traffic alone should weigh heavily in your decision whether to permit this place to be
rezoned or not. And that's it.
GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Commissioners, any question of
Mr. Martin? Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM: I might just pass a question relating to what he said to Jeff. I
noticed on the Background Report, the County Department of Public Works just refers to
the State Department of Transportation as being responsible for Mamalahoa Highway;
and we didn't get any response from the State Department of Transportation. So we
don't have anything direct to deal with his concern about that traffic, yes?
DARROW: That's correct, Commissioner. We had, we had formally
requested, you know, comments for this project; and they said that it was on the way. So,
hopefully, we'll be getting it soon.
MARTIN: Before this project is approved or not approved, who, again, I'm
just educating me, who is responsible for something like the traffic flow and the signal?
Are these, is this information, do you folks get that information before you make a
decision? Or, again, from a citizen's standpoint, it really doesn't matter who does the
infrastructure, whether it's the developer, the County or if it's partnership between the
9
two'? But not to get any of it, where is that coming, where does the infrastructure
question come in'?
GRAfIAM: Probably, we'll let the Planning Director respond to that more
easily.
YUEN: W e like to, we've been having a problem getting recommendations
from the State Department of Transportation in time for these hearings. So we have a
generic condition that says that you'll improve the intersection to their standards which,
as the consultant said, will probably be a channelized intersection for this project.
MARTIN: Channelized means a left-hand turn?
YUEN: Yes, for this project, so there would be a good intersection that
would handle this project. It would not improve the situation on Palani. That's a longer
term and something beyond what we would expect an individual developer to do.
MARTIN: So there's no contingent plan to work with the County on future -i
Basically, what I am asking if it is rezoning, we get the traffic, it's just like all the rest of
the project, we just, that's the people that use that road every day, that's just what they
have to accept'?
YUEN: It is a difficult situation. The County is much more actively
building roads in Kona but not Palani at the moment. Right now the County has the Alii
Parkway project which is underway but, and which is by far the largest road project the
County has ever done. But Palani, although on the books, is farther back. I haven't seen
any real improvements to Palani.
MARTIN: So it's safe to say that with this development, this is only one
development, like the Creative Day School is another one, that we're really not going to
get, no matter what is done in this meeting, we're not going to get any traffic relief in the
foreseeable future, except for a left-hand tum lane?
YUEN: I can't promise anything on Palani, no.
MARTIN: Any more questions?
GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin.
MARTIN: Mahalo.
GALDONES: Okay.
PERINO: Thank you for letting me address you this morning. My name is
Judith Perino. I am Steve and Clint's neighbor. We are directly below the bottom end of
10
this project on Kohanaiki Road. My address is 73-4492 Kohanaiki, and I've been here
for 27 years.
Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge my complete agreement with the comments made by
Steve and Clint this morning to oppose the rezoning of this 53 -acre parcel that we're
referrine to as Flualalai Vistas.
Most of us who make North Kona our homes specifically chose this area because of its
rural ambience within close proximity to schools, services and employment opportunities.
Those ofus who specifically reside along Kohanaiki Road have brought in the electrical
power, the County water. maintained and paved our only access road, at our own
expense, because the County has always claimed that the road was "only on paper" and
not really theirs, or the State's, or anybody's responsibility. Never mind that there are
30 -plus homes or small farms along the last quarter mile of Kohanaiki alone.
Collectively, we provided these services for our homes, at our own expense, so that we
could maintain with reasonable comfort the quality of rural life that the Kohanaiki area
affords us all.
Obviously, the use of land affects us all and the only thing liked less than urban sprawl is
density! North Kona does not need 47 more "McMansions" and hardscapes. We need
homes for working families. We do not want farmland churned into subdivisions, or the
landscape degraded by visual and environmental pollution, such as street lights and more
pavement.
I strongly urge the Commission to reject this request of zoning changed to Ag -1.
The build -out on 47 one -acre lots, the infrastructure, street lights, the noise and air
pollution will be going on for years and years to come and completely destroy the quality
of life that the residents adjacent to this proposed development now enjoy. In the
process, one of the few remaining Ag green belts makai of Mamalahoa Highway will be
lost forever.
According to the "Role and Duties" heading of the Planning Department Annual Report,
as stated on the Hawaii County website, "The Planning Department is to develop
comprehensive long-range plans to guide future growth in a manner that balances public
and private rights." I respectfully ask this Commission to adhere to this policy by
keeping the designation i'or the Hualalai Vistas subdivision Ag -3. Thank you very much.
GALDONES: Thank you, Ms. Perino. Commissioners, any questions of
Ms. Perino? Thank you. Sir? We have two other testifiers, Frank Goodale and Gary
Stirling.
STIRLING: My name is Gary Stirling
11
GALDONES: Could you use the mike, please, Mr. Stirling. Thank you. Could
you state your name and your residence address?
STIRLING: Gary Stirling. I live in Kohanaiki in the subdivision, Lot 53 is the
lot that I'm on. Most of the issues that I want to bring up have already been discussed.
So I'll just go over some of the things that I'm most concerned with; and the traffic is
probably the worst. I arrived here in '74. For many years I never really cared. It seemed
like the whole system here was politically corrupt and everything ran out of Hilo and
nobody really cared about Kona. Plus, it didn't bother me. But in the last couple of years
the lifestyle was changed so dramatically here. It seems like planning, there's no
planning, so it seems like. So it .seems like it's irresponsible for the Commission to go
ahead and grant this when there's not, the traffic on Palani, as Steve mentioned, is
terrible. That intersection is dangerous. I've witnessed accidents myself. I'd be lucky
enough not to be killed on that place. My wife has been in an accident, I see accidents
every week there, it's totally out of control. And to add, all these more traffic without
first fixing the traffic problem is irresponsible of everybody here on this board. You
know, when we get the traffic fixed, fine, let them have one -acre lots. I still don't like,
I'd rather have the three acres and preserve ag land every chance and opportunity we get.
If it does go to one acres, so be it But it's irresponsible without fixing the traffic
problem first to go ahead and grant this permission knowing that it's going to even,
somebody will end up dead from your decision right here.
Right now, if you go out there, all the semi -trucks going back -and -forth, that's the main
artery coming down. There's an intersection where they go up-and-down, Hinalani or go
down Palani. The traffic is terrible, it's terrible everywhere. But it doesn't make any
sense to go ahead and grant more traffic that's going to, it's going to hit, somebody is
going to die because of this. So just out of responsible planning instead of no planning -.
If it goes to one acres, fine, but it shouldn't be allowed until the traffic problem has been
addressed and somebody is going to take care of this, the traffic first. It's not right to go
ahead and do this and say, okay, well, sometime, you know, after ten people die, we'll get
a signal up there to prevent this. You know, you guys are the Planning Commission, you
know, like you have to plan ahead. Doesn't seem like anybody has been planning ahead
here for anything forever. I don't know whether, you know, show of hands, probably
everybody here is from I filo and don't really care what's going on `cause you're not in
the traffic. I go to Hilo and now they got great roads in Hilo. I don't want to live there
though, I want to live here. I'd like to have great roads here just like you guys have in the
Hilo side. But it's irresponsible to go ahead and grant this without first addressing the
problem with the traffic. That's all I've got to say.
GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Stirling. Just for your information, Mr. Stirling,
we're not all from Hilo. We're throughout this island. We represent different districts.
STIRLING: Okay.
GALDONES: Commissioners, any question of Mr. Stirling? Commissioner
Kubota`?
12
KUBOTA: Mr. Stirling, I hate to be categorized as an irresponsible
Commissioner. 1 grant you that the traffic problem that you mentioned on Palani, all the
Commissioners here have been, as far as we've been sitting on the Commission, been
aware of it. And we have consciously asked our departments to look into it and bring
update to improvements, but heretofore nothing has come about. Now, l would like to
have our Planning Director respond to Mr. Stirling's characterization of the planning as
well as the Commissioners' responsibilities. Short of putting a moratorium on all further
developments, I don't know how else we can do that; and I don't want it to be on my
shoulders entirely.
GALDONES: Nlr. Yuen"
YUEN: Sure. This is really an overall question on the island and not just in
this particular location. My question is if you keep this area and they develop it at 3 -acre
lots, then what happens" If we want to look at the ultimate big picture, there's no
ultimate control on the number of people who moved to the island or the number of
people who moved to Kona. Simply, there are still vacant properties for people to move
to. And the question is where they're going to move to. If you have an actual, if you
actually have a moratorium on the creation of new building sites, the law of supply and
demand means that the building sites that presently exist will be bid up in price. And
what will then happen is that there's a ripple effect and the people who don't have money
have to move farther and farther away from the places that they work. For example, and,
ultimately, the ultimate place for people to live becomes Ocean View and they drive
maybe 40 miles to where they work instead of 10 miles to where they work.
