HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0848.000 2002-2004Harry Kim
Mayor
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740
(808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663
October 19, 2004
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 04-022)
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
Tax Map Key: 7-5-9:portion 54 & 67
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-008)
Request: Agricultural to Rural
Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-020)
Request: A -5a to RA -2a
Applicant: Arthur & Diane Maher
Tax Map Key: 6-2-11:9
Dixie Kaetsu
Managing Director
Peter L. Hendricks
Deputy Managing Director
r-�
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures
regarding the above -referenced requests.
Sincerely,
FHarry Kim
Mayor
L100104may
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
t3lx.0 367) Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider Comm. No.$V
Ref. To:
Rcf. � NOV a 2004
Harry Kim
Mayor
October 19, 2004
County of Hawaii
PLANNING COMMISSION
101 Pauahi Street, Suits 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043
(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street '
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022) `O
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC =
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
Tax Map Key: 7-5-9:portion 54 & 67
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on October 1, 2004, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification
from a Resort Hotel 1,250 square foot (V-1.25) and an Agricultural 1 -acre (A -la) district to a
Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) district for approximately 6.2 acres of
land. The property is located along the south side of Hualalai Road, approximately 1,100 feet
from the Hualalai Road-Kuakini Highway intersection, Hienaloli 6`h and Auhaukeae 1 s`, 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 a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square
foot (V-1.25) and an Agricultural 1 -acre (A -la) district to a Multiple Family Residential —
2,500 -square foot (RM -2.5) district for approximately 6.2 acres of land. The project will
consist of ninety-two (92) 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units, which will consist of
twenty-three (23) 2 -story, fourplex structures and related improvements. The cost of
these improvements is estimated to exceed $20 million dollars.
The proposed request from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an
Agricultural (A-1 a) to Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square feet per unit (RM -2.5)
zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the Housing
and Land Use (Multiple Residential) Elements of the General Plan.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only
through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions
can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the
General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and
decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the
County. The proposed request conforms to the following goals, policies and standards of
the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General Plan:
HOUSING
• Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of
Hawaii.
• Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of
the County.
• Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice.
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people.
• Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock.
• Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the
County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of
families and individuals.
• Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital
status, ethnic background and income.
The applicant will be providing 92 additional housing units to the West Hawaii housing
inventory. This will provide relief to the lack of housing in the Kona area.
LAND USE — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for
its occupants.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
• To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical,
social and economic needs of the islands residents.
• Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple
residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to
places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural
facilities, and public facilities and utilities.
• Areas shall be located in such a manner that traffic generated by high density
development will not be required to travel through areas of lesser density en route
to principal community facilities.
• Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools,
employment centers, and other services.
The proposed development will provide 92 housing units that are located within walking
distance to Kailua-Kona. This will allow residents access to their jobs, shopping areas
and recreational areas without having to travel long distances. It will provide great
convenience for these residents.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General
Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated
growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical
relationship among the various land uses. The requested zone change from an
Agricultural (A-Ia) to a Multiple Family Residential (RM -2.5) zoned district conforms to
the LUPAG Map, which designates the property as Medium Density Urban. The Medium
Density Urban classification allows for village and neighborhood commercial uses and
residential and related functions not to exceed a density of 35 units per acre. This request
is to allow a condominium complex with a density of 92 units on an approximate 6.2 -acre
parcel. The original approved plan was for an 80 -unit condominium project on the 2.38 -
acre parcel (parcel 67). The applicant is adding 3.89 acres to the project area and is only
increasing the development by 12 units to 92 units. This will decrease the original
density by more than half of the original project.
The area under consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this
section of the North Kona District as depicted on the LUPAG Map. Therefore, it is
determined that the request conforms to the General Plan and is consistent with the
General Plan LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
The property is situated within close proximity to the employment center of
Kailua-Kona. The subject reclassification is for land located in close proximity to the
urban/retail/employment center of Kailua-Kona. Therefore, the reclassification conforms
with the General Plan which encourages urban developments in close proximity to
existing developments and to existing services and facilities.
The requested change of zone is also generally consistent with regional and
community planning documents that prescribe the County's land use policies for this
portion of North Kona. The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, adopted by County Council
Resolution in 1996, recommends the project site for Commercial/Residential Mixed Use.
The proposed request would be consistent with the Plan.
The subject property is situated within the project area identified as the Kailua
Village Special District. The applicant will submit the application for review and
recommendation by the Kailua Village Design Commission subsequent to or in
conjunction with the submittal of this application, but prior to the Plan Approval process.
All utilities and services are available to the site. Access to the project area is by
Hualalai Road, a County -maintained roadway with a pavement width of 20-22 feet,
within an approximate 50 -foot wide right-of-way. The site is serviced by County water.
A water commitment for 100 units is already in place. The applicant intends to connect
to the County's sewer line. Electrical, telephone and cable services are available to the
site. Police, fire and emergency facilities are within five (5) miles of the property.
The subject request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes,
relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The property is not situated within the
Special Management Area. It is located approximately'/4 of a mile from the nearest
coastline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. 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. Thus, the proposed request and use
of the property will not adversely impact those resources.
The proposed request from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an
Agricultural (A -la) to Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square feet per unit (RM -2.5)
zoned district will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary
Hawaiian Rights.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
Investigation of valued resources: The applicant has presented the following
information for the Planning Commission and the County Council to determine the
valued cultural, historical, and natural resources within the area sought for rezoning:
An updated archaeological reconnaissance survey dated April 2004 conducted by
Rechtman Consulting, LLC, which revisited the portion of parcel 54 where the
project site is located, to update a previous study conducted by Paul Rosendahl,
Ph.D., Inc (PHRI) conducted in April 1979.
An archaeological inventory survey of TMK: 7-5-9:48 (later subdivided to include
parcel 67) conducted by PHRI on April 1990.
No commissioned flora or fauna study was conducted.
The valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area:
The updated archaeological reconnaissance survey of parcels confirmed and identified
Site 6302 (Kuakini Wall) and fourteen (14) feartures within Site 5608 (multi functional
complex) on parcel 54 where the project site is located.
The archaeological inventory survey conducted for TMK:7-5-9:48 (later
subdivided to include 67), identified thirteen (13) sites covering all of parcels 48 and 67.
Regarding flora, a visual inspection of the site and the archaeologist's report of
the area confirmed that the vegetation consisted predominantly of exotic grasses and
moderately dense trees including elephant grass, fountain grass, sour grass, kiawe trees
and koa-haole trees. The archaeological report also noted the presence of ilima, bitter
yam, lilikoi, day flower, plumeria, hibiscus, waiwi, and an autograph tree.
Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources:
The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended
treatments for the archaeological sites on the property to preserve the valued
archaeological resources of the area.
Regarding flora and fauna, none of the identified plants are considered endangered
or listed on the National or State Historic Registers. Based on the site and much of the
surrounding areas that have been or are developed with structures, it does not appear
likely that one would find rare or endangered animal life on the site.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
The property is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering
of marine life, fishing and coastal access is not an issue.
Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There have been several
surveys conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In a letter dated
August 25, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic
Preservation Division, they accept the updated archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK:
7-5-9:54 and agree with the significance assessment and recommended treatments with
submitted revisions. The Kuakini Wall, which forms the eastern boundary of the subject
site, will be preserved subject to an approved Preservation Plan. The burial (Feature U)
will be preserved as is, subsequent to the preparation and acceptance of a Burial
Treatment Plan. This will allow access to descendants to the burial site.Data recovery
will be done for the habitation/activity area (Feature T). The balance of the sites was
deemed to be "No Further Work" required.
In a letter dated October 24, 1990 to Paul Rosendahl from the Department of Land
and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division regarding the survey done on
TMK:7-5-9:48, they agree that the parcel was adequately surveyed and they agree with
the significance evaluations. This survey identified thirteen (13) sites covering all of
parcels 48 (and now 67). Of these sites, two (2) were determined to be "no longer
significant," ten (10) were determined significant for their information content, and one
(1), the Kuakini Wall, for preservation. Data recovery of the ten (10) sites were
conducted and deemed acceptable by DLNR-SHPD in a letter dated December 15, 1997.
With these clearances, Plan Approval was issued for the proposed 80 -unit condominium
on parcel 67.
Based on the above findings, this request to reclassify the subject property from a
Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an Agricultural (A -la) to Multiple Family
Residential -2,500 square feet per unit (RM -2.5) zoned district would result in an
appropriate land use pattern and further benefit the general public.
For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map), of
the County Zoning Code is transmitted.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 7
We are enclosing copies of the staff Background and Planning Director's Recommendation for
your information.
("ones, Chairman
Commission
Lkonahale02pc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke
Mr. Robert Saunders
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
Planning Department - Kona
Department of Land & Natural Resources-HPD/Kona
Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu
Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider
BKonaHa1eAhi-REZ04-022 jwd 09-14-04
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
KONA HALE ALII, LLC
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-022)
KONA HALE ALII, LLC has submitted an application for a Change of Zone for
approximately 6.2 acres from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an Agricultural 1 -
acre (A -la) district to a Multiple Family Residential — 2,500 -square foot (RM -2.5) district. The
property is located along the south side of Hualalai Road, approximately 1,100 feet from the
Hualalai Road-Kuakini Highway intersection, Hienaloli 6`" and Auhaukeae I", North Kona,
Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-09: 67 and portion of 54.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
Request: The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -
square foot (V-1.25) (2.38 acres) and an Agricultural 1 -acre (A -la) (3.89 acres) district to
a Multiple Family Residential — 2,500 -square foot (RM -2.5) district for approximately
6.2 acres of land.
2. Original Proposal: The original plan was to develop an 80 -unit condominium project
on 2.38 acres of land (parcel 67). The original plan called for several 4 -story structures
with a height of 45 feet. The applicant is proposing to abandon this plan and construct a
92 -unit condominium project on approximately 6.2 acres of land (parcel 67 and a portion
of 54). These structures will be 2 stories in height. The current zoning would allow 82
units within parcel 67 (V-1.25 — 2.38 acres = 82 units) and 3 units within the portion of
parcel 54 (A -la — 3.89 acres = 3 units) for a total of 85 units.
3. Description of Current Proposal: The project will consist of the following:
• Ninety-two (92) 2- and 3 -bedroom condominium units, which will consist of
twenty-three (23) 2 -story, fourplex structures
• Maximum height of 35 feet
• Recreation area, which will include a swimming pool, spa, and a picnic area
• Extensive landscaping
• Two accesses from Hualalai Road
• 184 parking stalls, which includes 4 handicap stalls
Attach. C-848 (Bill 367)
The projected units allowed under the RM -2.5 zoning for 6.2 acres would be 109 units.
The applicant is requesting 92 units, which is 17 units less than would be allowed. The
cost of these improvements is estimated to exceed $20 million dollars.
4. Consolidation/Resubdivision: According to the applicant, the properties will be
consolidated and resubdivided to created a separate parcel for the RM -2.5 zoned area.
The remainder portion of parcel 54 (makai portion), which is not part of the area being
rezoned, has some significant archaeological features and will become a separate lot of
record zoned A -la. A preservation covenant will be included in the deed.
5. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the attached in support of the
request. (See Exhibit A — Change of Zone Application)
STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
6. SLU: Urban.
7. CountyZoning: Resort -Hotel (V-1.25) for 2.38+ acres (parcel 67) and Agricultural 1 -
acre (A-1 a) for 3.89+ acres (portion of parcel 54).
8. GP LUPAG Map: Medium Density Urban, which allows for village and neighborhood
commercial uses up to three (3) stories and residential and related functions not to exceed
a density of 35 units per acre.
9. Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan adopted by the Planning Commission in
April 1984, designates the area as Village Commercial (CV).
10. Master Plan for Kailua-Kona: Adopted by Council Resolution No. 37196 on
September 6, 1996, it recommends that the project site be developed for
Commercial/Residential Mixed Use.
11. Kailua Village Special District: The subject property is situated within the project area
identified as the Kailua Village Special District. According to the applicant, they will
submit the application for review and recommendation by the Kailua Village Design
Commission subsequent to or in conjunction with the submittal of this application, but
prior to the Plan Approval process.
12. Special Management Area: The property is not situated within the Special
Management Area.
-2-
13. Coastal Zone Management, HRS Chapter 205A: The property lies within the
Coastal Zone Management Area and is less than one mile from the nearest coastline. It
should be pointed out that the entire island lies within the Coastal Zone Management
Area.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
14. Project Site and Property: The property is approximately 6.2+ acres in size and is
currently vacant of structures and uses. It is situated on the south side of the Hualalai
Road approximately 1,000 feet mauka (east) of the intersection of Hualalai Road and
Kuakini Highway.
15. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: The properties are surrounded by lands designated as
Urban by the State Land Use Commission. To the east is a property zoned RS -10 and
further east is the Aloha Kona Subdivision made up of residential lots zoned A -5a (non-
conforming). To the southeast is The Pines residential complex, which is zoned RM -4.
To the south are properties zoned A -la and further south are properties zoned RM -2 and
RM -4. To the west are properties zoned V-1.25 and V-.75. To the north are properties
zoned CV -7.5.
16. FIRM: According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the project site is located within Zone X, an area outside the 500 -year flood
plain.
17. ALISH System: According to the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of
Hawaii (ALISH) Map, the site is not classified as having agricultural importance.
18. USDA Soil Conservation Services Soil Survey: Soils on the subject property consist of
Waiaha Extremely Stony Silt Loam (WHC) and Punaluu Extremely Rocky Peat (rPYD).
19. Land Study Bureau: "E" or Very Poor.
20. Flora/Fauna Resources: A formal flora or fauna survey of the property was not
conducted by the applicant. According to the applicant, based on a visual inspection of
the site and the archaeologist's report of this area, the vegetation consisted predominately
of exotic grasses and moderately dense trees, including elephant grass, fountain grass,
sour grass, kiawe trees and koa-haole trees. The archaeological report also noted the
presence of ilima, bitter yam, lilikoi, day flower, plumeria, hibiscus, waiwi, and an
-3-
autograph tree. The applicant also noted that based on much of the surrounding areas
being developed with structures, it does not appear likely that one would find rare or
endangered animal life on the site.
21. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the project site
was conducted by Paul Rosendahl, Ph.D, Inc, in April of 1979. The survey identified the
Kuakini Wall (Site 6302) and a large multi -functional complex (Site 5608) on parcels 54
and 55. The multi -functional complex consisted of seventy-five (75) features, and
possible three (3) heiau located on the makai portion of parcel 54, which is outside of the
boundaries of the proposed development area. Rechtman Consulting, LLC was retained
by the applicant to revisit and/or update the archaeological finds within the portion of
parcel 54 that is part of the project site. The updated report, dated April 2004, is under
review by the Department of Land and Natural Resources -State Historic Preservation
Division. The Rechtman survey confirmed and identified Site 6302 (Kuakini Wall) and
fourteen (14) feartures within Site 5608 (multi functional complex). The Kuakini Wall,
which forms the eastern boundary of the subject site, will be preserved subject to an
approved Preservation Plan. The burial (Feature U) will be preserved as is, subsequent to
the preparation and acceptance of a Burial Treatment Plan. Data recovery will be done
for the habitation/activity area (Feature T). The balance of the sites were deemed to be
"No Further Work" required.
An archaeological inventory survey was also conducted for TMK:7-5-9:48, which was
later subdivided into 2 parcels, one of which is parcel 67 and part of this application.
This survey identified thirteen (13) sites covering all of parcels 48 and 67. Of these sites,
two (2) were determined to be "no longer significant," ten (10) were determined
significant for their information content, and one (1), the Kuakim Wall, for preservation.
22. Cultural Resources: Rechtman notes in the archaeological inventory study that this area
is part of the kula zone. This area generally stretches from the shoreline to inland, about
the 150 -meter elevation level. It is traditionally associated with habitation and the
cultivation of sweet potatoes, paper mulberry, and gourds. As such, agricultural features
are common throughout this zone. In the 1900's, walls were added to the kula zone "as
cattle pastures expanded into the lower elevations during this period." Aside from cattle
0
use, it is not known whether the subject or immediate surrounding areas were used in the
recent past for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians. There is a burial and, as such,
access to descendants will be allowed to this site.
23. Visual Resources: The site is not visible from Queen Kaahumanu Highway, but visible
from Hualalai Road and Kuakini Highway. Although visible, there are some mitigating
factors. For one, there are structures located makai of the site that already obstruct the
views of the coastline from Hualalai Road. The applicant is proposing to construct the
buildings less than 35 feet tall, which is less than the allowable height of 45 feet.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
24. Access: Primary access to the project area is provided by Hualalai Road, a County -
maintained roadway with a pavement width of 20-22 feet, in poor condition, with no
shoulders, within an approximately 50 -foot wide right-of-way. The General Plan
identifies Hualalai Road as a collector street that normally requires a minimum right-of-
way width of at least 60 feet. Project concept plans submitted by the applicant currently
reflect two access points along Hualalai Road. The Department of Public Works
commented that Hualalai Road should be improved to a 60 -foot right-of-way. Conditions
suggested by DPW include realignment and full improvements to the entire frontage
along Hualalai Road including right-of-way and pavement widening with concrete curb,
gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, and any relocation of utilities. They also
suggest limiting access from Hualalai Road to one approach with a possible additional
access that shall be barricaded and used for emergency purposes only.
25. Traffic Impact Analysis Report: A traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) was prepared
by M&E Pacific, Inc dated May 2004. Manual traffic counts for this study were taken at
the three (3) study intersections to determine existing traffic conditions. The counts for
Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension/Nani Kailua Drive intersection were made on
April 13, 2004; the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension/Hualalai Road intersection on
April 14, 2004; and the Kuakini Highway/Hualalai Road intersection on April 8, 2004.
These were conducted after spring break. The TIAR concludes that "The proposed
project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the local area roadway system. The
levels ofservice at the three study intersections, Queen Kaahumanu Highway
-5-
Extension/Hualalai Extension/Nani Kailua Drive, Queen Kaahumanu Highway
Extension/ Hualalai Road, and Kualdni Highway' Hualalai Road, would not change from
ambient to total with project forecast conditions. Mitigating measures would not be
required.
26. Water: The site is serviced by the County water system. According to the applicant,
water commitment for 100 units is already in place.
27. Wastewater: The applicant intends to connect to the County's sewer line along Kuakini
Highway. The applicant intends to discharge the project's wastewater via an existing
easement on parcel 48 that services the subject site. The Department of Environmental
Management -Wastewater Division commented that the proposal to utilize the existing
sewer/easement in not acceptable and is requiring an extension along Hualalai Road in
accordance with division plans to service the region.
28. Solid Waste: The nearest landfill is the West Hawaii Landfill at Puuanahulu, which was
designed to serve as the regional solid waste disposal facility.
29. Utilities: Telephone and electrical services are already available to the site
30. Protective Services: All protective services are available within 5 miles of the property.
AGENCIES' COMMENTS
31. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit B — August 30, 2004 Memo)
32. Department of Environmental Management: (See Exhibit C — August 3, 2004
Memo)
33. Department of Parks and Recreation: (See Exhibit D — August 5, 2004 Letter)
34. Police Department: (See Exhibit E — August 18, 2004 Memo)
35. Fire Department: (See Exhibit F - August 11, 2004 Memo)
36. Department of Education: (See Exhibit G — August 17, 2004 Letter)
37. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division: (See
Exhibit H — August 25, 2004 Letter)
38. Department of Health: (See Exhibit I — August 23, 2004 Memo)
39. Kona Traffic Safety Committee: (See Exhibit J — August 27, 2004 Letter)
40. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Land Division: (See Exhibit K -
September 2, 2004 Letter)
I"I
AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE
41. Department of Water Supply, Civil Defense, Office of Housing and Community
Development, Kailua Village Design Commission.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS
42. The applicant has submitted the following response to agency comment letters. (See
Exhibit L — September 9, 2004 Letter)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
43. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any letters from the general
public commenting on the subject applications.
-7-
Sidney Fuke, consultant
100 PauaN Street. Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax (808) 969-7996
Julv 14. 2004
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
County Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Yuen:
nn
Subject: Rezoning Application (V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5)
Applicant - Kona Hale Alii, LLC
North Kona, HI, TMK: 7-5-09: 67 and Por of 54
• Planning • Varranoe • Zr-i-;
• Suomv,sion • Lantl 'Use =err=
•-nmronmeital Repori;
Transmitted herewith for your review and processing is an application to rezone a
6.2+ acre area from Resort (V-1. 25) and Agriculture A -la) to Multiple family Residential
(RM --2.5). The applicant, Kona Hale Ali i, LLC is proposing to develop a 92 -unit
condominium project on the subject site, which is located on the south side of Hualalai Road
and generally mauka of the Hualalai Center commercial office complex.
The site consists of one parcel and a portion of another parcel. Parcel 67, consisting
of 2.38+ acres (103,751 square feet) will be consolidated with a 3.89+ acre (169,792 square
feet) portion of Parcel 54. Parcel 67 is zoned Resort (V-1.25), and Final Plan Approval for
an 80 -unit condominium project was approved for this site in 2001. The other parcel is
zoned A -la. This request calls for the rezoning of the subject site from V-1.25 and A -la to
RM -2.5.
Pursuant to the submittal requirements, please find enclosed the original and twenty
(20) copies of the application forms, departmental questionnaire, and environmental report
which includes the location and proposed site plans; processing fee of $500; a 2'x 3' copy of
the site and elevation plans, real property tax clearance form; a list of surrounding property
owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel, and the metes and bound description of the
affected properties.
We trust that everything is in order for your acceptance and processing of these
applications. If not or if there are questions relating to these applications, please feel free to
direct them to me. Thank you very much for your attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Enclosures O 5.1; 9(;5
Copy — Kona Hale Ali' i, LLC, ATTN: Mr. Robert E. Saunders, w/ enclosures
EX BIT
miff SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996
July 21, 2004
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
County Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Subject: Rezoning Application (V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5)
Applicant - Kona Hale Ali i, LLC
North Kona, Hl, TMK: 7-5-09: 67 and Por of 54
L4 f -
Planning - Variance - Zonae
Subdivision - Land Use Perm4s
Environmental Reports
This is to confirm my discussion with Norman Hayashi of your staff regarding the
subject matter.
Please note that the affected properties are parcels 67 and a portion of 54. The
reference to parcel 48 on the application form is incorrect. The original parcel 48 was
subdivided into two lots, and one of the lots was assigned parcel 67 on the tax map key.
Together with a portion of parcel 54, parcel 67 is the subject of this application. I apologize
for this oversight.
With that clarification, we trust that everything is in order for your acceptance and
processing of these applications. If not or if there are questions relating to these
applications, please feel free to direct them to me. 'hank you very much for your attention
on this matter.
incerely, ����
S
Planning Consultant
Copy — Kona Hale Alii, LLC, ATTN: Mr. Robert E. Saunders via email
05633 (;
APPLICATION
FOR
COUNTY REZONING
(V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5)
KONA HALE ALI' I, LLC
Hienaloli 6 t and 'Auhaukea'e 1st
North Kona, Hawai i
TMK: (3) 7-5-09: 67 & por 54
Prepared For:
Kona Hale AIN, LLC
Prepared By:
Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant
May 2004
APPLICANT
APPLICANT'
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
COUNT' OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(Type or legibly print the requested information)
DATE:
ADDRESS: c/o 551 Akala Road Hilo, HI 96720
LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:
LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
PHONE:(Bus.) 969-3089 (Res.) (Fax) 934-9463
LANDOWNER(S): Kona Hale Ali i, LLC
LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): DATE:
(Maybe by letter)
LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: 212 Sutter Street. 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108
REQUEST: V-1.25 and A -la TO RM -2.5
(Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning)
TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-09: 048 & 054
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 75-5793 Kuakini Highway Kailua-Kona, HI
SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED. 6.2+ acres
AGENT: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant
ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720
TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) 969-7996
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Robert E. Saunders
(See Instructions on Reverse Side)
U5/27"N04 06:12 FAX 808V34046J
05/27/04 THIi 07:32 FAX 41 41418 C5V Hospitality Har me
08%261,2004 0;;66; F.4ki 8099J4, .3
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
COUNTY OF ELAWAM
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(Type or lcgibly mint the requested information)
APPLICANT:
APPLTC,ANT'S SIGNATURE:
DATE: s'.2S— O.1
ADDRESS: c/q J�I AW&Road Hilo, iii 96770
LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER Develormant Manage
LISTRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
oUJ
Q00^
PHONE:(Bus.) 969-3089 (Res.) (Fax) 934-9463 _
LANDOWNER SIGNA
by
LANDO'WNER(S)
REQUEST:
TAX MAP KEY:
DATE:
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 73-5793 KwldeI HigUa v Kai +•- pu- M
SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REWN13D:
AGENT: Sidnww M. Fake-
, Plarniin_g„CAnstdtauc
ADDRESS: IN Pauald Street. Suite -212 HIo, M 96720
TELEPXWE:(Bus.) %9-1522 (Res_) (Tax) 969-7996
Please iodicate to whom original oerrospondeeae and capias should be: soul
ORIGINAL 9idnev Fuke COPIES: Robert E. Saunders
(Sx hLamurions on Reverse Side)
1p 002
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
KONA HALE ALI'I, LLC
HIENALOLI 6h and 'AUHAUKEA'E 1", NORTH KONA, HAWAII
TMK: (3) 7-5-009: 067 and Por 54
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
The applicant, Kona Hale Ali' i, LLC is proposing to develop a 92 -unit condominium
project on a 6.2+ acre (273,543 square feet) site, located on the south side of HualaW
Road and generally mauka of the Hualalai Center commercial office complex.
The site consists of one parcel and a portion of another parcel. Parcel 67, consisting
of 2.38+ acres (103,751 square feet) will be consolidated with a 3.89+ acre (169,792
square feet) portion of Parcel 54. Parcel 67 is zoned Resort (V-1.25), and Final Plan
Approval for an 80 -unit condominium project was approved for this site in 2001.
The other parcel is zoned A-1 a. This request calls for the rezoning of the subject site
from V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5.
II. PROJECT LOCATION
As noted earlier, the subject site, consisting of 6.2+ acres, is located on the south side
of Hualalai Road, approximately 1,000 feet mauka of the intersection of Hualalai
Road and Kuakini Highway.
More specifically, it is located about 200 feet mauka and southeast of an office
complex (HualaW Center) along Hualalai Road and immediately mauka or east of an
auto dealership (Kona Mazda) that fronts Kuakini Highway. There are other
commercial and commercial -related uses and activities generally on the makai side of
the subject area. There are residential uses generally east or mauka of the subject site,
such as the Aloha Kona Subdivision. (See Figures 1 & 2)
IH. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Proiect Concept
On November 23, 2001, Final Plan Approval was granted to allow the
development of an 80 -unit condominium project on 2.38 acres of land (parcel
67). A copy of the Plan Approval and portions of the approved plans are
found in Appendix A.
The applicant proposes to abandon this plan and in its stead, construct a less
dense 92 -unit condominium project on the 2.38+ acre area plus an adjoining
3.8+ acre area. The result would be a less dense project of one unit over
9t
■ � Od VOlbn IOH 'b� On � �, �'
■ ld YJl3dOl � N /_��•Q ""�
e
1d1 313M nI
■ b)I)1I I avl
■ �O.b" to ld
■ c b,, ° .� 3H3N N Z
■ w o �s �) vdnl
_ U
� t _
3 I bN3 )�h, Ql bNl )3 )3#V W
�Q ld vNIl331YW 1 _'d //
-
:D Id
Z K bnl0 4
(n Nz
Z co ld
■ Q J a I bNnil Z rM37� / Q
a
■ Y b)d
1S bN3�ry�a/jcz p P\.bIA,'iy�,0 /
■ Y' �f�a�J3 = bN S l
■ ? I Y l `1S O�3M
■
O/ 2 /
rfy�
S
'
N a:
ybs • �'`
r
■
\1
♦.� iiv)ob , = �MgNU YN
IN 1:'E'�'PINP
,FJP� '�J6
�aW oa
O PPRP
d
17
r
y y7 s
' ��b
<a
PO I N; PJ'1+�
a�
■ �60
♦• u. eoAK�N'IP 51
blblvx, vUK.a
ST W
I a I
b0v\PO
■ .�
C c'Q
C dnvlN/ �- i
1S
bNnH3l3j '
y0
0 v
Q Y Z , 2 Q Y O
�JP�P
YN bS
a Ill
�.11P
PFJ �\G
Id Y 3ylYW
ybJlHyl.
l I
W =
op,-
0
5S
ld = )O)1vwv, P
in
U O I .tib
55P
P�J�
b103J1 OVWbI
Id < nllnw
W
Z
y h
� � I OIYWdb v
OJ
Iw
2 O d
♦•
/
/1 �l
IO Z
J�
Y�AIgNOE
ply
¢ <3yu2-��
/ a6
W
=
:O o
yl I
Z
<
¢QQW07YYG3Q
Y 2
SS
I
• ,OOO-
OY
I<51
AL HOU
KALA WAI
JPS
_
KUAKINI HWY
-�
o -
rfy�
S
'
N a:
ybs • �'`
r
F A
Zd.\
,FJP� '�J6
�aW oa
O PPRP
=, �6
• �_
<a
a�
X,Um
ST W
Q
OR
Oy
/Y�bHYa'
SUBJECT SITE
FIGURE 1
y
SUBJECT
I ISITEr
Z�I re i
1
W r
� EI
'eiS S
Baal ice', Oieo
el Ia iLn I-
e
�8
di
ij
g? o
I
x
a
v
i
r� j
'
SI C
y
i'2
FIGURE 2 .
�8
di
ij
g? o
I
a
r� j
'
2,500 square feet of land versus the approved project of one unit for every
1,750 square feet.
The original plan called for several 4 -story large structures with a height of 45
feet, while the current one calls for a series of 2 -story, fourplex structures,
with a maximum height of 35 feet. With the additional acreage and less
density per square foot, the project would have less visual mass, a garden -like
landscaping, and a less congested feeling. It would also be designed to be
more pedestrian -friendly and encourage interaction among residents and
thereby foster a community environment.
There are some significant archaeological features on the makai portion of
parcel 54, This area will be a subdivided lot of record and will include a
preservation covenant. As such, this area will provide a de facto sense of
open space for the project.
Because of its convenient in -town location, occupants will be able to walk to
Kailua Village for their office, restaurant, shopping, and related needs. To
facilitate pedestrian movements, pedestrian access to Kuakini Highway for
occupants may be provided through the makai portion of the larger parcel
(parcel 54). Additionally, curb, gutter and sidewalk will be provided fronting
the subject site along Hualalai Road.
B. Proiect Commnonents
The project will have ninety-two (92) 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units.
There will be related activities such as a recreation area that would include a
swimming pool, spa, and a picnic area in and around an archaeological site.
The Kuakini Wall will also be integrated into the project's landscaping. (See
Figure 3)
As proposed, the structures will consist of 2 -story, fourplexes. The height of
the structures will not exceed 35 feet, inclusive of the roof. (See Figures 4 —
The nearest structure from Hualalai Road will be set back a minimum of
20 feet. The average set back fronting Hualalai Road, however, should be at
least 40 feet. The mauka and makai setbacks (side yards) will have at least 20
feet on the mauka and makai sides. (See Figure 3)
There will be two accesses from Hualalai Road; each located near the edge of
the property lines. The location of these accesses is the same as the existing
approved plans. The applicant intends to construct a pedestrian walkway
fronting project's frontage along Hualalai Road.
FIGURE 4
� � r
2 I
�-r
I
:z3
�, i &M�, 8-I---t�
FIGURE 5
�
z
Lt
t
t
n
�
FIGURE 5
�
z
�
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
eIi
b6
In TYN OiC�I�. M
a
FIGURE 7
�
b
FIGURE 7
Based on a ratio of 1.25 stall for every unit, as outlined in the Zoning Code,
115 stalls are required. However, the applicant intends to have 184 stalls,
60% more than the requirement. Of these, at least 4 would be handicapped
stalls. While not required, 2 loading zones are also being contemplated in the
vicinity of the trash pick up area.
As noted earlier, extensive landscaping will be incorporated within the
project. Landscaping indigenous to this area will be planted throughout the
site. As proposed, the site would have over 40% landscaped.
C. Proiect Costs and Timetable
The cost of these improvements is estimated to exceed $20 million dollars.
The applicant hopes to begin construction upon issuance of all required
permits, hopefully by early 2005. The anticipated construction completion
date is 2006.
IV. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
The subject site consists of two parcels. One of the parcel (TMK: 7-5-09: 67) is
zoned Resort (V-1.25) or one unit for every 1,250 square feet. The other parcel
(TMK: 7-5-09: 54) is zoned Agriculture (A -la). The applicant is proposing to
downzone the resort -zoned area from V-1.25 to RM -2.5 and rezone a 3.8+ acre
portion of the A -1a area to RM -2.5.
If the rezoning is approved, the properties would be consolidated and resubdivided to
create a separate parcel for the RM -2.5 zoned area.
The site falls outside of the boundaries of the Special Management Area (SMA). As
such, a SMA Use Permit is not required.
Because the site falls within the bounds of the Kailua Village Special Design
District, it will require the review and recommendation of the Kailua Village Design
Commission. This will be done subsequent to the submittal of this application.
Should the rezoning be approved, other ministerial permits - such as Plan Approval,
Building Permit, Underground Injection Control (UIC), Department of Health air
quality permit, and the like - will be required.
3
V. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. State Land Use
The subject property is designated Urban. As such, no State Land Use
Commission action is required. The County of Hawaii can process the
rezoning request.
B. General Plan
The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map,
if scaled, designates the site Medium Density. Relative to the Medium
Density designation, the General Plan allows consideration for "Village and
neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3 -story
commercial, residential - up to 35 units per acre. " As such, the requested
RM zoning would be consistent with this designation, and no General Plan
amendment is necessary.
It should be noted that the proposed revision to the General Plan recommends
the retention of this designation.
C. Kailua-Kona Master Plan
The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona was prepared in 1994 to update the Kailua
Village Design Plan (1976). The purpose of the Master Plan is to "assist and
guide the Kailua Village Design Commission and the County of Hawaii in
regulating development in the Kailua Village Special District" and to "guide
private sector investment and development in the Kailua-Kona area, as well
as revitalization efforts in Kailua town. "
The land use component of the Kailua-Kona Master Plan suggests that the
subject area would be appropriate for Commercial/Residential Mixed Use.
The project would be consistent with the Plan.
As noted earlier, this project will require the further review and
recommendations of the Kailua Village Design Commission. This will be
done subsequent to or in conjunction with the rezoning process, but definitely
prior to the Plan Approval process, where more detailed design elements can
be recommended.
4
D. Draft Kona Regional Plan
This plan attempts to further define the General Plan and serves as a guide for
decision -makers. In 1984, it was adopted by the Planning Commission. To
date, the County Council has not adopted it. Notwithstanding the above, it
does provide some measure of land use guidance.
The Land Use Concept map of this Draft Plan suggests that this area would
be suitable for either Village Commercial (CV) or Res 14 (14 residential units
per acre) uses. The proposed zoning (RM -2.5) would result in 15 units per
acre, which would exceed the recommended density by only 1 unit per acre.
It should be noted, however, that the existing resort (V-1.25) zoned area,
which would yield 34 units per acre, is proposed to be downzoned to RM -2.5.
On balance, then, because the proposed project will reduce the density of the
resort zoned area by nearly one-half (from 34 to 17), the spirit of the Res -14
density would be maintained.
D. Zoning
The County zoning of the site is Resort (V-1.25) and Agriculture (4-1a). The
resort zoning would allow a maximum of 80 units on that portion of the
project site. The A -la zoning would enable the site to be subdivided into 1 -
acre lots. The applicant is requesting the resort area to be downzoned to
Multiple family Residential (RM -2.5) and a 3.8+ portion of the other site also
to RM -2.5.
In terms of setback, the minimum requirement is 20 feet from the front and
rear property lines, and 8 feet for one story and an additional 2 feet for each
additional story. The closet structure will be set back at least 20 feet from
Hualalai Road, although the average set back will be more than 40 feet. The
mauka and makai setbacks (side yard) will range between 15 to 40 feet.
(See Figure 3)
The maximum allowable height is 45 feet for the resort, agriculture, and the
multiple -family residential zones. The proposed structures will consist of 2
stories and not exceed 35 feet in height, inclusive of the roof.
Relative to parking, based on a ratio of 1.25 stalls for every unit, as outlined
in the Zoning Code, 115 stalls would be required for the 92 -unit project.
However, 184 parking stalls will be provided on-site, inclusive of the
handicapped stalls.
5
D. Other Permits
The other required permits will be of the ministerial variety. Some of these
include Plan Approval from the Planning Director, Building Permit, water
and sewer hook up, and the like.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Soils
The US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey
Resort classifies the soils in this area are of the Punaluu and Waiaha series.
These soil series are characterized by shallow deposits on lava and generally
used for pasture. More specifically, the Punaluu series is extremely rocky
peat, which is a well -drained, organic soil developed over pahoehoe bedrock.
The Waiaha series is extremely stony silt loam, with shallow, well -drained
soil that is formed in volcanic ash.
The Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating for the subject
area is essentially Class "E" or Very Poor (E285). This suggests that the site
has poor productivity potential for agricultural crops. It is of the Pakini and
Waiaha over pahoehoe soil series. These types of soil series have limited soil
material. The color is yellowish to dark brown, and the parent material is
volcanic ash and pahoehoe. It is very well drained and, because it is rocky
with frequent outcrops of pahoehoe, is poorly suited for machine tillability.
The State Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Lands of Importance to
the State of Hawaii (ALISH) maps do not offer any rating for this area.
B. Elevation
The topography of the site slopes gently makai. The elevation of the subject
site ranges between 70 to 140 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), with the
mauka side being higher.
C. Climate
Being on the leeward side of the island, the project site is generally sunny in
the mornings with occasional afternoon clouds. The rainy season is usually
during the summer, with wetter periods from November to January. The
average annual rainfall is approximately 30 inches, with pan evaporation
estimated at 55 inches per year. The mean annual temperature is
approximately 75 degrees.
D. Natural and Coastal Hazards
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates this area Zone X, areas
determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain.
The site falls outside the Civil Defense Tsunami Evacuation zone.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the area as Lava Flow Hazard
Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1. By way of reference, the City of
Hilo is located within Zone 3, while the lower Puna area ranges between
Zones I and 2.
The Building Code designates the entire island of Hawaii in Earthquake Zone
4 and contains certain structural requirements to address the relative seismic
hazards.
E. Flora and Fauna Implications
There was no commissioned flora or fauna study done of this site. However,
based on a visual inspection of the site and the archaeologist's report of this
area, the vegetation consisted predominantly of exotic grasses and moderately
dense trees. Grasses include elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum),
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) and sour grass (Tricachne insularis).
Trees included the kiawe and koa-haole.
The archaeological report also noted the presence of several plant species.
These included the 'ilima, bitter yam or hoi vines, lilikoi, day flower or
Wandering Jew, plumeria, hibiscus, waiwi, and an autograph tree.
None of the identified plants are listed on either considered endangered on
either the National or State registers. Thus, floral impacts should be minimal.
Likewise, as the site and much of the surrounding areas have or are developed
with structures, it does not appear likely that one would find rare or
endangered animal life on the site.
As such, the flora and fauna implications are negligible, if at all.
F. Archaeoloeical Implications
Paul Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted an archaeological
reconnaissance survey of parcels 54 and 55 in April of 1979. That survey
identified the Kuakini Wail (Site 6302) and a large multi -functional complex
7
(Site 5608) covering all of parcels 54 and 55. This multi -functional complex
consisted of seventy-five (75) features, and possibly three (3) heiau located
on the makai portion of parcel 54 (which is outside of the boundaries of the
proposed development area).
Rechtman Consulting, LLC was retained by the applicant to revisit and/or
update the archaeological finds and implications relative to that portion of
parcel 54 that is proposed to be part of the project site. A copy of this
updated report, dated April 2004, is found in Appendix B. The report is now
under review by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources —
Historic Preservation Division, and a copy of its comments/approval will be
filed with the Planning Department upon its completion.
Relative to the area of the proposed development within parcel 54, the
Rechtman survey confirmed and/or identified Site 6302 (Kuakini Wall) and
fourteen (14) features within Site 5608 (multi -functional complex). (See
Figure 5 of Appendix B).
The Kuakini Wall, which forms the eastern boundary of the subject site, will
be preserved as is and incorporated into the design and landscaping features
of the project.
When test excavations were done of that portion of parcel 54 planned for
development, fourteen (14) archaeological features were confirmed and/or
identified. These included a burial (Feature U), a boundary wall, a natural
feature, two (2) habitation/activity (Feature T), and nine (9) agricultural
features.
The burial (Feature U) will be preserved as is, subsequent to the preparation
and acceptance of a Burial Treatment Plan. Data recovery will be done for
the habitation/activity area (Feature 1), while the Kuakini Wall (Site 6302)
will be preserved, subject to an approved Preservation Plan. The balance of
the sites was deemed to be "No Further Work" required.
An archaeological inventory survey was conducted of TMK: 7-5-09: 48 in
1990 by PHRI (Appendix Q. That property has since been subdivided into
two parcels (48 and 67), one of which (parcel 67) is part of this application.
That survey identified thirteen (13) sites covering all of parcels 48 and 67. Of
these sites, two (2) were determined to be "no longer significant'; ten (10)
significant for their information content; and one (1) — Kuakini Wall - for
preservation. Since that time, the report was approved by the State DLNR-
HPD and the Planning Department (Appendix C-1). Data recovery of the
8
ten (10) sites were also conducted and deemed acceptable by the State
DLNR-HPD in 1997. A copy of this approval letter is found in Appendix C-
2. Thus, with these clearances, Plan Approval was issued for the proposed
80 -unit condominium on parcel 67.
It should be noted that should there be any inadvertent finds during the
construction phase of the project, work will stop until clearance from the
Planning Department has been secured.
Based on the above, it is believed that with the completed mitigation of parcel
67 and the proposed mitigation for that portion of parcel 54, the
archaeological impacts resulting from the development of this project will not
be significant.
G. Valued Cultural Resources
In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka
Pa'akai O Ka Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian
gathering and fishing rights must be addressed. Specifically, there must be a
discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated
traditional and customary practices of this site.
In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the
shoreline. As such, fishing and/or coastal access should not be an issue.
There was also no trail identified within the site.
In the archaeological inventory study, Rechtman notes that this area is part of
the kola zone. This area generally stretches from the shoreline to inland,
about the 150 -meter elevation level. It is "traditionally associated with
habitation and the cultivation of sweet potatoes, paper mulberry, and gourds."
As such, agricultural features are common throughout this zone.
In the 1900's, walls were added to the kula zone "as cattle pastures expanded
into the lower elevations during this period. At this time the Greenwell
Ranch used the lands encompassed by the current project area as pasturage
for cattle."
Aside from the cattle use, it is not known whether the subject or immediate
surrounding areas were used in the recent past for the gathering of plants by
native Hawaiians. However, as the site has been used for cattle grazing, it
would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such purpose today
and/or in the recent past.
E
There is, however, a burial. As such, unfettered access to descendants will be
allowed to this site. This will be reflected in the approved Burial Treatment
Plan.
Based on the above, with the planned mitigation, it does not appear that the
project would have any adverse impact relating to the cultural and historical
resources of this area.
H. Marine Environment
Although the site is not a coastal property, it is proximate to it. As such, the
concern for potential runoff and sedimentation associated with the
construction and operation of the project will be there. The construction of
buildings, roads, and other impermeable surfaces could also have a potential
long-term impact.
To address these short and long term potential concerns, the applicant
proposes a number of measures. These include:
Not directing any of the stormwater to the ocean. Drywells, subject to the
State approval process, will be designed to accommodate this stormwater.
Through proper design, excess water will be directed to landscaped areas
where the ground is a little more permeable and can absorb the additional
water. The County Grading Ordinance, which governs erosion and dust
control during construction, will also be complied with.
Thus, there should be little, if any potential adverse impact on the marine
environment if reasonable precaution is taken during and after the
construction period.
I. Noise, Air Ouality, and Dust
The existing noise environment consists of ambient noise levels resulting
primarily from traffic and incidentally human activity, wind and foliage, surf,
birds, and intermittent flyby events (helicopters and aircraft).
In the short-term, the project will generate construction traffic and
construction equipment noise. To mitigate these impacts, the applicant
intends to comply with State Department of Health noise regulations. Other
mitigation include limiting construction activities to certain periods of the
day; requiring all construction equipment to have approved exhaust and
muffler systems; and adhering to State DOH blasting measures.
10
In the long-term, the noise impacts would be additional traffic and, of course,
from the project itself. Due to the residential nature of the project, however,
it is not anticipated that the noise level will increase appreciably.
The proposed project should not generate any direct long-term air quality
impacts. The only discernible impact would be associated with vehicular
traffic to and from the site. While there will be an impact to the ambient air
quality, the impact should not be significant particular with the higher EPA
standards for automobile emissions.
During the short-term, however, construction dust could affect the area's air
quality. Dust control measures would be implemented by the applicant and
would include watering, covering of open -bed trucks, taking winds patterns
into consideration during earthwork, and initiating the landscaping early.
VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
A. Road and Access
The project site is located on the south side of HualaW Road, approximately
1,000 feet mauka of Kuakini Highway. The project is designed to have two
full vehicular movement accesses from Hualalai Road. These accesses are
similar to the existing plans.
Hualalali Road is one of several two-lane roads connecting Kuakini Highway
with the extension of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This County -owned
road has a right-of-way of 50 feet, with an average pavement width of 20-22
feet in this area.
The County -owned Kuakini Highway, in the area of Hualalai Road, has a
right-of-way of 80 feet. There is a traffic light at this intersection. The
County is contemplating improvements to Kuakini Highway that would
extend to its intersection with Hualalai Road. At this intersection, Kuakini
Highway will have two (2) through, northbound lanes in addition to dedicated
left and right turn lanes.
A traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) for the planned project was prepared
by M&E Pacific, Inc. (Appendix D) The study calculated the levels of
service (LOS) at various intersections to determine levels of impacts resulting
from this project. LOS is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for
individual approaches and the intersection as a whole, with a range from "A"
to "F". A LOS "A" would be the ideal, with average delays of less than 5
seconds, while LOS "F" would be the worst, with average delays of 60 or
11
more seconds and requiring mitigating measures. The report further
evaluated the project's LOS impacts both from the perspective of with or
without the planned improvements to Kuakini Highway and the extension of
the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway.
Based on this LOS approach, the study made the following findings:
Hualalai Road/Oueen Ka'ahumanu Highway Intersection
With or without the planned improvements, the projected LOS for left
tum movements from Hualalai Road to the Highway is already at and will
continue to be LOS 'T' with the project. "This movement is not expected
to be used by residents of the proposed project."