Now this proposed subdivision, I will not make any pretenses, is by no means an
affordable housing subdivision. It's, there'll be Level 1, three of the lots will be more
expensive than the one -acre lots that they propose to make; but there'll still not be
anything that people would consider affordable.
But we really don't have, we don't have a situation or the luxury of saying that simply by
not creating more building sites we have fewer people or we have less traffic. The
control that we have in planning is primarily over where people go and not the ultimate
level of development on this side of the island.
Getting to the more specific issues, the only, 1 have a question how much a moratorium
on rezoning in the Kalaoa area, the area along Mamalahoa above Palani, would change
the traffic situation on Palani. There are a lot of people that use Palani and a lot of
people, a lot of it's a cross -island traffic, a lot of its people coming, a lot of it is people
using Palani as an artery. rather than just people coming into subdivisions on the road.
Certainly, Palani needs improvement.
I think we circulated to the Commission about a year -and -a -half ago a list of road
projects in Kailua-Kona that included improvements to Palani. The major improvement,
the actual, the biggest problem with Palani is it has got bad alignment. Ultimately, it has
13
got to be realigned. That's a huge project and that is not funded. There are small projects
that the County is moving toward on Palani, including realignment of the Kealakaa
intersection where there's a, near where there's a pedestrian bridge and the traffic goes
into the school. But as lar as there being a major project on Palani, no, that's not funded
and not in the cards.
GALDONES: Commmissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: So we're back at where we started. There's no solution and, yet, as
you said, there's no control by placing a moratorium on further changes. It would not
alleviate the problems on Palani is what you're saying; and this project certainly adds to
it but is something that has got to be done. Is that what you're saying?
YUEN: That's a lot of it. Let me talk about some other big picture issues.
You have to, you can't look at these things, I mean, really, you have to look at the big
picture and not an isolation. There is no question in my mind that the overall level of
growth and development is a major threat to the quality of life on the island. That's,
there are changes that were made in the proposed, in the County General Plan, in
reducing the ultimate density along certain coastal locations, oceanfront locations. Some
of the resort changes that I proposed in the General Plan that, are meant to address that,
one of the drivers of road, of the overall growth on the island. I mean, you have to start
at, you have to start where at, if you're talking about this problem, one of the things that
creates a problem is the economic driver of some of this growth. And so by changing
some of these sites to residential sites rather than resort sites, that is meant to deal with
some of these issues.
The second thing that we need to do is to have places that people can live in that are
closer to where they work so they don't commute, so they don't have to commute as far.
We, both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission have supported a
number of rezonings in the immediate Kailua-Kona area to much higher densities for
condominium zonings that will hopefully provide places for people to live near where
they live so they don't live in Hcaiokaa and drive to Kona, over 40 miles of road, and
come down Palani to get to where they work or use other long stretches of highway.
The County needs to get more active in the affordable housing realm. The County has
270 acres of land in Waikoloa that were granted to it to develop affordable housing. That
has been inactive for about 10 years. We are letting out a request for proposals to update
a Master Plan to try to sec whether we can get affordable housing put into that area,
because it is a logical area for people to live and work in the South Kohala resorts. By
trying to get this started, again, we're trying to get people to, we're trying to get the
places where people can live closer to their work so that they don't have to commute over
the inadequate road network that we have on the island.
So these are some of the big picture things that we're trying to do. It's not going to be
just a matter of fixing roads. I attended a session, you have to have land use planning that
lets, again, that let's, that creates a land use pattern where people don't have to commute
14
as much, where they're closer to where they work or closer to where, or closer to where
they shop, or allow shopping to be closer to their homes.
I attended a lecture sometime ago by the head of planning for the. National Association of
Governors and he said something a little scary. Ile says once you have traffic congestion
you always have it, and you never build your way out of it. We do have to do some
building and we do have to do some improvements because of safety concerns, and
there's just no way, and it's extremely expensive. We've fallen behind in Kona and to
catch up, it's unfortunately if you look at the cost of things, the cost of Alii Parkway for
roughly three miles is something like S40 million. It's extremely expensive to do this.
And we're going to be catching up for awhile. But you must not, you're not just going to
build your way out of it by building better roads. We have to do these things in
improving the land use pattern to make this, to try to fix this problem. But it's not a
problem that is created or fixed on a level of a single subdivision.
GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: My final, my final statement. So, in other words, after your
explanation, and don't think I do not understand that long-range planning and looking at
the big picture is very, very important, as you pointed out. However, we have this
problem on Palani Street that has been haunting us for years. Do we, as Commissioners,
go on with business as usual because the changes aren't, road fixing is not the primary
thing that is going to change the congestion or the danger on the road? Or, the next
question that I have is, is it physically, financially possible to fix Palani Road to ease the
congestion? Is there a plan in somebody's mind within our State, whether it'd be County
or Department of Transportation, to put more mauka-makai arterials in Kona to alleviate
the problem at Palani? I mean, yeah, I don't know the answers to it. I mean, we've been
chasing a pipe's dream, I think. Because I've been on this Commission now for 4-1/2
years and the problem has been Palani. And they keep, as Mr. Stirling said, and I
sympathize with the people in the community, because it always comes up. Every time
we have development in Kona, it affects Palani. Palani is the road that is highlighted in
my mind and it will be forever until such time as some relief is brought to the people
here. And I don't know what to do is, I guess, where I'm coming from.
YUEN: Some specifics -. I don't like to pass the buck but the Hinalani-
Mamalahoa intersection is State and I don't know what they're planning. Okay, Palani is
County. One thing we should do as a Department or Commission is not have additional,
we should not rezone to allow more lots that enter off of Palani. That's important. And it
sounds very automatic but there was a rezoning about four years ago that, asjust that, just
below the "S" curve.
As far as another mauka-makai, it's in the County's plans. We have, there's a developer
that, it's something that is, would be, have to be in conjunction with a truly major
development; and even then it's quite unlikely that the developer can carry it on their
own. But when we have developers come in with major pieces of property between
Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa, this is something that we're working, on.
15
GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions or any further comments'?
MARTIN: Pd like to -.
GALDONES: Mr. Martin, before I allow you to do that again, I have another
speaker who has not spoken yet. Mr. Goodale?
GOODALE: My name is Frank Goodale. I live at 73-4503 Kohanaiki Road,
approximately three lots away from the proposed subdivision. Given the nature of the
discussion here -. And I have submitted my full comments to you folks in written form
there, so you have those and you can look through those. I'll address them out of order
since the topic is veered towards the last of my comments.
First, and in addressing the issue ofthe overall road structure up in there and its ability to
continue to support subdivisions of properties up in this area, I appreciate Florence
Kubota's concerns on Palani and the concerns expressed by other people here. I think
what we're seeing right now is that concern is now extending beyond Palani and does get
up into the State intersection at Hinalani. In fact, that is becoming an intersection and the
defining point of the triangle for accessing the entire Kona commercial areas. And what
we're seeing is is the traffic, making that critical decision of where to go at that
intersection currently.
And what seems to be broken in here, and I don't think it's anybody's here fault because
you're not charged and I keep on hearing people defer to we're waiting for what the State
is going to do. That process is what's broken. We can't wait for what the State thinks is
best for us. You, the Planning Director, we the County, we the people here at this table
need to take it upon ourselves to determine what is best for this area. We cannot continue
to defer on this issue.
And we need lots, we need these lots, we need a lot of lots in here because the prices
have gone up, 60 percent in the last two years. Building lots are no longer affordable or
potentially even findable in the Kona area for local people who need to build houses. We
need those lots, we need them desperately. However, we cannot continue to produce
them if we do not have the infiastructure there to produce them.
It was suggested by someone here that we're going to need to be getting into affordable
housing in this area. I would counter that, specifically, stay out of affordable housing,
work on the roads. We need the roads, we need the infrastructure. The private developer
will take care of those houses. They certainly have in Hilo where you have gone ahead
and put in a sufficient number of roadways in improvement of infrastructure. It has kept
the property values lower there, and then private developer has been able to go in there and
provide housing at reasonable cost to the local citizens. We wish the same to happen
here in Kona.
16
To get to a few of my other concerns on this, I note on a technical nature the mailing and
the application cites this as a request to zone to FA -2A, not FA -1 A. I presume that's a
technicality that was in the heading that was sent us to us, since the rest of it seems to be
addressed to FA -1 A. I don't know what that does technically to the whole place, but that
should be addressed appropriately.
The local arca where we reside is a very fire -prone area; and one of the things that the
residents are requesting for that area is fire hydrants to be part of this. We were
precluded many years ago from having adequate water supplies when the Kona Heavens
subdivision, as approved, as implemented, failed to have the alignment addressed
adequately and did not line up with the existing road infrastructure. It appears to be a
case similar to what had happened with Henry Street. Somebodyjust goofed and we
were left without County water_ The County water we have stretches through private
lines over miles of land, private and public. We need water down there and we need it
for tire. That's a very dangerous area. We all watched as the fires went roaring down
below, prayed that the Fire Department and the dozers got in front of it, which they did.
If it had gone a little bit further, it the breezes had been worse, we would have had a
major loss of property up in there. We need fire hydrants along that road. Kona Hills,
which had built a rock wall across the end of this road, precludes now the Fire
Department from using the fire hydrants in Kona Hills, their fire hydrants to come into
our area. So one of the things that we are requesting is that, that you ask the developer to
provide fire hydrants on Kohanaiki Road, both fronting the property and on the major
intersection that runs mauka-makai, so that they can drag hoses down the hill to the most
critical areas where it's needed to fight fire in that area.
Kohanaiki Road right now exists, Kohanaiki Road right now has a sign in front of it. On
it, that says, "End of County Road," is precisely what it says. And so I presume that the
road that you're asking to access is not a County road. Is that correct?
GALDONES: Mr. Yuen?
YUEN: Where is the end?
GOODALE: The sign is about, I'd say, probably about a third of a mile from the
top of Kohanaiki Road. It's not, it's actually on the upper section above Hamiha and that
is where the sign is. And every time we have gone in to ask for cooperation in there, and
when people, by your actions have people, have come through with other subdivision
proposals, you have always deferred to the State as the controlling authority on this
roadway_ I believe those are matters on record.
YUEN: This is probably a good time, and for the Commissioners as well,
we all talked about roads in limbo, we've heard of roads in limbo, let me define a road in
limbo. A road in limbo is a government road that the State and County both deny
responsibility for or jurisdiction for. And I start by saying it's a road, it's a government
road, it's a road that is clearly a government road. There are roads that we're not sure
whether they're private or government, but there are also many roads that are definitely
17
government roads, including roads in old territorial homesteads. It's my understanding
that the Kohanaiki Road is a government road. Over the years the County and State have
disputed the responsibility for the roads in limbo. It's my belief that the roads in limbo
that, unfortunately, that the way the laws work is that they are County responsibility. The
County is developing a program to try to take care of these roads. It's a major, major
responsibility because there are hundreds of miles of these roads and most of them are
extremely substandard and don't even have an adequate right-of-way to be improved. So
that's a major problem. But, you know, this is a long answer to your question but since
the Commission talked about or heard about roads in limbo a lot, I thought it was a
decent time to talk about this and explain this.
GOODALE: Does that mean that they will remove the "End of Comity Road"
sign on that road and begin to maintain that or is it going to continue to be the end of
County road?
YUEN: There are two issues here. One is, is the County, ultimately, is it
under the County's jurisdiction? And the answer to that is going to be yes. And the
second question, what is the County going to do about maintaining the roads? I can't say
that the result of this is going to he the County is going to maintain, actively maintain,
more roads than it currently does. As to whether the sign like that will be removed, I
can't really comment on that.
GOODALE: The sign denotes its ownership and you're saying that you do, at
this point, claim ownership but not responsibility for maintaining'? Is that what you're
saying?
YIJEN: These roads are under, it's my view that these roads are under
County jurisdiction. Whether, that does not mean that the County has to actively
maintain all roads that arc under its jurisdiction. These include outright paper roads.
GOODALE: Okay, so that sign you would say would be incorrect to be there
because it disclaims ownership o I that road, or -?
YUEN: And 1 haven't studied the area specifically. But if this road is, as I
think it is, a homestead road, a government road, then the road would be under County
jurisdiction.
GOODALE: Okay. Thank you. The road that exists there, to continue on, I
wanted to clarify that, first, the road as it exists there is a very narrow road, it's a one -lane
road. It's a road that we commonly have to back up when we pass another car, and there
are pull-outs on this road. There are steep grades in some areas on both sides of the road
and there is a fairly high density in a certain, in certain areas of that road of, say, 15,000
square foot lots. In different sections, it does not lend itself to a through way. We did
have a significant problem a while back before Kona Hills put the rock wall across the
roadway with motorcycles and cars transiting that, and that has since ceased. We're
pleased with that and we "d like it to remain that way; and we'd like to prevent that from
18
happening again in the future. Not only is the roadway narrow, it is also winding and the
visibility is exceptionally limited. Therefore, we would ask and require that, for Out-
support,
ursupport, is that all access to this road be permanently prohibited from this subdivision if it
were ever to be zoned to Ag -1. It simply cannot support that and it would require taking
of land, condemnation, to be able to make it support that. We would suggest that the
subdivision be only required to have its access at the top, that it'd be prohibited from
accessing the lower road in there.
I also have one other comment in regards to and that I have addressed in my letter to you,
and that is in regards to the infrastructure developments on the local area and the impact.
I do believe that is the responsibi lity of the County, the light that should be up at Hinalaui
should be the responsibility of the County. Now it maybe you can con the State into
paying for it, that's fine with me. But it's your planning, it's your, it's the way you want
to see that community develop. You know that there have been two deaths within the last
year at that intersection and there will be more, not to mention the frequent accidents on a
regular occurrence in there.
And I believe that's pretty much all I have to say here. I appreciate your coming to Kona
to address these concerns that we have and I hope we can work through something on
this. Thank you.
GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Goodale. Commissioners, any questions of
Mr. Goodale? Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Yeah, just a couple of comments and questions. The Department
of Water Supply has requested that fire hydrants be put in every 600 feet in the
subdivision. I would assume that does not include Kohanaiki Road, but perhaps
something could be put lairly close.
But I see somewhat of a, you were asking that the subdivision put in fire hydrants for
your use on Kohanaiki Road. At the same time, it seems like you're asking them not to
use Kohanaiki Road, which seems somewhat unfair.
GOODALE: I would say that the use of fire hydrants is for the community's
benefit, including the subdivision's benefit. Fires travel over area, they get started in one
place and they transit elsewhere. It's for the protection of everyone in this area that we're
asking for this. It may also be that if the County feels somewhat responsible in cutting us
off from water in the first place that they should also contribute. I would have no
objection to that as well.
GALDONES: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: I have a question for the staff. Top of Hinalaui Road, isn't that a
State highway or the County -?
HAYASHI: Hinalani Road, this is the road you're referring to, correct?
19
FUJIKAWA: Correct.
HAYASH I: That is a County road.
FUJIKAWA: Okay, now, on top, on the highway, is that a State -?
HAYASH 1: This portion here'?
FUJIKAWA: Yes.
HAYASHI: That is the State highway, Highway 190.
FUJIKAWA: Okay, so that's the intersection that the people are referring to, I
believe.
GOODALF: Correct.
FUJIKAWA: So that's a State issue there.
GOODALE: I would agree that, now I hear you're saying that it is, again,
referring to a State issue like it doesn't concern us. It does concern us. We are the
planning area, people for this area. The State doesn't know anything about this area and
the danger.
FUJIKAWA: This is why I was trying to say that we have to communicate with
the State.
GOODALE: Correct.
FUJIKAWA: Okay, that's our road tying into the State and we need the State's
assistance to, up above there.
GOODALE: Correct. I'd also point out that a light in that particular area would
cause a platooning effect that would be beneficial not only for that intersection but also
for another very dangerous noted intersection, the one at Palani and to Holualoa. And it
would make that intersection easier to transit as well, not to mention the platooning effect
that it would have all the way up to the Koloko intersection, which is also a problem
intersection where deaths have occurred.
GALDONES: Mr. Yuen?
YUEN`: I just want to try to understand the water situation. Where do you
get your water, where do your waterlines come from?
20
GOODALE: A good many of our waterlines come from the Mamalahoa
Highway down the mauka-makai road.
YUEN: Down that Church of God Road, all those -?
GOODALE: Down the Church of God Road. Another good -.
YUEN: There's about 20 spaghetti lines going down there.