• The northbound left turn from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway Extension
into Hualalai Road is at LOS "B"and will continue to be so with the
project.
• Right turn movements from Hualalai to the Highway is expected to be at
LOS "C" during the morning peak and "D" during the afternoon peak.
Hualalai Road/Kuakini Highway Intersection
• With the planned improvements at Kuakini Highway, operations will be
improved. It is forecasted to operate at LOS "C" because of the planned
highway improvements.
Nani Kailua Drive/Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway ►way Intersection
This intersection operates at LOS "C" during the morning and afternoon
peaks for all movements.
The study concluded that the proposed development "is not expected to have
an adverse impact on the local area roadway system. The levels of service at
the three study intersections... would not change from ambient total with
project forecast conditions. Mitigating measures would not be required."
The applicant intends to install a walkway fronting the subject site. This
improvement should enhance pedestrian safety as well as the visual quality of
the area.
12
B. Water
The site is presently serviced by the County water system. There are water
lines along Kuakini Highway and Hualalai Road. Water for this project,
however, will come from Hualalai Road. Water commitment for 100 units is
already in place.
C. Wastewater
The applicant intends to connect to the County's sewer line along Kuakini
Highway. There is an existing easement on parcel 48 that services the subject
site. The applicant intends to discharge the project's wastewater into this
system.
D. Utilities
Telephone and electrical services are already available to the site.
E. Protective Services
Being within an urban area, all of the required police, fire, and related
services are available. Police protective services are provided from the
stations at Kealakehe located less than 3 miles from the site and Captain
Cook in South Kona. Within 5 miles from the site, there are 3 fire stations.
These would be at Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Pu'uloa. There is also
another station at Captain Cook. Emergency medical and paramedical
services are also provided from these stations.
The Kona Hospital at Kealakekua is located approximately 7 miles from the
site and is managed by the State.
VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. View Plane
The subject site is visible from Hualalai Road and Kuakini Highway. As
such, any development of the site will generate some measure of visual
impact. However, there are some mitigating factors.
For one, there are structures located makai of the subject site that already
obstruct the views of the coastline from Huatalai Road. As such, the proposed
development should not result in the further diminution of coastal visual
impact. The views of Hualalai Mountain would not be adversely impacted
13
from Kuakini Highway, as the site does not directly front the Highway. There
is also an existing car dealership between the subject site and the Highway.
Notwithstanding those circumstances, the proposed structures will be less
than 35 feet tall, way less than the Zoning Code's 45 -foot height requirement.
Added mitigation will be achieved through the extensive landscaping planned
for this area. As such, while the structures will be visible, their visual impact
should not be overly pronounced.
B. Coastal Access
The subject property does not abut the shoreline. It is about 1,000 feet from
the shoreline. There are other privately owned parcels between the subject
property and the ocean. Additionally, there are no known mauka-makai trails
through the subject site. As such, the proposed improvements would have no
impacts to any existing or planned coastal accesses in the area.
IX, RELATIONSHIP TO SMA OBJECTIVES
Although the subject site is not within the boundaries of the County Special
Management Area, it is still subject to an evaluation of its consistency with the CZM
objectives and policies. In that regard:
A. Recreational Resources
The proposed improvements should not have any adverse impact to the
recreational resources of the area. The property is not a coastal property, and
there are intervening privately owned properties between the project site and
the ocean.
Furthermore, Hualalai Road will be improved with pedestrian improvements
fronting the subject property. With this and the County's planned
improvements to Kuakini Highway, access conditions would be more inviting
and safer for pedestrians who may be traveling to the shoreline between Alii
Drive and Kuakini Highway and further mauka. Conflicts between
pedestrians and vehicles should be minimized, thus enhancing rather than
diminishing the recreational activities in the area.
B. Historical and Cultural Resources
The burial and the Kuakini Wall will be preserved. The appropriate burial
treatment and preservation plan will be prepared and submitted to the Hawaii
Island Burial Council and the SHPD-HPD for review and approval in the near
14
future. The approved mitigation will be implemented prior to or in
conjunction with the development of this project. Tentatively, the plan calls
for the preservation of those features and their incorporation as part of the
overall landscaping of the project. Access to lineal descendants would also
be afforded.
Further, should there be any inadvertent finds, work will immediately cease
until clearance from the County Planning Department is secured.
Relative to the site's potential cultural resources, the site is not a coastal
property and does not have a history of providing indirect access to the
shoreline. As noted earlier, the burial will be preserved and lineal
descendants of the burial will be afforded access. Finally, there is no visible
evidence that the site has been used in the recent past for gathering of native
plants for medicinal or food, particularly as the site has been used for cattle
grazing for nearly 100 years. However, if legitimate claims are made, access
will be provided.
As such, the development of this site should not have any adverse impacts to
native Hawaiian cultural or religious practices.
C. Scenic and Open Space Resources
The subject site is mauka of Kuakini Highway and is not visible from the
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. As such, the only possible visual impact from
a public road would be from Hualalai Road. However, the coastal view is not
really visible in this area, as there are other large structures makai of Kuakini
Highway.
Nonetheless, any development of this site will diminish open space. As such,
the goal is to mitigate this impact. In this situation, the structure will be set
back an average of 40 feet from Hualalai Road. More significantly, however,
instead of the 45 -foot high structures, the project would have a series of 2 -
story, fourplexes. This would allow for more landscaping and open space
within the project area.
The loss of open space, however, would be mitigated by the setback, reduced
height of the structures, and planned landscaping within and around the
project site. It should also be noted that because the archaeological features
located on the makai portion of parcel 54 and fronting Kuakini Highway will
require physical preservation, there will be a greater sense of open space in
this area.
15
D. Coastal Ecosystem
The proposed improvements should not generate any adverse impacts to the
area's coastal ecosystem. Although the project may increase the volume of
rainwater, they will be directed into existing or new drywells on-site and
away from the ocean. Further, the site is situated about 1,000 feet from the
shoreline, and any direct interaction between the proposed improvements and
the coastal water should be barely existent, if at all.
Then, too, the project will connect to the County's sewer line fronting
Kuakini Highway.
E. Economic Uses
The development of this project will provide construction and related jobs.
When completed, there will be added tax revenues as the site will now be an
improved rather than a vacant site. Because of its location within Kailua and
its pedestrian -friendly improvements, the project should encourage occupants
to walk to nearby retailers, thus further promoting the circulation of new
moneys within the community.
Furthermore, the proposed development would be consistent with basic
regulatory land use plans for this area.
F. Coastal Hazards
The site is designated "X" on the Flood Insurance Rate map. It is also outside
of the Civil Defense Tsunami Evacuation Zone.
As the site is not located adjacent to the shoreline and over 1,000 feet away,
normal winter storm water should not be an issue for this project.
G. Managing Development
While this function is more applicable to the "authority" or approving
agencies, the request is intended to operate within the confines of the existing
Zoning Code. The subject site will be zoned RM -2.5, and the requested uses
and design/development parameters (parking, height, setback, etc.) would be
consistent with said zoning. In that regard, this project would be consistent
with the policy of "us(ing), implement(ing), and enforc(ing) existing law
effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future
coastal zone management."
16
H. Public Participation
There is a statewide public advisory body called Marine and Coastal Zone
Management Advisory Group (MACZMAG) that has the task, among other
matters, of advising the lead agency (Office of State Plan) on coastal
management issues. This includes a direct or indirect review of certain
requests that may have statewide coastal zone management implications.
Public participation in the review of the permitting process is also achieved
through the use of sending notices to surrounding property owners of the
submittal of the rezoning application and another separate notice informing
said owners of the date of the Planning Commission's required public
hearing.
I. Beach Protection
The subject property is not a coastal property and over 1,000 feet from the
shoreline. As such, the policies and objectives relating to this matter do not
apply.
J. Marine Resources
Mitigating measures will be taken during the construction and post -
construction period of this project. Erosion control measures meeting with
the requirements of the State Department of Health and County Department
of Public Works will be developed and implemented, particularly during the
construction period. Drywells, if needed, meeting with the Underground
Injection Control (UIQ requirements of the State Department of Health will
be used to help address potential impacts from surface runoff after the project
is completed. Then, too, the project's drainage will be directed to the
landscaped areas to further minimize the velocity and volume of surface
runoff going into drywells.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the proposed improvements are
consistent with the objectives, policies and guidelines of the Special Management
Area Rules and Regulations. Specifically:
A. The proposed project will not have any substantial, adverse environmental
or ecological effect. Any effect that may result will be minimized to the
extent practicable and is clearly outweighed by public health, safety and
welfare, and other compelling public interest.
17
Further, it will not generate any adverse effects by themselves or in
conjunction with other individual developments, the potential cumulative
impacts of which would result in a substantial adverse environmental or
ecological effect and the elimination of planning options. Appropriate
mitigating measures will be taken to address any potential adverse impacts of
this project;
B. The proposed uses - as discussed earlier - are consistent with the objectives,
policies, and guidelines of the SMA Rules and Regulations; and
C. The proposed uses are consistent with the County General Plan, Master Plan
for Kailua-Kona, and the County Zoning Code.
X. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
A. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and
Maintenance and Enhancement of Lone -Term Productivity
If the request were denied, the short-term use of the A-1 a zoned portion of the
site would probably continue in low level agriculture or lay fallow. The
applicant may eventually construct one or two dwellings on the site. The V-
1.25 zoned portion of the site, however, would be developed into an 80 -unit
condominium project.
Given the urban/commercial character of the areas makai and north of the
subject site, there may be pressures for the subject property to be similarly
zoned. And from the perspective of trying to create a community, the
continued pattern of only commercial uses may not necessarily be
appropriate, given the residential uses on the east side of the site. Then, too,
the continued vacant, quasi -agricultural use may not also be appropriate.
From a long-term productivity standpoint, then, the proposed 92 -unit lot
condominium project, with its lesser density and lower height, would provide
a nice visual relief between the existing commercial area to the west and
residential area to the north.
B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Given its historical pasture use, the subject site is already partially disturbed.
As such, the project should not result in an irreversible commitment of
natural or archaeological resources. While there are some archaeological
resources on the site, appropriate mitigation (such as the preservation of the
burial and Kuakini Wall) will be taken.
18
The soil on the parcel has been classified "E" or very poor by the Land Study
Bureau, representing very poor agricultural potential. This is evidenced by
the vegetation on the site. While the area is capable of supporting agricultural
crops, it would not be suitable, given its surrounding urban uses. It is thus
maintained that the creation of the 90 -unit project would not result in the loss
of properties, which may have significant agricultural resource potential.
C. Mitieative Measures
The applicant intends to make improvements, if necessary, to be consistent
with the building permit process. And during the construction phase of this
project, contractors will be obligated to comply with appropriate State noise
and air quality standards.
Should further unanticipated archaeological finds be discovered in
conjunction with the development of the site, work will stop (as is required
by the State and County) and clearance secured before work is resumed.
There is no existing drainageway on the property. Any and all required
grading or grubbing work would be done in conjunction with the required
permits. This is to assure that the development of this site does not adversely
affect the drainage of the surrounding areas.
Finally, as the site is vacant, there will be no person or businesses to be
dislocated by this project.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Proieet
1. No Proiect
Under the status quo alternative, the A-1 a zoned portion of the site
will continue to remain in its fallow state or limited agricultural use.
It could also remain a fire hazard, during periods of drought. It could
also be developed with 2 or 4 dwellings.
Relative to the resort -zoned portion of the site, the project could be
developed into 80 condominium units. This project would be a
maximum development with 45 -foot tall structures.
Given the present mixture of land uses in this area and proximity to
Kailua Village, the site may not be utilized to its fullest potential if
left vacant. .
19
2. Alternative Density
Under this alternative, the applicant could seek a more intensive
residential zoning on the A-1 a zoned portion of the site, such as RM -1
to RM -2 zoning. All of these zoning categories would arguably be
consistent with the adjoining V-1.25 zoning on a portion of the subject
site. They would also be consistent with the General Plan and land
use concept map of the Draft Kona Regional Plan.
Such an approach, however, may not be compatible with the policy of
trying to foster a mixture of residential type within an urban
environment. Then, too, a denser project would add more stress to the
area's infrastructure.
3. Evaluation of Alternatives
The project's impacts to the area's social and physical infrastructure
would not appear to be significantly pronounced. Certain mitigative
measures will be taken to address any possible impacts associated by
the development of this project. Further, the project would be
consistent with the land use objectives sought to be accomplished by
the County General Plan LUPAG map.
In view of the aforementioned, it would appear that none of the
alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested
RM -2.5 alternative.
X1. REGULATORY ANALYSIS
A. General Plan LUPAG May
The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development of
the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County.
The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map
is not intended to be specifically measurable. As noted earlier, the site is
generally designated Medium Density. This designation allows consideration
for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related
functions (3 -story commercial, residential - up to 35 units per acre. " The
proposed residential development would be consistent with this designation.
PA
Based on the requested Multiple -family Residential (RM --2.5) zone, the
project would be consistent with the General Plan LUPAG designation, and
no amendments would be required.
B. General Plan Polices
The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and
standards of the General Plan document.
For one, it may provide limited short-term economic opportunities largely
through the construction of any improvements required for the residential
development. Relatedly, longer-term opportunities could be created largely
in the form of maintenance of the private roads/landscaping within the project
and the creation of a stable community. In so doing, the resultant project
should add sustained revenues to the County and State coffers.
The project intends to be energy conscious through the use design features to
take advantage of wind patterns.
Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important to
the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5) areas of
environmental concerns - air pollution, water quality, soil pollution, solid
waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the project would not be
violative of any of those objectives.
Aside from vehicular transmission, air pollution associated with the project
should be negligible. All wastewater systems would be disposed off in the
County's system along Kuakini Highway. This should be sufficient to
address any potential groundwater or coastal water impacts.
If required, a solid waste management plan could be prepared and
implemented. Being a residential project, it should not be a noisy one. Any
noise -generating facility - such as air conditioners - would be carefully placed
to minimize their noise impacts to adjoining properties.
The project area is outside of any floodway. Nonetheless, a drainage system
will be designed in a manner to protect the property as well as to minimize
the volume of surface runoff generated by this development.
The site does have some archaeological sites. The burial and Kuakini Wall
will be preserved, and other mitigative measures will be taken. Furthermore,
work will cease if unanticipated archaeological remains are discovered while
21
continuing its construction operations. Work will resume only after proper
clearances from the State and/or County have been received.
Being partially disturbed and within an urban environment, the prospects of
the site serving as a habitat for rare or endangered plant or animal life appear
remote.
As this is a residential project, it will directly fulfill the objectives of the
housing element. Specifically, these include goals, among others, which
• Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the
different parts of the County
• Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice
• Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing
housing stock
• Seek sufficient production of affordable rental and fee -simple housing in
the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs
and desires of families and individuals
The Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an area's natural
beauty. In this situation, the project will be developed in a manner where it
blends with the existing terrain and enhances the natural environment through
the introduction of landscaping.
Although the project site is about 1,000 feet from the ocean, it is also
separated by other developments from the ocean. As such, some of the usual
coastal resources concern would not be pronounced. There will be no
interference with shoreline access. Then, too, by hooking up into the
County's wastewater system, impacts to the coastal water should be
minimized.
There will be little impact to public facilities. The roadway and related
system within the project site will be private. The water system will be
developed in a manner meeting with the requirements of the Department of
Water Supply. All on-site improvements will be constructed by the applicant.
Schools and other public facilities are also located proximate to the site, most
of them being less than 5 miles away.
22
Finally, in terms of the Land Use element, the pertinent goals, policies, and
standards of the General Plan note the following:
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and
in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the
County
• The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of
communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the
physical and social environment
• Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan
designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District,
compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and
utilities, access, and public need
• The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of
communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the
physical and social environment
In view of the foregoing goals and policies, it is noted that the requested
zoning would be consistent with the Medium Density designation of the
LUPAG map. It would also be compatible with the surrounding area. There
are commercial zonings on the makai side, and single and multiple -family
residential zonings on the mauka side, proximate to the subject site.
The soil of the site is classified "E" or very poor. While it does have some
measure of agricultural potential, as evidenced by the existing vegetation on
the site, the site does not have resource that is deemed to be critical from an
agricultural perspective. Furthermore, this area is bounded by urban uses.
The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would
render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity.
23
Harty Kim
Afayor
November 23, 2001
Mr. Ali Ghalamfarsa
Alii Architects Inc.
75-127 Lunapule Road
Suite 1
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
Dear Mr. Ghalamfarsa:
County of Hawaii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Milo, Hawaii 96720-4252
(808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742
PLAN APPROVAL APPLIED FOR:
Proposed Kona Hale Alii Project
TM -K: 7-5-009: 067
Christopllcr J. Yucn
Director
We have reviewed and approved the plan for the subject improvements for FINAL PLAN
APPROVAL. Enclosed is a copy of the FINAL PLAN APPROVAL dated November 23, 2001
for your file.
Three conditions of approval has been included as part of the FINAL PLAN APPROVAL for the
subject improvements. These conditions, which is listed on page 2 of the FINAL PLAN
APPROVAL document, must be complied with prior to the establishment and use of the subject
improvements.
Should you have any questions, please contact Norren Kato of our West Hawaii Office at 327-
3510.
Sincerely,
1
CHRIS PHER J. YUEN
Planning Director
NK: nk
P:IR'PWIN601NORREN\DocumenlslPlan ApprovallUonaffaleAlii0l PAO l.doc
19i1�:�3k�`rsy
�PPFNDD A--
NOV 2 9 70011
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
F I N A L
P L A N A P P R O V A L
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii
Tax Map Key: 7-5-009: 067
Proposed Use: 80 Unit Condominium
Zone: V-1.25
As Shown on Plan
Front Yard 25'-0"+
Rear Yard 22'-0"±
Side Yard(mauka) 30'-0"
Side Yard(makai) 30'-0"
Ht. of Structure 45'-0" as
represented per plan
Access to parking New driveway
access off of Hualalai Road.
Off -Street Parking 159 stalls
(71 regular)
(38 compact)
(4 handicap)
(46 tandem)
Loading and
Unloading Space
Density 80
none
is
Fencing: Material fence/rock wall
Height
Location
Landscaping 20% of building site
Date: November 23, 2001
Location: North Kona
Parcel Area: 2.38 ac
Comments
OK -Minimum 20'-0" require
OK -Minimum 20'-0" required
OK -Min. 8' one story + 2' add'1
story
OK -Min. 8' one story + 2' add'1
story
OK -Maximum 45'-0" permitted
OK -DPW approval required
14Y
80 units x 1.25per unit=100 stalls
Minimum req'd parking stalls:
100 stalls
Minimum req'd accessible parkin
stalls: 4 stalls
TOTAL STALLS REQ'D: 100 stalls
OK-103,672.Bsf/1250=82.9 units
OK (see Condition No. 3)
UK
OK -Complies with PD Rule 17
w/irrigation
Others Tax Clearance OK -RPT ltr dated 5/11/2001
KVDC Hearing -September 10 2001 OK -approved.
Conditions:
1. Approved off-street parking shall be paved and striped prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy.
2.
Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of certificate
of occupancy. Landscaping shall conform with the minimum
requirements of Planning Department Rule No 17
3. All perimeter rock walls shall be maintained including any wal'
to be constructed alongthe Hualalai Road frontage All walls
constructed shall be of the Kona Rock Wall type as specified in
the Kailua Village Master Plan.
Tanning rector
Date November 23, 2001
PD 11/99 (MsWord)
SITE PLAN
SCALE: I
0 30 60 90
L
LOT SIZE: 2.38 ACRES t
NUMBER OF UNITS: BO
NLINEER OF PARKING SPACES
REQUIRED: 100
PROVIDED:
71 SPACES AT 8.5'.18' (REGULAR)
38 SPACES AT 7.5'.IL' (COMPACT)
AGTANDEM SPACES
04 - NANDICAP SPACES AT 9'x18'
(ONE 15 VAN ACCFaV5 F)
159 TOTAL SPACES
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 20%
OF SITE AREA
LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 30%
OF 51 -TE AREA
0 i
I
•
G s W
v
I
An Update Archaeological Inventory Survey of
TMK:3-7-5-09:54 For.
`Auhaukea`e I"Ahupua`a
North Kona District
Island of Hawaii
RC -0205
PREPARED BY:
Matthew R. Clark, B.A.
and
Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D.
PREPARED FOR:
Robert Saunders
CSV Hospitality Management LLC
551 Akala Road
Hilo, HI 96720
April 2004
RECHTMAN CONSULTING9 LLC
HC 1 Box 9149 Kea'au,11mvai l 96749
phone: (ROB) 966.766 toll-free fax: (800)406-2667
e-mail: Ixlb( )rec)itmanamsulring.com
ARCl1A6OLOGWAII, CULTURAL, AND HICrORIM I, allJ DI ES
APPENDIX B
An Update Archaeological Inventory Survey of
TMK:3-7-5-09:54 por.
`Auhaukea`d I" Ahupua`a
North Kona District
Island of Hawaii
RECHT[Q'gONSULTING
RC -0205
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the request of Mr. Bob Saunders of CSV Hospitality Management, LLC, Rechtman Consulting, LLC
conducted an update Archaeological Inventory Survey of a portion of TMK:3-7-5-09:54 within `Auhaukea`e
Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii. The current study area is a portion of a larger project area
that was previously studied by PHRI (Rosendahl 1979a, 1979b, 1981 a, 1981 b, and 1981 c). In consultation with
Patrick McCoy, Ph.D. of the Department of Land and Natural Resources -State Historic Preservation Division
(DLNR-SHPD) it was agreed that only the portion of the parcel that is proposed for development was to be
subject to updated inventory survey work. The remainder of the parcel and the features recorded therein will be
preserved en mass either by the landowner, or through a non-profit foundation.
Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D, Inc. (PHRI) recorded a single site (SIHP Site 5608) with 75 features located on
TMK:3-7-5-09:54, 55. The site includes three major structural features located makoi of the current study area
that were interpreted as "possible heiau" (Rosendahl 1981c). Of the remaining seventy-two features recorded on
the two parcels, twenty-nine are listed as possible burials, five are confirmed burials, and three others are
considered probable burials (Rosendahl 1981b). Also, four of the recorded features were interpreted as possible
residential, eight as retaining walls, one as a possible cairn, one as a bedrock activity area, one as a possible
walled terrace, one as a storage feature, one as a modern construction, and sixteen were of unknown or
undetermined functions. One of the previously recorded features (Feature R) is actually the Kuakini Wall,
which is discussed in this report as Site 6302, the State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) designation for that
site. Rosendahl (1981a) recommended further sub -surface testing and detailed mapping for the features of Site
5608. The agreed upon goal of the current study is to relocate, map, describe, and further test those features that
are located within the current proposed development area.
As a result of the current inventory survey portions of the two archaeological sites previously recorded
within the study area (SIHP Sites 5608 and 6302) by Rosendahl (1981a) were relocated and recorded.
Rosendahl (1981a) recorded fifteen features of Site 5608 within the current project area, all of which were
relocated. He listed ten of these features as "possible burials". Eleven I x 1 meter test units were excavated at
Site 5608 to test Rosendahl's (1981a) hypothesis. Subsurface testing at 5608 revealed the presence of human
skeletal remains at Feature U, an activity area at Features T and III, which have been combined into a single
feature (Feature T), and a nearly complete lack of cultural material at the other eight features that were tested.
Nine of the remaining features are thought to be agricultural in nature (Features S, V, X, GG, HH, II, HHH,
LLL, and MMM), while one is a possible Historic boundary wall (Feature W), and another is considered a
natural feature (Feature JJJ). Feature R, as recorded by Rosendahl (1979b), is actually the Kuakini Wall (Site
6302).
The lack of cultural material at the majority of the tested features, along with the informal and opportunistic
nature of their construction (i.e. within cracks and against bedrock outcrops), and their association with nearby
residential (and ceremonial) features, suggests that they were used for agricultural purposes. With the exception
of Feature U (a burial) and Feature W (a core -filled wall remnant), the features recorded within the current
study area could collectively represent the remains of household gardens associated with the nearby habitations
recorded by Rosendahl (198la, 1981 b, and 1981 c). A cleared area in the locality of Features T and III, based on
the artifact assemblage recovered from TU -4 and TU -10, likely functioned as an activity area associated with
these agricultural pursuits (based on the findings of the current study, Features T and III as recorded by
Rosendahl (198 la) have been combined under the single designation "Feature T").
Proposed treatment of the features of Site 5608 located within the current study area is no further work
except for Feature T (including Feature III), which is recommended for data recovery; and Feature U, which is
recommended for preservation. A data recovery plan will be prepared for Feature T and a burial treatment plan
will be prepared for Feature U. Both plans will be submitted to DLNR-SHPD for review. The burial treatment
plan will be further submitted to the Hawaii Island Burial Council for a determination with respect to the
proposed preservation of the burial feature. Site 6302, the Kuakini Wall, is recommended for preservation, and
proposed treatment will be included in a preservation plan for the project area.
RC -0205
Contents
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
ProjectArea Description............................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................4
Previous Archaeological Research.............................................................................................4
Cultural -Historical Context and Ahupua`a Settlement Patterns................................................8
PROJECT AREA EXPECTATIONS......................................................................................10
FIELDWORK..........................................................................................................................1
1
Methods...................................................................................................................................1
1
Findings...................................................................................................................................
I 1
Summaryand Conclusions......................................................................................................38
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...............40
REFERENCESCITED............................................................................................................41
i
I
Figures
i
1. Project area location..............................................................................................................2
2. Portion of TMK:3-3-7-5:09 showing study parcel (portion of parcel 54) .............................3
3. Typical project area vegetation..............................................................................................4
4. Project area map from Rosendahl (1981 a) showing SIHP Site 5608 and
thecurrent study area.............................................................................................................6
5. Project area plan view..........................................................................................................13
6. SIHP Site 5608, Feature S plan view and TU -3 north wall profile......................................15
7. SIHP Site 5608, Feature S, view to north and TU -3 base of excavation (inset)..................15
8. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T (includes Feature III), TU -4 and TU -10 profiles......................17
I
9. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, location of TU -4 view to north................................................18
i
10. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, TU -4 base of excavation, view to northeast ...........................18
i
11. Selected artifacts recovered from TU-4.............................................................................19
12. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, location of TU -10 (formerly Feature III) view to east ...........
20
13. SIHP Site 5608, Feature U plan view and TU -6 west wall profile....................................21
14. SIHP Site 5608, Feature U, view to east............................................................................22
15. SIHP Site 5608, Feature V plan view and TU -9 east wall profile.....................................23
16. SIHP Site 5608, Feature V, view to south of western outcrop edge..................................24
IN
RC -0205
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Mr. Bob Saunders of CSV Hospitality Management, LLC, Rechtman Consulting, LLC
conducted an update Archaeological Inventory Survey of a portion of TMK:3-7-5-09:54 within
`Auhaukea`e Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (Figure 1). The current study area is a
portion of a larger project area that was previously studied by PHRI (Rosendahl 1979a, 1979b, 1981a,
1981b, and 1981c). In consultation with Patrick McCoy, Ph.D. of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources -State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) it was agreed that only the portion of the
parcel that is proposed for development was to be subject to updated inventory survey work. The remainder
of the parcel and the features recorded therein will be preserved en mass either by the landowner, or
through a non-profit foundation.
Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D, Inc. (PHRI) recorded a single site (SIHP Site 5608) with 75 features within
a larger project area that included the current study property. The agreed upon goal of the current study is
to relocate, map, describe, and further test those features that are located within the current proposed
development area. A second archaeological site, the Kuakini Wall (SIHP Site 6302) was recorded along the
eastern boundary of the current study area. As this study is an update archaeological inventory survey, the
reader is directed to the earlier studies (Rosendahl 1979a, 1979b, 1981a, 1981b, and 1981c) for detailed
background discussions. The current project was undertaken in compliance with both the historic
preservation review process requirements (HAR 13§13-275-5) of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources -State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) and the County of Hawaii Planning
Department.
As indicated, this report contains summary background information concerning the project area's
physical setting, cultural contexts, previous archaeological work, and current survey expectations based on
the previous work. Also presented is an explanation of the project's methods, detailed descriptions of the
archaeological features encountered, interpretation and evaluation of those resources, and treatment
recommendations for the portions of documented sites within the development area.
Project Area Description
The current project area consists of a portion of TMK:3-7-5-09:54 encompassing approximately 4 acres in
`Auhaukea`e I` Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (Figure 2). The area is bounded to the
east by the Kuakini Wall (Site 6302); to the north and south by currently undeveloped parcels (although the
parcel to the north has been recently bulldozed); and to the west by a line drawn across Parcel 54 that is 50 -
feet mauka of Feature K of Site 5608 (a major structural feature and possible heiau), and all of the other
archaeological features recorded on the makai portion of the parcel. Terrain within the project area slopes
gently to the west from approximately 140 to 100 feet (46 to 33 meters) above sea level. The study area is
covered by thin soil with large areas of exposed pdhoehoe bedrock. Vegetation consists primarily of non-
native grasses with scattered kiawe (Prosopis pollida) and koa haole (Leucaena glouca) (Figure 3). The
property also contains several modern camp areas generally consisting of tents and tarps tied between trees;
some of the camps have also incorporated stonework into their designs. The amount of modem trash left on
the parcel by the residents of these camps can only be described as substantial.
RC -0205
0 0
rigure i. rroject area location.
OTJ
W
1
W
'•'t
n
(D
w A Y —. ._>F+r.L7�.' .. .. Nyi '"`•--4-... row � ........ ... _ ~-` ,
0.
PiD�Mr I=�' r E
I�,s�'.•.�_.^-'�',�•• `,.� Jd, n .!1 .. ."^- •' 'roa R M s -V p
Of -
OSP or
r t� - .. I_._. ._.. .__._... `::...--- •-' ... I
1 •r t :
OY04
i �1
54
&4AY 01
41
• t1
` .
Ott. M,ibw f rlr .l t..nr! {. � ,� x.� �' •t" ' � (G� � � �'— " -1 ^_�
1N Y R[t+4r rw.+a<a fr ' •,rf•r.., 2_'
.P Sw✓.4Jr w: t,¢)tt. "."+'4ir.'rrxrn'cw•A.-rs.<•r:• 1 ,•+r -.'f, `66� /v
SIY'fG. /••r -'>'L AV ..4�T� rw TR A<.
ca4r T . LN7Ar ratr rai,r! di ���^��••^•.,+.._
• rL.""+...•s � "'fir ;.. � c. r.� ,►,. j, 4_..-� - _ O i
hFiatvpy% u' A'.n e raa. a � (35 , 1 A I c .M 1. ♦, a
��r-vc:.:. ,�,rr'Sl"Mr;�� � s.rrr •�� P, tt:.A��,/�r pia 1.
•.1..: y a,.. n...r �1� w...:.�� ..4 ��:.r. i ��� 4,� � 1 � r +r, L/ � off../ T weMrn •f,• � �w4 ,/ ,y
~ (+.'•�."`�'� :r�.w. c._ j -0 .t< .. r,,. r.. +�/f ►tr r. c,i: •.� is L t.i7r A.
/' rM � B. r• lE1' :. •• _.--�=...��or 1 • ..` .. ..,Liii 'q w �
-Li
� l�/� tM?,� dam••,
�Mnl..•w�4�/r' 4
.' tet.
q6 l,'.�c7d f � Ltni.y w �,� i '�•.�••�....'��"•�-�., ts/ s• rfaa Ara.
Ah- w.�•:aA,r.ve�trcr! to �' '-•,=b.a c�•.ni,+,..<:,.• `""--•.,'-�•�
iM.lr, C lA[. i� •>'b..,:-.yl•+...,tt'-1 M.. r',
St z
P I, art t G'1
.t tI
Cl t wR.9A: w_[rc.i/f�a y
a n! /•.. ! '+• C
Alt-
s,
a
-_ .. u �Q # �9 Xl,.rrri d,rCJ �. Sr. P
a
L%% ►. ,�..:n: r -e. ..^,-�.-_. F
LI C/, A Iw. I,I C/AIy 1767 419
)yyamr/nT
//• !f'J'R � 'fI�Y'%7r•LQ. fad •�•tara.: , a � fi R A N � ! C L< � �
�'�1' LrNll•r fL. .. ..
Gra.
C.
,TrvtN.n wwr.. ....
-._ ....,; \ 1 gyp•.•. .t.:�t /s. /...r
(.A,., i
7.iV L f.7ll o*. I y'w A C i� ` /,1a4 wc[.
CL dsfjj. /sA4qs�.. ]y 4 j
f[: �-�: +1 lei X71 � � w `a / r�: �, S - 4r -'a .1 +,• ��•, ,w
i Lr.S A*3r C --e i .:: .' r,+ c� ` `� c, +• ,�, rJ"'i �' 1- — - `i
iff-✓MliN.<LOiI /M -~A :7. N. .rO.',',a "ANA/.
1, .. I } � s4 X61 •, 62 _ .. ; _. _. ..
t.
t &,
i
o ,
,i
f
u,rw, 11.4 C 4.
TA
-',T—jONMAPS BUREAU
�., TCkkl%DRY UP MANAII.
TAX MAP
THIRD DIVISION
� IO.+iC S C. PLAT
_ . 7 5 49
St,'3JCCT JrOC.W, IXt{4c^0_1_+_T_A1NINc PARGCIS
n
O
N
O
RC -0205
t
17.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature V, view to east of northern outcrop edge ..................................
24
18.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature V, filled crack with upright boulder
i(location
of TU -9), view to north......................................................................................25
19.
SIHP Site 5608, Features W and X plan view...................................................................26
20.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature W, view to southwest.................................................................27
21.
SIH? Site 5608, Feature X, view to east............................................................................27
22.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature GG, view to east.........................................................................28
23.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature GG plan view and TU -11 east wall profile ...............................
29
24.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature GG, TU -1 1 base of excavation, overview to east.......................29
25.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature HH, plan view and TU -5 south wall profile...............................30
26.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature HH, view to north.......................................................................30
27.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature HH, TU -5 base of excavation, view to south .............................31
28.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature II plan view and TU -8 west wall profile....................................32
29.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature 5608, Feature II, view to northeast.............................................32
30.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature II, TU -8 base of excavation, overview to south .........................
33
31.
i
SIHP Site 5608, Feature HHH plan view and TU -2 east wall profile...............................34
32.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature HHH, view to north....................................................................35
33.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature HHH, TU -2 base of excavation, overview to south ...................
35
I
34.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature JJJ, view to south........................................................................36
35.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature LLL plan view............................................................................37
36.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature LLL, hypodermic syringe found in TU -1 ...................................37
37.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature MMM plan view and TU -7 west wall profile ............................39
38.
SIHP Site 5608, Feature MMM, view to east....................................................................39
Tables
1. Features of SIHP Site 5608 (abstracted form Rosendahl 1981 a, 1981 b, and 1981 c)............7
2. Features of SIHP Site 5608 within the current study area...................................................12
3. Cultural material recovered from SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, TU -4 ...................................19
4. Site significance and treatment recommendations..... .......................................................... 40
iv
RC -0205
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
region are summarized.
Previous Archaeological Research
In April of 1979 PHRI (Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of
TMKs:3-7-5-09:54, 55 (makai of the Kuakini Wall) and 3-7-5-10:7, 10 (mauka of the Kuakini Wall) for the
Lanihau Corporation ("Project 30" parcel; Rosendahl 1979a). During that study seventeen features
(Features A -Q; Table 1) were recorded on TMK:3-7-5-09:54, 55 and assigned the state site number SIHP
5608 (the features on the other parcels were not recorded or assigned a state site number). The initial
reconnaissance survey was followed in August of 1979 by an evaluation of the archaeological features
located in the seaward portion of the "Project 30" parcel (TMK:3-7-5-09:54, 55; Rosendahl 1979b). As a
result of the evaluation another feature (Feature R, the Kuakini Wall) was added to Site 5608 (see Table 1).
In February of 1981 the preliminary archaeological work at TMK:3-7-5-09:54, 55 was followed by an
intensive survey of the property that included detailed recording and Historical documentary research, but
no subsurface testing (Rosendahl 1981a). The intensive survey cumulated in the addition of 52
archaeological features (Features S-RRR) to Site 5608, fifteen of which (Features R, S, T, U, V, W, X, GG,
HH, Il, HHH, III, JJJ, LLL, and MMM) are located within the boundaries of the current study area (see
Table 1; Figure 4). Following the intensive survey, in April of 1981 PHRI conducted testing at nine
suspected burial features (Rosendahl 1981b) and four major structural features (Rosendahl 1981c) on the
study parcel. During the burial testing five additional features (Features SSS -WWW) were added to Site
5608, raising the total number of recorded features at the site to seventy-five (see Table 1).
RC -020i
Burial testing was conducted at Features D, F, N, AA, CC, EE, SSS, TTT, and UUU (Rosendahl
1981b). Features D, F, N, AA, and SSS were found to contain Precontact human skeletal remains, while
Features CC, EE, TTT, and UUU did not (see Figure 4 and Table 1). In addition to the confirmed burials, a
crude basalt boulder "headstone" with the letters "ANA" chiseled into it was found on the surface of
Feature CCC, one of a cluster of suspected burial platforms that also included Features BBB and DDD,
leading the researchers to conclude, without conducting any subsurface testing, that these features were
likely burials too (Rosendahl 1981b:3). No alternative function was presented for the features that did not
contain burials, nor were any specific findings from the test units presented. Rosendahl does note, however,
that:
All confirmed burial features were found to consist of surface monuments in the
form of stone structures which had been built to mark sub -surface burials in pits or stone -
outlined cysts. No historic period portable cultural remains were found, but it was
obvious that several of the sub -surface burials had been cut into earlier cultural deposits
of apparently prehistoric age. Varying amounts of portable cultural remains—both
prehistoric types of artifacts and midden materials—were encountered during the testing
of suspected burial features. A preliminary count of artifacts totals 48 items, including
volcanic glass flakes and cores (35), basalt flakes (4), polished adze flakes (6), a portion
of a broken adze, an echinoid spine abrader, and a fragment of a pumice abrader.
(1981b:2-3)
Testing of the major structural features on the "Project 30" parcel was carried out at Features A, K, L,
and M (see Figure 4), three of which were listed as "possible heiau" (see Table 1; Rosendahl 1981 c). The
testing was conducted to determine (if possible) the age, function, and possible relationship between the
large stone structures. A total of fourteen test units of varying sizes were excavated: four at Feature A; three
at Feature K; six at Feature L; and one at Feature M. According to Rosendahl, "the various test
excavations .... revealed (a) the presence of substantial subsurface cultural deposits both immediately
adjacent to and extending beneath the surface structural remains, and (b) evidence of sequential
architectural modifications of the structures themselves" (1981c:3). PHRI collected all portable artifacts
recovered from the excavations, but only a qualitative sample of the midden remains.
The final report on the results of the major structural feature testing at the "Project 30" parcel was
never completed. In a preliminary report on the results of the fieldwork Rosendahl offers a brief summary
of the excavation results. He writes:
...the artifact assemblage at this point totals 1,624 items. With one possible exception—a
fragment of slate from the surface level of one test unit at Feature K, the artifact
collection appears to be entirely prehistoric in age. For the collection overall, flaked stone
(basalt and volcanic glass) accounts for 95.9% (1,557 items), with flakes and cores of
volcanic glass alone comprising 95.5% (1,550 items) of the total collection.
In addition to the portable artifacts, qualitative samples of midden materials were
collected from all test excavation units for analysis. The screening and in -field
examination of the excavated fill indicated the presence of relatively abundant and varied
midden remains, including numerous different species of marine molluscs, mammal bone
and teeth (pig, dog, and rat), bird bone, fish bone, shark teeth, echinoid spines and
exoskeleton fragments, candle nut shell, and charcoal fragment. (Rosendahl 1981 c:3-4)
No alternative function for the major structural features was presented in the preliminary report on the
testing results (Rosendahl 1981c), so it is assumed that they are still believed to be "possible heiau" (see
Table 1). Rosendahl concludes by stating that "the potential archaeological research value of the three
major structural features [Features A, K, and L] could be adequately recovered and preserved by
conducting salvage excavations of sufficient scope and scale. Salvage excavations would constitute
adequate and compete mitigation of the otherwise unavoidable adverse effects of commercial development
upon these archaeological resources" (1981c:8).
5
�F �C�WWW
I ;fes
11--50���
50-10-28-5608
uPK�N` NSG
K
N4iagr f,�.v
0 1p0• 290,
0 30m 6Oni
FIG -1 7MK_3_7-5-09:
SEAWARD PORTION
Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site
Kallua-Kona, Hawall
Project 80-8 June 1980
(Additions - March 1981)
Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D., Inc.
. �.
Figure 4. Project area map from Rosendahl (1981a) showing SIHP Site 5608 and the current study area.
6
RC -0205
Table 1. Features of SIHP Site 5608 (abstracted from Rosendahl 1981a, 1981b, and 1981c).
Feature designation
Feature type
Suggested function
A
Stepped platform
Possible heiau
B
Platform
Possible residential feature
C
Platform
Possible burial feature
D
Platform
Confirmed burial feature
E
Mound
Possible burial feature
F
Mound
Confirmed burial feature
G
Mound
Possible burial feature
H
Stepped platform
Possible residential feature
I
Platforms (2)
Possible burial features
J
Platforms (3)
Possible burial features
K
Stepped platform
Possible heiau
L
Platform
Possible heiau
M
Terrace
Possible residential feature
N
Platforms (3)
Confirmed burial features
O
Platform
Possible burial feature
P
Platform
Possible residential feature
Q
Occupation area
Bedrock activity area
R*
Wall
Kuakini Wall (SIHP Site 6302)
S*
Filled crack
Possible burial feature
T*
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
U*
Platform
Possible burial feature
V*
Modified outcrop
Possible burial feature
W*
Wall
Unknown
X*
Terrace
Retaining wall
Y
Terrace
Retaining wall
Z
Terrace
Retaining wall
AA
Platforms (2)
Confirmed burial features
BB
Boulder alignment
Unknown
CC
Platform
Unknown
DD
Wall
Unknown
EE
Rubble pile
Unknown
FF
Filled crack
Possible burial feature
GG*
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
HH*
Platform
Possible burial feature
II*
Platform
Possible burial feature
JJ
Terrace
Retaining wall
KK
Modified outcrop
Possible burial feature
LL
Cache/cupboard
Storage
MM
Rubble pile
Unknown
NN
Rubble pile
Unknown
00
Enclosure
Unknown
PP
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
QQ
Wall
Possible burial feature
RR
Walled shelter
Possible burial feature
SS
Boulder alignment/wall
Unknown
TT
Walled shelter
Unknown
UU
Platform
Possible burial feature
VV
Terrace
Retaining wall
Tahte I continued on next page.
7
RC -0205
Table 1. (continued).
Feature designation
Feature type
Suggested function
WW
Enclosure
Modem construction
XX
Wall
Possible retaining wall
YY
Enclosure
Possible walled terrace
ZZ
Mound and rubble piles (2)
Possible burial features
AAA
Modified outcrop
Possible burial feature
BBB
Platform
Probable burial feature
CCC
Platform
Probable burial feature
DDD
Platform
Probable burial feature
EEE
Platform
Possible burial feature
FFF
Platform
Possible burial feature
GGG
Modified outcrop
Possible burial feature
HHH*
Filled crack
Possible burial feature
III*
Wall
Unknown
JJJ*
Terrace
Retaining wall
KKK
Terrace
Retaining wall
LLL*
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
MMM*
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
NNN
Platform
Possible burial feature
000
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
PPP
Walled shelter
Unknown
QQQ
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
RRR
Rubble pile
Unknown
SSS
Platform
Confirmed burial feature
TTT
Platform
Possible cairn
UUU
Modified outcrop
Unknown
V V V
Occupation area
Unknown
WWW
Occupation area
Unknown
*Feature located within current project area (see Figure 4)
Cultural -Historical Context and Ahupua`a Settlement Patterns
The project area is in the coastal edge of what has been termed the Kona Field System (Cordy 1995,
Newman 1970, Schilt 1984). This area extends north at least to Kau Ahupua`a and south to Honaunau, west
from the coastline and east to the forested slopes of Hualalai (Cordy 1995). A large portion of this area is
designated in the Hawaii SIHP (State Inventory of Historic Places) as Site 50-10-37-6601 and has been
determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The basic characteristics and
elevationally delimited zones within this agricultural/residential system as presented in Newman (1970)
have been confirmed and elaborated on by ethnohistorical investigations (Kelly 1983).
The current study parcel is in the kula zone. This is the area from sea level to 150 meters elevation.
Annual rainfall in the kula zone is 75 to 125 centimeters. This lower elevation zone is traditionally
associated with habitation and the cultivation of sweet potatoes, paper mulberry, and gourds. Agricultural
features, such as clearing mounds, planting mounds, planting depressions, modified outcrops, pavements,
enclosures, and planting terraces, are common throughout much of this zone (Hammatt and Clark 1980,
Hammatt and Folk 1980, Haun et al. 1998, Schilt 1984). Dwellings were scattered throughout the
agricultural portion of the kula, but they are commonly concentrated along the shoreline (Cordy 1981,
Hammatt 1980). The shoreline zone, extending inland approximately 200 meters, was used primarily for
permanent habitation and other non-agricultural activities, such as canoe storage, ceremonial and burial
8
RC -0205
practices, recreation, and fishing -related activity. Haleoku Heiau was mentioned by John Stokes in the early
1900s as located within `Auhaukea`e 2nd Ahupua`a, but was never identified (Stokes and Dye 1991:50).
Royal and high chiefly centers were also situated within the shoreline of the kula. These complexes
included dwellings for chiefs and their entourage, places of refuge, and other structures. Several large and
densely populated royal centers were located along the shoreline between Kailua and Honaunau (Cord)
1995, Tomonari-Tuggle 1993). A variety of non-residential features are present in the kula near royal
centers, including small agricultural plots, and formal and informal burial features (Cordy 1995, Han et al.
1986, Schilt 1984, Tainter 1973, Tomonari-Tuggle 1993).
Nineteenth century habitation features built on stone platforms were present in the kula (Hamman and
Meeker 1979, Schilt 1984). Stone platforms with clearly defined internal divisions are present (O'Hare and
Wolforth 1997) and probably reflect a change in residential plans from a complex of multiple, separate,
single -function structures (men's sleeping, women's sleeping, cooking) to a single structure with multiple
rooms and functions (entire family's quarters and cooking) (Ladefoged 1991). Burial features with historic -
era artifacts and architecture (i.e., mortar and corrugated tin) are present in the lower elevations. These are
frequently isolated structures, but burial also occurred within residential platforms during the Historic
Period (O'Hare and Wolforth 1997).
During the early nineteenth century, following the breaking of the traditional eating kapu by Liholiho,
Ka`ahumanu, and the Queen mother Keopuolani, which was a symbolic gesture that led to the demise of
the entire Hawaiian religious system, the older places of worship (heiau) no longer held their significance.