GOODALE: Yes, and there's another batch of them that cross over other private
land and the mis-aligned section of, I believe it's Manu Mele, as it enters into that area;
and there's a bunch of spaghetti 1 ines going out of there as well. But my major concern
here is for danger in this area, coining up here; and that's the primary reason I would ask
that -. We all have water right now. We have water, it's not that much of an issue there.
However, the fire danger down there is substantial and we've all come up with these
make -shift things and pay the County and the Water Department sometimes twice to
move water meters to closer local ions, to better locations; but it is serious problem down
there.
YUEN: In looking at the map of the subdivision, it seems to me that it
might be a possibility that the subdivision would have to take water, a waterline all the
way down to Kohanaiki Road, essentially, to serve the subdivision, and that might be a
way of replacing the spaghetti lines that go up to Mamalahoa. It would require
construction of a waterline along Kohanaiki Road to serve the people there. I don't know
if that's a, of interest or people are satisfied with their present situation; but that would
look like a possibility at least.
GOODALE: I would presume that there would be people who would be
interested and there's still properties that have not been built on down there. I can't
speak for people individually, but I would presume that most people would be interested
in seeing or would avail themselves if the opportunity presents it. Again, I think the
primary thing, though, is fire and the ability to have fire hydrants on that road,
particularly being able to get down on the mauka-makai road and down to the bottom of
that road with fire lines to fight at what would be coming up from the lower hills.
YUEN: How do fire trucks get down there now'?
GOODALE: If we trim the trees, they can get down there. The road is paved
now. We have expended a considerable sum of money, personally, to pave that lower
section of the road. It is not an incredible pavement job, but it meets our needs. If traffic
were to be allowed on it, it would deteriorate quickly. And we would feel the need to be
compensated for that if, in fact, even tractors coming down can damage that road quite
easily.
YUEN: You're talking about the fire trucks that come down that Church of
God Road?
21
GOODALE: No, they would come down Kohanaiki Road itself But near the
Church of God Road, the intersection where the two intersects, going down further which
has also been paved now as well by us, that area in there is right in the middle of a pretty
good, well -vegetated area. And that's one of our more dangerous or vulnerable areas,
right down in that area.
YUEN: That's all I have. Thank you.
GOODALE: I believe that borders maybe, what is it, the TSA -.
PERINO: Used to be Y.O. Corporation.
GOODALE: The Y.O. property, I believe. Y.O., or the TSA, can't remember,
property.
YUEN: Y.O. is immediately makai of this property.
GOODALE: Right, the Y.O. property. Correct.
GALDONES: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: I have a question. Is it proper, can I invite Councilman Tyler to the
stand on this issue? This is his district and I'm pretty sure he has all the answers.
GALDONES: I would like to hope he does, it'll make it easier for all of us as
Commissioners. Mr. Fujikawa, I have two other speakers who have signed up, so in due,
in all due respect to them, I'd like to have them heard first before Mr. Tyler comes up to
speak. Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Yes, Mr. Goodale's concem for fire is appreciated. I'm just
wondering, staff, have we received any response from the Fire Department on their
agency reports? I don't seem to have any -.
DARROW: Yes, we do. I'll get that to you.
KUBOTA: Oh, have we received something'?
DARROW: Yes, it was my fault for not making comments, I mean, copies and
get them out. I'll get them to you.
KUBOTA: Okay, thanks.
GALDONES: .teff, would you have any copies that you could circulate for the
Commissioners to review?
22
DARRO W : Sure.
GALDONES: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions of
Mr. Goodale? Okay, Mr. Martin, I understand you wanted to speak again. If you have
something new that you would like to add, I would allow you the liberty of speaking, but
I would appreciate it if you could keep it short because I have two other speakers.
MARTIN: Sure. I just wanted to just say mahalo to Florence and Chris and
the rest of you guys, just for acknowledging the frustration that we're going through done
on Kohanaiki. And we keep kicking around these ideas of who's responsible, State,
County. It seems to me that we have to make a compromise here. We have to
compromise if we're not going to get the roads, and we're not going to. I think that's
pretty much understood. You can't keep high density development. It would just seem
to me the compromise would be the Ag -3 would compensate the farmers, the community,
as welt as the developer. The developer has every right to make a reasonable profit off
this project. But the original deal was the three acre -thing, and I don't think people are
complaining about that. We know development is going to continue. So if we're not
going to get the infrastructure, it just seems to me common sense would just say that we
have to kind of temper the development that's going to go on in that area, or else we just
keep digging this hole which Florence eloquently related that we've been dealing with
this for years, and she's been 4-I/2 years on the Commission. It has been way, it has
been decades we've been talking this, but we still haven't done anything `cause nobody is
responsible. So, again, it seems to me a compromise would be a way to placate everyone.
Thank you.
GALDONES: Thank you for your comments. I'd also like to make note that you
have the privilege of having nine Commissioners, which is very seldom that we have all
nine Commissioners together at the same table at the same time.
GOODALE: Yeah, we appreciate that.
PERINO: We appreviate that.
GALDONES: So, thank you. Okay, gentleman and ma'am. If you would step
back, I have two other speakers who have signed up. Mikahala Roy and Lunakahawai
Haunaio.
KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting, may I use this time to discuss
the report from the Fire Department. It's just a standard response that we got from the
Fire Department that did not raise any red flags as far as extreme danger of fire, as raised
by the speaker this morning.
GALDONES: Have the Commissioners received the report?
23
KI BOTA: Well, it A as just passed to-. We did not receive it in our mailing.
However, there is no red flag raised by the Department of, the Fire Department as such to
the dangers of fire. Thank you.
GALDONES: So noted. Is there any further questions or discussion on the report
from the Fire Department? Okay. Thank you. Could you raise your right hand, please'?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this subject matter now before the Hawaii
County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: Ido.
GALDONES: Ms. Roy, would you like to begin? State your name and your
residence address, and you may begin your testimony. Thank you.
ROY: Thank you. Aloha kako. Good morning, Members of the Planning
Commission, Chairman Galdones, Planning Director Mr. Yuen. Members of the
Commission, good morning. My name is Makahala Roy, I reside at present at Keei Uka.
My address is P.O. Box 2388, Kcalakekua.
I'd like to thank the residents that came forward to speak today because I, in alignment
with much of their testimony, am against this application for the rezoning of this area to
one acre ag lots.
May I speak on the element of the effects of planning toward the cultural and identity
aspect of Hawaii Island. These are areas that had been known traditionally for the
agricultural value and I, as a resident, would like to see this continue as much as possible.
I also thank Mr. Yuen for speaking on the obligation of the County to provide affordable
housing. I would make every recommendation or encourage the County's continuation
of acquiring properties and looking at building in means that make way the purchasing,
for example, of properties such as we're talking about.
As a steady participant in planning for roads in Kona, I've long been in support of
kupuna testimony that have called for the development of more arterial roads. And, so, I
do here say that that is very important and what I advocate, and that in the planning of
road processes for Kona's future, that we take that seriously into account before
approving large changes like this development would do and accomplish. I thank
Mrs. Kubota for her comments; and I appreciate all of your taking into consideration this
aspect that she speaks of, because it is a burden to endure deaths on roads here. And this
is why in my heavy participation in the planning for North Kona, exactly the project for
Alii Highway, proposed Alii Highway, etc., we've long advocated more arterial roads,
and to please cease the approval for more building of high-cost housing here. Just cease
doing that is the plea from the people and this is my plea today as a resident of Kona.
Thank you.
24
GALDONES: Ms. Roy, you mentioned that you were involved in the community
activity regarding the traffic problems and the roads. To what success have you folks
accomplished anything?
ROY: `A'e participated actively with the Planning Department, Mr. Roy
Takemoto's efforts, to have meetings in the community. Another gentleman from Oahu
that headed the planning for the entire Kona, long-term regional planning, we've
participated in these. We've also supported the efforts of historian, Kepa Malley, as he
has done oral histories. My father has provided, been one of the providers of history of
these lands and how these very lands are affected by rains, for example, the flooding
aspect, so that building, high density building is something that needs to be seriously,
seriously considered. And in many ways right now, the activity of the uplands are not
being safeguarded and protected enough. So may I also say that roads like Mamalahoa
are we, Hilo, may go ofl on a bit of a tangent here. The areas of Hilo enjoy the meaning
of their ahupua`a. I believe that has been recommended for Kona to the County and I
think we're going to loot: forward to that, but we don't at this time have namings of each
ahupua`a. These are absolutely essential as we go forward, but what's also essential is
the protecting of the lands themselves. They need to save agriculture, they need to
protect the natural steadv flow or cadence with nature of Kona. In the planning process,
we need to bring forward more residents who are life -time residents, such as myself and
others from Kona; and I'm very glad that there's representation on this Commission from
people of lands who understand what I'm saying. Did I answer the question, Chairman?