Many such places were dismantled, and the stones used for other building projects such as the Kuakini
Wall, which runs along the eastern edge of the current project area.
The Missionary William Ellis visited the vicinity of the current project area in 1823 and described the
following:
The environs were cultivated to a considerable extent; small gardens were seen among the
barren rocks on which the houses are built, wherever soil could be found sufficient to
nourish the sweet potato, the watermelon, or even a few plants of tobacco, and in many
places these seemed to be growing literally in the fragments of lava, collected in heaps
around their roots....
Leaving Kairua [Kailua], we passed through the villages thickly scattered along the shore to
the southward. The country around looked unusually green and cheerful, owing to the
frequent rain, which for some months past have fallen on this side of the island. Even the
barren lava, over which we traveled, seemed to veil its sterility beneath frequent tufts of tall
waving grass, or spreading shrubs and flowers.
The side of the hills, laid out for a considerable extent in gardens and fields, and generally
cultivated with potatoes, and other vegetables, were beautiful.
The number of heiaus, and depositories of the dead, which we passed, convinced us that
this part of the island must formerly have been populous. The latter were built with
fragments of lava, laid up evenly on the outside, generally about eight feet long, from four
to six broad, and about four feet high. Some appeared very ancient, other had evidently
been standing but a few years. (1963[1823]:72-73).
The religious, socioeconomic, and demographic changes that took place in the period between 1790
and the 1840s, promoted the establishment of a Euro -American style of land ownership, and the Great
Mahele was the vehicle for determining ownership of the native land. During this period (1848-1899), the
0
RC -0205
Mahele defined the land interests of the King (Kamehameha I1I), the high-ranking chiefs, and the low -
ranking chiefs, the konohiki. The chiefs and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land
Commission to receive awards for lands provided to them by Kamehameha 111. They were also required to
provide commutations to the government in order to receive royal patents on their awards. The lands were
identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land
could be surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land Commission and speeded the transfers
(Chinen 1961:13).
During this process all lands were placed in one of three categories: Crown Lands (for the occupant of
the throne), Government Lands, and Konohiki Lands. All three types of land were subject to the rights of
the native tenants. Commoners could make claims for land, and if substantiated, they would receive awards
referred to as kuleana, from the Land Commission. During this period, other land grants were also made to
individuals directly from the Kingdom. In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission)
was established in the Kingdom of Hawai'i 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
during the Mahele. The information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885. The testimonies were
generally given in Hawaiian and simultaneously transcribed in English.
The earliest records for 'Auhaukea'e 1" Ahupua'a show that it was owned by William Pitt Leleiohoku,
the son of Kalaniomoku as well as the adopted son and heir of Governor John Adams Kuakini (Rosendahl
1981a:A-27). However, when Leleiohoku died in October of 1848, his heirs, Ruth Keelikolani and John
Pitt Kinau, were forced to turn the ahupua'a over to the Government in lieu of fees on other lands awarded
to them. Then during the Mahele the current study parcel was part of a larger Land Commission Award
(LCAw. 11216), encompassing nearly all of 'Auhaukea'e I" Ahupua'a (334 acres), that was awarded to M.
Kekauonohi, who claimed she had received the lands from Kamehameha 111. When she died in 1851 her
land was inherited by her second husband Levi Haalelea, who passed away in 1864 (Rosendahl 1981a:A-
28). The lands encompassing the current project area eventually became part of the Greenwell Ranch.
Population declined and settlements became smaller in the Kona area during the Territorial Period
(1900-1959). Coastal occupation was concentrated in the small villages of Kailua and Keauhou, with
permanent residences with gardens and animal pens scattered along the shoreline. Upland habitation was
associated with agricultural and ranching pursuits. More walls were added to the kula as cattle pastures
expanded into the lower elevations during this period. At this time the Greenwell Ranch used the lands
encompassed by the current project area as pasturage for cattle.
PROJECT AREA EXPECTATIONS
Based on the background information presented above, a set of field expectations can be generated.
Rosendahl (1981 a) recorded fourteen archaeological features of Site 5608 within the current project area.
One of these was the Kuakini Wall (Site 6302), ten of the others he listed as possible burials. Based on this
information, it is likely that human skeletal remains will be encountered during the current project.
However, many of the "possible burial features" recorded by Rosendahl (1981 a) are crude constructions on
bedrock. If they do not contain burials, it is likely they are agricultural features. Clark and Rechtman (2003)
documented the presence of 297 agricultural features (Site 23686) on a 62 -acre parcel, in Wai'aha
Ahupua'a to the south of the current study area. The current project area was a part of the Greenwell
Ranch, Historic Period activities related to the ranch likely resulted in the disturbance of some of the earlier
features and the ranching activities may be visible on the landscape in the form of core -filled walls and
enclosures.
10
RC -0205
FIELDWORK
An initial reconnaissance of the study area, to relocate the features previously recorded by PHRI and to
direct surveyors to their locations, was conducted on October 16, 2003 by Matthew R. Clark B.A., J. David
Nelson, B.A., and John Fogerty. This work was followed by an intensive inventory survey, feature
recording, and subsurface testing from December 22-24, 30-31 2003 and on January 2, 5-7, 2004 by J.
David Nelson, B.A., Christopher S. Hand, B.A., Thomas B. Jones, B.A., and Amy L. Kasberg, B.A. All
fieldwork was carried out under the direction of Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D.
Methods
During the intensive inventory survey of the study area, the entire four acres was subject to north/south
pedestrian transects with fieldworkers spaced at 10 -meter intervals. When archaeological resources (or land
alterations; e.g. bulldozing, fence lines, etc.) were encountered, they were referenced for their PHRI
assigned feature number, plotted on a map of the study parcel using Garmin 76s handheld GPS technology
(with sub five -meter accuracy), and then (when appropriate) cleared of vegetation, mapped in detail,
photographed, and described using standardized site record forms. Sites were also evaluated at that time for
the need of subsurface testing.
Excavation of the test units (TUs) proceeded following natural stratigraphic layers. Where applicable,
the layers were excavated in arbitrary 10 -centimeter levels. All recovered soil matrix was passed through 1/4
inch mesh screen, and all recovered cultural material was remanded to the laboratory for detailed analysis.
Level record forms, filled out for each level of each layer in each unit, were used to record soil
descriptions, Munsell color notations, cultural constituents collected, and a general description of the level.
Upon completion of a unit, photographs were taken, a profile drawing was prepared, and the unit was back-
filled as close to its original specifications as possible.
Recovered cultural material was processed at the Rechtman Consulting, LLC laboratory facility and is
currently curated at that location as well. To begin the laboratory process the recovered cultural material
was first washed and then separated, by level within individual units, into material classes and separated by
species or type (to the lowest taxonomic level possible). An accession number (ACC #) was then
sequentially assigned to each group of related items; and the material encompassed by an individual
accession number was quantified by the number of identified specimens (N1SP), weighed, and when
applicable considered for the minimum number of individuals (MNI) present. The findings of the inventory
survey along with detailed descriptions of the encountered archaeological resources and the subsurface
testing are presented below.
Findings
As a result of the current inventory survey portions of two archaeological sites previously recorded within
the study area (SIHP Sites 5608 and 6302) were relocated and recorded. In addition to this, eleven I x I
meter test units were excavated at Site 5608. The testing at Feature U of Site 5608 revealed the presence of
human skeletal remains. The locations of all recorded sites and features are shown on Figure 5. The feature
distribution may differ slightly from the Rosendahl (1981a) map (see Figure 4), as more accurate GPS
mapping equipment was used during the current study.
SIHP Site 5608
Site 5608, as recorded by Rosendahl (1981a), consists of seventy-five features located on TMK:3-7-5-
09:54, 55 (see Table 1 and Figure 4). The site includes three major structural features located makai of the
current study area that were interpreted as "possible heiau" (Rosendahl 1981 c). Of the remaining seventy-
two features recorded on the two parcels, twenty-nine are listed as possible burials, five are confirmed
burials, and three others are considered probable burials (Rosendahl 1981b). Also, four of the recorded
features were interpreted as possible residential, eight as retaining walls, one as a possible cairn, one as a
bedrock activity area, one as a possible walled terrace, one as a storage feature, one as a modem
construction, and sixteen were of unknown or undetermined functions. One of the previously recorded
features (Feature R) is actually the Kuakini Wall, which is discussed in this report as Site 6302, the State
RC -0205
Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) designation for that site. Feature types recorded by Rosendahl (1981 a,
1981b, and 1981c) included platforms, mounds, terraces, occupation areas, walls, boulder alignments,
rubble piles, filled cracks, modified outcrops, enclosures, a cupboard, and a walled shelter. Rosendahl
(1981a) recommended further sub -surface testing and detailed mapping for the features of Site 5608.
Rosendahl (1981a) recorded fifteen archaeological features within the current study area (see Figure
5). One of these (Feature R) is actually the Kuakini Wall (Site 6302). The other features recorded within
the current study area include three platforms, two terraces, two walls, four rubble piles, two filled cracks,
and one modified outcrop (Table 2). Ten of these features were listed as "possible burials", two were
considered retaining walls, and two were of unknown or undetermined functions. During the current study,
test units were excavated at all of the possible burial features and at one of the walls of unknown function.
Subsurface testing at 5608 revealed the presence of human skeletal remains at Feature U, an activity area at
Features T and III, which were subsequently combined into a single feature (Feature T), and a nearly
complete lack of cultural material at the other eight features that were tested.
Table 2. Features of SIHP Site 5608 within the current studv area.
Feature
Type
Previously designated
Currently assigned Test unit
Modified outcrop
Possible burial feature
junction*
junction
R
Wall
Kuakini Wall
Kuakini Wall (Site 6302)
S
Filled crack
Possible burial feature
Agricultural TU -3
T
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
Habitation/activity area TU -4
U
Platform
Possible burial feature
V
Modified outcrop
Possible burial feature
W
Wall
Unknown
X
Terrace
Retaining wall
GG
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
HH
Platform
Possible burial feature
II
Platform
Possible burial feature
HHH
Filled crack
Possible burial feature
III
Wall
Unknown
iii
Terrace
Retaining wall
LLL
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
MMM*
Rubble pile
Possible burial feature
Burial
TU -6
Agricultural
TU -9
Possible boundary marker
Agricultural
Agricultural
TU -11
Agricultural
TU -5
Agricultural
TU -8
Agricultural
TU -2
Part of Feature T
TU -10
Probable natural feature
Agricultural
TU -1
Agricultural
TU -7
derived from Rosendahl 1981 a.
The lack of cultural material at the majority of the tested features, along with the informal and
opportunistic nature of their construction (i.e. within cracks and against bedrock outcrops), and their
association with nearby residential (and ceremonial) features, suggests that they were used for agricultural
purposes. With the exception of Feature U (a burial) and Feature W (a core -filled wall remnant), the
features recorded within the current study area could collectively represent the remains of household
gardens associated with the nearby habitations recorded by Rosendahl (1981a, 1981b, and 1981c). A
cleared area in the locality of Features T and III, based on the artifact assemblage recovered from TU -4 and
TU -10, likely functioned as an activity area associated with these agricultural pursuits (based on the
findings of the current study, Features T and III as recorded by Rosendahl (1981a) have been combined
under the single designation "Feature T").
In the hot, dry climate of the Kailua-Kona area where both water and soil are extremely scarce, the
Hawaiian gardener had to be opportunistic and vigilant to achieve successful cultivation. Low spots in the
bedrock that retain even the smallest amount of moisture could have been mulched and used for planting
sweet potato (Handy and Handy 1972:131-132). Mounds or rubble piles could have been used in a similar
manner, and likewise soil areas that had naturally collected on the bedrock ground surface. In the later case,
cobbles would have been removed from the soil areas and perhaps thrown against a bedrock outcrop, or
constructed into a crude enclosure surrounding the soil, or mounded up and used for planting. Essentially,
the features recorded during the current study may represent primary use as planting features, or as
secondary byproducts of planting: clearing features.
12
RC -0'_04
13
Break in wall
P 63o" ' I
SI
I
I
Collapse
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
\ Feature MMM I
I
I
I
v O
Feature V Feature IIJ
I
I
I
Feature JJJ I
I
I
I
O I
I
Feature U O
I
I
Feature HH O I
I
I
I
1
SHIP Site 5608 Feature GG O I
1
I
I
I
O° O I
I
I
Feature T (includes Feature III) I
I
Feature W I
I
I
I
O Feature S I
1
I
I
II
er p°� Feature HHH
I
I
0 5 10 I
Feature W O I
JI
Feature LLL I
Scale in meters
I �� i
I Feature X '
I
— — — Project area boundary
13
RC -0205
The Missionary William Ellis in 1823 wrote of the Kailua suburbs in the vicinity of the current project and
described the following:
The environs were cultivated to a considerable extent; small gardens were seen among the
barren rocks on which the houses are built, wherever soil could be found sufficient to
nourish the sweet potato, the watermelon, or even a few plants of tobacco, and in many
places these seemed to be growing literally in the fragments of lava, collected in heaps
around their roots.
Several of the features tested during the current study contained coral and/or waterworn stones. The
coral could have been added to the planting features to augment the soil, and the waterwom stones were
perhaps offerings meant to aid in successful cultivation (the same could also be true for the coral). In a
study of the agricultural features at the Amy B. H. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden in Kealakekua, South
Kona, researchers noted that nearly thirty percent of the excavated mounds contained at least one
waterworn stone and suggested that this could represent "some unknown aspect of the Hawaiian
agricultural ritual" (Kirch in Major 2001:57).
To the south of the current project area, within Wai`aha Ahupua`a, at similar elevations and on similar
terrain, Clark and Rechtman (2003) recorded 297 agricultural features on a 62 -acre parcel. The features
included 199 mounds, 59 modified outcrops, 22 terraces, 7 enclosures, 7 kuaiwi, and 3 pavements. Ten of
these features were tested; all of them lacked cultural material.
All of the features of Site 5608 recorded by Rosendahl (1981a) within the current project area were
relocated and rerecorded during this study. No additional features were added to the site as a result of the
current fieldwork, but two features (Features T and III) were combined. During this study, all of the
features were cleared of vegetation, metrically recorded, mapped, described, and photographed. Generally,
the features appeared to be in a further deteriorated state then they were at the time of the 1981 study. The
deterioration is largely due to the effects of time and the presence of several transient camps located in and
around the study area. Detailed feature descriptions follow below and the locations of all the features of
Site 5608 recorded within the current study area are shown on Figure 5.
Feature S
Feature S is located along the southern edge of the study area approximately midway between Features
HHH and III (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981 a) described Feature S as a possible burial feature consisting
of a filled crack measuring 1.1 meters wide by 1.5 meters long and containing a few coral pebbles and a
coral abrader fragment. During the current study it was discovered that Feature S had been partially
excavated since the Rosendahl (1981 a) study. The cobbles that had originally filled the crack to the level of
the surrounding pahoehoe bedrock had been removed to a depth of approximately 32 centimeters below the
level of the bedrock. These cobbles were found piled on ground surface to the north of the feature (Figure
6). As described for the purposes of the current study, Feature S consisted of a crack in the pahoehoe
bedrock measuring 1.0 meter (north/south) by 95 centimeters (east/west), that was partially filled with
pahoehoe cobbles and contained numerous fragments of waterworn coral and branch coral (Figure 7).
A single test unit (TU -3) was excavated at Feature S to examine Rosendahl's (1981 a) interpretation of
the feature as a "possible burial." TU -3 was laid out as a I x 1 meter square, but in actuality only the
cobbles filling the interior of the crack were removed during the excavation of the unit; the northeast corner
of TU -3 encompassed the pahoehoe bedrock ground surface outside the small crack. Excavation of TU -3
revealed a single 10 -centimeter layer of fill (Layer I) resting on bedrock (see Figure 6). Layer I consisted of
small angular pahoehoe cobbles and numerous coral fragments with a thin layer of very dark brown (7.5YR
2.5/2) silt collected on bedrock. Imported cultural debris recovered from TU -3 consisted of six water wom
pebbles, 236.5 grams of branch coral, and 844.0 grams of other waterworn coral. Excavation of TU -3
terminated at bedrock 10 centimeters below the level of the cobble fill (Layer I) and approximately 42
centimeters below the surrounding bedrock ground surface (see Figure 7). As discussed above, it is likely
that Feature S functioned as an agricultural planting area.
14
0 .5 1
Scale in meters
P7�,T,
remock
08
0
.� m
"-j 71 T
�� Pahoehoe bedrock
outcrop
iiia
TU -3
Filled
bedrock
crack
C
I
11IN-7.
Figure 6. SIHP Site 5608, Feature S plan view and TU -3 north wall profile.
' .Ani � • - � ' � ''Ja ! �\
, � air
RC -0205
0 10 20 j
I
Scale in centimeters
I
TU -3 north wall profile
Layer I consisted of small angular pahoehoe cobbles
and numerous coral fragments with a thin layer of very
dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) silt collected on bedrock.
w�
"`fit— s, `
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillim
�' 4 is ��+.+��_` ... :,f � � •�� / `- P �i
•t
15
RC -0205
Feature T (also includes Feature 1!1)
Feature T is a habitation/activity area located in the south-central portion of the project area (see Figure 5).
Feature T, for the purposes of the current study and based on the results of subsurface testing, has been
combined with Feature III. The two features are located on the same bedrock outcrop approximately 1.5
meters distant from one another. Based on the findings at TU -4 and TU -10, it is apparent that the features
are related and actually consist of a cleared level area containing thin soil over bedrock that measures
approximately five meters by six meters (Figure 8). The cleared area is located between the two features
recorded by Rosendahl (1981a). The two previously recorded features are actually clearing piles, a
byproduct of the construction of Feature T as it is currently defined. Furthermore, judging by the artifacts
recovered from the two test units, it is likely that the cleared portion of the feature functioned as an activity,
area that was perhaps utilized for short-term habitation as well. Features T and III as described by
Rosendahl (1981a) probably represent a clearing piles from when the feature was originally constructed
and areas where refuse was discarded by the individuals subsequently utilizing the activity area. The
activities that took place at habitation/activity area were likely associated with agricultural pursuits within
the study area (see discussion above).
Rosendahl (1981 a) described Feature T as a possible burial feature consisting of a loosely piled cobble
and boulder rubble pile measuring 2.0 meters wide, 2.4 meters long, and 0.55 meters high. A single 1 x 1
meter test unit (TU -4) was excavated at this feature (Figure 9) to examine Rosendahl's (1981a)
interpretation as a "possible burial." Excavation of TU -4 revealed a three -layer stratigraphic profile resting
on bedrock (see Figure 8). Layer I, the approximately 20 -centimeter thick architectural layer, consisted of
piled pahoehoe boulders and cobbles that were mixed with Layer II soil near the base of the layer. Layer 11
consisted dark yellowish brown (IOYR 3/4) fine silt with approximately twenty-five percent cobble
inclusions. This 25 -centimeter thick layer contained several large kiawe roots and the majority of the
cultural debris recovered from TU -4 (Table 3). Cultural material recovered from Layer II included marine
shell, urchin (Echinoidea), fish bone, small fragments of unidentiflable small mammal bone, volcanic glass
flakes, basalt flakes, six coral abrader fragments, two Cypraea shell tool fragments (possible awls), and a
waterworn basalt hammerstone (Figure 11). Layer II gradually transitioned to Layer III, an 8 -centimeter
thick, culturally sterile layer of dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) silt mixed with decomposing bedrock.
Excavation of TU -4 terminated 53 centimeters below the unit's surface at bedrock (Figure 10).
Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature III as a crude wall that measured 1.0 meter wide by 9.75 meters
long by 0.5 meters high with a short break about midway along its length. He also noted a few coral
cobbles at the base of the feature. A 1 x I meter test unit (TU -10) was excavated at this feature (Figure 12)
to determine its relationship to the feature Rosendahl (1981a) described as Feature T. Excavation of TU -10
revealed a two -layer stratigraphic profile resting on bedrock (see Figure 8). Layer 1, the architectural layer,
consisted of piled pahoehoe boulders and cobbles. Layer I rested on bedrock in the central portion of the
unit, but small pockets of dark yellowish brown (IOYR 3/4) fine silt (Layer II) had collected beneath Layer
I on bedrock. The soil from Layer II was screen separately. Cultural material recovered from the screen
included eight coral fragments (388.4 grams), one Cypraea shell fragment (1.0 gram), two fragments of
Echinoidea (0.3 grams), and one basalt flake (0.9 grams). Excavation of TU -10 terminated at undulating
bedrock as deep as 40 centimeters below the feature's surface.
16
TU -4 East wall profile.
Layer I - architectural layer of piled pahoehoe
boulders and cobbles that were mixed with
Layer II soil near the base of the layer.
Layer II - dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 3/4)
fine silt with approximately twenty-five percent
cobble inclusions. This layer contained several
large kiawe roots and the majority of the
cultural debris recovered from TU -4.
Layer III - culturally sterile layer of dark
yellowish brown (I OYR 4/4) silt mixed with
decomposing bedrock.
TU -10 West wall profile.
Layer I -architectural layer, of piled pahoehoe
boulders and cobbles.
Layer II - small pockets of dark yellowish
brown (IOYR 3/4) fine silt on bedrock.
i
I
0 1 2
I
Scale in meters
(heights In centimeters)
I
Layer)
�] CD Layer IIIc
a Q
--------------------
Layer III
Pahoehoe bedrock
M�
uuur Uu Ucuwcrc
Figure 8. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T (includes Feature III), TU -4 and TU -10 profiles.
17
RC -0205
0 to 20
Scala in cenomeien
o1 J
Scale in centimeters
Feature T
-10
,ly Feature III
0 0 RC -0205
tT
Figure 9. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, location of TU -4 view to north.
Figure 12. SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, TU -4 base of excavation, view to northeast.
18
0 0 RC -020-5
Table 3. Cultural material recovered from SIHP Site 5608, Feature T, TU -4.
ACC #
Layer
Depth*
Material
Species/Type
NISP
MNI
Weight (g)
35
I
0-20
Coral
Branch
2
-
129.7
36
1
0-20
Basalt
Waterworn
2
-
93.6
1
I
0-20
Coral
Waterworn
8
-
40.0
2
I
0-20
Shell
Cypraea
2
1
0.9
3
II
20-30
Organic
Charcoal
-
-
0.2
4
II
20-30
Coral
Waterworn
22
-
72.2
5
II
20-30
Shell
Cypraea
33
8
27.9
6
11
20-30
Shell
Mytilus
9
2
0.8
7
II
20-30
Shell
Drupa
5
5
7.3
8
II
20-30
Shell
Nerita
53
36
9.5
9
II
20-30
Echinoderm
Echinoidea
11
1
0.7
10
II
20-30
Shell
Conus
4
3
22.3
11
II
20-30
Fish bone
Scaridae
2
1
0.2
12
II
20-30
Fish bone
Unidentified
19
-
3.2
13
II
20-30
Mammal bone
Unidentifiable
4
-
0.4
14
II
20-30
Volcanic glass
Flake
2
-
0.8
15
II
20-30
Basalt
Flake
24
-
16.2
16
II
20-30
Coral
Abrader
1
-
0.2
17
II
20-30
Coral
Abrader
1
-
0.6
18
II
20-30
Coral
Abrader
1
-
0.2
19
II
20-30
Coral
Abrader
1
-
0.2
20
II
20-30
Coral
Abrader
1
-
0.2
21
II
20-30
Coral
Abrader
1
-
0.7
22
II
20-30
Shell
Cypraea awl
1
-
9.5
26
II
20-30
Basalt
Hammerstone
1
-
331.3
23
II
30-40
Coral
Waterworn
2
-
6.4
24
II
30-40
Shell
Nerita
4
2
0.1
25
II
30-40
Shell
Cypraea tool
1
1
0.4
*Depth in centimeters below the unit's surface.
Figure 11. Selected artifacts recovered from TU -4. Top row (from left to right):
ACC #s 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 20. Bottom row (from left to right): ACC #s 22, 25, 15, 26.
19
RC -010s
Feature U
Feature U is a burial platform located in the east -central portion of the project area just to the south of
Feature III (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature U as a possible burial platform measuring
2.1 meters wide, 3.0 meters long, and 0.6 meters high. Dimensions recorded for Feature U during the
current study were 3.2 meters (north/south) by 2.4 meters (east/west), with a maximum height of 65
centimeters (Figure 13). The larger size of the feature, as recorded during the current study, is likely due to
increased collapse since the Rosendahl (1981a) study and better clearing of vegetation for recording
purposes during the current study. Feature U is roughly rectangular with medium to large sized pahoehoe
and `a'a boulders piled 1-2 courses high around its exterior edge and an interior fill of medium to large
sized cobbles (Figure 14). Some boulders are also present on the feature's surface. The edges of Feature U
are largely collapsed, with the exception of the northwest corner and western edge which sill exhibit signs
of loose stacking. The eastern edge of the feature is nearly level ground surface (terrain slopes to the west
in the general vicinity of the feature).
A single 1 x I meter test unit (TU -6) was excavated at Feature U to examine Rosendahl's (1981a)
interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial." Excavation of TU -6 revealed a two -layer stratigraphic
profile before the excavation was terminated due to the presence of human skeletal remains (see Figure 13).
Layer 1, the architectural layer, consisted of pahoehoe and 'a'a cobbles with one small boulder, three
waterworn cobbles, and several coral fragments also present. Layer I extended to a depth of 60 centimeters
below the platform's surface and its base was lined with 'a'a slabs resting on Layer II. Layer II consisted of
dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4 to IOYR 4/6) fine silt with some cobbles included and a large amount of
cultural debris present. Identified cultural material consisted of marine shell, urchin, coral, waterwom
pebbles, volcanic glass flakes, basalt flakes, and large amounts of charcoal. It appeared as though the Layer
II soil had been imported from another area, as no other such soil was present in the vicinity of the
platform. At 123 centimeters below the surface of Feature U in the center of TU -6 adult human skeletal
remains, including skull fragments and a finger bone, were encountered within the Layer II soil. Based on
the presences of large amounts of traditional cultural debris within TU -6, Feature U is thought to be a
Precontact burial monument.
TU -6 West wall profile
Waterworn cobble
0 10 20
I I
Scale in centimeters
RC -0205
LayerI
Layer I- architectural layer ofpahoehoe
and 'a'd cobbles with one small boulder,
three waterworn cobbles, and several
coral fragments also present.
Layer 11 - dark yellowish brown
(]OYR 4/4 to IOYR 4/6) fine silt with �] o"�'
some cobbles included and a large
amount of cultural debris present. O
C) D D Layer II
o oo
Q � o
Q Q o0
Human skeletal remains encountered in center of unit
(excavation terminated)
A
A
Loose stacking -
- -6-,, ,. Durr ouc novo, rcatW C U pian view anu t u -o west wall protle.
21
,bbles
0 .5 1
00
Scale in meters
(heights in centimeters)
RC -0205
Figure 14. SIHP Site 5608, Feature U, view to east.
Upon discovery of the skeletal remains at Feature U, excavation of TU -6 ceased immediately. The
remains, which were not moved from their original position, were stabilized and re -buried with the soil
excavated from the unit. All artifacts recovered from the screen were returned to the unit. The architectural
layer was then rebuilt on top of the burial, as close to its original specifications as possible, and DLNR-
SHPD was notified of the discovery.
Feature V
Feature V is a modified outcrop located in the east -central portion of the project area approximately 20
meters west of the Kuakini Wall (SIHP Site 6302; see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature V as
a possible burial features located on a modified bedrock outcrop that measures 7.0 meters wide by 15.0
meters long with several filled cracks and a C-shaped walled shelter on its surface. This description
generally fits what was recorded for Feature V during the current study (Figure 15), except that, after
clearing the outcrop of vegetation, the C -shape mentioned by Rosendahl (1981a) was found to be a
naturally occurring decomposing bedrock feature. Feature V is an extremely crude construction (Figure
16), if it was constructed at all. The bedrock outcrop, which rises up to 1.65 meters above the surrounding
ground surface (Figure 17), constitutes the location of the highest elevation within the study area. Several
cracks on the outcrop may have been filled with cobbles, although this also could have happened as the
bedrock naturally weathered and fractured. A waterworn cobble and a coral fragment were found on the
surface of Feature V. Also one pahoehoe slab, along the northern edge of the feature, appeared as though it
may have been placed upright, and supported with smaller cobble fill (Figure 18).
A 1 x I meter test unit (TU -9) was excavated at Feature V, over the possibly placed upright slab (the
most likely place a burial could have been concealed on the outcrop), in order to examine Rosendahl's
(1981a) interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial." Excavation of TU -9 revealed a single
stratigraphic layer resting on bedrock (see Figure 15). Layer I consisted primarily of large pahoehoe
boulders that had fractured off the outcrop. Excavation of the unit terminated at undulating bedrock
approximately 90 centimeters below the feature's surface, no cultural material was recovered from TU -9.
Although testing ruled out the possibility that this is a burial feature, its function remains unclear. While the
modifications to this outcrop seem to reflect cultural activity, the nature of that activity is unknown. As
discussed above, it is likely that Feature V functioned as an agricultural dearing or planting area.
22
TU -9 East wall profile
LayerI- largepkhoehoe boulders
that have fractured off the outcrop
with air spaces between them resting
on bedrock.
Waterworn
coral under
boulder
in blister
I
C
RC -0205
0, 1 20
Scale in centimeter,
Blister -runs east 90 centimeters (45 tall)
Possible cobble fill
II it ~
n GO
Waterwom cobble
under
bedrock overhang
23
or Slab possibly placed upright
0
1 I2
W
Scale in meters
(heights in centimeters)
i
RC -0205
view to north.
Feature W
Feature W is a wall segment located in the northwest comer of the project area running parallel to the
northern property boundary approximately 10 meters to its south (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a)
described Feature W as a crude, discontinuous, bi-faced wall with rubble core -fill measuring 1.3 meters
wide by 32.5 meters long by 0.45 to 0.55 meters tall. He also noted that its west end abuts the north end of
Feature X. This description generally conforms to the information recorded during the current study.
Feature W, beginning at its western end where it abuts Feature X, runs east for 5.6 meters to a point where
a bulldozer cut bisects its length (Figure 19). The wall is absent for 6.0 meters and then picks up on the
opposite side of the bulldozer break and continues east for an additional 18.0 meters before terminating in
collapse and disappearing into the rocky terrain. These measurements give Feature W a combined length of
29.6 meters. However, the boundary between Features W and X is indistinct and extremely arbitrary. For
the purposes of the current study, Feature W is considered to terminate, to the west, at the bedrock outcrop
that contains Feature X (see description below and Figure 19). PHRI (Rosendahl 1981 a) may have felt the
wall continued further to the west, and thus assigned the feature a longer length. It is possible that Feature
W, which appears to have been core -filled, but which is now mostly collapsed (Figure 20), served as a
boundary marker in Historic times.
Feature X
Feature X is a modified outcrop located in the northwest comer of the project area that abuts the western
end of Feature W (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature X as a retaining wall, measuring 7.0
meters wide by 10.5 meters long by 0.8 meters tall, that incorporates a bedrock outcrop to form a rough
terrace. He also noted a few pieces of coral and some waterworn pebbles on the feature's surface. This
description is consistent with what was recorded for the feature during the current study. Feature X consists
of two piles of small to large sized pahoehoe cobbles against the western edge of a roughly linear bedrock
outcrop (Figure 21). The piles are separated in the center of the feature by natural unmodified bedrock (see
Figure 19). Feature X has a maximum height of 1.0 meter to the north and west, but is level with the top
surface of the smooth pahoehoe outcrop to the south and east. A modern camping area enclosed by rocks
and a modem kerbed trail segment are located just to the south of Feature X. Although Rosendahl (1981a)
interpreted Feature X as a retaining wall, it seems more correct to call it a modified outcrop, as it does not
retain anything, it is simply piled cobbles against a bedrock outcrop. As discussed above, it is likely that
Feature X functioned as an agricultural clearing or planting area.
25
Wall continues
for approximately
11 meters trending E -W
a
3
v
m
v
fr.
Bulldozer break
0 1 2
Scale in n meters
(heights in centuneters)
- Grass ^
%..
Pahoehoe bedrock
RC -0'_05
7ieure 19. SIHP Site 5608
W and X nlan view
26
F � � ��+fir $�� '� rar �.vi` � =>•.
i.t. lit
�'`' L� �� 'r`. ! � 1 �' i� . '�.ri� _. S • . ><'' 2�2 s�� 4Y' .: f' ?�� �, ,'222
1 �,�� i<A ,�'sl
6
row �{ l �V �� C+I y /b�� ,✓� 4-.` r x e
r
�y
RC -020
Feature GG
Feature GG is a rubble pile located in the central portion of the project area along the southern property
boundary (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981 a) described Feature GG as a possible burial feature consisting of
a cobble and small boulder rubble pile that measured 2.0 meters wide by 2.5 meters long by 0.4 meters tall.
However, after clearing this rubble pile of vegetation during the current study (Figure 22), it was found that
Feature GG actually measured 3.5 meters long by 2.5 meters wide and rose to a maximum height of 69
centimeters (Figure 23). A 1 x 1 meter test unit (TU -11) was excavated in the central portion of Feature GG
in order to examine Rosendahl's (1981 a) interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial." Excavation of
TU -I 1 revealed a two -layer stratigraphic profile resting on bedrock (see Figure 23). Layer 1, the 15 to 20 -
centimeter thick architectural layer, consisted of small to large sized pahoehoe and 'a'd cobbles. This layer
gradually transitioned to (and mixed with) Layer II, except in the southern portion of the unit where Layer I
rested directly on bedrock. Layer II consisted of dark brown (IOYR 3/3) silt containing approximately fifty
percent cobbles. Layer II continued beneath Layer I, where bedrock was not present, for approximately 45
centimeters. Excavation of TU -I 1 terminated at bedrock 60 centimeters below the feature's surface (Figure
24); only one piece of coral (32.5 grams) was recovered from TU -11. As discussed above, it is likely that
Feature GG functioned as an agricultural planting or clearing feature.
Feature HH
Feature HH is located in the central portion of the project area along the southern property boundary (see
Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature HH as a possible crude burial platform measuring 2.6
meters wide by 3.0 meters long by 0.1 to 1.0 meter tall that was collapsed along the southwest side. Upon
clearing Feature HH of vegetation, however, it was discovered that the feature was constructed against a
northwest -sloping bedrock outcrop with its east side level with the outcrop and the western edge rising up
to 85 centimeters above the bedrock ground surface (Figure 25). The feature consists primarily of piled
pahoehoe and 'a'a cobbles, although some possible remnant stacking is evident in the northwest comer.
The surface of the feature consisted of piled small cobbles sloping slightly to the west (Figure 26). During
the current study, measurements recorded for Feature HH were 4.7 meters (north/south) by 3.0 meters (east
west).
28
i
Figure 24. SIHP Site 5608, Feature GG, TU -1 I base of excavation, overview to east.
29
0 5 1
W
Scale in meters
A (heights in centimeters)
n
n
n a C)
U
RC -0205
0 10 ?0
Scale in�tm
Layer)
0
Layer II Pahoe
hoe II n
bedrock
I� II
II �I
Layer I - architectural layer of small to large sized pahoehoe and
Va cobbles. This layer gradually transitioned to (and mixed with)
Layer II, except in the southern portion of the unit where Layer I
rested directly on bedrock.
Layer II - dark brown (1 OYR 3/3) silt containing approximately
fifty percent cobbles.
r tgure 2s. SIHI- Atte -�6us, Yeature GG plan view and TU -11 east wall profile.
tt
67 rt.1
f � , �� � ",.%" ���---•� . '� ' is , ,;'
RC -0204
A I x I meter test unit (TU -5) was excavated in the central portion of Feature HH in order to examine
Rosendahl's (1981a) interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial." Excavation of TU -5 revealed a
two -layer stratigraphic profile resting on bedrock (see Figure 25). Layer 1, the architectural layer, consisted
of small sized pahoehoe and 'a'a cobbles and pebbles that went from the feature's surface to'a depth of 35
centimeters. This layer rested on Layer II, a dark brown (IOYR 3/3) silt containing approximately twenty
percent cobbles and thirty percent gravels. Layer 11 continued beneath Layer I for approximately 4 to 8
centimeters to bedrock. Excavation of TU -5 terminated at bedrock 40 centimeters below the feature's
surface (Figure 27); no cultural material was recovered from TU -5. As discussed above, it is likely that
Feature HH functioned as an agricultural planting or clearing feature.
Feature II
Feature 11 is located along the southern property boundary approximately 1.5 meters southwest of Feature
MMM (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981 a) described Feature II as a possible burial platform measuring 2.4
meters wide by 2.5 meters long by 0.2 to 1.0 meter tall that was collapsed along its northeast side. As
recorded during the current study (Figure 28), Feature II is a completely collapsed pile of `a'a cobbles and
boulders that measures 3.5 meters (north/south) by 2.0 meters (east/west) and stands up to 80 centimeters
above the surrounding ground surface (Figure 29). A 1 x I meter test unit (TU -8) was excavated in the
central portion of Feature II in order to examine Rosendahl's (1981a) interpretation of the feature as a
"possible burial." Excavation of TU -8 revealed a two -layer stratigraphic profile resting on bedrock (see
Figure 28). Layer I, the architectural layer, consisted of small to medium sized `o'a cobbles that went from
the feature's surface to a depth of 30 centimeters. This layer gradually transitioned to (and mixed with)
Layer II, except in the northern portion of the unit where Layer I rested directly on bedrock. Layer II
consisted of dark brown (I OYR 3/3) silt mixed with cobbles and decomposing bedrock. Layer lI continued
beneath Layer I, where bedrock was not present, for approximately 40 centimeters. Excavation of TU -8
terminated at bedrock 70 centimeters below the feature's surface (Figure 30); only one piece of coral (10.5
grams) was recovered from TU -8. As discussed above, it is likely that Feature II functioned as an
agricultural planting or clearing feature.
31
Y \v
1 1z yyr ,
'AU-
_
IN
Ri-0'_0f
Feature HHH
Feature HHH is a filled crack located in the west -central portion of the project area (see Figure 5).
Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature HHH as a possible burial feature consisting of a filled crack
measuring 1.25 meters wide by 2.0 meters long located on a low outcrop. As recorded for the purposes of
the current study (Figure 31), Feature HHH consists of a crack in the pahoehoe bedrock that is filled with
pahoehoe cobbles and measures 1.9 meters (north/south) by 2.2 meters (east/west) (Figure 32). Four coral
fragments and an empty Tabasco sauce bottle were observed on the surface of the feature.
A 1 x 1 meter test unit (TU -2) was excavated in the central portion of Feature HHH to examine
Rosendahl's (1981a) interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial." Excavation of TU -2 revealed a
single 80 -centimeter thick layer of fill (Layer 1) contained vertically by the edges of the bedrock crack and
resting on bedrock (see Figure 31). Layer I consisted of angular pahoehoe cobbles and numerous coral
fragments. No soil was present in the unit. A small blister in the bedrock was encountered near the base of
the excavation in the southwest comer of the unit; no artifacts were observed within the blister. Imported
cultural debris recovered from TU -2 consisted of eight water wom pebbles, three waterwom cobbles, 379.2
grams of branch coral, and 2,228.6 grams of other waterworn coral. Excavation of TU -2 terminated at
bedrock approximately 80 centimeters below the surrounding bedrock ground surface (Figure 33). As
discussed above, it is likely that Feature HHH functioned as an agricultural planting area.
Feature JJJ
Feature JJJ is a modified outcrop located in the south-central of the project area just to the south of Feature
U (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981 a) described Feature III as a retaining wall, measuring 4.0± meters wide
by 9.75 meters long by 0.5 meters tall, that includes a bedrock outcrop to form a crude terrace. When
recorded during the current study it was felt that the feature measured only 4.8 meters (east/west), by 2.0
meters (north/south) by 60 centimeters tall (Figure 34), the remainder of the feature, as recorded by PHRI,
was thought to be unmodified natural bedrock. Feature JJJ consists of piled cobbles located along, and
supported by, the north side of a bedrock outcrop. Although Rosendahl (1981 a) interpreted Feature JJJ as a
retaining wall, it seems more correct to call it a modified outcrop, as it does not retain anything, it is simply
piled cobbles and boulders against a bedrock outcrop. This feature is extremely crude and may not have
been constructed at all. It may, more than likely, represent a weathered and fractured natural bedrock
outcrop. However, as discussed above, it is possible that Feature JJJ functioned as an agricultural clearing
or planting area.
33
al tl z
Scalein centimeters
Layer I consisted of angular pahoehoe —
cobbles and numerous coral fragments.
No soil was present in the unit. A small
blister in the bedrock was encountered
near the base of the excavation in the
southwest corner of the unit; no artifacts
were observed within the blister.
0 1 2
Scale in meters
(heights in centimeters)
TU -2 East wall profile.
Verticalpahoehoe bedrock.
Was filled with cobbles
F, it prior to the excavation of TU
/ -2
Il LI /
till
in Bedrock
(base of excavation)
♦ Smooth coral
* Branch coral
B Bottle
`" Waterworn cobble
F, II
Pahoehoe bedrock outcrop
TU -2
RC -0205
cobble
L
Figure 31. SIHP Site 5608, Feature HHH plan view and TU -2 east wall profile.
i 34
'47
'77
60m, i
.1 444�1
DO
RG020�
Feature LLL
Feature LLL is a rubble pile located in the central portion of the project area along the southern property
boundary (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature LLL as a possible burial feature consisting
of a rubble pile that measured 1.8 meters wide by 2.4 meters long by 0.15-0.2 meters tall. He also noted a
few waterworn pebbles and broken cobbles and several scattered pieces of coral in the vicinity of the
feature. The recorded measurements for Feature LLL match those of the current study. However, it was
additionally noted, after clearing the rubble pile of vegetation, that Feature LLL consisted of piled
pahoehoe cobbles located within a horseshoe shaped bedrock formation, the remnants of a collapsed lava
blister, that opened to the west (Figure 35). A small bedrock cavity, 40 centimeters deep, was located at the
eastern termination of the rubble pile. The bedrock containing this blister rose up to 95 centimeters above
the surrounding ground surface, while the piled cobbles rose approximately 20 centimeters above the
ground surface to their west, but were below the height of the bedrock on the remaining three sides. Coral
was noted on the surface of the feature. An extensive modem trash dump was located just to the west and
south of the Feature LLL.
A I x 1 meter test unit (TU -1) was placed in the central portion of Feature LLL in order to examine
Rosendahl's (1981 a) interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial." Excavation of TU -I began with the
removal of the architectural layer. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silt was revealed beneath the first
course of stones (Layer II), but the removal of Layer I was never completed. Upon turning over a large
cobble in the northeastern quadrant of the unit fieldworkers discovered a hypodermic syringe resting upon
the Layer II soil (Figure 36). Excavation of TU -1 was terminated immediately for health and safety
reasons. The architectural layer was replaced and no stratigraphic profile was drawn. Although the
excavation of TU -1 was never completed, it is likely that Feature LLL does not contain a burial. Other
similar features were tested within the project area, all with negative results. As discussed above, it is likely
that Feature LLL functioned as an agricultural planting or clearing feature.
IL.
I I V
II II II- �
O
0 `
O I
R Blister
f( O
(55) cavity j!I
�
J 5
i
i
� • II II
TU -1
Excavation of TU -1 was
terminated when a hypodermic
syringe was discovered beneath
a rock in the northeastern
quadrant of the unit. No profile
drawing was completed.
-igure
Feature LLLolan view
RC -0M
0 s t
I I
Scale in meters
(heights in centimeters)
—11
1Bedrock
Figure 36. SIHP Site 5608, Feature LLL, hypodermic syringe found in TU -l.
37
RC -0'_05
Feature MMM
Feature MMM is a rubble pile located along the southern property boundary approximately 1.5 meters
northeast of Feature II (see Figure 5). Rosendahl (1981a) described Feature MMM as a possible burial
feature consisting of a rubble pile with an irregular shape and overall dimensions of 2.0 meters along each
side. During the current study it was additionally noted that Feature MMM was located on a west sloping
bedrock ground surface (Figure 37). The feature is constructed of piled small to large sized 'a'6 cobbles
that attain a maximum height in the center of the feature of 60 centimeters above the ground surface to the
west of the feature (Figure 38). A 1 x 1 meter test unit (TU -7) was excavated in the central portion of
Feature MMM in order to examine Rosendahl's (1981 a) interpretation of the feature as a "possible burial."
Excavation of TU -7 revealed a two -layer stratigraphic profile resting on bedrock (see Figure 37). Layer I.
the architectural layer, consisted of small to large sized 'o'6 cobbles that went from the feature's surface to
all the way to undulating bedrock (a maximum depth of 40 centimeters). At the base of Layer 1, within the
bedrock depressions a small amount of soil had collected (Layer II). Layer Il consisted of dark brown
(IOYR 3/3) silt mixed with decomposing bedrock. Layer II was not more then 10 centimeters thick at any
locale within TU -7. Excavation of TU -7 terminated at bedrock 10 to 40 centimeters below the feature's
surface; one Drupa shell (7.6 grams) was recovered from the architectural layer near the surface of TU -7.
This shell is not necessarily indicative of the feature's function. It could have been discarded at the feature
at anytime. As discussed above, it is likely that Feature MMM functioned as an agricultural plating or
clearing feature.
SIHP Site 6302
Site 6302 is the Statewide Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) designation for the Kuakini Wall, a portion
of which runs through the current project area (see Figure 4). Rosendahl (1979b) originally recorded the
section of Kuakini Wall within the current project area as Feature R of Site 5608. Construction of the Great
Wall of Kuakini began in the early 1800s as a response to the growing number of introduced herbivores
(i.e. cattle, goats, and pigs) running rampant in Kona. The wall, which stretches a considerable distance
through Kona parallel to the coast, was designed to keep the animals out of coastal residential and
agricultural areas. Although no record of Governor Kuakini having ordered the wall built exists, its final
configuration was attributed to him (O'Hare and Wolforth 1998).
A 90 -meter section of Site 6302 stretches north/south along the eastern boundary of the current project
area. In this section the Kuakini Wall stands up to 2.3 meters high and measures as wide as 1.5 meters. The
wall is core -filled and has a single 2 -meter wide constructed break along its length located approximately
30 meters south of the northeast property corner. Along the property boundary, the Kuakini Wall has
collapsed in several sections, but is generally in a good state of repair.
Summary
As a result of the current inventory survey portions of two archaeological sites previously recorded within
the study area (SIHP Sites 5608 and 6302) by Rosendahl (1981a) were relocated and recorded. Site 6302 is
the Kuakini Wall and Site 5608 is a large multi -functional complex that stretches well beyond the
boundaries of the current study area. Rosendahl (1981a) recorded fifteen features of Site 5608 within the
current project area. He listed ten of these features as possible burials. Eleven 1 x I meter test units were
excavated at Site 5608 to test Rosendahl's (1981a) hypothesis. Subsurface testing at 5608 revealed the
presence of human skeletal remains at Feature U, an activity area at Features T and III, which were
subsequently combined into a single feature (Feature T), and a nearly complete lack of cultural material at
the other eight features that were tested. Nine of the remaining features are thought to be agricultural in
nature (Features S, V, X, GG, HH, Il, HHH, LLL, and MMM), while one is a possible Historic boundary
wall (Feature W), and another is considered a natural feature (Feature JJJ). Feature R, as recorded by
Rosendahl (1979b), is actually the Kuakini Wall (Site 6302).
38
002 Ky " isruy ' it dy ,( '
Al � ! { �i f f•
,
tzt t 1 :� `f`- ;i Ct �� •r �F:
I-
_
� ' �`� ?. � �� /l , � � 4 i' it i Ali • r\s �..
�``"g. a ,n / � �y, ( ':^a• :s 4,+y�',_''ns yt � �ti,�4r �.\ +�, tt�
1 {
, A �,- y �rFy s 9 �'.�°i^� a � - ras t -_ �•-:J
",I-� ,��,. �` -'� �,� ' '! �• fir.,.-�,r'r x �� .�
r y u�ri`� �q d, r• `3nG x � ,,1p, i r
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site 6302 and the relevant features of Site 5608 are assessed for their significance based on criteria
established and promoted by the DLNR-SHPD and contained in the Hawaii Administrative Rules 13§13-
284-6. This significance evaluation should be considered as preliminary until DLNR-SHPD provides
concurrence. For a resource to be considered significant it 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 onprehistory
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.
Overall, SIHP Site 5608 would be considered significant under Criterion A, C, D, and E given the
typological diversity of the features it contains. However, the individual features within the current study
area on the landscape that this single site number encompasses are only significant under Criterion D, with
the exception of Feature U, which is also significant under Criterion E because of the presence of a burial.
Feature JJJ has been interpreted as a natural feature and thus is not included in the significance assessment
and treatment recommendations. Proposed treatment of the eleven other features of Site 5608 within the
current study area is no further work except for Feature T (including Feature III), which is recommended
for data recovery; and Feature U, which is recommended for preservation (Table 4). A data recovery plan
will be prepared for Feature T and a burial treatment plan will be prepared for Feature U. Both plans will be
submitted to DLNR-SHPD for review. The burial treatment plan will be further submitted to the Hawaii
Island Burial Council for a determination with respect to the proposed preservation of the burial feature.
Table 4. Site significance and treatment recommendations for features of Site 5608.
Feature Function E nircance Treatment
S Agricultural D No further work
T (111)
Habitation/activity area
U
Burial
V
Agricultural
W
Possible boundary marker
X
Agricultural
GG
Agricultural
HH
Agricultural
II
Agricultural
HHH
Agricultural
LLL
Agricultural
D
Data recovery
D, E
Preservation
D
No further work
D
No further work
D
No further work
D
No further work
D
No further work
D
No further work
D
No further work
D
No further work
MMM* Agricultural D No further work
DLNR-SHPD has already determined that SIHP Site 6302, the Kuakini Wall, is significant under
Criteria A, C, and D, and the site is listed in the State and National Register of Historic Place. This site is
recommended for preservation, and proposed treatment will be included in a preservation plan for the
project area.
RC -0201
REFERENCES CITED
Chinen, J
1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Honolulu: privately published.
Cordy, R.
1981 A Studv of Prehistoric Social Change, The Development of Complex Societies in the
Hawaiian Islands. New York: Academic Press.
1995 Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. State Historic Preservation Division,
DLNR, State of Hawaii. Prepared for the Planning Department, County of Hawaii.
Ellis, W.
1963 Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee... [ 1823] Honolulu:
Advertiser Publishing Co.
Hammatt, H.
1980 Archaeological Surface Survey of a 178 Acre Parcel in Na Ahupua'a, Kaumalumalu,
Pahoehoe, Kona, Hawaii Island. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report
14-203 II. Prepared for Farms and Ranches, Inc.
Hammatt, H., and S. Clark
1980 Archaeological Testing and Salvage Excavations of a 155 Acre Parcel in Na Ahupua`a
Pahoehoe, La`aloa and Kapala`aea, Kona, Hawai'i. Archaeological Research Center
Hawaii Report 14-152 III. Prepared for Pacific Basin Resorts, Inc.
Hammatt, H., and W. Folk
1980 Archaeological Survey and Excavations of Coastal Sites, Ouli, Kohala, Hawaii Island.
Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Report 14-185 11. Prepared for Mauna Kea
Properties, Inc.
Hammatt, H., and V. Meeker
1979 Archaeological Excavations and Heiau Stabilization at Kahalu`u, Kona, Hawaii Island.
Archaeological Research Center Hawaii Report 14-172 (Il). Prepared for Gerald Park,
Urban Planner.
Han, T., S. Collins, S. Clark, and A. Garland
1986 Moe Kau a Ho `odo: Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Keopu, Kona, Hawaii. Chapter VII.
Artifacts and Manuports from the Keopu Burial Site. Departmental Report Series 86-1.
Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Hawaii
Department of Transportation.
Handy, E. S. C., and E. G. Handy
1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore and Environment. B. P. Bishop Museum
Bulletin 223. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. (with M. K. Pukui)
I
Hawn, A., J. Henry, J. Jimenex, M. Kirkendall, K, Maly, and T. Wolforth
1998 Ali'i Highway Phased Mitigation Program Phase I — Archaeological Intensive Survey,
North Kona District, Island of Hawai 9, vol. 1, Summary. PHRI Report 1320-052798.
Submitted to the County of Hawaii c/o R. M. Towill Corporation.
41
RC -0205
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.
Ladefoged, T.
1991 Hawaiian Architectural Transformations during the Early Historic Era. Asian
Perspectives 30(1):55-70.
Newman, T.
1970 Report on Reconnaissance at Old Kona Airport. Letter. Historic Sites Section,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.
O'Hare, C, and T. Wolforth
1997 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Gomes Property Parcel, Land of Hahalui 1st,
Island of Hawaii (TMK: 3-7-5-19:5, 38, 40). PHRI Report 1807-10197. Submitted to
Towne Development of Hawaii, Inc.
Clark, M., and R. Rechtman
2003 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK:3-7-5-10:85 and 3-7-5-17:06. Wai`aha
Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. Rechtman Consulting report RC -0153.
Prepared for U of N BENCORP, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.
Major, M.
2001 An Agricultural History of Kealakekua. In Gardens of Lono: Archaeological
Investigations at Amy B. H. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden, Kealakekua, Hawaii.
Edited by M. Allen, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Rosendahl, P.
1979a Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site
(TMK:3-7-5-09:54,55; and 3-7-5-10:7,10), Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii. Manuscript.
PHRI 12-040979. Prepared for Belt, Collins & Associates.
1979b Evaluation of Archaeological Features Located in the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau
Corporation Project 30 Site (TMK:3-7-5-09:54,55; and 3-7-5-10:7, 10), Kailua-Kona,
Island of Hawaii. Manuscript. PHRI 12-073179. Prepared for Belt, Collins & Associates.
1981a Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau Corporation
Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii. Phase I—Detailed Recording (Part 1) and
Historical Documentary Research. PHRI Report 8-070180. Prepared for Lanihau
Corporation.
1981b Archaeological Reconnaissance Testing of Suspected Burial Features in the Seaward
Portion of the Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii:
Preliminary Report upon Completion of Fieldwork. PHRI Report 29-040281. Prepared
for Gregg Kashiwa, T & K Enterprises, Inc.
1981c Test Excavations of Major Structural Features Located in the Seaward Portion of the
Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii: Preliminary Report
upon Completion of Fieldwork. PHRI Report 31-042181, Prepared for Lanihau
Corporation.
Schilt, A.
1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii. An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini
Highway Realignment Corridor. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Department of
42
I
RC -0205
Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for the Department of
Transportation, State of Hawaii.
Stokes, J., and T. Dye
1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 2. Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu.
Tainter, J.
1973 The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii.
Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11:91-105.
Tomonari-Tuggle, M.
1993 Draft Report, the Archaeology of the `Ohi`a Preserve; An Inventory Survey of Surface
Structures. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII). Submitted to
Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Honolulu.
43
Report 696-050390
Archaeological Inventory Survey
Hienaloli 6th Development Parcel
Land of Hienaloli 6th, North Kona District
Island of Hawaii
by
Theresa K. Donham, M.A.
Supervisory Archaeologist
and
Victoria K. Kai, B.A.
Assistant Supervisory Archaeologist
Prepared for
Sidney Fuke & Associates
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
April 1990
PHRI Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Archaeological • Hisinrical • Culiumi Resource Manogeineni Studies & Services
APPENDIX C
696-050390 ii
At the request of Mr. Sidney Fuke of Sidney Fuke & Associates,
Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. Inc. (PHRI) conducted an archaeological
inventory survey of the c. 4.1 -acre Hienaloli 6th Development Parcel
project area, located in the Land of Hienaloli 6th, North Kona
District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-09:48). The survey work was
conducted October 31, 1989 and December 5-6, 1989 and consisted
of a 100% -coverage pedestrian survey, augmented with subsurface
testing at two habitation sites.
Thirteen sites with 17 component features were recorded during
the survey. One of the thirteen sites, the Great Wall of Kuakini, had
been previously identified and assigned State Inventory of Historic
Places (SIHP) site number (Site 6302* [also listed as 7276]).
Formal feature types present within the project area include
modified outcrops, alignments, caves, terraces, walls, a pahoehoe
excavation, and a rock concentration. Functional types identified
include habitation, agriculture, boundary, and features of indeterminate
function.
Among the 13 sites identified within the project area, 12 are
assessed as significant solely for scientific information content
Further data collection is recommended for 10 of the 12 sites. After
further data collection is completed, if warranted, a data recovery
plan for the work should be prepared and implemented for sites not
recommended for preservation or interpretation. No further work is
recommended for the remaining two of the 12 sites.
One site (the Great Wall of Kuakini) recommended for further
data collection is also assessed as significant for its cultural value, and
as an excellent example of a site type. For this site further data
collection followed by preservation with some level of interpretive
development is recommended.
• State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) site designation system: all four- and
five -digit site numbers prefixed by 50-10-28 or -37 (50=State of Hawaii,
10=Island of Hawaii, 28 or 37=USGS 7.5'series quad map ["Kailua" or
"Kealakekua, Hawaii'l
COVER PHOTO: Site 6302, The Great Wall of Kuakini, View to East (PHRI Neg. 1316-26)
696-050390 iii
Page
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
Background.............................................................................................................................................. 1
Scopeof Work.........................................................................................................................................1 1
ProjectArea Description.......................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Historical Documentary Research........................................................................................ 4
PreviousArchaeological Work................................................................................................................ 5
FieldMethods and Procedures.................................................................................................................. 6
FINDINGS................................................................................................................................ 8
Surface Findings ................
Subsurface Findings ..........
Age Determinations ..........
............................ 8
............................13
............................18
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 20
Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 20
General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments..............................................21
REFERENCESCITED.......................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX A: SITE DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH
byHelen Wong Smith, B.A............................................................................................... B-1
1
Project Area and Site Location Map......................................................................................................
3
A-1
Site 13496..........................................................................................................................................
A- 2
A-2
Site 13497..........................................................................................................................................
A-4
A-3
Site 13498..........................................................................................................................................
A- 5
A4Site
13499..........................................................................................................................................
A- 6
A-5
Site 13500..........................................................................................................................................
A- 7
A-6
Site 13501..........................................................................................................................................
A- 9
A-7
Site 13502..........................................................................................................................................A-10
A-8
Site 13503..........................................................................................................................................
A-11
A-9
Site 13504, View to ESE (PHRI Neg. 1316-32)..................................................................................
A-12
A-10
Site 13505, View to W (PHRI Neg. 1316-30)......................................................................................A-13
B-1
Map based on Jackson's Map of Kailua Bay, 1883..............................................................................
B-2
B-2
Map based on Emerson and Kanakamuf s c. 1880 Map "Kailua Town and Vicinity" (Reg. No. 1676) .. B-5
696-050390
iv
Table
Page
1 Correlation of Site Numbers....................................................................................................................
6
2 Summary of Identified Sites and Features................................................................................................
9
3 Frequencies of Formal Feature Types......................................................................................................
11
4 Summary of Functional Categories..........................................................................................................
13
5 Summary of Midden Remains - Sites 13498 and 13500............................................................................15
6 Summary of Artifacts - Site 13498..........................................................................................................16
7 Summary of Artifacts - Site 13500..........................................................................................................
17
8 Summary of Radiocarbon Age Determinations........................................................................................19
9 Summary of General Significance Assessments and Recommended General Treatments ..........................22
696-050390
BACKGROUND
This report presents the results of an archaeological
inventory survey conducted at the Hienaloli 6th Development
Parcel, consisting of c. 4.1 acres located within the Land of
Hienaloli 6th, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-
7-5-09:Por.48). The survey was conducted by Paul H.
Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) at the request of Mr. Sidney
Fuke of Sidney Fuke & Associates. The overall purpose of
the survey was to provide information appropriate to and
sufficient for various development permit applications for
the project area.
The survey field work was conducted October 13, and
December 5-6,1989. The field crew consisted of four to six
persons under the direction of Supervisory Archaeologist
Alan T. Walker. Approximately 111 man-hours of labor
were expended conducting the field work portion of the
survey.
This report is the final report for the present project; it
includes (a) background information on the environment
and cultural -historical setting of the project area, (b) a
summary of previous archaeological investigations relevant
to the project area, (c) a description of field methods, (d) a
discussion of findings, and (e) site significance evaluations
and recommended general treatments for each site.
SCOPE OF WORK
The basic purpose of an archaeological inventory survey
is to identify—to discover and locate on available maps—
all sites and features of potential archaeological significance
present within the specified project area. An inventory
survey comprises an initial level of archaeological
investigation. It is extensive rather than intensive in scope,
and is conducted basically to determine the presence or
absence of archaeological resources within a specified
project area. This level of survey indicates both the general
nature and variety of archaeological remains present, and
the general distribution and density of such remains. Finally,
it permits a general significance assessment of the
archaeological resources, and facilitates formulation of
realistic recommendations and estimates for any subsequent
mitigation work as might be necessary or appropriate. Such
work could include further data collection involving detailed
recording of sites and features, and selected test excavations;
and possibly subsequent data recovery research excavations,
construction monitoring, interpretive planning and
development, and/or preservation of sites and features with
significant scientific research, interpretive, and/or cultural
values.
The basic objectives of the inventory survey were
fourfold: (a) to identify (find and locate) all sites and site
complexes present within the parcel, (b) to evaluate the
potential general significance of all identified archaeological
remains, (c) to determine the possible impacts of proposed
development upon the identified remains, and (d) to define
the general scope of any subsequent further data collection
and/or other mitigation work that might be necessary or
appropriate.
Based on a review of available background literature,
our extensive familiarity with both the general project area
and the current requirements of pertinent review authorities
the following specific tasks were determined to constitute
an adequate and appropriate scope of work for the proposed
inventory survey:
1. Conduct archaeological background and historical
documentary research involving review and
evaluation of readily available archaeological and
historical literature, historic documents and records,
and cartographic sources relevant to the immediate
project area;
2. Conduct variable -coverage (partial to 100%),
variableintensity (30-90 ft intervals) ground
(pedestrian) survey of the entire project area;
3. Conductlimited subsurface reconnaissance testing
of selected sites and features identified within the
project area (a) to determine the presence or absence
of potentially significant buried cultural features
or deposits, and (b) to obtain suitable samples for
age determination analyses; and
4. Analyze background research data and field data,
and prepare appropriate reports.
The inventory survey was carried out in accordance
with the standards for inventory -level survey recommended
by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources -
Historic Sites Section/State Historic Preservation Office
(DLNR-HSS/SHPO). DLNR-HSS/SHPO and the Hawaii
County Planning Department (HCPD) both use these standards
as guidelines for the review and evaluation of archaeological
696-050390
INTRODUCTION
studies done in connection with development permit
applications.
The significance of all archaeological remains identified
within the project area were assessed in terms of (a) the
National Register criteria contained in the Code of Federal
Regulations (36 CFR Part 60), and (b) the criteria for
evaluation of traditional cultural values prepared by the
national Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
DLNR-HHS/SHPO and the Hawaii County Planning
Department both uses these criteria for the evaluation of
cultural resources and to evaluate eligibility for both the
Hawaii State and National Register of Historic Places. To
further facilitate management decisions regarding the
subsequent treatment of resources, the remains were also
evaluated in terms of PHRI CRM (Cultural Resource
Management) value modes, which are discussed in detail in
the Conclusion section.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The Hienaloli 6th Development Parcel project area
consists of c. 4.1 acres situated in the Land of Hienaloli 6th,
North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-7-5-09:Por.48)
(Figure 1). The project area is bounded on the south by a
barbed wire fence and the Land of Auhakeae 1, on the west
(seaward) by Kuakini Highway, on the north by the Land of
Hienaloli 5th and a section of Hualalai Road, and on the east
(inland) by the Great Wall of Kuakini and a privately owned
parcel.
Hienaloli 6th ahuoua'a is situated along the southwestem
slope of Hualalai volcano, where Pleistocene to recent
Hualalai Series flows form the surface mantle. These flows
are comprised primarily of alkaiic olivine basalt, and are
both as and pahoehoe types (Macdonald. Abbou, and Peterson
1983:364). The terrain is generally gently sloping from east
to west and consists of a soil mantle over pahoehoe bedrock,
with exposed outcroppings.
Soils representing the Punaluu and Waiaha Series are
present within the project area. Both series are shallow
deposits on lava and are generally used for pasture (Sato et
al. 1973). Approximately 95% of the project area is within
the mapped extent of Punaluu extremely rocky peat (6-20%
slopes), which is a well -drained, organic soil developed
over pahoehoe bedrock (Sato et al. 1973). Waiaha extremely
stony silt loam (6.12 slopes) occurs in the northeast (uppermost)
corner of the project area. This soil is a shallow, well -
drained silt loam that formed in volcanic ash (Sato et al.
1973).
Elevation within the project area ranges from 50 to
120 ft AMSL (above mean sea level). The elevation rise is
gradual from west to east, with a general rise of one foot for
every 13.5 linear feet.
Annual median rainfall within the project area is
approximately 30 inches, and the mean annual temperature
is approximately 75 degrees F (Armstrong 1983:63,64).
The lower portion of Hienaloli (and the project area) is
within the area designated as a Flood Problem Area by the
State of Hawaii. Annual flooding accompanied with sheet
erosion occurs in this area, beginning at around 400 ft
AMSL. Recent floods in the area have caused destruction
of the Great Wall of Kuakini and of the makai portion of
Kuakini Highway (Schilt 1984:12).
Vegetation within the project area consists predominantly
of a very thick cover of exotic grasses and moderately dense
trees. Grasses include elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum
[Schumach]), which averages 6-14 ft high, fountain grass
(Pennisetum setaceum [Forsk.] Chiov.), and sour grass
(Tricachne insularis [L.] Nees).
The two dominant tree species present are the introduced
exotics kiawe (Prosopis pallida [Humb. and Bonp. ex
Willd.] HBK) and joa-haoje (Leucaena leucocephala [Lam.]
de Wit). Several other plant species are represented by
scattered individuals or small clusters. These include `ilima
(Sida fallax Walp.), vines consisting of bitter yam orr9
(Dioscorea bulbifera L.) and 17i iko,i (Passiflora sp.), day
flower or Wandering Jew (Commelina diffura Burm. Q,
periwinkle (Apocynaceae) family, including plumeria
(Plumeria acuminate Ait.) and madagascar periwinkle
(Catharanthur roseus [L.] G. Don), waiwi (Psidium
cattleianum f, lucidum Degener), hibiscus sp., a banyan
(Ficus spp.), and an autograph tree.
Vegetation within the project area prior to contact may
have included cultigens such as sweet potatoes (/pomoea
batatas [L.] Lam.), $a$Aa nut trees (Aleurites mollucana
[L.] Willd.), li (Cordyline terminalis [L.] Kunth.), and
plantain (Plantago sp.); and wild plants such as alahe'e
(Canthium odoratum [Forst] Seem.), 'ilima, and hi'aloa
(Waltheria americana L.). The project area is situated
within the core area of the traditional Hawaiian agricultural
and population center of the Kona District, where dryland
cultivation and habitation features are particularly
concentrated. This area, which is roughly 3 miles wide and
18 miles long, extends from Kailua (Keahuolu) south to
Hookena. The area has been identified in the SIHP as the
Kona Field System (50-10-37-6601), and has been determined
696-050390 INTRODUCTION 3
I
PROJECT (/1 HUA --�
LOCATION) Ago.. _
013498 1
13503 013499
�0 .o. •••� �•'•• ❑13507 13504, a 213497
t 13500 1 501
• C13505 r 13498
°' - 013508 13502
,.V
SITE
I --
i1
HII w0 100 200 300 LOCATION
• • •• 0 20 40 80 80
,Cr
Kailua-Bona
' w TO
.*,4a . .�' _ _ ��i L 0
p
� PMR JEC
++'`
�}ieladda� a�su
Co niee[mg1 - •�\ M7
'lu.
..'
r^,. ..i:•••ft u " �I ��
Cem •:: .. [1 ,�'U a
�— _.
\ �'
`�
'"
WT
�L I
M
Ka lap
WT
_ vj. �• .. O u ,;;..Water
`C Rock �(�1•' Water•„ tanks
'Y �: •`v� �o Tanis • ��:
�K< Hillcre5c�y'A
t �
0 1000 2000 3000
It
> l Kanulu i, B mit ^ m I
0 200 400 800 800
Figure I. PROJECT AREA AND SITE LOCATION MAP
•
696-050390
INTRODUCTION
•
Of , \
O.M. -
loulm
PROJECT ■O»»w I HVAL4LA'
LOCATION »oal«
«ao `
=13498
«Oaf»
ao■, 13503 013499
sol,.» »ao 13504r7 d
� 013507 � �' 013497
13500 13501
013505 r 13498
"'"^ -•
SOVI« ❑13508 13502
-'
[O"
a,V
SITE
H_.�W-Alii fta 10° 200 300 LOCATION � 1'
N o 'a:o w
m Al f"T—�Ti i I
' e w w �. 0 20 40 80 80
I
^ `�;'`'` ;190. \ � - - �' \ ,�" � �� _. •,\
J .,
Kailua-FkonaTo. \1
• �•• i II \\
@ \
80
_ `
km
\\P RROJ E C T
L
V.
• � ., ,��;�•• ,• '1 � SLI v �
dei, ������ • •u, •.
hale ept i.�:••,�:a�• Cem a ,:;1. •i" II. w, :� ! ��.
Co N4eetI>V s r` _ •'l• ;l; :c�•.�A• i ° �.. _ �`\
Laniake �/. 'll• �--� 111 i
••I1� i
-� l _ _
z1 Oneo. Bay 1 / F WT
.�
lilt VVTVVT
Ka tae"` ' •� !yu o
Pa-_akai- 1'' WT
-
` % o ;-✓ , -� o I�' �: Water
ock(1V1• • Water • , TankS
RI
-y Tanks • t
�.. ..
n �"r,c y lii'< HillcreWN
st •• ";,.••.��; N
� '—•l _' r� (*��, Im Pick :•.::'�•'• ..�': ti: RO< 1
0 1000 2000 3000
f t
-� •j Kahului / Ba "l -T-�-r-1
Z \ ._•�11 _ 0 200 400 800 800
Figure 1. PROJECT AREA AND SITE LOCATION MAP
3
696-050390
INTRODUCTION
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRNP).
The seaward half of the project area (c. 2.5 acres) is the
former site of the Kona Plantation Hotel. This resort
consisted of a number of small, detached cottages which
encircled a pool, patio, and garden area. The cottages were
built on concrete foundations and connected with asphalt
walkways. It is likely that the entire resort area (or a major
portion) was leveled and artificially landscaped during
construction of the hotel. The resort ceased operations
sometime in the early 1980s. The abandoned structural
features of the hotel were observed, but were not recorded
during this survey.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC
DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH
Limited historical research was conducted by Helen
Wong Smith, B.A., as part of this project. Her findings,
presented in Appendix B, indicate that most nineteenth
century descriptions of the Kailua area are relatively general
in nature, with few references to specific ahur)ua'a. Wong -
Smith includes quotations from primary and secondary
sources describing the terrain, vegetation and generalized
land use around Kailua at and shortly after western contact.
On the basis of these and other descriptions referenced in
Schilt (1984) and Silva (1981), the physical features and
general land use of the project area can be expected to
conform with the overall patterns observed for Kailua and
its vicinity.
The project area is within the traditional residential
zone of Kailua, and near the center of the area of chiefly
residencies, which according to Kamakau (1961:221-222),
extended between Lanihau and Kahelo in Puapuaa 1. As
can be best estimated, the ma uka extent of the residential
area was the Great Wall of Kuakini, which forms the eastern
boundary of the current project area.
Hienaloli 6 is the southernmost of six narrow Hienaloli
ahu11112:3. Cartographic sources examined indicate that the
boundaries of Hienaloli 6 were apparently subject to change.
One survey map, produced by Emerson in the 1880s, shows
Heinaloli 6 as about 3.7 miles long and about 0.12 mile
wide. The seaward extent of Hienaloli 6 as surveyed on this
map is about 0.4 mile inland from the shoreline at Onea Bay
(Hawaii State Survey Office Reg. Map 1280). This location
places the AhmplWA on the inland side of the Great Wall of
Kuakini. A second map, produced by Emerson and Kanakaui
at about the same period, shows Hienaloli 6 extending to the
beach road, a very short distance from the shoreline
(Reg. Map No. 1676). The modern boundaries of the
ahupua'a follow the latter version, with some modification
of the southern boundary at and below its intersection with
the Great Wall of Kuakini. Emerson and Kanakaui show the
southern boundary at Hualalai Road where it crosses the
Wall (cf. Fig. B-2). The modern boundary is c. 180 ft south
of Hualalai Road.
During the Mahele, Hienaloli Lands 1, 2, and 6 were
designated Government property. Hienaloli 3 was granted
to Ruth Keelikolani, Governess of Hawaii Island from 1855
to 1874. Hienaloli 5 was granted to Mary Peke, the daughter
of Isaac Davis and his third wife, Kaiona. Hienaloli 3 was
granted to the American Protestant Mission, and a portion of
Hienaloli I was given to American Board of Commissioners
for Foreign Missions, for the Asa Thurston homestead,
known as Laniakea (Kelly 1983:22,41).
At least two kuleana were claimed and awarded by the
Land Commission within Hienaloli 6. One of these claims
(LCA No. 10404), described by Namimi, consisted of 25
kihallais that were partially cultivated, and no house (Native
Testimony 4:556). The second Land Commission Award
(7075:2) was to Kaimakini. This kuleana was located in the
southwest corner of the ahwwa:A, fronting the beach road
(Alii Drive) and Auhaukeae 1. Emerson and Kanakanui's
survey map of Kailua and vicinity (c. 1880, Reg. No. 1676)
indicate a structure at the west end of Kaimakini's claim.
Beginning in 1852, the Government sold various -sized
fee simple parcels in Hienaloli 6. Records located and
reproduced by Wong -Smith (Appendix B) indicate sales of
land to Maewa in 1852 (6 acres), Kawelo in 1854 (96 acres),
Kapalahu in 1854 (86 acres), Kepio in 1855 (16/100 of an
acre), and Waahila in 1893 (nine acres at $3.00 per acre). By
1911, nearly 200 acres of Hienaloloi 6 had been sold to
private interests. The project area is included within the
96 acre grant to Kawelo (No. 1752), which is defined along
the east (inland) side by the Great Wall of Kuakini.
The Great Wall of Kuakini is a relatively prominent
historic structure which extends from Kahuluu north into
Keahuolu. Overall length is approximately 5.6 miles;
height of the wall averages around eight feet. Along the
eastern boundary of the project area, the Great Wall is up to
8.5 ft (2.60 m) high. The name of Kuakini was associated
with the Wall some time after 1850; the earliestcartographic
sources located by Wong -Smith and Kelly (1983) that
associate Kuakini with the Wall date to 1855 (Appendix B).
Prior to this time, surveyors referred to the structure as the
Great Wall, or the Great Stone Wall. According to historic
sources, walls were built along the mauka edge of Kailua
696-050390
INTRODUCTION
during Kuakini's Governorship of Hawaii (1820-1844), in
order to protect the gardens from pigs and dogs that roamed
freely in the village area (Appendix B). A common alternative
suggestion as to why the Wall was constructed, was to
protect the village area from livestock that roamed the open
range ranches (Kelly 1983, Soehren 1979).
To date, no clear documentation or field verification
which indicates when the entire length of the Great Wall
was connected or completed has been located. It is possible
that some sections may predate 1820, and that additions
were made or sections connected after 1850, when foreigners
were permitted to purchase land and large-scale cattle
ranching was begun in the lea zone, directly inland from
the Great Wall. Earlier cattle range areas tended to occur in
the upland forest zone, where gardens would have been
threatened, but not necessarily the coastal village. The
function of the Wall probably changed through time, as land
use patterns changed.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK
One of the early archaeological surveys of the Kailua
area was conducted by Reinecke in 1930. Using prior notes
on heiau sites collected by Stokes, Reinecke walked the
coastal area and located sites on topographic maps. He
identified sites with the assistance of local informants and
drew sketch maps of important features and complexes. In
the coastal section between Kapalaalaea and Lanihau,
Reinecke identified 76 sites. One site (72) was identified
within Hienaloli 5 ahupua . This site was described as
simply "An indistinct site" (Reinecke 930:60). It was
located close to the shoreline, not far from the Hienaloli 5/
6 boundary. Reinecke located Laniakea Cave in Hienaloli
2 but did not give it a site number. No other sites were
identified at that time in the six Hienaloli ahupua'a.
Archaeological field work along Kuakini Highway
realignment corridor, located 0.3 mile east of the project
area, was conducted 1980-83 by Bishop Museum (Schilt
1984). The corridor crossed 24 a ua'a located between
Palani Road and Kilohana Subdivision to the south. Hienaloli
6 is near the center of the corridor. A total of 134 sites (455
features) were identified along the corridor, five sites were
located in the six Hienaloli Lands. The Hienaloli sites
consisted of three bifaced walls, all of which were boundaries
between ahupua'a, an enclosure, and a trail remnant. One
of the bifaced walls formed the boundary between Hienaloli
5 and 6 (Schilt 1984:310).
Twenty-two radiocarbon dates were determined from
samples collected during the project (Schilt 1984:262). On
the basis of the dated samples, their contexts, and other
information, Schilt hypothesized that agricultural use of the
kWg area immediately inland of the Great Wall of Kuakini
was not intensive until after AD 1400-1500.
Hienaloli 6 was included in aregional historic overview
compiled by Kelly (1983) in conjunction with the Kuakini
Highway realignment corridor mitigation study. This overview
included approximately 30 ahugua'a between Keahuolu
and Keokea to the south. Kelly summarizes early historic
and traditional Hawaiian agriculture as it was practiced in
the dry mid -slope inland areas (ludo) of Kona (Kelly 1983:55-
57). Relevant information from Kelly's study is discussed
by Wong -Smith (Appendix B).
One prior study has been conducted within the project
area. In 1979, Soehren conducted a field reconnaissance of
the undeveloped portion of the same parcel that is examined
here. At the time of his survey, the Kona Plantation Hotel
was in operation. In Soehren's letter report of findings, he
indicates that no sites other than the Great Wall of Kuakini
were located within the property (Soehren 1979). Soehren
located one area of surface midden, but it was not recorded
at that time. The midden observed by Soehren may correspond
with Site 13499, recorded during this survey.
Soehren suggests that it is unlikely that permanent
habitation would have occurred in this area, given the
general absence of soil and relative lack of rainfall. Soehren
recommended that if a lave tube was exposed during grubbing,
it should be examined by an archaeologist in order to
determine if evidence of occupation or burials is present.
Field work conducted by Rosendahl in Auhaukeae,
immediately south of the project area, indicates that the
developed portion of the project area probably contained
prehistoric structural features prior to construction of the
hotel. In 1979, a surface reconnaissance was conducted by
Rosendahl of a 28.5 acre parcel on both sides of the Great
Wall of Kuakini, in Auhaukeae 1 and 2. In the Makai porion
of the survey area, between the Great Wall and Kuakini
Highway, eleven platforms were identified, three of which
were tentatively identif red as hgj". The remaining smaller
platforms were identified as possible burial features (Rosendahl
1979x:9,13).
Rosendahl conducted additional field work in the
Auhaukeae 1 and 2 project area, including the testing of
selected platforms and mapping of identified features
(Rosendahl 1979b,1981a,1981b,1981c). During these
subsequent studies, five additional platforms and other
features were located, for a total of 103 features (Rosendahl
696-050390
INTRODUCTION
1981a:9). Ten platform features were tested, including
seven suspected burial platforms (Rosendahl 1981b)andthe
three suspected heiau (Rosendahl 1981c). Six of the tested
possible burial features contained burials; these are clustered
at the western end of Rosendahl's survey area, with four
features within 30.0 in of the Heinaloh 6 boundary (Rosendahl
1981a:Figure 1).
The mapped locations of the 103 identified features in
Auhaukeae 1 and 2 show a clear clustering of all but one of
the major structures and nearly all of the smaller platforms
in the seaward half of the area between Kuakini Highway
and the Great Wall (c. 50-90 It AMSL). This portion
corresponds in elevation with the area of Hienaloli 6 that
was developed for the Kona Plantation Hotel. In the area
above c. 90 ft AMSL, 39 features were identified, including
rubble piles (10), modified outcrops (7), small terraces (4),
and small platforms (4). The small platforms and some of
the rubble piles were identified as possible burial features
(Rosendahl 1981a:11-15).
Results of test excavations conducted in the three major
platforms at Auhaukeae I and 2 are not finalized to date; a
preliminary report of findings indicates that major subsurface
cultural deposits occur beneath and adjacent to the structures,
and that the structures exhibit sequential architectural
modifications (Rosendahl 1981c:3). Rosendahl indicates
that features within Auhaukeae I and 2 possess significant
archaeological research value, in addition to having interpretive
and cultural value (Rosendahl 1981c:6-8).
The density and types of sites recorded immediately
adjacent to the project area in Auhaukeae 1 and 2 reflect
quite clearly the general characterization of the Kailua area
as a center for chiefly habitation and related ceremonial
activities. The absence of archaeological evidence for this
characterization in Hienaloli 6 is most likely attributable to
development and other historic land modifications, rather
than an absence of the activities and prehistoric/early historic
period occupations.
Historic documentary research was conducted by Silva
(198 1) in conjunction with the archaeological investigations
at Auhaukeae 1 and 2. Silva indicates that most historic
sources for the Kailua area cannot be pinpointed to specific
ahuoua'a. She includes several quotations from historic
eye -witness accounts of Kailua village and environs, in
addition to land transactions and grants specific to Auhaukeae.
FIELD METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The surface reconnaissance survey (100% coverage)
was conducted on October 31, 1989 by a crew of four PHRI
field archaeologists. The surface survey was accomplished
by way of a series of parallel pedestrian transects beginning
at the inland boundary. The transects were oriented
approximately north -south and perpendicular to the major
axis of the project area. Intervals between sweeping crew
members were c. 15 in (c. 49.2 ft). The sweep line within
the seaward half was expanded in order to cover the area that
was previously occupied by the former Kona Plantation
Hotel.
As sites were identified, they were flagged with pink -
and -blue flagging tape and were assigned PHRI sequential
temporary site numbers prefixed by "6962", beginning with
696-1. All sites were plotted on an enlarged photo copy of
a tax map (1":100 ft scale). A total of 18 temporary site
numbers were assigned during the pedestrian sweeps.
During clearing and recordation, it was determined that
two temporary sites (69616 and 17) were non -cultural. In
addition, three temporary sites (696-1, -2, and -3) close
together were combined into a single complex. Subsequently,
twelve new, permanent SIHP site numbers were assigned.
One site (the Great Wall of Kuakini, 696-18) had previously
been assigned an SIHP number (Table 1).
Table 1.
CORRELATION OF SITE NUMBERS
SIHP PHRI Temporary SIHP PHRI Temporary
Site Number Site Number Site Number Site Number
6302(7276
696-18
13502
696-9
13496
696-12,3
13503
696-10
13497
696-4
13504
696-11
13498
696-5
13505
696-12
13499
696-6
13506
696-13
13500
696-7
13507
696-14
13501
696-8
-
-
696-050390
INTRODUCTION
Site recording and subsurface testing was conducted
December 5 and 6, 1989, by a crew of six PHRI field
archaeologists. At this time, sites were tagged with metal
site tags and were photographed, measured, and described.
Sites were recorded on standard PHRI site record forms and
at least one 35 into black -and -white photograph was taken
of each site (PHRI Roll No. 1316). In all cases, sites were
cleared and mapped using metric tape and compass. An
attempt was made to define as accurately as possible the
boundaries of the sites; overall site areas were measured
along two perpendicular axes. As indicated above, all
identified surfacefeatures wererecorded, with the exception
of the structural remains of the Kona Plantation Hotel.
Subsurface testing was conducted at Site 13498 and
Site 13500, where a 1.00 by 1.00 m sq unit was excavated at
each site. All excavated soil was processed through 1/4- and
1/8 -inch mesh hardware cloth, and all shell, lithic, botanical
and faunal materials were collected. Excavated material
was screened and collected by 0.05 in thick levels at
S ite 13498 and by 0.10 in thick levels at S ite 13500. S urface
materials located outside the limits of the test unit were
collected at Site 13498, where a basalt net sinker was
mapped and recovered.
All recovered samples were returned to the Hilo laboratory
for systematic sorting. Laboratory analyses of the remains
included cataloging the artifacts, analysis of the ecofactual
remains, and preparation of carbon samples. Two carbon
samples from Site 13500 were processed and submitted to
Beta Analytic, Coral Gables, Florida, for radiometric age
determination.
696-050390 8
SURFACE FINDINGS
During the present project, 13 sites consisting of
17 component features were identified in the project area
(Figure 1). One of the sites had been previously identified
(SIHP Site 6302/7276, the Great Wall of Kuakini); all other
sites were newly identified. The sites and their component
features, CRM (Cultural Resource Management) value mode
assessments, and recommended field work tasks are
summarized in Table 2. Appendix A provides detailed
descriptions for each site.
Site-specific information provided in Appendix A includes
descriptions of site topography, vegetation, condition, integrity,
and probable age. The formal and functional identification
of each feature is provided, in addition to feature dimensions,
a description of feature construction, associated portable
remains, and other relevant information.
Two site complexes and 11 single -feature sites were
identified in the project area. The complexes (Sites 13496
and 13498 consist of four and two features, respectively.
The sites are concentrated in the upper (eastern) portion of
the parcel, and with one exception (13507), are within
250 It (75.0 m) of the Great Wall of Kuakini. The single site
not located in the concentration is an alignment within a
garden area of the Kona Plantation Hotel. The patterning of
identified sites within the project area is attributable to
differential preservation, rather than any factors relating to
prehistoric land use. As suggested in a preceding discussion,
the types of features present within the eastern portion of the
project area are similar in form to the types of features
identified for a similar elevation range in the adjacent Lands
of Auhaukeae 1 and 2.
Formal Feature Types
The identified sites have been subjected to varying
amounts of disturbance and alteration. It is suspected that
certain alignments are the remnants of walls, and that the
rock concentration at Site 13499 is the remnant of a terrace,
platform, or other structural feature. Additional observations
on the states of preservation of various sites are included in
the following discussions of the various formal feature
types.
Nine formal feature types were identified among the
17 features recorded. These include alignments, modified
outcrops, caves, terraces, walls, a C -shape, an L -shape, a
pahcehoe excavation, and a rock concentration with midden.
The occurrence and frequencies of these types are summarized
in Table 3. Features represented in the various formal
categories are summarized on page 11.
Alignments - Four alignments were identified in the
project area; two were at Site 13496, one was at Site 13501
and one was at Site 13507. These features consist of loosely
arranged boulders that are generally no higher than a single
course. The alignments are linear to slightly curved in plan
and appear to represent different functional categories.
Two alignments (Site 13496, Feature D, and 13501) may be
remnants of pre-existing walls. These features are relatively
longer, wider, and more substantial than the other two
alignments. The longest alignment (13.5 m) is Site 13501,
which is located near the center of Hienaloli 6, and oriented
mauka-makai (inland -seaward). Additional vegetation
clearing and subsurface testing at this site should permit
verification of a formal wall base, if such exists. The
possible wall remnant at Site 13496 (Feature D) is within
9.0 in of the Great Wall of Kuakini, and 4.5 in from the
southern boundary of Hienaloli 6. This feature is on bare
pahoehoe, and it is not likely that its original size or function
can be determined.
The second alignment identified at Site 13496
(Feature B) is small and very loosely arranged. It is
associated with features that appear to post-date the Great
Wall of Kuakini, and is situated on bare pahoehoe, with no
soil accumulation under or around the feature. It is also
proximal to wall tumble froth the Great Wall of Kuakini,
and may represent a relocation of wall fall materials by
someone crossing over the wall at this point. This alignment
does not appear to contain any additional information that
would aid in determining function.
The fourth identified alignment (13507) is the only
feature located within the Kona Plantation Hotel grounds. It
is located in a garden area, where the extent of surface
disturbance is currently unknown. This 22 in long alignment
contains variously sized stones, suggestive of a bifaced,
core -filled wall remnant. Subsurface testing should permit
identification of a formal wall base, if present, and a
determination of general period of construction.
Modified outcrops -Modified outcrops were identified
at three sites (13497, 13502, and 13504). Site 13497
consists of boulders loosely piled along the sloping edge of
an outcrop. Site 13502 is a flat decomposing bedrock area
696-050390 FINDINGS 9
Table 2.
*State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers. SIHP numbers are four- to five- digit
numbers prefixed by 50-10-28 or -37 (50 --State of Hawaii; 10=Island of Hawaii; 28 or 37=USGS
7.5' series quad map ["Kailua" or "Kealakekua, Hawaii"]).
#Cultural Resource Management Value Mode Assessment
—Nature: R = scientific research,
I = interpretive
C = cultural
—Degree: H = high
M =moderate
L = low
+Field Work Tasks:
DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions)
SC = surface collections
EX = test excavations
"Number of component features within complex.
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED SITES AND FEATURES
*SIHP
Formal
Tentative
#CRM Value
+Field Work
Site
Site/Feature
Functional
Mode Assess.
Tasks
No.
Type
Interpretation
R
I
C
DR SC
EX
6302/
Wall
Boundary
M
H
H
+ +
+
7276
(Great Wall of Kuakini)
13496
Complex (4**)
M
L
L
+ -
+
A
L-shaped wall
Temp. habitation
B
Alignment
Indeterminate
C
Terrace
Agriculture
D
Alignment
Indeterminate
13497
Modified outcrop
Indeterminate
L
L
L
13498
Complex (2)
Habitation
H
L
L
+ +
+
A
Cave
B
Cave
13499
Rock
Habitation
M
L
L
+ +
+
concentration/
midden
13500
Terrace
Habitation
M
L
L
+ +
+
13501
Alignment
Indeterminate
M
L
L
+ +
+
*State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) numbers. SIHP numbers are four- to five- digit
numbers prefixed by 50-10-28 or -37 (50 --State of Hawaii; 10=Island of Hawaii; 28 or 37=USGS
7.5' series quad map ["Kailua" or "Kealakekua, Hawaii"]).
#Cultural Resource Management Value Mode Assessment
—Nature: R = scientific research,
I = interpretive
C = cultural
—Degree: H = high
M =moderate
L = low
+Field Work Tasks:
DR = detailed recording (scaled drawings, photographs, and written descriptions)
SC = surface collections
EX = test excavations
"Number of component features within complex.
696-050390 FINDINGS 10
Table 2. (cont.)
SIHP
Site
No.
Formal
Site/Feature
Type
Tentative
Functional
Interpretation
CRM Value
Mode Assess
R I C
Field Work
Tasks
DR SC EX
13502
Modified
Agriculture
M
L
L
+ - +
outcrop
13503
C -shape
Habitation/
M
L
L
+ - +
agriculture
13504
Modified
Agriculture
M
L
L
+ -
outcrop
13505
Pahoehoe
Agriculture
L
L
L
- - -
excavation
13506
Wall
Agriculture!
M
L
L
+ - -
landscaping
13507
Alignment
Indeterminate
M
L
L
+ - +
that has loose rocks arranged around or near the perimeter of
the area, resulting in a somewhat terrace -like appearance.
Site 13504 consist of a depression lined with natural
bedrock and boulders, creating an enclosed soil pocket.
Sites 13502 and 13504 are very likely agricultural features;
Site 13497 does not have aclearly identifiable planting area,
and is of questionable function. This site, likewise, has no
potential for providing additional clues as to function or
period of construction. The soil deposits at Sites 13502 and
13504 may, however, provide additional information regarding
function or period of construction.
Caves - Two cave features (Features A and B) were
identified at one site (Site 13498). The features are located
ateitherend of a linear, blocked lava tube, and are accessible
only through separate vertical entranceways. The deposit in
the Feature A cave was determined to be the thickest and
richest of the two caves, and was tested by excavation of a
1.0 by 1.0 in square test unit. The 0.16 in thick deposit here
contained marine shell, Echinoidea, fish and mammal
bone, and vegetal remains Oalkui nut and gourd were
recovered). Artifacts recovered from the surface and test
unit at Feature A include a net sinker, flaked basalt and
volcanic glass, and historic materials (glass, iron, tin, and
chert).
The two caves are probably temporary habitation features;
additional excavation in Feature A should permit acquisition
of a sufficient amount of materials for age determination
analysis. The blocked portion of the tube may require
excavation if the blockage materials are determined to be
artificially deposited.
Terraces - Two terraces were identified within the
project area (Site 13496, Feature C; and Site 13500). The
terrace at Site 13496 appears to have been constructed
against the Great Wall of Kuakini. It is associated with an
L-shaped wall that was also constructed against the Great
Wall. The terrace is irregular in plan, and is collapsed. It
is currently assigned an agriculture/indeterminate function,
due primarily to an absence of observed portable remains
that would indicate habitation. Such deposits may, however,
occur beneath the terrace surface.
The second terrace (Site 13500) is built across slope
(N -S), with soil retained along the easter(inland)side. The
terrace has a surface area of 19.5 square in, and surface
deposits of shell midden, charcoal, and coral were observed.