GALDONES: In a round -about way. What I'm trying to drive at because the
concern that was raised by Commissioner Kubota is also shared by the rest of the
Commissioners that we are placed, the Commissioners are placed in that situation of
trying to balance the infrastructure with the development; and we have been discussing
this many times in our meetings about the traffic problem. And I was just wondering if
you folks, in working with Mr. Takemoto, if you folks have had some sense of direction
or some kind of plan in addressing the traffic problem that we, ourselves, here have been
addressing. If you folks have not, then I guess the Commissioners will have to look
elsewhere to find how we can address that situation.
ROY: We look forward to more work with this County. We cannot, we
can't stop working with the County. I can't because this is important to plan. And right
now there's not enough success. I'll tell you truthfully, there's not enough success that I
can tell you that some of these things have measurably been remedied or promised to be.
GALDONES: Thank you for your participation in the community.
Commissioners, any question of Ms. Roy? Otherwise, Mr. Hauanio?
HAUANIO: Aloha, Commissioners. My name is Lunakanawai Hauanio from
down the Hilo side. My father is from over here, Kalaoa. His name is Elena
Kaumakakau ekai okekoa. He's from the Palakiko o Kaumakakau ekai okekoa ohana.
Hey, Sgt. Mina, he was my kind Sargeant, aloha, Brah. I hate that guy. He used to give
25
me rash. I still feel `em on my back. But I actually love the guy. He when train me good
cause I -. Well, I still trying for learn how for polish my shoes, but that's okay.
There are several things that the Commissioners should take into consideration about the
domino effect, okay. Today in our community we have this thing called MADD, that's
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, okay. They have an acronym, M -A -D -D. MADD, okay.
They waive signs,"Say No To Drunk Driving," okay. Then we got this other group, they
have, this group, community group is called Community Response to Ice. Their acronym
is "C -R -I," it's CRI, yeah. And they waive signs say "No Hope In Dope," yeah. Okay,
so maybe the community ought to think about on Palani Road, about this organization,
maybe you guys should develop what's called "No Other Lives Lost." NOLL, okay?
Cause what happened in the MADD circumstance, and we got some attorneys inside here
and they probably know what I talking about, but, okay, this mother, her baby when get
make in one car accident, okay. end what they when do, they when, found out, oh, the
driver, the one when caused the accident, when kill the baby, he was drinking at this bar,
okay, and before he was at that bar he was drinking in this other bar, okay. Before he
was at that bar, he was at another bar, okay. They call it domino effect, yeah. Okay, so,
bear with me, okay. When people vote for Governor, for government people, now the
government people they take on this thing call trust, yeah. The trust kind of like say, hey,
you know what, I trust you, you guys going make the right decision to protect our lives.
Shoots, right on. Okay, we get, what I was talking earlier about two lives died on Palani
Road. Okay, domino effect, okay. See the developer, we the people, tell the government,
okay, you got notice now, you got two lives lost on that road. So NOLL says
government, wait, but before I ask, before I say that part, I need for clarification by the
Planning Director. Can with all of the information in front of the Commissioners, just
one question, can the Commission say no to an applicant'?
YUEN: This is a rezoning the County Council has the final say. The
Commission can recommend denial. There are applications where the Commission can
actually deny it and, on its own.
HAUANIO: Okay. Malialo. So, now, going back to the bar situation, yeah,
bruddah when drink. Okay, they when sue, yeah, the wahine sue, `cause she's mad, kill
my baby, hey, you know what everybody knew. Okay, everybody had notice, hey, you
let `um drink and you let `em drive, they when kill somebody. Okay? So, now, the
government know, this is the government, we know people going say, hey, notice, will
they cause any more deaths on Palani Road. Okay. All the developers now are on notice,
too, they're like the bars. Okay? We all telling `em, hey, you like develop, shoot,
bmddah, but I tell you what, you go develop that property and we find that car link up to
your development, bntddah, we suing you. We suing, you know, just like lawsuit, all the
State people get sued, all the County people get sued, everybody get sued. That's what
the wahine did, mad, sue everybody, okay. To avoid all like that sue job, you know,
maybe the Commissioners, you guys should just say, "No," just like we saying, "No on
dope," no on the kind, what you call, "No on Drugs." Hey, maybe "No on
Development," easy. County try, Bruddah.
26
Okay, 1 went on the intemet about this traffic stuff. Hey, they got this thing called
monorail or what you call that, they build `em above the highways. Okay? So if you go
build the houses, hey, right on, but no make garage, everybody walk. See, you got
everybody walk to catch the monorail and go where they like. No make garage, yeah,
cause that way -, make CC&Rs no get cars. Hey, solution. Okay? I know I no need
come up here to try and grumble But one solution is that, really, you guys also do this,
why don't you guys approve `em, okay, approve that project and say, you know what,
you guys go talk to your financiers, whatever, we the County or we are the people, we
say we approve `em, but you guys start building, you guys going build when all of our
infrastructures are in. You know, when the road problem pan, the sewage problem pan,
the water problem pan, the fire problem pan, all the infrastructures, we going approve.
Hey, you know what, put in your application we approve `em all, but it's all subject until
all of our infrastructures are in. How's that idea, you guys? Okay, mahalo.
GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Hauanio. Commissioners, any question of
Mr. Hauanio? Ms. Roy, Mr. Hauanio, thank you very much.
Are there anybody else in the public who wish to testify -. Oh, I'm sorry, I have one
more testifier. Mr. Tyler. Sorry, Mr. Tyler, your name was here, but I had overlooked
that.
TYLER: I'm easy to forget, sir.
GALDONES: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this subject matter now
before the County Planning Commission?
TYLER: I do.
GALDONES: Mr. Tyler, state your name and your residence address and you
may begin your testimony.
TYLER: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Hawaii County Planning
Commission, Planning Director Yuen, good morning, my name is Curtis Tyler. I live at
73-4325 Laka Place in Kalaoa, or Kala`oa as some people know it.
I arrived without the benefit of hearing the testimony, the public testimony, except for the
last two testifiers. I apologize for being late. I didn't realize you were going to take this
item out of order. I had some other County Council business to attend to, so I don't have
the benefit of that testimony. I do have the benefit of hearing more of the Commissioners
as I was walking in suggesting that I had all the answers and you better call me up. And I
want to hasten to say that I don't know anybody who has all the answers, and I do not. I
appreciate the compliment but I don't -.
So I may begin by asking, first of all, if any the Commissioners had some questions or,
Mr. Chairman, if you would like me to just make a brief statement, I will; and then they
can ask me questions.
27
CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Councilman Tyler, I think one of the big issues was on Palani
Road. Can you address the present or the future of Palani Road?
TYLER: Thank you, Commissioner Fujikawa. I wish I could give you a
definitive answer. I am happy to report that there's a survey crew out there this morning,
and there was one yesterday afternoon when I came home. I believe that the County is
moving forward with my long -requested public safety improvements. It has been
standing in the CTP since 1997, previous administration took no action. Current
administration, as I think I previously reported, has set aside approximately $2 million to
do safety, road safety improvements on Palani which, as we all know, are much needed.
At my suggestion and a suggestion of an engineer who was working on a nearby project,
we were suggesting that the intersection of Kealakaa and Palani be realigned to align with
Paliholo Street, which is the northern -most entry and exit into the Queen Liliuokalani
Village. I think as everybody knows, the overpass, the supports for the overpass are so
narrow, or so close together, that you couldn't widen the street enough to make for the
left -tum pocket lanes that would be necessary to make that effective. So, it was
suggested that, you know, we tried to not only remedy the dangerous situation at
Kealakaa but also at Paliholo, which causes traffic to back up because of the left turns in
and out of there in the morning and afternoon. So that's one of the areas that the
Department of Public Works is looking at.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with the consultants after requesting for many,
actually, years to talk to somebody about the ideas that the community had with respect
to improving it. And there are a number of areas, I think, which won't be of high cost to
assist. But I agree with those who indicated that Palani is a real hazardous road. It's a, as
you've heard me say before on numerous occasions, it's a road that was constructed for
horses and cattle and now as a major arterial road without much of an upgrade. And I
would suggest that the Commission request information from the Department of Public
Works regarding that project because that's where it is. And, unfortunately, based on
information I've been getting, the $2 million is, seems to be mostly earmarked for
improvements to that intersection, mostly in terms of a traffic signal enhancement and
relocation, realignment of it. Seems traffic signals are getting more expensive these days
as we read about the ones out on the Queen K and Waikoloa area.