A 1.0 in by 1.0 in test unit was excavated over a deposit of
relatively concentrated midden on the terrace surface. The
deposit was estimated at 0.34 in thick. Marine shell,
696-050390 FINDINGS
Table. 3
FREQUENCIES OF FORMAL FEATURE TYPES
Formal Type Count Percent Occurrence
Alignment
4
23.5
13496 (B,D), 13501, 13507
Modified outcrop
3
17.6
13497, 13502, 13504
Cave
2
11.8
13498(A,B)
Terrace
2
11.8
13496 (C), 13500
Wall
2
11.8
6203, 13506
C -shape
1
5.9
13503
L -shape wall
1
5.9
13496 (A)
Pahoehoe excavation
1
5.9
13505
Rock concentration
1
5.9
13499
TOTAL
17
100.1
Echinoidea, kukui nut and charcoal were recovered during
excavation, as well as adze fragments, volcanic glass flakes,
modified shark teeth, and a single glass sherd. The presence
of portable artifacts and midden indicates some form of
occupational activities on the terrace. Additional interpretive
comments are offered in the Subsurface Findings section.
Vegetation clearing and subsurface excavations are warranted
at this feature.
Walls -Two linear walls, an L-shaped wall, and a
C-shaped wall were identified within the project area. The
linear walls include The Great Wall of Kuakini (Site 6203)
and Site 13506. The western portion of the latter site was
probably built as part of the Kona Plantation Hotel landscaping
and functioned to retain soil for the garden area. The eastern
portion of the wall is free-standing and is located along the
ahuoua'a boundary of Hienaloli 6. This section may predate
the western portion. A limited amount of additional vegetation
clearing and field examination is needed to confirm this.
The Great Wall of Kuakini forms a portion of the
eastern boundary of the project area. The portion that
crosses the project area is disturbed in places, with intact
portions up to 2.6 in high. A discussion of the functional
interpretation and significance of this feature is included in
the Summary of Historic Documentary Research and in
Appendix B.
The L -shape wall was identified at Site 13496
(Feature A). This bifaced feature appears to have been
constructed when the Great Wall of Kuakini was standing,
although to date this has not been confirmed with adequate
11
evidence. The wall is tentatively identified as a temporary
habitation feature, based on feature morphology. No portable
remains have been observed in association with the feature
to date. Additional field investigations are needed in order
to properly interpret this feature.
The C -shape wall is present at Site 13503. This wall is
loosely faced on both sides and defines a semicircular area
that is considerably wider than it is deep. No portable
remains or cultural deposits were visible in association with
the wall, which is curved toward the northeast. The exposure
of the interior area of the wall varies from the general pattern
of prehistoric period temporary habitation shelters, which
usually block the prevailing winds. The functional
interpretation and period of construction for this feature is
therefore problematic at this time. A soil deposit is present
in the wall, suggesting an alternative function as an agricultural
feature. Subsurface investigations may clarify the function
and period of construction.
Pahoehoe excavation - A single pahoehoe excavation
was identified at Site 13505. This feature consists of a
pahoehoe blister that has been excavated at the top, creating
a hole that was backfilled with small cobbles, creating a
paved floor. Some of the excavated blocks and pieces have
been crudely arranged around the outside of the hole.
Abundant amounts of modern trash are in the excavation.
This feature may have been originally constructed as a
planting area. It has since been altered and used as a trash
receptacle, and it is unlikely that undisturbed deposits or
additional relevant information is left intact at the site.
696-050390 FINDINGS 12
Rock Concentration - A rock concentration was
identified at Site 13499. This feature may well represent the
disturbed remains of a former structure. Portable remains
suggestive of prehistoric period habitation are associated
with the concentration. Additional field investigations
should provide a clearer interpretation of the function and
possibly of the former structure at the site.
Formal Functional Types
Ten of the 17 identified features can be assigned to a
functional category with relative confidence at this time
(Table 4). These include five habitation features, four
agricultural features, and a boundary wall. Five features
currently have indeterminate functions; one is either a
habitation or agricultural feature, and one is a landscaping
feature with possibly a prior agricultural or boundary function.
Habitation - Half of the features with readily identifiable
functions are associated with habitation. These include two
caves (13498 Features A and B), a rock concentration with
midden (13499), a terrace (13500), and an L -shape wall
(13496, Feature Q. Portable remains indicative of occupation
are present on the surface at all of these features, with the
exception of the L-shaped wall at Site 13496. Portable
remains at the caves and terrace include tool fragments,
lithic debitage, and fishing gear (net sinker), reflecting
prehistoric period activities. Early to middle nineteenth
century non -indigenous artifacts were also recovered from
the two habitation features that were tested (13498,
Feature A, and 13500).
The two habitation features which exhibited the deepest
and richest cultural deposits were tested. In both cases,
these deposits appear to have no internal stratification or
differentiation that would indicated cultural layering. The
deposits are relatively shallow and contain quantities and
types of remains reflective of short-term occupation. A
more detailed discussion of the portable remains recovered
is presented below.
On the basis of surface evidence at the other two
habitation sites (13496, Feature A, and 13499), it appears
that they also represent short-term, or temporary habitation.
If the Site 13496 feature does in fact post-date the Great
Wall of Kuakini, it is most likely a historic period construction.
The feature at Site 13499 is possibly disturbed beyond
recognition of the original structure. To date, no surface
remains indicating historic activities have been identified at
Site 13499.
Agriculture - Four features are included in the agriculture
functional category. They include a terrace (13496,
Feature C), two modified outcrops (13502, 13504), and a
pahoehoe excavation (13505). The pahoehoe excavation
appears to be prehistoric in form; however, it is currently
used for refuse disposal. The modified outcrops are small,
prepared planting areas that would have held one or a few
cultigens. These features are generally assigned to the
prehistoric period, however, modified outcrops were also
constructed and used in the Kailua area during the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries (Donham 1990:4,47). A temporal
period assignment, based on morphology alone, is therefore
not absolute for these features, particularly in areas that
contain agricultural and habitation features with identified
historic period occupations. The agricultural terrace at Site
13496 is of likely historic construction, given the assumption
that it post-dates the Great Wail of Kuakini.
Boundary -The Great Wall of Kuakini (6302) is placed
in the boundary category, reflecting its use as a perimeter
around the residential district of Kailua. Its principal
historic period function appears to have been to regulate the
movement of animals; however, the decisions which
determined the location of the Great Wall were probably
influenced by political factors. It is possible that portions of
the feature were extant prior to Kuakini's governorship, and
that these sections had political significance. For example,
in 1823, Ellis observed a large stone wall adjacent to the
entrance to Laniakea Cave in Hienaloli, which he described
as a military fortification. According to Ellis;
The fortification was probably extensive, as traces
of the ancient walls are discoverable in several
places; but what were its original dimensions, the
natives who were with us could not tell. They
asserted, however, that the cavern, if not the fort
also, was formerly surrounded by a strong palisade
(Ellis 1979:62).
The Lamakea Cave and the Asa Thurston residency,
which Kelly (1983:12) suggests utilized much of the existing
walls, is located adjacent to the Great Wall of Kuakini,
which could have easily incorporated sections of the walls
described by Ellis.
Indeterminate - Five features cannot be assigned to a
likely or possible function due to their amorphous form or
extremely disturbed condition. These include four alignments
(13496, Features B and D, 13501, and 13507) and a modified
outcrop which could also be considered an alignment (13497).
696-050390 FINDINGS
Table 4.
13
SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES
Functional
Category
Habitation:
Agriculture:
Boundary:
Habit. or Agri:
Landscaping and
Boundary or Agri:
Indeterminate:
Occurrence
13496, Feature A (L -shape wall)
13498, Features A and B (caves)
13499 (Rock concentration with midden)
13500 (Terrace)
13496, Feature A (Terrace)
13502 (Modified outcrop)
13504 (Modified outcrop)
13505 (Pahoehoe excavation)
6302 (Great Wall of Kuakini
13503 (C -shape wall)
13506 (Wall)
13496, Features B and D (Alignments)
13497 (Modified outcrop)
13501 (Alignment)
13507 (Alignment)
Count
Total : 17
Among the alignments, three are possibly prior walls that
have been diminished by stone borrowing (13496, Feature
D, 13501, and 13507). Additional field work should permit
clarification of this possibility.
One site, a C -shape wall (13503) represents either a
short-term shelter or an agricultural feature. If temporary
habitation is represented, the soil deposit that occurs inside
the wall should contain some portable remains, such as
charcoal, shellfish, or other foodstuff debris.
Finally, the Site 13506 wall, portions of which were
incorporated into the landscaping of the Kona Plantation
Hotel, may have an older section that functioned as an
ahunua'a boundary or as an agricultural feature. Additional
field work should determine if this is the case.
SUBSURFACE FINDINGS
Subsurface materials were collected from test units
excavated at Feature A, Site 13498 (cave) and at Site 13500
(terrace). A single 1.0 by 1.0 in square unit was excavated
at each site; approximately 0. 17 cubic cm were excavated at
Site 13498 and 0.34 cubic cm were excavated at Site 13500.
The purposes of the excavations were to determine the
presence or absence of cultural remains and to attempt
recovery of datable material. Two soil layers were encountered
at each site; in both cases, cultural remains were present in
all layers. The test units yielded marine gastropods and
bivalves, Echinoidea, Crustacea, land snails, fish and mammal
bone, kukui nutshell, wood charcoal, and gourd. In addition
to the midden remains, 108 artifacts were recovered, 101
696-050390 FINDINGS 14
(94%) of which were collected at Site 13498. The portable
remains are discussed here by site, and a few comparative
observations are offered.
Midden
ALSite 13498, a total of405.76 g of marine invertebrate
shells were recovered (Table 5). Eight gastropod species, a
single bivalve species (Isognomonidae), Echinoidea, and
Crustacea were identified among the invertebrate remains.
By weight, Cypraeidae accounts for 69% of the gastropods
and 55% of all marine invertebrates. The second highest
weight proportion among the gastropods is Conidae, which
accounts for 12.2% of the gastropods and 9.7% of all
invertebrates. Cellana remains account for 9.6% of the
gastropods; the remaining identified species are each 3.2%
and less of the gastropods by weight.
The Site 13498 invertebrate collection exhibits a relatively
homogenous pattern of volume change by excavation level.
Among the four collections from 0.05 m thick levels, 50%
of all invertebrates were collected from Level 3, located at
the base of Layer I, 0.10-0.15 in below surface. Level 1
(0-0.05 in below surface) contained 31%of the invertebrate
remains, and Levels 2 and 4 contained 12.6% and 7.2%,
respectively. Among the gastropods, all recovered Nerita
polita and Nerita picea were in Level 3; 61% of all Conidae
and 58% of all Cypraeidae were also in this level. Three
gastropod species do not exhibit highest weight in Level 3.
These are Thaididae, which shows a high Level 1 weight
(42% of total Thaididae, compared with 35% in Level 3);
Cellan, which has 68% in Level 1 and 18% in Level 3; and
Terebridae, which occurs only in Level 4.
Isognomonidae exhibits a predominance in Level 3,
where 74% of all these remains were recovered. Likewise,
64% of the total weight of Echinoidea are in Level 3.
Nearly all invertebrate remains exhibit a relatively
significant decrease in weight from Level 3 to Level 4,
which has the lowest weights for six of the eight gastropod
species. The overall pattern of shellfish remains by weight
also shows a general decrease from Level I to 2. This
decrease between Level 1 and 3, and the differences in
occurrence rates of species between the two levels, suggests
that at least two distinct shellfish deposits are present. The
most recent deposit consists of five gastropod species,
Isognomonidae and Echinoidea. The gastropods are more
evenly distributed by weight, with Cypraeidea accounting
for less than half (48%) of the weight, as compared with
77% of the total Level 3 gastropod weight. In the upper
deposit, Cellan and Thaididae account for a far greater
proportion of the total Level 1 weight (23.1% and 4.8%)
than is indicated for the lower deposit in Level 3 (3.3% and
1.6%, respectively).
Other faunal remains (fish and mammal) were collected
from all four excavation levels at Site 13498, with the
highestweights from Levels 1 and 3 (36%and40.3%). The
kukui nut remains collected are all unburned and exhibit a
steady decrease by weight from Levels 1 through 4. Most if
not all of these remains were probably introduced by animals.
Wood charcoal occurrence follows the pattern indicated by
shellfish remains; the greatest amount occurred in Level 3,
with the second-highest weight in Level 1. Gourd remains,
represented by 0.05 g, occurred only in Level 2.
Although twice the volume of soil was excavated at Site
13500, as compared with Site 13498, a considerably lesser
amount of midden remains were recovered. Invertebrate
remains from three complete and one partial 0.1 in thick
excavation levels totals 97.44 g, which is less than the Level
1 and Level 3 individual collections from Site 13498.
Four gastropod species are represented at Site 13500;
the predominant remains by weight are Cypraeidae, which
account for 78% of all gastropods. The Cypraeidae are
concentrated mostly in Level 1 (0-0.1 in below surface), as
are all other gastropods except Nerita polita, which occurs
only in Level 2 (II -1). In contrast, Isognomonidae are
absent from Level 1, and most common in Level 4 (II -3),
where 83% of this species occurs. Other bivalves present
are Veneridae, which occurs only in Level 1. Echinoidea
remain are relatively sparse at Site 13500, and their occurrence
does not correlate with the gastropods. Most of the Echinoidea
(83%) are in Level 2 (II -1).
No fish or mammal remains were recovered from Site
13500, and only small amounts of unburned kuklti nut were
recovered from the two upper excavation levels. A small
amount of wood charcoal was recovered from Level 1, and
dating samples were recovered from Levels 3 (II -2) and
4 (II -3). Both of the dating samples were determined to be
modem.
There are no clear patterns of change in the kinds and
densities of portable remains collected from the various
levels at Site 13500 that would indicate more than one
distinct deposit. In general, the invertebrate remains show
a decrease from upper to lower levels, and a slight increase
at the base of excavation (II -3). The patterning for Echinoidea
and bivalves, as well as some gastropod species do not,
however, follow this pattern. The dating samples collected
from the lower two excavation levels indicate the presence
696-050390 FINDINGS 15
=,
C n N r� t+Mi vl O ��� x VN1 ct
Z `
� � per. CINa':
cMn
C
N
I
zbl
N'i
c=�I5ZV
�Ix�
po pO
0 0 V O oO0 � C �
pV
O��C
C ri CI M
��
O vNil
vii
'
Cd
IIO
i
^
r ^
Zv
h
V
y
�
i
94
W N
i
N
^I
I
C C IiO
IFI
�
pp7
Oi
Obi
C c'
' I oiM
C ri
O
C
^
O O
N
C GC O N
r.
7 7
I
O
O
O
y
D
O
FSI
C
I
Q
Q
F
N
C n N r� t+Mi vl O ��� x VN1 ct
�..�.N.INICIM��
V Vc
oo Oi �cnl
� � per. CINa':
cMn
N
N
a�0
Vii V N �
N'i
c=�I5ZV
�Ix�
po pO
0 0 V O oO0 � C �
pV
O��C
C ri CI M
��
O vNil
vii
IIO
i
^
r ^
Zv
h
V
y
�
i
94
W N
i
W
^I
I
C C IiO
i
�
pp7
Oi
Obi
C c'
' I oiM
C ri
O
C
^
O O
N
C GC O N
7 7
O
O
O
�..�.N.INICIM��
V Vc
oo Oi �cnl
� � per. CINa':
cMn
M
N
a�0
Vii V N �
N'i
c=�I5ZV
�Ix�
�..�.N.INICIM��
V Vc
oo Oi �cnl
� � per. CINa':
cMn
Z
N'i
c=�I5ZV
�Ix�
z
vQi
C ri CI M
��
O C O C�i wool
IIO
i
z
Zv
I
V
y
i
94
i
I
C C IiO
�
pp7
Oi
Obi
C c'
' I oiM
C ri
Z
C
z
C
z
�
V
y
>
94
696-050390 FINDINGS 16
of charcoal that is indistinguishable from modem in Artifacts
radiocarbon years BP (discussed below). The bulk of the
midden deposit is currently above the charcoal deposits A total of 101 artifacts were recovered from the test unit
from which these dates were obtained. The modern age at Site 13498 (Table 6) and seven were recovered from Site
determinations returned for charcoal in the lowest two 13500(Table 7). Amongthe 108artifacts, 72are indigenous
excavation levels, together with the inconsistent occurrences and 38 (34%) are non -indigenous, historic period items.
of portable remains, suggests that the deposit has been The bulk of the indigenous artifacts are volcanic glass flakes
mixed. It appears that the Site 13500 terrace was either used (60 of 72, 83%), most of which (58) were recovered from
as a habitation feature and subsequently used as an agricultural Site 13498. The artifacts are discussed here by site.
feature; or the portable remains were deposited on the site
during the time it was being used for agricultural purposes, At Site 13498 volcanic glass was recovered from all
most likely during the historic period, four excavation levels. The greatest proportion of pieces
Table 6.
SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS - SITE 13498
Category Surface I-1 I-2 I-3 1/I14 Total
INDIGENOUS
FISHING GEAR
Net Sinker
TOOLS
Scoria Abrader
Basalt Hammerstone
FLAKED STONE
Basalt -
-
-
1
1
2
Volcanic Glass
6
13
27
12
58
BONE
Utilized
Shark Tooth -
-
_
I
-
I
TOTAL INDIGENOUS: 1
6
14
30
13
64
NONINDIGENOUS
GLASS
Bead _
_
_
1
-
1
Flat Glass -
1
1
2
-
4
Bottle Glass -
3
5
3
-
11
METAL
Iron -
6
2
I
9
Tin -
5
3
3
-
11
CHERT
Gunflint _
1
_
-
_
1
TOTAL
NON -INDIGENOUS: 0
16
11
10
0
37
TOTAL ARTIFACTS: 1
22
25
40
13
101
696-050390 FINDINGS
Table 7.
SUMMARY OF ARTIFACTS - SITE 13500
Category
I-1
11-1
11-2
Total
INDIGENOUS
FLAKEDSTONE
Volcanic Glass
I
1
-
2
Polished basalt
1
1
-
2
BONE
Modified Shark Teeth
-
1
1
2
TOTAL INDIGENOUS:
2
3
1
6
NON -INDIGENOUS
GLASS
Flat Glass
1
-
-
1
TOTAL ARTIFACTS:
3
3
1
7
(27,47% of the site total) were recovered from Level 3, 0.10
to 0.15 m below surface. Levels 2 and 4 had similar counts
of volcanic glass (13 and 12 respectively); six pieces were
recovered from Level 1. Thirty-eight of the 58 recovered
volcanic glass pieces are flakes, most of which (31) are
incomplete. One of the complete flakes is secondary, with
cortex over roughly 10% of the dorsal surface. All other
flakes are tertiary with no cortex remaining. In general, the
complete flakes are small, with an average length of
13.6 mm. The largestcomplete flake, recovered from Level
4, is 19.0 mm long, 21.5 mm wide and 3.5 mm thick. Other
volcanic glass from Site 13498 includes two core fragments
and 18 chunks or shatter pieces. The larger of the two core
fragments has approximately 40% of the surface in cortex.
This specimen, recovered from Level 1, is 15.0 by 11.3 by
8.0 mm. The other core fragment has minute potlid fractures
on the surface, suggesting exposure to heat. Other pieces of
shatter likewise exhibit potlids.
One broken tertiary flake exhibits edge wear on the
distal end, dorsal side, and along a lateral edge, dorsal side.
The utilized edges are straight and concave; the straight
edge is 8.0 mm long and the concave edge is 8.5 mm long.
Overall size of the utilized flake is 10.7 by 11.0 by 3.7 mm.
Two basalt waste flakes were recovered from Site
13498. Both are tertiary flakes with no evidence of utilization
or retouch. The complete flake was recovered from
Level 3; it is 38.3 by 22.3 by 6.7 mm. A small, nearly
17
complete flake was recovered from Level 4; it is 12.0 mm
long by 14.0 mm wide by 2.4 mm thick.
Other lithic artifacts recovered from Site 13498 include
a formed scoria abrader (Level 3), a hammerstone (Level2),
and a net sinker (surface). The scoria abrader is trapezoidal
in form, with the broadest end broken. It is 82.0 mm long,
39.0 to 86.2 mm wide, and 8.2 to 14.0 mm thick. All
surfaces of the tool are well -ground, with the exception of
the break surface. The top surface of the abrader is slightly
concave one one side, due to wear. The scoria contains
inclusions of olivine crystals.
The hammerstone is a waterworn basalt cobble that is
broken from what appears to be heat stress. Two portions of
the stone were recovered, one from Level 1 and one (with
modification) from Level 2. The modified portion is 77.5 by
65.6by29.5mm. A small area of light pecking occurs along
the margin, at the end of the cobble.
The net sinker consists of a small waterworn basalt
cobble that has a pecked and ground groove around the
stone, at the center. The cobble is 93.3 by 69.7 by 41.8 mm;
the groove has an average width of 15.0 mm, and is 1.5 to
2.0 mm deep.
A single bone artifact was recovered from Level 3 at
Site 13498. This item is a shark tooth that shows evidence
of utilization along both sides. The small barbs have been
696-050390 FINDINGS 18
wom away along both side of the tooth and the tip has been
broken. This artifact weighs 0.24 g.
Historic artifacts recovered from Site 13498 include
glass, metal, and chert items. All historic material occurred
in Levels 1 through 3. Fifteen glass sherds were recovered;
four represent window pane (flat glass), 11 represent beverage
bottles, and two represent panel bottles (proprietary medicine).
The four flat glass sherds, recovered from Levels 1, 2
and 3, most likely represent the same window pane. All are
light bluish -green tint and with a heavy patina. The two
sherds from Level 3 can be fitted together. Thickness of the
sherds ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 mm. In general, sherds
averaging around 1.5 in in thickness were more commonly
manufactured prior to 1850 (Ball 1982).
The bottle glass sherds are all small, with no mold seam
remnants or other moldings. The two panel bottle sherds are
amber and light green; all beverage bottle sherds are dark
olive green and could represent the same bottle. The color
and suggested forms represented among the sherds indicates
probable nineteenth century manufacture.
The final glass artifact recovered is a bead. This
specimen is light blue with an iridescent surface. The bead
is 4.9 mm in diameter and 1.5-1.7 mm thick. The center hole
is 3.2 mm in diameter, and is off -center, probably as a result
of wear. This item also appears to be of nineteenth century
manufacture.
Metal pieces weighing a total of 28.47 g were recovered
from Levels 1, 2, and 3 at Site 13498. Eleven pieces of tin
and nine pieces of iron were collected. All of the tin pieces
are from cans, and represent tops, sides, and seams of heavy,
pre -modern cans (or a single can). The iron pieces are
generally nondescript spalls. One piece of flatiron with a
small hole was recovered from Level 1, which could be the
source for the other small spalls. The only other identifiable
iron item is the shank of a cut nail, recovered from Level 3.
The final historic artifact from Site 13498 is a chert
gunflint, collected from Level 1. This item is of dark brown
chert; cortex is present on two flat sides (top and bottom),
and on approximately 40% of the margin. The rest of the
margin is scarred with numerous striking scars. Non -chert
inclusions are exposed in a major portion of the scarred
margin, which may have rendered the item useless. The
piece is 13.4 by 13.8 by 7.6 mm and weighs 2.35 g.
The overall vertical patterning of indigenous artifacts
indicates a more concentrated occurrence in Level 3. whereas
the nineteenth century remains show a gradual decrease
from Level 1 through 3, and an absence in Level 4. On the
basis of artifact styles and patterns, it appears that the two
occupations indicated by the vertical patterns of midden
remains can beassigned to the prehistoric (lower levels) and
nineteenth century historic (upper levels) periods. A certain
amount of mixing is indicated for these deposits.
At Site 13500 seven artifacts were recovered from
Levels 1, 2 and 3. These include two volcanic glass pieces,
two basalt pieces with polished faces, two modified shark
teeth, and a piece of flat glass (Table 7).
The volcanic glass includes a minute flake fragment
(0.01 g) from Level 1 and a core rejuvenation flake from
Level3(II-1). The basalt items are small, chunky fragments
with single faces that are highly polished. They may
represent impact spalls from adzes. They occurred in
Levels I and 2. The two shark teeth exhibit wear along the
sides and at the tip. They were recovered from Levels 2 and
3 (II -1 and II -2). The flat glass is bluish tinted window pane,
1.30 mm thick; it has a heavy patina and is probably of mid -
nineteenth century manufacture.
AGE DETERMINATIONS
Two radiometric dating samples were collected from
Site 13500 and submitted for age determination analysis
(Table 8). Prior to submission, the samples were processed
in the laboratory and excess non -charcoal material was
removed from them. The samples were packed in aluminum
foil and were sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. (Coral Gables,
Florida). There, the samples underwent further hand -
removal of foreign debris, and were given acid and alkali
washings to remove carbonates and organic acids. The
samples were then processed using the benzene method,
which converts sample material to a liquid containing
carbon atoms that originate only in the samples. In addition,
C -13/C-12 stable isotope ratios were determined for all
samples.
The two samples were determined to have a count rate
statistically indistinguishable from the modem (post -AD
1950) count rate. The modem range produced by the
samples indicates either (a) the sample contained carbon
produced by a very recent fire, or (b) the sample was so
young in terms of radiocarbon years that, although it may
actually date to the very late prehistoric to early historic
times (i.e., from the 1700-1800s), it yielded a modem result.
Given the vertical context of the samples (0.30-0.34 in
below surface), and their association with a somewhat
mixed deposit, with indigenous and nineteenth century
artifacts, it is assumed that the charcoal is probably of late
eighteenth, or (most likely) nineteenth century deposition.
696-050390 FINDINGS 19
Table 8.
SUMMARY OF RADIOCARBON AGE DETERMINATIONS
PHRI
Lab.No.
RC-
Lab.
No.
BETA-
Provenience
C-14Age
Yrs. B.P.
(one sigma)
C-131
C-12
Ratio
C-13Adjusted
C-14Age
Yrs. B.P.
*Calendric
Range
Yrs. AD
SITE 13500
650
35419
TU -1
101.6±0.9%
-25.2
101.7±0.9%
Modem
Layer II,
Modem
Level 2
30-40 cmbd
651
35420
TU -1,
103.4±0.7%
-19.8
102.4±0.7%
Modem
Layer 11,
Modem
Level 3,
40-50 cmbd
•Calibrated according to Stuiver and Pearson (1986). Range at two sigmas.
696-050390 20
DISCUSSION
The findings of this survey indicate that the portion of
Hienaloli 6 between 90 and 120 It AMSL was utilized
during the prehistoric and historic periods for relatively
low -intensity agriculture and temporary habitation. Five
features at four sites contain portable remains and/or
morphological characteristics of short-term habitation.. These
features may represent resting places for workers or gardeners.
Four features at four sites have morphological attributes of
agricultural modifications. An additional six features cannot
be specifically identified at this time; however, they are
probably related either to agriculture, habitation, or are
disturbed boundary walls.
Historical background information available for the
project area and vicinity indicates that Hienaloli 6 was near
the geographic center of Kailua village, which was in
existence at the time of western contact. The project area
was likewise near the center of the area described by
Kamakau as the residential district of many chiefs. This
area extended from Kahelo, in Puapuaa 1 to the northern
boundary of Lanihau (Kamakau 1961:221-222). This chiefly
residential area was probably well-settled by the eighteenth
century, when `Umi, the unifier of Hawaii Island, established
residency here. In 1810, Kamehameha I united all the
islands under his kingdom, and in 1812 he established his
royal court in Lanihau. Chiefly residencies were therefore
concentrated in the Kailua area between 1812 and 1820, at
which time Liholiho moved the court to Honolulu (Kelly
1982:3). Kuakini remained in Kailua; the majority of the
high chiefs, however, left for Honolulu with Liholiho (Kelly
1982:8).
On the basis of this background information, it is
expected thatresidential features, possibly reflecting chiefly
habitation or ceremonial activities would occur in
Hienaloli 6, Mgkai of the Great Wall of Kuakini, which
surrounded the village.
Findings from recent investigations in the adjacent
ahupya'a south of Hienaloli 6 (Auhaukeae I and 2) provide
ample material documentation for relatively intensive
habitation and ceremonial activities. Moreover, significant
subsurface deposits were located beneath the surface structures
that were tested in Auahukeae I and 2 (Rosendahl 1981c).
As discussed above, the structural features reflecting
residencies, possible heiau, and burial monuments occur at
or below 90 ft AMSL in Auahukeae 1 and 2. Between 90
and 120 It AMSL (the Great Wall of Kuakini) is a band of
informal modifications and walls, reflecting agricultural
and temporary occupation activities.
The absence of residential and (potentially) ceremonial
structures in Hienaloli 6 at this time is attributable to the
modem development of the lower portion of the parcel
(below 90 It AMSL). On the basis of findings in the adjacent
ahupua'a, it appears likely that subsurface cultural deposits
are present in areas of the Kona Plantation Hotel that were
not subjected to deep disturbance.
The historical background for Hienaloli 6 indicates that
portable remains reflecting early to middle nineteenth century
manufacture might be present, given the time period of what
was probably the most intensive pre -modem occupation of
the area.
Nineteenth century remains were collected during
excavations at Sites 13498 (a cave) and 13500 (a terrace).
The bulk of these items reflect early to middle nineteenth
century manufacture; certain items, such as the gunflint,
glass bead, and window pane, could date to the period of
Kamehameha's court in Kailua. Other sites reflecting
nineteenth century construction and use include the Great
Wall of Kuakini, and Site 13496, a complex of four features
thought to post-date construction of the Great Wall. More
recent construction or modification is apparent at Site
13505 (a pahoehoe excavation) and 13506 (a wall). It is
possible that many of the minor agricultural features, such
as modified outcrops and alignments, are also of nineteenth
century construction.
Although indigenous artifacts were recovered from the
cave deposit at Site 13498, there is currently only inferential
evidence of a prehistoric period occupation here. This
evidence is based on quantitative differences in the midden
remains that mightreflect two deposition phases in the cave.
The lower midden deposit (associated with Level 3) is
tentatively inferred to be prehistoric, based on its suatigraphic
relationship to the upper deposit, wherein the nineteenth
century artifacts are concentrated. It should be noted,
however, that there is no clear-cut stratigraphical evidence
or absolute dates to support this inference. Indigenous
artifacts such as volcanic glass, shark teeth tools, stone,
sinkers, hammerstones, and adzes were undoubtedly in use
by Hawaiians through the early to middle nineteenth century.
696-050390 CONCLUSION 21
GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE
ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDED
GENERAL TREATMENTS
General significance assessments and recommended
general treatments for all identified sites are summarized in
Table 9. Significance categories used in the site evaluation
process are based on the National Register criteria for
evaluation, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations
(36 CFR Part60). DLNR-HSS/SHPO uses these criteria for
evaluating cultural resources. Sites determined to be potentially
significant for information content fall under Criterion D,
which defines significant resources as ones which "...have
yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history." Sites potentially significant as
representative examples of site types are evaluated under
Criterion C, which defines significant resources as those
which "...embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction...or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction."
Sites with potential cultural significance are evaluated
under guidelines prepared by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) entitled "Guidelines for
Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic
Preservation Review" (ACHP Draft Report, August 1985).
The guidelines define cultural value as "...the contribution
made by an historic property to an ongoing society or
cultural system. A traditional cultural value is a cultural
value that has historical depth" The guidelines further
specify that "[a] property need not have been in consistent
use since antiquity by a cultural system in order to have
traditional cultural value."
To further facilitate management decisions regarding
the subsequent teaurient of resources, the general significance
of the archaeological resources identified during the inventory
survey were also evaluated in terms of potential scientific
research, interpretive, and/or cultural values (PHRI Cultural
Resource Management [CRM] Value Modes; see Table 2
for individual assessments of sites). Research value refers
to the potential of archaeological resources for producing
information useful in the understanding of culture history,
past lifeways, and cultural processes at the local, regional,
and interregional levels of organization. Interpretive value
refers to the potential of archaeological resources for public
education and recreation. Cultural value, within the framework
for significance evaluation used here, refers to the potential
of archaeological resources for the preservation and promotion
of cultural and ethnic identity and values. These three value
modes are derived from the above state and federal evaluation
criteria.
Based on the above federal criteria, 12 of the 13 sites
identified during the current project are assessed as significant
solely for information content at the local or regional level.
Further data collection is recommended for 10 of these sites
(General Significance Category A, Recommended General
Treatment Category FDC). No funkier work is recommended
for two sites -13497, a marginally modified outcrop with
no soil or other deposits, and 13505, a pahoehoe excavation
that has been radically altered by modem activities and
refuse disposal. For the 10 sites recommended for further
data collection, recommended treatments are listed in
Table 2. Vegetation clearing is required for all sites;
subsurface testing is recommended for Sites 13499, 13501,
13502,13503, and 13507. Excavation (minimum of 50% of
surface area) is recommended for Sites 13498 and 13500.
Additional mapping, as indicated, is recommended for all
ten sites in Categories AFDC.
One site, The Great Wall of Kuakini, is assessed as
significant under National Register Criteria C and D
(exemplary of a type and information content), and as
having cultural significance (Table 9 Categories A, B, and
Q. Preservation of this site is recommended, with some
form of interpretive development that will insure preservation
of its integrity. The Great Wall of Kuakini has previously
been determined eligible for the National Register.
In addition to the site-specific treatments, it is
recommended that selective subsurface testing (i.e., closely
monitored backhoe trenching) be conducted in any areas of
the Kona Plantation Hotel site that appear to have minimal
subsurface disturbance. It is also recommended that an
attempt be made to contact informants who might know if
surface structures existed in the parcel prior to or during
hotel construction.
As an important initial step prior to data collection, it is
recommended that all identified sites recommended for
further archaeological work be accurately located and plotted
by professional surveyors, with the aid of an archaeologist,
on an appropriate scale topographic map of the project area.
This would greatly aid development planning by allowing
further archaeological work determinations (further data
collection, data recovery and/or preservation) to be more
accurately considered on a site -by -site basis.
The evaluations and recommendations presented within
this final report have been based on a variable -coverage
surface and limited subsurface inventory survey of the
project area. There is always the possibility, however
remote, that potentially significant, unidentified surface
and/or subsurface cultural remains will be encountered in
the course of future archaeological investigations or subsequent
development activities. In such situations, archaeological
consultation should be sought immediately.
696-050390 CONCLUSION 22
Table 9.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTS
AND RECOMMENDED GENERAL TREATMENTS
SIHP
Significance
Category
Recommended Treatment
Site Number
A
X
B
C
FDC
NFW
PID
PAI
13496
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
13498
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
13499
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
13500
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
13501
+
-
-
-
+
-
13502
+
-
-
+
-
13503
+
-
-
+
-
13504
+
-
-
+
-
13506
+
-
-
+
-
13507
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
Subtotal: 10
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
13497
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
13505
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
Subtotal: 2
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
6302
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
Subtotal: 1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
Total: 13
11
2
1
1
11
2
1
0
General Significance Categories:
A = Important for information content, further dam collection necessary
(CRM value mode=research value);
X = Important for information content, no further data collection necessary
(CRM value mode research value, SHPO=not significant);
B = Excellent example of site type at local, region, island, state, or national level
(CRM value mode=interpmtive value); and
C = Culturally significant (CRM value mode=culmml value).
Recommended General 7Yeatmenm:
FDC =Further dam collection necessary(further survey and testing, and possibly subsequent data recovery/
mitigation excavations);
NFW = No further work of any kind necessary, sufficient dam collected, archaeological clearance
recommended, no preservation potential (possible inclusion into landscaping suggested for
consideration);
PID = Preservation with some level of interpretive development recommended (including appropriate
related data recovery work); and
PAI = Preservation -as is," with no further work (and possible inclusion into landscaping), or minimal
further dam collection necessary.
696-050390 23
ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation)
1985 Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review. Washington,
D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (Draft report, August)
Armstrong, R.W. (ed)
1983 Arias of Hawaii. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. (Second edition)
Ball, D.B.
1982 Chronological Implications of Window Glass Thickness and Coloration at the Linville Site (15BK13),
Bracken County, Kentucky. Ms on file. Office of State Archaeologist, Lexington.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
36 CFR Part 60. National Register of Historic Places. Washington, D.C.: Dept. Interior, National Park Service.
Donham, T.K.
1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Queen Liliuokalani Trust Property, Land of Keahuolu, North Kona
District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 596-021290. Prepared for Belt, Collins & Associates.
Ellis, W.
1979 Journal of William Ellis. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company.
Kamakau, S.M.
1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu: The Kamehameha Schools Press.
Kelly, M.
1983 Na Mala o Kona: Gardens of Kona. A History of Land Use in Kona, Hawaii. Report 83-2. Dept. Anthro.,
B.P. Bishop Museum. Prepared for Dept. Transportation, State of Hawaii.
Macdonald, G.A., A.T. Abbott, and F.L. Peterson
1983 Volcanoes in the Sea. The Geology of Hawaii (Second Edition). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Rosendahl, P.H.
1979a Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site (TMK:3-7-5-09:54,55;
and 3-7-5-10:7,10) Kailua-Kana, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Ms. 12-040979. Prepared for Belt, Collins &
Associates.
1979b Evaluation of Archaeological Features Located in the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau Corporation Project
30 Site (TMK:3-7-5-09:54,55; and 3-7-5-10:7,10) Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Ms. 12-073179.
Prepared for Belt, Collins & Associates.
696-050390 REFERENCES CITED 24
1981a Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site, Kailua-
Kona, Island of Hawaii. Phase I—Detailed Recording (Part 1) and Historical Documentary Research. PHRI
Report Ms. 8-070180. Prepared for Lanihau Corporation.
1981b Archaeological Reconnaissance Testing of Suspected Burial Features in the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau
Corporation Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii: Preliminary Report upon Completion of
Fieldwork. PHRI Report Ms. 29-040281. Prepared for Gregg Kashiwa, T & K Enterprises, Inc.
1981c Test Excavations of Major Structural Features Located in the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau Corporation
Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii: Preliminary Report upon Completion of Fieldwork. PHRI
Report Ms. 31-042181. Prepared for Lanihau Corporation.
Sato, H.H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr.
1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii. State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation
Service and the Univ. of Hawaii Agri. Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Schilt, R.
1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii. An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment
Corridor. Report 84-1. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Prepared for Dept Transportation, State of
Hawaii.
Silva, C.L.
1981 Appendix A. The Lands of Auhaukeae 1 st and 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii: Historical Documentary Research
Conducted in Conjunction with the Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Seaward Portion of the Lanihau
Corporation Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii. IN Intensive Archaeological Survey of the
Seaward Portion of the Lanihau Corporation Project 30 Site, Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii. Phase I -
Detailed Recording (Part 1) and Historical Documentary Research. PHRI Report Ms. 8-070180. Prepared
for Lanihau Corporation.
Soehren, L.
1979 Archaeological and Historical Features on the Undeveloped Portion of the Parcel Identified by Tax Map Key
7-5-09:48, Situated at Hienaloli 6, North Kona, Hawaii. Letter Report prepared for John Geist, USA Ltd.
Stuiver, M., and G.W. Pearson
1986 High -Precision Calibration of Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950 to 500 BC. Radiocarbon 28, pp. 805-838.
696-050390 A-1
SITE NO.: State: 6302/7276 PHRI: 696-18
SITE TYPE: Wall (Great Wall of Kuakini)
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe bedrock.
VEGETATION: Dense grass, koa-haole, scattered kiawe
and vines.
CONDITION: Fair -good
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Early historic
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Boundary
DIMENSIONS: 28.00 in by 2.10 in by 1.00-2.60 in
maximum height
DESCRIPTION: This bifaced wall forms the northeast
boundary of the project area, and originally continued to the
south and southeast of the project area. It is currently broken
at the northeast comer of the project area by Hualalai Road.
The wall is conswctedofblocky subangular basal t boulders
that are stacked four to eleven courses high. The portion of
the wall which abuts the project area is oriented 325 degrees
Az. Portions of the wall are collapsed, revealing a boulder -
fill interior.
According to documentary information, the wall is
identified as the Great Wall of Kuakini (see Appendix B). It
was constructed under the direction of Kuakini, the Governor
of Hawaii Island, from A.D. 1820-1844. Overall length of
the Great Wall is approximately 5.6 miles, and it originally
extended unbroken between the ahupuaa of Kahuluu (south
end) and Keahuolu (north end).
The intended function of the wall is unclear, two
interpretations are offered: (a) to keep introduced animals
such as cattle out of the coastal village and habitation area,
or (b) to keep animals such pigs or goats confined to the
coastal village area and out of the agriculture fields. Both
functions would have been effectively served by the structure,
given its size and location.
SITE NO.: State: 13496 PHRI: 696-1,-2,-3
(Figure A-1)
SITE TYPE: Complex (4 Features)
TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating pahoehoe, gentle southwest
slope.
VEGETATION: Dense quantities of possible elephant grass,
with koa-haole, scattered kiawe, bitter yam and vines.
CONDITION: Poor
INTEGRITY: Possibly altered; rocks removed to build
SIHP 6302 (Kuakini Wall)
PROBABLE AGE: Historic/possible prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture/
temporary habitation/indeterminate
DESCRIPTION: An L-shaped wall (Feature A), a terrace
(Feature C), and two alignments (Features B and D) were
identified at this complex, which is situated along the west
side of the Kuakini Wall, at the southeast comer of the
project area. Overall area of the site is 18.00 in N -S by 10.00
in E -W. During field reconnaissance, PHRI temporary site
numbers 1-3 were assigned to the various features. As a
result of the close proximity of the features, they were
subsequently combined to form a single complex. PHRI
696-3 Features A and B remain as marked in the field. PHRI
696-1 as marked in the field is Feature C, and 696-2 as
marked in the field is Feature D.
Features A and C are within 3.00 in on a N -S axis, and
both abut the Kuakini Wall. Feature B is 2.50 in northwest
of Feature A, and Feature D is 4.50 in west of Feature C.
FEATURE A: L -Shaped Wall PHRI: 696-3 (A)
FUNCTION: Temporary habitation
DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 3.70 in by 0.60 in maximum
height
DESCRIPTION: The L-shaped wall is faced with angular
basalt boulders and stacked three to four courses high. The
long axis of the wall is immediately next to and parallels the
Kuakini Wall. The short axis extends west from the south
end of the longer section, and is in poor preservation. This
feature may post-date the Kuakini Wall, given its position in
relation to the larger wall structure.
FEATURE B: Alignment PHRI: 696-3 (B)
FUNCTION: Indeterminate
DIMENSIONS: 2.50 in by 0.45 in by 0.30 in
DESCRIPTION: Feature B is an alignment of seven basalt
boulders arranged in a single row along the face of an
outcrop slope. There is no soil build-up under or around the
boulders, which would suggest use as an agricultural feature.
Wall tumble from the Kuakini Wall is within 1.00 in of the
east side of the feature.
FEATURE C: Terrace PHRI: 696-2
FUNCTION: Agriculture
DIMENSIONS: 5.00 in by 5.00 in by 0.90 in
DESCRIPTION: The terrace is roughly L-shaped in plan,
and abuts the west side of the Kuakini Wail. The west and
south sides are defined by stacked boulder perimeters,
portions of which are collapsed. The north side is defined by
a perimeter alignment (single -course) that has a maximum
height of 0.15 in. The western perimeter is stacked and
faced, with an average height of 0.70 in (maximum height,
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-2
Y � o
H
)C
0 5 0 5
s
0 1 2 3 s
Q
o DA
00
o.
J
s
Y
KIAVIE
Q
OQ i
00� �
0
1
C $
�KIAwE�
w
PRWEO AREA BOUNDARY
Figure A-1. SITE 13496
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-3
0.90 m). The eastern perimeter, positioned along the
Kuakini Wall, is constructed of pahoehoe blocks stacked
one to four courses (0.10 in to 0.55 m) high. The terrace
surface consists of unpaved cobble fill that is generally
irregular, except for a small section at the south end of the
structure. This portion (2.00 by 1.50 m) is more compacted
and leveled than the rest of the terrace surface.
The north end of the terrace has a loosely piled mound
of rocks that is 0.55 in higher than the average height of the
terrace surface. Directly in line with the mound on the
ten -ace and extending 2.90 in beyond the west side of the
terrace is a loose pile of rocks. This pile decreases in height
as it extends west. It appears to have been constructed after
the terrace, which is intact beneath the rocks.
The south end of the terrace is not clearly faced, but
there is an alignment against and extending past a pahoehoe
outcrop. Several pahoehoe blocks have been excavated
from this outcrop, probably for building material. The
outcrop is c. 0.20 in higher than the terrace and is incorporated
into the Kuakini Wall.
A barbed wire fence (oriented E/W) is situated 2.9 in
south of the terrace. An alignment of pahoehoe blocks
extends between the terrace and the fence, from the western
side of the terrace. The alignment continues past the fence,
along nearly the same line as the west edge of the terrace.
The terrace may have been built subsequent to the
Kuakini Wall, which continues intact below the base of the
terrace.
FEATURED: Alignment PHRI: 696-1
FUNCTION: Indeterminate
DIMENSIONS: 7.00 in by 1.00 in by 0.45 in (maximum
height)
DESCRIPTION: Feature B is a slightly curved alignment
of boulders, which resembles a collapsed wall. It is oriented
320 degrees Az., and is loosely piled to two courses high in
places. There is presently no indication of faced sides.
Width of the feature ranges from 0.80-1.00 in, and height
ranges from 0.30-0.45 in.
SITE NO.: State: 13497 PHRI: 696-4 (Figure A-2)
SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop
TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating terrain.
VEGETATION: Koa-haole, grasses and kiawe.
CONDITION: Poor
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Possibly prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture/
indeterminate
DIMENSIONS: 2.60 in by 1.10 in by 0.20-0.65 in
DESCRIPTION: The site consists of a pahoehoe outcrop
that was broken away along the west face, with boulders
positioned in a linear pile against the outcrop. The boulder
pile is slightly mounded at the north end, where it reaches a
maximum height of 0.65 in. Other portions of the pile
average 0.20 to 0.30 in high. The site is located 15 meters
west of the Kuakini Wall. No soil or other deposits were
observed on or near the feature.
SITE NO.: State: 13498 PHRI: 696-5 (Figure A-3)
SITE TYPE: Complex (2 Features)
TOPOGRAPHY: The site is situated in a pahoehoe tube
formation that rises slightly above the surrounding
terrain.
VEGETATION: Kiawe,koa haole• thick (possibly elephant)
grass, ` h=.
CONDITION: Excellent
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric/historic
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation
DESCRIPTION: The site complex consists of two caves
(Features A and B) that are located c. 5.40 in apart along an
east -west tube formation. The caves apparently were inter-
connected atone time, but the tube between them is currently
filled with piled cobbles and soil. Each cave presently has
a vertical entranceway from the ceiling. These entrances
may have been created or enlarged by excavation.