I have been and continue to be appalled at the amount of money that this would be
costing, because there are so many other things that need to be done. But perhaps it
would be necessary in next year's budget to augment the CIP funding for Palani Road.
One of the problems, Commissioner Fujikawa and members of the Commission, is that
the right-of-way is very narrow. And as I think everybody knows some of the homes
along there are very old homes, people that have lived here all their lives; and I think it
would, we really need to find an alternative route. And Kealakehe Parkway extension
mauka up at least to Kealakaa, if not to the planned Palani Road mauka intersection with
Highway 180, which is the Mamalahoa Highway to Honalo, is really needed. I see the
STIP meetings are being held in Fast Hawaii. I hope some of you who live over there
will go over to Keaau, to Hilo, in the meetings coming up and please talk to them about
including the Kealakehe Parkway project on the STIP list. It used to be there, it's no
longer there. And I hope that they'll have meetings in Kona, 1 understand next month
they might. So, that's my long answer to a short question. Big problem.
GALDONES: Mr. Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Yeah, the other concern was the top of Hinalani Road on the
highway. That's a State highway. What's happening on the tie-in? Is there going to be a
intersection light, street light?
TYLER: At Hinalani and -?
FUJIKAWA: The very top?
TYLER: At Mamalahoa, Highway 190, I haven't heard anything of that
kind. It's a substandard intersection especially as it relates to the left-tuming lane makai.
I've heard nothing of any discussion of a traffic signal there. I'm hoping the next traffic
signal that goes into Kona will be at Kaloko Drive and Marnalahoa Highway, which is
Kaloko mauka. You folks have talked about that.
FUJIKAWA: Right.
TYLER: I'm not aware of any signal there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there are no other questions, I'd just like to say, for the
record, that Mr. Mooers and Mr. Clever had met with me on at least one or two occasions
regarding their proposal, this has been quite sometime ago. My concern always has been
with respect to the Kalaoa area, Greater Kalaoa area, some are calling it, that mauka area,
is that there be given serious consideration and attention to interconnectivity of roadways.
Sounds to me like you may have heard some testimony regarding that this morning. I
heard the tail end of one testifier talking about Kohanaiki Road.
One of the difficulties we have in this area is the fact that there are no County standard
roadways from the properties to the south, except for the Church of God Road, which is
not a County standard road. The Church of God Roadway has been disclaimed by this
County for years. For the County to call this a road in limbo, and they won't maintain it,
and it's not a County road, is outrageous beyond any, any sensible belief, and I'm trying
to be conservative in my comments here. Mr. McClure has indicated that when the
department brought forth a resolution trying to resolve some of these road in limbo
situations, that he believes that the residents ought to get together and upgrade the roads
at their own expense, and then the County will take them over. Mr. Torigoe may have
some information on this, I think he may be somewhat familiar. The problem is that the
people of the Church of ( rod, that use the Church of God Road have already paid
thousands of dollars to pave a County -owned road, which the County refuses to maintain.
29
So, anyway, and, furthermore, that intersection at, with Mamalahoa, Highway 190, which
is a State-owned road, is a substandard, very poor sight distance roadway. Already we've
had some deaths there, that mother who died and left orphan children. Very dangerous.
So I talked to Mr. Mooers and Mr. Clever about finding a way, in conjunction with this
project, to link the roadways together. There's a, let's see, one, two, three, four, four lots
to the north which have an entry, it's a private road, entry onto Highway 190; and there
arc all the Kohanaiki Homestead lots, plus some makai, that currently use the Church of
God Road. Both of these, although the latter has the worst, both of these don't have great
sight distance. It appears to me in my, you know, non-technical, I'm not an engineer,
view of this, driving by there at least a couple times every day, that you should link these
roadways together and have them come up through one intersection instead of having
three intersections within a short distance of one another, when cars are going at such
high speeds. And so I pursued this with Mr. Mooers and Mr. Clever. The intervening
parcel, the Ag -3a parcel right immediately to the south is, would be, we would need to
get access over there in order to connect to the Church of God Road to link up these.
And my understanding is that after many months of searching, this individual has finally
been found overseas in Europe. I haven't have a chance to talk to the person but perhaps
Mr. Mooers or Mr. Clever has, to see about doing this. I note that the Department of
Public Works, in looking at that most mauka or eastern stubout, wants it to be further
makai, but that's what that stubout would do.
The other concern that I had was with respect to the Kohanaiki Road, which the County
claims the State owns part of, and I don't believe the State owns any of it. I think it's
now under the jurisdiction of the County. And for those of you who have driven on that
road -. My recollection is that Alanui may have at one time gone all the way to Kiholo.
And t believe, with some exception, one could actually go on through that and you would
end up to all the way to Kiholo through Huehue. I see Commissioner Springer nodding
her head and she would know if anybody knew. I've walked, more than most, 12 miles
of it, unfortunately, uphill; that day was a very hot day. But, in any case, as your maps
show, it appears to intersect into the, to Kona Hills; and actually when you go down
there and look at it, the grade difference is quite different. As I think everybody knows,
Kona Hills is right now a private road subdivision which is gated. The proposal before
you today is to have this gated. I can imagine that some members of the community
probably came forward suggesting, as has the Department of Public Works, that these
roads be inter -connected and be public roads. Certainly that would assist with public
safety and access; and the whole concept, as I'm sure the Planning Director and certainly
the Subdivision Code, calls for inter -connectivity of subdivisions.
I was not here, as I said, to hear what the Applicant said. But there's no question in my
mind, ladies and gentlemen, that this area is going to be, is under and will continue to be
under great pressure for urbanization, urban pressure, because the demand is exceeding
the supply. You've heard this, I'm sure, many times from people who have come before
you. You'll be hearing it at every meeting you have from now on, I'm sure. It's
desirable to live in this arca, it's an elevation that's cool. It's, one of my concerns when
30
you're looking at urbanization of areas that have been fonnerly in ag lands is what is the
proximity to the place of work, how much additional infrastructure is going to need to be
built to avoid urban sprawl? And to the extent that the Applicant is in a position to assist
the County and, therefore, the taxpayers in providing for this, I think we should make
every effort to do that. Phe County has said in the past that it does not build new roads;
and the first new road in 35 years is Puainako Extension. I guess the next one's going to
be the Kahului -Keauhou Parkway Road. And, so, we know that the County is not in a
position to continually build collector streets, arterials, and most arterials fall to the State.
Nevertheless, I think the Chapter 33 requirements, that is the Subdivision Code
requirements for inter -connectivity, continue to be thwarted. I'm not suggesting these
folks are thwarting it. But as you look around you'll find that there is grade separation,
literally difference between Alii Villas and and Kahakai. The roads come in like this.
And so why did we even go through that exercise? And, yet, at the other end into
Kuakini Makai, they put a drainage basin right where the road is supposed to connect for
an emergency entry and exit. And, you, yourselves, issued the SMA permit with that
requirement. Yet, if you took there, you'll find a drainage basin and a drywell. So, and
there may be some kind of contingencies, I'm unaware of it, that necessitated that.
But, like you, it is also my obligation to, as a public servant, to try to do all we can to
bring, if development is going to happen and it is going to happen, that we should do the
best we can to support those that are already in the community in a way that's positive.
And that is what I have tried to do with every single applicant that has come to me; and
I've done that, in this particular case, with them. I haven't heard their comments with
respect to or the Director's comments with respect to what the Department of Public
Works said. But, in any case, I think each of us owes it to all of the people that we serve
to insure that traffic, public health, safety and traffic, especially in that area, is mitigated
to the best extent we cau. And I -. Kohanaiki, the connection to Kohanaiki that's shown
on this map would be a great connection. But Kohanaiki, at that end, is so bad, it's in
such bad shape you real I need a 4 -wheel drive to go there. And so I don't know what
the residents down there who live in that proximity, I saw at least two of them here this
morning, what they said to you abort that connection and fire safety, etc., etc. But you
need to keep that in mind, as I will when this comes to us. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak to you this morning, sir.
GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Commissioners, any further questions of
Mr. Tyler? Thank you eery much.
TYLER: Thank you, sir.
GALDONES: Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER: I don't have a question for Mr. Tyler but I wonder before we return
to the Applicant's presentation, if you could refresh my memory on the previous approval
in this vicinity, the one that we made last month, and the traffic requirements. And I
31
understand from both Mr. Mooers and Mr. Tyler's comments there's some negotiation
that's ongoing with the owner of that intermediate parcel, so -.
GALDONES: Mr. Yuen"
YUEN: The conditions were to improve one or the other intersections -. I
don't remember the exact details but they were, it was going to be quite difficult for that
applicant to go ahead and do that under the conditions that we had. So their hope was to
piggy -back on the present rezoning and come out at this improved intersection that this
rezoning would accomplish.
GALDONES: Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER: But there's still a parcel of property that separates the two
applications?
GALDONES: That's right. That's the gentleman in Germany that Mr. Mooers
was referring to.
SPRINGER: Thank you.
GALDONES: Mr. Mooers?
MOOERS: Yes, I'd like to respond to some of the comments from the
Commission and from the public. First, there were some references made to the
agricultural nature of the land and not wanting to lose the agricultural potential of the
land. And I'd simply point out that the Land Study Bureau classification for this land is
mostly E, which is very poor, and part of it is D, which is poor.
I would call attention to page 2 of the Planning Department's Recommendation, item 3,
which says and I quote: "The conversion from three acre to one acre lots will not sacrifice
important agricultural resources. Almost all of the property is classified as `B" by the
Land Study Bureau, the lowest rating. (A very small portion in the southeast corner is
classified as "D".) Rainfall is marginal. A primary objection to the rezoning of
agricultural land to smaller lot sizes is that it may fragment the land into parcels too small
to be farmed commercially. This does not apply in this situation: neither the three acre
lots possible under present zoning nor the proposed one acre lots would appear to be
viable units for commercial farming in this area."
There was a representation made with some graphics regarding additional units being
created by lots, especially ohana units and mother-in-law quarters, etc. I would simply
remind the Commission that the County Council has been uniform in the application of a
condition that prevents any ohana, well, presently there's no ohana in the ag district
anyway, but no second dwellings, no additional dwellings, in the new subdivisions that
they approved.
32
There was some concern raised about possible mother-in-law units. I think the present
planning, the prior administration has pretty well sealed that off, by now asking for the
Department of Water Supply to comment on all of these permits for ohana or extra units;
and the fact that there are no additional water units available would preclude the fact that
you could have that additional dwelling. So I don't believe that the dwellings beyond the
proposed zoning would be allowed.
There were several efforts and comments made about poor planning and that the plaiming
should be carried out at this level, and the applicant certainly agrees with that. Any
application before this board and also before the Council has to address institutional
considerations. In effect, what do the County plans or the State plans have to say about
the property, which is in question. It's very consistent if you look at my application,
starting with pages 4, 5, 6, 7. It refers to various plans related to this area, the General
Plan, the County Zoning Code, K -to -K Plan. The proposed development is actually less
dense, less dense than what is being proposed by all of these government plans. I don't
think it's fair to characterize this development as a high density development. It's a
much lower density than has, than other rezonings below Mamalahoa Highway. Clearly,
the plans from the State and the County both indicate that the lands makai of Mamalahoa
Highway, from Keahole Airport to Kailua, are in the urban area, when, should be
urbanized; and that is the projected use of these properties. So I think that the proposed
application and the proposed dcN elopment is consistent with proper planning for this
area. Clearly, the Applicant is concerned about the infrastructure deficiencies as
everyone else in this room is.
The Applicant is attempting to resolve the issue that was raised by Councilman Tyler
regarding the unsafe intersections by allowing connections to properties to the north and
the south to utilize a common intersection. And this would be of benefit to the
community and for those people who use those intersections.
In addition, t would point out when we talk about impacts to regional roadway systems
and water systems, etc., is that the Council also will apply an impact -related fee. That
impact -related fee, depending upon what the Honolulu Consumer Price Index is at the
time, in this case would be over $350,000, which is not a small sum. And I think it is not
the Applicant's option to determine how that money is spent, whether it'd be spent on a
signal at Hinalani and Mamalahoa Highway, or on fire improvements, whatever. But
there are considerable sums that are generated. So I think that the proposed action does
provide an opportunity there. I think that's about all I have for responses, and we'll
entertain any questions the Commissioners will have.
GALDONES: Commissioners, are there any further questions of Mr. Mooers?
Commissioner Springer"
SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Mooers. I'm just thinking strategically.
Sometimes you come in for a rezoning that includes also the Land Use Commission
designation of rural. I'm wondering why that strategy was not employed here`?
33
MOOERS: That was one of the options we looked at. Initially, this property
was owned by the same individual who did Kona Hills, Phase 1 and Phase 2, and so that
was the intent, was to keep the one -acre size to be consistent with those dwellings. Also
because of the grade in the area, once you start getting much smaller than one acre, then
you start getting into a lot of engineering turfs in building walls and that sort of thing, and
it loses its effectiveness, the cost effectiveness. So that's why we would like just to stay
at this level.
SPRINGER: Thank you.
MOOERS: And one other thing is that the availability of water also is a
determining factor. There were only 47 units of water available for this project.
SPRINGER: Thank you.
GALDONES: Commissioners, any further question? Thank you, Mr. Mooers.
Commissioners, we'll be heading into decision-making. But we have been sitting here
for a couple of hours now, so, while you folks will clear your minds, I will be calling a
short recess, if there's no objection, before we go into decision-making. Okay. Chair
calls for a five-minute recess.
RECESSED The Chair called for a recess at 11:13 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:21 a.m.
GALDONES: The Hawaii County Planning Commission is now back in order.
Commissioners, you have heard testimony regarding the application of Hualalai Vistas,
LLC. Commissioners, before we go into decision-making, considering the testimonies
that have been presented to the Commissioners and the concerns that they have raised, I
would like to have our Counsel, Mr. Torigoe, give us or inform us what the options are in
dealing with this subject matter.
TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I refer you to your Planning
Commission Rule 11-3(b), in Subsection 2, which says, "Within ninety (90) days after
receipt of the application from the Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the
applicant, the Commission shall transmit the proposed change of zone ordinance together
with its recommendations thereon through the Mayor to the Council. The Commission
shall recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or rejection
of such application. In the event that the Commission fails to act on the application
within the ninety -day period, the application shall be considered an unfavorable
recommendation by the Commission, and the application shall be transmitted through the
Mayor to the Council with such recommendation."
GALDONES: Mr. Torigoe, does that also give the Commissioners the option to
have a continuance on this subject matter pending more information?
34
TORIGOE: The matter can be continued. But as I noted, there's a 90 -day
action timeframe, unless there is an agreement by the applicant to extend that timeframe
GALDONES: Jcff, do you know when that 90 days would be? Is it from today?
DARROW: Looking at the application, it was deemed complete on May 20`'',
so I think we're well under the 90 days.
GALDONES: Il we have a continuance, will we be back in Kona before the,
before August 20`', before the 90 days are over?
HAYASHI: I he next Kona meeting is September I It".
GALDONES: Thank you. Commissioners, any question of Mr. Torigoe? Okay,
Commissioners, the recommendation from the staff is that this be given a favorable
recommendation and forwarded to the County Council. However, there are some other
amendments that we need to consider. Jeff?
DARROW: Thank you, Chairman. ht consultation with the Department of
Public Works and the Planning Director, they'd like to make a minor amendment to
Condition G, sentence No. 2. It reads as follows: "The subdivision roads shall have at
least one connection to the north to the adjoining subdivision, and a connection to the
south that will allow access from properties on that side." They'd like to make a minor
amendment to read as follows: "The subdivision roads shall have at least one connection
to the properties to the north to the adjoining properties and at least one connection to the
south that will allow access from the properties on that side, meeting with the approval of
the Department of Public Works." So we are adding the words "properties to the
adjoining subdivision" and we are adding "at least one" where it says "and a connection
to the south," and then we're also adding in "meeting with the approval of the
Department of Public W orks."
GALDONES: Jeff, is that the only amendment that you have?
DARROW: Yes.
GALDONES: Jeff, it was stated by Mr. Goodale that some or maybe one of the
publications had a typo possibly on it. It read A -2a. So can you make a note if that
appears that it should have been A -3a, I believe it was. Because it was being changed
from 3a to I a, yeah? So 2 should not be appearing. So if that could also be taken care of
DARROW: Okay. Do you have a page number that this is -?
GALDONES: Mr. Mooers?