FEATURE A: Cave
FUNCTION: Habitation
DIMENSIONS: 6.90 in by 3.50 in by 1.00 in (maximum
ceiling height)
DESCRIPTION: The entrance to Feature A measures
1.50m (NIS) by 1.20 in (E/W), and maximum ceiling height
is at the entrance. Ceiling height within the chamber
averages between 0.60 and 0.40 in, with low areas at the
northern end. A few scattered cobbles occur below the
entrance, and a 0.60 m -long alignment of three small
cobbles is present immediately west of the entrance. A soil
deposit averaging 0.15 in thick occurs inside the cave, and
several portable remains were observed on the surface.
These include a coffee bean sinker, four waterwom basalt
stones, Echinoidea, marine shell fragments, a coral abrader,
and llykui nut fragments. The sinker was collected.
A 1.00 by 1.00 in square test unit was excavated in the
center of Feature A, in order to determine the nature of the
deposit and to obtain datable remains. Two soil layers were
identified; Layer I, a silty loam deposit, extended from
surface to 0.15 in below surface; Layer II, a silt deposit with
decomposing bedrock, extended from 0.15 to 0.17/0.21 in
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-4
_ BEDROCK
TREE STUMP _
I
1
CM 0 20 40 60 80 100
i
Figure A-2. SITE 13497
below surface. All together, 64 indigenous artifacts, 58 of
which are volcanic glass flakes, were collected from four
screened levels within the test unit. Other indigenous
artifacts collected include an octopus lure fragment, a scoria
abrader, 3 basalt flakes, a shark's tooth, and a chert flake.
The volcanic glass and other indigenous artifacts were most
concentrated in Layer I, level 3, and in Layer II.
Historic period artifacts collected from the Feature A
test unit occurred in Layer I only. They include one glass
bead, four flat glass sherds, 9 unidentified glass sherds, and
22 metal fragments (iron and tin). The total weight of
marine invertebrates recovered from the test unit was
405.76 g; in addition, 86.62 g of vertebrate remains,
59.50 g of charcoal, and 0.05 g of gourd were recovered.
These remains are further discussed in the section Subsurface
Findings.
FEATURE B: Cave
FUNCTION: Habitation
DIMENSIONS: 5.80 in by 5.50 in by 0.95 in maximum
ceiling height
DESCRIPTION: The entrance to Feature B is situated at
the western end of the chamber ceiling, and is 2.90 in (E/W)
by 2.00 in (N/S). The chamber is nearly circular in plan,
with a blocked tube extension along the east wall. Fewer
surface remains are present in this Feature as compared with
Feature A. Scattered marine shell fragments, coral, and a
single waterworn basalt cobble were observed. Soil thickness
here averages 0.15 in.
SITE NO.: State: 13499 PHRI: 696-6 (FigureA-4)
SITE TYPE: Rock concentration/midden scatter
TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating pahoehoe.
VEGETATION: Koa-haole, kiawe, grasses and abundant
Passiflora sp.
CONDITION: Fair
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Temporary
habitation
DIMENSIONS: Overall, 3.50 in NW -SE by 5.00 in NE -
SW
696-050390 APPENDIX A
A-5
Go
a
M
..i
M
Q
L
M
to
iz
w a
W2y
'
�m7 •.
ra
J•
`
I
'
•j
WI
OU
of
FW .UO
�
�
U
•
uai z o /
Wj
.
a Q
2 i0Y.F.
Z U
010
W
i m
t E
<
-
N
W
-
J
m
O<
'
UW
-
m¢
WJ
-
U'_'
1W
a
mLL
2
w_
<O
-
WW
W0
-
_
FO
-
U2
•'�� P 9'
O
__
Off•
__
a O
MW
�p�.
W
IT
o�y8
CCU
FLL
o
i
_
a
z
U
3
W=
�4 •
•
a
<
••
7
W
-
A-5
Go
a
M
..i
M
Q
L
M
to
iz
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-6
I
i ;:MIDDEN
DEPOSIT:,
0 2 4 6
}t
M0 1 2 �
• CORAL ABRADER
(not collected) Q
® POSSIBLE UPRIGHT Q
Figure A-4. SITE 13499
DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a linear rock
concentration with an associated surface scatter of marine
shell midden. The concentration consists of small boulders
and cobbles; it is 2.00 in long, 0.80 in wide, and 0.10 to
0.60mhigh. Maximum height is along two boulders that are
set upright, at the south end of the concentration.
A surface midden scatter measuring 0.70 min diameter
is situated along the northwest side of the concentration,
within 0.15 in of the rocks. The scatter includes
Isognomonidae, Cypraeidae, and other shell fragments. A
coral abrader was observed among the rocks, as well as a
piece of branch coral.
SITE NO.: State: 13500 PHRI: 696-7 (Figure A-5)
SITE TYPE: Terrace
TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating terrain.
VEGETATION: Grasses, koa-haole and kjayg.
CONDITION: Good
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Habitation
DIMENSIONS: 6.50 in by 3.00 in by 0.65 in (approx.)
DESCRIPTION: This soil -filled terrace is retained along
the west and north (downslope) sides by a linear alignment
of boulders and cobbles. The northern portion of the riser
consists of free-standing, upright boulders, and the southern
end merges with a pahoehoe outcrop. Height of the riser,
which is a single course of stones, ranges from 0.30 to 0.65
in on the downhill side and 0.15 to 0.28 in on the uphill side.
The east perimeter of the terrace is not defined by stones,
and heavy vegetation has prevented determination of the
exact extent of associated portable remains.
A deposit of shell midden and other portable remains
was observed on the terrace surface, along the interior side
of the northern perimeter. Additional surface midden was
observed to the northeast of the concentrated area. The
surface extentof the concentrated surface midden deposit is
c. 0.80 by 0.40 in. A 1.00 by 1.00 in square test unit was
excavated into the terrace, within the area of surface midden.
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-7
l O�
POSSIBLE
UPRIGHT
Q _ _
D
SCORIA *
ABRADER
GRASS
��O( _\
r �
GRASS
0 5 10
ft
0 1 2 3
Figure A-5. SITE 13500
GRASS
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-8
Two soil layers were observed in the test unit, which
was excavated in four 0.10 m -thick levels. Layer I, a fine
brown silt, extends from surface to an average of 0.07 in
below surface. Layer II, fine silt with frequent to common
pebbles, extends from 0.07 to 0.35/0.40 in below surface.
Artifacts recovered from the test unit include two
volcanic glass flakes, two pieces of polished basalt, two
modified shark's teeth, and one piece of historic glass. Also
recovered was a total of 97.44 g of marine invertebrates, in
addition to 1.00 g of gourd, and .046 g of charcoal. Two
dating samples were collected from levels 2 and 3 of Layer
II. Both samples were determined to have modern calendric
ranges (see Age Determinations.)
SITE NO.: State: 13501 PHRI: 696-8 (Figure A-6)
SITE TYPE: Alignment
TOPOGRAPHY: Undulating pahoehoe with gentle
southwest slope.
VEGETATION: Thick elephant grass, koa-haole and
lichens.
CONDITION: Fair to poor
INTEGRITY: Possibly altered; materials borrowed for
other structures
PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Indeterminate
13.50 in by 2.80 in by 0.57 in maximum
height (approximate)
DESCRIPTION: This site consists of a loosely -aligned
formation of boulders, oriented NE/SW. All portions of the
alignment are single -course stones, with sections that are
discontinuous. A waterwom basalt hammerstone (0.05 by
0.08 m) was observed among the alignment stones, near the
center of the mapped portion. Extremely thick vegetation
makes it uncertain whether the entire feature has been
identified. The observed portion of the feature appears to
have been affected by stone borrowing.
SITE NO.: State: 13502 PHRI: 696-9 (Figure A-7)
SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe with a
southwest slope.
VEGETATION: Thick elephant grass, k43 haole,lichens
and moss.
CONDITION: Fair
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture
DIMENSIONS: 2.60 in by 2.30 m by 0.40 in
DESCRIPTION: This site consists of pahoehoe boulders
loosely piled around a pahoehoe outcrop, creating a terrace -
like structure. The south end is roughly faced, one to three
courses high. The outcrop is located along the northeast
end, and the constructed edges are collapsed. A deposit of
rocky peatoccurs on the feature; depth is currently unknown.
No portableremains were observed on or around the feature,
but the surface was generally obscured by thick vegetation.
SITE NO.: State: 13503 PHRI: 696-10 (Figure A-8)
SITE TYPE: C -shape
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe.
VEGETATION: Thick grasses, koa ah ole scatteredkiawe
and vines.
CONDITION: Fair -good
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Indeterminate
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture/
habitation
DIMENSIONS: 5.70 in by 3.00 in by 1.20 in maximum
height
DESCRIPTION: The C -shape is constructed of large and
medium-sized, blocky subangular basalt boulders stacked
four to six courses high and c. 0.9 in wide. The wall is
crudely faced on both the interior and exterior sides. Maximum
wall height (1.20 m) occurs along the center of the interior
side; exterior wall height ranges from 0.80 to 0.90 m. The
northernmost end of the C -shape wall is slightly collapsed.
The opening of the wall is relatively broad (4.50 m) and has
a northeastern exposure. A deposit of brown peat occurs
inside the structure. No portable remains were observed in
or around the structure, but thick vegetation obscures the
site surface.
SITE NO.: State: 13504 PHRI: 696-11 (Figure A-9)
SITE TYPE: Modified outcrop
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe.
• VEGETATION: Abundant grasses, koa-haole, kia3y&,
vines, and periwinkle.
CONDITION: Poor -fair
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Prehistoric
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture
DIMENSIONS: 1.50 in by 1.50 in by 0.65 m
DESCRIPTION: This modified outcrop consists of a
roughly circular, cleared depression in pahoehoe that is
partially enclosed with an alignment of four basalt boulders.
The two ends of the alignment abut exposed pahoehoe, and
define the perimeter of a soil pocket which occurs in the
natural depression. The alignment is 1.00 in long, 0.40 m
wide, and 0.35 w 0.65 in high. The soil deposit is level and
approximately 1.25 m in diameter.
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-9
NIAWE
Jr- ��(_�
HAMMERSTONETREE
\ O Y V �/
/~P 0 5 10 15
3� n
3 4
Figure A-6. SITE 13501
SITE NO.: State: 13505 PHRI: 696-12
SITE TYPE: Pahoehoe excavation
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe.
VEGETATION: Grasses and garden plants including lupine
(blue flower) and day flower.
CONDITION: Good
INTEGRITY: Possibly altered
PROBABLE AGE: Possibly prehistoric with modern use
and refuse deposit
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Agriculture
DIMENSIONS: 2.50 m by 2.00 m by 0.40 m
DESCRIPTION: This excavation occurs in the top of a
circular pahoehoe blister. Blocks of 0.40 m thick pahoehoe
have been excavated and the interior surface of the hole is
leveled with cobble paving. The interior of the excavation
is approximately 1.20 m in diameter. Modem refuse such as
wooden stakes, glass bottles, and a five gallon bucket are
inside the excavation. In addition, a wooden post, 0.20 m in
diameter, is driven into the floor of the excavation.
SITE NO.: State: 13506 PHRI: 696-13 (FigureA-10)
SITE TYPE: Wall
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe bedrock.
VEGETATION: Thick elephant grass, koa oh ale, lkyg_wg,
autograph tree, hibiscus, plumeria, waiawi tree, lichens
and moss.
CONDITION: Good
INTEGRITY: Unaltered
PROBABLE AGE: Historic/recent
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Landscaping/
boundary
DIMENSIONS: 40.00 m by 0.40 m by 0.60 m maximum
height
DESCRIPTION: This bifaced wall is constructed of
pahoehoe boulders and cobbles, and includes a coral head
and seven pieces of waterworn coral. At the western end of
the wall, two pieces of structural concrete are imbedded in
the top, as construction material. The western portion is a
retaining wall, with the south side only visible. The eastern
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-10
�!Ir
a
KIAWE r��1
KIAWE
ft 0 5 10 15
0 2 3 4
BOUNDARY FENCE
Figure A-7. SITE 13502
17
x
own,-
"' ° �s" L z� � � rye- i ,y, '<,��, f � � —" � � ,:� �e• z�i4 : �s) 'Q ^f � , f x :.
Ij' p r "°" ""' °F ,�•'jf F ' '• a �; fi ��,r as : _ �'`�"`
�• ti, is , <_ 4 �< '$
,
��,, ~��� * �* � �'� .� .v '°"� €"q°° •y,e� $ ate. ,I _...,�.',,��p�3 < D• "�c
( �r`sf, i � E Y ,F t..',T �'• i' ; 2 Vic,
.;( �R' �,�,F E [� /,. ,ii 5�y '<'-L5�9.0 'EG'"® y 9'� /' •r'';„�
555$$222 ff s
r 9.c ,+' " ,. •,, sz+ i 'idw �� y � : � '`'�y�,,,+"�`� ,� � ` ;'rte
,pi e d 5 bss' ^ "�Yy�.i,�'s+" •'°'n -; .cc ft
Owl.
MAW,
696-050390 APPENDIX A A-14
portion is free-standing; it is faced on both sides and
averages 0.40 m wide. Maximum height is three courses
(0.60 m), and average height is c. 0.30 m.
The wall is oriented NE/SW, and follows the project
area boundary fenceline along its western end (6.00 m
distance). It curves north at 6.00 m from the west end and
continues inland, gradually moving away from the boundary
fenceline. At the northeast end, the wall becomes lower and
merges with a pahoehoe outcrop, where it is only one course
high. The portion of the wall that curves away from the
fenceline serves as a soil retainer, with a higher ground
surface on the south side. The western end of the wall is 5.00
m from a concrete foundation associated with the Kona
Plantation Hotel. This wall is probably a landscaping
feature of the resort. The western portion may, however,
represent the remnants of the ahuoua`a boundary between
Hienaloli 6 and Auhaukeaea 1.
SITE NO.: State: 13507 PHRI: 696-14
SITE TYPE: Alignment
TOPOGRAPHY: Gently undulating pahoehoe bedrock.
VEGETATION: Thick grasses including elephant grass,
ornamentals, and a banyan tree.
CONDITION: Fair
INTEGRITY: Possibly altered
PROBABLE AGE: Indeterminate/possibly recent
FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION: Indeterminate
DIMENSIONS: 2.20 m by 1.60 m by 0.25 m
DESCRIPTION: This site is located in the garden area of
the Kona Plantation Hotel, 4.20 m from an asphalt walkway,
adjacent to an electrical box. It consists of a curved
alignment of basalt boulders and cobbles. It is mostly one
course high, except where rocks have been loosely piled on
top to form a loose cairn, two to three courses high.
It is uncertain at this time whether the feature is the
remnants of a prior structure, or if it is contemporaneous
with the resort garden.
696-050390
M
LIMITED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH
LAND OF HIENALOLI 6TH, ISLAND OF HAWAII
by Helen Wong Smith, B.A.
Data regarding the long and narrow u ua'a of Hienaloli
6th is quite scarce. Further, the usual references for translations
of ahupua'a names are silent on the meaning of Hienaloli.
One of the meanings given for "hiena" is a kind of soft
porous stone used to smooth and polish utensils. Several
meanings of "loli' include "1. To tum, change, alter, turn
over...2. Sea slug... sea cucumber ... 3. Spotted, speckled,
daubed; to color in spots, as taps" (Pukui and Elbert 1965:194).
At this writing, no one consulted knew the meaning of the
place name.
Hienaloli 6th is one of six ahupua'a named Hienaloli
fronting Kailua Bay; thus, a look at the history of Kailua Bay
might be instructive. Figure A-1 is based on Jackson's map
of Kailua Bay (1883). A primary source for Kailua Bay is
Kelly's Na Ma a a Kona: Gardens of Kona. The earliest
reference to Kailua concerns Kamehameha's residence there
after unification of the main Hawaiian islands.
In 1812, two years after all the islands had finally
been united under his rule, Kamehameha returned
to Hawai'i island from O'ahu, where he had lived
for the past niee years. Kamehameha lived most of
his remaining years in Kailua, at his principal
residence at Kamakahonu in Lanihau ahupua'a.
[Lanihau is 4 K na;l north of project ahul2ua'a.]
(Kelly 1983:3)
The accounts of early visitors at Kailua were, in the
main, those of explorers.... The Columbia came to
Kailua Bay five times between 1815 and 1818, and
then was sold to Kamehameha for sandalwood.
The ship [was] renamed the Laholile.... On its first
visit to Kailua, in January of 1815, the Columbia
took on board "hogs, vegetables, rope, and cloth of
the country" (Corney 1896:35). Peter Corney, one
of its officers, who remained in Hawai'i when the
ship was sold and left descendants here, remarked
that "island rope" made excellent running rigging
(Ibid:48). Comey noted that the American ship
Milwood was then at Kailua, "purchasing
sandalwood at the rate of 7 dollars for 133 pounds
(a picul)" (Ibid:47).... Corney provides a unique
and graphic account of the sea traffic at Kailua Bay
in the early 1800s .... At the time of Kamehameha's
death in May of 1819, and for the early months of
Liholiho's reign, the court households at Kailua
apparently were very large (Kelly 1983:5).
It was at Kailua in November 1819, approximately
six months after the death of Kamehameha, that
the "free eating" ('at noa) incidem -,00k place,
symbolizing the end of the kapu system .... Tbe act
of "free eating" at Kailua was followed by a
general purging and burning of god images from
the large heiau (Kelly 1983:6).
Another reference to the bay is by Kamakau:
Many of the old chiefs were alive in Liholiho's
day .... The sands of Kaiakeakua were worn down
like a dromedary's back by the many feet of chiefs
and chiefesses tramping over them, and at
Kamakahonu could be seen at night the sparkle of
lights reflected in the sea like diamonds, from the
homes of the chiefs from Kahelo [in Puapua`a
ahuoua'a] to Lanihau. The number of chiefs and
lesser chiefs reached into the thousands (Kamakau
1961:221-222).
At this time M. Gaimard, a member of de Freycinet's
expedition, wrote the following description of the Kailua
environs:
In order to reach the mountain that lies to the
southeast of the village ... we first went across dry
fields, where hardly any young growth was visible;
but, after reaching a certain elevation, we found
much richer terrain where the paper mulberry,
breadfruit tree, the mountain apple, tobacco, cabbage,
sweet potatoes and yams were cultivated. We were
given water of a delicious coolness (de Freycinet
1978:8).
Missionary occupation had its beginnings at Kailua:
Liholiho... [was] at Kailua when the first band of
Protestant missionaries arrived there in April of
1820 .... the missionaries were granted permission
to remain in the kingdom on trial for a year. Two
missionary families remained in Kailua, while the
rest went on to Honolulu (Kelly 1983:7).
696-050390 APPENDIX B B-2
Figure B-1. MAP BASED ON JACKSON'S MAP OF KAILUA BAY, 1883
696-050390 APPENDIX B B-3
It was at Kailua that Liholiho entrusted the island to
Kuakini, younger brother of Kaahumanu and faithful aide of
Kamehameha I. Upon his departure for Honolulu, Liholiho
said, "Here is the land of Hawai'i; there is food in the upland
and fish in the sea; take it and eat, and we will go to Oahu"
(Kamakau 1961:390). These words gave Kuakini control of
Hawaii Island and all its resources, a power he was to
exercise for over twenty years (Kelly 1983:8).
Three years into Kuakini's stewardship, Rev. William
Ellis began his tour around the island at Kailua. The
following passages are taken from his journal:
Kairua, though healthy and populous, is destitute
of fresh water, except what is found in pools, or
small streams, in the mountains, four or five miles
from the shore (Ellis 1963:29).
The environs were cultivated to a considerable
extent; small gardens were seen among the barren
rocks on which the houses are built, wherever soil
could be found sufficient to nourish the sweet
potato, the watermelon, or even a few plants of
tobacco, and in many places these seemed to be
growing lit.raily in the fragments of lava, collected
in small heaps around their roots (ibid:31).
Kuakini gave two missionary couples houselots in the
Kailua at ea. Kaahumanu, as kuhina nut, acting on behalf of
the go•: ernment, gave a part of Hienaloli for the mission's
support ("'telly 1983:10). The Thurston's homestead was
called Laniakea, after the nearby cave, and consisted of five
acres straddling the border of Honuaula and Hienaloli 1st.
Ellis provides a description of the cave:
...they also explored a celebrated cave in the vicinity,
called Raniakea [sic]. After entering it by a small
aperture, they passed on in a direction nearly
Parallel with the surface; sometimes along a spacious
arched way, not less than twenty- five feet high and
twenty wide; at other times, by a passage so narrow,
that they could with difficulty press through, till
they had proceeded about 1200 feet; here their
progress was arrested by a pool of water, wide,
deep, and as salt as that found in the hollows of the
lava, within a few yards of the sea. This latter
circumstance, in a great degree, damped their
hopes of finding fresh water by digging through the
lava .... The mouth of the cave is about half a mile
from the sea, and the perpendicular depth to the
water probably not less than fifty or sixty feet. ... From
its ebbing and flowing with the tide, it [the pool]
has probably a direct communication with the sea
(Ellis 1963:30).
While describing an old military fortification for the
maka'ainana (commoners) Ellis speaks of the remaining
wall which at his visit reached a height of 18 to 20 feet, with
a base 14 feet thick.
The part of the wall now standing, is near the
mouth of Raniakea.... which formed a valuable
appendage to the fort. In this cavern, children and
aged persons were placed for security during assault
or sally forth from the fort, and sometimes the
wives of the warriors also, when they did not
accompany their husbands to battle (ibid:62)
The historian James Jarves explored the cave in 1840,
and swam in the pool. Adding to Ellis' description, he noted
that the water was cold and that it had a sulfurous odor and
taste (Jarves 1844:215-216).
Commodore Wilkes of the U.S. Exploring Expedition
made these comments about the environs of Kailua in 1840:
The natives during the rainy season... plant, in
excavations among the lava rocks, sweet potatoes,
melons, and pineapples.... The... staple commodities
are sweet potatoes, upland taro, and yams. Sugar
cane, bananas... bread -fruit, cocoa -nuts, and melons,
are also cultivated. The Irish potato, Indian com,
beans, coffee, cotton, figs, oranges, guavas, and
grapes, have been introduced .... [Two miles from
the coast] in a belt half a mile wide, the bread -fruit
is met with in abundance, and above this the taro is
cultivated with success .... A considerable trade is
kept up between the south and north end of this
district. The inhabitants of the barren portion of
the latter are principally occupied in fishing and
the manufacture of salt, which articles are bartered
with those who live in the more fertile regions of
the south, for food and clothing (Wilkes 1845:4,
91-92, 95-97) [IN Kelly 1983:19].
This description of subsistence farming and trading
within the land divisions is traditional in ancient Hawaiian
culture. With the introduction to a market system and the
call for labor to harvest sandalwood, agriculture in the
Kailua area changed greatly. In July 1850, a law was passed
that permitted foreigners to acquire and own land privately.
Once they obtained control of large acreages, the amount of
land foreigners devoted to ranching and commercial agriculture
expanded rapidly (Kelly 1983:78). Landowners with large
696-050390 APPENDIX B B4
parcels ofguja lands used them for grazing cattle and horses.
The kUla lands behind Kailua were put to such use. Cattle
were shipped out of Kailua Bay to slaughterhouses on Oahu.
Some ranchers also ran dairies, but most concentrated on
beef cattle. Many also raised pigs, their stock deriving from
the large wild pig population (ibid:79).
During Kuakini's stewardship of the island, walls were
built to protect the cultivated lands from the ravages of free -
roaming dogs and pigs kept near the coastal habitations (C&
Au Okoa, March 19,1868). One of these walls was recorded
by John Papa Ii at Honuaula (inland and slightly north of
Hienaloli) in 1812; Ii writes, "A stone wall to protect the
food plots stretched back of the village from one end to the
other and beyond" (Ii 1959:111).
Kelly suggests it is possible that the wall reported by Ii
was later incorporated into what became known as the
Kuakini Wall, which may be traced from its starting pointat
Palani Road above Kailua Bay to beyond Kahaluu Bay.
Kuakini Wall borders the northeast boundary of the present
project area. It has long been presumed that this wall was
built sometime during Kuakini's governorship (1820-1844)
to protect the cultivated uplands from the depredations of
cattle. It was notknown by this name until after 1855. Until
that time it was consistently called the Great Wall, or the
Great Stone Wall by surveyors. The Emerson-Kanakanui
map of Kailua Town, & Vicinity (Reg. Map No. 1676, dated
c. 1880) identifies it as the "Kuakini Great Wall."
The following re`erence to what is no doubt Kuakini
Wall was made by Rev. Albert Baker:
Just a little above [the stone church at Kahaluul,
and continuing all the way to Kailua, is the huge
stone wall built in Kuakini's time to keep pigs from
the cultivated lands above (Baker 1915:83).
The original function of the Kuakini Wall is open to
question. Kelly offers other possible explanations for the
wall and its massiveness:
...the Kuakini wall may have been the Pa'aina
named as the makai boundary in several claims to
land along its course. At times, the wall reaches a
height of 8 or 9 feet, which seems unnecessarily
high as a barrier to roaming cattle or pigs. Or
perhaps it owes its unusual length and height to the
need for "busy work" for people who couldn't pay
their taxes and other increased money obligations
required by the government.
The fact that the term used in the register of claims
is "papipi," which refers to a wall or enclosure for
cattle, not pigs, should answer the question of what
kind of animal the wall was meant to restrict in the
1840s. Perhaps in more recent years it served other
purposes. Why it is located between the coast and
the gardens, instead of between the grazing land
and the gardens, or why it is so high in places, we
can only surmise (1983:76).
In her report of subsistence lifestyles in Kona, Schilt
writes of ahunua'a in the vicinity of, and including, Hienaloli
6th:
62 historic walls listed... 23 walls trending mauka-
makai pass through the ROW, defining ahupua'a
boundaries. All are double-faced and core -filled,
in good to excellent states of repair. Functioning
today as portions of cattle range boundaries, these
walls probably originated in historic times, as early
as the mid -1800s, having been built for thatpurpose
(Schilt 1984:44).
During the Great Mahele, Hienaloli was deemed
government land. Only one Land Commission Award
(LCA) was located for thisahunua'a: No. 10404 toNamimi.
The Native Testimony (Vol.4:556) for Namimi's claim
states, "25 kihapais partially cultivated and no home; interest
had been from Papakai at the times the Mokuaikana Lai
Chapel had been built, land from Makaole at this time." The
Emerson-Kanakanui map (Reg. Map No. 1676; Figure A-2)
depicts another LCA, No. 7075:2 to Kaiamakini. Shown
also is a Grant 1752 to Kawelo. Further government land
sales in Hienaloli 6 included 6 acres to Maewa. From 1853
to 1911 the government sold 192.15 acres of the ahur)ua:a
(Kelly 1983:44).
The Land File at the State Archives provides us with
letters to the Minister of the Interior regarding this government
holding:
HIENALOLI 6th in Kailua, HI. Int. Dept.,
March 30, 1893 - D.P. Waahila to Min. of Interior
to purchase Government remnant, lying mauka of
the kuleanas of Kaiamakini and Keliipio and makai
of the land of Kawele, containing about acres and
offering $3/ac. Report by Govt. Survey attached.
Int. Dept., Oct. 28, 1852 - Letter from J. Fuller to
Min. of Int. (Young) giving a list showing that 6 ac.
had been sold to Maewa.
696-050390 APPENDIX B B-5
Wall
1 I
.oma=��
c
o-
696-050390 APPENDIX B B-6
Int. Dept., Nov. 15, 1852 - Res. by the Privy Herewith, you will receive my report of the
Council confirming the sale of 6 ac. to Maewa. homestead lands, and the Government lands of my
District, (N. Kona, H.) to wit:
Privy Council, Vol. 7, p.9 - Res. confirming the
sale of ... to Maewa.
Int. Dept., Nov. 23 18S4. In letter from J. Fuller to
Min. of Int. (Young) forwarding a report which is
attached showing that 96 ac. of land had been sold
to Kawelo.
Int. Dept., April 1854 - In statement of land sales
showing that Kapalahu had paid $11.50 as part
payment for his land in the above place, containing
86 acres.
Int Dept.; May 29, 1855 - In report by J. Fuller to
the Min. of Int (Young) showing that 16/100 of an
acre of land had been sold to Billa Kepio and is now
awaiting to be approved.
The following letter gives the status of sales in the
Kailua, Mar. 30, 1893
To His Excellency,
The Minister of the Interior, Honolulu, Oahu
Love to You.
Baker, A.
Homestead lands, money collected, $116.21
Government lands " 56.75
I have deducted my commissions for the two
positions, and I am forwarding the drafts, duly
signed, as usual, and the balance is as follows, after
deducting my pay:
Balance of money, Homestead lands, $110.41
Government lands 51.08
In this letter you will receive the money above
shown.
With thanks from your servant,
J. Kaelemakule
Jean Greenwell of the Kona Historical Society (pers.
comm 12/4/89) feels that the numerous grants in the mauk3
area of Hienaloli indicate that it was probably good agricultural
land. As for recent uses, she did not exclude the practice of
grazing. In Scehren's 1979 report, the Kona Plantation
motel was still in operation. At the time of the present
survey, only the concrete foundations, asphalt walkways
and an empty pool remain.
REFERENCES CITED
1915 Between the Bays in Kona. Thrum's Hawaiian Annual for the Year 1916. Honolulu.
de Freycinet, L.C.D.
1978 Hawaii in 1819: A Narrative Account by Louis Claude de Saulses de Freycinet. pA$ No. 26. Dept.
Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum.
Ellis, W.
1963 Journal of William Ellis. Honolulu: Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd.
Ii, J.P.
1959 Fragments of Hawaiian History. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
696-050390 APPENDIX B B-7
Jarves, JJ.
1844 Scenes and Scenery in the Sandwich Island d rine the Years 1837-1842.
Kamakau, S.M.
1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu: The Kamehameha Schools Press.
Kelly, M.
1983 Na Maia o Kona: Gardens of Kona. AHistory of Land Use in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental R=rt Series
83-2. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum. Prepared for Dept. Transportation, State of Hawaii.
Pukui, M.K., and S.H. Elbert
1965 Hawaiian -English Dictionary, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Schilt, A.R.
1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway
Realignment Corridor. Denarunental Report Series 84-1. Dept. Anthro., B.P. Bishop Museum.
Prepared for Dept. Transportation, State of Hawaii.
Ut/cli, 2,jij4 _2:015
(i)
608-961-0998 PHRI rkH U
�U `4 cy
L,'rTalne .3. Inane
Mayor
NQrm l K. Hayasu
Director
Tad N-agasako
hnDepartment
Deputy Duectvr
23 Aup.ni 9Mei, Rsr. 20f a Nib, New&a %720 a (NO) %I -#US
December 17, 1990
Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D.
PHRI
305 Mohouli Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Dr. Rosendahl:
Archaeological Inventory Survey Report
DeLUz Property
Hienaloli, North Kona, Hawaii
TMK: 7-5-9:48
This is to acknowledge receipt of this Report prepared by Donham
and Kai. we have coordinated our review with the Department of Land
and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, and also
concur with your significance evaluations of the historic sites
present on this site as well as the proposed mitigation plan
(archaeological data recovery for ten of the sites and preservation
of the Great Wall of Kuakini).
We hope this early review will assist your client's preparation
of plans for the use of this site. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact us again.
Sincerely,
NORMAN K. HAYASHI
Planning Director
RKN:syw
cc: Mr. David DeLUz
west Hawaii Planning Coordinator
DlG 2 0 RECD
APPENDIX C-1
k)0i t'Jli 1F9L9J iL: F70 HE7G-ybl -o�7'd FHNI
JONN F11N!{ r.�
J-ttl
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
33 Soutb Kin` Street, 6tb Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
October 24, 1990
Dr. Paul Rosendahl
PERI
305 Mohouli Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Desr Dr. Rosendahl:
V- OG
WI11114 VI \.\Y, GN.11)I)nf41
ptn0 W l\YO \NO Y\I u)YI xl\W Y'.1\
Of 10II \
WIN W .NVI
'AN.W 1.GUM0111
gut " N ,yryr010
uwcwlwl aYt )orm N1
,OW bC xl punto
co.fl x.0 lox nxo
INYInUI1 M(N\11t .II.111)
GONfPv.11CN aN0
x\poNcn I�woxcwlYl
MA
rosea R, n) ARE) WI)aet
NISIOIIIC ,xl {/11Y111ON
.T M.NA W ni
,,,I M u)t "RATE Yf
Wuu nxa ux0 04r401r1n1
SUBJECT: Review of Archaeological Inventory Survey Report
(Donham s Kai 1990. Archaeological Inventory Survey,
Hienaloli 6th Development Parcel)
Hienaloli, Worth Kona, Hawaii
TNIK• 7-5-9:46
This responds to your letter of September 17, 1990, which
submitted this report for review on behalf of your client.
Nlr. David DOLux.
We find that the parcel was adequately surveyed, identifying 13
historic sites. We agree with the significance evaluations -- two
sites rno longer significant", 10 significant solely for their
Information content, and one (the Kuakini Nall) significant for
multiple criterion. Thus, 11 significant sites are present. we
agree with your mitigation proposals -- preservation of the
Kuakini Nall and archaeological data recovery for the other 10
sites. Implementation of this mitigation plan would result in "no
adverse effect• to significant historic sites.
We would like to note that the background review -- or contextual
setting -- in this report is excellent. It clearly presents
likely settlement patterns for the coast and Kula areas of
Hienaloli ahupuala and for the specific project area based on
existing archaeological and historical information. The findings
are clearly presented in a settlement pattern framework, did fit
expectations, and help clarify our understanding of settlement
patterns in this area of Kona,
SincKeAy, A
DON HISHARD, Director
Historic Preservation Program
UV01/2004 01:33 FAX SOSP349469
I 1
,F JN W I, CAt1TAMt
OOVIANCN Ol MAWMI
.�
December 15, 1997
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
37 SOVTH KING STPEET, 9TH FLOOR
HCNOLULU, HAWAII 96917
Mr. Joseph Kennedy
Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii
59-624 Pupukea Road
Haleiwa, Hawaii 96712
Dear Mr. Kennedy
Z UU?
MICIV140, wL N,G 1R ,
10..A0 Of ~ AM0 MATw IN�ct7
OvV t9
OILIZAT CMLOM. AGAAAII
ACUAVA"t CINZ LOOT
MOOAAN1
AOUAnC At&0 VNC($
CONSUVATIOM AND
14110VAC11 DOCA(COO,T
COM V tT.Mu3
lOACSTRY AMO VALDUI!
M14170A O NUVVAt M
COMMON
U 0 DIMS"
STATE PAAA1
WATDO WOO LANG OfAMOROOR
LOG NO 20661
DOC NO: 9712PM03
SUBJECT: Final Report" Archaeological Data Recovery Investigatiun of the
Hienaloli 6th Development Parcel in the Ahupua'a of Hienaloll 6th,
District of Kona, Island of Hawaii"
(Carson, Latinis and Kennedy 1997)
TMK: 7-5-09: Por. 48
Thank you for your letter of December 3, 1997 with a copy of the final revised report.
The current report has addressed all of our previous concerns, the most recent of which
were outlined in our letter of November 17, 1997, and now meets with our approval.
Would you please send a copy of this report to Marc Smith for our Hilo office hbrary.
Thanks.
Aloha,
15 -ON HIBBARD, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
PM:amk
APPENDIX C-2
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
KONA HALE ALII CONDOMINIUM
4 LICENSED �
3 PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER
r
No. 3993•C /
THES=ORK�
OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION
Expiration Date: 4/30/06
a
M&E Pacific, Inc.
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212
Hilo, Hawaii 96701
Telephone: (808)961-2776
FAX: (808)935-5934
May 2004
APPENDIX D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Description_________________________
---------------
Existing Conditions
Existing Roadways ......................................
Traffic Volumes
Proposed Roadway Improvements
Traffic Forecast
Ambient Traffic Forecast
Project Generated Traffic
Total Forecast Volumes
---------------------------..,
Level of Service Analysis-----------------------
Conclusions
TABLES
Table 1 Trip Generation and Distribution Analysis
Table 2 Level of Service Analysis
FIGURES
Figure 1
Location Map
Figure 2
Site Plan
Figure 3
Existing 2004 Traffic Volumes
Figure 4A
Comparison of 2002 and 2004 Traffic Volumes
Figure 4B
Comparison of 2002 and 2004 Traffic Volumes
Figure 5
Historical Trend in Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 6
Ambient 2006 Traffic Forecast
Figure 7
Project Generated Traffic Assignment Forecast
Figure 8
Total with Project 2006 Traffic Forecast
Page No.
(AM Peak Hour)
(PM Peak Hour)
Appendix A Traffic Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Level Of Service
Calculations
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
for the
KONA HALE ALIT CONDOMINIUM
A residential condominium project is being planned in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. This
report documents a study that was conducted to identify the traffic impacts of the
proposed project and to recommend any mitigating measures.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A residential condominium project with 92 units is being proposed in Kailua-
Kona, Hawaii. The project site is on a 6.5± acre parcel identified as Tax Map
Keys (3)7-5-09:0(48i and 054. The project site is south of Hualalai Road about a
thousand feet mauka of the Kuakini Highway/Hualalai Road intersection, as
shown on Figure 1.
The proposed project would have 23 two-story fourplex structures. Two (2)
driveways accessing Hualalai Road would feed an internal private roadway
system. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 2. The proposed project is
scheduled for first occupancy is the third quarter of 2005, with full build out in the
second quarter of 2006.
Future project residents can travel makai to the Kuakini Highway/Hualalai Road
intersection to access destinations along Kuakini Highway or Alii Drive. Or they
can travel mauka to Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension via the Nani Kailua
Drive or Hualalai Road intersections to access regional destinations. These
three intersections form the boundary of the study area and are identified on
Figure 1.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A survey of the existing roadway and traffic conditions on Queen Kaahumanu
Highway Extension, Kuakini Highway and Hualalai Road was made.
-1-
Existing Roadways
Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension is the major north -south arterial passing
through Kailua-Kona. It is a continuation of Queen Kaahumanu Highway that
extends from Kawaihae Road in the north to the merge with Kuakini Highway in
the south. The highway and extension are part of State Routes 11 and 19 that
form part of the circle island route. Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension is a
two-lane highway but has two (2) southbound lanes in the vicinity of Henry
Street. There are traffic signals and separate turning lanes at major intersections
along this route. The Hawaii Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over
this roadway.
Kuakini Highway is a two-lane highway under the jurisdiction of the County of
Hawaii and is the middle of three (3) north -south routes through Kailua-Kona.
The highway previously served as the State's north -south highway until the
completion of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension. It has a 24 -feet
pavement width and is posted for 35 mile per hour speed limit.
Hualalai Road is a two-lane collector roadway that provides mauka-makai access
from Alii Drive to Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension and points mauka.
Nani Kailua Drive is another two-lane collector road that provides access through
the Pines subdivision between Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension and
Hualalai Road. It also serves the Kailua View Estates subdivision mauka of the
highway extension.
Two (2) of the study intersections are on Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension.
The Nani Kailua Drive intersection has four (4) approaches and is signalized.
There are separate left and right turn lanes on each of the highway approaches,
while both Nani Kailua Drive approaches have a through/left turn lane and a
-2-
separate right turn lane. The mauka and makai approaches of Hualalai Road to
the highway are offset by several hundred yards from each other so that they
operate as separate T -intersections. Only the makai approach was analyzed in
this study. The Hualalai Road intersection is unsignalized with separate turning
lanes on all approaches.
The Kuakini Highway/Hualalai Road intersection is the southernmost signalized
intersection on Kuakini Highway in Kailua-Kona. Both of the Kuakini Highway
approaches have separate left turn lanes. The Hualalai Road approaches have
different lane configurations. The mauka bound approach has a separate left
turn lane while the makai bound approach has a separate right turn lane.
Traffic Volumes
Traffic turning movement counts were taken at the three (3) study intersections to
determine existing traffic conditions. The counts for the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway Extension/Nani Kailua Drive intersection were made on Tuesday,
April 13, 2004; the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension/Hualalai Road
intersection on Wednesday, April 14, 2004; and the Kuakini Highway/Hualalai
Road intersection on Thursday, April 8, 2004; after schools had returned from
spring break. Traffic counts were taken during the morning (6:30 to 8:30 a.m.)
and afternoon (3:30 to 5:30 p.m.) peak periods.
Traffic turning movement counts require traffic surveyors to station themselves
by each study intersection and record each vehicle movement as through or
turning movements by 15 minute intervals. The worksheets for the traffic counts
are included in the Appendix. The resultant peak hour movements are
summarized graphically on Figure 3. Traffic volumes over five (5) vehicles per
hour (vph) are rounded to the nearest five.
-3-
The dominant direction of travel on Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension is
northbound in the morning peak and southbound in the afternoon peak. On
Kuakini Highway, the southbound direction of traffic is slightly heavier in the
morning and much greater in the afternoon peak. The afternoon traffic volumes
are higher than the morning traffic volumes, as is typical for resort areas.
The traffic volumes on the three study intersections were compared to similar
traffic counts made in September 2002 for another project. The comparison
summary on Figure 4 shows the combined volumes on each approach at the
three (3) study intersections, and for the 2004 volumes, the absolute change in
volume and percentage change (highlighted by shading) of traffic
increase/decrease from 2002. The results show a mixture of traffic increases
and decreases during the two year period.
During the morning peak hour, northbound traffic on Queen Kaahumanu
Highway Extension decreased by 60 vph (-6%) at Nani Kailua Drive while
increasing by 30 vph (3%) at Hualalai Road. Conversely, southbound traffic
increased by 40 vph (6%) at Nani Kailua Drive while decreasing by 10 vph (-1 %)
at Hualalai Road. Northbound traffic on Kuakini Highway at Hualalai Road
increased by 95 vph (24%) while southbound traffic showed no change.
During the afternoon peak hour, southbound traffic on Queen Kaahumanu
Highway Extension decreased by 10 vph (-1%) at Nani Kailua Drive while
increasing by 5 vph (1 %) at Hualalai Road. Conversely, northbound traffic
increased by 25 vph (3%) at Nani Kailua Drive while decreasing by 35 vph (4%)
at Hualalai Road. These changes are minimal. Traffic on Kuakini Highway
decreased by 55 vph (-6%) for southbound traffic and by 35 vph (-8%) for
northbound traffic.
The State Department of Transportation takes traffic counts every two (2) years
at selected roadway sections on Hawaii. Two (2) of these count stations are on
Hualalai Road at the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension (Station 9 -BB) and
at the Kuakini Highway intersection (Station 8-K). Traffic counts were available
for five (5) years from 1994 to 2002 for the first station, and for six (6) years
(1992 to 2002) at the latter station. The data shown on Figure 5 gives the
historical trend of daily traffic on these roadways.
The traffic volumes on Queen Kaahumanu Highway show an annual growth rate
of 3.5% on the south leg and 2.4% on the north leg from 1994 to 2002, an
average growth rate of 3.0%. The daily two-way traffic volumes on Hualalai
Road have declined 19% in the eight (8) year interval.
Daily two-way traffic volumes for the four (4) approaches of the Kuakini Highway/
Hualalai Road intersection are shown for 1992 to 2002. Traffic has increased
39% on the south leg of Kuakini Highway in ten (10) years, with all of the growth
in the last two (2) year period. Traffic has remained constant on the west leg of
Hualalai Road, dropped 33% on the east leg of Hualalai Road, and decreased
20% on the north leg of Kuakini Highway. Speculative reasons for the
stable/decreasing traffic on the three approaches could be laid on the stagnant
visitor market during the period. The increase on the south approach in the last
two (2) years could be attributed to the development of two (2) commercial
centers to the south of Hualalai Road with large parking lots fronting Kuakini
Highway.
PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii each
have roadway improvements planned in the study area. The Hawaii Department
of Transportation is planning to widen Queen Kaahumanu Highway to a four -lane
divided highway north of Henry Street by 2004. This change is not expected to
affect traffic patterns in the study area. State DOT officials also expect to initiate
-5-
planning studies for the widening of Queen Kaahamanu Highway Extension and
Kuakini Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road soon but have no
completion date for the construction of this project
The County of Hawaii has two (2) roadway improvement projects planned in the
study area. They expect to begin widening Kuakini Highway to four (4) lanes
between Palani Road and Hualalai Road and improving the traffic signals soon.
These improvements would significantly increase the capacity of Kuakini
Highway and add more lanes to Kuakini Highway at the Hualalai Road
intersection. The northbound approach would have two (2) through lanes in
addition to the left turn and right turn lanes. A right turn lane would be added to
the southbound approach. These improvements are expected to be completed
by 2005 and significantly improve the traffic operations at this intersection.
The County is planning to open the Kahaluu to Keauhou Parkway (f.k.a. Alii
Highway) between the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension and Keauhou in
the near future. This new roadway is intended to divert traffic from the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway Extension, Kuakini Highway and Alii Drive to improve their
traffic operations. The first segment between Kuakini Highway and Keauhou is
scheduled for completion by 2007. The second segment between Queen
Kaahumanu Highway Extension and Kuakini Highway is expected to be complete
by 2009.
These two (2) improvements in themselves would not change the traffic patterns
in the study area.
TRAFFIC FORECAST
The proposed project is expected to be ready for occupancy in about two (2)
years. Therefore, traffic forecasts were prepared for a two year period. Ambient
traffic on the study roadways can be expected to increase during this two year
M
period due to regional growth and new projects in the area. The traffic that would
be generated from the proposed project was then added to the ambient traffic
forecast to obtain the total with project traffic forecast.
Ambient Traffic Forecast
Ambient traffic growth in the study area consisted of two (2) components:
regional traffic growth and traffic from other new projects in the area
The historical growth rates of traffic from the State DOT traffic counts were used
to forecast regional growth. The observed annual traffic growth rates of 3.9% on
the south leg of Kuakini Highway and 3.5% on the south leg of Queen
Kaahumanu Highway Extension were utilized to calculate a regional growth rate.
A nominal rate of 1.5% was subtracted from these two (2) rates to account for
part of -this growth being attributed to new projects in the area, so that the
adjusted growth rates were 2.5% on Kuakini Highway and 2.0% on Queen
Kaahumanu Highway Extension. To account for two (2) years of traffic growth,
the current volumes on Figure 3 were increased by 5.0% on Kuakini Highway
and 4.0% on on Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension. Traffic volumes on the
side street to these highways (Nani Kailua Drive and Hualalai Road) were
increased by 2%.
The increases in hourly trips during each analysis period in each direction of
travel at a point south of the Nani Kailua Drive intersection for Queen
Kaahumanu Highway Extension and a point south of the Hualalai Road
intersection for the Kuakini Highway are shown below:
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Ext NB 38 38
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Ext SB 27 39
Kuakini Highway northbound 24 21
Kuakini Highway southbound 18 29
IWM
The traffic volumes that would be generated by new projects in the area were
then added to the general growth volumes. The list of new projects included:
o Kona Hawaiian Village (270 time share units)
o Kona Sea Ridge (137 units)
o Alii Cove (200 units)
o Ke Kai Alii (48 units)
0 75 additional condominium units on vacant lots along Alii Drive
0 80 room hotel and 40,000 square feet retail area on Walua Drive
o Kona Village Inn (76 room hotel)
o Hualalai Village on Hualalai Road(100 units)
o Pua'a elderly housing on Hualalai Road
o Apartment building on Hualalai Road (164 units)
o Pualani residential subdivision (80 new units in two years)
The traffic forecasts from the above projects' Traffic Impact Analysis Reports
(TIARs) were used (and extended if it did not coincide with this report's study
area) when they were available. For several projects, only half the number of
trips was included in the forecast to account for those units in the above projects
already occupied and whose trips are included in the existing traffic counts, or for
those projects that are not expected to be fully built and occupied within the two
(2) year forecast period. The resultant increase in hourly trips during each
analysis period in each direction of travel at the same points mentioned above
are shown below:
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Ext NB 27 17
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Ext SB 9 31
Kuakini Highway northbound 38 106
Kuakini Highway southbound 47 76
The adjusted regional growth and new projects forecast volumes were combined
and the resultant ambient traffic forecast is shown on Figure 6, with volumes over
five (5) vph rounded to the nearest five.
The combined ambient growth rates (ambient over existing) forecast for the two
(2) year period from 2004 to 2006 in each direction of travel at the same points
mentioned above are shown below:
BF -18
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Ext NB 7% 6%
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Ext SB 4% 7%
Kuakini Highway northbound 12% 30%
Kuakini Highway southbound 19% 18%
Project Generated Traffic
The traditional procedure of trip generation, distribution, and assignment was
used to forecast the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed
project, the distribution of these trips, and the specific intersection turning
movements that would be utilized.
The trip generation step forecasts the volume of vehicle trips that would be
generated by the proposed project during the two (2) analysis periods. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (Seventh
Edition, 2003) has trip generation equations or rates to calculate the number of
AM and PM peak hour trips that would be generated by various land uses. The
handbook also provides the percentage of inbound and outbound trips in each
peak hour.
For a residential condominium/townhouse (Land Use Code 230), the equations
are:
AM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.80Ln(X) + 0.26
PM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.82Ln(X) + 0.32
where, T = hourly trips produced; and
X = number of condominium units.
The 92 proposed residential condominium units are expected to generate 40
outbound and 8 inbound trips in the morning peak, and 38 inbound and 18
outbound trips in the afternoon peak. The two (2) proposed project driveways
were each assumed to have half of the project generated trips. The trip
generation analysis is summarized on Table 1.
The trip distribution step divides the generated trips by directions of travel to/from
the project site. The traffic turning movements at the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway Extension/Nani Kailua Drive intersection and the Kuakini
Highway/Hualalai Road intersection were analyzed to determine existing
directional patterns. The following trip distribution patterns were determined:
Direction of Travel AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
North via Queen Kaahumanu Hwy
20%
15%
North via Kuakini Highway
40%
40%
Makai via Hualalai Road
20%
24%
South via Queen Kaahumanu Hwy
15%
16%
South via Kuakini Highway
5%
5%
The resultant trip distribution volumes are summarized on Table 1
The trip assignment step assigns the distributed trips as turning movements to
the study intersections. The results of the trip assignment procedure for the
proposed project are graphically shown on Figure 7. The traffic volumes are not
rounded.
Total Forecast Volumes
The project generated volumes from Figure 7 were added to the ambient traffic
forecasts from Figure 6 to obtain the total with project traffic forecasts shown on
Figure 8. Traffic volumes over five (5) vph are rounded to the nearest five (5) for
the five (5) study intersections.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The concept of level of service is used to quantify the quality of traffic flow on
roadway facilities. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has developed
procedures to calculate level of service value(s) by measuring traffic volumes
against the capacities of different types of roadway facilities. Their Highway
Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000) describes the various procedures developed
-10-
for freeways, highways, signalized and unsignalized intersections, etc. A
comparison of levels of service for the different forecast scenarios can give an
indication of the traffic impacts of ambient traffic growth and the proposed
project.
The TRB methodology for analyzing signalized intersections calculates the levels
of service for individual approaches and the intersection as a whole based on the
average stopped delay per vehicle. The results range from level of service A
(best with average delays less than five seconds) to F (worst with average delays
longer than 80 seconds), described as follows:
Control Delay per Vehicle
Level of Service (Seconds/Vehicle)
A <10.0
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F >80.0
Many jurisdictions consider levels of service A to D as acceptable for areas like
Kailua-Kona, with levels of service E and F indicating the possible need for
mitigating measures. The County of Hawaii recommends a minimum level of
service C for proposed projects, while recognizing that many of their signalized
intersections are already at level of service D.
The procedure used for analyzing unsignalized intersections calculates vehicle
delays and levels of service based on the distribution of gaps in traffic on the
major street and driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute
turns. For two-way stop intersections where only the minor street traffic is
controlled by a stop sign, levels of service are calculated for the critical turning
movements including outbound movements from the stop -controlled approach,
- 11 -
and left turns from the main road to the minor road. The procedure does not
calculate an overall intersection level of service. For all way stops where each
incoming approach is controlled by a stop sign, levels of service are calculated
for each approach and the intersection as a whole.
The Highway Capacity Manual defines the relationship between level of service
and delay (in seconds/vehicle) for unsignalized intersections as shown below:
Level of Delay
Service (Seconds/Vehicle)
A
<10.0
B
10.1 to 15.0
C
15.1 to 25.0
D
25.1 to 35.0
E
35.1 to 50.0
F
>50.1
Levels of service A to E are considered acceptable for unsignalized intersections.
Level of service F (with average delays longer than 50 seconds) is considered
undesirable for unsignalized intersections and would indicate the possible need
for mitigation.
The results of the level of service analyses are summarized on Table 2 with the
unsignalized intersections shown first. The existing, ambient forecast and total
with project forecast levels of service and delays for the three (3) study
intersections are placed side-by-side so that changes in levels of service can be
identified. Only the total with project forecast levels of service and delay are
shown for the proposed project driveways that do not currently exist. The results
for only one driveway are shown since both driveways were assumed to have
about the same volumes.
The Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension/Hualalai Road intersection currently
shows a problem on one turning movement in both analysis periods. The
outbound (eastbound) left turn movement from Hualalai Road is already at level
SIPM
of service F and would remain so for all forecast conditions. This movement is
not expected to be used by residents of the proposed project. The levels of
service on the other two intersection movements would remain unchanged during
the morning peak hour for the ambient and total with project forecasts. The
northbound left turn from Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension into Hualalai
Road is currently at an acceptable level of service B and is forecast to remain at
that level for both forecast conditions. The right turn from Hualalai Road is
currently at level of service C in the morning peak and is forecast to remain
unchanged. During the afternoon peak, the level of service on this movement is
forecast to change from its current level C to level of D for the ambient and total
with project forecasts. This change is primarily due to the higher traffic volumes
on the highway and less due to increases in traffic on Hualalai Road. Level of
service D for an unsignalized right turn movement is considered to be minimally
acceptable. Since the level of service does not change from ambient to total with
forecast conditions, this analysis would indicate that the proposed project would
not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection.
The Kuakini Highway/Hualalai Road intersection is signalized and its operations
will be improved shortly as part of the Kuakini Highway widening project. The
intersection is currently operating at level of service C in both analysis periods
and is forecast to continue operating at level of service C with the higher ambient
and total with project forecasts because of the additional capacity brought about
by the widening project. This analysis would indicate that the proposed project
would not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection.
The intersection at Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension and Nani Kailua Drive
is currently at level of service C in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The
overall intersection level of service is forecast to remain at level of service C with
the higher ambient and total with project forecast volumes, although the Nani
Kailua approaches are forecast to change from current level C to D in the
-13-
afternoon peak. Since the level of service does not change from ambient to total
with forecast conditions, this analysis would indicate that the proposed project
would not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection.
The two proposed project driveways would need to meet minimum sight distance
requirements along Hualalai Road.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the local
area roadway system. The levels of service at the three study intersections:
Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension/ Nani Kailua Drive, Queen Kaahumanu
Highway Extension/Hualalai Road, and Kuakini Highway/Hualalai Road, would
not change from ambient to total with project forecast conditions. Mitigating
measures would not be required.
-14-
TABLES
y
J
Q
z
Q
z
O
m
r �
W N
m 0
Q Z
H z
Q
z
_O
H
W
z
W
U'
CL
FE
F -
o O
C) r
o r 0
r
C
C
LO
LO
O
Y
03
>
L
7
Y
O0
c O
M
O
co
c co
r
M
r
CO«
W
LO
,
-
S
Y
a
N�
c r
V
r
V
o t!7
N
LO
N
.
O
V
N
N
N
Y c
fQ 7
c N
W
N
N
c 00
V
00
V
C
0
c1
CC5
j
7
Y
L
0
o r
V
r
V
o M
r
M
r
«
W
o
N
n
r,
S
z
Y
U
_O
1-
D
V
N
V
`O
CP
O
W
m
a
C:
C
CC
.`
D)
0)
C
O)
O
(D
-
0)
m
-
N
.`
N
F- ❑
N
0)
N
O)
N
w„
()
0)
0)
rn
O O
V N
O
N
00 m
r
CA
C0
o
0
X M
N 00
M
M
m
C
ao V
V
ICD
o m
M r
rn
r
0
vo
0
U1 r
co
CN
a) C) ❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
O
L
N
+
N
N
z E c X 3
3
X
3
3
O .7 30 J O
O
J
O
O
Q c O N
a
V)
a
N
co
N
(0 a
N
a
Yoco
ovo
v
oLo
w
LC O I`
O
O
II
O
O
1J V p ~
II
~
II
o
C N J
I- U)J
to
F- l0
l0
L
L 7
Y 04 J
N
J
Q
Z
Q
N W
J U
m >
F— W
N
LL
O
J
W
W
J
v v v
> 0 c 0 c
a.0 0.0 E�
tL_.a h3
z °c 0 a) 3 c
w❑ n u" u n
w Co m m mF r
JZ(n LU 0m
(0
(D O ).- 0) N
.-- N M )` M O O r 0) N
Q0
a)
cm M N L2
N N
m (n r N V 0) O 0) V
N N N N M N LD C N N
0
O
CO
~O
prim UQ
UUUUU Upp C) C-)
J
cu
(D O co
r In .- O n �- M
O
m
Z
a)
0
O) 'IT N
N N
m m N V0) — 0 0 V
N N N NM N (I) 'T M N
Y
LLI _
Q
m
a
Q
p
p LL m
U U U U U U p C) o U
J
a
r`o�
LDonor— ao(K)(Na, -
O
Z
D
o M�
N
LOr-o0) ri go0)m
N N N N M M N
H
V1
w
0
U LL m
U U U m m U U U m U
J
0) Or-- O n
a0 O M 0) W N 0) N (D
J
QD
H
d
O ` r
O M (o N to N Q) f� N M
N NN N ITlzt -
O
O
U LL m m Q
U U U m m 0 0 0 U m.
J
0c0
cu
O r
D N m t .- (0 (D U) 0) 0)
d
2z
v
(D
I N 0) 00 00 (D t0 O N
N N C%J N V V N�
W
LU
C
0
U LL In
U U U m m 0 0 0 U m .!
J
)
Q
�
(a
N O
O O d; Cl) CO M N co V' V
CI
N
(0 L
N 0) ( Ln - OJ O O N
N M N e- N M LO N
H
V)
L
X
Cl)
W
O
U LL m
U m O U m U p p U m C
J
p
p
Q
0
m
Z 2 0
J m m
z (n
O2
W
Z Q 2 2
Ew
�� m Uz °1O�
¢
zm00 m m
U_ �EZEE
a)wy
O
WL
2p OLL
w2W U N�fA�W3zm
-0
2 Z it m L) a�
W 5 ofnf_= Z>> m m
*Fu
zc5
O
w p m m aaCc )) a M m
N2>>> �Q �0�-
m io m m p c c aM) aa))
>>>> 2 M M>>
Q
2 2 d m d 2
w= 2 2 Y Y z Z d d
U
W
Z
�
�w aZ
W
Fn
2 Y
j D
Z
z
v v v
> 0 c 0 c
a.0 0.0 E�
tL_.a h3
z °c 0 a) 3 c
w❑ n u" u n
w Co m m mF r
JZ(n LU 0m
FIGURES
• Study Intersection
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT
5
N 465
�-- TO WAIMEA 20
110 1 T r
270 - ^ o
155 1
HUALALAI ROAD
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
u o jt 35
0 905
1 r 15
60 1 �-, T r
645 -• 0 N
40 7 " N
HUALALAI ROAD
TO KEAUHOU 1
AM PEAK HOUR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
0
v
25
m m 355
f— TO WAIMEA «j 1 40
145 ? T r
480 n N
250 7 N m
HUALALAI ROAD
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
t
55
0 0
0 m
u
N
�
845
-j 1
r
40
95
1
,
T r
950
—
o
N N
65
1
°' N
HUALALAI ROAD
TO KEAUHOU—ji*
PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 3
HUALALAI ROAD
4J 7
965
r 230
ti r
u�
v
Not to Scale
HUALALAI ROAD
830
r 115
JJU / r
10 Z o
u) m
Not to Scale
•
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
•
NANI KAILUA DRIVE HUALALAI ROAD
220
Un o
u.)
CD �0
L
t
25
30
"'
`0
965 1015
.J 1
L-.
r
25
55
-T
-T
T 699 695 -+
705 610
—
0
0 0 4 -1
40
-1
CD
N N
`t
645
—
100
HUALALAI ROAD
300
Un o
u.)
t
LO 00 (D
�
t
30
"'
`0
HUALALAI ROADIMK
340 395
�--- TO WAIMEA !-' 1
`-+
r
25 TO KEAUHOU—�
120
-T
�,
T r KUAKINI HWY
535 255
-►
o
-T
160
Z
689 685 -i
`t
645
—
Lo
235
HUALALAI
ROAD
SEPTEMBER 2002 TRAFFIC COUNTS
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT
«- 1035 1165
r 130
+, r
N �
MA
Not to Scale
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
240
20 HUALALAI ROAD
LEGEND
11195
965 30
r 230 it
490 Combined approach volume
95 Volume change from 2002 to 2004
24°/n Percent change from 2002 to 2004
Not to Scale
APRIL 2004 TRAFFIC COUNTS
AM PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4A
Un o
u.)
t
35
955
20
"'
`0
HUALALAI ROADIMK
905
-60
.-j 1
L
r
15
-6%,�-
5
745
60
-T
«-
T r
689 685 -i
40
645
—
Lo
o u-�
-10 4 -1
6°lA
40
7
`n
N
0
270 -►
Ln
0 Lo
95
LEGEND
11195
965 30
r 230 it
490 Combined approach volume
95 Volume change from 2002 to 2004
24°/n Percent change from 2002 to 2004
Not to Scale
APRIL 2004 TRAFFIC COUNTS
AM PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4A
320
20
HUALALAI ROADIMK
U') U') o
t
5
490
N Lo "'
«-
465
95
�— TO WAIMEA
+--J 1
20
`112 `< TO KEAUHOU—►
535
110 -T
ti
T ri KUAKINI HWY
0
270 -►
Ln
0 Lo
°Io
155 -1
I
`r
230
-5°la
HUALALAI ROAD
-
LEGEND
11195
965 30
r 230 it
490 Combined approach volume
95 Volume change from 2002 to 2004
24°/n Percent change from 2002 to 2004
Not to Scale
APRIL 2004 TRAFFIC COUNTS
AM PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4A
•
•
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
HUALALAI ROAD
145
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
,n U*)
L
t
35
115
`V
875 915
890 980
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
L
l
5
r 90
115
-1
T r 935
930
1120 890
—
Lo
o 0
5 0 0
115
-1
(0
`- c'4
00
945
125
90
HUALALAI ROAD
370
oo rn rn t 35
380 455
�-- TO WAIMEA 40 TO KEAUHOU—►
225 -T f, T r, KUAKINI HWY
930 400 N 0 U-)
305 Z
350
HUALALAI ROAD Not to Scale
SEPTEMBER 2002 TRAFFIC COUNTS
APRIL 2004 TRAFFIC COUNTS
PM PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4B
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
115
-30
HUALALAI ROAD
0 0 0
t 55
940
945
(D ``' N
•- 845
25
830
-35
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
+-j 1 ',
l 40
3 o ,
! 115
1110 95 -1
+, T r-
940
930 •-1 r-►
-10 950 —
o5
�n �n
10 -1 o
65
160
85
305
-5
-65
HUALALAI ROAD
28%
LO to Lo
t
25
420
r- C° `°
�-
355
-35
�— TO WAIMEA
«-j 1 '-+
F
40
'8°10
TO KEAUHOU —�
875
145 J
-7
T r KUAKINI HWY
LEGEND
55
480 -+
un
U') U')
490
Combined approach volume
61 i
250 -1
Nco
95
Volume change from 2002 to 2004
365 15 4%
24°l0r
Percent change from 2002 to 2004
H UALALAI ROAD
Not to Scale
APRIL 2004 TRAFFIC COUNTS
PM PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4B
24 HOUR TWO WAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
oource: acare or nawau ueparimenr or i ransporiarion
STATION 8-K
STATION
9 -BB
LL
LL
KUAKINI HIGHWAY
HUALALAI ROAD
HIGHWAY EXTENSION
HUALALAI ROAD
YEAR
NORTH
SOUTH
EAST
WEST
SOUTH
NORTH
WEST
5000
1992
22022
10281
8660
9952
10000
1994
21360
11930
6996
7781
20301
20043
2874
1996
18129
10848
4856
8105
23201
21371
2875
1998
20254
10436
4884
8016
23752
22027
1079
2000
21702
8345
6631
8890
26278
21887
2116
2002
17698
14324
5794 1
9290
26072
23903
2317
oource: acare or nawau ueparimenr or i ransporiarion
KUAKINI HIGHWAY AND HUALALAI ROAD
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
YEAR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HWY EXT AND HUALALAI RD
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
YEAR
HISTORICAL TREND IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 5
—� Kuakini
Highway
North Leg
--w— Kuakini
Highway
South Leg
—�—Hualalai
Road East
Leg
Hualalai
Road West
Leg
QKHE
South
tQKHE
North Leg
A Hualalai
Road
West Leg
25000
L)
20000
LL
LL
25000
w
15000
Q
U)
10000
00
>
_
N
5000
7
0
KUAKINI HIGHWAY AND HUALALAI ROAD
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
YEAR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HWY EXT AND HUALALAI RD
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
YEAR
HISTORICAL TREND IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 5
—� Kuakini
Highway
North Leg
--w— Kuakini
Highway
South Leg
—�—Hualalai
Road East
Leg
Hualalai
Road West
Leg
QKHE
South
tQKHE
North Leg
A Hualalai
Road
West Leg
30000
L)
25000
M
Q
U)
20000
15000
7
i
>
10000
r
5000
0
KUAKINI HIGHWAY AND HUALALAI ROAD
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
YEAR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HWY EXT AND HUALALAI RD
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
YEAR
HISTORICAL TREND IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 5
—� Kuakini
Highway
North Leg
--w— Kuakini
Highway
South Leg
—�—Hualalai
Road East
Leg
Hualalai
Road West
Leg
QKHE
South
tQKHE
North Leg
A Hualalai
Road
West Leg
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT
LO
t 10
n
N
O
515
g TO WAIMEA
f
25
130
1
"
T r
315
—
o
o
210
'1
N
N
HUALALAI ROAD
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
0 0 t 35
970
1 f 20
65 1T r
670 o n n
45 7
HUALALAI ROAD
TO KEAUHOU-*
AM PEAK HOUR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT
o o t 65
435
.4 TO WAIMEA f 45
190 1 T r-
570
570 n o 0
325 7LO
HUALALAI ROAD
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
0 0 �j t 55
895
1 f 40
100 1 " T r
1020 o N
110 7 N � N
HUALALAI ROAD
TO KEAUHOU--lo-
PM PEAK HOUR
AMBIENT 2006 TRAFFIC FORECAST
FIGURE 6
HUALALAI ROAD
1029
f 250
'20 r
4 1 rn
m
Not to Scale
HUALALAI ROAD
1 880
f 135
390 " r
10 -1 0 00
Not to Scale
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
HUALALAI ROAD
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
t 7
t r
n
PROJECT SITE
t 7
t r
m M
HUALALAI ROAD
4 TO WAND
TO KEAUHOU—►
AM PEAK HOUR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
HUALALAIROAD
ro m
L 2
1 L+ r s
T r
N
co 0
t 2
1 " r 6
1 r
v a
HUALALAI ROAD
F TO WAND
r 3
N
6 7
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
PROJECT SITE
TO KEAUHOU—►
/ r TO KEAUHOU —�
HUALALAI ROAD
Not to Scale
3
r 3
r TO KEAUHOU—�
N
HUALALAI ROAD
Not to Scale
PM PEAK HOUR
PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT FORECAST
FIGURE 7
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT.
HUALALAIROAD
N �
� t 5
t r
o in
N
N
C
v t 5
1
I-
T T r
0
o u�
HUALALAIROAD N
o N 0 t 10
on m m 515
4— TO WAIMEA «j 1 L+ f 25
135 1 «, t r KUAKI
315 0 0
210 -1 N m N
0 0
t 35
i
m
r
970
1
r
20
65
J
ti
t r
670
-�
rn
0
m
�
n
t
2
45
7
`O
N
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
PROJECT SITE
TO KEAUHOU—►
AM PEAK HOUR
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY EXT
HUALALAIROAD
u�
m
�
u�
t 2
i
N
r
5
1
T
r
100
J
o
N
1020
-�
rn
,� ,� 10 7
0
m
�
n
t
2
>
r
5
1
r
o
N
HUALALAIROAD o
1D o
m
t
65
N O1
n
-
435
�-- TO WAIMEA +j 1
4
f
45
210
J
+1
T r KUAKI
570
-
N
o 0
325
7
N
- O
1030
F 250
25 TO KEAUF
4 7
0
HUALALAIROAD
0 0
t 55
0 o
N
995
1
r
45
100
J
T r 990
1020
-�
u�
,� ,� 10 7
115
'1
N
N
NANI KAILUA DRIVE
PROJECT SITE
TO KEAUHOU—►
PM PEAK HOUR
Not to Scale
990
r 140
h r TO KEAUHOU—►
�n o
HUALALAIROAD
TOTAL WITH PROJECT 2006 TRAFFIC FORECAST
FIGURE 8
Not to Scale
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT
KONA HALE ALII CONDOMINIUM TIAR
(mauka)
LOCATION: Kuakini Hwy/Hualalai Rd 7 8 9
DATE: April 8- 2404 Thursday
TIME: 6:30@-8:30a/3:30p-5:30p <- v -->
WEATHER: partly cloudy Kuakini 1 ---A A--- 10
RECORDER, R. Alberts, T. Lemanski Highway 2 ---> <--- 11
3 ---v v--- 12
<- A -->
4 5 6
Hualalai Road
(makai)
TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER
PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAI
6:30-6:45 6 28 16 24 3 0 14 6 3 1 69 2 172
6:45-7:00 23 46 32 23 4 5 22 9 4 1 57 0 226
7:00-7:15 16 51 35 37 4 1 37 5 6 5 60 5 262
7:15-7:30 26 46 20 41 7 8 26 3 8 1 78 3 267
7:30-7:45 35 55 32 49 7 5 45 8 8 2 97 3 346
7:45-8:00 34 75 44 41 16 3 62 12 21 1 115 2 426
8:00-8:15 23 79 48 40 8 5 58 21 8 1 144 5 440
8:15-8:30 16 62 33 44 9 3 52 12 15 2 108 9 365
6:30-8:30 179 442 260 299 58 30 316 76 73 14 728 291 2504
7:30-8:30 108 271 157 174 40 16 217 53 52 6 464 19 1577
PHFI 0.89 0.96 0.85 0.82
TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER
PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAI
3:30-3:45 37 151 100 95 39 15 45 16 15 10 113 12 648
3:45-4:00 39 105 53 49 16 10 42 18 18 5 96 14 465
4:00-4:15 45 133 47 47 13 9 50 18 17 6 80 7 472
4:15-4:30 25 92 50 43 15 9 40 13 16 3 66 5 377
4:30-4:45 29 104 55 40 11 7 44 22 17 4 100 8 441
4:45-5:00 22 118 56 39 11 6 48 21 13 6 109 19 468
5:00-5:15 25 131 57 38 15 9 39 25 20 2 115 8 484
5:15-5:30 13 114 62 29 9 7 38 12 16 8 104 8 420
3_:30-5:30 235 94_8 4_80 380 129 72 346 145 132 44 783 811 3775
3:30-4:30 146 481 250 234 83 43 177 65 66 24 355 m- 1962
PHF 0.76 0.6 0.91 0.77
TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT
KONA HALE ALII CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
(mauka)
LOCATION: Queen Kaahumanu Hwy ExtlNani Kailua Dr 7 8 9
DATE: Apn113,2004_Tuesday
TIME: 6:30a-8:30a/3:30p-5:30p <- v -->
WEATHER: cloudy Queen 1 ---A A--- 10
RECORDER: R. Alberts. T. Lemanski Kaahumam 2 ---> <--- 11
Highway 3 ---v v--- 12
<- A -->
4 5 6
Nani Kailua Drive
(makai)
TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER
PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTA
6:30-6:45 2 97 1 6 4 2 18 5 4 1 202 2 344
6:45-7:00 2 132 6 3 7 1 26 8 17 6 234 6 448
7:00-7:15 20 133 3 10 4 2 24 7 20 9 244 3 479
7:15-7:30 13 161 4 7 3 3 31 6 20 8 233 5 494
7:30-7:45 9 188 16 20 4 4 32 13 14 10 226 6 542
7:45-8:00 22 142 15 10 9 4 32 20 16 4 221 2 497
8:00-8:15 18 155 6 20 7 3 31 10 15 14 225 4 508
8:15-8:30 14 148 19 6 2 4 27 18 8 6 209 8 469
6:30-8:30 100 1156 70 82 40 23 221 87 114 58 1794 36 3781
7:15-8:15 62 646 41 57 23 14 126 49 65 36 905 17 2041
PHF 0.88 0.78 0.88 0.99
TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER
PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTA
3:30-3:45 19 196 40 21 8 10 26 2 6 20 235 13 596
3:45-4:00 25 246 13 17 11 7 12 8 8 20 222 15 604
4:00-4:15 19245 15 29 6 6 8 8 6 15 213 7 577
4:15-4:30 21 211 24 28 8 3 22 7 9 7 177 8 525
4:30-4:45 31 249 11 25 11 8 19 7 2 11 233 10 617
4:45-5:00 28 219 10 20 7 7 15 7 8 7 183 7 518
5:00-5:15 31 230 13 23 10 17 18 3 5 7 192 5 554
5:15-5:30 13 175 14 12 11 4 16 2 5 9 159 2 422
3:30-5_30 187 1771 140 175 72 62 136 44 49 96 1614 674413
3:45-4:45 96 951 63 99 36 24 61 30 25 53 845 40 2323
PHFJ 0.98 0.97 0.76 0.92
LOCATION:
DATE:
TIME:
WEATHER:
RECORDER:
TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT
KONA HALE ALII CONDOMINIUM TIAR
Queen Keehumanu Hwy Ext/Hualalai Rd
April l4, 2004,_ Wednesday
6 30a-8:30e/3:30p-5:30p
cloudy
L. Harris
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Ext
1-----> <----6
2-----v v-----5
<-- --->
3 4
Hualalai Rd
TIME
3
MOVEMENT
NUMBER
28
239
PERIOD
1
2 3
4
4
5
6
TOTAL
6:30-6:45a
127
1
0
10
15
230
383
6:45-7:OOa
128
0
0
19
22
222
391
7:00-7:15a
146
1
0
11
21
218
397
7:15-7:30a
192
0
1
11
43
246
493
7:30-7:45a
188
0
0
10
52
244
494
7:45-8:OOa
146
3
0
8
76
247
480
8:00-8:15a
159
1
0
16
57
226
459
8:15-8:30a
176
0
0
12
28
217
433
6:30-8:30a
1262
6
1
97
314
1850
3530
7:15-8:15a
685
4
1
45
228
963
1866
PHF
0.90
0.92
3:30-3:45p
3:45-4:OOp
4:00-4:15p
4:15-4:30p
4:30-4:45p
4:45-5:OOp
5:00-5:15p
5:15-5:30p
3:30-5:30p
3:30-4:30p
PHF
231
3
0
16
28
239
517
197
3
4
15
31
217
467
254
1
1
24
29
186
495
246
1
1
25
25
186
484
251
0
3
23
17
189
483
239
0
1
24
22
194
480
256
1
1
32
8
167
465
222
1
1
17
16
183
440
1896
10
12
176
176
1561
3831
928
8
6
80
113
828
1963
0.92
0.88
APPENDIX B
SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CALCULATIONS
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CALCULATIONS
ao X �
r
i
8a
W
o
C _
3 <
r
r
p
U 19-a
W
��
_ a
�_
-
o
-
N
J
C
O
J
I
�
19
N
2 ry
n
0l
J i
i
N
m
6
F
nP
n
m
—
N
y.
z
—
W
m
5
_
r X
F
C
I
W
e c
of
i
m
a
3
P
112
C
$$
�
_
g
x
W
o
C _
3 <
r
r
p
U 19-a
W
��
_ a
�_
-
o
-
N
J
C
O
N
2 ry
n
J i
i
N
m
6
F
U N
I �X
—
W
5
r X
e c
of
i
a
A
3
P
112
_
x
:
\
-
■]
°-
!`w:
.
#!!!
171
-
/
�
![:��°
f/
�
E
{
�{
� ]|
•�
ƒf
e
e'
()!
\
;
�
:
\
-
■]
°-
!`w:
.
171
-
/
�
f/
�
E
{
�{
� ]|
•�
ƒf
e
e'
\
;
�
:
\
\
0
<
\
:!
)
\
f`!
t
�\
}}|i}
\--
V
.
!
-
--
-`
.
/!
§ �
n
}\
:}
;
!
)
\
�\
}}|i}
\--
-
--
-`
.
}\
:}
;
!
;#!!l�,�!!,
)
\
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CALCULATIONS
4—w--
Y
>
W
------------
Nik
m
,€o.
x�,� 8
�
z
€
a,
Mo
❑
Q
z
z
-
m
o
<
e
F a
Lf
tz
im
37
g
4—w--
Y
>
Nik
m
,€o.
x�,� 8
�
z
€
a,
Mo
❑
Q
z
z
Lf
tz
im
8
z
di
�
-
�
m
2
E
yOj
p.
'o
ggi
S g
a
�
_
J
-
s
az
J J
�
O
G
J
r
�
a
-
s
J
r
�
a
m
$p
v"
iu
ate
In
L!
F
m
d
$$
gg
!yg
Ti£
-
N
Q
J
S
uN
o
4
n
g
�
ewe
U r
=m—
O
ry
Ca
F
o
kti
?rm
dT
$
z
r
e€
m
o
z
Mz
eq{�
g
m
$p
v"
iu
ate
In
L!
m
gg
J
S
o
=m—
O
ry
Ca
F
kti
?rm
dT
$
Mz
z
o
an
d N
e
C �
� �
$
9e
a
w a ggqgxq3
�
-
ZZ w
m
z
——
_
<
ry
I-
J
r
�
$u'lS�
PIN
O
2
JJ.m€E
wJ_
C�Nm
VP,
m
z
-
Q°
W
8
u6IKE
8
F y y
9
u
u b -
`
x
w
o
an
d N
e
C �
� �
$
9e
a
w a ggqgxq3
�
-
m
z
m
z
-
Q°
W
8
u6IKE
8
F y y
9
u
u b -
W r
w
_
20
w a
•�
z
oz
-
n
.�
<
r.
a
d
x
J_
ama,
f
<
Q -
_
'
}
S
J J
_
H
'�FIF
r
t
J
gg Sg
y
of
a ry
U2
z11
$
aF
U
i
1NNFFCC
_
s4.�
�6C�3s�'
a
8
i
W r
_
w a
-
n
h
Q -
Q_
g
}
S
J J
_
H
'�FIF
r
t
y
w of •- �
pNi
!
D
§ L x 6
�22 5
__
a
.m., 3lz lv�3 SG' E
w of •- �
m
__
u
�
'N E e
fid^
yp
m
I
oz
A
1
Z
I al
z
aoo�
Qo
o
p
N
6
app
—gym
s
ol
��au � �
�dII
�£EO9
lD 5rs���
SNJ
w32
�59'SS
�gG
SC'
_
2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HILO, HAWAII
DATE:August 30, 2004
rJU;h-iTSTANI! _ 1
TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department
FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief qL11
Engineering Division
SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022)
Applicant: Kona Hale AN, LLC
Location: Hienaloli 6th
TMK: 3 / 7-5-009:por 54 and 67
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.
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. If subdivided, vehicular access to individual lots shall not be from Hualalai Road.
2. Hualalai Road, fronting the subject property, is a County road. It has an
approximate 20 -ft. wide pavement (in poor condition), with no shoulders, all within
an approximate 50 -ft. right-of-way. It is substandard based on width, alignment
and roadside hazard clearances. Hualalai Road is classified a collector street,
according to the County's General Plan, and should be improved to a 60 -ft. right-
of-way. Because this portion of Hualalai Road has an irregular alignment and
previously imposed requirements. We suggest some flexibility be written into this
ordinance as follows: EXHIBIT
Memorandum to PD
August 30, 2004
Page 2 of 2
The applicant shall realign and provide full improvements to the entire frontage
along Hualalai Road consisting of, but not limited to, right-of-way and pavement
widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, and any
relocation of utilities; meeting with the approval of the DPW. Pavement
transitions, streetlights signs and markings, drainage improvements, and
relocation of utilities may be required. The applicant shall construct and dedicate
to the County upon request, the widened street with improvements, at no cost to
the County. An approach for the commercial zoned property fronting the opposite
side of Hualalai Road (TMK: 7-5-10 :013) is required under Ord. 95-118, to include
turning lanes on Hualalai Road. The widened area to be dedicated to the County
shall, if required by DPW, allow for realignment and the improvements required by
Ord.95-118 or successor ordinances. The required widening area shall not exceed
the equivalent of a five foot width along the entire frontage, which is approximately
one-half the difference between the existing right-of-way width and 60 feet.
Access to Hualalai Road shall be limited to one approach and may include an
additional access which shall be barricaded and used for emergency purposes
only. The approaches shall conform to Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks, of the
Hawaii County Code. A licensed civil engineer shall evaluate the proposed active
approach to the subject property for safe ingress and egress, sight distance and
conflicts with the proposed turn lane and entry to TMK: 7-5-010:013. The
evaluation shall be submitted for approval by the DPW prior to plan approval. If
recommended, the applicant shall provide a left turn storage lane on Hualalai
Road to the subject property prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All
sight distances to the approach shall meet the requirements of the Hawaii
Statewide Uniform Design Manual or AASHTO.
4. Any vehicular security gate shall be located a minimum of 40 feet (exclusive of
gate swing) from the proposed Hualalai Road right-of-way with a turnaround on the
County road side of the gate.
5. Suggested improvements in lieu of fair share contributions for roadways include
extension of sidewalk improvements along adjacent property frontages.
Twelve additional units are proposed although there is a potiential for 20 additional
units when compared to existing zoning. The TZAR, dated May 2004, assumes
completion of the Kuakini Highway widening project in concluding there are no
adverse impacts from the proposed project. Plan approval for the subject project
should be delayed until a construction contract is signed for the Kuakini Highway
Improvements (Palani Road to Hualalai Road).
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
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Harry Kim
Mayor
i n
rr Tit
Barbara Bell
Director
Nelson Ho
Deputy Director
&Tunfvl of tl�llMtt
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252
(808) 961-8083. Fax (808) 961-8086
MEMORANDUM
Date
To
From
August 3, 2004
CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Planning Director
Direc oq
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022)
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
TMK: 7-5-9:portion 54 & 67
We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations:
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
WASTEWATER DIVISION:
comments
Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in
Rcordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code.
equire extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance
with Secti/op 23-85 of the //Hawaii County Code.d� /
�Other:.__y_"r�viJO.� E/ fb [/7i111':?t-1Y/t7`i•tC Sr'cvat �'l6.LUtarv.��7 / S �In�
SOLID WASTE DIVISION:
( ) No comments
( ) Commercial operations may not use transfer stations for disposal.
( ) Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be reused to its fullest
extent.
( ) Ample room should be provided for recycling.
( ) Greenwaste may be disposed of at the drop sites located at the Kailua and Hilo
transfer stations.
( k ) Other: Sv%MtT FOR REytcw y Sc>wrj PL&N
RAF ✓R i� htiT tJ C�vtbNt 6N � 1)AT6-b 10/13/03
cc: SWD, WWD
Haivai'i County is an equal opportunityprovider and employer.
6073
EXH BIT
,L
Harry Kim
Mayor
Barbara Bell
Director
Lone Tyson
Solid Wade Drvisioa Chief
County of Hawaii
DEPARTMENT OF ENMONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 Aapani Su ce4 Room 210 • Hilo, A s r d'i 967204'52..
(808) 9614083 • Fax (808) 9614086
October 13, 2003
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Guidelines.,
INTENTAND1PURPOSE'-o,� `It=',A /;;r '�c. r .
This is to establish guidelines for reviewing solid waste management plans. for which
special conditions are placed on developments. The solid waste management plan will
be used to' (1) encdi!iWje recyding'and recycling programs, (2) predict the waste
generated by the proposed development to anticipate the loading on County transfer
stations, landfills and recycling facilities, and (3p predict the additional traffic being
generated because of waste and recycling transfers.
REPURT
The consultant's report will contain the following:
1. Description of the project and the potential waste it may be generating: i.e.
analysis of anticipated waste volume and composition. This includes waste
generated during the construction and operational phases. Greenwastes will be
included in this report for both construction grubbing and future operational
landscape maintenance.
2. Description and location of the possible sites for waste disposal or recycling. We
will not allow the use of the County transfer stations for any commercial
development; commercial development as defined under the policies of the
Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division.
3. Since the Department of Environmental Management promotes recycling,
indicate onsite source separation facilities by waste stream; i.e. source
separation bins of glass, metal, plastic, cardboard, aluminum, etc.
4. Identification of the proposed disposal mite and transportation methods for the
various components of the waste disposal and recycling system, including the
number of truck traffic and the route that truck will be using to transport the waste
and recycled materials.
- �. „ �' yi;• Patricia G. Engelhard
�i 1 n .)U k' Director
HarryKim' _
Mayor
Pamela N. Mizuno
Deputy Director
Countp of Tamm' i
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
(808) %1-8311 • Fax (808) %1-8411
August 5, 2004
Christopher J. Yuen, Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Subject: Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022)
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
TMK: 7-5-09: Portions 054 & 067
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject Change of Zone
Application.
Upon review of the information provided in the application we are encouraged that the developer
is proposing to include both recreation and picnic pavilions at the site with a small pool and a spa
for the use and enjoyment of prospective tenants. However, in the interests of providing and
caring for active recreational sites and facilities that will be utilized by the same residents of the
proposed development and County as a whole, as is the charge of our department, we feel that
the proposed passive recreational amenities and diminutive size of the swimming pool will not
suffice to provide for the active recreational needs of the intended residents.
Contrary to the developer's position stated in Part IX, Paragraph A of their Application for
County Rezoning, it is our position that the proposed improvements will have adverse impacts
on the recreational resources for the entire district of North Kona due to the project's potential as
condominium designation to house permanent family units (as opposed to a time-share
designation or similar). As has always been our contention, the district of North Kona is under-
served with respect to active recreational facilities and beach parks and those facilities that
currently exist are in advanced stages of wear due to their lengthy years of service and elevated
levels and duration of usage. Recent steady heightened increases in population in the Kailua area
ESIT)
X4���
Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022) August 5. 2004
Kona Hale Alii, LLC (TMK: 7-5-9: Portions 054 & 067) Page 2
and the greater district of North Kona have seen demands for recreational facilities escalate
without a correlating augmentation of developed park lands and facilities to date. The
development of this project will only exacerbate this situation and thus warrants some
coordinated park development or R&M fending.
Accordingly, we request that the appropriate Fair Share Contributions relative to Parks and
Recreation needs be assessed the applicant in conjunction with the proposed actions.
Please contact our staff planner, James Komata at 961-8531 should you have any questions or
wish to discuss any of the issues presented herein.
Respectfully,
/Patricia . Engelhard
Director
Harry Kim
1lnvor
'191J
County
of Hawaii,
POLIbE DEPARTMENT'';
349 Kapiolani Street
• Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998
(808) 935-3311
Fu(808)961-2389
August 18, 2004
TO HRISTOP ER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM MES M. DAY, R., ACTING ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF,
EA II OPERATIONS
SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022)
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
Tax Map Key: 7-5-9:portion 54 & 67
Staff has reviewed the above -referenced application and have the following
concerns:
1. The proposed development is a 92 two and three bedroom unit
condominium project, with 184 parking stalls, having access to Hualalai
Road via two entrance/exits.
Lawrence K. Mahuna
Police Chref
2. Presently there are only two available connector roadways to the project
on Hualalai Road, Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway.
Both of these roadways are at capacity and scheduled for improvements
sometime in the future.
3. Assess sufficient impact fees to address public safety.
Should you have any questions, please contact Captain Robert Hickcox, Kona
District Commander, at Phone No. 326-4646, extension 249.
RPH:jaj
"Hawai'i County is an Equal Opponunity Provider and Employer"
Harry S. Kubojiri
Depup Police Chief
EXHIBIT
O..380GO
Harry Kim
Mr,
August 11, 2004
Countb Of'awai`i
FIRE DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
(808) 961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296
TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-022)
APPLICANT: KONA HALE ALII, LLC
RERQUEST: V-1.25 AND A-1 a TO RM -2.5
TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-9:PORTION 54 & 67
Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207:
"Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Darryl J. Oliveira
Pore Chi f
Desmond K. Wery
Depun Fre Ode/
"Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with
the provisions of this section.
"(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed
when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle
access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building.
"EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system, the provisions of this section may be modified.
"2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades
or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section
10.301 (b).
"3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements
of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire -fighting or rescue operations
would not be impaired.
"More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single
road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could
limit access.
"For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109.
"(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the
appropriate county jurisdiction.
Hawaii County is an F.qual Opportu ity Provider and Employer.
75 IT 11
� a
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 2
August 11, 2004
"(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not
less than 13 feet 6 inches.
"EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not
impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the
established vertical clearance.
"(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased
when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus
access.
"(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
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.
"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."
hOLIVEIRA
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
vp/
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PO BOX 2360
HONOLULU. HAWAII 96800
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
August 17, 2004
Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3034
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Subject: Application for Change of Zoning 92 -Unit Kona Hale Alii
Multi -Family Residential Project, Hienaloli 6a' and Auhaukeae 1"
North Kona, Hawaii, (REZ 04-022) TMK: 7-5-09: 6 and por. 54
PATRICIA HAMAMOTO
S".ERINTENDFN�
The Department of Education (DOE) has reviewed the application for zoning change for a 92 -unit multi-
family residential project located on Hualalai Road in Kailua, North Kona.
The DOE requests that Hawaii County include as a condition of the zoning change, the standard school
fair -share language used in approval of land use changes. The proposed wording is:
The Applicant shall contribute to the development, funding, and/or construction of school
facilities, on a fair -share basis, as determined by and to the satisfaction of the Department
of Education. Terms of the contribution shall be agreed upon in writing by the Applicant
and the Department of Education prior to obtaining building permits for any area of the
development.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. If you have any questions,
please call Rae M. Loui, Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Business Services, at 586-3444 or
Heidi Meeker of the Facilities and Support Services Branch at 733-4862.
Very truly yours,
Patricia Hamamoto
Superintendent
PH:j mb
Rae M. Loui, OBS
Alvin Rho, CAS, Honokaa/Kealakehe/Kohala/Konawaena Complex Area EXHIBIT
0S"If Ss��
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAN
August 25, 2004
Dr. Robert Rechtman
Rechtman Consulting, LLC
HC 1 Box 4149
Keaau, Hawaii 96749
Dear Dr. Rechtman:
7 rrg 1
STATE �F HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING, ROOM 555
601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD
KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707
PETER T. YOUNG
CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF LAW AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DAN DAVIDSON
DEPUTY DIRECTON. LAND
YVONNE Y. D:U
DEPUTY DIRECTOR WATER
AQUATIC RESOURCES
BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE WNAGEMENT
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LAWS
CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT
ENGINEERING
FORESTRY AND WILDJFE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
KAHCOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION
"NO
STATE PARKS
Log No: 2004.2609
Doc.No. 0408MM20
SUBJECT: Chapter 6E42 Historic Preservation Review, Revisions to "An Update
Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-5-009:54 (por.)
Ahupua'a of Auhaukea'e, North Kona District, Hawaii Island
TMK: (3) 7-5-009:054 (por)
Thank you for your cover letter dated July 12, 2004, and (5) replacement pages for the above mentioned archaeological
inventory survey report, received July 14, 2004. The revisions were made in response to our June 22, 2004 comments
on the first draft (Log No. 2004.1862, Doc. No. 0406MM10).
The inventory survey covered about 4 -acres, documenting portions of two historic sites, identified through previous survey
of a larger area, including the subject property. These two sites were 15 features of SIHP No. 50-10-37-5608 (including
habitation, agricultural, burial, and boundary features) and -6302 (a portion of the Kuakini Wall).
The revisions and clarifications are an improvement and we can now agree with your significance assessment and
recommended treatments. Site 6302, the Kuakini Wall, will be preserved. Site 5608 Feature T is recommended for data
recovery. No further work will be undertaken for Features S, V, X, GG, HH, II, HHH, LLL, and MMM as the current study
has collected sufficient information. Site 5608 Feature U, a burial platform, is recommended for preservation.
Your report is accepted and considered adequate to meet the requirements of HAIR Title 13, Subtitle 13, Chapter 276.
The next step will be the preparation of burial treatment, data recovery, and preservation plans. A determination as such
from the Hawaii Island Burial Council will be needed to accompany approval of a Burial Treatment Plan by our division.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact Sara Collins in Honolulu at 692-8026 or Mary Anne
Maigret in Kona at 327-3690.
Aloha,
P. Holly McEldowney, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
MM: sky
C. Mr. Bob Saunders, CSV Hospitality Management LLC, 551 Akala Road 058286
Chair, Hawaii Island Burial Council
Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program
Christopher J. Yuen, Director, Hawaii County Planning, -101 P.auahi Street, Suite 3, Hilo, HI 96720-3043.