35
MOOFRS: I think the 2a that Mr. Goodale was referring to was in my initial
notice to, the first mailing on the notice to neighbors, the title said A -3a to FA -2a, even
though in the document itself it referred to one acre. In the second mailing, that was
corrected to one acre. But that error was on my mailing to the neighbors, not in the
notification from the department_
GALDONES: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, having heard the amendments
and also having heard the ruling that was read by Mr. Torigoe, what is the wishes of the
Commissioners? I understand we have been discussing this traffic problem for quite
sometime now and we have been receiving a lot of public testimony in regards to
addressing that problem; and we are putting quite a dilemma in trying to mitigate the
improvements along with providing necessary infrastructure. And 1 believe some of you
feel some discomfort in moving forward with this application because of that; and the
Chair feels, the Chair feels the same sentiment that you folks have regarding the
testimony that was presented regarding the traffic problem, especially out in this area.
Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: I'm trying to figure how to say how I feel. I'm in a dilemma this
morning. And it's not because o f this application, and it's not because of the traffic
problem per se because we've discussed this many, many, many times. But I'm troubled
because as we approve these applications that are perfectly sound and legitimate, we
continue to compound the negative effects that now prevails on the infrastructure. And 1
feel as though, although we know the powers to be, other than setting a moratorium on all
further developments along that highway or, and that's not what I want to do either. I
don't want to have a moratorium on further developments until such time as the
infrastructure is brought up to par because I know that is not my philosophy. And, yet, if
we don't start somewhere, somehow, and make our voices heard loudly enough, we're
going to continue to perpetuate the hardships on the people that have to live around it.
And so how do I play the role of a responsible Commissioner catering to and
acknowledging that the developer is entitled to do what he wants to do because the
criteria for changing of the zone is met fully and, yet, at the same time saying, "Gee, I
don't want you to do it because you're creating a hardship on the infrastructure that exists
and the people that, the citizenry that live, that need to use it are being jeopardized. And
we can't postpone this because if we postpone, it's not solving the situation. We don't
have time for it anyway. So, in its stead, are there any people that want to say something,
because I'm going to make a motion otherwise.
GALDONES: Further discussions'? Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER: I have some comments to make whether or not they're before or
after the motion. At your pleasure, Mr. Chair?
GALDONES: We're on discussion right now, Commissioner Springer.
SPRINGER: A moratorium or voting in denial of the application as if we were
placing a moratorium on an application such as this might not solve the problem as it is
36
today but it would reduce compounding the problem. Each application that we approve,
based on the merits of that single application may appear harmless in and of itself but
may have a cumulative effect, which I think that is what Commissioner Kubota has been
discussing with us, both at this time and previously in the meeting. The solution certainly
doesn't rest on a single subdivision or rezoning, approving or denial, but in the aggregate,
it does. That's my comment.
GALDONES: Further comments from the Commissioners`? Then the Chair
would like to recommend, considering the discussion that is ongoing and the points that
were brought out, that I would recommend to the Commissioners that an unfavorable
recommendation be forward to the County Council; and the reasons stated would be
going into the record that, the comments that was made by Commissioner Kubota. And
it's not necessarily that we are entirely against it but the dilemma that we are faced with
is quite troublesome. Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman, that was not my motion. That is not the motion that
1 intended, as surprising as it may sound to you. I feel that the Applicant and the
application is a valid application in and of itself. Our staff did studies on it. Their Facts
and Findings support that. The only hitch is the traffic problem. I would like to instead
say in gist -. I would like to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council.
Because they're the final authority on this, we're not. We're just intermediary, we're just
making a recommendation to them. But we should highlight in red, red, red, red signals
the difficulty that we're lacing at this level because of the mitigating factors that are
involved, mainly traffic. That's the gist that I wanted to send up to the Council-
GALDONES: In not so many words, would you like to incorporate that into a
motion?
KUBOTA: Yes, I would. I move that the Change of Zone Application,
REZ 03-013, be sent to the County Council with a favorable recommendation, along with
the Findings and the Recommendations submitted to us by our Planning Director, along
with a correction on recommendation G, as in George, as stated by staff. Oh, along with,
another along with, a P.S. to the County Council that they look at, they seriously look at
the traffic, I guess it's called the problem, dilemma, that the future approval of the,
approvals will cause on this particular problem. I don't know if I said it correctly but
that's what I mean.
FUJIKAWA: I second.
GALDONES: Okay, it has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded
by Commissioner Fujikawa that Change of Zone Application, REZ 03-013, be given a
favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone and be forwarded to the County
Council, along with the Findings and the Recommendations and the amendments to
item G, Condition Item G, and, also, with a note that the County Council seriously look
at the traffic problem out in this area. Are there any further discussions? Commissioner
Springer?
37
SPRINGER: Mr. Chair and fellow Commissioners, we know that, on occasion, I
have voted in favor of applications with reservations; and those reservations were based
on traffic conditions in the area for which the application is situated, in particular I'm
thinking of those along the Queen Kaahumanu Extension. But given the complexity of
the traffic circumstances in this section between Kaiminani and Kealakaa, I'll be voting
against this.
GALDONES: So noted. Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: On Commissioner Kubota's recommendation to the County
Council, do we have to highlight the areas of problems on the streets'?
GALDONES: No, I guess we don't have to. I guess, we can do whatever we
want here. But it's part of the motion that that subject matter be given a serious
consideration because it's a subject matter that continually is brought up by the public for
us to consider in approving any improvements out in that area that taxes the traffic
infrastructure that we already have taxed here.
FUJIKAWA: Maybe being that Commissioner Kubota made a motion, maybe
she would like to highlight the areas of the problems, what street, Palani Road, etc.
GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota, do you wish to amend your motion?
KUBOTA: It's not my intent to do that, Mr. Chairman. My intent is just to
call attention to the Council people of whom we have the representative here that the
traffic problem is a major concern and that hereafter we ought to really, really look at it.
And because this is a Change of Zone that goes to the Council for a final say, I am
sending it off to them to deliberate. In the future, when we have our own decision-
making, I think we ought to seriously look at it ourselves; and based on the reports that
come in, we ought to decide accordingly. But in this particular case, I think enough has
been said.
GALDONES: Commissioner Fujikawa, are you satisfied?
FUJIKAWA: I am.
GALDONES: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner
Graham?
GRAHAM: I'd just like to make a comment. Everybody has listened to a lot
here so it's probably not of too much consequence what I say so much as how I vote. But
I would like to at least share my feelings so that, I'm also the newest one here on this
group. I will take issue with the Planning Department from time -to -time and in today's
agenda there are items where I do wish to take some issue with the Planning Department.
In the present situation, I feel like, as Commissioner Springer said, the traffic problem is
38
a sufficient problem to justify denying this application. On the other hand, I feel like the
Planning Department and the Planning Department Chairman here knows this area a lot
better than me and has been made very clearly where, by you folks, what the issues are.
And I don't think the Planning Department is bringing a different perspective than the
perspective I feel. So based on their much greater knowledge of the specifics and sharing
the same concern, I'm reluctant to challenge the Planning Department's recommendation
without having either a different philosophy or different information. On the other hand,
I also feel like, you know, Ms. Kubota, I have no doubt of Ms. Kubota's sincerity in her
concern. But I do feel like that addendum to the positive recommendation is more of a
window dressing than doing anything. So I feel like there's a little pass -the -buck to that,
so that sort of doesn't assuage my concerns. I guess that's about all I've got to say, but I
just want to share my feelings on this with you folks.
GALDONES: Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Yeah, I'm obviously very troubled about this, also. I mean, 1 think
that this, I think there are some, you know, the traffic problem is a major issue here. But,
at the same time, I think the developer and the Planning Department have worked
together, I think, fairly well on trying to alleviate not necessarily, I mean, they can't do
anything about Palam Road, but as far as feeder roads and trying to help other people in
the area, I think they've been very cooperative. I'm probably going to be voting, I will be
voting in favor of this recommendation; but we really need to figure out some way to get
Palam Road fixed up. I don't really feel it's our, you know, our j urisdiction to do so. But
to the extent that anybody, everybody here in this room can do something to work on this,
I think that we, you know, we personally need to.
GALDONES: Thank you. Commissioners, any further discussion? There being
none, Jeff?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Ave.
DARROW: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM: Ave.
DARROW: Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Mina?
39
MINA:
Ave.
DARROW:
Commissioner Smith?
SMITH:
No.
DARROW:
Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:
No.
DARROW:
Commissioner Thibadeau?
THIBADEAU:
Ave.
DARROW:
And Chairman Galdones?
GALDONES:
Ave.
DARROW:
Mr. Chairman, the ayes have seven, the noes have two.
GALDONES:
Thank you, ,Teff. Mr. Mooers, you will be informed in writing of
today's action.
The discussion ended at 11:46 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
40