EXHIBIT
Attachment
Draft 1
Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review,
'An Update Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK: 3-7-5-009:54 (por.)
Ahupua'a ofAuhaukea'e, North Kona District, Hawaii Island
(Clark and Rechiman, April 2004)
Page 1
Project Area Description:
Can you please describe the line that defines the makai boundary of the project area more specifically? It is currently
described as "50 feet mauka of Feature K of Site 5608", a feature not described or inventoried in this study. Rather than
describing it in relation to an archaeological feature whose position is known only through the earlier Rosendahl reports
where mapping methodology and accuracy is not confirmed by your study, please describe the 'boundary' as a line
drawn perpendicular from a specific distance point along the north or south boundary. We can ascertain what this
distance would be by using the project area map, but it would be preferable if you could confirm this distance based on
field measurements and even better if some field demarcation of the surveyed area were established (flagged line, PVC
pipe markers?).
Page 4
Background, Previous Archaeological Research, Paragraph 2, line 3
"cumulated"....do you mean, "culminated"?
Findings, page 12, paragraph 3
Your discussion of agricultural methods and the presence of coral and water worn stones in probable agricultural features
is an interesting topic worthy of further exploration in the region. There seems to be general disinterest in research
focused on dry land agricultural practices and distribution of such practices in the dryer lowlands of Kona.
Page 15, Figure 7
The layout of plan view, profile and before/after photographs of your excavation units on a single page is very helpful. We
would be pleased to see this approach continue where possible in future reports.
Site Descriptions:
With a few exceptions, the site descriptions are well written and reflect close and detailed field examination by your staff
and thoughtful consideration of the functional interpretations provided by the initial PHRI study. We offer the following
comments, however related to the burials testing.
p.17 Figure 8: TU -4 East wall profile- Layer II is mislabeled as Layer III
p. 20, Feature U, Burial Platform
With respect to your observation that the soil around the burial was imported, this could be better supported by
conducting a few quick shovel tests outside the platform to confirm that the individual was not interred within an existing
soil matrix with cultural remains beneath, and unrelated to the platform architecture. Given the extent of the tested area,
you really have no basis on which to state, "No other such soil was present in the vicinity of the platform' without
confirming this through excavation. Clearly the objective of this testing was to confirm presence/absence of human
remains and as such, we will not ask for additional work to better define the burial context. However, we want to move
toward strategies that help us better understand the co -mingling of cultural material and human remains, so we can better
predict the probability of burial function in mixed use features and the construction and/or use of platforms as burial
monuments.
Feature V, modified outcrop
It is not clear which of the features on the outcrop PHRI considered the possible burials- the c -shape, the filled cracks, or
the pahoehoe slab upright. The C -shape can be ruled out, as you have indicated it is actually a natural feature. As for
the other two, you have tested a 1 m x 1m area directly beneath the upright slab, reasoning that this is the only place
where a burial could be concealed. Results are negative. Regarding the cracks, you have surmised that the cracks on
the outcrop could be filled, or could be naturally filled by decaying bedrock. The sketch labels one area in its northeastern
end as "possible cobble fill", with another more substantial cobble area depicted in the southwestern portion of the
outcrop. Is this area filled? Can you please be more specific about why you did not investigate the possibly filled cracks?
In addition, in the future, if you refer to specific locations in a photograph such as an upright or filled crack, it would be
helpful to superimpose a label into the report photo, Figure 18 is unclear inexactly where the upright and test unit were
placed. ,
LINDA LINGLE\
eoveenoa !
P�
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PO. BOX 916
- HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 23, 2004
TO: Christopher J. Yuen
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
FROM: Aaron A. Ueno ftAll
District Environmental Health Program Chief
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022)
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
Tax Map Key: 7-5-9:portion 54 & 67
CHIYOME L. FUKINO, M.D.
DIRECTOR O= H1 A 71
The subject project is located within or near proximity to the County sewer system. All
wastewater generated shall be disposed into the County sewer system. Wastewater Branch
supports the sewer requirements made by the County for the proposed project.
Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm run-offs from
the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State
Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control."
The applicant would need to meet the requirements of our Department of Health Air Pollution
Rules, Chapter 60. 1, Title 11, State of Hawaii for fugitive dust control. If there is need to discuss
these requirements, please contact our Clean Air Branch staff Ph. 933-0401.
The Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted at (808) 438-9258 to identify whether a
Federal license or permit (including a Department of Army permit) is required for this
project. Pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Act (commonly
known as the "Clean Water Act'), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for
"[a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited
C3ca�.'�•a ,3,
EXHIBIT
Christopher J. Yuen
Page 2
August 23, 2004
to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the
navigable waters...."
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit coverage is
required for the following activities:
a. Storm water associated with industrial activities, as define in Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Sections 122.26(b)(14)(i) through 122.26(b)(14)(ix) and
122.26(b)(14)(xi);
b. Construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavations, that result in
the disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre of total land area. The
total land area includes a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct
construction activities may be taking place at different times on different
schedules under a larger common plan of development or sale. An NPDES
permit is required before the commencement of the construction activities.
C. Discharge of treated effluent from leaking underground storage tank remedial
activities;
d. Discharge of once through cooling water less than one (1) million gallons per day;
e. Discharge of hydrotesting water;
f Discharge of construction dewatering effluent;
g. Discharge of treated effluent from petroleum bulk stations and terminals;
h. Discharge of treated effluent from well drilling activities;
i. Discharge of treated effluent from recycled water distribution systems;
j. Discharges of storm water from a small municipal separate storm sewer system;
and
k. Discharge of circulation water from decorative ponds or tanks.
The Clean Water Branch (CWB) requires that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by a
NPDES general permit for any of the above activities be submitted at least 30 days before the
commencement of the respective activities. The NOI forms may be picked up at our office or
downloaded from our website at http://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/cwb/forms/genl-index.html.
The applicant may be required to apply for an individual NPDES permit if there is any type of
activity in which wastewater is discharged from the project into State waters and/or coverage of
the discharge(s) under the NPDES general permit(s) is not permissible. An application for the
NPDES permit is to be submitted at least 180 days before the commencement of the respective
activities. The NPDES application forms may also be picked up at our office or downloaded
from website at http://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/cwb/forms/indiv-index.html.
Christopher J. Yuen
Page 3
August 23, 2004
Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 11-55-38, also requires the owner to either submit a copy
of the new NOI or NPDES permit application to the State Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
DOH that the project, activity, or site covered by the NOI or application has been or is being
reviewed by SHPD. Please submit a copy of the request for review by SHPD or SHPD's
determination letter for the project.
If you have any questions, please contact the CWB at 586-4309.
Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules,
Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control."
a. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction
activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules.
b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air
must be equipped with mufflers.
C. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction
activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit.
Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at
933-0917.
WORD:REZ04-022.my
PHA TRAFFIC SAFETY CCUUMTEE
75-344 Nani Kailua Dr., Kailua=Konaf; M 86744 (Bg8,j q31-0441
August 27, 2004
Chris Yuen, Director
Hawaii County Department of Planning
25 Aupuni Street,
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-022)
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Dear Mr. Yuen:
The Kona Traffic Safety Committee (KTSC) has reviewed the subject application to
rezone two parcels totaling 6 -plus acres from V-1.25 (Resort) and A-1 a
(Agriculture) to RM -2.5 in order to allow construction of a 92 -unit condo project
on the south side of Hualalai Road, approximately 1000 feet mauka of the
Hualalai Rd/Kuakini Hwy intersection. We understand that approval had been
granted in November 2001 for an 80 -unit project on the two -plus acre portion of
the property, and that the new application will therefore result in less density. We
also acknowledge that the applicant will construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along
Hualalai Road, and provide 184 parking stalls (115 are required).
1. The KTSC's principal concern focuses on the additional vehicle traffic
generated by this project in an area already experiencing significant congestion
during the am and pm peak hours. Furthermore, the area will soon be burdened
with additional delays due to: 1) widening of Kuakini Hwy between Palani Rd and
Hualalai Rd; 2) water line improvements on Kuakini Hwy from Hualalai Rd south;
and 3) phase 1 widening of Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. The traffic "Levels of
Service" are already at minimally acceptable levels at several affected
intersections, and at an unacceptable level at another. We therefore take
exception with the TIAR report's conclusion that "mitigating measures would not
be required" and suggest that construction be delayed until planned Kuakini Hwy
roadway and waterline improvements are completed.
2. We question the need for two driveways on Hualali Rd, because each
additional driveway will further disrupt the flow of vehicular, bicycle and
pedestrian traffic and create another dangerous intersection. The curbs, gutters
and sidewalks to be constructed should not result in changing the present
configuration of Hualalai Rd, whose curvature and width now inhibit excessive
speed.
EXHIBIT
3. The project's proximity to several major arterial roads argues strongly for
encouraging access to and use of mass transit by residents. Accordingly, the
County's Mass Transit Agency should be asked to consider expanding bus
service to this section of Hualalai Rd, and whether the applicant should be
required to contribute a "fair share" toward that expansion.
4. The application also notes that two loading zones for trash pickup, while
not required, are "contemplated." We believe that adequate space for trash
loading zones on the property should be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
Joel E. Gimpel
Chair, Public Affairs
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND DIVISION
September 2, 2004
REZ 04-022.RCM
KONA HALE Alii, LLC
POST OFFICE BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809
Honorable Christopher J. Yuen
Planning Director
County of Hawaii
Planning Department
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
Dear Mr. Yuen:
PETER T. YOUNG
CXANIPERSON
EW RU ofd A WTWAl RESOURCES
CONIu55gN CN WATER RESOD NANAGEWNT
DAN DAVIDSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR. LANG
YVONNE Y. RU
DEPUTY DRIECTOR - WATER
A ATCRESOI s
S W TSE: AND OCEAN RECREATION
DLVu a OO YANCES
COMNIUM ON WATER RESOURCE N ,,WNT
CONEERVATgN ANO DO ALU
COIESERVATIONANORESOURCESENFpi ww
ENGNEERNG
FORESTRY IIID WEOLRE
N TWIG PRESERVATION
RNIOOIAWE ERAND RESERVE CO SSIGN
wo
STALE PAWS
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application
Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department
I.D. No.: REZ 04 022/Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
TMK: 3xc/ 7-5-009: 54 & 67 (portions)
LD -NAV
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject
matter.
A copy of the document pertaining to the subject matter was
distributed or made available to the following Department of Land and
Natural Resources' Divisions for their review and comment:
- Division of Forestry and Wildlife
- Engineering Division
- Division of State Parks
- Commission on Water Resource Management
- Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
- Land -Hawaii District Land office
- Land -Planning and Development
Enclosed please find a copy of the Engineering Division and
Commission on Water Resource Management comment.
Based on the attached responses, the Department of Land and
Natural Resources has no other comment to offer on the subject matter.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Nicholas A. Vaccaro of the Land Division Support Services Branch at 1-
808-587-0384.
Very truly yours,
/
DIERDRE S. MAMIYA
Administrator
C: HDL° EXHIBIT
058'731
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR Qi YIAWM _.
J
21
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND DIVISION
POST OFFICE BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609
August 10, 2004
LD/NAV
Ref.: REZ 04-022.CMT
PETER T. YOUNG
CNANI IMN
S n O LAND AND NATURAL RESIXAICES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE E1Al1AGE1.lEM
DAN DAIADSON
MP DNECTOR-yNO
WONNE Y. OU
DERRY DIRECTOR - WATFA
AOWTICRESOURCES
IMATNiG AND OCEMI RECREATION
BUREAU OF CONVEYAMK-ES
COMMIWS ON WATER RESOURCE NANAGEMEM
C A
AT VATRM, ANDCWS uN05
CONSERVATION ND RESOURCES EKIXICEMEM
OREEN ANDWI
FORESTRY AND WIU%fE
HISTORID PRESERVATION
RANWLAwE UiUND RESERVE COwAS510N
F
A
STATE PARAS
Suspense Date: 8/18/04
MEMORANDUM:
TO: *XXX Division of Forestry & Wildlife
*XXX Division of State Parks
XXX Commission on Water Resource Management (DD)
XXX Engineering Division (DD)
*XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
XXX Hawaii District Land Office (DD)
*XXX Land -Planning and Development
FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Admi4s'[.Ya1'or - iS
Land Division
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application
Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department
I.D. No.: REZ 04 022
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
TMK: 3`d/ 7-5-009: portions of 54 & 67
Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if
any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date.
*Note: One copy of the document is available for your review in the Land
Division Office, Room 220.
Should you have any questions, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587 -
0384.
If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we
will -assume there are no comments.
X
We have no comments. ( ) Comments attached.
/']
Division: Signed:
Date: AUG 11 6 � Name: PAUL J. CONRY, ADMINISTRATOR
DIVISION UF FURESTRWO WILDLIFE
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR MW*R
PETER T. YOUNG
CNAMPERSON
BOARD OF LW AIA IYTURAI RESOURCES
DOEMNSSION CN WATER RESOURCE MANAGEIEM
Fr - r
DAN PVDAI70R-L
. .. ..' E.I VOSM
DEIY DBtECiDR •LAND
YVONNE Y. RU
Z DERBY DIRECTOR - WATER
J rlv� I J Pl U
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND DIVISION
POST OFFICE BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809
August 10, 2004
LD/NAV
Ref.: REZ 04-022.CMT
n ;�: � AOIAITIG REsouRrEs
-\ TNGAIOF CE EYANIE!z
BUREAUOFCONVEYANCES
CONNNSSAN RV T= RESOURCE NANACEAEM
RVAT NAND ANDUROESEl LANDS
CONSERVATNXI ANDRNEERM SENPORCENEM
ENGWEEIOIG
FORESTRY IO AAFE
NISTDPoCPRESERV
IU1NOOlAWE WAND RESERVEE COMIASBAII
LAND
STALE PARIES
Suspense Date: 8/18/04
MEMORANDUM:
TO: *XXX Division of Forestry & Wildlife
*XXX Division of State Parks
XXX Commission on Water Resource Management (DD)
XXX Engineering Division (DD)
*XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
XXX Hawaii District Land Office (DD)
*XXX Land -Planning and Development
FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Admi'Js'ffal:o_r - i5
Land Division
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application
Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department
I.D. No.: REZ 04 022
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
TMK: 3rd/ 7-5-009: portions of 54 & 67
Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if
any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date.
*Note: One copy of the document is available for your review in the Land
Division Office, Room 220.
Should you have any questions, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587 -
0384.
If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we
will assume there are no comments.
( ) We have no comments.
Division: CAW) Er -1
Date: 411otot
(/ ) Comments
rr attached.
Signed: h/•
Name: �TV
LINDA LINGLE
PETER YOUNG
MEREDITH J CHING
CLAYTON DELA CRUZ
JAMES FRAZIER
CHIYOME L FUKINO M 0
LAWRENCE H MIIKE M D 10
STEPHANIE A WHALEN
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES YVONNE Y IZU
oeouI oiRecme
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
P.0 BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809
August 16, 2004
TO. Ms. Dede Mamiya, Administrator
Land Division
FROM. Yvonne Y. Izu, Deputy Director
Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM)
SUBJECT: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
FILE NO.: 04-022.CMT
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. Our comments related to water resources are
marked below.
In general, the CWRM stronglyppromotes the efficient use of our water resources through conservation
measures and use of alternative non -potable water resources whenever available, feasible, and there are no harmful
effects to the ecosystem. Also, the CWRM encourages the protection of water recharge areas, which are important for
the maintenance of streams and the replenishment of aquifers.
[ X ] We recommend coordination with the county government to incorporate this project into the county's Water Use and Development Plan.
[ ] We recommend coordination with the Engineering Division of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to incorporate this
project into the State Water Projects Plan.
[ I We are concerned about the potential for ground or surface water degradation/contamination and recommend that approvals for this
project be conditioned upon a review by the State Department of Health and the developer's acceptance of any resulting requirements
related to water quality.
[ ] A Well Construction Permit and/or a Pump Installation Permit from the Commission would be required before ground water is developed
as a source of supply for the project.
[ ] The proposed water supply source for the project is located in a designated water management area, and a Water Use Permit from the
Commission would be required prior to use of this source.
[ j Groundwater withdrawals from this project may affect streamflows, which may require an instream flow standard amendment.
[ ] We are concerned about the potential for degradation of instream uses from development on highly erodible slopes adjacent to streams
within or near the project. We recommend that approvals for this project be conditioned upon a review by the corresponding county's
Building Department and the developer's acceptance of any resulting requirements related to erosion control.
[ ] If the proposed project includes construction of a stream diversion, the project may require a stream diversion works permit and amend
the instream Flow standard for the affected stream(s).
[ ] If the proposed project alters the bed and banks of a stream channel, the project may require a stream channel alteration permit.
[X] OTHER:
The report does not specify water demand for the project, but that a water commitment for 100 units is already
in place. 100 units of multi -family low rise would equal 40,000 gpd according to the domestic consumption
guidelines in the Hawaii System Standards used by each county s department of water supply.
If there are any questions, please contact Roy Hardy at 587-0274.
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR OF 1 W"
of y,
PETER T. YOUNG
aE
BOARD OF WA AND NFT RESOURCES
_-VA MI0N W WATER RESDUR(S MANAGEMENT
DAN DAVIDSON
DERRY ONEOTOR •LAM
" Y
YVONNE Y. QU
1 .� QI�'1i> ?�"•,
MP 0IFM TW -WATER
UbA0FADO
S0UE
STATE OF HAWAII
BD"SI VOFCON&YANM50N
BUREWATE f.0NVEYAM
-
UEPJkRTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
T
COMMIS EFNTION ANESOURfi WNM-EMEM
CONSERVATION AND IDDASTILL lAFAS
._ ,
DIVISION
C0NSERVATNIII AND RES0U110ES ENPDRCEMEM
LAND
ENGNEERRIG
FORESTRVANOW E
POST OFFICE BOX 621
HISTMC MNi MMATMON
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96609
Isuwi, wuRVE GawMssroN
STATE PARMGS
August 10, 2004
LD/NAV
Ref.: REZ 04-022.CMT
MEMORANDUM:
Suspense Date: 6/18/04
TO: *XXX Division of Forestry & Wildlife
*XXX Division of State Parks
XXX Commission on Water Resource Management (DD)
XXX Engineering Division (DD)
*XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
XXX Hawaii District Land Office (DD)
*XXX Land -Planning and Development
FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Adm.14-0 aY'or - i5
Land Division
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application
Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department
I.D. No.: REZ 04 022
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
TMK: 3`d/ 7-5-009: portions of 54 & 67
Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if
any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date.
*Note: One copy of the document is available for your review in the Land
Division Office, Room 220.
Should you have any questions, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587-
0384.
f this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we
will/assume there are no comments.
We have no comments. ( ) Comments ttach d.
Division: Signed:
Date: DL&I IV 4 Name: VIA
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR a NAWNI
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND DIVISION
POST OFFICE BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809
August 10, 2004
LD/NAV
Ref.: REZ 04-022.CMT
MEMORANDUM:
PETER T. YOUNG
CNANPERSON
swim N W AND RET RESOURCES
COMMISSION ON pl WATER RESOUIICE MANAGEMENT
DAN DAVIDSON
DEPurY owECrOR-UIO
WONNE Y. RU
DEPUTY DIREMOR- WATER
AO MRESp1 s
BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
9u u cGRVEYARGEs
COMARSSION ON WATER RESA a Eww
CONSERVAT" Aro COASTAL WIDS
CONSERVATION AND ENFORCEMEM
ENGINEERING
EOSMD
f
nSTOIC PMSEIWAg
RANODLAWEISIAND RESERVE COMMISSION
AND
STAIF PAR16
Suspense Date: 8/18/04
TO: *XXX Division of Forestry & Wildlife
*XXX Division of State Parks
XXX Commission on Water Resource Management (DD)
r XXX Engineering Division (DD)
*XXX Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands
XXX Hawaii District Land Office (DD)
*XXX Land -Planning and Development
FROM: Dierdre S. Mamiya, Admi'fiis't raY"or iS
Land Division
SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application
Authority: County of Hawaii Planning Department
I.D. No.: REZ 04 022
Applicant: Kona Hale Alii, LLC
Request: V-1.25 and A -la to RM -2.5
TMK: 3`d/ 7-5-009: portions of 54 & 67
Please review the subject application and submit your comments (if
any) on Division letterhead signed and dated by the suspense date.
*Note: One copy of the document is available for your review in the Land
Division Office, Room 220.
Should you have any questions, please contact Nick Vaccaro at 587 -
0384.
If this office does not receive your comments by the suspense date, we
will assume there are no comments.
( ) We have no comments. Comments tached.
Division: Signed:
Date: ` d� Name: ERIC T. i'" "ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ENGINEERING DIVISION
LAINAV
Ref.: REZ 04-022.CMT
COMMENTS
( X) We confirm that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is
located in Zone X, areas determined to be outside 500 -year flood plain. The National Flood
Insurance Program does not have any regulations for development within this area.
O Please take note that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is
located in Zone.
O Please note that the correct Flood Zone Designation for the project site according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is
() Please note that the project must comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) presented in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR),
whenever development within a Special Flood Hazard Area is undertaken. If there are any
questions, please contact the State NFIP Coordinator, Ms. Carol Tyau-Beam, of the Department of
Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division at (808) 587-0267.
Please be advised that 44CFR indicates the minimum standards set forth by the NFIP. Your
Community's local flood ordinance may prove to be more restrictive and thus take precedence
over the minimum NFIP standards. If there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances,
please contact the applicable County NFIP Coordinators below:
O Mr. Robert Sumimoto at (808) 523-4254 or Mr. Mario Sin Li at (808) 523-4247 of the
City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting.
O Mr. Kelly Gomes at (808) 961-8327 (Hilo) or Mr. Kiran Emler at (808) 327-3530 (Kona)
of the County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works.
O Mr. Francis Cerizo at (808) 270-7771 of the County of Maui, Department of Planning.
O Mr. Mario Antonio at (808) 241-6620 of the County of Kauai, Department of Public
Works.
The applicant should include project water demands and infrastructure required to meet water
demands. Please note that the implementation of any State-sponsored projects requiring water
service from the Honolulu Board of Water Supply system must first obtain water allocation credits
from the Engineering Division before it can receive a building permit and/or water meter.
The applicant should provide the water demands and calculations to the Engineering Division so
it can be included in the State Water Projects Plan Update.
Additional Comments:
O Other:
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Andrew Menden of the Planning Branch at 587-0229.
Signed:
ERIC T. HIRAN , C F ENGINEER
Date: O �CWC,51'K
mmie SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
jarw Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 96-7996
September 9, 2004
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director 2009 SEP 10 P111 1 21
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAIIPLAT . ;_. - ;IVIENIT
101 Pauahi Street C0i rA- I C:; VV
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Subject: Rezoning (REZ 04-022) — Kona Hale Alii, LLC
TMK: 7-5-09: 67 & portion of 54
• Planning • Vanance • Zoning
• Subdivision • Land Use Permits
• Environmental ReDons
Thank you for providing me with comments from the various agencies, to date,
regarding the subject matter. In response to those comments, we respond as follows:
Police Department
Plans for an 80 -unit condominium project on a 2.38 -acre parcel (parcel 67) have
already been approved. If this rezoning request were approved, the applicant intends to
abandon that plan and develop a 92 -unit project over a larger land area (6.2+ acres). The
original project has an average density of 33+ units to the acre. The proposed project
cuts this density by more than half to 14+ units per acre. Building heights will also be
reduced by a third from 45 feet to 30 feet. Mass will be significantly reduced by
changing from one monolithic structure to 23 individual 4-plex structures with
appropriate building separations. Because of the added area, the net effect of this project
is 12 additional units with greater open space and less mass.
Notwithstanding the above, the applicant recognizes the traffic concerns. As
such, the applicant is prepared to pay its fair share of impact fees relating for the
additional units. Additionally, a pedestrian walkway will be constructed along the
property's frontage, providing for greater pedestrian safety.
Kona Traffic Safety Committee
Relative to the first comment, we have requested a response from the traffic
engineer. We will provide a copy of his response to you upon receipt.
Although two entrances are proposed, they will be situated about 500 feet from
each other. There also is adequate sight distance for each of these proposed driveways.
Then, too, these two driveways and their locations were considered acceptable by the
County in its approval of the existing project. As such, the applicant believes that the
proposed driveways should not create a significantly adverse traffic hazard.
The applicant recognizes that it is standard County policy to condition zone
changes with an impact fee. Finally, there will be a dedicated area for trash pick up that
would not interfere with parking or vehicular movements within the project site.
05900Ol NOR 2% 1111W 4
Mr. Christopher Yuen
September 9, 2004
Page 2
Department of Public Works
The applicant's consulting engineer will prepare the appropriate drainaee study
and/or plan prior to issuance of any land disturbance permits for the project. The plan
will also reflect all project -generated water to be disposed on-site, and, if needed, the
appropriate UIC permit will be secured to implement the approved plan:
Arg adine and/or grubbing permit will be secured prior to any land disturbance
activity. Additionally, in the event an NPDES permit is needed, it will be applied for and
secured by the applicant.
Relative to roadways, the project's access will be from Hualalai Street. As the
balance of the undeveloped property will front only Kuakini Highway, its access will be
from that Highway. However, the undeveloped area will be a separate lot and probably
be kept in open space due to the significant archaeological features on that site. An
application to consolidate and resubdivide the subject properties has already been filed
with your office.
The applicant has no objections to the proposed recommendation reflected in the
Department's 2nd comment, with the understanding that the improvements are credited
against the impact fee requirement for traffic improvements.
As noted earlier, the applicant would prefer having two separate driveway
accesses. If DPW's contemplated or required improvements reflected in its 2nd comment
were not made a condition of this project, the applicant can understand and accept the
access limitation. However, given the above as well as the points noted in the response to
the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, the applicant still maintains that allowing 2 accesses
with the improvements requested by the DPW is reasonable.
At this time, the applicant does not anticipate having a vehicular security gate. In
the event one is installed, the recommendation of the Department will be adhered to.
Finally, it is the applicant's understanding that the contract for the Kuakini
Highway improvements will be executed shortly, with an anticipated 2 -year completion
date. As such, the applicant does not have any objection to the DPW's proposed
comment number 6 under Roadways. Please also note that although there is a potential
for maximum 20 additional units, the applicant intends to construct only 12 more than the
existing project for a total of 92 units.
Department of Education
In terms of a school impact fee contribution, the applicant is hesitant to make such
a commitment, as that amount is unknown at this time. Additionally, the County Council
has not required such an imposition, and the applicant does not want to commit to a
Mr. Christopher Yuen
September 9, 2004
Page 3
request that is not accepted County policy at this time.
Department of Parks and Recreation
As noted above, rezoning approvals are usually conditioned with an impact fee, a
portion of which is assigned for parks and recreation purposes. The applicant is prepared
to comply with this requirement for the additional units beyond those that have already
been approved.
Department of Health
The applicant intends to connect to the County's wastewater system. In the event
a UIC permit and NPDES permit are needed to address drainage or other related
improvements, one will be applied for and secured before any construction begins.
Department of Environmental Management
Utilizing the guidelines of the DEM, a solid waste management plan will be
prepared and submitted for its review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Relative to the connection to the County's wastewater system, it is our
understanding that the existing sewer easement is sufficient to accommodate the
proposed wastewater requirements of this project. In the event that it is not, the applicant
will explore other options — including the one suggested by the DEM — and submit it for
the review and approval by the DEM prior to receipt of a building permit.
Finally, we note that the State Historic Preservation Division deemed the
archaeological inventory survey to be acceptable in its letter of August 25, 2004.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to respond to these comments. If there are
further questions and/or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact me. .
nDr y,
E M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Copy — Police Department
Kona Traffic Safety Committee
Department of Public Works
Department of Education
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Parks and Recreation
Robert E. Saunders via email
RKonaHa1eAht-REZ04-022.jwd 09-14-04
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
KONA HALE ALII, LLC
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-022)
Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director is recommending that a
favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone be forwarded to the County Council by
the Planning Commission. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public
testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon
additional information presented at the public hearing. This favorable recommendation is based
on the following findings:
The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square
foot (V-1.25) and an Agricultural 1 -acre (A -la) district to a Multiple Family Residential
— 2,500 -square foot (RM -2.5) district for approximately 6.2 acres of land. The project
will consist of ninety-two (92) 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units, which will consist
of twenty-three (23) 2 -story, fourplex structures and related improvements. The cost of
these improvements is estimated to exceed $20 million dollars.
The proposed request from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an
Agricultural (A-1 a) to Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square feet per unit (RM -
2.5) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the
Housing and Land Use (Multiple Residential) Elements of the General Plan.
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only
through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions
can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the
General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and
decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the
County. The proposed request conforms to the following goals, policies and standards of
the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General Plan:
HOUSING
• Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of
Hawaii.
• Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of
the County.
• Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice.
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people.
• Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock.
• Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the
County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires
of families and individuals.
• Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital
status, ethnic background and income.
The applicant will be providing 92 additional housing units to the West Hawaii housing
inventory. This will provide relief to the lack of housing in the Kona area.
LAND USE — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
• To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for
its occupants.
• To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical,
social and economic needs of the islands residents.
• Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple
residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to
places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural
facilities, and public facilities and utilities.
• Areas shall be located in such a manner that traffic generated by high density
development will not be required to travel through areas of lesser density en route
to principal community facilities.
• Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools,
employment centers, and other services.
The proposed development will provide 92 housing units that are located within walking
distance to Kailua-Kona. This will allow residents access to their jobs, shopping areas
and recreational areas without having to travel long distances. It will provide great
convenience for these residents.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General
Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated
growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical
relationship among the various land uses. The requested zone change from an
Agricultural (A -la) to a Multiple Family Residential (RM -2.5) zoned district conforms to
the LUPAG Map, which designates the property as Medium Density Urban. The
Medium Density Urban classification allows for village and neighborhood commercial
uses and residential and related functions not to exceed a density of 35 units per acre.
This request is to allow a condominium complex with a density of 92 units on an
approximate 6.2 -acre parcel. The original approved plan was for an 80 -unit
condominium project on the 2.38 -acre parcel (parcel 67). The applicant is adding 3.89
acres to the project area and is only increasing the development by 12 units to 92 units.
This will decrease the original density by more than half of the original project.
The area under consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this
section of the North Kona District as depicted on the LUPAG Map. Therefore, it is
determined that the request conforms to the General Plan and is consistent with the
General Plan LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
The property is situated within close proximity to the employment center of
Kailua-Kona. The subject reclassification is for land located in close proximity to the
urban/retail/employment center of Kailua-Kona. Therefore, the reclassification conforms
with the General Plan which encourages urban developments in close proximity to
existing developments and to existing services and facilities.
The requested change of zone is also generally consistent with regional and
community planning documents that prescribe the County's land use policies for
this portion of North Kona. The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, adopted by County
Council Resolution in 1996, recommends the project site for Commercial/Residential
Mixed Use. The proposed request would be consistent with the Plan.
The subject property is situated within the project area identified as the Kailua
Village Special District. The applicant will submit the application for review and
recommendation by the Kailua Village Design Commission subsequent to or in
conjunction with the submittal of this application, but prior to the Plan Approval process.
All utilities and services are available to the site. Access to the project area is
by Hualalai Road, a County -maintained roadway with a pavement width of 20-22 feet,
within an approximate 50 -foot wide right-of-way. The site is serviced by County water.
A water commitment for 100 units is already in place. The applicant intends to connect
to the County's sewer line. Electrical, telephone and cable services are available to the
site. Police, fire and emergency facilities are within five (5) miles of the property.
The subject request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The property is not situated
within the Special Management Area. It is located approximately %4 of a mile from the
nearest coastline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. 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. Thus, the proposed request and
use of the property will not adversely impact those resources.
The proposed request from a Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an
Agricultural (A-1 a) to Multiple Family Residential -2,500 square feet per unit (RM -
2.5) zoned district will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and
customary Hawaiian Rights.
Investigation of valued resources: The applicant has presented the following
information for the Planning Commission and the County Council to determine the
valued cultural, historical, and natural resources within the area sought for rezoning:
An updated archaeological reconnaissance survey dated April 2004 conducted by
Rechtman Consulting, LLC, which revisited the portion of parcel 54 where the
project site is located, to update a previous study conducted by Paul Rosendahl,
Ph.D., Inc (PHRI) conducted in April 1979.
• An archaeological inventory survey of TMK: 7-5-9:48 (later subdivided to
include parcel 67) conducted by PHRI on April 1990.
• No commissioned flora or fauna study was conducted.
The valuable cultural historical and natural resources found in the rezoning area:
The updated archaeological reconnaissance survey of parcels confirmed and identified
Site 6302 (Kuakini Wall) and fourteen (14) feartures within Site 5608 (multi functional
complex) on parcel 54 where the project site is located.
The archaeological inventory survey conducted for TMK:7-5-9:48 (later
subdivided to include 67), identified thirteen (13) sites covering all of parcels 48 and 67.
Regarding flora, a visual inspection of the site and the archaeologist's report of
the area confirmed that the vegetation consisted predominantly of exotic grasses and
moderately dense trees including elephant grass, fountain grass, sour grass, kiawe trees
and koa-haole trees. The archaeological report also noted the presence of ilima, bitter
yam, lilikoi, day flower, plumeria, hibiscus, waiwi, and an autograph tree.
Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources:
The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended
treatments for the archaeological sites on the property to preserve the valued
archaeological resources of the area.
Regarding flora and fauna, none of the identified plants are considered
endangered or listed on the National or State Historic Registers. Based on the site and
much of the surrounding areas that have been or are developed with structures, it does not
appear likely that one would find rare or endangered animal life on the site.
The property is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering
of marine life, fishing and coastal access is not an issue.
Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There have been several
surveys conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In a letter dated
August 25, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic
Preservation Division, they accept the updated archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK:
7-5-9:54 and agree with the significance assessment and recommended treatments with
submitted revisions. The Kuakini Wall, which forms the eastern boundary of the subject
site, will be preserved subject to an approved Preservation Plan. The burial (Feature U)
will be preserved as is, subsequent to the preparation and acceptance of a Burial
Treatment Plan. This will allow access to descendants to the burial site.Data recovery
will be done for the habitation/activity area (Feature T). The balance of the sites was
deemed to be "No Further Work" required.
In a letter dated October 24, 1990 to Paul Rosendahl from the Department of
Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division regarding the survey done on
TMK:7-5-9:48, they agree that the parcel was adequately surveyed and they agree with
the significance evaluations. This survey identified thirteen (13) sites covering all of
parcels 48 (and now 67). Of these sites, two (2) were determined to be "no longer
significant," ten (10) were determined significant for their information content, and one
(]),the Kuakini Wall, for preservation. Data recovery of the ten (10) sites were
conducted and deemed acceptable by DLNR-SHPD in a letter dated December 15, 1997.
With these clearances, Plan Approval was issued for the proposed 80 -unit condominium
on parcel 67.
Based on the above findings, this request to reclassify the subject property from a
Resort -Hotel 1,250 -square foot (V-1.25) and an Agricultural (A -la) to Multiple
Family Residential -2,500 square feet per unit (RM -2.5) zoned district would result in
an appropriate land use pattern and further benefit the general public.
The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map), Article 8,
Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the
proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill.
COU ,-`• TYY OF HAWAII
ORDINANCE NO.
STATE OF FTAWA
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP),
ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY
CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A -la) AND
RESORT -HOTEL (V-1.25) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.5) AT
AUHAUKEAE 1sT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-9:67
AND PORTION OF 54.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 25-8-3, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County
Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as
follows:
The district classification of the following areas situated at Auhaukeae 1 s', North
Kona, Hawaii shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM -2.5):
PARCEL A:
Beginning at the northeast corner of this parcel of land, being also the southeast
comer of Lot B and in the middle of the Great Wall of Kuakini, the coordinates of said
point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAHELO",
being 5,800.51 feet North and 298.26 feet West, thence running by azimuths measured
clockwise from true South:
Along the remainder of R.P. 7580, L.C.
Aw. 11,216, Ap. 37 to M. Kekauonohi and
along the middle of the Great Wall of
Kuakini for the next eight (8) courses, the
direct azimuths and distances being:
342° 04'
35" 6896 feet;
2. 3520 45' 34.35 feet;
3.
3440
54'
21.23 feet;
4.
3500
34'
20.64 feet;
5.
3440
15'
31.24 feet;
6.
3470
59'
81.25 feet;
7.
3550
56'
32.99 feet;
8.
3520
13'
44.81 feet;
9.
820
07' 30"
491.00 feet
along Lot 3-A, Land Grant Application
1874 (Map 5);
10.
1680
35'
180.00 feet
along the remainder of R.P. 7580, L.C.
Aw. 11,216, Ap. 37 to M. Kekauohoni
(remainder of Lot 1);
11.
870
59'
47.40 feet
along same;
12.
1640
20'
138.25 feet
along same;
13.
2600
50' 40"
545.38 feet
along Grant 12,013 to William J. Hooper,
Jr. (Lot B) to the point of beginning and
containing an area of 169,792 Square Feet.
IV.1ZI ]71Ai?
Beginning at the southeast corner of this parcel of land, being also the northeast
corner of Lot 1 and in the middle of the Great Wall of Kuakini, the coordinates of said
point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAHELO",
being 5,800.51 feet North and 298.26 feet West, thence running by azimuths measured
clockwise from true South:
1. 800 50' 40" 612.61 feet along R. P. 7580 L C Aw 11 216 Ap 37
2. 1590 09' 43"
3. 2490 09' 40"
. ,
to M. Kekauonohi (Lot 1);
252.72 feet along the remainder of Grant 12,013 to
William J. Hooper, Jr. (Lot A);
50.24 feet along L. C. Aw. 8524-B, Part 3 to Peke
(Lot 4);
-2-
4. 3140
31' 40" 46.00 feet along Hualalai Road;
5. 3030
01' 40" 50.00 feet along same;
6. 2820
31' 40" 50.00 feet along same;
7. 2700
01' 40" 200.00 feet along same;
8. 2520
02' 40" 270.25 feet along same;
9. 3390
39' 40" 149.55 feet along Grant 1752 to Kawelo and along the
middle of the Great Wall ofKuakini;
10. 3320
34' 40" 32.92 feet along same to the point of beginning and
containing an area of 103,751 Square Feet.
All as
shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference
made a part hereof.
SECTION 2.
In accordance with Section 25-2-44, Hawai `i County Code, the County
Council finds the following conditions are:
(1)
Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public
health, safety and welfare; or
(2)
Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use
proposed with respect to:
(A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of
the proposed use, or
(B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the
proposed use.
SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS
SECTION 3.
In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance.
-3-
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
Hawai `i
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
Q
CKonaHa1eA1n-REZ04-022 jwd 09-20-04
KONA HALE ALII, LLC
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-022)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. The applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of
the stated conditions of approval.
B. The required water commitment payment shall be submitted to the Department of
Water Supply in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy"
within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance.
C. Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five (5)
years from the effective date this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant,
successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed
development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70,
Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing
and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated
with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans
for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent
properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule
No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements).
D. The applicant shall realign and provide full improvements to the entire frontage
along Hualalai Road consisting of, but not limited to, right-of-way and pavement
widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, and
any relocation of utilities meeting with the approval of the Department of Public
Works. Pavement transitions, streetlights, signs and markings, drainage
improvements, and relocation of utilities may be required. The applicant shall
construct and dedicate to the County upon request, the widened street with
improvements, at no cost to the County. An approach for the commercial zoned
property fronting the opposite side of Hualalai Road (TMK: 7-5-10:13) is
required under Ordinance 95 118, to include turning lanes on Hualalai Road. The
widened area to be dedicated to the County shall, if required by DPW, allow for
realignment and improvements required by Ordinance 95 118 or successor
ordinances. The required widening area shall not exceed the equivalent of a five
foot width along the entire frontage, which is approximately one-half the
difference between the existing right -of way width and 60 feet.
E. Access to Hualalai Road shall be limited to one approach and may include an
additional access which shall be barricaded and used for emergency purposes
only. The approaches shall conform to Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks, of the
Hawaii County Code. A licensed civil engineer shall evaluate the proposed active
approach to the subject property for safe ingress and egress, sight distance and
conflicts with the proposed turn land and entry in TMK: 7-5-10:13. The
evaluation shall be submitted for approval by the DPW prior to plan approval. If
recommended, the applicant shall provide a left storage lane on Hualalai Road to
the subject property prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All sight
distances to the approach shall meet with the requirements of the Hawaii
Statewide Uniform Design Manual or AASHTO.
F. Any vehicular security gate shall be located a minimum of 40 feet (exclusive of
gate swing) from the proposed Hualalai Road right-of-way with a turnaround on
the County road side of the gate.
G. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be
directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and
submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of Final Plan
Approval. Any drainage improvements shall be constructed meeting with the
approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy.
H. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
An Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted for
the review and approval for the review and approval of the Planning Director, in
consultation with the Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic
Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the
burial sites within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii
-2-
Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites.
A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment
Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting
plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land
alteration permits, whichever occurs first. The Preservation Plan shall include the
portion of 7-5-9:54 that remains in the A -la zone.
J. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms,
marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the
immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resources —
State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately
notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from
the DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been
taken.
K. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan
are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11,
Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This
requirement shall be approved by the County Housing Agency prior to receipt of
Final Plan Approval.
L. The applicant shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and
requirements of affected agencies for approval of the proposed development
within the subject property.
M. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential
regional impacts of the subject project with respect to parks and recreation, fire,
police and solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The amount of the fair share
contribution shall be the sum which is the product of multiplying the number of
multiple family residential units proposed to be developed by the amounts
allocated herein below for each such unit, and shall become due and payable prior
to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any unit on the subject
property. The fair share contribution, in a form of cash, land, facilities or any
combination thereof, acceptable to the director in consultation with the affected
agencies, shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution
-3-
shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple -family
residential unit. Based upon the applicant's representation of intent to develop a
total of ninety two (92) multiple -family residential units, the indicated total of fair
share contribution is $570,957.52 for the multiple -family residential units.
However, the total amount shall be increased or reduced in proportion with the
actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set
forth in this condition. The fair share contribution shall be allocated as follows:
$3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total of
$281,636.84 to the County to support park and recreational improvements
and facilities;
2. $96.75 per multiple family residential for an indicated total of $8,901.00
the County to support police facilities;
$297.62 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total of
$27,381.04 to the County to support fire facilities;
4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total of
$12,203.80 to the County to support solid waste facilities;
5. $2,617.77 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total of
$240,834.84 to the State or County to support road and traffic
improvements.
The fair share contributions described above shall be adjusted annually beginning
three years after the effective date of the change of zone, based on the percentage
change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). In lieu of paying the fair
share contribution, the applicant may construct and contribute
improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police and solid
waste disposal facilities, and roads within the region impacted by the proposed
development, subject to the approval of the director.
ME
N. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria
for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included
herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees
Ordinance.
O. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the
ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following
circumstances:
The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been
foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns,
and that are not the result of their fault or negligence.
2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan
or Zoning Code.
3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original
reasons for the granting of the change of zone.
4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period
originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed
within one year may be extended for up to one additional year).
P. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely
fashion, the Director may initiate rezoning of the subject area to its original or
more appropriate designation.
-5-
tXHI1311 "A"
(Kona Hale Alii, LLC: 1147)
A -5a �U�`� Ate_ -,, OV CN -20 A -5a
RM -2.5
CN -20
RM -4
a
5a ae
Asa
A•'5a
11 PARCEL"B" RM -4
RESOII2T-HOTEL (V, . TO
MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESID N IA btM•2.5 P�
0
103,751 SO. FV
Lam
-o 7 5a
eg1alsi ��_ 4z5a A
i -la RM -2 RM -4
RM -2.5 a A -1a
RM -1 � �
y y
X5,800.51 i
5� 298' p+�' �RD-3.75 RM -1 RD -375 i ,r� .26 WXAHELO'9�
i
CV -7..5
4 RCE 'A..
i
R -1 S �a
qu . GRICULTU L (A -1a) TO
cv. MULTIPLE ESIDEN
-FAMILY -2.5
K lawalS . °a\ OV L5 ✓1.25 169,762 SO. FT i
�7 A -1a
CV-9:,� Vf'S c -7 Kua ni H y A -1a / RM -2 RM -4 �^ l^/ RM -2 A -1a
�/
/ {�/ Kua ni Hwy.
V- 5 CV.7.575 i
V-.75 —
� o RM -1
V�5/V-1/
OPEN CV -10
� V-.75 V � � � RM -1 IRM -1
i
7
J� ' RM -1 �y R -1 2wa tl
.IS pAA t0
RM -4
V 7 V-.75 V-.75 OPEN�5' /
10 41i'ipr
hhhh �kah
OPEN kaiV.75
/ R RS -10
V-.75 Vis
V. 5
V-. 5
V-.75
RS -7.5
no 355 na 14p 11m pem ]Sm
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE
AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP)
AND 25-8-5 (KAILUA URBAN ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8,
CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE,
BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
FROM RESORT -HOTEL (V-1.25) AND AGRICULTURAL (A-1 a)
TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.5)
ATAUHAUKEAE 1st, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAII
TMK. 7-5-009:067 & POR. 054 Date: September 7, 2004
tXHI1311 "A"
(Kona Hale Alii, LLC: 1147)
Kona Hale Alii, LLC
REZ 04-022
Agenda Item No. 2
Hearing Date — October 1, 2004
REVISED CONDITION M
M. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the
potential regional impacts of the subject project with respect to parks and
recreation, fire, police and solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The
amount of the fair share contribution shall be the sum which is the product
of multiplying the number of multiple family residential units proposed to
be developed by the amounts allocated herein below for each such unit,
and shall become due and payable prior to the issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy for any unit on the subject property. The fair share
contribution, in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof,
acceptable to the director in consultation with the affected agencies, shall
be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution shall
have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple -family
residential unit. Based upon the applicant's representation of intent to
develop a total of twelve (12) additional multiple -family residential units,
the indicated total of fair share contribution is $74,472.72 for the
additional multiple -family residential units. However, the total amount
shall be increased or reduced in proportion with the actual number of units
according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this
condition. The fair share contribution shall be allocated as follows:
$3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total
of $36,735.24 to the County to support park and recreational
improvements and facilities;
2. $96.75 per multiple family residential for an indicated total of
$1,161.00 the County to support police facilities;
3. $297.62 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total
of $3,571.44 to the County to support fire facilities;
4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total
of $1,591.80 to the County to support solid waste facilities;
5. $2,617.77 per multiple family residential unit for an indicated total
of $31,413.24 to the State or County to support road and traffic
improvements.
The fair share contributions described above shall be adjusted annually
beginning three years after the effective date of the change of zone, based
on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI).
In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may construct
and contribute improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire,
police and solid waste disposal facilities, and roads within the region
impacted by the proposed development, subject to the approval of the
director.